Apple Shows Interest in Buying Time Warner Assets for Streaming TV Service

[BuffaloTF]

Totally different company...... But just located in the same building......

OK... my office in Chicago is in the AT&T building. But I work for a bank... what's your point? Even though TW Inc is moving out to 30 Hudson Yards in 2018 and sold their office space at the soon-to-be-renamed TW Center in 2014...

They're 2 totally different companies, and have been since 2008. With 2 totally different publicly traded stocks. With 2 totally different management boards. With 2 totally different revenue streams. They also own some of Rockefeller Center... but they certainly aren't part of Comcast.

 

[Rogifan]

For the record, this is what the article says about the pricing:

"Apple has previously been in talks with CBS, ABC, Fox, Disney, Viacom, Discovery and others about launching a web-based streaming service that would bundle approximately 25 channels for $30 to $40 per month, but content owners have been reluctant to give up control of the living room up to this point."

There's nothing in there about "live" content, just streaming. To me, that sounds a lot like Netflix.

Well one of the earlier rumors suggested Apple was struggling to get a service off the ground because they wanted local affiliates included in the bundle. The only reason you would want local affiliates would be live TV - sports and local news.

 

[jlc1978]

So would Apple actually own these channels or just have the rights to stream them? If they provided these channels for free via Apple TV or iDevices, I wonder if they could make up the cost through hardware sales. That would really change the TV landscape.

Not really. These networks rely on the cable fees to stay in business, and selling $160 Apple TVs isn't going to makeup for those fees. A more likely outcome is Apple offering bundles and a la carte options for cable cutters. Personally, if I were in Tim Cook's place, I'd explore deals with Google to get fiber rolled out to major markets so I could offer a streaming service without worrying about data caps limiting customer's use.

 

[BuffaloTF]

For the record, this is what the article says about the pricing:

"Apple has previously been in talks with CBS, ABC, Fox, Disney, Viacom, Discovery and others about launching a web-based streaming service that would bundle approximately 25 channels for $30 to $40 per month, but content owners have been reluctant to give up control of the living room up to this point."

There's nothing in there about "live" content, just streaming. To me, that sounds a lot like Netflix.

"Streaming" ... means using the internet. The channels are live TV channels with on demand access. Like Sling and Vue.

 

[bpeeps]

One thing being missed in all this AppleTV, cord cutting discussion is the lack of the ability to watch passively / channel surf; i.e. just show me whatever's on in any of several different channels. I don't always want to pick something specifically.

It remains to be seen if there will be Live channels like the ABC and Showtime apps offer.

 

[jlc1978]

This will all seem so silly in 5 years. Anybody that's owned an Appletv or roku knows bundled cable tv is dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

Reports of its demise are greatly exaggerated. there is plenty of content not available via Apple TV or Roku that is on cable so right now 100% cable free entertainment isn't possible of many people. Add in data caps and streaming becomes even less viable. I've hit Comcast's 300 Gig caps already just from Netflix and Amazon Prime streaming, with a little internet use thrown in; so even if I could completely stop cable my cost might not change that much once I pay for extra data.

 

[chukronos]

I'm hoping the cable and internet industry gets shaken up soon. Right now I'm paying Verizon $155-165 a month for their most basic internet package (25/25), and for their second highest package from the bottom.

The cable and internet providers are ridiculous. I shouldn't have to pay to rent the wireless router, the boxes, and then pay all of these taxes, and then STILL have to watch a ton of commercials when I watch TV. Also, how about internet that's actually 25 Mbps down? Whenever I download a movie on my Apple TV, it downloads 1 GB every 25 minutes it seems like.

It would be nice to pay $35-$40 a month for basic cable with my local new channels, ESPN, ESPN 2, and then provide movie channels and NFL network for an extra cost, while paying $20 a month for internet. No stupid fees, just sales tax.

I'd contact fios. I've been with them since 09 - I get 50/50 internet and preferred tv (3rd highest) for $89. The TV package you have would've only been $10 more/mo. My last bill - with 2 movie rentals, HBO, and HD DVR was only $134 total, taxes and all. I was at 75/75 internet with the same TV for $119 - but I changed my service a couple of months ago.

 

[igorsky]

Nope, I pay $9. I'd be paying for internet anyways so there's no need to roll that into the cost. Same for my cell phone bill.

You are in the tiniest minority of people for whom Netflix serves every need.

