Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple in Talks With Content Providers for Web-Based TV Service

About time. And let’s be honest here, the name of the game is new content. Everyone wants to see the latest episode of Game of Thrones, Scandal, talk shows, news, etc. Or new releases on Netflix.

Past time to hit up the top content producers and open TV wide open the same way the internet did for Apple, Google and everyone else. The internet can help democratize the playing field where it used to be only a handful of players with a limited FCC monopoly than would dictate what people saw. Let her rip and let new players put content on the net.

Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Crackle and others are already on this wavelength. It’s the inevitable future and they cannot sit back or beg or wait on an industry that wants to milk an old school monopoly.
 
Isn't bundles of pre-selected content (that you don't get to choose the components of) exactly what we're trying to get away from? If a bundle includes every channel I want except ESPN (or <insert your channel here>), it's no good. And meanwhile you're paying for QVC and The Golf Channel, which you will never watch.

Plus, there is still the problem of cable-owned channels that carry sports. For example Comcast Sports Net carries Golden State Warriors games, and that is not likely to be included in a bundle, as the cable company owns it. And you can't even watch it by paying separately for NBA League Pass because it will be blacked out in your area, thanks to Comcast and the NBA.
 
brendu said:
It's not impossible just not economical. People would have to spend around $25/month per channel to make it work for the content providers.
Click to expand...

It's essentially impossible. The pro sports franchise media contracts are massive, intractable barriers, all by themselves. The economics nobody really knows about, but I don't see where even the providers have made as extreme an argument as you have for the cost of a la carte programming. Their argument is the smaller special-interest channels would have little chance of survival if they weren't being subsidized by people who never watch them.

----------
HiRez said:
Plus, there is still the problem of cable-owned channels that carry sports. For example Comcast Sports Net carries Golden State Warriors games, and that is not likely to be included in a bundle, as the cable company owns it. And you can't even watch it by paying separately for NBA League Pass because it will be blacked out in your area, thanks to Comcast and the NBA.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Well, thanks to the sports franchises owning monopolies over their sport in their market.
 
Mint for the TV?

I'd love to see the AppleTV with a single login that aggregates all my channels - HBO Go, Netfiix, Amazon (I know, maybe someday), Quello, WWE, etc, etc... So I just have a single g-damn login rather than a unique one for every stupid channel. That alone, along with something like SlingTV from Dish would be a delight and make the AppleTV more attractive than some of the, let's face it, better boxes on the market right now.

EDIT: Oh! And an OTA tuner/DVR. None of the boxes seem to realize cord cutters use rabbit ears (or will when they finally cut).

I think I'm going to go see if my Sling TV invite is here yet. Grumble grumble...
 
The service would not include a full lineup of channels like traditional cable, but it would offer a range of content delivered by Apple with its own interface on devices like the Apple TV.
Click to expand...

Not if it works like it does now! The ATV interface has become an unwieldy chore to use. It needs a complete overhaul.

I wonder if the timing of this has anything to do with the FCC reclassifying ISPs.
 
I am also kind of mystified by this concept of selling TV over the "web." Are we really talking about watching TV on a browser? Of course not. Streaming TV is not web-based, it's internet-based. The subset of the internet known as the web has nothing to do with this, as far as I can tell.
 
brendu said:
These cable companies are going to have to finally change the way they do business after 30 years of the same **** with little to no innovation or improvements.
Click to expand...

They've already started, but not for the better. There's a max of 300 Gigs of data on the typical plan, now. A family of five can easily exceed that every month. Then they charge overages.
 
Not sure how it's called cutting the cable if you still have the cable running in to your house to your cable modem to get broadband access.

HBO is going to be launching Go as a standalone service soon. Maybe their success (or failure) will inspire others to make similar moves (or not).
 
dazz87 said:
Netflix but at $49.99 a month......:apple:
Click to expand...

In my experience, Amazon Instant Video is hands down better than Netflix. Don't know why others are so stuck on Netflix these days; maybe they never got to try Amazon.
 
The biggest problem with watching any content (Netflix, Hulu, WatchESPN, etc, etc) is that bandwidth still a huge issue. The USA is still WAYYYY behind in internet speeds compare to other 1st world countries.

I like the idea of just building your own TV channel's you like to watch however, there still a lot people out there that don't have sufficient internet speeds.

We need to fix this

_70717869_countries_with_high_speed_broadband.gif
 
If it's under $10/month, I'll subscribe to 1... ONE tv/movie streaming service. Right now that's Netflix, because they have TV, Film, no ads, and any content the studios refuse to make available to them, I torrent.


