Apple Enlists Networks to Negotiate With Local Affiliates in Streaming TV Talks

[oneMadRssn]

Primary because most cable subscribers get local channels via cable and don't have an antenna to get local channels. Setting up an antenna can be a hassle, and likely make switching much less likely. Given much of Apple's target market is probably cable users local TV becomes a must have.

I suppose that is true. I guess it can be a hassle, though a small one. For 80% of the US population it is about as much of a hassle as getting a new table lamp: Take it out of the box, put it anywhere, plug one wire into your TV, and plug the other wire into the electrical socket (for the amplifier). Today's omni-directional antennas have gotten really good, and people within 60 miles of a tower can get a great signal without worrying about placement. Amplifiers have also gotten tiny, and many work off USB power which many TVs have now. The folks that need to bother with rooftop antennas, directional antennas, etc. live in a rural area far from a city (and make up less than 20% of the US population).

Also, totally a dream and very unlikely to happen, but it would be great if Apple bought Tablo and incorporated their hardware into the new AppleTV, or as a companion box to the AppleTV (call it AppleLocal?). Either way, as soon as Tablo has an app available on AppleTV, I am buying it without delay.

 

[ptb42]

My point is that it's redundant, unneccessary, and a waste of time and effort for Apple to try and negotiate a deal to restransmit that signal when upwards of 80% of the US population already gets that signal for free via OTA antenna, and the rest of the world doesn't care about our US-local channels anyway. It seems to me like a whole lot of effort and expense for something the vast majority of people won't ever need.

I think you might not be seeing the bigger picture: Apple TV would require an additional component (receiver and antenna) to receive local broadcasts. Setting aside the cost of the receiver, the logistical issues of connecting an antenna is insurmountable for some.

And what I think many are missing: The Apple TV service doesn't necessarily require an Apple TV device. Why not stream to an iPad, a Mac, or even an iPhone? If Apple is able to negotiate licenses for the content, they could leverage that into a competitor with Netflix, Hulu, etc. that can be viewed anywhere.

 

[question fear]

Yes... I can't get them over the air where I live and I like to see the local news... if Apple can offer this, it will be the holy grail for me and allow me to instantly cancel my Cable. I don't watch a lot of TV, but what I do watch I'd like to keep.

We did cancel our cable, and we get by fine with just Hulu (and we found a Roku channel that streams local news). But we're in a dead zone for OTA too-unless I want four PBS stations and a super crackly ABC feed, we're stuck, sadly.

I have not seen any reason to swap my Roku for an Apple TV yet, but if Apple really does this and offers basic broadcast channels (NBC/ABC/Fox/CBS) for a reasonably low price, I'm all over that.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I think you might not be seeing the bigger picture: Apple TV would require an additional component (receiver and antenna) to receive local broadcasts. Setting aside the cost of the receiver, the logistical issues of connecting an antenna is insurmountable for some.

And what I think many are missing: The Apple TV service doesn't necessarily require an Apple TV device. Why not stream to an iPad, a Mac, or even an iPhone? If Apple is able to negotiate licenses for the content, they could leverage that into a competitor with Netflix, Hulu, etc. that can be viewed anywhere.

All TVs have a receiver (also Federal Law, that you love to cite ). See my comment a few posts above, antennas are surely a bit of a hassle, but about as much of a hassle as setting up a table lamp for the majority of US households.

I am not saying AppleTV should have a receiver - it probably shouldn't. I'm saying Apple shouldn't worry about local channels - the rights cost a ton relative to very little benefit.

It would be like delaying the launch of the new iPhone because Apple couldn't negotiate a deal with some blogs to republish their blog posts on Apple News. It would be a nice feature, but shouldn't be a showstopper and Apple shouldn't invest more than a small token amount of time and money into it.

 

[Geekazoid]

Sorry, after reading my post again it seemed kinda dick-ish. I was reading your first line saying "unless I'm wrong", and replying to that.