 

[bpeeps]

Not really. These networks rely on the cable fees to stay in business, and selling $160 Apple TVs isn't going to makeup for those fees. A more likely outcome is Apple offering bundles and a la carte options for cable cutters. Personally, if I were in Tim Cook's place, I'd explore deals with Google to get fiber rolled out to major markets so I could offer a streaming service without worrying about data caps limiting customer's use.

Google has its own regulatory hurdles and hoops to jump through, preventing it from entering major cities.

 

[Elbon]

"Streaming" ... means using the internet. The channels are live TV channels with on demand access. Like Sling and Vue.

"Apple has previously been in talks ... about launching a web-based streaming service that would bundle approximately 25 channels"

Looks like Apple sees them as the same thing.
[doublepost=1452704797][/doublepost]

You are in the tiniest minority of people for whom Netflix serves every need.

No, I also have TiVo with an antenna. But that costs me nothing since I bought a lifetime subscription which was paid off a couple of years ago.

 

[BuffaloTF]

"Apple has previously been in talks ... about launching a web-based streaming service that would bundle approximately 25 channels"

Looks like Apple sees them as the same thing.

...and they'd be live channels...

Which is my entire point.

 

[AngerDanger]

A deal could allow Apple to offer a skinny bundle of channels airing popular TV shows for all ages like Adventure Time, Game of Thrones, Sesame Street, Silicon Valley and Veep.

Joe's hatred of the serial coma really detracts form this otherwise great article.

 

[Elbon]

You pay more than $9...... Please also add your ISP bill. Oh and if you use your cellphone data to access Netflix.. Add that cost too.

Incidentally, by your logic, you'll also need to add those costs to the $30 or $40 Apple is talking about.
[doublepost=1452704990][/doublepost]

...and they'd be live channels...

Which is my entire point.

I understand. But you're basing that on earlier speculation, not what this particular article mentions specifically.

 

[danielwsmithee]

There two key pieces to get the Apple TV service off the ground TNT/TBS and ABC/ESPN for sports. This would solve one, and ABC has already said they were open to the possibility. NBC has been the most vocal hold out. I would hope that Apple would just go it on their own if this goes through.

 

[SteveBlobs]

If Apple starts competing in the content creation business, I could see competitors refuse to license their stuff to Apple. It could end up walling off the apple ecosystem more than it is now.

 

[JasonNewYork]

Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes reportedly told investors on Monday that he would entertain a sale of the media company, and Apple has been named as a possible suitor, according to the New York Post. AT&T, which owns DirecTV, and Fox are also said to have shown interest.Time Warner owns a large number of assets that could lay the foundation for Apple's much-rumored streaming TV service, including CNN, HBO, TBS, TNT, NBA TV, Cartoon Network and its Warner Bros. division. A deal could allow Apple to offer a skinny bundle of channels airing popular TV shows for all ages like Adventure Time, Game of Thrones, Sesame Street, Silicon Valley and Veep.

Apple's streaming TV service has reportedly been placed on hold due to its difficulties in securing deals with content owners, but striking a deal with Time Warner would allow the company to reconsider offering a skinny bundle of channels through a Netflix-like service for Apple TV, Mac, iPad, iPhone and other devices.

Apple has previously been in talks with CBS, ABC, Fox, Disney, Viacom, Discovery and others about launching a web-based streaming service that would bundle approximately 25 channels for $30 to $40 per month, but content owners have been reluctant to give up control of the living room up to this point.

For now, fourth-generation Apple TV owners can stream select on-demand content from tvOS apps like ABC News, CNNgo, Fox NOW, HBO NOW, MLB.TV Premium, NBC Sports Live Extra, PBS, PBS Kids, USA NOW, Watch ABC and WatchESPN, but most require authenticating with a cable or satellite TV subscription.

Article Link: Apple Shows Interest in Buying Time Warner Assets for Streaming TV Service

[doublepost=1452705545][/doublepost]That is not the TimeWarner logo. That is the TimeWarner Cable logo and the companies are completely separate and unrelated.

 

[Jyby]

Too bad Charter purchased Time Warner Cable for 55 billion.... http://www.syracuse.com/news/index....erger_with_higher_broadband_speeds_lower.html

EDIT: Time Warner != Time Warner Cable

 

[beatleben]

Time Warner becoming in part of Apple would be a landscape changing deal. As Warner Bros. is part of Time Warner when they decided to go blu-ray only on their back catalogue it killed HD-DVD over night. It would not be as a dramatic change of course, but shows the power one division of Time Warner has in content terms.

Add on top of that New Line Cinema, HBO, Turner Broadcasting, The CW Television Network, Cartoon Network, Boomerang, Adult Swim, CNN, DC Comics, Cartoon Network Studios, Hanna-Barbera, Esporte Interativo, Castle Rock Entertainment and NetherRealm Studios. You have a instant content power house.

