Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
CBS CEO: Apple's 'Pressed the Hold Button' on Streaming TV Service [Update: Bloomberg Confirms]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wonder if it's on pause because the rumor of the new ATV is true, announce the new ATV and service all at once.
Can you have hulu without a cable subscription? I thought they required you to authenticate your cable service. If so then watching TV on Hulu really costs you cable subscription + 12$ a month.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Why would you think that? The driver of all of this is every player trying to maximize their profits. The players who own the broadband pipes have no interest in removing caps. Caps actually work FOR their maximizing profits objective. What they should be doing is looking for ways to tighten caps even more, akin to cell phone throttling above the "unlimited" soft cap and similar if they can't find an effective way to just tighten the stated cap outright.
Whatever this "new model" is going to be, it will need to show all parties how it can be better for them. It doesn't work for just one party- say, us consumers- dreaming of getting everything we want, commercial-free, for a fraction of what we pay now. Why do the sellers want to cut their revenue throats to do that for us? For a new model to gain traction, it needs to be an obvious win for both sellers & buyers. If we want to dream of some new model perfection, the key is getting in the seller's shoes and showing them how they are going to make more money than they do in the "as is."
Other players in the chain are beyond Apple's control. Content creators own the content that any kind of Apple replacement needs to be appealing. Broadband "middlemen"- often the very same cable companies some Apple solution would replace- own the pipe on which any Apple replacement entirely depends to deliver 1 minute of programming. An Apple replacement solution has to show these other players how they "win" by facilitating the change, let Apple take their 30% or so right off the top and have us consumers en masse swallow the price to deliver those wins AND let Apple in as another new middleman so they can get their 30% too.
In short: the dream of some "new model" replacement and the delusion that it means we consumers would pay a fraction of what we pay now seem largely incompatible. The existing middlemen cannot be ejected by an Apple replacement. So they are going to get theirs no matter what. Apple plugging in as a new middleman means that costs must go up- not down- to pay Apple what they want too. Where does the money come from for all those links in the chain? Subsidy dollars from commercials (mostly running on those "180 channels I never watch" while my TV is off) and subscription dollars from us consumers. Some of us want to kill the commercials (and thus that big fat subsidy paid for by other people) too, leaving only the subscription fee to pay Apple and all of the existing players for this "new model."
Think it through. The only way we get a "new model" is if the consumer masses pay more. The only way the consumer masses pay less is in dreams & illusions, where we can arbitrarily name our own prices for what channels or shows should cost or where we believe the cost-per-channel is equal across all 200 or so channels so that in picking our favorite 20, we get a 90% cut to our monthly bill (hint: the math doesn't work that way and won't work that way at all).
I'm right with everyone wishing I can watch anything I want (commercial-free) for a fraction of what I pay now. But think it through. I'd also like to be able to buy Apple products at 90% off what they charge for their products. I suspect both big-discount dreams have about an equal chance of being realized.
Last edited:
This is probably one of the reasons Apple put it on hold. This is what Tim Cook said last month:
When I read that I knew this was being put on hold or rethought inside Apple.
What incentive do content providers or cable companies have in letting Apple (or Google for that matter) do this? They'll just do it themselves. Already cable and satellite providers allow you to stream live and on demand content from mobile devices outside the home.
Last edited:
All modern multi-line office phones have a hold function.
Sky News and Reuters are already on the ATV. Great for news without all the talking head BS. They are a little limited in just US National news, if that's your interest.
Attachments
Capitalism also works the other way - sellers choosing how to sell products. They know pope will buy a bundle to get a few channels they want, and different people may want different ones in the bundle. So , they bundle the product because they'd rather get $1 from 150K subscribers than say $3 from 30K people who actually want the bundle. Only the most popular channels would be available a la carte, such as they are today.
Actually, it's just the opposite. The rise of streaming services has two impacts:
1) Allowing cable cutting; and
2) Increasing demand for bandwidth
so caps let you take advantage of increased demand and make up for lost revenue from cable cutters. The ISPs will simply make the internet connection more expensive if you cut the cord.
There's no way in hell I'm spending $30-40/month on a TV subscription. Not doing it with cable, not doing it with Apple.
I think Apple is moving ATV into being a hub rather than simply being than a streaming device. By integrating with iPhones, Macs, etc they will eventually allow a seamless transition for calls, messages, home automation all via one device. One possibility for streaming is to partner with cable companies to deliver their services via the internet using ATV as a set top box. Given Apple's closed architecture they can ensure DRM, commercial non-skipping, targeted ad insertion, etc is enforced at the hardware level.
What is "cable cutting" though?
I'm just really curious about this whole streaming problem in the US, and why there isn't an ISP (like we have BT) that can offer unlimited bandwidth and not be tied up with TV services too. Are the two the same in the US (internet provider+TV provider)?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
At times, areas of the U.S. had multiple ISPs. However, Cable companies buy them up and merge them in. Now individual homes are lucky if they have more than 1 choice. In my own case, I have 2 choices: Comcast (cable) and AT&T. Both also sell TV subscription services through their same "cable" (broadband) pipes and both would feel the pain of an Apple "new model" replacement solution that gobbles up their cable TV subscription revenues. So, even in cases where some Americans have more than 1 choice of broadband provider, both broadband providers want to prop up the broadband-only pricing to protect their cable TV businesses.
