Apple Luring TV Content Partners With Promises of Data Sharing

[mattopotamus]

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?

The rumors have been local channels plus ESPN/Disney channels. Not enough to justify $30-$40. The only way I see a-la-carte working is with premium channels.

 

[Bare]

Ads aren't good, but we put up with them everywhere else, so I don't see it as a big surprise.

False. Netflix doesn't have advertisements that interrupt programming. And at least if I have a contract with a traditional cable provider, I can get a DVR and fast-forward through all the ads.

I'd expect ads with something free like Youtube, but why would I sign up for a paid subscription to a digital content provider that forces me to sit through ads, as well?

 

[BJMRamage]

I think the price is too much (yes, i don't have the full list of channels) but this plus the price that my internet would end up without a bundle, then add to that the Internet Data Cap and pausing Streaming service from my 105 Mbps Comcast/Xfinity and I don't see this as a benefit to me.


Now, add in the Personal Data....but wait, what if, this is when a show was watched, whether it is LIVE or via On-Demand. This allows the networks to see how popular a show is. I was a Neilson Family and though this was with connected tracking devices (not a pencil and paper like it was years ago) it was still not the best at actually tracking. and didn't take into account onDemand.

And, this probably allows the channels to understand more about the viewing habits of the channels already on it. I like certain shows and miss them on TV, and if not on OnDemand, try the AppleTV to see if it is there.

I am not too sure how Apple can get the personal information some think it will have. Apple won't know my age, or sex or anything, I can't see Apple requesting A/S/L before it allows me to watch an AppleTV Channel. Apple doesn't read your emails like Google scans them. But I surely understand they know what shows have been watched by AppleTV viewing. now, they offer that info to the Channels to better understand.

 

[Thunderhawks]

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.

Hope people read this and understand it!
Why would I have my panties in a twist if somebody knew that I am watching a certain show regularly?

The networks and cable companies have that data also and use it. (via families who have additional boxes connected to their TVs)

It's not exactly as if ABC gets a message: Peter Smith was watching "Frozen" on Sunday March 16 at 12:03 p.m. and now he gets inundated with offers to buy Frozen lunch boxes etc.

 

[JoEw]

Not having ads on this service seems unrealistic, as much as I hate ads it is just a given. especially if this service were to get really popular, companies would be kicking themselves for not negotiating advertising.

$30-40 is asking a lot though, this needs to be a good channel list. People non-stop bitch at hulu for charging 8 dollars w/ads.

 

[nt5672]

. . . And at least if I have a contract with a traditional cable provider, I can get a DVR and fast-forward through all the ads.
. . . .

I have a DVR for over-the-air tv, no contract, no monthly fee and can skip commercials just fine. Yes, there are a couple of HBO series I would watch, some from the History Channel, etc., but in the end they are just not worth the cost of the bundling.

The great thing about capitalism, is that if you are not happy with the product you don't have to buy it. If enough people turned off, then the providers would have to do things differently. But sadly, most people are happy being spoon fed. We, however, would rather be outside, hiking, walking, at the neighbors, dining out, reading, playing games, etc.

I can't imagine setting through a couple of hours of TV and therefor watching about 40 minutes of commercials. I was really surprised when a 30 minute TV program could be watched in 20 minutes by skipping commercials. What a waste of time sitting on the couch with 33% of your time going to watching useless commercials.

 

[dragje]

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.

Event though your view on this is open for debate and not a fact on it's own, it's not where this discussion is really about. Even if advertisements do know till certain degree what people "tend" to do it's not an argument to willingly give away every bit of private data. You can also state: enough is enough on the question what advertisers should get.

Last point, stating that someone is lying is not a way to have a discussion i.m.h.o.

 

[eoblaed]

But, but, but....Apple doesn't store your data. Oh NO!

They don't need to store data for this.

Also, this could easily be implemented so that it's only active when using the paid streaming service.

This is not something I'd be using. More than happy to continue using my Apple TV as an on-demand rent/purchase device.

 

[tbrinkma]

Very $lippery $lope.

... ranting snipped for space...

Yep, yep, yep! The *very* slippery slope of Nielsen Ratings data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings

indeed.

 

[Slarti.BartFast]

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.

Hi, narcissistic princess here, if Apple sell my data, then I stop buying their s4it, it is that simple ! - I don't want adverts and I'm sure as hell I'm not going to PAY for the privilege of being data mined !

BTW "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."

I don't know anybody THAT SAD - people buy newspapers and magazines to read the news and articles, they tolerate the ads, nothing more...

 

[VulchR]

I really hate adverts, so unless I can fast-forward them, I'm not interested. Perhaps Apple should just bite the bullet and buy some of these entertainment companies....