As everyone else as most likely said Time Warner inc. is a content only company now days and Time Warner Cable was spun off many years ago.

The logo is wrong needs to be this...

 

[yaxomoxay]

Bundled TV is still going strong. Most people who think A la carte is the answer don't realize how much more expensive it will be.

It all depends on flexibility of service. I'd rather pay $50/month for a service that I can disconnect with a click when my favorite show is over than paying $50/month for a 2 year contract with some random dude showing up at my house to install an antenna (and asking me $200 so that a "friend can install a grounding wire to prevent fires", as it happened to me). A la carte has the advantage of being flexible on time of the show (I chose when to watch), service (I chose WHAT to get), and subscription (I chose when to pay).

 

[BuffaloTF]

Incidentally, by your logic, you'll also need to add those costs to the $30 or $40 Apple is talking about.
[doublepost=1452704990][/doublepost]

I understand. But you're basing that on earlier speculation, not what this particular article mentions specifically.

I gotcha... But the prices pulled and discussed thru the comments have been the $40 target for the full-on cable-replacement TV service mentioned further in the article (and the summary) that would include more than TimeWarner properties... as opposed to what a possible skinny-bundle Netflix competitor the article mentions woud cost in turn.

 

[Elbon]

I gotcha... But the prices pulled and discussed thru the comments have been the $40 target for the full-on cable-replacement TV service mentioned further in the article (and the summary) that would include more than TimeWarner properties... as opposed to what a possible skinny-bundle Netflix competitor the article mentions woud cost in turn.

Ah, OK. From that perspective, yes - charging more than Netflix would make more sense, since the service would be offering more.

On the other hand, you can already get something similar with a "triple play" bundle from the cable company for about the same price. I have to imagine Apple has something else up their sleeve that we're not aware of that would distinguish their offering from what's already out there.

 

[StoneJack]

Well, it just shows that Apple understand things very well:
content is a king.

To be a provider is not enough; you can't earn much being just a provider. You can earn more by selling content.
A Californian company, close to Hollywood, Apple is uniquely positioned to become content asset holder and producer. It will greatly benefit from having Time Warner; Disney is their close partner. Together, Apple, TW, Disney can form a true online entertainment conglomerate of giant scale. In addition, Apple already has streaming music service, and successful.

If local stations can jump on bandwagon, its even merrier.
Sony was not stupid to purchase movies and studio. It let them access huge entertainment library which ultimately brought in PS4.

I think Apple users will be happy to see Apple provide through its affiliate networks news, movies and music.
Wait, it already provides them.. now let Apple invest into their production (value creation).
Streaming the products is least difficult step of the way.

 

[MasterRyu2011]

I am not sure you understand the true price of Live TV Channels. The idea of $30 skinny bundle is a huge bargain. Most of these channels cost the provider somewhere around $6.00 or $7.00 per channel per customer. Also the idea of Live Cable TV being the same price as Netflix is just not realistic as the Live component is something Netflix just simply doesn't have and what makes the 30 dollar price more than fair here. If your still not convinced the price is a bargain just look at the average US Cable customers monthly bill.

I don't think Live TV is that big of a deal nowadays compared to 6-7 years ago. People are completely happy with watching stuff some time after they have aired. With the "on-the-go" lifestyle that is so prevalent now, people seem to be ok with watching stuff a week or a month later. And sometimes, they rather wait and binge watch. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but the allure of watching stuff live isn't that much of an incentive -- unless of course it's news or sports. But if it's news, I would rather read or browse online. If it's sports, most of it is already available for free on national tv.

 

[wigby]

Huh? I watch a ton of CBS, CW and NBC on Netflix. I also watch a ton of cable TV shows including Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Doctor Who etc. Since when is Netflix only old crappy movies????

Are you saying Netflix has new movies? As far as TV series, they are always a season behind which is old as far as any streaming media goes these days.

 

[channa]

Would love to see Apple shake-up the tv industry but agree, $30/month is still too high. TWC currently offers a skinny bundle in NYC w. 20 local channels plus showtime/starz + free roku box as a $10 add-on to $39 internet. Not bad. Apple needs to come in at around $10-15/month to make it worthwhile.

A $30 to $40 bundle would not be worth it? If it includes all the network channels, HBO, Disney, ESPN, CNN, VIACOM etc.? Besides, you can add on to this with a separate Showtime app or Netflix and turn them on or off when you are done with your favorite seasons. Can't do that with cable.