No worries mate, but you may want to think of a different approach next time. I guess I've seen a lot of "You are wrong" type posts on various forums and find them quite nasty and unnecessary. There are better ways of correcting someone than starting with "You are wrong". It's always going to get anyone quite defensive.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Wow I want the drugs you guys are smoking because that must be some high-quality stuff.

1) There will never be a buffet of content for a fee as low as $15 a month. Maybe $70 or $80 a month at least but that is still several years away.

2) Commercials are the main form of revenue for networks and shows now that cable exploded in it's expansion. The price you pay for your cable package subsidizes the niche channels a few would pay for, but not many.

Well, I currently spend close to $0 on iTunes content.

A hybrid scheme might persuade me to spend some money, and regularly. I’ll never purely rent, as it's throwing money away, but if I can buy and then be rewarded with some some time-limited streaming, it would be an incentive to explore iTunes content, to the benefit of everyone.

This is how I see it:

TV previews at 30 seconds are much too short to judge whether I want to buy it. Therefore, I generally don't buy any TV shows. But if I had a month of streaming after buying something, I can then explore TV shows in depth. That way, there's more chance that I’ll find a gem that I want to own.

 

[Geekazoid]

Not necessarily. It's about paying less for what the cable companies basically charges and arm and a leg for now.

If you really think Apple is going to come out with TV streaming for free, you're delusional. Sure they have billions in the bank, but no need for them to use all that up paying TV networks to give hand outs to the consumer.

Not delusional at all mate, but I get what you're saying.

 

[channa]

It seems like Apple is going to be offering a skinny cable like package. Nothing ala carte.

It looks to me that there is going to be a skinny channel, PLUS some a la carte. E.G. HBO. Now Showtime. This has been the maddening thing about cable. You can't get HBO without getting 200 other channels you never wanted. If they have the top 20 channels plus local news for cheap I think they are onto something. This could upend the TV industry the way Apple did with music, phones etc.

 

[Khalanad75]

Not delusional at all mate, but I get what you're saying.

Sorry, delusional was probably a bit of a strong word.

 

[2010mini]

Well...still you can get pretty good Internet TV these days for free.

So your internet provider is giving you access to that for free? Wow, everyone else has to pay for Internet access.

Moral: nothing is free. You are paying one way or the other.

 

[Geekazoid]

Sorry, delusional was probably a bit of a strong word.

Haha, no worries mate, not the least bit offended. I think there've been a couple of strong words said today.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Isn't the whole point of "cable cutting" to pay $0, unless I'm wrong, but charging people for a service kind of defeats that purpose. You'd be better off not cutting your cable in this case. Besides, Apple doesn't exactly need the $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$.00 (money).

Yes, I didn't get that either!
If the idea is cable cutting then having the internet via an IP company should be the only charge.

So:
free all public channels like CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC and whatever else is free
Paid: movies which are not playing on the public channels, and whatever is on Pay TV or requires subscribing
(That on a per usage basis, not monthly , package etc.

Looks simple enough!

 

[Geekazoid]

So your internet provider is giving you access to that for free? Wow, everyone else has to pay for Internet access.

Moral: nothing is free. You are paying one way or the other.

Mate, there's no need for sarcasm, you can get your point across without it.

 

[Scarpad]

Apple's discussions with ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox for its much-rumored streaming TV service are gaining momentum, according to the New York Post. The report claims that Apple has enlisted networks to negotiate with local TV stations on their behalf, and the networks are said to be close to securing those rights with affiliate groups such as Tribune and Sinclair.

Networks are reportedly telling affiliates that they will be able to share the revenue generated from Apple's streaming TV service if they offer their feeds on the platform. The inclusion of local TV stations is important for the success of Apple's cable-cutter service, expected to launch in the fall for devices including iPhone, iPad and Apple TV. The service is speculated to cost between $10 and $40 per month.Disney and CBS will likely be among the first networks to reach a deal with Apple for its à-la-carte streaming TV service, according to the report, although some sticking points remain in the negotiations. Cable channels such as Discovery and ESPN are also expected to be included in the subscription-based service, which is rumored to include a skinny bundle of around 25 channels.

