Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Time Warner and Amazon Forge Ahead as Apple Negotiates With Content Providers

Of course, this might also make the content providers more amenable to reaching an agreement with Apple.

After all, some money coming in from Apple is better than no money coming in from anyone as two heavyweights work hard to remove their legal right to make any more money from these new services.

At least that would be the smart thing to do. Which means that they won't likely do it.
 
"Time Warner Cable (itself part of a media conglomerate generating music, TV, and movie content)"
Time Warner Cable was spun off from Time Warner the media company so this isn't really true. A quibble maybe but I think it's important.
 
RalfTheDog said:
What competition. If Apple were legally allowed to provide the same service, this would be competition. As it is, this is just Amazon standing on a mountain, waving a golf club over their heads in the middle of a thunderstorm shouting, "The RIAA are all a bunch of loons, so sue me!"
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what Apple should be doing. Go Amazon!
 
RalfTheDog said:
How about this for a solution,

1. You can only stream content that you have purchased from Amazon.
2. Amazon requires you to upload the content that you have purchased from them back to their server.
3. The Amazon server looks to see if the content is binary identical to the one you purchased. If yes, it deletes your upload and lets you listen to the original master copy Amazon has.

That should be complicated and generally stupid enough to make the RIAA happy. If not, they could require you to sign a EULA each time you listen to a song and they could make you sign a NDA so you can't let anyone else listen to your music. They could even make you delete your songs after 30 plays.
Click to expand...


Have you heard about cheksums? MD5, SHA, etc?
 
What?

??? TW actually seems to go out of their way to protect content providers, since this otherwise pretty cool app only works in your own home and only if you are a subscriber. Andt he content providers STILL complain??? Huh? What's next? Getting charged an extra $10 per month if I go out and by another TV? Content moguls better get with the times before everyone before the next generation grows up--my nine year old already knows how to surf for free TV episodes and will probably never submit to being nickel and dimed to this extend. Nice app, TW, and nice attempt to play by the "rules."
 
Žalgiris said:
Have you heard about cheksums? MD5, SHA, etc?
Click to expand...
I don't think you get it. If you just require some kind of hash, you are making things easy for the customer and providing more value. Try thinking like the RIAA .(I know, it is painful.)

Anything that lets the customer use the product or derive value from it is a tool for piracy. The only way to protect our content is to make sure the end user cant use it.
 
Regardless of this 1 particular story, the problem is that the tv, movie, and music industries just don't want to play nicely in that the internet is here to stay. They want to continue making their money/fees the old fashioned way as if it were 1985 and the internet was a term that 1 in 10 million knew.

Sadly we have seen this bickering since the late 90's and here we are 10+ years later with the same lawsuits and complaints and crying.

This is why I continue to purchase cds and dvds and bluray...because the prices are fantastic ($9 usually for a new title cd, $15 for a new title dvd or $9 for an old one, and $17-$20 for a bluray) compared to dealing with all the limitations, software installations, integration problems, licensing junk, etc.

iTunes and Amazon have taunted me to purchase MP3s but it's just not worth it for me for inferior quality. Besides, I'd really like to see some nice ways to have my music in the cloud...and I've been waiting for this for over 10 years.

Cloud will come some day, but you're gonna have to ask UP FRONT all the questions that people and news articles never ask: What happens if the Service goes out of business? Where does all my music go? What happens if my account is corrupt or accidentally deleted? Do I have any kind of hard-copy list of all the stuff I "own"? Define "own"? Can I let my son listen to it? Can I transfer it to my personal computer? How do I make a backup? What measures are in place that the stuff I "own" is safe and will never be destroyed?

There are more questions...but those are the ones nobody will ask or answer. Those questions really don't apply to physical media because the owner has full control of it.
 
sommer182 said:
??? TW actually seems to go out of their way to protect content providers, since this otherwise pretty cool app only works in your own home and only if you are a subscriber. Andt he content providers STILL complain??? Huh? What's next? Getting charged an extra $10 per month if I go out and by another TV? Content moguls better get with the times before everyone before the next generation grows up--my nine year old already knows how to surf for free TV episodes and will probably never submit to being nickel and dimed to this extend. Nice app, TW, and nice attempt to play by the "rules."
Click to expand...

What is to stop a TW user from setting up a VPN from their house to their iPad. This would bypass the, "You can only use it at home and on our network" garbage.
 
I feel like the labels and studios are going to lose this fight. If they don't start embracing new technologies faster, they are gonna just lose their market. People will always find a way to work around any blocks they put in place. So they should just make a reasonable deal, and allow us to pay for mobile content. We are happy to pay if there is a system in place to let us. :D


I already cut the cord (satellite) last month. Debating on a Roku or maybe a Boxee. But either way, I am done with the old model. Tired of paying for tons of channels that I never use or watch.
 
