No New Apple Television Products Coming in 2012 as Content Negotiations Stall Once Again

[Strangeite]

Cash on hand.

The first comment flippantly suggests that people will rush into this thread and suggest that Apple should just buy the networks and cable companies. I smiled because it really is a dumb idea. That isn't Apple's bailiwick.

There are too many networks and too many geographically isolated cable companies to be a realistic prospect.

Then someone suggested that Apple should just say screw the providers and become their own provider. This isn't a bad idea, but I can see lots of potential problems with the idea. First, and probably the biggest worry, is that the cable companies would see this as an act of war and institute caps overnight. Caps would effectively cut the service off at the knees.

But then an idea hit me. Apple doesn't have to solely rely on fiber buried under the ground to provide the content, it can also look to the skies.

Right now Dish Network has deals in place with all of the content providers, satellites in orbit to get "most" of the content in the home and servers in place to provide on-demand content.

Think about what Dish is now doing with their new Hopper service (I haven't used, but have read about). It is a 6 receiver unit with a 2TB harddrive. The big selling point is that, well let me just quote Dish:

With the Hopper’s exclusive feature, PrimeTime Anytime™, three hours of HD primetime programming are available to you for up to 8 days from initial air date. Plus you can save your favorite primetime content forever. You can also automatically skip commercials in primetime TV – ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC in HD.

And all of that content is being pulled from the sky.

Dish is onto something but still looking at it from the old-school model. With the right hardware, interface and packaging, this could be the al-carte service we have always wanted.

Oh, did I mention that Dish Network's market cap is only $16.4 billion. I have seen many analysts guessing that Apple's cash on hand might exceed $200 billion in 2013.

 

[CindyRed]

No I didn't get them confused!! I just didn't go into extreme detail. Here's what I said more simplified!!

Network no like Apple, network like old business,old business more money (for now)
Me pay too much tv, me get Netflix
Netflix gets bigger, cable die
Network beg apple please please take our shows for less moneys!!
Apple make more moneys!!
Me now go make love to wife!!!!

WtT

Again, I think you're confusing things. You've painted some fantasy world where the Networks would paint themselves into a corner and be the first to feel it when, or if, the paradigm shifts. The truth is, Cable and telecom companies would be the first to feel the crunch if that ever happened. It's the PROVIDERS not the NETWORKS who would hammer out a deal in a world where people switch to web based entertainment. After all, if cable just "dies" as you put it, who's providing your Internet access, your wife?

 

[Joe-Diver]

Handbrake works just fine - go get their updated version. I copy Netflix movies all the time with it, works like a charm. At night when I'm tired of watching "World's Dumbest" or "Mobsters" I bring up one of the movies on my Apple TV that I have ripped to our iMac... Works every time.

Isn't that illegal?

 

[daneoni]

Whatever spin the record companies want to put on it, ITMS Made purchasing music more attractive than using Napster, Limewire, torrents and the likes, for millions of consumers.

You mean how Apple forced the music industry into the 21st century and helped save them from themselves?

I mean how the music industry regrets giving Jobs/Cue so much leverage when negotiating for the iTunes music store. Yes Apple helped the music industry and consumers in general. But the music industry didn't like the power Apple had over them with the iTunes/iPod monopoly. Exhibit A being the debate over .99c pricing.

The TV/Movie industry will look at that and be more wary when negotiating with Apple so as not to back themselves into a corner. Therefore Apple won't find it as easy this time.

 

[carlgo]

Just buy directv and be done with it, accessible everywhere!

Absolutely. Real time viewing or endless downloads...hmmm.

 

[Dmunjal]

I say screw the cable tv companies and go directly to the content makers for the first few years. After those content makers who are locked into contract with cable companies see how much money there is to be made from Apple TV and with more money in their pockets they will jump ship to the Apple TV formula. Even here in the UK I watch Apple TV and its limited offerings more so than live TV. The cable satellite ' terrestrial providers are so reluctant to spend any money for new programmes that we are now seeing so many repeats thats its sickening. Every other week there is a repeat of the previous weeks film documentary etc. I subscribes to TWIt TV and its great watching it whenever I want. Netflix is fantastic and with the likes of the iTunes festival available this month the Apple TV really is a great device that has seen more use this year than any year previous. Im looking forward to Tv evolving into something that I pay for what I want and not what the TV cable company rips me off for. There is of course those shows that are available only on the box but people are catching on and cutting the cable.

