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 Discovery and Viacom Over Streaming TV Service

If Apple does it...

Chances are that the experience will be good.

So far, a lot of streaming service front-ends leave a lot to be desired. Seriously, Starz and Encore? No favorites list? And why wont HBO and Cinemax have a true play list that will let me play everything in the list continuously?

And as for you, Netflix, well, now that we know you were the one slowing down your content delivery intentionally so you could justify your own dedicated network, I have no respect for you.
 
iPad Air said:
This looks like a great start to the future of TV as we know it. Cable and Satellite box's don't provide an as easy-to-use experience as Apple TV.
Click to expand...

Also, think about how often cable companies raise the prices on subscriptions and required rentals like set top boxes. Plus, the UI of the set top boxes looks like something out of the 1990's.

Every year you get less content for more money.

I have a feeling that with this service on the Apple TV, more content will be added, it will have a better UI, and the price will most likely stay the same or be lowered.
 
Comedy Central = Viacom

If I can get it without cable, then I won't need cable.

Paying $70 a month to watch two channels; NBC (which is free over the air) and Comedy Central rubs me the wrong way.

Even if I end up paying up to $40 or $50 a month for streaming services, I'd be happier, since they'd probably be the services that I want.
 
The value prospect, as I see it.

People keep asking, "What's the point? It's nearly the same price as regular cable, and possibly more". Wouldn't this be portable, however? Cable is dedicated to a physical structure, but if you subscribe to Apple's service you should be able to watch it anywhere with broadband. I know some cable and satellite providers have mobile apps but as far as I know you can't stream their entire catalog of programming.
 
iapplelove said:
Is this what SJ had in mind when he said he cracked the TV category ? Obviously Apple isn't about to start manufacturing TVs but perhaps a TV channel streaming service that cuts out the cable and sat companies and streams directly from the networks themselves ?

I like what's ahead.
Click to expand...

Right? I think the "Apple TV" is every iOS/OSX device already out there in the wild.

True streaming TV wherever you go on all your devices.

I'm extremely interested in this.
 
MacRumors said:
[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Discovery and Viacom are in discussions with Apple to be included in its rumored streaming TV service, reports The Wall Street Journal. The partnerships could see mid-tier channels such as Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon available through the subscription-based service on devices including the iPhone, iPad and Apple TV.

Remember when Discovery (all the channels they own) actually had stuff on that you wanted to watch? What started out as education-oriented programming, where you could see things that you'd never seen before, has turned into an absolute train-wreck of swamp people and pawn shops. It's mind-rot TV the likes of everything else.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure Apple would do it, but I'd love this if it had a package of religious and family channels such as Hallmark. The Discovery package sounds good and we use there network quite a bit as well.
 
Never mind the price, but this whole service is a non-starter if there are no live sports included. I would rather keep paying Netflix and Hulu... and this is assuming it will even be available outside the US.(Without VPN)
 
Four oF NINE said:
One way or another, with this, with Sling, and with others not yet on the horizon.. the old cable/satellite stranglehold paradigm is coming down.
Click to expand...

Most people don't realize that it's not the pay TV industry that is the problem. It's the studios.

THEY are the ones who like the current model. They are the reasons the cost of pay TV goes higher. And they get none of the blame
 
ks-man said:
People fail to realize that this model can't work as it would be both insanely expensive and offer far less choices. There are many niche channels that would cease to exist because too small a number of people would want them and couldn't afford the cost to keep the station. Perhaps some of the channels you want would fall into this bundle. Next the main channels that a large percentage of people would want would start costing far more as the companies that owned those channels wouldn't have the revenues from other channels to subsidize the cost. ESPN would probably cost $30-50/month on its own without the revenues from all the other Disney channels coming in.

What everybody says they want is unrealistic at the price they would be willing to pay for it. You say let the market decide what the price would be but there would be no consensus of a fair market price for the viewers and the producers. What would happen in the long run is that more and more offerings would get slashed and quality would go down since subscribers wouldn't pay the networks required pricing. Networks would start reducing their pricing to bring on subscribers but would slash their production costs.

There is a model that works for networks and viewers and that inherently requires TV bundling. It allows networks to offer a multitude of channels at a price that the most people are willing to pay. Yes everybody grumbles about it but nature people get Discovery, historically inclined people get history channel, chefs get cooking network and sports aficionados get ESPN. If each of those were priced individually you wouldn't get 25% of the users purchasing each one but very few subscribers at all since each channel would seem far too expensive on its own. Sure somebody paying $100/month now might complain that they only care about ESPN but they are still paying $100/month. Separate it out and that person won't be willing to pay $60/month for ESPN and they will just opt out (and complain even more).
Click to expand...

Have you paid any attention to Sling TV? ESPN and ESPN2 are included in the $20 package. To add ESPNU, SEC Network and ESPNews, along with a couple other channels is $5 additional. Do a little research before you do your hypotheticals.
 
And what does everyone think Comcast, Verizon, etc are going to do when they lose their revenue from TV?
 
AppleScruff1 said:
And what does everyone think Comcast, Verizon, etc are going to do when they lose their revenue from TV?
Click to expand...

Raise the price of their internet service, of course. I simply can't understand why people here don't get that.
 
khkman22 said:
Have you paid any attention to Sling TV? ESPN and ESPN2 are included in the $20 package. To add ESPNU, SEC Network and ESPNews, along with a couple other channels is $5 additional. Do a little research before you do your hypotheticals.
Click to expand...
The graph below (from a year ago) shows that ESPN charges ~$5/month per subscriber. From what I've seen, most cable plans don't give you the option of excluding ESPN, which means ESPN is making ~$5/month off the heads of a lot of subscribers that will never watch their network.

