Slashdot Mirror
Apple Said To Be Working On a Pay TV Service
walterbyrd writes Apple is in talks with TV programmers to put together its own over-the-top pay TV service, Recode says. According to the site's industry sources, Apple's proposed service would be comprised of bundles of programming, secured through deals with content providers and sold direct to consumers, rather than a full TV lineup. Apple has reportedly already shown demonstrations of the proposed service to people in charge of TV programming, but Recode says the talks 'seem to be in early stages,' with the pricing and release date still yet to be set.
If I pay for TV I expect NO COMMERCIALS. PERIOD!
Hulu thinks if they show me the same commercial every 5 minutes that somehow I won't despise them and their advertiser.
No "of" after comprise. But at least you didn't use its meaning incorrectly like most people.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Comprise == consists of
99% of all TV shows are available for purchase on Apple TV at exorbitant prices, but they are there...
Here is hoping that they have an ala-carte version that is affordable in the $9.00 a month price point like Hulu Plus
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Someone else is already offering this sort of service (Sling TV).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Everyone in America at this point knows if it says Apple, don't get into it in the first place. It's like a black hole. Once you're inside, you're stuck and that's that.
I'm all for freedom of choice. But if you have to pay for a half dozen different monthly services to get the content you want it's really not about choice anymore. It's about how much they can gouge from you. Why not just offer single show subscriptions? Or pay as you watch?
Dozens of players have tried to get in to the streaming TV biz. Even big hitters like Microsoft and Intel have met limited to no success.
Every time, it's been met by existing content providers and media cartels flexing their muscles to protect their entrenched market.
You can't have a service if you've got nothing to show your subscribers. Popular prime time TV enjoys a captive audience and they'll fight to the bitter end to maintain the status quo.
Of course, the same thing could have been said of the music industry back in the day when Apple started the first successful online music store. The same store that remains the biggest and most popular today. If anyone can do it, it's Apple.
In case you don't know what "over the top" means in this context, this is from Wikipedia:
In broadcasting, over-the-top content (OTT) refers to delivery of audio, video, and other media over the Internet without the involvement of a multiple-system operator in the control or distribution of the content. (A multiple-system operator or multi-system operator (MSO) is an operator of multiple cable or direct-broadcast satellite television systems.)
So, apparently, it just means streaming media over the Internet.
I finally broke down and bought an Amazon Fire TV box. I can watch just about anything on TV, Hulu, Netflix, etc. that I already have a subscription to. I can run apps, games, etc with it also. I can use any smart phone to control it or play content to my TV. It truly is a well thought out product that does not bind the customer into a single subscription service. Amazon does have the Prime service on the box, but you do not have to pay to use the other systems that the box can do.
Apple will not attempt to create a TV set top box unless the business model allows then to somehow reap revenue from both the subscriber and the content creator. This has been their business model from day one, and unless they can somehow get the masses on board with it (black hole) then it probably is doomed from the start.
Even though I'm in a well-populated area, we have only two viable providers, and they both suck badly. I welcome competition from Apple so that they can't slack as much.
One feature I'd really like to see is single channel subscriptions. I don't want to have to pay $25 more for the next level JUST to get one stinkin' channel. Bundling drives me crazy.
If I can cherry-pick channels I want at about $7 or less per channel, then I'll be knocking at Tim Cook's door to get it.
Or even pay-per-show over bundling. I don't watch much TV. Apple has the negotiating power to thumb the bundlers.
F forced bundling.
Table-ized A.I.
Ok, I'm all about choice,, but the problem is starting to get more like WHO should I spend my subscription dollars on. I cut the cord a few years ago and have Netflix and Amazon Prime. I thought about Hulu, but now were throwing yet another service, and Roku app, into the mix. It's going to get to the point that I can't remember what show is on which service! What the networks and content providers need to do is to standardize their streams, allow me to subscribe to what I want and open source the players. What I mean is to subscribe to a specific network or content provider. For instance, I can pay 5 bucks a month to subscribe to CBS or NBC or ABC or Fox or UPN or whoever then an open source "player" of my choice, say maybe Kodi, will be able to access the content, categorize it to my linking and display it all in one location. Essentially use Kodi (or Plex or whatever) to manage the subscriptions and be a front end to all the content offered. If the price point is fair, I wouldn't mind a *few* commercials before, during and after a show (note, that doesn't mean 5 minutes of commercials every 10 minutes, that means 1 or maybe 2 as I am paying for the subscription). Maybe a few bumpers so their subscribers would know about other shows they may like.
Why is this news worthy of geeks? Apple - may or may not be doing something - but it is too early to tell what - and they may not actually be doing it, and if they are it may or may not be with an iDevice. But we can't tell.
Look - Apple Watch!!
If I pay for a show and the bits download to my computer there is absolutely no reason that I shouldn't be able to save it to watch later, transfer it to my other devices, or (gasp) share it with my friends if I'm so inclined.
Do they run out of 1s and 0s so they need to take mine back to give to the next person?
The amusement park analogy doesn't even work because amusement parks have physical limitations.
Until streaming services provide the ability to save content for offline watching in a drm-free format I'll keep saving my money. So far no service has been able to compete with the quality, selection, and convenience of piratebay regardless of the price.
Is sports, cartoons, and science shows.
All the TV and movies you could ever watch, no commercials, and they're yours forever.
AC comments get piped to
I'm pretty open to trying out their service if it's good - but not if it means having to buy an Apple TV. Netflix, HBO Go, etc, seem to have the right idea: offer the service and build the client for just about anything with an internet connection.
I typically use an Amazon FireTV downstairs and my PS4 in my bedroom to run my other video services. I have no interest in replacing them.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Sorry, but none of this stuff is "renting" anything - you don't pay for a specific show on Netflix or the like. You pay a flat rate for "all you can eat" content. I have no qualms with DRM applied to such content because I'm not buying it.
If you go to a chinese buffet you don't get to take extra plates home for dinner (not without paying for them anyways). Same concept.
Frankly, the "unlimited" access model works very well for me. It's far easier to budget for (non-variable monthly cost) and I can watch as much or as little as I want without having to worry about racking up a bill.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
"Apple's proposed service would comprise of bundles of programming"
Essentially this means to get the one program you'll want to watch you'll have to buy a bunch you'll never watch. When are they going to learn that many of us are not paying for cable specifically because of the model used to extort us for more money than the programming is worth to us?
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
After realizing that I was paying over $1300 a year for cable TV that I wasn't watching (my DVR had unwatched shows from over a year ago), I took a look at just how much it would cost if I just signed up to the top 3 streaming services. Hulu, Netfix and Amazon Prime (which I already had) would cost LESS than $300 a year for all 3.
It's nice to have multiple options when consuming content. But really, rather than offering me more choices in ways to take my money, I'd rather they put more effort into making things that are worth paying for.
No subscription streaming service is worth paying for, for me, because I already have my DVD/BR collection, and free terrestrial digital TV. The content just isn't worth it.