The sooner Apple gets this going without the cable providers the better.

The reason that Apple is talking to the service providers is because talks with the content providers already broke down. I agree with others that Apple should get in the content business. They already have Disney/Pixar in their pocket.

 

[ssgbryan]

I know lots of people that just never watch TV via cable, aerial of satellite - it's all iPlayer, 4oD, Netflix, iTunes, etc. and of course the 'dodgy' options.

You don't need a crystal ball to understand that broadcast TV companies are **** scared of this sea-change.

Apple should just bypass them. In the UK, if they buy up Premiership Football rights and just add an app to the existing Apple TV, Murdoch's Sky gets a hammer blow to the guts that will spark its terminal decline. No one gives a toss about movie channels or seeing the one or two hot US dramas Sky shows a bit sooner.

Hrmm, yeah, right.

Have you seen what beIN sports paid for Football? European domestic football is now available to about 600,000 homes in the US down from basic cable,- and beIN will snap up EPL at the next contract. The Quatari's are preparing for life after oil.

 

[extradryny]

Why does Apple need the telcos, really?

The only thing that needs to be watched live is sports, and Apple is already down the path of working directly with leagues to get that content -- already MLB and NHL.

For everything else, just find a way to make it available through a streaming service like Hulu, iTunes, or Netflix. Only remaining hurdle on that is getting premium channels like HBO and Showtime on board, and HBO is already piloting a direct-to-consumer streaming model in Scandanavia with HBO Nordic.

Lots of complexities here too, but just pointing out there is an incremental approach through the existing Apple TV model that can still be a game changer for consumers who can't quite tether yet because of sports and premium channels.

 

[lzyprson]

Hey, another product that MR has been hyping up and proclaimed with certainty its coming only to back out at the 11th hour. Kinda like the iPad Mini that you guys guarenteed would be released 2 years ago and again last year?

In other news, the iPhone Mini is rumored to be in production. Here is a shoddy rendered picture. Trust us, its real....

You are by far the most annoying poster to this forum. Just sayin...

----------

Or die out? How do you figure? They own the content that everyone wants.

It's a shame because TV really sucks now. I think if they were to partner with new content creators AND get the major networks on board (ABC FOX CBS) everyone else would be forced to follow suit.

**sorry I forgot Sports too...***

 

[SeattleMoose]

Time Will Fix This

The old and stodgy "network moguls" are dying off and those behind them are much more plugged into the new digital media paradigm. The walls that appear so high today will be rubble tomorrow...and companies like Apple will be able to move forward that much faster.

 

[PDXoPDX]

The current Apple TV setup seems to work pretty well as it is.

Maybe the actual device works, but the whole cable TV system doesn't work for many people and that's what Apple is trying to break into.

Like a lot of people, I don't assign the same value to cable's content the way providers do. I watch a few shows here and there and not on any set schedule or even consistently. No way am I going to pay a ton of money for a cable subscription that includes hundreds of channels I'll never watch with shows that are full of commercials. All I want is on demand access to commercial free TV, and I'm willing to pay a reasonable amount for it. Hulu, Apple, Amazon, etc. provide spotty coverage at best.

From what I can tell Apple is trying to remedy that. The content holders simply will not give the marketplace what it wants, putting greed above innovation. My solution: the cable companies get none of my money!

 

[JAT]

Yes, because Dish, Directv, comcast and others have all been highly successful at the software ran on their boxes. I mean, comcast has boxes out there that look like they run a form of DOS. As of right now while looking at all the different companies, it comes down to what system isn't a complete joke. None of them have been good although some are starting to improve.

Um, Comcast yes. Dish & DirecTV no. They have both had and have great software. Don't know what you are looking for if you don't like their offerings. They've both found ways to imitate Tivo without being sued. (unlike Samsung) Originally, DirecTV had Tivo.

