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

[agentx]

Its the bit "Future Apple TV" does that mean only the Apple TV 4 and above ;-)
We have a pretty useless device here in UK already making it obsolete will be even more of kick in balls.

TBH we only use it for Airplay, bit if iPhoto on big screen as really all we ever wanted is Plex ! I do not buy and Rent content from iTunes much as it is overpriced.

 

[alent1234]

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

like Hulu?

 

[kds1]

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

I watch very little TV, though I use my AppleTV everyday. I have no desire to subscribe to HBO, or any of the sports channels, or Disney blah blah blah. I won't nickel and dime myself because on AppleTV everything would be a la carte, so I only need subscribe to what I want, which is basically, Netflix, and that's it. Also, the great thing about AppleTV is that you can subscribe on a month to month basis, so, if I want Hulu just for one month, I can do that (and I have).

----------

Unfortunately, we still need our broadband somehow…..

I said Cable Television should go out of business, not ISP's.

----------

How do you get content delivered to your Apple TV?

See above

 

[garylapointe]

like Hulu?

Don't know, don't have Hulu. What does it include and for how much?

Gary

 

[kds1]

And how do you plan on getting your internet?

I said Cable Television, not ISP's.

----------

[/COLOR]

Do you get your Internet from satellite or cellular data? Because you are still using a cable company otherwise.

I can't believe people keep saying the same thing over and over again without thinking. I want Cable Television to end, they can keep operating as an ISP.

----------

Who do you pay for your internet, cord cutter?

Yet another ignorant comment. Cable Television ends, not Cable ISP's.

----------

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.

There's a different between the cable company delivering video and delivering a data connection. C'mon man.

 

[bpeeps]

Why can't they just create a box like Tivo? Tivo doesn't have preferential treatment and works just fine. In fact, you're Cable bill is likely to go down using a Tivo as you're no longer paying the cable company for a box rental or DVR service.

Tivo is subscription based, you pay an outrageous amount for the box and then monthly on top of that.

----------

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

This is complete anecdotal information. Just because your cable is less than your internet doesn't mean that is representative of pricing. It all is dependent on channel subscriptions, package "discounts", and speed.

----------

People also have satellite options to choose from, so it's not like they're completely stuck with one option.

I wish I had the option for satellite, but every place I've rented in the past 5 years has said no to satellite, because they don't want some moron-tech drilling holes in their roof for the install.

 

[AppleScruff1]

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

The TV industry isn't in the desperate state like the music industry was when iTunes took over. Now we have easily available music in poor quality and people supposedly satisfied with it. IMO, iTunes hurt music quality.

I get a kick out of the people here who complain about the music industry monopolizing content, TV and cable industry monopolizing content, etc, etc, yet have no problem with Apple doing the same thing. Be careful what you wish for.

And I'd venture a guess that most people using Apple TV are getting their service from one of the big cable providers, including Verizon. If you really think that Comcast is going to keep your rates low while losing the core of their business, I've got nothing else to add.

----------

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

I'd really like to see a link to your provider who is providing 75Mb/s over copper. And I'd also like to see where this low cost alternative is available to most people in the US.

 

[pmiles]

Reality is, services such as Netflix and the like are at the beck and call of the internet service provider's willingness to allow our access to them. Apple would be no different if they were to provide a streaming service of their own.

Comcast has a streaming service, why would they let their competitors use their network to deliver content they already sell? I'm surprised that there isn't already a lot of bandwidth choking going on already. The future may be in streaming, but the guy that gives you access to the internet is the one who is holding all the purse strings. Piss him off and your internet goes bye-bye.

Streaming occurs over Netflix and Hulu because they allow it, and I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't paying a fee to allow them to do so. Ultimately you may stop using Comcast for your cable TV, but you are still paying them for your internet access... at some point they are going to quash the free ride that the streaming services have been on. Prices are going to go up, either for internet access or via the streaming services themselves due to an internet tax imposed upon them by the ISP.

 

[kds1]

ISP's need to be regulated as a public utility, just like land line telephone service, gas and electricity.

 

[TsMkLg068426]

Swuh? When I was on Charter, I had access to HBO Go.

Oh your iPhone or Apple TV they are both different devices.

 

[adamneer]

Isn't this a net neutrality issue?

last i heard, Comcast was able to get net neutrality overturned. The FCC's official reasoning was that customers have the right to choose their ISPs and if they are unhappy with their current service, they may simply go elsewhere. They cited Google Fibre as a viable alternative, proving that competition exists. I believe Google Fibre is available in a total of 4 cities in the entire US. Shortly after net neutrality was overturned, Comcast put in their documentation to buy Time Warner, the second largest cable provider in the US...

