Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't get the appeal of a "skinny package" of channels for $40 or so. It's only differs from a regular cable package in one minor and one major way. Minor: depending on your region, they cost could be less than a standard cable package. Major: Significantly less choice. You get a package or two with a limited number of channels. No guarantee the channels you want will be grouped in the same package (highly likely they won't be). It would be cable lite with Apple marketing.
 
Paying for channels is the wrong way of going about this. I do not want to pay $30-$40 / month for one providers channels of hundreds of shows I don't want to watch. I want to pay $30 - $40 / month for every show I can stream on demand. Hell, I would pay $80. I would pay $150/month for movies included too. (all iTunes movies and shows right at release)

The television companies are running themselves into the ground. I discontinued my cable 8 years ago and simply don't watch tv anymore. It's just too much hassle. Take Apple's deal or die slowly while services like netflix originals eventually take over.





Speaking today at the Business Insider Ignition Conference in New York City, CBS CEO Les Moonves made some statements suggesting Apple may have put the development of its rumored television streaming service on hold.

"They've had conversations on it and I think they pressed the hold button," Moonves said, referencing prior talks CBS has had with Apple about joining its subscription service. Apple and CBS were reportedly negotiating prices before Apple paused the discussions.Apple's streaming television service was originally rumored to be launching alongside the new Apple TV, but Apple has had ongoing trouble establishing deals with content providers. Difficulty securing content deals has delayed and shifted Apple's television plans for years, but in 2015, it looked like a things were coming together for a subscription service.

appletvos-800x508.jpg

In May, Moonves, who has been very open with his comments on CBS' negotiations with Apple, said Apple and CBS were still in talks and that CBS would "probably" ink a deal with the Cupertino company. At the time, he had recently met with Eddy Cue and said he was "very excited" about Apple's service. In October, he made similar statements, suggesting discussions between the two companies had not progressed further towards a deal.

Rumors have suggested Apple is aiming for a web-based streaming service that would bundle approximately 25 channels for $30 to $40 per month. Earlier this year, Apple was said to be in discussions with several content providers in addition to CBS, including ABC, Fox, Disney, Viacom, and Discovery.

Given Moonves' comments and the general lack of recent rumors, it is not clear when Apple will launch its streaming television service. An August report from Bloomberg suggested negotiation troubles had delayed its release until 2016, but there's been no word on Apple's plans beyond that. There are a lot of factors involved in the launch of the streaming service, as Apple needs to secure deals with dozens of content providers, including local affiliates.

Moonves believes Apple's streaming television service, or something like it, will launch in the near future. "This will happen," he told Business Insider. "People will not be spending money on channels they don't want to watch."

Update: Citing sources familiar with the matter, Bloomberg has confirmed that Apple has suspended its plans to offer a web-based streaming television service and will instead focus on "being a platform for media companies to sell directly to customers through its App Store."

Apple is not "giving up entirely" on a TV service, but it has not been able to secure deals that would allow it to sell a package of channels for $30 to $40 per month as media companies want more money for content.

Article Link: CBS CEO: Apple's 'Pressed the Hold Button' on Streaming TV Service [Update: Bloomberg Confirms]
 
Why doesn't Apple just do their own video hosting platform, kind of like a not sucky YouTube, and cut these guys off at the knees? We saw the consequences of Apple providing a platform for developers to deliver apps, why not videos?? They've got Capture (Phones) and Editing, why not Delivery and Monetization?

Apple could do that but how many people would switch? The first-to-market factor is significant. YouTube has become the go-to for video hosting and become so huge that even a company as big as Apple would have a hard time to develop and launch a service that would provide a return that only Apple is accustomed to. Apple Music is a good example of this. It's a no brainer for Apple to launch it because of their iTunes model but they were way too late that many people were already comfortable with Spotify.
 
Hard to say that Apple disappoints again when the service has not been anounced.

That's why it's disappointing. How long have we been waiting? Last I checked, Sling TV is adding channel after channel... so if they can get it to work, certainly Apple can.
 
