Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
52,211
13,851



For its upcoming streaming TV service, Apple is asking its content partners to take on the job of streaming television shows and movies to its customers, reports Re/code. Rather than hosting streaming content itself, Apple is requesting that its partners build out the necessary infrastructure and take on the related costs.
Apple is asking TV networks to handle the responsibility and cost of the streaming infrastructure associated with its Web video service, industry executives say. That issue is one of many unresolved questions about the proposed service, which Apple would like to launch next fall but can't until it lines up programming deals.
Negotiations for the streaming service are reportedly being conducted by iTunes chief Eddy Cue, who has told networks and potential partners that Apple wants to concentrate on software and hardware, areas where it excels, while leaving infrastructure concerns in the hands of people who are better suited to handle it.

apple_tv_weather.jpg
According to Re/code, the request isn't unusual because content that users stream from existing Apple TV channels and iOS apps is handled by the networks that provide the content, through partnerships with content delivery networks like EdgeCast. Though streaming services aren't overly expensive, at approximately 5 cents per hour per stream, the idea of dealing with the demand of an Apple television service available to millions has "given executives pause."

In addition to leaving infrastructure concerns to those with more experience, a source that spoke to Re/code believes that it's also possible Apple is hoping that if programmers provide the streams, Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon will be less likely to "penalize Apple's service."

Apple is rumored to be working with several partners on its upcoming streaming service, including CBS, ABC, Fox, Discovery, Disney, and Viacom. It may include around 25 channels, and pricing is said to be in the range of $30 to $40. The streaming service may make its debut in June at the 2015 Worldwide Developers Conference ahead of a fall launch.

Article Link: Apple Looking for TV Networks to Bear Streaming Costs for Upcoming TV Service
 

levitynyc

macrumors 65816
Aug 19, 2006
1,107
3,273
There's been countless TV and TV service rumors for almost a decade now.

Wake me up when any of this comes to fruition.
 
Comment

William Gates

macrumors 6502
Oct 26, 2007
348
932
Though streaming services aren't overly expensive, at approximately 5 cents per hour per stream,

Way more expensive than legacy methods of getting content around the world.
 
Comment

dumastudetto

macrumors 68040
Aug 28, 2013
3,609
4,515
I believe strongly that within 18 months a subscription to an Apple TV service will be an essential purchase for anyone who wants to enjoy the very best content in their homes. These are exciting times for both Apple and consumers alike.
 
Comment

TheRealTVGuy

macrumors 6502a
Jul 21, 2010
674
1,055
Orlando, FL
This seems like a good place to start negotiations. Apple brings the eyeballs, in part because of their user interface and easy integration into the Apple ecosystem, and the content producers bring, well, the content and its delivery method.

I can see some less-informed consumers being upset with their AppleTVs though if a particular stream is down/slow due to a content provider not having adequate bandwidth/availability.
 
Comment

gugy

macrumors 68040
Jan 31, 2005
3,473
4,345
La Jolla, CA
I hope Apple can succeed and find a way to distribute content and change the industry.
Also, it's a major thing the option to get live sports. I can't cut the cable until that is a reality.
 
Comment

thmshale

macrumors member
Jun 18, 2013
31
10
Texas
Apple is hoping that if programmers provide the streams, Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon will be less likely to "penalize Apple's service."

This sounds like the more likely reason over "infrastructure concerns".
 
Comment

newdeal

macrumors 68020
Oct 21, 2009
2,408
1,527
No. Apples for massive data centres and ability to do this. This is likely solely a negotiating tactic
 
Comment

TheRealTVGuy

macrumors 6502a
Jul 21, 2010
674
1,055
Orlando, FL
Although I wish Apple would roll out a service similar to Google Fiber. I think those folks are paying $30-$40/month for Gigabit fiber service in their homes.

Then you could cut out the cord AND the evil cable companies. (I'm looking at YOU Comcast.)
 
Comment

kmanmx

macrumors 6502
Feb 25, 2011
493
136
UK
Ugh, it's a little perplexing that Apple is concerned over CDN costs. Considering the amount of and rate at which they are building enormous data centers, you'd have thought a streaming video service would be a walk in the park for Apple.

