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.
Disney and CBS Signing on to Apple TV Subscription Service? Tablet to be 'multimedia gadget'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why does it matter? Disney's board (which Jobs is a part of) likely views these new types of services as potential markets. Disney knows digital distribution (in all forms) is the future.
And Disney owns a ton of content companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney
You could make an interesting service with just Disney, much less Disney and CBS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_CBS
I'd be surprised if Fox didn't quickly follow. It's Universal that will be the hold out (thanks to the Comcast takeover).
Nah. Too thick and heavy. I don't even want a dvd slot in my laptop. Just make sure there's a usb port...
Sling.
My guess is through HTTP Live Streaming protocol through iTunes which Apple just started pushing. Besides have you been watching news channels anyway? It's all garbage.
If you want to see live streaming in effect go to iphone.akamai.com/ on your touch or iPhone. They have already held live concerts there and NASA launches.
Question: Why is this being linked to the tablet? This is about iTunes. It's for all iTunes users.
This may not be true, think about it. Apple can do the subscription business with Apple TV alone and that way it can push the Apple Tv more, (hello... the Apple Tv is more or less dying right now.. Roku is better, IMO. but the Tablet.... as a bigger iPod Touch? no way. they won't be shooting to their feet for fun. iPhone can do all of that and the iPod touch the same, they even recommend it as a personal netbook. (remember the keynote?...anyone?) the tablet need to be useful or it will become a BIG ERROR.
Apple isn't going to avoid adding features to a tablet just to save the apple tv.
I don't get how the government can fund libraries and yet crackdown on people digitally "Stealing" content. Torrents sites should defend themselves as being digital libraries.
The term "multimedia gadget" scares the crap out of me.
Every time I hear new news about the tablet, I feel like the ball fumbles more and more out of Apple's hand.
If this tablet runs the iPhone OS or a slightly modified version of that OS, it will scream fail. It needs to be able to run real applications in the same way that any other Mac does.
Just my dollar minus 98 cents.
Every time I hear new news about the tablet, I feel like the ball fumbles more and more out of Apple's hand.
If this tablet runs the iPhone OS or a slightly modified version of that OS, it will scream fail. It needs to be able to run real applications in the same way that any other Mac does.
Just my dollar minus 98 cents.
How is a torrent site like a digital library? And how is calling yourself a digital library a defense to copyright infringement under 17 USC?
What I am trying to say is: Isn't renting music,dvd's, ect... and ripping them to your computer, just as bad as getting them illegally from the internet?
Yes. Both are illegal. The difference is that a torrent site knows that the stuff it's pointing at is illegal to copy, encourages such copying, and serves no other purpose other than such copying - at least with a library it is possible for me to check out the DVD and *not* copy it. Every use of a torrent site results in a copy.
I am not sure of the legality of what I am about to say, and am definitely not trying to get in an argument, I have just always had this question about libraries vs. illegal distribution. An artist is looking to make money when he or she produces and sells their content. Now lets say I go into a library and check out a book,cd, or whatever, Am I going to buy that media once I watched/read it? Obviously not. So the artist have the same result with both services, they are not receiving any royalties or money from that distribution. The only difference is that one is deemed illegal and the other is publicly funded.
You are actually asking a good question. The difference is in a library, there is no COPY made. When an artist sells you a book/cd/painting/whatever, you have various rights with respect to that item. You can enjoy it, lend it to a friend, sell it, etc. Some of these rights correspond to the "right of first sale" which says when you buy an object, you have the right to sell. It any event, only one person is using the item at a time, because no copy is made. Interestingly, you cannot "publicly perform" the work (for example, playing the CD in a bar). At least technically. You cannot copy it. You cannot make a derivative work. Etc. The point is, there is only one copy at the library, and one person at a time checks it out. The artist might want to charge each person/renter/downstream sale, but attempts to do that have been invalidated by the courts, and eventually codified by congress as the first sale doctrine.
When you download a torrent, you are making a copy of the artist's work. It's this making of a copy that is not legal. The theory is that multiple people can use the work at once, which is forbidden.
I dunno. But Disney/Pixar has a rather unusual (and definitely unique) connection to Steve Jobs and Apple. THat's a factor in all this.
I don't know how US customers feel about it but in Australia the video library is by far the weakest part of the iTunes Store. There are simply not enough movies on offer and there are even less available for rent. Why should I not be able to rent The Terminator or an obscure Rock Hudson movie from the 60s if they are available for purchase? As for television shows, the current buy-only model does not fit the medium at all; television is mostly disposable, view-once entertainment and all shows should be available to rent.
Apple TV is ahead of its time; not in hardware but in its intended purpose of delivering digital media to our screens. Too bad the content providers only support it half-heartedly at best.
Apple TV is ahead of its time; not in hardware but in its intended purpose of delivering digital media to our screens. Too bad the content providers only support it half-heartedly at best.
Would as many people watch Hulu if they had to pay to subscribe to it? No.