TheRealTVGuy said:
...For example I love ABC News to death but if you spend any time at all on their website, you'll realize how ludicrous it is that every time you want to watch a video relating to a news story, you have to watch a :60 ad for a prescription drug before hand.... :(
Click to expand...

Agreed. Though I contend us consumers for the most part don't mind ads, we know they are a necessary evil. We just don't like ads that are irrelevant &/or shown in every ad spot. With any digital interface to online video, the content streamer ought to know who we are enough to display ads for things we each actually care about.
 
JimEJr said:
Agreed. Though I contend us consumers for the most part don't mind ads, we know they are a necessary evil. We just don't like ads that are irrelevant &/or shown in every ad spot. With any digital interface to online video, the content streamer ought to know who we are enough to display ads for things we each actually care about.
Click to expand...

If I had the choice of paying money for the content or watching some stupid add, I would pay for content.
 
Terminate your cable/FIOS/sat

Wanna send a message to the content houses? Cancel your TV service! Help make them realize their archaic, decades old practice of forcing consumers to subscribe to hundreds of channels in bulk has to end. Get your HD TV over the air for under $100 with an internal or external HD antennae. Get the rest of it online via Hulu, Netflix, Boxee, iTunes, the network web sites, etc. A MacMini and OTA antennae has replaced our cable box, DVD player, Roku box, TiVo, AppleTV and home theater system.

All TV should be IP based...aired "live" online, then available for anytime repeat streaming to any device, anywhere, anytime. Let us pay for the shows &/or channels we want. If we download rather than stream, allow us to watch again as much as we want. Doesn't cost the content provider anymore. In fact, with middlemen cut out, could save the content providers a lot of dough! Insert local ads based on location of viewer or home billing address.

This is not too difficult. Just requires the most absurd, frightening consideration ever...putting the consumer first and foremost. Ah, the horror!
 
RalfTheDog said:
If I had the choice of paying money for the content or watching some stupid add, I would pay for content.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, my preference too. Though if I can't escape the ads, please just let them be worth watching. I can only take so much of the Nationwide Worst Spokesperson in the World.
 
RalfTheDog said:
If Apple and Amazon want to take truly effective action in the war the RIAA is fighting against the rest of humanity, they should start finding good unsigned bands (There are many), then feature them on the front page of iTunes and Amazon.com.

The day good bands can make money without the labels is the day the RIAA will be dead.
Click to expand...

People will complain 30% is too much...
 
Why would I subscribe to a cloud service of music if I already have the songs?
 
THX1139 said:
Why would I subscribe to a cloud service of music if I already have the songs?
Click to expand...

To listen to them from any device. Even ones that you did not download your songs to (You are at a friend's party and want to play a song that you don't have on your phone at that time).

So that you don't have to manage songs on multiple listening devices (Your work computer, your home computer, your phone, your tablet).

To have access to more songs than your device can handle.
 
This is a lucky break for Apple. Content providers will give Apple a 2 year exclusive deal for online content streaming just to retaliate against the Amazon and TimeWarner. They will trust Apple more for their willingness to negotiate honestly and punish their new enemies at the gate.
 
sad

.
The old Jobs would have had the b@lls to do what Amazon did. To think, Time Warner is acting more pro-consumer than Apple. WTF?? :mad:
 
JimEJr said:
Wanna send a message to the content houses? Cancel your TV service! Help make them realize their archaic, decades old practice of forcing consumers to subscribe to hundreds of channels in bulk has to end. Get your HD TV over the air for under $100 with an internal or external HD antennae. Get the rest of it online via Hulu, Netflix, Boxee, iTunes, the network web sites, etc. A MacMini and OTA antennae has replaced our cable box, DVD player, Roku box, TiVo, AppleTV and home theater system.

All TV should be IP based...aired "live" online, then available for anytime repeat streaming to any device, anywhere, anytime. Let us pay for the shows &/or channels we want. If we download rather than stream, allow us to watch again as much as we want. Doesn't cost the content provider anymore. In fact, with middlemen cut out, could save the content providers a lot of dough! Insert local ads based on location of viewer or home billing address.

This is not too difficult. Just requires the most absurd, frightening consideration ever...putting the consumer first and foremost. Ah, the horror!
Click to expand...

They'll make it up by selling you bandwidth - and lots of it if you think everyone in your neighborhood will be able to pull thousands of simultaneous and unique HD streams.
 
Time warner is lame. I can't use the app because you have to type in your ZIP code when you set the app up and it's says my area is not available! Same thing when they started making ESPN3 available. I'm in troy, ny and apparently, if i was in albany (ten minutes down the road), i could use it. What the heck does my ZIP code have to do with anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back