Time Warner Willing to Cede Control of User Interface in Potential Deals for Apple TV Products

[LethalWolfe]

Instead of working with cable providers, Apple should go straight to the content creators. Offer an AppleTV with live, streaming television channels you can purchase a la cartè. Each channel costs 99¢ per month, or something similar.

First, the current contracts content creators and/or cable channels (HBO, ESPN, etc.,) have with cable companies limit what can be done right now. Secondly, what's the motivation for 'teaming' with Apple when there are 10's of millions of other devices out there (everything from internet ready TVs to video game consoles to blu-ray players) that can receive streaming content too? I mean, if I'm HBO and down the line I decide to sell HBOGo directly to customers (no cable TV service required) why would I limit myself to just TV?

 

[samcraig]

Here's the thing: cable sucks. I don't want to get a "package deal" that includes channels I don't want. This is an industry Apple needs to reform, and it's going to take more than simply making a set-top box.

Instead of working with cable providers, Apple should go straight to the content creators. Offer an AppleTV with live, streaming television channels you can purchase a la cartè. Each channel costs 99¢ per month, or something similar.

Here's the thing: Never going to happen (at least for a LONG time).

1) Apple sells current TV shows for more than .99. What makes you think they could or even would offer a whole CHANNEL of programming for .99

2) If you're going to break the model - it's needs to be broken completely (i.e. no channels - just content you want - when you want it)

3) All of those other channels you watch help subsidize the ones you don't (and others do) and vice-versa

4) Without guaranteed and steady advertising revenue - content producers wouldn't take any risks and/or produce many shows which might be great - but have more of a niche following.

 

[ipedro]

I hope it doesn't mimic the way the Iphone got introduced in the respect that an Apple TV Box could end up being exclusive to one provider for a minimum of two years. That would royally suck.

It could be. The exclusivity is used to get one provider fully on board which will allow Apple to prove the concept. On the cable company's side, it helps them to rake in tons of new customers attracted by Apple. It's a win win for both sides.

I'm sure Apple won't restrict who can have it. If the contract is with Warner and there isn't Warner Cable in your city, then Apple will work with another provider there, but it will be important for there to be exclusivity for a while.

 

[rocknblogger]

I don't ever see cutting the cord as a viable economic option. I've been trying to add up all the costs for various TV shows I would be willing to pay and it's quite a bit more than I thought. But, and this I don't see changing, currently cable subscribers bundle Internet, TV and phone for various amounts depending on the provider. But once you break up the bundle it immediately becomes a lot more expensive for each service. If I want to keep my current Internet connection speed I would be paying about $5 more per month than I'm paying now. That right there pretty much makes it a no brainer to keep the services I currently have.

I suspect it would work out similarly for any U.S based subscribers.

 

[chuckles:)]

This reminds me of how before the iPhone came out, everyone was talking about how the cellular carriers would resist an apple phone because they didn't want to become "dumb pipes".

Now the cable companies face the same situation. In the end, they are going to have to realize that they really are just a pipe.

 

[attila]

I don't care about and refuse to have any relationship with any cable provider. I just want their programs!

 

[linkgx1]

Too bad Motorola owns dozen of patents. And Google might buy their cable box division. I smell lawsuits.

 

[atrevers]

Having a problem with Apple building your UI is like having a problem with Rolls Royce building you a car.

Indeed. And in fact, Apple are very similar to Rolls Royce in their penchant for littering interfaces with wood and leather.

 

[greytmom]

Not good enough. I gave up my cable subscription and don't miss it a bit. I will not get locked back into that trap again.

And for the person who said he is back on cable because he got a good deal, how long is that deal going to last?

 

[LethalWolfe]

Now the cable companies face the same situation. In the end, they are going to have to realize that they really are just a pipe.

So is Apple unless they come out with amazing TV hardware that is on par with the iPod, iPhone & iPad.

 

[carlgo]

People really think that they are going to remove the programs that their family likes and replace them with apps!!!!!!!!! You can do this, but you will be buying your own tv to watch this by yourself.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I always said Apple needs to "bend over" the cable providers like they did cell phone carriers. Can't wait to ditch Comcast.

It's not the cell phone providers that were bent over- they're doing very, VERY well with those deals. Bending them over would have meant they felt the financial pinch for Apple's and us consumer's benefit. Instead, Apple and the cell phone providers won big. Who did I leave out?

----------

The only way Apple will ever "crack" the TV industry is if they buy major content provider(s)... which of course, they have the money to do.

But it probably has to be national with a natural step to global. I've always thought that DISH was the most obvious target.

 

[WigWag Workshop]

My cable provider is still using 1990's software. You can not search by show name. Only has A-Z listings, although there are other providers, I am not willing to spend $100+ a month. I love my apple TV, I love interface, and it works for me, has I am not a big sports fan. I might be willing to go back to TW if they joined forces with Apple.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Here's the thing: cable sucks. I don't want to get a "package deal" that includes channels I don't want. This is an industry Apple needs to reform, and it's going to take more than simply making a set-top box.

