As much as I'd like this I'd settle for them just writing an aggregation app. Put in your credentials once and then tick off each service you have (which should be how it is done anyways, the current Apple TV does nothing to this end) and the shows you watch (and maybe when) so you can watch the Daily Show from Hulu followed by Colbert from CBS and then maybe the newest episode of a scripted show... Have a grid of all these shows up so you can jump from one to another without switching apps and whatnot. Having your preferences would help Siri actually respond to your commands as you intend it.
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 Shows Interest in Buying Time Warner Assets for Streaming TV Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You have it right. Old habits die hard -- especially if they keep producing profits.
I mentioned it before, the old cable TV revenue model of bundles to sell demographic advertising across multiple channels into a fixed audience goes all the way back to the early "A/B Box" days of Cable TV in the 70's. Back then, the tech to selectively choose channels was not around as you had analog coax streaming all the channels of the cable into your house.
Then digital cable came about. More channels, more selection but cable TV executives refuse to change their advertising and revenue model totally ignoring a la cart. Internet strikes again and we have apps for the most obscure video you can think of including seasonal events. That is the future. I'm looking forward to 360 video channels were the viewer controls the camera angles instead of the director.
You want to cash in big, come up with an advertising model placing commercials across all these Apple TV streaming apps to producers that push shows at their schedule and not the advertisers.
Sure that will come up eventually. For now, we are in a wonderful free-for-all with streaming apps going here and there. I give a consolidation as you describe showing up in a few years. In the meantime, the Mystical Unicorn Channel awaits!
Several statements/partial questions. Sorry for the way I'll break it down. (In advance
1.) I'm in a rural area. The networks via antenna are not an option. So any option I look at has to provide me the networks solution.
2.) I have a large 1,100 iTunes movie collection that I stream to about 15 Apple TV boxes. When watching the movies in HD, I'm thinking they come in around the 6GB range on data pull off my ATT 6.0 DSL.
3.) I knock most of my TV Seasons off via Netflix, mostly CW, SyFi and TMC based shows. I'm pretty sure the compression there is better and 2 hours of TV may only consume 2GB of data.
4.) ESPN is a must, it also is like music in the house as it stays on when I'm working around the house and not consuming a Movie/TV Show.
5.) I'm Directv now.
6.) Weekends can have my son or myself knocking down a serious amount of movies from our iTunes Catalog in our theater setup. Maybe 4-5 movies each Sat & Sun, often just to babysit him in the background as he's playing in the room with other stuff. Streaming is happening even if he's not watching.
**************************
My questions.
How do cord cutters get away with all the data needed when they move away from a Cable/Satellite type? How do they get away with the data needs as heavy consumers and not have to step into a costly data plan with their ISP that is as costly as the Cable/Sat company they left?
I'm $120 a month with Directv, 6 receivers. One local cable company offers 15.0 speed for $94 a month, but a 300GB cap. I'd hit that in no time. The AT&T is higher in cap, but often stalls with the low speed. I checked out DishNet from Dish Network, and it's reasonable but I'd probably be cut off each weekend early in the day with the daily data caps.
How are crazy big consumers of data getting plans and consuming all-time content on their TV without paying around the same price for the TV services they left?
1.) I'm in a rural area. The networks via antenna are not an option. So any option I look at has to provide me the networks solution.
2.) I have a large 1,100 iTunes movie collection that I stream to about 15 Apple TV boxes. When watching the movies in HD, I'm thinking they come in around the 6GB range on data pull off my ATT 6.0 DSL.
3.) I knock most of my TV Seasons off via Netflix, mostly CW, SyFi and TMC based shows. I'm pretty sure the compression there is better and 2 hours of TV may only consume 2GB of data.
4.) ESPN is a must, it also is like music in the house as it stays on when I'm working around the house and not consuming a Movie/TV Show.
5.) I'm Directv now.
6.) Weekends can have my son or myself knocking down a serious amount of movies from our iTunes Catalog in our theater setup. Maybe 4-5 movies each Sat & Sun, often just to babysit him in the background as he's playing in the room with other stuff. Streaming is happening even if he's not watching.
**************************
My questions.
How do cord cutters get away with all the data needed when they move away from a Cable/Satellite type? How do they get away with the data needs as heavy consumers and not have to step into a costly data plan with their ISP that is as costly as the Cable/Sat company they left?
