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, Apple Arguing Over Channels to Be Included in New Streaming Television Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
An argument between Apple and Disney??
In the Steve Jobs Era, this would have been quickly settled with a friendly ping pong match between Jobs and Eisner.
In the Steve Jobs Era, this would have been quickly settled with a friendly ping pong match between Jobs and Eisner.
Yup!
These type of negotiations could really, really, really use Steve Jobs.
Also, remember back in the days when people who pirate shows didn't brag about it? I'm not saying I'm innocent of this, but for someone to pirate and think it's a normal thing without any consequences is stupid.
These type of negotiations could really, really, really use Steve Jobs.
Also, remember back in the days when people who pirate shows didn't brag about it? I'm not saying I'm innocent of this, but for someone to pirate and think it's a normal thing without any consequences is stupid.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
2 Ways:
1. Yes, back to an antenna. Perhaps a new
TV with a local antenna hookup? But that will not work for everyone who currently gets their locals via cable but can't lock on them with an antenna.2. Maybe a clearQAM tuner in a new
TV. Since an IP-based solution requires a broadband connection and the bulk of broadband is delivered by cable players, maybe the big 4-5 are in the clear via clearQAM even with only an Internet connection from the cable provider?If neither, I'm guessing CBS has set the stage with the $6/month pricing. $6 times 4 or 5 for the networks, perhaps with some kind of local programming feeds too?
But then, this looks increasingly likely with each play...
I just don't agree with the "same prices" thought, as I expect broadband pricing to rise if Apple is able to take the cableTV revenue from those who also provide the broadband pipe.
Last edited:
I was thinking along the same lines. But "negotiating" just doesn't sound as dramatic.
Yep.
I would love to cut my DirecTV but Apple won't help me on that end. I pay $80 and the reason I like to keep is mostly for live sports and my wife and kids like the easy DVR function.
It seems whatever Apple brings to the table might end up giving me a small savings if I buy a la carte but getting live sports might cost a good penny.
OTA is a option for few channels, but them leaves me without the option to record or make me buy a DVR something I don't want to do. So it's not an easy task. They for sure don't want me to give up paying my monthly dues and they won't make it easy on Apple's end. So I foresee being stuck on this for quite awhile.
Cutting cable might be easy to certain people but families and others is not so easy and the Apple a la carte model so far don't seem to be able to address that to most folks. I hope to know the detail by WWDC.
Last edited:
Not to play Devil's Advocate, but let's say you have HBO and/or Showtime at home along with the free over-the-air networks. You're away from home and HBO Go isn't working or you forgot to DVR a show, so you decide to download it. Why pay $1.99-2.99 online for a show you already pay service to watch when you can torrent it? It's tantamount to buying the same album - you already paid for it, technically it's not stealing.
Hmmm....
Yes it is. You paid for a license to view the content a certain way, not for the ability to watch the show completely on your own terms.
Unless HBO sent you the file, it's stealing or copyright infringement or whatever the term is.
Not saying I wouldn't do it, though.
Yes it is. You paid for a license to view the content a certain way, not for the ability to watch the show completely on your own terms.
Unless HBO sent you the file, it's stealing or copyright infringement or whatever the term is.
Not saying I wouldn't do it, though.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
They're worried about eyeballs and ad sales. If they could make as much profit with fewer channels, they'd have fewer channels. We consumers think TV is about the programming. But the programming is created and paid for to try to woo eyeballs to see commercials.
Channels with commercials that can't show a good number of eyeballs won't exist. Make your list of the 10 most useless channels in your package and if they run commercials on those channels, companies are paying to run those commercials. If there's no eyeballs, the companies won't pay and the channel will be killed off. Again, for those of us that would rate a "Game of Thrones" or "Big Bang Theory" on our favorite, must-have list, there's others who will vote for Kardashians and fishing shows.
Hmmm....
The Kardashian watchers should probably give up TV altogether.
Fine with fishing shows, though.
The Kardashian watchers should probably give up TV altogether.
Fine with fishing shows, though.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Slippery slope. Where do you draw the line between what is"technically not stealing" and stealing? Conceptually, over our lifetimes, the households we've lived in have paid for just about every TV show and movie ever made via cable subscriptions. Why pay for any of that again when we've already paid to view it once? It's easy to rationalize stealing IP with logical-sounding reasoning but that slope can have up to no end if you just spin the rationalization hard enough.
I think I may never see the day when we'll be able to pick and choose each channel we want in our package. That would be great, although I guess because stock holder value must be paramount in any decision by any public company, niche channels might go away quickly so that we'd be left with the Kardashians, Real Housewives, Sports, some older movies, and some maybe some decent original programming on some of the premium channels. Ok, maybe lots of talk shows, game shows, too.
Umm, its not exactly a small list.... Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Netflix
That's sort of a yes and no. A lot of the good TV is there, a handful of good new movies are too. You get more with the mail service, but for $8/month, the streaming is a pretty good deal.
How many GOOD tv shows have come out of one of these CBS/NBC/ABC networks is the last few years? Everything I seem to watch is HBO, Netflix, Showtime, AMC, History Channel. Network TV is mostly garbage these days. Laugh track comedies and things like the Voice? Come on.
You missed the point. I can pay $8/month for a couple things I really watch and that's it. I don't need 10 channels. I only have time in my life to really watch 1-2 shows at a time. I can pay $8/month for Netfilx, catch up on House of Cards, then dump it. Sign up for HBO Now for $15/month, catch up on Game of Thrones, then dump it. None of these services (except Amazon Prime) have minimum terms..yet...