Recommendation for Comcast people: buy a Tivo with cablecards.

 

[alent1234]

biggest problem with cable is that you have to adhere to their schedule or spend more money on a DVR.

between amazon and itunes and plain old OTA i can watch most programs when i want to watch them. i'll even pay close to what i was paying before as long as i watch what i want and not on some schedule

 

[69650]

Hey, another product that MR has been hyping up and proclaimed with certainty its coming only to back out at the 11th hour. Kinda like the iPad Mini that you guys guarenteed would be released 2 years ago and again last year?

Do you mean the iPad Mini that will announced next month? For all we know Apple has been working on it for the past 2 years and delayed it's release until now for marketing reasons. Unfortunately rumours and speculation are always subject to change. That's why they're rumours and not news.

It always amazes me the amount of people who come on to a rumours website like this and complain about the fact that there are rumours and speculation on here instead of hard news. Why bother coming here if you feel like that.

 

[JAT]

That's exactly my point. The cable companies don't really give you any other option. Under the current distribution model, your *have* to pay for content that you may not want.

Simply saying that doesn't mean much. You pay for internet access, but probably don't access the whole internet each month.

That's why you personally have to analyze it from the standpoint of what you do want, and is that content worth the cost. That's what I did, and dropped my TV provider 2 years ago. Most of my wanted content was on broadcast channels.

 

[Flux.Capacitor]

Good question. I haven't had an issue with subtitles and it's important to note that you no longer need to use mkv containers as mp4 now supports DTS and everything mkv does. For my audio I have multiple layers, the first track is default for iDevices, thus either passthru the stereo track or mixdown to stereo. I passthru the second audio track as the main audio, either DTS or 5.1, etc. I haven't cared for subtitles, so most of my collection I never bothered and could always remux an srt subtitle into the container. However, I haven't had an issue with any nightly Handbrake build and 1080P subtitle encodes.

Hope this helps!

Oh, and I'm running the current Handbrake nightly right now on yesterdays 10.8.2 build. No issues

Thanks for the info! This helps a lot!

Simply saying that doesn't mean much. You pay for internet access, but probably don't access the whole internet each month.

That's why you personally have to analyze it from the standpoint of what you do want, and is that content worth the cost. That's what I did, and dropped my TV provider 2 years ago. Most of my wanted content was on broadcast channels.

This is true, but it would still be nice to be able to purchase content as you need it. My biggest gripe is I pay $80 a month to watch about 3-5 channels of the 250 or so that I have to pay for. I was hoping Apple, via AppleTV, would come up with a model where I buy subscriptions to networks; monthly Disney or HBO, or even genre's like $10/month for a sports package, $10 for home improvement, $10 for movies... or something like that. Sort of like Magazine subscriptions. You subscribe to your interests.

 

[69650]

I think Apple should just forget the cable companies and build a compelling alternative instead. Basic TV with voice activated controls + Local free to air channels + stream your iTunes content + subscribe to specific channels directly over the internet like MLB + video calls using facetime + kinect like motion controlled games downloadable directly from iTunes + decent home cinema speakers so you can listen to iTunes music + movies rentals + own Netflix type monthly streaming service + smartTV features + games using iPod as controller + notification bar when someone sends an email or leaves text message with the ability to reply all without getting your iPhone out of your pocket + internet news/RSS feeds, etc on scrolling bar over the TV programme you're watching or split screen + lots of other stuff I can't think of.

Then if someone wants to exit the Apple ecosystem into their cable box let them. The more a la carte subscription channels Apple offer over time the more people will look at the cable box and wonder if it's worth the extra. Simples.

 

[iHEARTcartoons]

For starters, this is just a speculative story and Bloomberg knows about as much as us MacRumorers do.

If it is true, hey that's ok. We'll just keep watching TV through the mystical internets sans commercials.

Wake up content providers and content distributors, your business model doesn't work anymore. It's going to get much worse for you, because you refuse to adapt. Ask the music industry, they're finally taking off the bandages from unsuccessfully trying to commit suicide.