I'm $120 a month with Directv, 6 receivers. One local cable company offers 15.0 speed for $94 a month, but a 300GB cap. I'd hit that in no time. The AT&T is higher in cap, but often stalls with the low speed. I checked out DishNet from Dish Network, and it's reasonable but I'd probably be cut off each weekend early in the day with the daily data caps.
How are crazy big consumers of data getting plans and consuming all-time content on their TV without paying around the same price for the TV services they left?
If a "content owner" is not the "content producer", doesn't that mean that they're just parasitic middle-men? In which case, doesn't that mean they are just desperate to survive in a no win situation because of the evolutionary/revolutionary paradigm shift?
Netflix is more film related. I don't subscribe to Netflix for TV shows.
[doublepost=1452811816][/doublepost]
Several statements/partial questions. Sorry for the way I'll break it down. (In advance
1.) I'm in a rural area. The networks via antenna are not an option. So any option I look at has to provide me the networks solution.
2.) I have a large 1,100 iTunes movie collection that I stream to about 15 Apple TV boxes. When watching the movies in HD, I'm thinking they come in around the 6GB range on data pull off my ATT 6.0 DSL.
3.) I knock most of my TV Seasons off via Netflix, mostly CW, SyFi and TMC based shows. I'm pretty sure the compression there is better and 2 hours of TV may only consume 2GB of data.
4.) ESPN is a must, it also is like music in the house as it stays on when I'm working around the house and not consuming a Movie/TV Show.
5.) I'm Directv now.
6.) Weekends can have my son or myself knocking down a serious amount of movies from our iTunes Catalog in our theater setup. Maybe 4-5 movies each Sat & Sun, often just to babysit him in the background as he's playing in the room with other stuff. Streaming is happening even if he's not watching.
**************************
My questions.
How do cord cutters get away with all the data needed when they move away from a Cable/Satellite type? How do they get away with the data needs as heavy consumers and not have to step into a costly data plan with their ISP that is as costly as the Cable/Sat company they left?
I'm $120 a month with Directv, 6 receivers. One local cable company offers 15.0 speed for $94 a month, but a 300GB cap. I'd hit that in no time. The AT&T is higher in cap, but often stalls with the low speed. I checked out DishNet from Dish Network, and it's reasonable but I'd probably be cut off each weekend early in the day with the daily data caps.
How are crazy big consumers of data getting plans and consuming all-time content on their TV without paying around the same price for the TV services they left?
I got rid of cable in 2009. 99.99% of my viewing is via my AppleTV (even PBS). The traditional networks are received OTA. There is no data plan with my ISP.
[doublepost=1452812126][/doublepost]
Crappy old movies? The majority of my viewing on Netflix is foreign film, some documentary, and some classics. Netflix excels at this, which is why I love them. If I wanted to watch the latest commercial trash out of Hollywood, I have iTunes rentals for that. I also pay 7.99/month.
Oh I know iTunes is just a store.
My point was... iTunes has tons of current TV shows on their servers already. If Apple could make the deals... they are set up to do it.
I understand it's a rights issue. The owners of the content are getting $36 for an entire season if someone purchases it. Allowing that content to be streamed wouldn't make them nearly the same amount of money.
But they could probably make some kind of deal. Not everyone wants to purchase or rent TV shows.
Just a thought.
Exactly. Sure, a significant number of people have cut the cord, but most of us are still stuck with a bundle. I'm hoping someday things change and I do feel a change is coming, but it won't be a while (at least 5 years or more).
The deal is in the process, but it isn't finished, though it most likely will be. With TWC they are already testing streaming only services in NY. It would only be a few small moves for Apple to make the TWC streaming app into an Apple TV app similar to how Dish does Sling. The problem for Apple was they couldn't get the production studios to play ball. All the pieces are already in place at TWC.
But NO it won't happen, I said they would be "better off" as in "hypothetical and instead of".
Sorry. But we played this game 20 years ago. VR is going to be an incredibly niche product that disappears as quickly as it appears. But if you're into it, that's fine. You can find Dramamine over the counter in every store with a pharmacy.
[doublepost=1452873039][/doublepost]
With all due respect, you don't know how satellites work. You don't just "put up a satellite" and that's all done.
You need orbital locations to put them. Then you need spectrum to broadcast on. These are incredibly limited. Directv, borrowing your example, is stacking multiple satellites at single orbital positions currently because they're out of spots. They just recently put up 2 that cost them approx 1.7 billion dollars. And they only have a 15 year lifespan. You can also send up a satellite that simply is dead once it gets there. Or ones like their own that get up there, experience a catastrophic failure, and operate poorly and force another huge investment all the same. It's easier to build a cell tower.
