I agree.
Well, as you said, not right now.... I honestly do think that at some point there is no way back and that TV channels streaming will be much cheaper.
But I agree that this is not the case at this moment.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Luring TV Content Partners With Promises of Data Sharing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree.
Well, as you said, not right now.... I honestly do think that at some point there is no way back and that TV channels streaming will be much cheaper.
But I agree that this is not the case at this moment.
How can anyone be shocked by this data sharing promise? We've all known Apple long enough to know they are a greedy bunch... just like any other corporation.
Apple's stance on users privacy is not on principle, but a business facade. With the NSA revelations, they realized they could use it to lure customers. Now, when they realize they can make money by betraying customer's privacy, they will sell them out without thinking twice about it.
Blindly trusting Apple? huge mistake.
Apple's stance on users privacy is not on principle, but a business facade. With the NSA revelations, they realized they could use it to lure customers. Now, when they realize they can make money by betraying customer's privacy, they will sell them out without thinking twice about it.
Blindly trusting Apple? huge mistake.
How do you think they track you across multiple properties/platform?
Why do you think Google is so successful at it?
Do the content producers get ANY data at all?
I'm not sure I'd put my content on Netflix if I wasn't allowed to know IF anyone was even watching it.
That people believe Apple didn't already do this is laughable to say the least.
----------
And of course, you believe them
No, not sell it, share it. Things change, I guess.
----------
But I don't get violated by Google, so why should I care? Its such a tired argument.
I guess for me it depends on what data they share. If they want to share what TV shows and movies I watch, I don't really care. If they share personal data about who I am and what my interests are, then I am less inclined to partake.
For me it's not a compelling service because of local sports. I can make do with their handful of channels, but I'm not going without my Giants/Warriors/Sharks games.
For me it's not a compelling service because of local sports. I can make do with their handful of channels, but I'm not going without my Giants/Warriors/Sharks games.
It's about time. The current system doesn't take into account streaming services such as netflix , Hulu etc. a lot of people time shift content but using DVRs and aforementioned streaming services.
Tivo? That's so 2002. Nowadays there are better ways to watch a show without ads and in better quality.
Apples cable-killing TV service will reportedly come with a major downside
http://bgr.com/2015/03/17/apple-tv-service-viewer-data/
A subscription TV service from Apple is an exciting proposition, but when television networks get involved, compromises must be made. The New York Post has learned that Apple is offering potential partners access to viewer data from its service if they agree to bring their networks on board.
http://bgr.com/2015/03/17/apple-tv-service-viewer-data/
A subscription TV service from Apple is an exciting proposition, but when television networks get involved, compromises must be made. The New York Post has learned that Apple is offering potential partners access to viewer data from its service if they agree to bring their networks on board.
You want proof??
http://bgr.com/2015/03/17/apple-tv-service-viewer-data/
A subscription TV service from Apple is an exciting proposition, but when television networks get involved, compromises must be made. The New York Post has learned that Apple is offering potential partners access to viewer data from its service if they agree to bring their networks on board.
http://bgr.com/2015/03/17/apple-tv-service-viewer-data/
A subscription TV service from Apple is an exciting proposition, but when television networks get involved, compromises must be made. The New York Post has learned that Apple is offering potential partners access to viewer data from its service if they agree to bring their networks on board.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple could buy TiVo. This way they have a unique way of users rating shows which results in them being given the right types of adverts and shows to watch.
What about talking about??/ MS already beat Apple to it with Sling.
For 20 bucks a month.
Best of Live TV Package
The best of live TV and sports, plus new movies, breaking news, and more. With ESPN, TNT, TBS, AMC, Adult Swim, Disney Channel, Food Network, HGTV, Cartoon Network, and others. Featuring SportsCenter, NBA on TNT, Chopped, Property Brothers, Adventure Time, and so much more!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The key to making the money in TV advertising is the idea that eyeballs are likely to see the ads. Group them all at the beginning of a show and that probably becomes all those eyeball's bathroom break. Might as well suggest that all of the ads are moved to their own all-ads, all-the-time channels. I think TV advertising in the age of ad-skipping DVRs must move into the programming (as some of it has). Even breaking shows up every 10-15 minutes for ads seems like an eventual casualty of DVR technology.
The bulk of the entire model exists to show the ads, NOT the programming. The programming is just the lure in hopes that eyes will see the ads. I think we consumers get confused about that.
Think it through. If we assume that the cost of content production remains the same, the big substitution is an Apple for- say- a Comcast. Is Apple going to become the new middleman for much cheaper than a Comcast charges to be the current middleman? Is Apple known for thin margins... or thinner margins than a Comcasts? Why do we think they would take the hit (doing Comcasts job for a lot less than Comcast would bill the current model) here?
