Apple in Talks with Comcast to Provide Streaming TV Service on Future Apple TV

[octothorpe8]

Cable companies make their money selling TV, internet and in some cases phone service. If they lose enough revenue from Netflix, Hulu, etc and people start using more bandwidth, they are going to raise their rates, just like the cell companies.

That's the issue, though: conflict of interest. It's time these companies were broken up in the interest of competition. Comcast the content provider should be separate from Comcast the internet provider. We are relying on companies to deliver content that competes with the content they themselves are trying to sell. My Netflix looks terrible even though I have a fast connection. Why? Because Time Warner and Netflix are not playing well together. Why? Because ultimately Time Warner is not pleased to be delivering third-party content that keeps me from needing an expensive cable package.

And as far as paying for bandwidth, fine. We pay for electricity and everyting else we use based on usage, so why not this? As long as it's a LEVEL playing field with true net neutrality, bring it on. I'm fine paying for X GB a month if *I* get to choose what to do with it and Time Warner doesn't get to monkey with what they think I should get at what speed. Again, internet should be a utility. As long as it's regulated like other utilities.

 

[jtrauscht]

Lots of mixed feelings about this. Love that there will be options to view live TV, but I do not trust Comcast. They bleed their customers. For example, NEVER lease your modem from them – buy your own – it's a cash cow for them, and consumers are getting ripped off. If they can rip people off through Apple, they absolutely will.

 

[Rogifan]

I already told you why. Consumers don't want to dance w/ Comcast unless they have to. Comcast can have X2 just like Windows has Surface. It means nothing if those products don't result in attracting new customers. Apple branded products are still desirable. So it's a way for Comcast to get additional revenue from consumers that ordinarily would not subscribe to Comcast. Also as big as Comcast is, not everyone is in a Comcast market, so again, partnering with Apple extended Comcast's franchised territories.

I guess my point is Comcast doesn't need Apple to create a set top box/UI for them. Just looking at the screen shots of X2 and it puts the current Apple TV UI to shame. Perhaps Apple is working on something that will put everything else to shame and will be the ultimate TV UI, but I have my doubts.

Anyway if Apple's big thing in the TV space is getting into building set top boxes for cable companies then that's a huge disappointment IMO. For me a revamped Apple TV with better hardware, revamped UI plus an SDK for an App Store would be the way to go. My mom uses the CBS and NBC apps to watch network shows on demand on her iPad. She should be able to do that via an app directly from Apple TV.

 

[Renzatic]

That's the issue, though: conflict of interest. It's time these companies were broken up in the interest of competition.

Not broken up exactly. They just need to be classified as dumb pipe providers. Though with our current FCC head being an ex-cable lobbyist, I doubt that's gonna happen without a tremendous amount of pressure being applied.

 

[garylapointe]

Does Apple have a substantial base of TV customers who don't use Comcast, Verizon, etc as an ISP or cable provider? Is there a lucrative new market for revenue for them that Apple can provide that the don't already have themselves? Key questions.

Again, back to how Apple transformed music. Apple had NO base of music customers.

Music companies refused to get on board, they had difficult to manage DRM.

For a while Apple had more than 60%+ of the marketshare. Even if they're down to a third it's still super-significant.

Now we don't have DRM on music anymore and we've got services like iTunes match.

This is while the cable companies were adding music channels, people had internet streaming music, Sirius, XM and who knows what else. We had radios too! Look at how many people do music now?

The big question:
Why do people want to think that Apple don't have a chance at transforming the way that we do video delivery?

Depending on the way these networks are configured, the cost savings could be huge for both just by plugging them in and avoiding pushing this stuff through a private network. The cable box business is pretty large too (one in every home with cable), if Apple could sell their boxes for significantly less (by subsidizing) and the cable company is saving money on hardware, that's a consideration.

Remember, many people are going to buy AppleTV anyways and Comcast makes nothing other than supplying the internet. Plus, that AppleTV user is using more internet when streaming video (and many are paying the same as people who only use e-mail and basic web services over the internet).

If Apple changes things enough, people might change providers to Comcast, that's big bucks for Comcast. The infrastructure is in people's neighborhoods, they want more people connected, more customers is more profit, the infrastructure to add one more house is minimal.

I personally don't care who my internet is from: Comcast, AT&T, Wow, etc. As long as it's fast enough and cheap enough. As longs as it's reliable!

Gary

 

[garylapointe]

Where I am, there is a choice of two, Comcast or FIOS. Copper is on it's way out and has been for a while.

Is there really that much difference if I'm getting my 75Mb/s internet service over copper or fiber?

What if it's fiber to the pole and copper the last hundred yards to my house?

And once it's in my house it going to most of many of my devices over WiFi anyways?
(I do keep my AppleTV connected via wire, but I really don't notice the difference).

