Apple Live TV Service Not Coming Until 2016

[TechRemarker]

The AppleTV service (and cord cutting) is about improving the experience of consuming content not saving money. When people started texting through iMessage, WhatTheApp and other services or calls through VOIP, carriers simply said everyone gets unlimited texting and voice and increased the price for everyone.

Same will happen here. You drop your cable package, but you will still be paying them for cable internet and they will simply boost those costs to compensate (and give you a faster connection to justify it). So until there is another major player offering internet, we won't be saving much of any money. And Google doesn't currently have plans of doing Fiber everywhere and was done simply to shame Comcast into offering better service to it's customers.

Netflix is cheap but that's because it's not live content and new movies don't show up til much later if ever. And content providers can pull content off (as they do often) at anytime. So content providers could kill Netflix if it was ever in their best interest. They are slow to give AppleTV too much control or too good of rates because it will only give apple great negotiating power over them as more customers signup.

In the long run Apple and the customer will win but will be a long journey.

 

[Juicy Box]

Me saying "live TV will never be dead" is MY thought - I never said you were the one who had said it.

The part of your post that I quoted was "I feel like in the times of On Demand, Netflix, iTunes, and others similar services, watching TV shows on a schedule other than your own is a thing of the past..."

...which is why I wanted to respond that, in essence, watching TV shows on a schedule other than your own ISN'T a thing of the past because because your live events you NEED to watch live.

I think for the majority of people, especially younger adults, the need for live TV is decreasing everyday. Beside sporting events, things like live news, academy awards, and things alike are being replaced by Internet media.

 

[CEmajr]

If it's a $40 bundle then I see no point. I can just pay Time Warner and extra $20-30 per month to add TV to my existing internet service. Apple needs to figure out a way to get the content providers to agree to some system where users can pick and choose certain channels on a per channel cost formula. If not for sports then I wouldn't ever need to watch anything on cable anyway.

 

[Elbon]

Of course if the original content like Friends, Seinfeld, etc are never paid for and made in the first place, what good are those services?

Netflix makes their own shows.

 

[Juicy Box]

If it's a $40 bundle then I see no point. I can just pay Time Warner and extra $20-30 per month to add TV to my existing internet service. Apple needs to figure out a way to get the content providers to agree to some system where users can pick and choose certain channels on a per channel cost formula. If not for sports then I wouldn't ever need to watch anything on cable anyway.

I think most consumers want this. But it ever happens, the cost per channel will be so high, people won't want to pay it.

 

[cmwade77]

I don't want a package of channels, I want to pick what channels I want for a fixed price per channel. I am even ok with two or three tiers of channels, each having different price points. But if I want one channel, that's all that I want to pay for. I am also ok with giving a discount for multiple channels, say I order 20 channels and they give 25% off.

 

[Elbon]

I think for the majority of people, especially younger adults, the need for live TV is decreasing everyday. Beside sporting events, things like live news, academy awards, and things alike are being replaced by Internet media.

Plus, the news is nothing but hyperbole and sensationalism, award shows are boring, and sports is...sports.

 

[Elbon]

Everyone talks about cutting cable, but is it really that much more expensive than sling or combining a few alternatives? Like $20/month more for every channel and a DVR.

Even if it is only $20 a month, why pay for something you don't use?

 

[Sethal]

That Apple TV better be released next month!

That's what I'm saying. I have a ATV 2 that's getting long in the tooth. I couldn't care less about a streaming service.

 

[Sonmi451]

They should wait until they can do a 4K h.265 box. That's how they can win. With content of course.

 

[rickspel]

I thought the whole point of cutting the cables and going with services and boxes and whatnot was to get away from "live" TV and have TV happen when it's convenient for you. Apple lowering the cost of live TV is not the digital revolution I was hoping for.

I mean maybe it's a piece of leaked information that's been misinterpreted or maybe there's so much more than this to what Apple has in mind. But this alone does not feel like a step forward.

For the cord cutting thing to work you need to have live sports and news plus a few shows that people want to watch live like Grammy's, Oscars, etc

 

[MH01]

Apple TV rumours......has to be the most overhyped apple product for so many years..... In regards to rumours. Yet to deliver .