TV shows and Movies just aren't worth more than $10 for a months worth of viewing. If they want to be valued higher, they're going to have to make more valuable content.
 
troop231 said:
In my experience, Amazon Instant Video is hands down better than Netflix. Don't know why others are so stuck on Netflix these days; maybe they never got to try Amazon.
Click to expand...

In mine, Amazon is by far the worst. The interface is a mindnumbingly horrible experience. I have had Amazon Prime for many years for shopping, but rarely do I ever venture into that morass unless their exclusive content drives me there with such series like Transparent. But I stick to Netflix and Hulu+ almost exclusively.
 
The content providers and cable companies have a nice little money making duopoly going on which they've no intention of disrupting. Apple will need to think outside the box if they want to crack this market: create their own channels and produce their own content. They've enough cash to outbid all the local incumbents around the world for sports rights which they're going to need if they want world wide mass market adoption.
 
garya73 said:
Not sure how it's called cutting the cable if you still have the cable running in to your house to your cable modem to get broadband access.

HBO is going to be launching Go as a standalone service soon. Maybe their success (or failure) will inspire others to make similar moves (or not).
Click to expand...

You also have power lines, running into your house, but I’d still call it “cord cutting” :D I actually dropped our DTV service tonight, cut the, er, signal-from-space. :cool:

I’m real curious about what HBO will charge for “Go Only”, and if it will be exactly like the current service (which is pretty solid).


troop231 said:
In my experience, Amazon Instant Video is hands down better than Netflix. Don't know why others are so stuck on Netflix these days; maybe they never got to try Amazon.
Click to expand...

We’ve had both for a long time and I find they’re about even in terms of content (exclusives on each, common on both), and about the same in terms of tech, picture quality, etc.

If we didn’t get Prime Video for free as part of the Prime package, we probably wouldn’t pay more, though funny enough, we’re watching Amazon right now (The Shield, viewing on the PS3).
 
The sad thing is Apple just dropped a billion dollars on a dead medium instead of investing that money in the future of media - video.
 
brendu said:
Well Comcast owns NBC and all of its affiliates and likely has lucrative contracts with other content creators that need to expire before apple can try to push their way into the industry. I would love to see apple spend some of their billions blocking the cable companies from their current deals. I don't want apple to get exclusive TV rights but I do want them to get access to all the networks by paying more than Comcast can pay to prevent it.

I have to believe apples close relationship with Disney will mean that live ESPN will be coming to Apple TV at some point when their current network contracts expire. When that happens there will be a ton of people ditching cable and I csant wait to see that happen. These cable companies are going to have to finally change the way they do business after 30 years of the same **** with little to no innovation or improvements.
Click to expand...

When Comcast bought NBC there were required to play fairly with satellite TV and other cable companies. I hoping the news today regarding Internet being an utility will require divestment of content provision.
 
I cut the cord 2 years ago. Now granted - I live in direct line-of-site with the Empire State Building and therefor get amazing signal quality through my antenna, but me (personally) has no reason to add to my set up.

Right now, I have the antenna which feeds into my 2 tuner Tablo. So I have a dual channel DVR which I can stream to my Apple TV, Roku, and other various devices. Having the Apple TV allows me to burn through the credit I still have for iTunes and rent movies when needed. Roku - well that does pretty much everything like that and more.

I'm not "missing" anything. Oh sure there's HBO and other pay channels. But we don't really watch that / have that much time to watch.

Now before you jump down my throat in a reply - I realize this is MY use case. But I know a lot of cord cutters who are pretty happy with their own set ups.

Apple would really need to step up the game (not saying they can't) to get current cord cutter's business. Those that haven't cut the cord, well - Apple might be able to sway them. But it comes down to pricing.
 
HiRez said:
Isn't bundles of pre-selected content (that you don't get to choose the components of) exactly what we're trying to get away from? If a bundle includes every channel I want except ESPN (or <insert your channel here>), it's no good. And meanwhile you're paying for QVC and The Golf Channel, which you will never watch.

Plus, there is still the problem of cable-owned channels that carry sports. For example Comcast Sports Net carries Golden State Warriors games, and that is not likely to be included in a bundle, as the cable company owns it. And you can't even watch it by paying separately for NBA League Pass because it will be blacked out in your area, thanks to Comcast and the NBA.
Click to expand...


I watched all the Warriors games on league pass. I live on the east coast btw. Just a heads up. They are never blocked out for me.
 
mlody said:
Apple's products aren't cheap per say, so I am wondering how this new service would be any cheaper than a comparable cable deal. I guess we will wait and see.
Click to expand...

Maybe it will be better? I'm weary of cable. TWC is showing the goofy shows of the 50's. Would be nice to get something updated.
 
Apple should make its own content to keep from bein stuck with third parties holding up their plans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back