 

[69650]

This is true, but it would still be nice to be able to purchase content as you need it. My biggest gripe is I pay $80 a month to watch about 3-5 channels of the 250 or so that I have to pay for. I was hoping Apple, via AppleTV, would come up with a model where I buy subscriptions to networks; monthly Disney or HBO, or even genre's like $10/month for a sports package, $10 for home improvement, $10 for movies... or something like that. Sort of like Magazine subscriptions. You subscribe to your interests.

I think that's what many people want, including me. In order to that Apple should be negotiating directly with the content providers rather than the cable companies. They already have deals with some of the sports organisations like MLB. They could go around the world buying up the internet/streaming rights to sports in other countries. They could do deals with Disney, Discover Channel, National Geographic, HBO, Sky, etc to stream their channels paid by subscription. It's all depends on the money. If these channels think they will get more revenue by staying with the cable companies and their channel bundling packages then they ain't going to play ball. Personally I only have cable/sat for the sports. Maybe Apple should just approach all the sports federations around the world and buy up the online rights to the tennis, golf, premier league football (soccer), etc. That would do me. I could live without all the other crap channels, it's mostly repeats anyway.

 

[The Captain]

Take a look at all the content producers. They're just ticking over, doing reasonable business. Their margins aren't obscene, and in many cases quite thin. That should give the clue that they aren't going to slash revenue just for the 'disruption' of it. And if somebody slashes it for them the thing that's going to hurt is jobs and new commissions and ultimately viewer choice.

TV could go the same way as gaming (used to be). Pay big for an item you really want ignore what you don't. But that leads to low risk development. Churning out CoD and Fifa and Tomb Raider over and over, with the risk takers going bust one a week. I guess there's a reason games companies are edging away and looking for ways to be more like TV. Spread risk, subscriptions, multiple revenue streams. etc

Your entire comment was really great. I just wanted to highlight this part since I think it's the one biggest misconception fanboys have. The package system of selling show is what pays for discovering new talent and artist. This "la-carte" system so many fanboys want would turn a TV landscape that offers a wide verity of shows into the hollywood one, with just a handful of different content and not much to choose from. It's amazing to me how many people think shows are just magically formed together by elves inside their televisions with no need for money talent, staff, or production crews to come together.

There is also the issue of local affiliates, which is one of the greatest things about the network model. Local affiliates would be unable to operate under the proposed systems people are asking for apple to do. That may be all well and good for anti-social fanboys who have no care of involvement in their local communities, but most people like and depend on the local news. Most people like that the local affiliate will break in during their shows and tell them if a tornado is about to hit their house.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yes but they don't provide it to you do they?? They sell the rights to satellite and cable providers which eventually will die out in favor of on demand content via broadband!!
I know people who have cancelled their cable/satellite in favor of Hulu and Netflix which charge much much less per month!! Which means people want on demand shows with no commercials or very little commercials. And we all know commercials are their cash cow. So if they don't get with the program now when they can charge apple more because cable/satellite is still popular, then they will die out and later on in the future be begging apple to make a deal worth much much less!!

• When we consumers pay a lot less and,
• there is no flow of OPM (other people's money) made on commercials subsidizing the creation of the shows we want, and
• Apple has plugged themselves in as the new middleman wanting their cut, and
• Any Apple solution will have to flow through broadband pipes owned by the cable companies who don't want to lose their cut (and will thus raise prices of broadband to make up for any revenue loss in cable subscription revenue should this dream come to pass)...

...how do the content creators keep producing the same volume and quality of shows that we all want? Pretending that the shows will be made anyway in spite of us realizing "huge savings" (apparently by swapping one middleman for another) and by the subsidy of commercials (paid for by entities other than ourselves) going away makes no sense... especially when we recognize that our broadband provider is probably the same monopoly or duopoly that provides cable TV services in our area. That monopoly or duopoly is obligated to maximize profits for their shareholders, thus they would have to raise broadband rates to make up for mass losses in cableTV revenues. And they'll simply use phrases like "higher bandwidth users", etc to justify the hikes. We've seen this before (Apple didn't bring AT&T or Verizon to their knees with the iPhone; Apple just enriched those companies with relatively high cel bandwidth tolls while enriching Apple too. Did we consumers get "huge savings" from AT&T & Verizon when iPhone showed up? This is not that different.)

