Time Warner Cable in Talks with Apple on Streaming Video Deals

[Wild-Bill]

Comcast, Cox, and the rest won't like this at all!

I have and HATE Comcast. I couldn't believe it when I installed their xfinity (cr)app on my iPhone and it would not (by design) stream to my ATV. Meanwhile the HBO Go app does it just fine. Needless to say the xfinity app was promptly deleted from my iphone.

I can't wait for the day that the cable company monopolies are destroyed and we can a la carte the channels we want, without having to get a 200 channel package for the 15-20 channels we actually WANT. Ridiculous!!

A recent survey showed (in the USA) that cable service providers have the lowest satisfaction rating - and for good reason.

They are all greedy bastards and I hope they all eventually implode, and all of their executives go bankrupt.

 

[usersince86]

I don't want cable (or satellite)

I want to be able to get streaming TV without TW, Cox, or whatever "middle man".

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is like Apple going to BestBuy instead of Warner/EMI/Sony/BMG/Universal to negotiate music rights.

Remember the freedom of buying a single song instead of the whole CD if you wanted? How great to get a single channel or network instead of buying everything. That would be magical.

 

[Robin4]

I'll reserve judgement until Apple explains what they will offer.

Time Warner may be putting up a front to cover giving up the fight. Who knows what is really going on.

UK posters - RELAX we get it, iTV is a misnomer. We got to call it something, it's just a rumor.

 

[iChrist]

Ok, so what am I missing? It seems like the only benefit to the TWC app is that you can avoid renting an additional set top box if you've got an Apple TV to stream from right? Otherwise, you have to be a TWC subscriber already and probably can't use the app on an iPad outside of your home wifi network. Snooze.

That about sums it up.

iTV is the least exciting Apple rumor going right now.

 

[Oldschoolers]

We used to have TWC and buying any content was always risky as we typically ran into issues where the movie would buffer then play, then buffer, then play, then buffer...ect. Boooo TWC

 

[Bill Killer]

The only point would be if the interface of the Apple TV was better than the interface of Time Warner's boxes. Your choice would be to rent Time Warner's boxes for like $10/month or buy a $99 Apple TV. (Similar to the choice users have now with Tivo vs Time Warner's boxes)

This won't be hard. TWC has one of the most aggravating UI's out there.

 

[MacDav]

Oh great...The same old crap on TWC now on Apple TV. Does that include all the millions of ads? Or is that what makes it better...no commercials?

 

[OrangeSVTguy]

Just let me replace all my huge clunky POS TWC cable boxes with my Apple TVs. Give me an TWC app and I'll be a happy camper.

 

[vthree]

is this the same ceo that said some crazy comment about apple/itunes not going to have any effect? like a year ago... something like that i recall seeing on here.... someone find it and add it to this post lol.

wait a minute i think i found it..

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/14/time-warner-cable-ceo-hasnt-heard-of-apples-airplay/

lol

 

[MacDav]

I'm ready for Apple to deliver something great for the TV... I'm just hoping they can.

Yeah... This is not it.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is like Apple going to BestBuy instead of Warner/EMI/Sony/BMG/Universal to negotiate music rights.

Music distribution and TV/movie distribution are very different. Cable channels and TV networks buy the rights to distribute content and then sell ads and/or subscriptions to make money. Apple has to talk with TW Cable (or whomever) because TW Cable owns the right to distribute the content, not the company that made it (there's lots of nuances between streaming, network broadcast, cable/sat broadcast, VOD, etc., but I'm just trying to keep it simple.).

Netflix has proved that streaming is viable so over the next 5-10yrs as contracts between cable companies, networks and content producers start expiring I'd expect more direct-to-customer streaming options to appear. For example, the head of HBO mentioned that they've thought about offering HBOGO as a stand alone service sometime in the future. They have to be careful though as they make a t-o-n of money in the deals they have currently and have to be careful not to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[MacDav]

Just getting cable companies to give up their grip on hardware would be a great step in the right direction. Maybe they are starting to acknowledge that they don't need to be in the hardware business.

What they need to do is release their grip on channel bundling. Ala carte channels with no commercials. That is where it needs to go.

 

[xVeinx]

Yeah, we need to be able to purchase individual channels. Then most of them will go under and we'll get:

 

[cmwade77]

They don't need to make deals with the cable companies, they need to make deals with the networks....let me subscribe to History Channel, Food Network, etc. for a $1 or $2 per month for each channel (maybe offer bulk discounts for 10/20/30/40/50 channels, but let me pick each and everyone, don't make a "package").

Additionally, provide me with whatever over the air content I can get in my area with an antenna for free, eliminating the need for an antenna as well, but with no cable subscription required.

 

[Weaselboy]

Music distribution and TV/movie distribution are very different. Cable channels and TV networks buy the rights to distribute content and then sell ads and/or subscriptions to make money. Apple has to talk with TW Cable (or whomever) because TW Cable owns the right to distribute the content, not the company that made it (there's lots of nuances between streaming, network broadcast, cable/sat broadcast, VOD, etc., but I'm just trying to keep it simple.).

Here is the rub, and I suspect what will hold back this arrangement with Apple. It is true that Time Warner Cable (TWC) has licensing agreements with content providers, but that license limits how the content can be used. Not all content providers have agreed to licensing terms with TWC that would allow showing their content on alternative devices like the iPad, Roku, or Apple TV. This is why the current channel selection on these devices is currently limited to a very few channels.

 

[69650]

The wheels of the entertainment industry sure move slowly. Seems like it's one content provider in one country at a time. Heaven help you if you live in a country down the priority list. You might eventually get some iTunes video content and/or an AppleTV by 2050 at this rate.

