Apple Luring TV Content Partners With Promises of Data Sharing

[Aragornii]

If none of the private data of an user will be used I'm okay with that as well.

I came hear to say the same thing. If this is Apple providing general data on what is being watched and when, then I don't have a problem with that at all. The type of data sharing I'd have a problem with is sharing specifically what I'm watching in order for someone to, for example, serve me up targeted advertising.

This package sounds like a very good start. They'd probably need a couple more sports channels to get me to ditch Dish, but it's pretty close.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I don't think this is as bad as the headline makes it sound. From the article, they're only sharing what you watch and when you watch it.

Very $lippery $lope.

I'd actually be alright with this in the case that the information helped good shows stay on air. So many good shows struggle to stay on air today because of how nobody watches anything live anymore

Ah, let the spin machine begin rationalizing why it should be OK for Apple to start harvesting and selling data on us consumers. Could we build up a list of 10-20 "good <data> curator" purposes like helping good shows stay on the air today in this thread?

Meanwhile, in other threads where Google is discussed, we'll bash them as evil to no end for collecting data on us users and monetizing it. But it's OK if Apple does it, because they will do it right.

People think too highly of themselves if they think their anonymous TV watching data should be private. Seriously, this is ANONYMOUS data. You don't lose any privacy because your identity is already removed.

Ahh, add another spinning why it will be OK for Apple to cross the personal data-sharing line. Please sirs, can we have some more?

Or could we just skip over conjuring logical arguments in favor or personal data being shared and just get on with calling those who might oppose the idea negative names...

You princesses need to stop being such narcissists. You'll get a better viewing experience that way. There are far too many narcissistic princesses complaining about things they like anyways.

...because anything Apple wants to do- even in a rumor- is OK. And when it comes to Apple or Apple consumers, the consumers are always wrong... er, I mean narcissistic princesses and similar.

All hail the Apple!

 

[Velli]

People think too highly of themselves if they think their anonymous TV watching data should be private.

Seriously, this is ANONYMOUS data. You don't lose any privacy because your identity is already removed.

You princesses need to stop being such narcissists. You'll get a better viewing experience that way.

To exemplify what this means: If you're a 20 year old male, it means you'll now get ads for video games when you watch a show, instead of ads for feminine hygiene products.

You are going to appreciate the ads for video games. Most people find useful ads useful, and are turned off by unuseful ads. That's why people pay money to buy newspapers and magazines, because they WANT the useful ads.

There are far too many narcissistic princesses complaining about things they like anyways.

No, I am not going to appreciate ads, period. And no, I certainly don't buy newspapers and magazines because I *want* the ads. I tolerate the ads, but if I could pay double to get a newspaper with no ads, I would. I already (gladly) pay for lots of services that I could get for free if I accepted ads and data mining. And while it's in no way the only reason that I use Apple hardware and services, it plays a major role. And I don't even consider myself hardcore at all when it comes to this stuff, I try to tone down the amount of ads that I'm surrounded with, and to limit the amount of data mining that I'm part of, but I don't think it's worth it being too anal about it. I still use Google Search...

 

[ActionableMango]

Seriously, this is ANONYMOUS data.

I'm sorry, have you seen the privacy statement for this service yet? If not, then you don't know that it is ANONYMOUS data and I don't know how you could state that as fact.

Currently the best available information we have about this rumored service is the article itself, which directly contradicts what you are claiming:

Apple is planning to share details on who viewers are

I'd love to see the source for your claim that this rumored TV service is definitely only sharing ANONYMOUS data.

 

[Lord Hamsa]

Ads? No thanks. If I'm paying for a streaming service, there shouldn't be any ads.

Personally, I think the content providers need to consider a two-tier approach:

1) Basic Access (free/low cost) includes ads
2) Premium Access is ad-free

If the consumer is willing to pay enough to cover the lost ad revenue in order to not watch ads, that's a win/win for both provider and consumer. (But not ad agencies.)

Onto this rumor - and it's just that, a rumor - I agree that with Apple's recent push on privacy, it would be insane for them to throw that away just to make this deal. If it's true, it's most likely anonymized data for the content providers to determine how to market their shows and which ads to show.

Frankly, an ad that directly targets things the viewer is interested in is better for the provider, the advertiser, and for the consumer. In the broadcast model, I get annoyed by ads for things I would never even be remotely in the market for. If ads are tailored to their audience, then they're worth more, the advertiser is happier because they know they're making impressions on the right people, the viewer might actually watch them, and the provider can make the same money showing fewer commercials.

Far better all around than the shotgun-style, aim for the dominant demographic and ignore the rest model that is used in broadcast.

 

[Oletros]

It is funny the contrast between this thread and others regarding other companies

 

[dragje]

Why? If you pay for cable you still get ads. That's just how it works for most channels. I don't expect this to change that part.