Apple can't fix this as some of us are dreaming about it unless Apple develops a way to bypass the broadband middleman that is Comcast, Time Warner, etc and then, perhaps out of great generosity, choose to take a much smaller cut of the pie than the existing middlemen take now to try to make up for the lack of commercials in this dream. FYI: revenue from commercials is equivalent to about $54/month per US household. Kill 'em and that $54 would need to be made up by either the new middleman (Apple) or us consumers. Who is it going to be in the dream?

The dream only seems to be working for the minority now- the few people "we" know leaning on Hulu and Netflix- because they are the minority (they're like the minority that beat the tethering toll by jailbreaking their phones to make tethering work over 3G). Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc don't feel enough pain yet to put the squeeze on that kind of user. However, if the masses try to go that way, say hello to broadband increases and tiers that fully make up for any mass losses of cableTV revenues now. The dream then becomes a nightmare as it costs at least as much in the toll to the cable (broadband) provider as cable+broadband cost us now plus Apple is plugged in on top wanting their 30% cut too.

If we don't pay more- much more if commercials are made extinct (as we would have to make up for that huge subsidy too because we know Apple wouldn't cover that for us)- the only alternative is that the shows we love get killed off and/or the quality of those shows substantially drop.

The answer is not just give it to Apple. That won't happen. If it does, we pay more or we get less. There is no scenario where we pay less, get commercial free everything, and the quality and volume of show production remains the same.

 

[charlituna]

Something even Steve couldn't lock down after he told his biographer that he got it when it came to the TV.
/
/

He said he cracked the UI. not content deals etc.

As for the talk of this no need box. I personally think Bloomberg is just covering their butts because they were wrong all along. classic move really. I don't think that Apple was ever trying to get in bed with the cable companies to create a cable box. Any talks were, I suspect, to get past deals blocking content and content quality on the itunes store. Apple is likely trying to leverage that as an alternative to cable.

That said, we might see new products. We could see a revamped Apple TV box, we could see an HDMI capable Cinema Display that could be used as a TV with that box, a blu-ray player etc

 

[Flux.Capacitor]

I think that's what many people want, including me. In order to that Apple should be negotiating directly with the content providers rather than the cable companies. They already have deals with some of the sports organisations like MLB. They could go around the world buying up the internet/streaming rights to sports in other countries. They could do deals with Disney, Discover Channel, National Geographic, HBO, Sky, etc to stream their channels paid by subscription. It's all depends on the money. If these channels think they will get more revenue by staying with the cable companies and their channel bundling packages then they ain't going to play ball. Personally I only have cable/sat for the sports. Maybe Apple should just approach all the sports federations around the world and buy up the online rights to the tennis, golf, premier league football (soccer), etc. That would do me. I could live without all the other crap channels, it's mostly repeats anyway.

This is what I mentioned in an earlier post. I'd love to see them go directly to the source. It "seems" they are friendly with Disney already; with Pixar, and Jobs' family owning a large amount of shares and Jobs himself previously being on Disney's board. And Disney owns ABC, Lifetime, majority of ESPN, not to mention the movie studios... start there and go to the others. I don't see why the networks wont do it. They already sell to Comcast, DirecTV, UVerse etc. Just add another player. Maybe Apple doesn't want to pay as much as the others do?

 

[Patriot24]

...with cable companies wanting to have control over the software.

Nope.

...or if the device would be distributed by the cable companies.

Nope.

 

[jmsait19]

i see no reason why MSOs, Service Providers, Cable, Telco operators would choose to allow/enable this on their network.

it's their industry and there really isn't away around it. at the end of the day, AppleTV relies on Internet, which is provided by the aforementioned group above.

The only way i see this happening is if there is a fundamental shift in billing, and operators enable usage based billing/tiered service.

i think this is mostly true. it's their industry, and they want it to work that way... but if you look closer at that, what is it really saying? sounds like anti-trust... monopoly... collusion... doesn't sound like an open market... i mean, i'm not suggesting the justice system would have the balls to step in and break it up, but kinda sounds like it needs to...