Gary

 

[Renzatic]

If Apple changes things enough, people might change providers to Comcast, that's big bucks for Comcast.

That's the problem. People won't do have Comcast, can't go out and subscribe to it like they can AT&T or Verizon. When it comes to cable providers, you take the one that's offered in your area, and that's it.

All this'll be is a bonus for people already subscribing to Comcast.

 

[Aidyn's X]

Really? Because last I checked, cable was over $100 in my area and I'm paying less than $40 a month total for Netflix, Hulu Plus and whatever TV and movies I buy/rent from iTunes. The few things I watch live at the time of broadcast I catch via DTV antenna (free).

Cable itself is now less expensive than the internet. The Cable portion of my bill is only $50 of the $110.

 

[AppleWarMachine]

One day (I'm dreaming)

 

[garylapointe]

That's the problem. People won't do have Comcast, can't go out and subscribe to it like they can AT&T or Verizon. When it comes to cable providers, you take the one that's offered in your area, and that's it.

There is always DirectTV or over the air.

Many places have choices though, don't they? I can get Comcast and WOW and I think I can get ATT u-verse now too (if I can't at my condo, I think the local neighborhoods can get all 3).
I'm in the Detroit area, I don't think we're the cable technology elite or anything here (we barely have LTE coverage!).

Gary

 

[Renzatic]

There is always DirectTV or over the air.

Many places have choices though, don't they? I can get Comcast and WOW and I think I can get ATT u-verse now too (if I can't at my condo, I think the local neighborhoods can get all 3).
I'm in the Detroit area, I don't think we're the cable technology elite or anything here (we barely have LTE coverage!).

Gary

Yeah. Some places actually have choices. Sounds like we're among the fortunate few who do.

I can get FIOS, Charter, AT&T DSL, and, what I'm currently getting, local telco fiber. If I lived a little up the road, I could get EPB Fiber. All that competition is the reason why I pay $50 for a 50x50 line.

For this to succeed across the board, rather than being an extra side project for Apple that makes them a little income, it'll have to be widely available and work well across any network, not just Comcast.

 

[garylapointe]

For this to succeed across the board, rather than being an extra side project for Apple that makes them a little income, it'll have to be widely available and work well across any network, not just Comcast.

Remember the iPhone. It was only one network to start and then it sort of spread out...

Gary

 

[jm001]

Talks? Can't they just buy Comcast with their cash? Or for that matter buy Netflix

 

[Dontazemebro]

I'm calling bs on this. What does Comcast have to gain. They're already fleecing customers hand over fist.

 

[barkomatic]

I just hope that the current methods of getting content stay around. I've pretty much patched together all my shows using iTunes, Netflix and Hulu. Since I pay $36 a month for internet it's a lot cheaper then the $180 a month I was paying before.

 

[mdelvecchio]

unless you watch very little TV you are just going to nickel and dime yourself until you spend just as much on all the different services

not true, do the math. people are spending what, $100 or more a month on cable TV? the shows i buy on itunes are $20-40 a season. that means id have to buy 3 seasons a month, 12 months a year (36 season passes) to spend the same as you are on cable. that isnt happening, because there arent 36 good shows a year to watch.

remember thats why the cord-cutting backlash is here -- there just isnt that much good content to warrant the inflated cable prices. the networks have merely barfed up a lot more reality TV and cheap content to stuff a bunch of channels into your bill. i dont need them.

 

[garylapointe]

The big question:
Why do people want to think that Apple don't have a chance at transforming the way that we do video delivery?

I've been talking about what Apple has done for the music industry. I brought up apps and applications.

I also mentioned the cable box industry (people make money just making the boxes).

I forgot all about the cell phone industry!!!

Look at what Apple has done to the phones and they way we use them. Look at the marketshare they've created. Look at how they did things at first to get in to the market (and where they are now). People line up to get these things. At the app industry.

If you're in line at the cable company, you're probably not happy about it. What if they did that for video...?

If Apple really wants to get in these markets: streaming and the boxes that deliver the content, these companies are probably flipping out.

Do you want to be with Apple in a partnership and potentially increase income or do you want to be competing against them?

Don't forget how loyal Apple fans are. How many companies have that?

Gary

 

[mdelvecchio]

We all want the cable companies to suffer and yet still die a quick death but we have to be realistic. We're not getting a la carte content everywhere for $49.99. If Apple can disguise the terrible cable box UI, give live, dvr and iTunes content all in one interface, and not increase the overall cable bill by too much, they've already done what no one else could do. I'm willing to pay the the same or more for an Apple cable experience. I think cord cutters will never go back. Too much pride and possibly savings.

cord-cutting has nothing to do w/ pride, and everything to do w/ price. it's way cheaper for me to buy the occasional season pass on itunes than it is to write a check to the cable company for $100-150 a month for a bunch of slop that i dont need.