This isn't anything groundbreaking. Could achieve the same thing with cable, a DVR, and Sling. Some gamechanger
But if you IMPROVED upon the Hulu idea and charged for it. Hulu is ok, but I want HD, no commercials, every episode available to watch and surround sound. There would be no reason for cable TV other then live events, and hell Apple could work out some sort of way to stream those. Not to mention Apple would have a much better way to get these TV shows on your TV unlike Hulu which destroys pretty much any reasonable way like Boxee, connecting a computer up to a TV just is not the ideal solution for most people. Plus you could take you could probably watch your shows on your iPhone or tablet, besides on your big screen or computer.
If they did all this and charged a reasonable I would be all aboard, hell if they did half of this I would be happy.
you do realize they also own ESPN and ABC... that's quite a bit right there too.
Again, Disney owns ESPN. just a thought.
The US has to go through the same thing but the Aussies have it worse. There is so many issues with TV rights and that is the reason why it is hard to rent some movies. Networks don't want you to be able to download the movies when they bought the rights to show it on their channel. The good thing is that with a move to iTunes, it will eventually weaken the ability of TV stations to control these rights. It will take longer for the rest of the world as you would have the same negotiations with networks from every country.
I'd rather be able to rent individual episodes of TV Shows than have to subscribe to channels. I have Cable. What I don't have is access to things like HD versions of Doctor Who, etc. anymore because SyFy (ugh, what a horrible name) no longer carries it and almost no one carries BBC America in HD and with good reason (i.e. they SUCK for the most part compared to the REAL BBC, carrying mostly the WORST SHOWS (they seem to think Yanks don't like anything but explosions and sports) and on top of that they chop up the episodes so they can fit American style advertisements in and still meet a regular schedule. That's what I want. Cut out 20 minutes from a 60 minute episode and put in commercials instead...how about making it an hour and a half with 30 minutes of commercials. At least I could skip them and watch the entire show....
Anyway, I don't want to BUY Doctor Who episodes or Torchwood, etc. I want to RENT them ONCE. I generally don't watch TV shows more than once so buying them is a total waste of money and hard drive space. Having to subscribe to entire channels defeats the point of me having cable and unfortunately, I can't buy cable ala carte for whatever Apple doesn't happen to offer, so a "combo" of both would just be plain expensive. I WOULD love to RENT an episode for 99 cents in HD, though (50 cents in SD), which is more than reasonable given cable rates, etc. IMO, which costs me $60 a month for unlimited use of about 200 stations, 40 of which are in HD plus I get phone and internet through them as well, which would probably cost more if I dumped the TV part. Some channels like the CW (i.e. Smallville) are not even available here in HD and probably won't be before the show ends anyway. Sadly, HDNet no longer seems to carry it a season behind anymore either (at least I see no sign of Season 8 on it any time soon and their web site sucks for finding such information).
Basically, I don't see how this is going to work for most people if you have to subscribe and entire TV channel per month instead of just renting shows as you want to see them. But you know that would be too nice, so it'll never happen. Ironically, you CANNOT buy MOST movies in HD, but you CAN *rent* most of them in HD with Apple TV. Is it just me or do people usually prefer to own their favorite movies (i.e. people do watch "good" movies more than once) so the whole setup always seemed backwards to me to begin with. I also think for ones they do sell you should get a discount if you already rented it first, which would encourage me to buy it. $20 is generally too much for a 720P movie anyway. I did buy T2, for example at $12 and a few others at $18 (still too much, really, but they were some of my favorites).
Anyway, I don't want to BUY Doctor Who episodes or Torchwood, etc. I want to RENT them ONCE. I generally don't watch TV shows more than once so buying them is a total waste of money and hard drive space. Having to subscribe to entire channels defeats the point of me having cable and unfortunately, I can't buy cable ala carte for whatever Apple doesn't happen to offer, so a "combo" of both would just be plain expensive. I WOULD love to RENT an episode for 99 cents in HD, though (50 cents in SD), which is more than reasonable given cable rates, etc. IMO, which costs me $60 a month for unlimited use of about 200 stations, 40 of which are in HD plus I get phone and internet through them as well, which would probably cost more if I dumped the TV part. Some channels like the CW (i.e. Smallville) are not even available here in HD and probably won't be before the show ends anyway. Sadly, HDNet no longer seems to carry it a season behind anymore either (at least I see no sign of Season 8 on it any time soon and their web site sucks for finding such information).
Basically, I don't see how this is going to work for most people if you have to subscribe and entire TV channel per month instead of just renting shows as you want to see them. But you know that would be too nice, so it'll never happen. Ironically, you CANNOT buy MOST movies in HD, but you CAN *rent* most of them in HD with Apple TV. Is it just me or do people usually prefer to own their favorite movies (i.e. people do watch "good" movies more than once) so the whole setup always seemed backwards to me to begin with. I also think for ones they do sell you should get a discount if you already rented it first, which would encourage me to buy it. $20 is generally too much for a 720P movie anyway. I did buy T2, for example at $12 and a few others at $18 (still too much, really, but they were some of my favorites).
if DVD's are anything like books (which I imagine they would be) the library pays a tiny royalty fee for every time an item is lent.