 

[dragje]

Not having ads on this service seems unrealistic,

Why?

It all depends on how much a customer is willing to pay for it. Just make it an option.

as much as I hate ads it is just a given.

It's certainly not. I don't remember seeing commercials on HBO or on Netflix when watching programs. As for live television productions you might expect commercials but after and before a program starts. I never watch commercial television here in Holland because movies do have commercial breaks and that means I simply not going to watch that movie.

We have enough public channels that also comes with live broadcast and movies and the commercial breaks always comes before and after a movie of live television.

especially if this service were to get really popular, companies would be kicking themselves for not negotiating advertising.

HBO is popular but I didn't recall seeing ads...... neither did I see any ads within popular program's down here in The Netherlands. So, it is possible.

$30-40 is asking a lot though, this needs to be a good channel list. People non-stop bitch at hulu for charging 8 dollars w/ads.

I love to get Hulu but without ads, even tough 8 dollar is a reasonable prize to pay for that service. But I can't get it in Europe....

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Not having ads on this service seems unrealistic, as much as I hate ads it is just a given. especially if this service were to get really popular, companies would be kicking themselves for not negotiating advertising.

I looked it up a few years ago. National TV advertising revenue vs. number of U.S. Households = about $54 per month per household, meaning if every single home in America would agree to pay $54 per month, they could wash all TV advertising.

Of course, that $54 would only pay to replace the revenue (subsidy) realized from the commercials. None of that pays for even 1 channel.

That written, now consider it against this...

$30-40 is asking a lot though, this needs to be a good channel list. People non-stop bitch at hulu for charging 8 dollars w/ads.

...and ONE problem with the al-a-carte dream with or without the subsidy of commercials gains great clarity. If $30-$40 is "a lot", we desperately need more subsidy revenue to make up for the difference vs. the approx. $73/month the average cable subscriber pays now.

And if we want al-a-carte, commercial-free without dramatically cutting the quality, breadth & depth of our favorite programming, the monthly bill needs to start at $54 for zero channels... which is more than "a lot". Too many al-a-carte dreamers think it can somehow arrive at something like Netflix $8/month pricing. But even Netflix is trying to up the pricing because even their model as is can't sustain without making more monthly revenue.

Instead, so many of us keep thinking we can get everything we want for very little but still expect the quality and volume of what we want to keep coming... the motivation for new shows we'll want to add to our "what I want to watch" list in the future to keep coming too... and we expect Apple to get theirs while the broadband pipe owners like Comcast, etc roll over and let Apple take it without making up for losses with higher broadband rates.

It's such a mess as soon as we dig in below the glow of the dream.

 

[d4rkc4sm]

and bittorrent is still the only attractive option, and you wonder why

 

[GoodWatch]

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.

Says the princess of Apple apologists..... Now what if Google would come up with such a scheme? I know the what the replies would be: don't sell your soul to Satan

 

[goobot]

False. Netflix doesn't have advertisements that interrupt programming. And at least if I have a contract with a traditional cable provider, I can get a DVR and fast-forward through all the ads.

I'd expect ads with something free like Youtube, but why would I sign up for a paid subscription to a digital content provider that forces me to sit through ads, as well?

It's in reality no different than the Internet, you pay for the pipe to bring you the content, the ads pay for the content its self. The bill you pay for Internet is the pipe and the ads on YouTube pay for the content.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yep, yep, yep! The *very* slippery slope of Nielsen Ratings data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings

indeed.

Oh, you showed me. Show Apple how compromising their stance on consumer data makes them more money and we're certain they'll draw the line at nothing more than Nielsen-like data. Why would Apple not want to pursue more money from such data monetization when chunks of their base can already rationalize any such actions? After all, it has to be harmless if Apple is doing it.

But Google (doing the same kind of thing) is still evil for doing so. They're just further down that same slope.

 

[djgamble]

First they took away Ping, then they took away the 4" iPhone, then they started giving your data away!

So they're becoming Google now? Damn you Apple!! WTF is happening?!?!?

With success comes other things.

 

[mozumder]

Event though your view on this is open for debate and not a fact on it's own, it's not where this discussion is really about. Even if advertisements do know till certain degree what people "tend" to do it's not an argument to willingly give away every bit of private data. You can also state: enough is enough on the question what advertisers should get.

Again, what private data are you non-complaining about?

And why would you want ads about things you don't care about, instead of ads for things you DO care about?

Last point, stating that someone is lying is not a way to have a discussion i.m.h.o.

The internet isn't here to give you a hug. If you want hugs and ego strokes, you need to go to your mom.