Article Link: Apple Enlists Networks to Negotiate With Local Affiliates in Streaming TV Talks

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I think you might not be seeing the bigger picture: Apple TV would require an additional component (receiver and antenna) to receive local broadcasts. Setting aside the cost of the receiver, the logistical issues of connecting an antenna is insurmountable for some.

I don't think anyone is arguing for ONLY OTA vs. ONLY streaming. The point is offer BOTH options. Traditionally, when the Satt services have been in this exact same boat, they've offered a locals package, sometimes for a dedicated fee of something like $7 or so. The $7/month buys the user streamed versions of their locals. Those that can't make OTA work pay the $7 if they want those channels. However, those who can make OTA work may choose to deal with "logistical issues" to get that working so they can save the $7. The channels blend right into the same channel guide and "just works" exactly like their streamed copies.

The OTA signals are already there. Many already receive their local channels that way or have relatively easy capability to do that. If Apple doesn't want to engineer a tuner inside a new TV box, normalize that USB port thats already there and make it a profitable accessory... or leave it to third party companies like Elgato or similar.

Personally, I'd much prefer OTA as an option for reasons already shared in my prior posts (better quality picture, works at times when broadband is down, etc). And conceptually, if we're really of the "cord cutter" mentality, channels received OTA are fully bypassing that Cable-company (broadband) cord.

Of course, again, I fully get that not everyone can receive OTA and/or not everyone wants to deal with "logistical issues" so this is not putting down the effort to ALSO pursue the streaming option TOO. I simply suggest that if the holdup is local channels, why hold it up since the OTA option is an easy way to solve that for most viewers without having to negotiate any new deals at all.

 

[Scarpad]

Not really what I want and Why I went with Tivo over something like sling tv is I want to be able to record and timeshift the content, I think I like many rarely watch live tv, so streaming live tv without the ability to timeshift it is wortless to me

 

[2010mini]

Apple ABSOLUTELY MUST make this BETTER than cable! NO COMMERCIALS/ADS! PERIOD. ...Netflix is without commercials...and THAT is why it is the most popular subscription service!!

At the very least we better be able to SKIP COMMERCIALS...with cable/sat. one can skip or fast forward commercials, not so with the free channels on Apple TV.

One thing with watching any TV show via the internet, whether it's on a computer or set-top box, they all make it so that you cannot skip or fast forward past the ads. They are slipping this by people without most seeming to notice!!

Many reading this may not remember or be old enough to know, when Cable TV started, you paid for TV that was without commercials, and that is what we need to go back to...pay for TV, no commercials...free TV, have to put up with commercials. End of discussion.

I will not pay for Apple TV channels if it means no way around commercials!!
EVERYONE DEMAND NO COMMERCIALS!
http://www.apple.com/feedback/appletv.html

Apple already offers TV content without commercials.

 

[chiefsilverback]

I want to like this, but like most Americans I'd still be paying Comcast for internet service. In my current plan, it was actually cheaper to bundle cable and internet than to get internet alone. Unfortunately I don't see this being cost-effective for most people and I don't think Apple will bring anything new to the table to make it worth it.

This!

Call me a pessimist, but the consumer is never going to win here. If Verizon, Comcast, Cox (replace as applicable with your local providers) etc... start losing TV revenue they'll just bump up the pricing for internet and we'll be paying more than we are today, potentially for less!

 

[ptb42]

All TVs have a receiver (also Federal Law, that you love to cite ). See my comment a few posts above, antennas are surely a bit of a hassle, but about as much of a hassle as setting up a table lamp for the majority of US households.

That's true, but the Apple TV device has an HDMI output (and optical audio, if you have a home theater system). You don't have to connect a television to it -- any monitor with an HDMI input will work.

I am not saying AppleTV should have a receiver - it probably shouldn't. I'm saying Apple shouldn't worry about local channels - the rights cost a ton relative to very little benefit.

Apple is trying to grow their market share by making Apple TV the entertainment source for a household. As long as a consumer has to go elsewhere to view local channels, Apple will be a niche provider like Roku.