Why? If you pay for HBO you don't get adds, and all tough public channels here in Holland do have commercial breaks it's always between program's not within. And for good reason, ads are highly irritating i.m.h.o.
We even have a program where a journalist is interviewing a guest and that program last for three (!) hours without any commercial break. I love that.

So, if you pay for a service then no adds would be great. At least offer a possibility for that. Same with apps, many apps are for free, but if you pay for it the ads will be removed, I love that concept. Ads are distracting and annoying and does;t give me a good experience when watching a program. So yeah, I find ghettochris his comment quite understandable.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

By dangling the "data carrot," Apple is offering something that traditional cable companies, Amazon and Netflix have refused to hand over to programmers.

Netflix just uses its data to create content to compete with content providers.

Very poor long term value proposition for current content providers.

 

[2bikes]

If the price rumors are true this has no advantage over the cable companies. Why would I pay $30-$40 for local channels...

I keep reading similar comments. Does anybody know the 25 channels that was mentioned in the first rumor? Only 4-5 were named. Did I miss the other ones?

 

[nick42983]

I love my Apple TV, but this doesn't really interest me. $30-40 for 25 channels seems pretty high, depending on the channels. I doubt that includes any premium movie channels. Maybe it is just me but I do not get it.

I agree, tack on HBO GO and you're paying $45-55 for 26 channels. As I wrote in another reply, best case that I see is Apple eventually replacing Comcast, better interface, not necessarily better customer service, $120+ for the channels that many people want. Not really revolutionary. Even if Apple wanted to they're not going to get the content providers to give people most of what they want for under $100.

 

[dragje]

I came hear to say the same thing. If this is Apple providing general data on what is being watched and when, then I don't have a problem with that at all. The type of data sharing I'd have a problem with is sharing specifically what I'm watching in order for someone to, for example, serve me up targeted advertising.

I don't mind that companies will get basic data from me that I can't qualify as private, but if possible I do prefer watching channels without ads. If that would be an option, let's say one or two dollar (euro's in my case) more then I'll certainly consider such an option.

This package sounds like a very good start. They'd probably need a couple more sports channels to get me to ditch Dish, but it's pretty close.

Yeps, it does. However it remains a question for me if this package will be broadcasted in Europe as well.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

In my situation, I want to cut out satellite, however, would like to have options outside of just the OTA local stations. So, an a la carte option would be fantastic, however, none of the streaming services are going that route at the moment.

I would like AMC, Velocity, Discovery, ESPN, Nick, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, BBC America, USA and CW. That is literally all my family watches. But there is no viable solution for us without buying multiple packages from HULU, Netflix and Sling TV. After all of that, its still just cheaper to pay 80 bucks to DirecTV and get the other 200 channels we don't give a flip about.

Best possible way to (realistically) get what you want right now: program your favorites list in DirecTV to only show those 12 or so channels. Hide all of the others. Then it's guide will display only those channels you want to watch while keeping the subsidy of commercials running on all those other channels you'll never see (which helps pay for content on your favorites) AND won't cost what is likely to be the higher prices of some al-a-carte dream brought to reality. Your broadband rate shouldn't go up since you would not be killing the cableTV revenues of the cableTV + broadband provider. And the end result is otherwise pretty close to exactly what you want.

What's not there? Huge discount because you're not paying for 1XX channels you never watch. But that's not really there now. It's not 200 channels at $100 = 50 cents per channel. I only want 15 channels so my al-a-carte bill should be 15 times 50 cents each = $7.50 per month.

If there ever is a true al-a-carte replacement, expect individual channel pricing to be modeled such that the $100 we used to pay for 200 channels is replaced by about $130 to get the 10-20 channels we want al-a-carte. Nobody else in the chain- including Apple- want to convert a cash flow of about $73 per month on average to something like $7.50 or $15 or even $25. What everyone else wants in some "new model" is a way to go from $73 to something more-to-much-more than $73. Show them THAT and they'll move quickly to switch to some new model.

 

[2457282]

Looks like Apple can't take the high road when it comes to selling data anymore. What a shame.

To be clear, that's if this actually happens.

I buy Apple specifically because I am not thier product. If this changes, I have to rethink my purchasing decisions. 'Nough said.

 

[rekhyt]

What happened to Apple's stance on data sharing?

 

[rdlink]

People think too highly of themselves if they think their anonymous TV watching data should be private.

Seriously, this is ANONYMOUS data. You don't lose any privacy because your identity is already removed.

You princesses need to stop being such narcissists. You'll get a better viewing experience that way.

To exemplify what this means: If you're a 20 year old male, it means you'll now get ads for video games when you watch a show, instead of ads for feminine hygiene products.

You are going to appreciate the ads for video games. Most people find useful ads useful, and are turned off by unuseful ads. That's why people pay money to buy newspapers and magazines, because they WANT the useful ads.

There are far too many narcissistic princesses complaining about things they like anyways.

