Apple Live TV Service Not Coming Until 2016

[Benjamin Frost]

I've been so excited about the possibilities of something like this for so long. Recently I realized, I don't give a crap. TV is a complete waste of time. There's a few good shows out there, but just a few. 99% of it is useless. The more I read about a potential Apple TV, the less I want one.

Indeed.

And I wonder if Steve Jobs felt the same. I'm not sure his heart was in tv at the end of the day. When you think that it's almost all lowest common denominator, it doesn't inspire respect. I think he probably thought it was the next logical step, but music was his baby.

 

[unobtainium]

At this point I hope Apple realizes that Apple TV needs an update whether or not the streaming deal is ready. An App Store would make it a hot seller.

 

[The Game 161]

Looking forward to adding Apple TV to my new Apple products

 

[BeefCake 15]

Hate to say this sentence that has been thoroughly abused but if Jobs was around, he wouldn't have put up with this....

Build a dam good TV that may potentially be good enough for torrents and all these execs will crawl back apologizing

On a serious note though, why doesn't Apple fund good shows in return for exclusivity on their platform like Netflix did with House of Cards and DareDevil etc.

 

[darkknight14]

Is anyone interested in this tv service? I can only see this work in the US - the UK offerings and interface is spot on, especially Sky with its Sky go apps, sky on demand for all major channels, movies and sports.

Like others I hope to see new hardware next month, with the app store that has been talked about since 2010..

 

[8281]

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

I think it depends on your area and when you start adding the DVR on top of the cable bill (and then after the first year) the price goes up. Personally, I'm not really interested in cable anyway. I like watching shows according to my schedule. If I wanted to spend more money I'd rather spend it on faster internet.

 

[nviz22]

For $40, if I could get ESPN family, NFL Network, NBA TV, NHL Network, TBS, WWE Network, FX and FXX, channels w/ NCAA March Madness, NBC Sports Network, HBO for $40 a month that would suffice. Cable is too expensive. Glad that Comcast and Time Warner didn't merge though.

 

[Juicy Box]

I think it depends on your area and when you start adding the DVR on top of the cable bill (and then after the first year) the price goes up. Personally, I'm not really interested in cable anyway. I like watching shows according to my schedule. If I wanted to spend more money I'd rather spend it on faster internet.

You are so right, not everyone can get higher tiers for $5 - $10 a month more. And the equipment charges could cost as much as Apple's rumored TV service cost.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

A new ATV this year or not isn't going to materially affect Apple's revenue. Honestly, if it is app enabled devs already have their hands full. Why not give them time to get some good stand alone AW apps out first? And if a bigger iPad is released they have to contend with that.

And the whole "package of popular programs..." sounds like "me too." That isn't how Apple revolutionized music. A la carte programming probably isn't realistic but why not a "pick x # of channels" for a package price. At least then the customer has a greater say in what they receive. Hopefully negotiations are protracted not just on price but some new scheme that is taking the industry time to digest.

I hate paying $100 a month for 500 channels when I only watch 12 but I'd rather do that than pay $40 for 30 and 5 of the 12 I watch aren't included. That's the fundamental "gotcha" w/ bundling.

 

[8281]

Agreed...Called cable company on what would be the lowest wifi cost, dropping my TV service and it was $89.00 per month, than if I went with Apple for about $30/40 per month, I would be paying more than I am now ($111.00). Its a no go.

Holy crap, where do you live? My cheapest internet rate is around $25/ month. I pay $35.

 

[Juicy Box]

Agreed...Called cable company on what would be the lowest wifi cost, dropping my TV service and it was $89.00 per month, than if I went with Apple for about $30/40 per month, I would be paying more than I am now ($111.00). Its a no go.

Holy crap, where do you live? My cheapest internet rate is around $25/ month. I pay $35.

I think his situation is less common than most of us, but I could be wrong. $89 for the cheapest internet seems way higher than anything I have seen so far.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Indeed.

And I wonder if Steve Jobs felt the same. I'm not sure his heart was in tv at the end of the day. When you think that it's almost all lowest common denominator, it doesn't inspire respect. I think he probably thought it was the next logical step, but music was his baby.

