Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Looking for TV Networks to Bear Streaming Costs for Upcoming TV Service

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,179
38,960



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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/04/01/apple-tv-service-networks-costs/
There's been countless TV and TV service rumors for almost a decade now.

Wake me up when any of this comes to fruition.
 
Though streaming services aren't overly expensive, at approximately 5 cents per hour per stream,
Click to expand...

Way more expensive than legacy methods of getting content around the world.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
MacRumors said:
Apple is hoping that if programmers provide the streams, Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon will be less likely to "penalize Apple's service."
Click to expand...

This sounds like the more likely reason over "infrastructure concerns".
 
No. Apples for massive data centres and ability to do this. This is likely solely a negotiating tactic
 
levitynyc said:
There's been countless TV and TV service rumors for almost a decade now.

Wake me up when any of this comes to fruition.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just excited, but my advice is not to fall asleep just yet. Based solely on the same articles we're all reading, I feel we're getting close.
 
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.)
 
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.
 
$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.
 
bushido said:
$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.
Click to expand...

Yea Europe really isn't comparable to us market pricing

Similar to gas price vice versa
 
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.
 
TheRealTVGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
tmanto02 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

----------
justmewhoelse said:
Wow this is how Cook takes the lead? Not the Apple of Jobs is it? Of iTunes and music? Nope.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dumastudetto said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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