Wire the world... Yeah, it's vitally important and very easy to do. In fact it's already mostly done. Cable infrastructure is far from old... They've overlaid fiber everywhere. They just don't finish the build out down the streets and to the home. That's why there's small companies popping out of nowhere and even local governments putting up fiber all over the place. It's cheaper than the big players would have you believe the fiber is already there between all the major internet players. It's just going that last mile and is a slower build.
Seriously, all Apple wants to do is change the cord, not let you cut it. Apple will gladly end up charging you $120 a month to access ALL the same content you get on cable for $60 a month today. Apple will entice consumers with cheap "skinny cable" packages that most people will not find good enough and Apple will gladly upsell a more expensive package that will ultimately match or exceed what you pay a cable company for today. Granted Apple will offer better hardware, but ultimately you are paying for content and will pay more for content with a better menu system.
Tying you to an Apple cord has been Apple's motive since the iPod. Apple just wants to be the only cord that binds you in perpetual bondage and most people are too oblivious and enamoured by Apple to realize they will ultimately pay more for that "privilege" then with other companies. This is not a revolution, it's a coup.
Bondage? Oh good grief. Who at Apple is putting a gun to your head forcing you to use ANY of their products?
Change the cord or not. This is a bit asinine. In order to change the cord, the cost would need to be cut... Not doubled. That's counter-intuitive. Terrible logic.
Agree fully with everything listed above.. The kicker is that negotiations are the reason why there is no TV service, and although the news mentioned from time to time that they are close the reality of it is that they are VERY far off from offering this type of service. I'm not saying that apple should become a media company, but, the last 10 years (really 30+ years) is really apple just laying the ground work for their future. In my opinion a very long future of technoogy offerings, products and services, for years to come.
Honestly, when i think of Apple now versus Apple even 15 years ago, i think of them to more of a GE just more focused and not as large. GE has their hand in everything. Apple doesnt need to own the entire experience (i/e connected appliances; etc), but, managing the framework as they are doing with Homekit for example.
Just a thought really. It doesn;t seem that far fetched for the new apple and would help get them to where they need to be, or where we the consumers need to be.
P.S. you'll remember hearing that SJ wanted Apple to become a Telecom company, mainly because they were the middleman for the prized iphone. That to me is still realistic, as is a TW acquisition - even if it is 20-30-40-50 years down the road.
P.P.S. Of course, it would make sense for Apple's longtime MVP(artner) to make the acqusiition as you said above. AT&T, and more specifically VZW as they have a wider coverage of cable lines spread across North America.
Cheers
Last edited:
I think that everyone, including the channel/content providers are looking at this from the wrong perspective with regards to what it will cost the consumer. I firmly believe that if each channel would market direct to consumers, and charge a nominal fee (I think that CBS's $5.99 is too high, especially since one can get it from free OTA and even when local channels are added to a satellite/cable bundle, it's about $10 for ALL the local channels, thus making what CBS gets from retransmission much less than $6), they should make up any "difference" by charging advertisers more. They should be able to get away with doing so because with streaming video, you instantly know EXACTLY how many watchers you have, when you have them, who left and when, etc... as opposed to the current system of Neilson ratings which is nothing more than a sampling and uses generalizations. The information gained via knowing EXACTLY who/when watches your programming should be much more valuable than that used via Neilson ratings and thus they can charge higher rates as a result.
Several statements/partial questions. Sorry for the way I'll break it down. (In advance
1.) I'm in a rural area. The networks via antenna are not an option. So any option I look at has to provide me the networks solution.
2.) I have a large 1,100 iTunes movie collection that I stream to about 15 Apple TV boxes. When watching the movies in HD, I'm thinking they come in around the 6GB range on data pull off my ATT 6.0 DSL.
3.) I knock most of my TV Seasons off via Netflix, mostly CW, SyFi and TMC based shows. I'm pretty sure the compression there is better and 2 hours of TV may only consume 2GB of data.
4.) ESPN is a must, it also is like music in the house as it stays on when I'm working around the house and not consuming a Movie/TV Show.
5.) I'm Directv now.
6.) Weekends can have my son or myself knocking down a serious amount of movies from our iTunes Catalog in our theater setup. Maybe 4-5 movies each Sat & Sun, often just to babysit him in the background as he's playing in the room with other stuff. Streaming is happening even if he's not watching.
**************************
My questions.