Rant much? Sorry, but you're 180 degrees wrong. If I buy my gf some lingerie on Victoria's Secret does that mean that I want every site I go to (including MacRumors) to plaster VS ad banners all over the place? No. But it happens. Targeted advertising sucks. Period.

 

[iAshley]

Give me spotify for television and I'm yours. With no ads.

 

[dragje]

Give me spotify for television and I'm yours. With no ads.

That would be heaven.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Seriously, this is ANONYMOUS data. You don't lose any privacy because your identity is already removed.

LOL - Good luck with that.

 

[dragje]

Rant much? Sorry, but you're 180 degrees wrong. If I buy my gf some lingerie on Victoria's Secret does that mean that I want every site I go to (including MacRumors) to plaster VS ad banners all over the place? No. But it happens. Targeted advertising sucks. Period.

I 100% agree with this.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It is funny the contrast between this thread and others regarding other companies

It's really nothing new:

bigger screen smart phones were "abominations", "stupid", "99.9% don't want" until Apple rolls out bigger screen phones. Where are all those man purses and pants with bigger pockets?

NFC was "useless", a "gimmick", etc until Apple rolls out Apple Pay and then we want to boycott stores that won't let us pay that way.

<24 Hour battery life for a smart watch was "useless", "stupid", etc when that was one limitation of the latest Samsung smart watch but is getting spun toward the positive now that Apple's shares that same limitation.

720p was "good enough", "1080p is a gimmick", until the whole internet has the bandwidth for 1080p, until ever single show & movie in the iTunes store is available at 1080p, "the chart", "human eyes can't see the difference" etc while Apple clung to 720p MAX in prior generations of Apple TV. Then they rolled out the 3rd generation which pretty-much only differed from the 2nd generation by adding 1080p and boom, all those "720p is good enough" arguments seemed to evaporate.

and one of my favorites: retina on a 9.7" iPad screen makes it a must-have upgrade for that sharper screen but you don't need retina on a 7.9" iPad Mini 1 because the smaller screen doesn't need retina... until of course iPad Mini 2 rolls out with retina and then it was the signature reason to "upgrade".

I can't tell you how many times I've seen the customer data monetization by Google being used as rationale for why they are "evil". However, here's just a rumor of Apple possibly getting into that and we're "saving good shows from cancellation" and similar.

If there's one thing you can count on around here is consistency- not consistency of opinion, but consistency in whatever Apple wants to do is right, even if it goes against what Apple was doing yesterday. I think Apple could roll out a product that kills people and about 10 guys here would probably try to spin that as the world is too crowded anyway.

 

[Bokes]

How is this any better than straight cable?
I honestly do not understand the advantage to "cutting the cord".
Instead of paying a cable company- you pay Netflix or Hulu or Amazon Prime or all three....MLB or NFL or NHL apps if you're a sport fan.... and now maybe HBO...plus you still need the high speed internet service.

Not too mention most channel apps will not work on Atv without a current cable sub.

You pay the same- if not more $$$ and lose live programing.

It's almost cheaper to just BUY individual shows off iTunes vs paying for all these services. That way you get what you want- watch when you want and no fear of it being deleted. Hulu and Netflix get rid of stuff all the time.

 

[mozumder]

LOL - Good luck with that.

because media companies give a **** about your non-anonymous data.

 

[Glideslope]

People think too highly of themselves if they think their anonymous TV watching data should be private.

Seriously, this is ANONYMOUS data. You don't lose any privacy because your identity is already removed.

You princesses need to stop being such narcissists. You'll get a better viewing experience that way.

To exemplify what this means: If you're a 20 year old male, it means you'll now get ads for video games when you watch a show, instead of ads for feminine hygiene products.

You are going to appreciate the ads for video games. Most people find useful ads useful, and are turned off by unuseful ads. That's why people pay money to buy newspapers and magazines, because they WANT the useful ads.

There are far too many narcissistic princesses complaining about things they like anyways.

I bow to you Master.

 

[absessive]

My thoughts exactly. And we wound still have to pay for Internet service, most likely from the cable company. They could just jack up prices for Internet service if we don't get a TV package as well.

In most cases its often more economical to bundle it, isnt that why many of us are still on cable?

 

[mozumder]

No, I am not going to appreciate ads, period. And no, I certainly don't buy newspapers and magazines because I *want* the ads. I tolerate the ads, but if I could pay double to get a newspaper with no ads, I would. I already (gladly) pay for lots of services that I could get for free if I accepted ads and data mining. And while it's in no way the only reason that I use Apple hardware and services, it plays a major role. And I don't even consider myself hardcore at all when it comes to this stuff, I try to tone down the amount of ads that I'm surrounded with, and to limit the amount of data mining that I'm part of, but I don't think it's worth it being too anal about it. I still use Google Search...

You don't have to say anything. Advertisers already know that you're lying.

This isn't about what you say, but what you do, and advertisers already know what you do.