Instead of working with cable providers, Apple should go straight to the content creators. Offer an AppleTV with live, streaming television channels you can purchase a la cartè. Each channel costs 99¢ per month, or something similar.

They could have iTunes Store integration ("Want to see this program commercial free? Download now.") The ability to watch TV when I want and how I want would break the strangling hold cable providers have on Amercians.

While an Apple set-top box would be cool, it would be awesome to see Apple give consumers a totally new format to watching television.

Great fantasy. If Apple wins with big profits and we win with super cheap prices, someone has to lose. Who loses? Apple is just becoming the new middleman in this fantasy, so it's not the cable/satt industry that makes it all a wash (just one profit-hungry middleman is replacing another). Cut the revenue flows by 85% or more from consumers to production companies and you kill off the vast bulk of production of new shows. Cut the subsidy of commercials and the massive revenues those commercials flow to production companies (money that doesn't come out of own pockets by the way) must be made up somewhere else or the bulk of production of new shows gets cut. If it's only Production companies, Apple and us in the new model, who is going to make up for all that commercial revenue? Do we fantasize that Apple will take that massive financial hit? If not Apple, who's left?

Very simply, for any al-a-carte, commercial-free fantasy to come to pass, it needs:

1. To tangibly show the content production houses how they are going to make MORE- not less- money in the new model
2. Motivate Apple to inject itself in as the new middleman (which means showing Apple how to make a whole lot of money too)
3. Overcome the problem that your cable provider is probably also your broadband provider (and they will raise your broadband costs to make up for losses of cable TV subscription money)

So, more money for the content producers (apparently unsubsidized by OPM via commercials running on channels we watch and channels we don't watch), lots of money for Apple, ignore the broadband rate increase problem AND somehow we pay a fraction of what we pay now.

That's why it's fantasy. If we want the fantasy of al-a-carte, commercial-free without eliminating the motivation for the production of new shows, new episodes, quality of new shows, etc, WE would have to be the source of all that "more money". But we never spin this dream as us paying more. Instead, it's always us paying about 10% of what we pay now. How can that actually work?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Now the cable companies face the same situation. In the end, they are going to have to realize that they really are just a pipe.

A pipe that is generally the ONLY source of broadband for many markets. An Apple solution will depend on flowing it's replacement solution through that pipe. If I've got the monopoly on broadband, why will I allow Apple to take my cableTV revenues? And if I can't stop them from doing so for some reason, I'm legally obligated as a public company to maximize revenues. So if I lose my cable TV revenues, I have to try to cover those losses elsewhere. Where? I could jack up the toll of those "dumb" pipes, maybe introduce ever-tighter tiers for "higher bandwidth users", etc. (sound familiar?). And where are you going to go?

This is very different than the cell phone scenario. With cell phones, at least there is still more than one player in the space. Often for broadband, there's only 1 source in a market. If you are lucky enough to have 2, I bet both are also in the cable TV business and both will be motivated to make up for losses in cable revenues by upping their broadband. A duopoly is no better than a monopoly when facing a common threat.

 

[samwise]

Right, and add Motorola to that list. TWC really has less to fear from Apple at this point than do these three set top box makers. They put out uniformly terrible products. The real conflict of interests between Apple and TWC are over Apple's content delivery, but if they can strike a deal to share that revenue somehow, a deal could be done. Apple cannot afford to be a "partner" with TWC or any other provider, however. They need to come up with a template arrangement with TWC that is transferrable to other providers, pretty much as they've done with the record labels.

Yup - our Comcast Motorola HD box flicks as you swap between SD and HD channels - screen goes black, then blue, then black before finally opening the new channel (takes around a second, but even so...).

In comparison, I don't recall the Sky satellite dish set up in the UK doing that when flipping between HD and SD feeds.

 

[bencjedi]

Tell me this...

If you could select only the channels you want for 99-cents/month a-la-carte but were forced to never be able to skip over commercials on that channel, would you sign up for service?

 

[essential]

This doesn't make sense, I doubt Apple will build a cable-card device, such as the upcoming Ceton Q, i'd be to complicated for the end user, which Apple hates. This only seems possible if the boxes are distributed through Time Warner, likely with a Apple box "upgrade fee". TWC boxes are absolute garbage. I'm still planning on buying a Ceton Q, but this peaks my interest. However, any boxes coming from TWC will still have the ridiculous monthly box rental fee's and DVR subscription fees.

 

[al2o3cr]

As others have noted, this can only be a good thing - the current interface on my TWC settop is horrible - wrong aspect ratio (4:3 on a 1080p widescreen), painfully slow, etc.

