Apple Live TV Service Not Coming Until 2016

[ewkp]

i don't really need a live tv service. i like on-demand tv. my dream would be for apple to continue with the tv and movie media store, but release things at the same time that they are broadcast. also to institute a credit system similar to audible.com. users would pay a certain amount every month for credits(there would be different tiers based on how much media we wish to consume). we could then use those credits to get tv shows and/or movies. all the media on itunes would be available for purchase via the credits, no restrictions.

hopefully the store would have lots more content than it does now.

 

[dannyyankou]

I thought Apple was releasing their own TV...

The nixed that.

 

[gert.scholten.3]

Where is this? Call them and bargain. I pay $29.99 in Florida for 15Mb/sec Internet. TV would cost at least another $45-50.

So different in the Netherlands. 1000/1000Mb/s (glass) + 80 channels, HD, dvr, rewatch live television on demand (10 channels) hbo subscription, hbo go and telephone for €55. That's about $ 62

 

[BMcCoy]

PAY for TV?

With 60 ish freeview channels in the UK, that's plenty for me.

And the Internet can fill in any programming gaps..

 

[Karma*Police]

Lol, $40, most people won't even pay that.

Netflix may not be all that but for the price it is, it's going to slowly but surely destroy cable TV. The era of paying those huge subs is over.

Agreed. I don't see how $40 is better than what most people pay for cable now. I hate to say it, but there's nothing about the new Apple TV that sounds very exciting or disruptive. I hope Apple has more up its sleeve than what the rumors are suggesting.

 

[bushman4]

Apple must be close to a deal with the content providers if they are releasing the hardware now.

 

[Glassed Silver]

I hear Torrent TV is already operating at full steam.

Guys, if you want to tackle piracy, act quick and in favor of customer wishes.
The music industry KINDA learnt and fairly fast to some extent.

The moving pictures industry as well as the games industry is playing all the wrong notes save for some exceptions.
Often times I feel like an idiot for being a legit customer, meanwhile the pirate gets better service.

It's a hot steaming mess and if they don't fix it they will raise generations full of people saying piracy is an absolute non-issue.
To some extent it is much overblown, but Jesus...

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[SimonDK]

For me no lossless audio, no interest.

I just can not get my head around apple's thinking on this, just what is the reasoning behind their failure to provide a codec for DTS-HD or True-HD.

With Netflix and Amazon Prime close to delivering content with DTS-X and Dolby Atmos why do they stick with 5.1?

 

[Michael CM1]

It had better not start at $40. Sling TV isn't bad, although it lacks a good amount of features. But it has all the ESPNs, AMC and some other good channels for $20+. It needs a local broadcast package -- not all of us live close enough for an antenna to work -- DVR/VOD functions and way more packages. I could've used the Fox Sports for a lot of soccer this summer but Sling doesn't offer that.

But I don't want to be stuck paying for all of that the whole year. I got rid of Sling after The Walking Dead ended because I barely used it for the next two weeks. Now football is coming back and all the ESPN channels will be well worth it. So Apple has a good model to follow with Sling. I'm hoping part of the delay is creating a complete service and not rolling it out in parts like Sling did. That was fine for Sling because there just wasn't anything out there. Apple needs to do its thing now.

 

[babaroga73]

As a citizen of non-USA , otherwise known as "The world" I couldn't care less about TV programming streaming , which would never come to my country, anyways ..... Give me dedicated AppStore for my ATV, I wanna play games on my TV , and don't care for XBox PS things.

 

[Gaspode67]

Our house just ditche Sky for wanting £70 a month. When I get the new Apple TV I plan on getting Netflix as it is cheap.

If Apple wants near £40 for a handful of channels they can whistle. This needs a lot of thinking about.

*if* it ever rolls out to the UK. Given that the sale of broadcast rights to the international market is a large source of revenue for the content creators, expect them to play hardball with Apple when the service goes international. IMO, even if this mythical Apple TV service launches in the US, it'll be decades before it ever gets outside US borders. Apple would be going up against all the broadcasters in each territory they launch in. So in the UK alone, they'd be up against the BBC, ITV, SKy, Virgin Media, BT, Channel 4, Channel 5, the owners of all the Freeview channels (BBC and Sky are partners in a lot of these channels as well) , and that is just one country.