The new AppleTV 4 is definitely a very good step from a hardware perspective. And the App Store is going to be the thing that makes this all worth while. Do we really need a subscription service to make Apple TV worthwhile - in my opinion NO!
With Hulu and Netflix, there really isn't much Apple could provide that would set them apart. What I would really like to see is something like Xfinity TV go being available on the ATV as an app that I can subscribe to. Cox, Time Warner and others. CBS, NBC, and ABC already provide apps (although mostly crap right now). But at some point everyone needs to get that the future is to provide their content through the apps. I have a Comcast box in some closet, but do not use it. I use my ATV and I connect to the apps (that require my comcast account to activate). But as more companies do like HBO and create a solo app, the consumers will have choices. The cable companies will be come a utility just providing the bandwidth. If they want to get ahead of the curve they better get those apps rolling out. Otherwise they will go the way of Nokia and Blackberry holding on to the past all the way to the grave.

Problem with that is the cable companies own a lot of the most popular content. They will never just be a utility. If their bandwidth becomes a commodity, they're probably going to look to make up the profit shortfall by raising the cost on the content. Damned if you do, damned if you don't
 
  • Like
Reactions: co.ag.2005
They are trying to figure out a way to make it appear that you need the new ATV that they are working on to run this subscription service. They won't be able to, so it will be delayed until the release of the new unit, to add excitement to the new product. Mark my words.
 
I want a list of items with toggles on them, similar to how we toggle mail, contacts, calendars in our mail settings. One for each channel that offers streaming, and each one that i toggle is between 4.99 and 9.99/month.

CBS [x] 4.99
NBC [x] 4.99
CNN [x] 4.99
Live MLB with no local blackout BS [x] 9.99
Live NFL with no local blackout BS [x] 9.99
Fox [x] 6.66

...

list of 100 channels my cable provider offers me but I never watch because their crap [ ] 9.99


This would make me a happy panda

Overall I agree. It might be nice to be able to choose between ad-supported and ad-free tiers. Some ad-supported channels may be free. Something like this:

Ad-Supported Channels
---------------------------------
CBS [x] FREE
NBC [x] FREE
History [x] 0.99

Ad-Free Channels
---------------------------------
NBC [x] 1.99
CNN [x] 2.99
Comedy Central [x] 3.99
Fox [x] 6.66

For now Apple can just sit back and wait as more people cut the cord and either change their watching habits or find other ways to watch what they want. If the content companies don't sign a deal with Apple what's going to happen is a sort of "de-facto" a la carte by people downloading the network apps. At some point they're going to "see the light" and sign a money making deal with Apple instead of losing money trying to desperately hold on to old business models. Kind of like what happened when the companies signed a deal with Music; labels were losing money from piracy/changes in listening habits.
 
I think the tough part is that since everything is bundled, cord cutters still pay 75% of their prior monthly cost for "just internet" now. It's not a bargain because cableco is gonna get you anyhow.

It is an unfortunate but temporary state. Right now cable companies still have more shareholder value tied up in "keeping" TV subscribers than they will lose by people going elsewhere for internet service, so you see internet-alone service incredibly overpriced and the TV add-on free or at least massively underpriced.

Maintaining that, though, is costing cable companies real money. They will generally stop the practice within 2016, I predict, especially if the FCC comes down a little harder on their monopolistic practices.

For my family, we have a $50/month HOA-negotiated contract for fiber, albeit with no massively cheap TV option to go on top of that ($60/month service is the standard rate for a non-barebones package). Compared to folks a town over working with Comcast where the same level of advertised bandwidth is $85/month internet only and non-discounted basic cable with that goes up to about $120/month for the package, getting Internet from a company who actually wants to sell you Internet service is awesome (and we don't end up with the outages my friends a town over suffer through). We average about $30/month in various TV services (Hulu, purchased shows from iTunes, one-for-a-few-months periods with Netflix, HBO, Showtime, etc throughout the year), so for the whole shebang ($80/month) pay less than our friends a town over would pay for just cable internet, and get better variety and options than we would get paying $30 more per month for the TV company's idea of what we should watch.
 
Overall I agree. It might be nice to be able to choose between ad-supported and ad-free tiers. Some ad-supported channels may be free. Something like this:

Ad-Supported Channels
---------------------------------
CBS [x] FREE
NBC [x] FREE
History [x] 0.99

Ad-Free Channels
---------------------------------
NBC [x] 1.99
CNN [x] 2.99
Comedy Central [x] 3.99
Fox [x] 6.66

For now Apple can just sit back and wait as more people cut the cord and either change their watching habits or find other ways to watch what they want. If the content companies don't sign a deal with Apple what's going to happen is a sort of "de-facto" a la carte by people downloading the network apps. At some point they're going to "see the light" and sign a money making deal with Apple instead of losing money trying to desperately hold on to old business models. Kind of like what happened when the companies signed a deal with Music; labels were losing money from piracy/changes in listening habits.