 

[jayducharme]

comcast is just going to make internet only tiers so expensive that it will make sense to choose one of their double play bundles.

Exactly. It doesn't matter what Apple offers for content. The huge problem is the "balkanization" of TV that Jobs referred to years ago. Comcast has a monopoly my area. There's no other choice for high-speed Internet. So unless Apple is going to get into the ISP business, there is no way I'm going to pay an additional $40 a month on top of my already-expensive Internet access (which by default comes bundled with cable TV).

 

[darcyf]

I dropped cable over 2 years ago but there are times every once in a while that I miss live TV. Big sporting events like the SuperBowl and news worthy events like the big debate last Thursday are 2 times I wish I had live TV. Other than that, I can watch the Walking Dead the day after it airs on live TV.

The thing is, TV needs to adapt to the changes being made because TV needs us to exist. If we don't want to pay for a multitude of channels to watch a little live TV, we shouldn't have to. When we all cut the cable, specials will need to find another way to reach us.

 

[samcraig]

There real elephant in the room is even when try cord cutting and just get internet plan it just makes more sense to get internet + TV (cable) because the price difference is not even that much maybe $5 or $10

Depends on what you watch and where you are. I'm in NYC. Right in line of site of the Empire State Building. I get better HD TV from my antenna than I did from TWC. My wife and I don't watch much cable TV and no sports. We have a few network shows we watch + netflix. I have a Tablo and a hard drive hooked up to that antenna.

We're saving $1200 a year by not having cable tv. Not that we "needed" to save it. But it was just money getting flushed down the toilet.

So it really depends on what you watch. Or want to watch. I also have Apple TV, Chromecast and a Amazon Fire Stick. So basically, any cable shows (non paid) that have episodes on their website is also fair game.

 

[anshuvorty]

Just putting it out there: Apple Live TV Service = The Last Guardian for Apple.

 

[nt5672]

It's a blight!

We'll be moving in a few months and when we do, it'll be the end of cable and satellite for us. We'll get an HD antenna and stream everything else.

Exactly what we did, 4 years ago. We will stay cable free until we can get the channels we want for a reasonable price.

 

[psylence2k]

I don't think cable providers, networks and studios realize one thing: people will pay for better service. It is no secret the service we get for our money sucks badly. Cable companies all use the same craptastic set top boxes. They are slow and use more energy than a fridge. The Internet service is laughable at best (Internet caps??? Really???) And let's not forget the studios who are hooked on heroin (reality shows)

I bet you if cable companies decided to get out of the hardware business. Left that to electronics experts like Apple, Samsung etc to create set top boxes and UIs. And just concentrated on service, they would see people rushing to give them money hand over fist! Costs would matter less because the service would then match what you are paying.

I think most companies know people will pay for better service but if tens of millions of people are already paying for crappy service and there's little competition then why spend hundreds of millions on improving service if it wont give THAT significant of an increase ? because the majority of people who care at all are already use to paying for crappy service and as long as no significantly better competition in the same or lower price range comes along then you have nothing to worry about.

Cable companies aren't in the hardware business, they outsource that. My cable box doesn't say "Time Warner Cable", it says Cisco. Even comcast boxes that say Comcast are usually manufactured by Motorola or someone else. Same thing with Modems you get from them.

Thing is Apple doesn't want to just make boxes and sell them to companies, they want to control the service too. They're trying to have a much more limited line-up for cheaper but like I said the content providers and cable companies will do whatever they can to NOT let them make this as good as it can be. Why ? because there's potentially BILLIONS at stake for them to lose. It's very hard to see Apple's business model making the same type of profitable return for content providers that cable currently does. Which is exactly why this is taking so long. The content providers see very little good in something that will potentially start replacing cable service as a whole on a much more massive scale than anything that has come thus far. They've seen how Apple has shaken up other industries, they do NOT want that happening to them.

The cable companies will also fight back against their endangerment. If Apple service ever really blows up I wouldn't be surprised to see more companies adopt data caps, higher prices, and other practices to discourage people from giving up their cable.