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.

Okay, be prepared to spend $20 per channel. Every hour of established scripted drama costs millions of dollars to produce. As for new shows, every year content producers (who are often part of the content distributor or even parts of competing distributors) spend millions on pilots for new shows that they hope to sell. Of those, I think it's something like 15% are commissioned. Maybe half of those will last out a whole year and get an order for a second season. Add in mid-season replacement shows for those that are cancelled, etc, and the "higher quality" TV business is *very* expensive. The money made from selling cheap shows like cookery/home improvement channels and the advertising that are on them helps offset the higher costs of shows on the mainstream channels. If you want anything approaching the quality (and I use the word advisedly) TV shows that you have already but only pay for the individual shows/channels piecemeal, then expect your costs to be higher. Also, expect less new shows as it would be more risky to make pilots for new, different formats of show on the off-chance that they build a following.

 

[Bevz]

That Apple TV better be released next month!

THIS! x 1000

 

[NtDs90]

Just Put out an App Store, live NFL games, and maybe game remote. To hell with live TV. As far as new hardware, maybe something with 2TBs of storage.

 

[mattopotamus]

Just give me a more powerful appleTV, more channels, better interface, and a better damn remote (yes I know I can use my phone)!

oh, and a place where I can just enter all of my account information so I do not have to do it on every single channel.

 

[Juicy Box]

Unless Apple has a plan to offer a subscription that gives you every television show (current and back library) on iTunes for a low monthly fee (say about $20 a month) without commercials, I'm not interested. The days of watching live appointment TV with commercials are long dead for me. Cut the cord years ago. Currently have 200/20 internet only for $35 a month - with TWC. Zero extra fees since I have my own modem. Yup - you just gotta twist their nipple until it hurts, but you can get them to give you a cheap plan if you are persistent. All they are is a dumb pipe to me. Subscriptions with on demand content and no commercials is the only thing I ever watch anymore. In my mind channels no longer even exist. There are simply the shows I want to watch, when I want to watch and on whatever device I want to watch.

I think if this happened everyone would jump on this. But this will most likely never happen. The music service is $10, I doubt iTunes subscription would $20.

One thing that I think could happen is that this TV service from Apple could enable you to access past seasons of the shows from the stations on the service. Example, if the service includes FX network, then the current and past seasons of Archer would be available in an On Demand type of service.

If this is the case, I think the rumored cost of this service could be worth it.

 

[Juicy Box]

Just give me a more powerful appleTV, more channels, better interface, and a better damn remote (yes I know I can use my phone)!

oh, and a place where I can just enter all of my account information so I do not have to do it on every single channel.

I personally hate using my phone as a remote, I really don't see the appeal. i like buttons to feel, so I don't have to look at the remote to use it.

 

[TallManNY]

Apple still better release a new Apple TV. Or just discontinue the current Apple TV. But they should stop selling ancient technology. It is inconsistent with the Apple brand. Yes, they've done so with the iPod. But at least you always had an option of buying an iPhone if you wanted current technology.

An new hardware, App store and new OS for Apple TV is more important than live streaming anyway. Sell 30 million of these and then point out to networks that folks are logged into this device and if your channel isn't there you might lose a bunch of viewers.

 

[TallManNY]

Just Put out an App Store, live NFL games, and maybe game remote. To hell with live TV. As far as new hardware, maybe something with 2TBs of storage.

The cable companies know that live sports is the only thing they've got. So live NFL games is going to either be the last thing to be added or really expensive. I'd pay for live NBA games, but even if I buy NBA TV I won't get my local Nets or Knicks games, or any of the national games.

 

[Elbon]

Internet + Netflix + Hulu + HBO + "whatever else" = you might as well be paying for cable

I have Netflix and HBO Now and it still costs me less than a full cable subscription. But even if the cost was the same, the two options are not equivalent. I don't have to sit through any advertising (or pay for DVR service to avoid it), which I would have to do if I had cable.

 

[Elbon]

The alternative is figuring out which online service has which TV show and when it becomes available... IF it becomes available.
Hulu might have last night's episode... or it might not.