I thought Apple liked to control as much as they can with regards to their products too.
 
Comment

bushido

Suspended
Mar 26, 2008
8,070
2,754
Germany
$40 to stream 25 channels??? that's more than I pay for unlimited 100mbit Internet plus premium cable HD TV with 60+ channels combined over here.

I am guessing US Only then cuz it wouldn't make any sense over here.
 
Comment

gotluck

macrumors 603
Dec 8, 2011
5,673
1,074
East Central Florida
$40 to stream 25 channels??? that's more than I pay for unlimited 100mbit Internet plus premium cable HD TV with 60+ channels combined over here.

I am guessing US Only then cuz it wouldn't make any sense over here.

Yea Europe really isn't comparable to us market pricing

Similar to gas price vice versa
 
Comment

usarioclave

macrumors 65816
Sep 26, 2003
1,447
1,506
The networks should want to handle the streaming so they can cross-reference the streaming IP addresses with other databases. If Apple handles the streams the networks probably won't be able to get that data.

Although streaming yourself might make the ad revenue from streaming more lucrative because of IP address tracking, but I doubt that the broadcast networks will be able to handle that kind of load anytime soon.
 
Comment

tmanto02

macrumors 65816
Jun 5, 2011
1,168
370
Australia
I can see some less-informed consumers being upset with their AppleTVs though if a particular stream is down/slow due to a content provider not having adequate bandwidth/availability.
and rightly so. To the consumer they are receiving a service from Apple, of which they are paying Apple, and using Apple hardware.

If the service were to slow like you said the consumer has every right to blame Apple and its their responsibility to fix it.
 
Comment

Multiverse223

macrumors regular
Mar 16, 2015
212
3
Live sports could be so much better in the future. How about a design which allows for extensions or menus that can be closed or opened seamlessly, for example you could remove all on screen content and place that information on an Watch glance, so you could have a 100% clean display, and simply raise your wrist or press a button to see the current scores or stats, including far more stats than ever before. Apps designed specifically for live sports, etc. ability to mute commentators, change camera angles, etc etc. There's a lot of possibility.
 
Comment

TheRealTVGuy

macrumors 6502a
Jul 21, 2010
674
1,055
Orlando, FL
and rightly so. To the consumer they are receiving a service from Apple, of which they are paying Apple, and using Apple hardware.

If the service were to slow like you said the consumer has every right to blame Apple and its their responsibility to fix it.

Therefore, I imagine there will be some strong QoS guarantees that content providers will be asked to ensure.

----------

Wow this is how Cook takes the lead? Not the Apple of Jobs is it? Of iTunes and music? Nope.

There are some differences here now though. The television industry is not in the same free-fall as the record industry was during the Napster era when the iTunes music store launched. Even with Satellite TV, and products from the local telephone company, many consumers don't really have a choice where their TV comes from, and are forced between one or two providers. It's not quite a monopoly, but the consumers aren't really seeing much benefit. Basically, the cable companies (who provide most of the internet into peoples homes and control what networks are on their systems) have no reason to want to play ball with Apple, or make it easier for networks like ESPN to join Apple's new service, bypassing the cable company. This is one of the reasons that until there is a third way to get high-speed internet into your home, I foresee either limited services like this rumored Apple service, or increased charges for high-speed internet into your home.

Plus, everyone sees how well Apple's done in the music business with the iTunes store and if they DO negotiate with Apple, want to keep more of the money for themselves.
 
Comment

2457282

Suspended
Dec 6, 2012
3,327
3,014
I believe strongly that within 18 months a subscription to an Apple TV service will be an essential purchase for anyone who wants to enjoy the very best content in their homes. These are exciting times for both Apple and consumers alike.

Thanks Tim, we are excited about this too. I still think a fully a la cart option would be great with a package option for those that want to purchase multiple and get some sort of discount.

Other than that keep up the good work, leave politics to others, and bring on the watch next week.
 
Comment

unplugme71

macrumors 68030
May 20, 2011
2,827
754
Earth
You do realize you get over 20 stations with TWC for $20 and over 70 for $40. Why would I pay $40 on ATV to get 25???

I agree, Apple shouldn't be streaming the content. Apple should just provide the interface to do so.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.