It's still a step in the right direction.
People could watch the Big Four live, the Oscars, local Sunday football, etc..
Enough to make a dent. Throw in DVR support-- game changer.
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
It's still a step in the right direction.
People could watch the Big Four live, the Oscars, local Sunday football, etc..
Enough to make a dent. Throw in DVR support-- game changer.
Sure. My contention, however, is that Youtube offers a very complicated UI, and that there is a lot left to be offered by someone who is good at scaled online software and services. It would be much easier to switch on youtube than an apple music, because it could be free, and there could simply be a feature where a user would login to the Apple service, and log into their Youtube account within the Apple app, and it would port over all of the content under that account, video statistics, comments, etc, except it would be displayed in a much more user friendly format, and allow users to monetize much more easily. Currently It's pretty difficult to do those things on Youtube, and after years of seeming unwillingness or inability to fix this, I'd say thats a great opportunity for them. I literally have to Youtube "How to find my inbox on Youtube" once every 6 months or so because they change it around and it makes no sense where they put it.
Besides, as Steve used to say, "Own the technology."
Nope, you don't need a cable subscription. Just an internet connection. I haven't had a cable subscription since 2010.
Different situations, with different rights to content. Apple has to get the approval of record companies to run that service, that's the same problem they're having with CBS and the others in the visual content space. I'm saying they side step them completely, and turn the power of content generation to individuals (like YouTube did) or smaller production houses (Like Netflix did) and cut these bastards off at the knees. They don't want to do whats right for the customer, and want to hold revenues hostage through legislated oligopolies? Use the power of the internet to subvert them and crush them.
Besides, the content they produce is garbage. The stuff on Netflix, and especially YouTube (if you look for it) is vastly superior and more detailed. I for one am tired of the mindless drudgery which is offered by the major media verticals.
Thanks for being the major hold out, CBS. Nobody will subscribe to your channel on its own, like you'd want them to. Just fall in line so all the people who cut the cord can do so.
I agree with this in principal. The problem is that it isn't very profitable. Even YouTube is just starting to be profitable after over a decade of trying. The fact is that the real profits are still on the traditional side of media and content delivery. It will change and Apple is trying to push the change but they're not going to give the profits to Apple for free.
This is unlike the music business under CDs where their profits were deteriorating rapidly and they were desperate.
It's obvious. CBS et al are not desperate.
And Apple, without Jobs, doesn't have the clout they used to have. What they do have is cash and they should start throwing it around.
Last edited:
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.
That setup isn't far off. A lot of people use the HDHomeRun Connect or Extend network tv tuner with the 'Channels' app on the Apple TV for live TV right now. Pretty seamless setup and the bonus of a network tv tuner is you can hide it. Native DVR isn't available yet, but the 'Channels' app does have the ability to pause live tv in the current beta. If Tablo just releases their ATV app then you'd have your all-in-one solution, but the upfront cost + the external hard drive don't make it much of a deal.
Because of how they're behaving as a channel. They're not tied to a distributer (satellite/cable company), they don't show adds, most (if not all) of their shows come out all at once each season, so viewers can watch it all at once…I see them as doing everything traditional networks refuse to do, and they're succeeding. Not only that, they create quality shows.
If I'm running a major network, I'm getting nervous.
CBS is on the AppleTV. The rumor is that the rumored Apple TV Subscription Service is no longer in active development. CBS is a key source on that rumor, but the rumor is not about CBS.
It only works the other way if people don't give a **** and just buy what is offered. Freedom is not free. If you want to be in control and free, sometimes you have to go without, spend more money, etc. until the sellers get a clue. If even 10% dropped their bundles and told the sellers no way unless its offered al-la-cart, then the sellers would go al-la-cart or at least set up and take notice.
But in the end, buyers don't care about freedom or choice if it costs them an extra dollar. Where would we be if the founding fathers had thought this way? Certainly not the greatest country in the world for 200+ years. They risked their lives, we can't spend an extra dollar. That is not a slight on capitalism, it is a direct result of the current mind set that we will give up everything to get something for free or reduced cost.
I'm ok with being one season behind and sticking with Netflix.
I don't know why Apple would come up with a bundle… that's just like a cable subscription. If I could pay something like $4.99 per channel (or less), I could create a bundle that is fitting to me.
I don't know why Apple would come up with a bundle… that's just like a cable subscription. If I could pay something like $4.99 per channel (or less), I could create a bundle that is fitting to me.
It depends what is included with the bundle, if it is the same stuff that the cable companies have, then it would probably suck. If it included all seasons of all current and past TV shows of the participating networks, then the bundle could be worth the price.