That's true, but I'm not willing to pay extra for the privilege of watching something as soon as it becomes available. I'd rather spend my money on something else. If I have to watch it later than everyone else (or never), that's OK with me.

 

[malexandria]

I don't understand chord cutters. Well, I get the idea that we all LOATHE cable companies and most chord cutters just come across as pretentious douches who clearly don't watch TV. But for me, I love TV but loathe my Cable Company. But really I think $130 a month for the Blast Internet, Phone and over 300 Channels, plus OnDemand and the new HBO Go, Showtime apps, etc. is well worth the money. Granted the cost of my service is actually over $200 (which is ridiculous) but whenever they jack up my price, I complain on Twitter and they lower my bill back down.Even though I basically only watch on the weekend.

If I cut the chord I'd still have to get Internet through my Cable my costs would be:

$80 - Internet Only
$10 - Netflix
$10 - Hulu
$15 - HBO Go
$15 - Showtime
$10 - WWE Network (I like wrestling, sue me)
$40 - AppleTV (Which I'd never buy, but let's assume because I want to watch NFL)
Probably have to purchase Random Shows like Doctor Who, Orphan Black, Walking Dead, Teen Wolf, on iTunes ($30 - $40) Each.


So yeah, I wouldn't gain anything by cutting the Chord, just the satisfaction of thumbing my nose at the man.
Not to mention everything would be dependent on my Internet which isn't always stable and eventually the cable companies will be throttling.

 

[jdag]

The TV/streaming concept is super-interesting to me. The “cracking of the code" to this is coming up with a solution that people actually understand.

Cutting the cord, at least to me, does not “necessarily” mean making your cable/satellite bill $0. To me it means spending a comfortable amount yet still receiving the programming you desire in a simple manner. It may mean cutting cable/satellite service, but having to make an investment in hardware (new router, streaming boxes, etc.). It may also mean having to increase your internet bill by $20/mo because you need/want more speed.

Right now, things are so fragmented that most people cannot understand how to get such programming. Do I need Netflix? Can I get stations using an antenna? And if so, how do I get those stations on all of my TVs? Oh, what about ESPN? Etc.

Then, to top it all off, most people can’t come to grips with managing the different devices to watch various programming. Which input do I need to switch over to to get my DirecTV? How about my AppleTV? Wait, where is Netflix again…on AppleTV or the Roku…or both? Why is there both HBO NOW and HBO GO? It is just overwhelming to many.

Could Apple break this problem? Maybe. Putting all viewing though a single device, such as a new AppleTV, would be a great start.

PS - I only have 1 box now on 3 different TVs...an AppleTV 3rd Gen. However, because of app restrictions, I do have to use AirPlay for some viewing. That being said, it is a super simple setup.

 

[mchoffa]

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.

You have to wonder. I mean, it doesn't seem like they'd be having so much trouble with licensing deals if it were as simple as "Hulu on steroids" where you could watch anything as soon as it airs, right? They've GOT to have some big ideas going on here, right?

(unless, of course, it's all being blocked by sports, in which case I understand the blockade)

 

[barkomatic]

I used to be a cord cutter, but the price of cable/internet in my area has fallen off a cliff so I resubscribed. I've got 110/110, HBO, Showtime, Movie Channel, Starz and all the regular cable channels plus two set top boxes with VOD for $80 a month which is less than than what I was paying when I got my shows through a patchwork of sources. Also, that rate is guaranteed for 5 years and there is no contract.

I think perhaps the fear of cord cutting has caused some companies to lower their prices -- though I know there are many areas that are just as expensive as ever -- even within my own city. It's hard to imagine Apple matching that somehow.

 

[Breaking Good]

I don't know why, but for some reason a majority of people still prefer traditional television channels.

I personally don't and the constant advertising annoys me.

JoEw - it seems like you and me are the only people like this.

I don't care what's on 1,000 channels. I only care about the four or five TV shows I want to watch, WHEN I want to watch them.

And I don't want to wait until next week to watch the next episode. I want to watch what I want to watch NOW.

Let me pay for the shows I want to watch and you can keep everything else.