It's interesting how Job did always treat video as a red headed step-child. I think he did believe that music had a greater effect on society. That was his generation. Today video & music is equally vapid. Jobs was as much about making his mark as making money. The current Apple Execs seem to be content with just making money.

 

[Scarpad]

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.

Yeah I'm buggin paying $20 for sling tv givien that there is limited on demand and no dvr functionality, the era of Live tv except for very few things is over, I only have sling now so I can catch Fear the walking dead when it premieres next week

 

[BruiserB]

Everyone keeps slamming Apple for these delays, but until the content providers are willing to play ball we're not going to get the TV package. Still I hope Apple releases the new hardware, cleans up the user interface, and opens an App Store. Once different creative entertainment apps start showing up that pull eyeballs from traditional TV, maybe it would induce a fear of missing out in the providers and spur them on in providing content.

 

[Kid Red]

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.

No, the point of cutting the cable is to pay for a smaller number of channels that you will actually watch. I have 200+ channels for DirecTV and I only watch maybe 12 but had to get 200+ to get 1-2 channels that I had to have. They force you buy 50 channels to get that 1 must have channel.

Apple lowering the cost of live TV is EXACTLY the digital revolution I was hoping for.

 

[millerlite]

I shouldn't be surprised seeing the talk on a tech site saying Netflix is a serious competitor to AppleTV. I assume people here don't watch local programming or sports or any live programming??

 

[Scarpad]

comcast is just going to make internet only tiers so expensive that it will make sense to choose one of their double play bundles. until apple can partner with or acquire a broadband partner I have a hard time believing it will be worth it. Sling at $20 is probably the best OTT option right now. Sling + HD antennae + HBO Now = $35. But 75 MB broadband from XFINITY is about $77 + tax. At over $100 you are in their double play territory.

Right but the ability to turn programming on and off at random without incurring a program change fee is priceless. If I want to get sling until walking Dead is over and get it back when it returns I can do that easily

 

[Scarpad]

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.

I have the TiVo OTA and its nice, I'll stick with it until Xbox One gets its dvr service off the ground next year

 

[Michael Scrip]

No, the point of cutting the cable is to pay for a smaller number of channels that you will actually watch. I have 200+ channels for DirecTV and I only watch maybe 12 but had to get 200+ to get 1-2 channels that I had to have. They force you buy 50 channels to get that 1 must have channel.

Apple lowering the cost of live TV is EXACTLY the digital revolution I was hoping for.

It's cute that you think your bill would be lower if you only had to pay for 12 specific channels...

 

[justjax]

While it'll be exicting if and when the service launches and ATV moves perhaps to being less of a side project, I suspect that anyone outside the U.S will still have little reason to buy a ATV unless you confuse/purchase all your media on iTunes.

The channel/app line-up for Apple TV in the UK is pityfull. Netflix and NowTV, no terrestrial channels (BBC, ITV, C4 or C5). While a smaller 'cable' style package would be welcomed in the US, its probably let of an issue here and I think most would just want a service/streaming box that has all the main players so Amazon Instant Video, Netflix, NowTV, BBC, ITV, C4 and C5. Roku almost has it all, but Amazon is missing in the UK ..which still annoys the heck out of me as its on the US Roku boxes).

 

[jarrodbcecil]

None of this matters as long as ISPs have (relatively) low bandwidth caps in place. 300GB for a family, with high speed internet, and Netflix/AmazonPrime/AppleTV etc is just not enough.

 

[malexandria]

I think his situation is less common than most of us, but I could be wrong. $89 for the cheapest internet seems way higher than anything I have seen so far.

More common than you think - especially if you live in/near a major city. My Internet only cost would be $89 as well.

 

[cooloregon]

They just keep dragging their feet. $40/mo + cable payment......

 

[BruiserBear]

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

Exactly. $40 a month will be dead on arrival. They have to have lower priced tiers, like SlingTV's $20 option.

 

[lukelook]

I thought Apple was releasing their own TV...

They were actively researching a TV, but scrapped it over a year ago. http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-apples-move-to-shelve-tv-plans-1431992617

Gene Munster was definitely upset about that, considering he's been forecasting one for some time:
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/05/19/gene-munster-apple-television-set/