 

[Peace]

The only way I see this happening is due to Comcast wanting to make sure it's monopoly acquisition passes FTC muster. They already have Streampix that allows a customer to stream TV shows via it's internal pipeline.

Slick move by them and I bet this happens.

 

[octothorpe8]

Cable itself is now less expensive than the internet. The Cable portion of my bill is only $50 of the $110.

Mine would basically double in price (TimeWarner, NYC).

 

[garylapointe]

not true, do the math. people are spending what, $100 or more a month on cable TV? the shows i buy on itunes are $20-40 a season. that means id have to buy 3 seasons a month, 12 months a year (36 season passes) to spend the same as you are on cable. that isnt happening, because there arent 36 good shows a year to watch.

What if a new system was created:

• Instead of buying a show for $2.99 you could rent it for 99 cents?
• Or rent a season for length of the season (plus a few months) for the equivalent of 99 cents an episode.
• Or for $20 a month you can watch 20 shows of your choice?

(I live alone so I probably don't need as many shows as if I had a family of four.)

Apple tends to avoid systems as complicated as I mentioned above. They do songs/albums and shows/seasons. But they need something cheaper where you're renting a show. Although they have iTunes Radio now too...

Think about iTunes, Apple has you buy a song and you can put it on as many iDevices as you have in your household and upto 5 computers (at least I still think that's the number). That's pretty liberal for sharing.

70% of what I watch I can get over the air and onto my DVR for free. They need to get the prices down for shows so that I'd rather buy it from them instead of getting it over the air for free.

Give me my network shows for free BUT leave the ads in; better yet, replace the ads with ads more personalized to me and I'll actually watch them! A new iPad ad excites me way more than Viagra ad...

Commercial time is expensive! What would it be worth if in their database they knew I was an Apple fan and into protecting the environment so instead of showing me an iPad commercial and mentioned it's more environmentally safe, they showed me a 30 commercial focussing on Apple's ways on protecting the environment. I'd totally watch that!

Gary

 

[slffl]

This is progress? No thank you. The whole point of AppleTV (at least for me) is to NOT have cable. I'm a cord cutter. What's the use if the cable company is still in play? Forget it. I'd like to see cable television go out of business some day!

You're a 'cord cutter' yet you probably get your internet through a cord. Most people get their internet through the cable company you want to get rid of. C'mon man.

----------

Isn't this a net neutrality issue?

Net neutrality is dead.

----------

I was hoping Apple would work directly with studios to bring contents to consumers without the middleman. We really need a change in distribution of contents and working with a distribution company wouldn't like to bring anything new to the market. Plus Comcast is one of the worst cable companies out there.

And I was hoping Tesla could sell their cars in any state they wanted. Middlemen have money. Money = power.

 

[mrweirdo]

The only way I see this happening is due to Comcast wanting to make sure it's monopoly acquisition passes FTC muster. They already have Streampix that allows a customer to stream TV shows via it's internal pipeline.

Slick move by them and I bet this happens.

That's what I'm thinking this appleTV deal may be about as well. My suspicion is it will just be an extension of streampix but available on the apple tv if your already a Comcast subscriber and possibly for another small monthly fee on top similar to adding an additional set top box to your cable package. The only real question is will this additional fee be coming directly from Apple or Comcast.

I'm leaning more towards it coming from Comcast and being an add on service or adds more features to the Apple TV hardware which can only be enabled if your in a Comcast market as a subscriber. Later on Apple could then go out and make the same deal with other providers that.

Comcast and other providers get the benefit of selling additional package/tier/service options while Apple gets increased revenue due to App Store purchases in an area they didn't have any success in before. I see iOS TV games taking off quickly.

 

[hansonjohn590]

with the Apple TV receiving "special treatment" from Comcast when connected to its cable network to ensure that it would bypass congestion on the Internet for optimal streaming.

RIP net neutrality.

 

[garylapointe]

Cable itself is now less expensive than the internet. The Cable portion of my bill is only $50 of the $110.

Having competition (if you have any in your area) can really lower your bill. At least that's why I assume I see better numbers than others are paying.

I just call have them give a better promotion and call back when it ends 6 or 12 months later. Quite often I can get internet 12Mb/s or 15Mb/s down (I think last time they gave me 25Mb/s down) and econo-basic cable for $45 plus taxes (or just internet for $30).

Sometimes they tell me I have to wait 6 months for another deal, but I can usually talk them out of it since I do have options to switch to.

The cable is harder than cell phones for negotiation since you have to re-call later. If you get money off your cell phone bill generally it's forever (in my Sprint and AT&T experiences); ATT ultimate messaging you can occasionally get waived for 6 months sometimes and that comes back, but all other cellular deals I've gotten are forever.

Gary