Talking to Comcast at this point must be like asking the Godfather for a favor.

 

[Pman17]

Comcast? No thanks, I'll stick with my Xbox One and get a Samsung 4K.

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

This just sounds like Streampix via Apple TV. I think people are reading too much into this when talking about a la carte. Basically there will be an additional charge to your Xfinity TV package (this already exists via computer / tablet), of which Apple will want their "taste" to allow the app on their device.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I guess my point is Comcast doesn't need Apple to create a set top box/UI for them.

Correct. But Apple is not creating a box for Comcast; Apple would contract for access and content for its own branded ATV box -- essentially become the TV equivalent of an MNVO. ATV Users could then purchase content direct from the ATV box independent of a traditional Comcast subscription all while having access to Apple's cloud services. The X2 box is for traditional Xfinity customers. This ATV proposal is more to recapture "cord cutters" and people outside of Comcast's monopoly jurisdictions.

 

[idunn]

No

... According to the report, Apple's set top-box would be able to access Comcast's wide variety of channels for a monthly subscription, 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.

This is a direct affront to Net Neutrality. In the end, nothing good will ensue.

Those with some concern with the future of the internet (not to mention their personal use of it) might be advised to write Tim Cook directly. His email:

tcook@apple.com

 

[photoj2754]

ISP's need to be regulated as a public utility, just like land line telephone service, gas and electricity.

This is exactly what needs to be done here or the US will continue to have the highest priced AND slowest internet service of any major industrialized country in the world.

 

[garylapointe]

I'd really like to see a link to your provider who is providing 75Mb/s over copper. And I'd also like to see where this low cost alternative is available to most people in the US.

I was responding to someone who had said "Copper is on it's way out and has been for a while." https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/18918955/
I was specifically asking if it mattered at my end if the last bit was copper or fiber is 75Mb/s no matter the medium or are these some other advantages since they brought up copper...

I was not suggesting a service as an alternative or even suggesting it was cost effective (nor was I suggesting that I had this as a provider). I was asking several questions in response to their post.

But since you ask, the last time I was putting in service at a job, I was leasing some lines for some point-to-point(ish) connections from AT&T and I had options for fiber or copper connections to the inside of my building. I don't remember if there was a pricing difference (maybe if was just the hardware on the end), but there was some overlap for the speed ranges, (I'm ball parking it here) copper was 1-95Mb/s and the fiber was 50-200Mb/s (I really don't remember the top end, it could have been a Gig); those were the speeds you could get, but you paid more for higher speeds (and they could reconfigured remotely for you). But I thought it was interesting that they had the choices of copper or ethernet (I think in some areas they might have had the copper infrastructure, so that might have been the only option in some locations. There was no question that I needed growth since I was connecting to remote servers for a variety of services and from there connecting to the internet (for 1,200 computers coming from my end). In the end, I'm thinking my d-mark was an RJ-45 port so it was still copper for the last dozen feet regardless. I'm thinking we did something in the 75Mb/s area, which is why I picked that number. I don't remember the cost but it was a bargain at the time since we got educational pricing and other discounts/rebates that wouldn't be relevant for home or business use. We'd just transitioned from having half-T1 lines between buildings (the other half was 11 phone lines) to a private fiber network between buildings that I put in (2Gb/s) with this super-speedy connection to our database servers and significantly higher internet, it was a super speed boost everywhere along the lines and it was cheaper for us monthly (even with leasing the pole space for the private fiber).

Gary

 

[alent1234]

NYC Time Warner Cable is deploying 300mbps over COPPER later this year. they already rewired my building with new copper

my current 20/2 service will get a bump to 50/5 whenever they do it

out in the boonies people have slow internet, but closer to civilization it's pretty fast

 

[impulse462]

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/8o3s

This is amazing.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I said Cable Television, not ISP's.

----------

[/COLOR]

I can't believe people keep saying the same thing over and over again without thinking. I want Cable Television to end, they can keep operating as an ISP.

----------



Yet another ignorant comment. Cable Television ends, not Cable ISP's.

----------



There's a different between the cable company delivering video and delivering a data connection. C'mon man.

Before cable television ends
Cable TV $100 + Broadband $50

After cable television ends
Cable TV $0 + Broadband $150

To the latter, add the replacements of Netflix, Hulu, etc. And their costs.

Live Sports? Local programming/news?

If broadband is $150, who's making up the revenues for the actual content creators?

And pay Apple their 30% off the top or pay Apple for the replacement cable tv service? Or both?