 

[chevy57]

I would like a la carte channels on Apple TV. I won't want too many cable TV channels over 300 channels.

http://9to5mac.com/2012/11/26/an-a-...cetime-and-cablesatellite-providers-gallery/#

 

[macs4nw]

.....I can't wait for the day that the cable company monopolies are destroyed and we can a la carte the channels we want, without having to get a 200 channel package for the 15-20 channels we actually WANT. Ridiculous!! A recent survey showed (in the USA) that cable service providers have the lowest satisfaction rating - and for good reason. They are all greedy bastards and I hope they all eventually implode, and all of their executives go bankrupt.

Harsh, but the truth hurts. Many people agree with you.

At the moment these cable cos, and their satellite counterparts -middlemen effectively-, unfortunately have pretty well an iron-clad grip on our tv viewing experience. They are in the drivers seat, and are in no hurry to relinquish that position; why would they? But nothing lasts forever, and I firmly believe that if they are not willing to be reasonable in evolving with the times, technology, and people's changed viewing patterns/habits/requirements, technology will find a way around them. When that time comes, you won't find many people weeping for them.

If content providers weren't locked into these lengthy and exclusive contracts with said 'middlemen', and had an effective vehicle to sell their content to subscribers directly, over the internet, that would relegate those cable/satellite cos to Hi-Speed internet providers, and irrelevant as far as content distribution is concerned.

And therein lies the rub, they'll still have us where they want us, with their bandwidth charges. Unfortunately, as things stand now, we are going to pay them, either way!

Having said that, many people are tired of forking over $50 to $150/month for a couple of hundred channels of which they only watch a fraction. You'd have to be chained to your TV 24/7 to get your money's worth. In the long run, I believe Cable/Satellite Cos will have to be reasonable. If they are too greedy, the marketplace will find a way around them, and they will become irrelevant as far as content distribution is concerned. Just as record companies learned the hard way. At first they had zero interest in changing their business model to digital downloads, but later were decimated when Napster and the like came along, after which they 'saw the light'.

Change isn't going to come overnight, but I'm optimistic for the future.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Oh, they can.... at the cost of $6000+ for the consumer.

how do you figure? the "cost for the consumer" of an iphone is $0 - $299, pretty affordable for a sweet smartphone. an ipod is $49. a sweet tablet is $329. mac is $599. one of the best-in-class ultrabooks is $999. all pretty good deals, in my book.

----------

so according to this article, apple isn't looking to innovate in the TV space, but rather be a 'me too' company.

no thanks.

youre on a rumors site, dude. nobody has any clue...so why would you make a decision based on a premature rumor?

 

[Tech198]

uh-huh

we've heard this before

It has, and IS STILL in the works.

 

[LethalWolfe]

If they are too greedy, the marketplace will find a way around them, and they will become irrelevant as far as content distribution is concerned.

What about content production? The cable channels and networks typically pay to produce the original content they air. Someone self-funds a pilot episode, shops it around and if Network X likes it they'll basically pay production costs in exchange for distribution rights. At $2-3 million dollars an episode for a 1hr drama there aren't too many places that can front that kind of cash, not to mention consumers want simultaneous global distribution which effectively destroys the foreign and domestic sales model that allows the majority of content to become profitable.

There are a number of reasons the current business model is so entrenched but the industry is moving forward (albiet slowly) precisely because they saw how poorly the major labels handled the transition.

 

[lk400]

Ok, so what am I missing? It seems like the only benefit to the TWC app is that you can avoid renting an additional set top box if you've got an Apple TV to stream from right? Otherwise, you have to be a TWC subscriber already and probably can't use the app on an iPad outside of your home wifi network. Snooze.

Exactly what I thought.

What we need is a service to live stream individual channels to devices, with less geo-restriction.

Liklihood of that happening - zero to none.

 

[xcodeaddict]

time warner...

 

[mw360]

They don't need to make deals with the cable companies, they need to make deals with the networks....let me subscribe to History Channel, Food Network, etc. for a $1 or $2 per month for each channel (maybe offer bulk discounts for 10/20/30/40/50 channels, but let me pick each and everyone, don't make a "package").

Additionally, provide me with whatever over the air content I can get in my area with an antenna for free, eliminating the need for an antenna as well, but with no cable subscription required.

Your a-la-carte channel selections will be more expensive. They need to raise the same revenue per average subscriber regardless of how many channels the average subscriber takes just to support the infrastructure. You will find yourself paying the same for one channel as you used to for a package, and all the junk channels in your package will suddenly be offered for free.

 

[AppleMark]

Also - the press should stop referring to it as iTV.

In case no-one has said this before , it won't be called that. And people will keep saying this every time those three letters are used together in every article about Apple and television.

Seriously. iTV is already taken guys! There's a reason they called it the Apple TV, a name that doesn't jive with the vast majority of their products. They simply couldn't use iTV.

Everybody on here know's that by now I am sure.

Yes, ITV cannot be used, but that has never stopped variants of product names in the past. It is only the "I" [independant] together with TV (which is a generic description), which is the issue.

Surely Apple would have the right to use "Apple i", with the generic descriptive "TV". So could Apple be prevented from calling it "Apple iTV", universally or in particular regions?

Apple TV is now referred to as "ATV", so "AiTV" has a nice ring to it and plays on the AI [artificial intelligence] reference [which could most probably be owned by somebody else], but could potentially be acquired more easily than iTV. It would also provide a subtle product difference, rather than calling it something completely different.

Going from this Forum, people would most likely call it "iTV" any way, even if Apple named it "Apple iTV" and this in itself would not be a breach of copyright on the part of Apple, in as much as people often called a vacuum cleaner a "Hoover" etc, etc.