Besides, its well known in the advertising world that what people say and what people do are very different. Advertisers ignore what you say, and only focus on what yo do.

Advertisers are very good at cutting through the superficial garbage you put out in order to get within your head.

They know you better than you know yourself. That's their job to do so.

 

[LordBeelzebub]

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. 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.

Also, you have to take into consideration the fact that Apple is attempting to work with an industry that is impossible to work with. There's gonna be compromises to start with unfortunately. Ads aren't good, but we put up with them everywhere else, so I don't see it as a big surprise.

You make very valid points.

 

[oneMadRssn]

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 disagree to the extent I hate all ads equally, regardless of how relevant they are to the demographic I am a member of. Thank god for adblockers.

 

[dragje]

Again, what private data are you non-complaining about?

Simple data like: 1 person watched a program for 3 hours. But without mentioning my name, age and occupation for instance. I'm not afraid of giving away simple data but not based on personal level.

And why would you want ads about things you don't care about, instead of ads for things you DO care about?

Who said I get ads that I care about? On the contrary, when I search for a specific camera on Google I'm being targeted for weeks with ads about camera's. I'm not interested, not asking for it but still I get these ads. Just for the fun of it I started google for Muppets, and yes, for weeks I got ads about muppets. It's rather silly.

It's really a misconception that each individual his or her behavior can be targeted with the right kind of ads. But the main reason for disliking targeted ads is that in 99% I simply don't like to see them and in 100% of the cases I rather choose myself when looking for specific things instead of being targeted with stuff I should be interested in according to these companies. I was born with brains and I'm really eager to make use of them instead of willingly let companies decides which products are good for me or which products I should like...

The internet isn't here to give you a hug.

That's a silly approach, who was talking about hugging?

If you want hugs and ego strokes, you need to go to your mom.

Now you just get silly. Stay on topic or just leave it.

Besides, its well known in the advertising world that what people say and what people do are very different. Advertisers ignore what you say, and only focus on what yo do.

That doesn't mean they should be able to get free acces to data. I'm in advertisement myself and I can honestly say that advertisers don't ignore what people say, on the contrary, advertisers are very sensitive about people's opinions.

Advertisers are very good at cutting through the superficial garbage you put out in order to get within your head.

Now your emotions are getting you in the way. I prefer having a less aggressive conversation.

They know you better than you know yourself. That's their job to do so.

That's just paranoia talk i.m.h.o. I leave it at this because you're getting emotional upset.

 

[Fanaticalism]

how is that a lie? I sell a song on iTunes for $.99 and apple takes away about $.17 from it.

Well, may have something to do with the fact that others only get .1 and apple gets .17. So in the grand scheme of things, they make more than the industry standard.

 

[TallManNY]

I watched The Walking Dead on AMC the other day "live". I normally watch it off of iTunes after it airs, but I was home on Sunday and ready to watch it. Big mistake. The number of ads made the experience poor. There was one moment when there was only three minutes of content between stopping for ads. I will just go back to watching it off of iTunes.

I think free TV is going to become even more bloated with ads and the middle/upper class will pay for the ad free or ad reduced experience. And if Apple wants to sell my demographic information so that content providers can see who is watching their shows, that is okay with me. As long as it is basically just an effort to replace and improve on the Neilsen rating system and not some way that can be tracked back to me, my home address, my email address, or my Apple ID, then it isn't a big deal. Apple can create a system that washes the data of that sort of info.

 

[rdlink]

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?

Large screen phones were stupid before, and they're still stupid.

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.

NFC wasn't the useless gimmick. But mobile pay as implemented by Google was. Apple Pay turned it into something more elegant, consumer friendly and secure. And the point to boycotting stores that won't support Apple Pay has nothing to do with their not implementing it. It has to do with their intentions, which is to specifically remove a functionality that they've already put the infrastructure in place for, that doesn't require them to actively participate in, and that they were already supporting before the introduction of Apple Pay. But now they've removed said functionality because it is contrary to their own self interests of mining my personal data, which has nothing whatsoever to do with their core business.

<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.

<24 hours is still too short. But a watch that works better with my Apple ecosystem devices, and brings the Apple user friendly sensibility to the table would catch my attention. Is the Apple Watch for me? I don't know. But because Apple designed it and is selling it, and their track record is pretty damn good I will take a look.

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.

720p is still just fine for me.

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".

Don't really care, because I find no use for a 7.9" tablet.

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.

Google selling me as a product is still disgusting, and Google's duplicitous behaviors do make them evil in my eyes. But Apple doesn't get a pass. If they provide my information to the media companies (talk about evil) to get this off the ground they won't sell it to me.