Because free market. People are dumping their cable subscriptions because netflix and amazon prime are enough for them and LOTS cheaper. There is no law that says every house is going to get hosed to the tune of $74 or more just because....well...because and that's it.
Try not to take this the wrong way, but your business math is leaving a lot to be desired. You seem to assume we'll get hosed just because we have been hosed and those doing the hosing won't let us not get hosed. Cable/network TV has had a stacked deck in there favor for years. More consumer choice and introducing a little of the free market into the ISP world should do wonders towards removing that stacked deck. And without that, there is little reason to think this $74 is set in stone.
Just to clarify here, your argument is basically, "you get what you pay for" and its BS. The networks are in the business of making as much money as possible, so they will make and give you as little as possible for the most money as they can. The "you get what you pay for" principle only works in system with lots of competition. Network TV has had little to no competition for decades.
Hmmm....
On quantum level, everything is essentially one thing, so pirating is really just thinking about it in a different way..
On quantum level, everything is essentially one thing, so pirating is really just thinking about it in a different way..
Since Disney and Apple own a share in each other you would think that deals will be fairly easy to come by.
That seems antiquated, back to the days when the music industry tried to DMA some CD's on computer systems in the 90's, it didn't take.
Dictating "how" I watch/acquire content I legally pay for is strong-arming and splitting hairs. Recent legal precedents with cases challenging this matter have sided with the defendants on the grounds that subscription contracts do not specify acquisition of paid for content. In one such case, defendants argued that mixed tapes in the 80's-early 90's from CD's did not break copyright laws (mainly as such laws were yet to be established until the "Napster" years). The courts ruled if you own the media, you are legally able to do with it as you wish as long as you do not profit from it.
More courts are siding with defendants in such cases; how you acquire content you legally pay for should not determine its legality. Film is a different matter.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I suspect that if this al-a-carte, new model was mandated and all TV watchers had to vote for a favorite 50 shows to keep, just about every one of us would be shocked to see how many on our own 50 list wouldn't make the cut.
That Kardashian-type programming isn't aired because it's universally hated. People revolve their TV watching around that as much as another might revolve theirs around a CSI or Big Bang or Game of Thrones.
Again, all those channels that exist that you or I might consider absolute junk have eyeball counts that motivate companies to pay for commercials that run on them (even at 4am in the morning when it's likely that so many eyeballs are asleep). One man's junk is another man's treasure... and vice versa.
Last edited:
What?
Best of luck with that approach.
If you paid to stream content, how is downloading a different file of the same version from another site the same thing?
----------
Sure, though humans are pretty stupid. We'll watch and do things extremely harmful to us because it feels good in the short term.
Best of luck with that approach.
If you paid to stream content, how is downloading a different file of the same version from another site the same thing?
----------
Sure, though humans are pretty stupid. We'll watch and do things extremely harmful to us because it feels good in the short term.
It is the same content; you're paying to watch the television production. How is this different from paying for a song or app and re-downloading it? You've already legally agreed to pay for it. If iTunes or HBO GO or Showtime doesn't offer the program you pay for after its original airdate, which often happens, then the consumer has a legal right to download it as the services agreed to in the contract are not being fulfilled by the provider. That's one such defense example fought and won in court. You own a car, the manufacturer cannot dictate when you can drive it. You paid for it in your subscription contract. This is merely arguing semantics, but the law is quickly catching up with cable providers in regards to paid for content that some download for convenience, not to circumvent the system.
Not to mention that using a torrent site usually results in you providing monetary support for the other criminal activities the owner of the site is engaged in (by generating ad view revenue for them). People who run torrent sites are usually also engaged in other questionable activities. They aren't "freedom patriots" like people try to make them out to be.
uh huh
You can't compare a physical object like a car to a non-physical object like a digital file.
The problem is that it's really tough to tell the difference between someone who downloads for convenience, rather than to circumvent the system, if they're using the same method to do it.
----------
Nor are they all criminals, but I agree with your overall point.
You can't compare a physical object like a car to a non-physical object like a digital file.
The problem is that it's really tough to tell the difference between someone who downloads for convenience, rather than to circumvent the system, if they're using the same method to do it.
----------
Nor are they all criminals, but I agree with your overall point.
Yes and no, that's a broad stroke to paint "all" torrent sites. Many do police and regulate with membership only and penalties.
Simply fueling my vehicle, I am part of the oil and gas industry that has strong-armed their way into nations using government force, often resulting in conflict and tension amongst governments. Does this mean I am directly responsible for such tensions? Perhaps, yet that too is a straw-man's argument and a "slippery slope"
.
I think this is EXACTLY what the marketplace is asking for and why people are desperately looking for ways to 'cut the cable'.
Many of us are tired of 57 channels and nothing on (actually more like 557 channels and nothing on!), but I have to pay for all of them because "Desperate Housewives from BUMF***K Indiana" has to be subsidized...
I'm happy to pay for content.
But let ME choose MY content a la carte so I don't have to subsidize things I have zero interest in watching.
Allow others with disparate interests to do the same.
And let the marketplace dictate what each show is worth instead of forcing people to subsidize crap.
Or, if they want to watch crap, let them- and let them pay for it.
And if they think MY tastes are crap, let me have to pay the freight for my version of crap.
But give ME the choice, and give me an integrated place to get the choice from...
Last edited:
I thought you can just by going to the ATV menu and making sure that whatever channel you DON'T want is unchecked.