If we don't see Apple taking the hit, where is the savings to deliver "much cheaper"? Well, if you don't get it in the distributor (middleman) then the content-making end has to deliver their content for "much cheaper". How do they do that and maintain or improve the quality of programming they provide? If "much cheaper" is as people want it- 75%-95% off their monthly cost- do we really think a Game of Thrones or Big Bang Theory get produced for 75%-95% less cost? Or does the quality and breadth & depth of programming run toward the cheaper production model of reality television and/or YouTube-like programming quality?
If the artists on the other end of the chain don't take the hit and Apple substituting in for a middleman like Comcast doesn't take the hit, where does the "much cheaper" come from?
And even if we have an answer for that, why doesn't a Comcast, etc raise broadband rates to make up for any losses to their cableTV revenues when the "new model" entirely depends on broadband connections?
Last edited:
That's your proof? a rumor of an unreleased service? LMAO! Try harder next time.
NBC's rumored Apple TV app may require a cable plan
http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/17/nbc-app-for-apple-tv/
According to The Wall Street Journal, Apple is getting ready to launch an internet-based TV service this fall. Interestingly, though, one of the most prominent US television networks, NBC, reportedly won't be a part of the technology giant's upcoming offering. The news outlet cites a recent "falling-out" between Apple and cable provider Comcast (NBC's parent company), which is what likely affected the contract negotiations. Now, 9to5Mac is reporting that NBC will be launching its own app on the Apple TV later in 2015, one that it plans to use to livestream content 24/7. However, unlike Apple's rumored cord-cutter-friendly TV package, NBC's app is said to require a cable subscription in order to be accessed.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/17/nbc-app-for-apple-tv/
According to The Wall Street Journal, Apple is getting ready to launch an internet-based TV service this fall. Interestingly, though, one of the most prominent US television networks, NBC, reportedly won't be a part of the technology giant's upcoming offering. The news outlet cites a recent "falling-out" between Apple and cable provider Comcast (NBC's parent company), which is what likely affected the contract negotiations. Now, 9to5Mac is reporting that NBC will be launching its own app on the Apple TV later in 2015, one that it plans to use to livestream content 24/7. However, unlike Apple's rumored cord-cutter-friendly TV package, NBC's app is said to require a cable subscription in order to be accessed.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Unless you live alone, get it and try to push that programming to other TVs or screens in your home. Get it and try to make it work well with the bigger screen(s) you have in your home. Get it in a home of others who aren't sufficiently techy and see if they can get it to work... for all of the channels... on all of the screens. Etc.
Granted, there's certainly value there but to imply it's comparable to the Cable or Satt TV experience is misleading. It comes with compromises. For those who can live with those compromises, it can be a good option. However, let the masses move on it or something like it such that the broadband providers who are also typically the cable TV providers feel real pain and watch the "savings" for that compromised experience be more than made up for in higher broadband rates.
What's missing from the "cutting the cord" concept for the masses is the OTHER innovation that makes it possible for the new model solution (from Apple or anyone else) to bypass the broadband pipes to get to our TVs and other screens. As long as the replacement entirely DEPENDS on the broadband middlemen, there's only an illusion of huge savings for the masses (even if the smallish number of "early adopters" enjoy some tangible savings now). As soon as the masses move, broadband rates will spike "for heavier bandwidth users". We've already seen this very same movie.
Yes, I agree here. If they want to track some of my watching habits without knowing me personally then I have no problem with that at all. The very second my name or even address gets shared is when the boxing gloves come out, LOL.
Umm, OK then, I'll just keep watching NBC via the antenna on my roof for zero dollars then. How dumb are they?
Well, I'm looking at it much more realistic and business like I guess. As much as I hate Comcast.. not for the service they provide, but I hate them because they can't seem to keep their billing straight and their customer service is below par. Anyway... they are a company and have to make money. They sell a service that requires a huge investment in cables and infrastructure to provide their service. So I can understand, they need to charge something for that.
Now the broadcasters, there are two business models. One is for them to make money selling advertising and the other is to sell premium subscriptions.
From what I understand, channels like TNT or Discovery Channel make very little off of their share of cable subscription packages. They get their revenue from selling advertising. Whereas HBO charges a premium for their channel and it's Advertising free.
Now of course, HBO cost $10-$15 a month extra.. Discovery, TNT and 30 other channels come in a package for $30... so about $1 a channel... but we have to watch ads.
I don't like most ads, but I'm okay with it too if it helps keep the costs down. It's all that simple.
This. Hulu has a bunch of network television, Netflix is well rounded with a lot of older stuff and past seasons, and HBO Now is pretty self explanatory. All the amazing HBO series and movies.
I don't see why I would need a bloated bundle of channels I don't watch, but I look forward to it because Apple joining this business will jump start more streaming options.