So consider an a la carte world, where ESPN only gets money from the people who specifically opt in to pay for its programming. i.e. ESPN won't be getting ~$5/month from everyone anymore, just the people who subscribe to it.

How much would ESPN have to raise its rates to compensate for the loss of millions of dollars of revenue that it's currently earning from people who don't have the option to drop it?

IMO, that's what the person to whom you were replying to was saying. Maybe ESPN wouldn't be $30/month, but it'd definitely cost a whole lot more than ~$5/month, no?

Cable-Carriage.jpg

http://www.thewrap.com/cable-bill-battle-subscribers-providers-carriage-fees/
 
ssgbryan said:
Raise the price of their internet service, of course. I simply can't understand why people here don't get that.
Click to expand...

That will happen regardless. TV viewership is down and has been declining for a while. More and more people watch their favorite shows by Netflix, Hulu, etc.

They will get their lost money somehow, and charging more for internet will be one way. Although, I am sure it will still be cheaper for just internet than for expensive TV bundles + internet.
 
Not interested Apple should have their own Movie and TV Show streaming service like Amazon Prime or Netflix. Apple should also make Beats music streaming service part of iTunes Match not a separate service. Until than who cares about how they are working with cable companies.
 
Maybe Apple could put some of their wealth into making programmes worth watching.
 
So, supposedly the NBC APP (separate from this service) will require a Provider subscription. This is just like all the apps do now; make you login with your Cable or Dish provider...

I don't see why Apple can't be my provider. If I'm buying a subscription through them, should be the same. If NBC/Comcast doesn't agree, it could be seen as Antitrust - let's hope the FCC agrees with me.
 
I know for my parents and people in their generation (Baby Boomer/Gen X) that don't want to spend a lot every month for tv that a possible a la carte with multiple ways of watching (on iPhone, iPad, Mac, or  TV) would provide convenience at a fair price as well as weed out the junk channels no one cares about.
 
keifer.street said:
How is this rumored streaming Apple service (or others like Sling TV) any different from any other cable company or business models of content providers of the past? "But, but, it's a smaller bundle, so it's cheaper!"

So what?! I ask again, how is this model any different than the past? I thought we were on the eve of an industry revolution, not evolution or a re-hashing of the same thing that consumers clearly DON'T want. Smaller bundles is just more of the same, with more limited networks/content providers.

It's the same 'bundle' model cable companies have had for years that they're holding onto with their cold, dead, out of touch, greedy fingers.
I want ala carte channel subscriptions of live/streaming TV, dammit! Let the free market decide which channels are worth paying for! Stop forcing us to pay for channels that nobody wants to watch! It's madness! All TV customers have been begging... literally BEGGING for this for YEARS.

I will only call it a revolution when I get what I want:
1) I want to pay only for what I actually watch
2) I want to be able to watch whatever I want (meaning I can choose from a wide plethora of content providers), not limited to a select few networks
3) I want to watch whenever I want - I want to be able stream it live or stream it later after it airs. I don't want to have to organize my schedule around what show airs at whatever time. That's just stupid. I also don't want to have to remember to record it on my DVR or worry about running out of hard drive space. That's also stupid. Streaming is the way of the future, baby!
4) I want to be able to watch it on any device

In summary, all networks need to be streamable at any time from any device and no more bundling BS.

Now that would be a game-changer. We'd no longer be stuck in 1970.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I gave up cable about 2 years ago and currently watch The Walking Dead on iTunes the day after it is broadcast on AMC. I would really like to be able to buy episodes / seasons of whatever I want and have the option to watch it live or later.
 
DirecTV Comparison

AppleScruff1 said:
I don't understand it either. People seem to think they are going to be saving a fortune.
Click to expand...

Example, I'm using DirecTV, and get internet from Charter. I'm already paying a little more for internet because I'm not in a bundle, and wouldn't use Charter's craptastic DVRs if they were free or even if they paid me! :eek:

DirecTV now costs me $150/month for 2 TVs (1 Genie DVR and one thin client). I have a medium package that doesn't include things like Science HD, and others etc. I do have HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime. Plus hundreds of other channels I never watch. I have a stupid On-Demand system that uses my Internet connection already and doesn't let me Fast Forward through shows (not just commercials, but the whole show?!:!)
Admittedly DirecTV was cheap the first year I had it, but has gone up every year since.

Here's my math, so correct me if I'm wrong:

New AppleTV Service $40 (max rumored price)
HBO Now $15
Let's Add $10 for Hulu+ to get any NBC crap I'm missing... (if something's still missing I can live iwth that)
Let's Add $20 for Taxes and Fees just for good measure.
-------------------------------
Total: $85

I'm still missing Cinemax, but expecting HBO will add another Tier to the package to include that eventually.... take it from $15 to $25?

Now up to $95

I'm still missing Showtime, but they also have a Showtime Anywhere APP and I expect they will follow suit with this kind of service if HBO is successful. HBO set the price point at $15, so Showtime will probably copy that:

Now up to $110

If they don't add it, the monthly savings buys anything they make that I want to watch on BluRay eventually... I can live with that.

Now go ahead and let Charter up my internet fees by a full 50% another $30 and I'm almost back where I started.

Now up to $140

Hell, let them up it 100%, I can price shop a different internet service - race the bottom for all I care....
Remember I'm already paying for Internet.........and will continue to do so.

Additional Savings could be in not charging me for every TV in my house like all Cable/Dishes do... And buying AppleTV boxes $69 each instead of paying MONTHLY DVR fees forever?

Not everyone, in fact I see few people here claiming they are saving a fortune, but instead the primary point being that even if it costs the SAME or even a little more, I would pay for a better service with a modern interface that doesn't suck as bad as EVERYTHING else does right now.

Bring it!
 
Last edited:
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