So won't new ISPs pop up to compete with higher broadband prices? A startup ISP that serves a big area is an expensive business to start up. But, when they do, they tend to get acquired by the established players.
How about wireless LTE as a competitor? Most of the same players are also owners of the wireless space. For example, AT&T wired broadband and AT&T wireless is AT&T.
How about Google saving us all with their fiber? First, Google has to lay that cable pipe to individual homes if homes are not already wired (and the vast majority are not). That "last mile" cost is steep... and SLOW to realize. Second, where Google already offers broadband, they also offer a cable TV-like subscription service too. And pricing vs. other cable + broadband providers has no "huge savings" in it. For example: https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/ If one can look past like pricing, note that Google has already been rolling this out for a very long time. How many cities already have the Google option? How long until it's a real option for everyone?
How about the GOV saving us by forcing broadband owners to price their broadband lower or remove caps? See what the GOV has done with wireless broadband sellers and their installation of wireless caps.
So, how could Apple get the job done? Since the key is bypassing the middleman (broadband toll masters) on a national and global scale, I think the potential solution is buying DISH network in the U.S. and other SATT players around the world. Repurpose those systems as an Apple's own wireless pipe from iCloud to homes and it cuts out (bypasses) the Comcasts & ATTs. Until there is some innovation like that- something that makes it possible to have a direct link between iCloud and consumers- I think Apple as "new model" salvation that also brings us consumers huge discounts vs. what we pay now for the "as is" is a complete delusion on our parts.
Thank you, that's really interesting! I think it's exciting considering Google and Apple could push the existing infrastructure, or replace it entirely.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Only if they can cut out the middleman. Google is trying with Fiber but that's a very slow, very long-term project that may never be available "everywhere". And even there, Google is just replicating the "as is" by pricing it similarly and also offering a cable TV-like subscription service. So an Apple replacement for Cable TV via Google Fiber is basically the same as an Apple replacement via a Comcast or AT&T broadband pipe. Google/Comcast/AT&T would feel the same revenue pain if Apple succeeded in eating up their Cable TV subscription revenue, so why won't Google (too) update pricing and/or cap policies to make such an option less appealing?
Basically, if I'm any of these players and Apple rolls out a compelling cableTV-like offering as rumored for about $40/month, I do any one of these few things in response:
- Offer the same package plus a couple of other channels or other programming and/or services NOT available from Apple for the same or slightly less price
- Same as above but don't count any of that against the broadband cap
- Raise broadband rates "for heavier broadband" users "like video streamers" (which is exactly the same thing done by the wireless broadband sellers with no resistance by the GOV)
So, I guess I can say that I would share your excitement if there was an announcement of some kind of broadband distribution breakthrough- wireless or via acquisition of someone like DISH- that would allow an Apple replacement service to bypass the existing middlemen. Until then, the middlemen own the middle. And while they own the middle, they will get theirs no matter what. Where Google already is, they are just another cut of the same kind of middleman.
And if Apple is just going to pile on top of the "as is", they become another middleman looking for their own cut above and beyond the "as is". Thus, I don't see how Apple can get their 30% added on top and we consumers get the oft-stated dream of everything we want at a huge discount. If we pay more, then something like the dream can happen. If we pay less, who else in that chain is taking the hit to give us that big discount and let Apple have their cut? If someone tries to answer that question, the next question would be WHY does that player take that hit to enrich Apple?
It's even worse. Not only are the internet providers the same as the TV provider, they are also the content providers for a lot of the most popular shows. Take Comcast for instance. They provide the TV & Internet. They also own NBC, Universal, USA Network, Syfy Channel, E!, Sprout, The Golf Channel, and other networks. Heck they even own two professional sports team. The landscape is pretty much the same with the other large cable companies. Pretty early on they realized being a dumb pipe was not a viable strategy. They own a lot of the content. They own the service. They own the delivery method.
For the love of Pete,
Here's what you do Apple:
Figure out a way to integrate this:
into this: ------->
and also add this:
to this --------------------->
Pour your billions of dollars and engineering to perfecting OTA reception. Slap on the usual Apple interface polish (7.1 WHABC-TV listing = ABC) and....
Voila! The TV industry will collectively **** its pants and will come back to the table and reason for a more acceptable price.
This would terrify them.
Here's what you do Apple:
Figure out a way to integrate this:
into this: ------->
and also add this:
to this --------------------->
Pour your billions of dollars and engineering to perfecting OTA reception. Slap on the usual Apple interface polish (7.1 WHABC-TV listing = ABC) and....
Voila! The TV industry will collectively **** its pants and will come back to the table and reason for a more acceptable price.
This would terrify them.
OTA is missing the hundreds of cable channels that are out there.For the love of Pete,
Here's what you do Apple:
Figure out a way to integrate this:
into this: ------->
and also add this:
to this --------------------->
Pour your billions of dollars and engineering to perfecting OTA reception. Slap on the usual Apple interface polish (7.1 WHABC-TV listing = ABC) and....
Voila! The TV industry will collectively **** its pants and will come back to the table and reason for a more acceptable price.
This would terrify them.
The only thing I'm missing on Apple TV is the live sportscasts—iTunes and Netflix get me the rest.
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.
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]