 

[mdelvecchio]

First, the current contracts content creators and/or cable channels (HBO, ESPN, etc.,) have with cable companies limit what can be done right now. Secondly, what's the motivation for 'teaming' with Apple when there are 10's of millions of other devices out there (everything from internet ready TVs to video game consoles to blu-ray players) that can receive streaming content too? I mean, if I'm HBO and down the line I decide to sell HBOGo directly to customers (no cable TV service required) why would I limit myself to just TV?

agreed on #1. on #2, who suggested exclusivity? as an apple tool enthusiast it isnt simply the content im interested in, it's the experience and whole package of thoughtful design. thus despite having Netflix on my bluray player i ditched that in a second to get the same content on Apple TV. better experience.

----------

I don't ever see cutting the cord as a viable economic option. I've been trying to add up all the costs for various TV shows I would be willing to pay and it's quite a bit more than I thought. But, and this I don't see changing, currently cable subscribers bundle Internet, TV and phone for various amounts depending on the provider. But once you break up the bundle it immediately becomes a lot more expensive for each service. If I want to keep my current Internet connection speed I would be paying about $5 more per month than I'm paying now. That right there pretty much makes it a no brainer to keep the services I currently have.

it may not work for all customers. but for the many cord-cutters like myself who long ago realized they dont need all the crap on 100 channels of tv but are willing to pay for the few hi-quality programs of interest, well then this could be an option. another market. the two need not be exclusive.

 

[LethalWolfe]

agreed on #1. on #2, who suggested exclusivity? as an apple tool enthusiast it isnt simply the content im interested in, it's the experience and whole package of thoughtful design. thus despite having Netflix on my bluray player i ditched that in a second to get the same content on Apple TV. better experience.

I assume exclusivity because Apple needs to come up with much better reasons for people to buy TVs. If Apple can't figure out how to move more TVs I don't think the device will ever come out of 'hobby' status.

 

[ericinboston]

Here's the thing: cable sucks. I don't want to get a "package deal" that includes channels I don't want. This is an industry Apple needs to reform, and it's going to take more than simply making a set-top box.

Instead of working with cable providers, Apple should go straight to the content creators. Offer an AppleTV with live, streaming television channels you can purchase a la cartè. Each channel costs 99¢ per month, or something similar.

They could have iTunes Store integration ("Want to see this program commercial free? Download now.") The ability to watch TV when I want and how I want would break the strangling hold cable providers have on Amercians.

While an Apple set-top box would be cool, it would be awesome to see Apple give consumers a totally new format to watching television.

Apple has a number of battles for any kind of tv/cable reform:

1)The content providers/owners themselves
2)The cable/dish companies that service the home
3)The cable companies who don't want you streaming hundreds of gigabytes of data per month over their "internet connection service". Folks streaming a few hours of HD a day would likely suck down TERABYTES of data a month.

Building on #3, most ISPs, yes, we are in late 2012, flip out if you download more than 250GB of data per month and threaten to drop you. Think of a 2 hour movie @ 1080p which is about 15GB...if you watch 40 hours of 1080p a month, that's 300GB of data. 40 hours a month is not that much tv for a large population of the USA...that's about 8 hours per week or about 1 hour a day. 300GB of television data...not counting all the gigs you use each month with all your devices and the various internet services. What ISP in the USA is going to start allowing MOST subscribers to start sucking 300-800GB of data a month compared to say 10GB-50GB today? That's at least 6x more usage. And we're just talking about raw data consumption...not even talking about SPEED yet...as most people in the USA have 5-8Mbit downstream which will not support, in reality, HD. Folks will need 25-40Mbit...and not at $70/month.


I think ultimately Apple is going to have to buy some content providers...I really can't see #1 or #2 happening until Apple owns a few major pieces of the puzzle. Then Apple has to figure out #3.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Apple has a number of battles for any kind of tv/cable reform:

I think one of Apple's biggest battles is staying relevant in this area because the reform is happening without them. Maybe they are still bidding their time though until a few more pieces fall into place. Apple is more of the 'learn from the mistakes of others' than the 'tip of the spear' type.

 

[herbapou]

So they are willing to do what AT&T did with the iPhone? Be the ones to provide the service while apple controls the user interface.

From what I understand with the current BCE negotiations, the problem is not UI but client handling. BCE wants to keep full control on its clients and share all sales on the TV with Apple, this includes all itunes video on demand and apps that run on the TV. VoD is a part of cable business so iTunes profits must be shared between Apple and Cable. On the other side, cable with distribute all video rentals to consumer WITHOUT using any internet bandwidth.

They don't want to have Apple control client information like they do when they sell in app magazine subscription for example where Apple shield clients info to the content provider.

Cable is NOT going to give Apple control on its subscribers.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Apple need to just use their $100 billion stash and cut deals directly with content providers. Problem solved.

Not sure why this is so difficult.