At the same time I really dont know if my faith is still in Apple to deliver a GREAT TV service, at least not for a few years after launch. I mean they couldn't even deliver a solid STREAMING service which is much more in their circle of competence than this. Apple Music was/is a huge let down for something that should've been easy for them to master which questions how they're going to deliver something revolutionary as this. I really hope they prove me wrong.

 

[arbogast777]

I think for the majority of people, especially younger adults, the need for live TV is decreasing everyday. Beside sporting events, things like live news, academy awards, and things alike are being replaced by Internet media.

Very true

 

[nando87]

At the same time I really dont know if my faith is still in Apple to deliver a GREAT TV service, at least not for a few years after launch. I mean they couldn't even deliver a solid STREAMING service which is much more in their circle of competence than this. Apple Music was/is a huge let down for something that should've been easy for them to master which questions how they're going to deliver something revolutionary as this. I really hope they prove me wrong.

Why do such a lot of people say Apple Music is a fiasco? It's a very competent service for an 1.0 version. Spotify has been doing this for years and Apple has just started, and even so they can deliver a plausible option. Stop being so histrionic drama queens. The same goes to maps, nobody apart from keyboard warriors in internet forums seem to be complaining about them.

 

[arbogast777]

Plus, the news is nothing but hyperbole and sensationalism, award shows are boring, and sports is...sports.

The thing about news though is its value for me is not found in the 90% of it that goes on all day, but in when there is some kind of breaking news event that I might want (and even need) to see coverage of. I can't imagine 9/11 having had happened and me only being able to read about it. Even this year with Baltimore and St. Louis - these are cultural events that I for one want to see played out.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I don't want a package of channels, I want to pick what channels I want for a fixed price per channel. I am even ok with two or three tiers of channels, each having different price points.

That's what most cable companies offer right now.

Basic cable has roughly 20 channels... expanded cable has 70 channels... and the mega package has 200+ channels. And each package is priced accordingly.

I always hear "I'm paying for 500 channels I don't watch"

Pro-tip: You don't have to subscribe to the mega-ultra package.

But you also don't get to choose the channels per package.

But if I want one channel, that's all that I want to pay for. I am also ok with giving a discount for multiple channels, say I order 20 channels and they give 25% off.

That's the dream, isn't it... to only pay for the channels you want.

You think you'd save money by doing that... but I'm afraid they'd end up charging $15-20 a month per channel.

How bad do you want that one channel?

 

[psylence2k]

Why do such a lot of people say Apple Music is a fiasco? It's a very competent service for an 1.0 version. Spotify has been doing this for years and Apple has just started, and even so they can deliver a plausible option. Stop being so histrionic drama queens.

because they had years to work on it, billions of dollars at their disposal, the luxury of having another company's years of a polished example to follow (Spotify), a second company on top of that they they acquired and used to build on (Beats).

We're histrionic drama queens for saying it was a let down after all of that ? That statement is histrionic in itself. Dont get so upset to the point of name calling just because others dont hold the same sub par standards as yourself.

 

[Geronimo]

As others have voiced, the thought of a smaller bundle of live channels for $40 a month is a pretty underwhelming proposition. (If the service doesn't include a cloud DVR or a lot of current on-demand streaming content, forget it.) Will the available content be much different than, say, combining Sling TV and Hulu subscriptions on a Roku or Amazon Fire, for a total of only $28 a month? Would it be better than paying $15 a month to use a TiVo DVR with free local HDTV stations via antenna, plus adding Netflix and Amazon Prime (which TiVo all integrates together with its OnePass feature) for a grand total of $32.25 a month? I would imagine the UI and content discovery and integration will be better with Apple's service, but still... From what we know about it so far, Apple's proposed TV service kinda reminds me of PlayStation Vue: not all that different from regular cable, just a bit cheaper, but with everything coming via internet streaming (and possibly counting against a data cap with your ISP). Meh.

 

[2010mini]

Fan.tv looks nice. They even have the touch-based TV remote rumored for Apple TV.

I wish Fant TV was available for my TV provider.