Are you talking about Linear Channels like Live TV... where one show is played per half-hour or hour on a set schedule?
Or are you talking about On-Demand Channels... where you can select a show to watch at any time?
I've heard many people say they'd pay $5 for a channel... just curious what they are expecting.
I'm not sure I'd pay $5 for one channel when I could only watch it at certain times (I sleep and go to work) and still be stuck to a traditional broadcast schedule.
I didn't overlook it.
I said: "Sure... it might depend on how much they charge for DVR rental or whatever"
Checking the price of the DVR rental goes along with checking the price of the TV portion of their current cable bill... which is what I said in my first comment.
My whole point was... look at what you're paying now and how much you're getting.
And then when something new comes along... you can compare it to what you're currently paying.
Yes... if you have to pay for 4 DVRs... there will be a significant monthly cost. But if you watch that much TV... you might not be satisfied with only 20 channels in a "skinny package"
I don't know though. But my advice is still to carefully examine what you're already paying... then see if an alternative will suffice.
For years we've had "cable TV" and not much else.
But now we have many options. You're gonna have to do some comparisons.
Typically they are the same. Most cable companies are also the local ISP, although you may have some choice in more populous areas generally you're picking the lesser of two evils.
In the end, that's free market capitalism. If enough people buy what I offer I have no reason to offer anything different, no matter what other people want. I get to chose what I offer, and succeed or fail on that basis. Just becasue someone wants to buy something doesn't mean anyone has to make it available to buy.
Unfortunately, the HomerunHD sucks unless you have a wired connection between the two devices. I did the KS DVR thing but have basically dumped my HD Homerun because the overall experience is poor; and that's being generous .
That is good advice.
Unlike a decade ago, there are many different options to choose from.
But, I don't want to dismiss Apple's service until we actually know what it is.
Besides, even if Apple's service is horrible, having more choices and competition will not be bad for the consumers.
I was also wondering the same thing. Everyone is naming prices on what they would pay, but not really describing the service they are expecting.
I would think people are not talking about live TV only, but some might be. I guess most people are probably talking about live tv + on demand, but there is also old seasons content, and old show content.
Also, are they talking about advertising free content?
The ones that mentioned the $2.99 per channel, I doubt that it would ever be that price and no ads.
Even at $5 a channel, there will probably be ads.
Cable cutting, or cord cutting could mean many different things.
Some people consider not having any TV cable subscription cord cutting, while others might consider being on a cheap cable TV tier, and using things like Netflix and Hulu cord cutting.
What they all have in common is trying to avoid paying the local cable companies as much money.
In the US, many people only have one ISP to choose from, which is almost always also the TV provider.
Comcast is the big one with Time Warner after them, they cover most of the US. There are others, but not in the way of competition. That is the ISP problem in the US, no competition.
If are lucky enough to have more than one ISP in your area, they things tend to work out nicer. When I got Verizon FiOS in my area, Comcast dropped their prices to hold onto customers.
Now I switch back and forth between the two for my ISP, who ever has the better deal for me. And if one of them pisses me off, then I switch again.
Right now, Comcast has the better deal for me, but my plan ends in February and if I cannot get it renewed, then I will go back to FiOS.
Also, this is probably why there are areas in the US with data caps. If there is no competition, there is no incentive for ISPs to drop their data caps, because what other choice would customers have?
For people outside of the US, the IPS/TV providers are some of the most hated companies here. I read somewhere about a poll stating that the 5 biggest cable companies in the US were also in the top 10 most hated companies in the US.
Exactly.
The discussion usually centered around current live cable TV and "I'm paying for channels I don't want"
So naturally they think if they got to choose a fewer number of a la carte channels... their bill would get smaller. But like I said earlier... I don't think that would be the case.
Even if they did offer a la carte channels... the prices wouldn't be much better than the current channel bundles.
And that's still for live TV... which in this day and age... I don't think people want. Who wants scheduled content anymore?
On-demand channel "apps" make the most sense. And we actually already have those. But $6 a month for one channel's content... is that a good deal?
You gotta REALLY love most of the shows from one channel.
Or if you subscribe to 3 or 4 of those deals... now you're paying up to $24/month for still a limited amount of content.
And you're right... with ads or without?
It all makes my head hurt
Oh ok. Tim Cook can't do anything right.
He's such a failure that he went after the larger screen smartphone market and "ONLY" SOLD 250 MILLION UNITS DOING SO and more impressively he handily eclipsed and sank the sales of its sole competitor!
Yea what a idiot! Lolololololol
Get your facts straight.