How do cord cutters get away with all the data needed when they move away from a Cable/Satellite type? How do they get away with the data needs as heavy consumers and not have to step into a costly data plan with their ISP that is as costly as the Cable/Sat company they left?
I'm $120 a month with Directv, 6 receivers. One local cable company offers 15.0 speed for $94 a month, but a 300GB cap. I'd hit that in no time. The AT&T is higher in cap, but often stalls with the low speed. I checked out DishNet from Dish Network, and it's reasonable but I'd probably be cut off each weekend early in the day with the daily data caps.
How are crazy big consumers of data getting plans and consuming all-time content on their TV without paying around the same price for the TV services they left?
Your profile above, I can only assume the following possibilities.
1) You are incredibly successful and made it to where you have a nice sized estate and perhaps have the local county seat staff on speed dial. If so, consider high speed satalite internet services such as HughesNet.
2) Land rich neo-techie living off your own land and very self sufficient. With money tight and you are doing the best that you can to keep the deed without dipping into too much capital keeping the boat going.
3) Commune leader where your parents started the place and you wear tie-dye once a week in their honor. Running the place day-to-day and making ends meet makes you think that your Eisenhauer-era grandparents may have had it right the whole time.
4) Marketing troll comment looking for responses to this exterme user situation you presented.
Disney buying a media distribution company would hurt their portfolio and also open them up for anti-trust actions. Disney is a media company and the more distribution channels they have, the better the exposure. They don't want to make something akin to a business model that created the Paramount Act.
Last edited:
On paper it sounds like a no-brainers, but those media execs are sharks and always wind up on top.
This comes down to whether it is beneficial for Apple to own HBO. Is it beneficial to Apple? No, Apple needs access to the major US broadcast channels. This doesn't help them get that access. Is it beneficial to HBO? No. There is no reason for Apple to buy these assets.
Scary thing is that Eddy Cue is apparently even thinking about it. There is next to no scenario where this makes sense.
I think the acquisition of TW makes sense for Apple or heck even Google/Alphabet.
First, they would have little difficulty getting approved by regulators. Second, it brings them bargain power against similar services that their competitor tries to offer in the future when it comes to content licensing.
And assuming TW is profitable, and Apple is sitting on tons of cash... buying TW makes way more sense than say... Beats.
First, they would have little difficulty getting approved by regulators. Second, it brings them bargain power against similar services that their competitor tries to offer in the future when it comes to content licensing.
And assuming TW is profitable, and Apple is sitting on tons of cash... buying TW makes way more sense than say... Beats.
Several statements/partial questions. Sorry for the way I'll break it down. (In advance
1.) I'm in a rural area. The networks via antenna are not an option. So any option I look at has to provide me the networks solution.
2.) I have a large 1,100 iTunes movie collection that I stream to about 15 Apple TV boxes. When watching the movies in HD, I'm thinking they come in around the 6GB range on data pull off my ATT 6.0 DSL.
3.) I knock most of my TV Seasons off via Netflix, mostly CW, SyFi and TMC based shows. I'm pretty sure the compression there is better and 2 hours of TV may only consume 2GB of data.
4.) ESPN is a must, it also is like music in the house as it stays on when I'm working around the house and not consuming a Movie/TV Show.
5.) I'm Directv now.
6.) Weekends can have my son or myself knocking down a serious amount of movies from our iTunes Catalog in our theater setup. Maybe 4-5 movies each Sat & Sun, often just to babysit him in the background as he's playing in the room with other stuff. Streaming is happening even if he's not watching.
**************************
My questions.
How do cord cutters get away with all the data needed when they move away from a Cable/Satellite type? How do they get away with the data needs as heavy consumers and not have to step into a costly data plan with their ISP that is as costly as the Cable/Sat company they left?
I'm $120 a month with Directv, 6 receivers. One local cable company offers 15.0 speed for $94 a month, but a 300GB cap. I'd hit that in no time. The AT&T is higher in cap, but often stalls with the low speed. I checked out DishNet from Dish Network, and it's reasonable but I'd probably be cut off each weekend early in the day with the daily data caps.
How are crazy big consumers of data getting plans and consuming all-time
content on their TV without paying around the same price for the TV services they left?
They live in areas that don't have data caps. Which is usually areas that are covered by more than one IPSs that offer the same level of service.
I'm not a cord cutter. But if I wanted to I have two ISPs that compete for my business.
Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes reportedly told investors on Monday that he would entertain a sale of the media company, and Apple is 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