No way Broadband would go to $150? Where you going to go? Any broadband competitors (if your area has competitors) will probably move in lockstep as their cable TV revenue is taken by an Apple replacement too. How could they get away with it? Because an Apple replacement is entirely dependent on their pipes (it absolutely needs the cable company's pipes, as does Netflix, Hulu, et all.)

And why do we believe Netflix is locked at $8 and Hulu is locked at whatever it is? Again who pays the content creators to keep creating in this new model? If they take the haircut, doesn't the good (expensive) programming "we" love get canceled as too expensive? They can't keep it all going on a small slice of Netflix plus a small slice of Hulu, etc. Who pays them something similar to what they make now?

Etc.

 

[kds1]

Before cable television ends
Cable TV $100 + Broadband $50

After cable television ends
Cable TV $0 + Broadband $150

To the latter, add the replacements of Netflix, Hulu, etc. And their costs.

Live Sports? Local programming/news?

If broadband is $150, who's making up the revenues for the actual content creators?

And pay Apple their 30% off the top or pay Apple for the replacement cable tv service? Or both?

No way Broadband would go to $150? Where you going to go? Any broadband competitors (if your area has competitors) will probably move in lockstep as their cable TV revenue is taken by an Apple replacement too. How could they get away with it? Because an Apple replacement is entirely dependent on their pipes (it absolutely needs the cable company's pipes, as does Netflix, Hulu, et all.)

And why do we believe Netflix is locked at $8 and Hulu is locked at whatever it is? Again who pays the content creators to keep creating in this new model? If they take the haircut, doesn't the good (expensive) programming "we" love get canceled as too expensive? They can't keep it all going on a small slice of Netflix plus a small slice of Hulu, etc. Who pays them something similar to what they make now?

Etc.

Live Sports?: All of the major sports are on AppleTV with live games, except the NFL (and who cares about them anyway). NBA, NHL, MLB, MLS are all on AppleTV. You subscribe to the sport you want.

Local Programming/news?: You ever hear of an antenna? It's how I pick up local broadcasts (which I rarely watch anyway).

As I said earlier, too, ISP's should be regulated as public utilities, especially since little to no competition exists. In today's world, having access to the internet is just as crucial as having a telephone.

 

[alent1234]

Live Sports?: All of the major sports are on AppleTV with live games, except the NFL (and who cares about them anyway). NBA, NHL, MLB, MLS are all on AppleTV. You subscribe to the sport you want.

Local Programming/news?: You ever hear of an antenna? It's how I pick up local broadcasts (which I rarely watch anyway).

the live sports all have local team blackouts on apple TV and every other MLB/NBA streaming app. reason is they are only serving the extra sports package and the transplant sports fan market, not the local team market. like if you're living in NYC and you are from detroit and you are still a Tigers fan

Expect the streaming packages to cost A LOT more if they will stream local games

 

[scapegoat81]

Take it a step further: Only pay for programs you want and do away with live broadcast almost entirely.

You pay for Fox and can click on and watch Family Guy as soon as it becomes available.

Finally someone that gets it

 

[lk400]

It'll work exactly as well as it works for the Xbox One, especially outside the US.

Which is to say it's going to be a dismal failure.

Such a shame. Its a weird feeling in this day and age of technology through which it is totally possible to give access to the world of all of this entertainment (just look at that torrent streaming program which recently got press), but because some old gatekeepers wont adapt and change, people are forced to either download or stream illegally or put up with whats available in their country (which for me, is very very little, especially compared to the US). I refuse to go the illegal route for now, but I am very tempted.

 

[Darrin Bell]

Not exactly

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

That's not what I've found. I watch plenty of TV. Too much, probably. Here's what I was getting for my money with DirecTV:

My household watches half a dozen network shows per week, shows on Bravo, Lifetime, HGTV (Property Brothers), and A&E (Walking Dead). I watch all the news channels for work. We also have HBO and watch Game of Thrones, Girls, and Boardwalk Empire. Since our promotional period with DirecTV expired a couple months ago, our bill jumped up to $120, or $1,440 per year.

Today, I figured out that almost all those shows are available on Roku and AppleTV (I have both). There are streams for all the news channels and Property Brothers, so I can watch them on my laptop or Airplay them to my AppleTV. The cost of Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime, as well as season passes for GoT, Walking Dead, Girls, Boardwalk, and the Lifetime show (which shall remain nameless... too embarrassing) amounts to $481/year.

That's almost $1000 savings. Even when you throw in the $50 digital antenna I'll buy to get local channels. I called DirecTV and canceled.

I'm not even remotely interested in this Comcast deal. The whole point of AppleTV, Roku and the other boxes, for me, is to bypass those cable/satellite bills.