Why subscribe to channels? I want to subscribe to shows. Which of course Apple already supports quite well now except that there is no real volume discount (that is, you get a modest discount for buying a whole season of a show at a time, but the person buying one season of one show in a year is paying the same for that season as the person buying multiple seasons of ten shows in the same year).

Personally, I'd prefer a service that starts out at $10/month and gives you unlimited (while subscribed) access to up to, say, 10 shows each month. Each additional show to be accessed that month adds $1 for the month (perhaps a difference for hourlong shows versus half-hour shows, etc). Let my family and I pick out our set of 20 or so shows each month. Hulu would b dropped, and the other $10 would get spent with HBO or Showtime or Netflix subscriptions every couple of months or perhaps translate to movie rentals. We'd probably end up paying more than we do today, but for better quality of downloads/streaming and no advertising relative to Hulu. For Apple, they get more of our entertainment dollars.

IMHO, I'm not crying at all over this $35/month "deal" getting torpedoed. Certainly didn't sound like anything I'd want to subscribe to.
 
Apple should tell all those providers to go F themselves. Focus on the Netflixes hulus etc and the networks will come crawling back and for cheaper. It's no secret the cable providers days are numbered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unami
Streaming packages is the biggest con job the industry has had since the heady days of double dipping on DVDs. 30 bucks for this package, 25 for that one. 30 for the one with a few shows you like. It's going to cost most people a ridiculous amount of money just to watch the 10 shows they actually want to watch. I will just stop watching if that's the case. There are plenty of other things I can do with my money than to hand it over to these companies unwilling to play nice and share with each other.
 
I thought the whole point was to try and get away from channel bundling? Just let everyone sell their own channel and they'll soon lower the price if nobody subscribes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jettredmont
WTF is a "Hold Button"? Like on an old-style office phone from the 1970's? My goodness these media empire executives are certainly out of touch with today's technology...

You mean the hold button than is on the iPhone while during a call/incoming? Or the hold button on all VOIP systems in all offices? Should I continue or are you back "in touch" now?
 
I actually agree with this. It seems like a no brainer to do what Apple did with Apple Music to iTunes Movies & TV. Do a $9.99/Mo 'All Access to iTunes Movies & TV Shows'. If people want live TV you could offer than as an extra $19.99/Mo.

It would be a streaming only service, then to download you'd need to purchase the movie. Maybe include 'free rentals' in the sense that you could download a movie but once you start watching you have 24 Hours to finish it before you need to purchase it.

This seems like the better way to go instead of Live TV. If they do want to include Live TV, it should be a separate Add-On to this streaming service.

It's not just about having internet at home - it's having access to Live TV no matter where you are (including at home). So, I would hope that I'd be able to watch live "Apple Television" on my iPhone during my commute or lunch. Also, I can get adequate high-speed internet at home for around $30, so while an addition $30-$40 (plus other apps like Netflix) may seem like i'm not saving money, the experience would/should be worth it. I'd rather have a house full of AppleTVs than Cable Boxes.

This. All of this. What you guys just said is exactly what I've been wanting. Personally, it's the only way I'll bother purchasing any type of TV bundle at all. Until something like this happens, I'll stay cable-free and just download the few shows I do like from iTunes/watch Netflix.

These controlled leaks make me wonder, though. Apple has been working on this a long, long time, it seems, and positioning itself via its software and devices for this type of service for a while as well. Perhaps this is just part of the bargaining routine - walking away from the table in order to reignite negotiations. Ah, a girl can dream! You never know, though.
 
That's why it's disappointing. How long have we been waiting? Last I checked, Sling TV is adding channel after channel... so if they can get it to work, certainly Apple can.

Well, that's a different story. I see your point on that one, but...

Your other post was stating your disappointment in Apple because of the reported rumored price and content of the service.
$40 for 25 crap channels. No thanks. I'd rather pay Comcast $70 for 150 crap channels. Apple disappoints again.
 