A number of people have posted that they would drop their subscription with their local provider and switch to Apple TV if this kind of option was provided. They don't want the hassle of setting up an antenna, or are in a location where OTA signals are unavailable or marginal.

They are the customers that Apple wants to acquire.

 

[Geekazoid]

Yes, I didn't get that either!
If the idea is cable cutting then having the internet via an IP company should be the only charge.

So:
free all public channels like CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC and whatever else is free
Paid: movies which are not playing on the public channels, and whatever is on Pay TV or requires subscribing
(That on a per usage basis, not monthly , package etc.

Looks simple enough!

Great! So I'm not going insane. LOL

The reason I said all that is because I used to watch a tech show called Tekzilla on the Revision3 Internet TV network and they pretty much indicated that cutting the cable meant watching internet TV instead, so I's only going off that, but if I'm wrong, which that seems to be the case, then Tekzilla must've been wrong also.

 

[MH01]

So basically TV has been delayed because of local channels? Is live streaming of local channels that important these days?

The article says the networks are negotiating with Local channels on behalf of Apple, not that the delay was due to these talks. I doubt the talks with the networks themselves were complete, and are still probably ongoing.

 

[Necross]

So, we still have to subscribe and get a bundle of channels. Why not just stick with Cable if Apple is gonna offer the same thing? I always thought the point was you can pick and choose as few or as many channels you want. I don't wanna pay for a bundle of channels if I'm only gonna watch 2 or 3 of them...

 

[gugy]

For me the biggest thing is to be able to watch live sports. Like two sets of options. Buying season pass or a la cart games. That will make me cut my DirecTV in a heartbeat.
Finally a DVR option as well.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Call me a pessimist, but the consumer is never going to win here. If Verizon, Comcast, Cox (replace as applicable with your local providers) etc... start losing TV revenue they'll just bump up the pricing for internet and we'll be paying more than we are today, potentially for less!

Correct but for all of these threads, we consistently assume that broadband pricing will be static or that the FCC or Gov will come to the rescue (to prop up Apple's success by beating down Big Cable's business). Any cable replacement offering that appears likely to catch on to the masses faces the daunting problem that it entirely depends on the broadband pipes owned by the CableTV companies. Thus, expect tightening wired bandwidth caps and tiers "for heavier bandwidth users like video streamers"... an already well-established, market-accepted, Gov-ignored "solution" in the wireless broadband space.

Furthermore, whatever mini-bundle of channels Apple rolls out won't be exclusive. If I'm Cable, don't I just bundle up the exact same package, maybe add a few desirable channels that Apple can't include and then offer that bundled with broadband for less-to-much-less than Apple's service + unbundled broadband? This won't be like Apple vs. Android where one can point to many large and small variations of experience as part of justifying one vs. another. Once one gets past UI and brand loyalty, what they see on the TV screen would be the EXACT SAME THING at the EXACT SAME QUALITY.

 

[d21mike]

2) Commercials are the main form of revenue for networks and shows now that cable exploded in it's expansion. The price you pay for your cable package subsidizes the niche channels a few would pay for, but not many.

And if they continue on this path companies like Netflix, HBO and Showtime will replace them for creating Original Content. ABC, CBS, FOX, CW makes some of the best original content now and maybe will continue. However the commercial free content from Netflix, HBO and Showtime are really good and with Netflix bringing in huge numbers in subscriber grow they will continue to have the money to "buy" original content. Netflix to me is the only one that truly gets it. They will continue to grow and add more and more commercial free content until the others start to understand what the consumers want. And that is commercial free content at a "reasonable" price.

 

[Juicy Box]

Yes, I didn't get that either!
If the idea is cable cutting then having the internet via an IP company should be the only charge.

So:
free all public channels like CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC and whatever else is free
Paid: movies which are not playing on the public channels, and whatever is on Pay TV or requires subscribing
(That on a per usage basis, not monthly , package etc.

Looks simple enough!

But this is not cord cutting. Cord cutting is paying less for content. Usually by getting it from alternative services like streaming.

By this logic, Netflix would be the same as paying for cable.

If cord cutting was only how you explained it above, then it would probably be a near existent movement.