Just provide really good universal search and let people buy their content from others via apps on TV (that also is available on iPhone and iPad and other platforms). I don't think Apple needs to be in the content subscription business though I'm sure some on Wall Street will be disappointed as they were just starting to peddle this "Apple as a service" theory.
 
Apple should buy Netflix and Hulu in one massive buying spree. Consolidate with their iTunes Store to create one massive media powerhouse that would be unstoppable
 
I agree and I really don't get why. Curious to know why a company with Apple's resources (and experience!!) does such a crap job with streaming services. With their hardware install base, they could just flat out dominate streaming video, streaming music, live TV, etc. I mean wtf?

iCloud syncing is incredibly complex. Google cannot match what they do. Simple toggles, iCloud Photo Library, etc. Full device backup and restore. I could go on. Google doesn't have as many features controlled by simple green toggles
 
  • Like
Reactions: co.ag.2005
I agree and I really don't get why. Curious to know why a company with Apple's resources (and experience!!) does such a crap job with streaming services. With their hardware install base, they could just flat out dominate streaming video, streaming music, live TV, etc. I mean wtf?
Keep in mind Apple is up against a well entrenched monopoly of cable/sat content distributors who are determined to get more, not less, with the new distribution model, while Apple is determined to get their share of these for them, new services. Something has got to give or this $30-$40 monthly bill is a pipe dream.

CBS has been a long-time content hold-out, and has only recently come to the bargaining table. If that 35 dollar price point Moonves has been quoted as specifically mentioning is just for CBS content?, they are totally unrealistic of what the market will bear. That would obviously be way out of line and enough reason for Apple to put the brakes on.

I hope I'm misinterpreting that though and their quoted price aim is for a basic package comprising some content from all major networks. I'm definitely staying tuned, no pun intended.
 
Last edited:
Cue the :apple:car and super-battery rumors. The momentum has to continue, Tim Cook and hundreds of pension funds are counting on the fairy tales that maintain Apple's share price.
 
I don't get the appeal of a "skinny package" of channels for $40 or so. It's only differs from a regular cable package in one minor and one major way. Minor: depending on your region, they cost could be less than a standard cable package. Major: Significantly less choice. You get a package or two with a limited number of channels. No guarantee the channels you want will be grouped in the same package (highly likely they won't be). It would be cable lite with Apple marketing.
Considering fewer and fewer people are watching live TV (outside of sports) what is the benefit of a skinny bundle? One of the rumors alleged Apple was trying to get local affiliates but was not successful. I'm assuming they wanted that for news and sports. Once that became a nut too tough to crack my guess is Apple shelved the product.
 
Meanwhile, Netflix is changing TV right before our eyes. 32 original shows for 2016. They seem to get it.

_This_

I currently pay about $200 a month for internet + cable (Fios). I don't mind too much because we use the hell out of it (both internet and TV)... but more and more the shows we care about watching are on Netflix... in a similar way to how HBO has been a requirement for many years.

I don't think we need the big networks to buddy up to Apple on this one. They are going to get eaten by Netflix, Amazon and Hulu creating original content. Those three are going to be the new "big networks"...

Only thing they're not covering now is live sports... but you can tell by how good the ESPN app is on ATV4 that ESPN knows that streaming is the future. Only a matter of time before you can get an ESPN subscription without a cable service...
 
Problem with that is the cable companies own a lot of the most popular content. They will never just be a utility. If their bandwidth becomes a commodity, they're probably going to look to make up the profit shortfall by raising the cost on the content. Damned if you do, damned if you don't

At last, somebody here who understands the scope of ONE problem.
Unless you own the content (ex: Disney, HBO, CBS), the "pipes" (i.e. internet with Comcast cable, cellular coverage ) and the device (ex: TV, AppleTV, computer), the folks at the end of the food chain are hosed!

Another problem we see in these discussions is that no one agrees what a standard bundle should be (live TV i.e. Sports, shows, old and new movies, international channels,...). Everybody needs something different.
The pay per channel approach sounds great until you put down numbers. I see folks here who would pay $5/month, $2/month when the providers probably want to charge way more.

Only short-term solution is Apple buys Disney, HBO, Comcast and everything with it. Long-term, build an infrastructure like fiber or satellite. Very very expensive on a world wide basis. Buy more studios too.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.