Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Said To Be Working On a Pay TV Service

Posted by timothy on from the box-for-every-day-of-the-week dept.

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.

29 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Hey Apple, here's some free consulting by n0w0rries · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hey Apple, here's some free consulting by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Tell Comcast that.....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Hey Apple, here's some free consulting by Merk42 · · Score: 2

      Enjoy your $500/mo bill, or do you think that you could have the same shows with their large budgets without advertising?

    3. Re:Hey Apple, here's some free consulting by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      I don't understand this black/white "if there's a penny out of my pocket then I won't tolerate ads!" I have a subscription to the New Yorker but there are also ads. Newspapers all have ads. Is it so horrible horrible that there be some ads?

    4. Re:Hey Apple, here's some free consulting by zlives · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and you can easily skip them without them taking up your time.

    5. Re:Hey Apple, here's some free consulting by n0w0rries · · Score: 2

      If they can't figure out how to provide entertainment for a reasonable price, then I don't watch TV. Why pay a bunch of money to watch other people enjoy life via a little box when you could be spending it on enjoying life yourself?

      We pay for Netflix, and they seem to do ok without commercials. Technology is advancing to greatly reduce production costs, but do they? We watch OTA broadcasts... they have commercials... I don't mind that... because it's free to watch... except when I'm eating dinner and a commercial comes on for some vaginal rejuvenation cream for dry cracked vaginas... that may cause vaginal bleeding and a bunch of other nasty things.

      There is a world outside of your mom's basement.

    6. Re:Hey Apple, here's some free consulting by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Like of the time that you are spending watching Hulu is so valuable. You could have binged watched 2 more episodes that day if it weren't for those ads.

      Netflix normally gets away from the ads by offering "out of date" movies and shows. Basically the stuff that would end up in the bargain bin at the video store. So the monthly fee is enough to cover costs, and make netflix and the content owners happy.

      Hulu, deals more with the current TV shows. So they are in more direct competition with the broadcast companies. So they need to pay them more for the rights to show the content more timely. However they charge the customer the same amount, so they make up the difference with a few ads.

      This is still superior to Cable Where you pay a lot more per month, get ads to support the local broadcast company (These are often your local ads for car dealers), then adds to support the larger parent company (These are the adds for particular models of cars with no mention of the local dealers). The broadcasters fight with the cable companies all the time to see how should be paying who for rights to show the material.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Hey Apple, here's some free consulting by bledri · · Score: 2

      This is not true. You can't skip Hulu Plus ads, and youtube now has some ads that can't be skipped (no doubt they get more money for those.) At least you couldn't when I tried Hulu Plus, so I cancelled it. If I am paying money, I don't want ads and I don't want to have to skip ads. I am willing to pay more to have an ad free experience. I am tired of being the product that is sold to advertisers, I want to be the customer that gets what he pays for.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    8. Re:Hey Apple, here's some free consulting by Wild_dog! · · Score: 2

      Anyone remember the original premise of cable TV. No Advertising.
      Just shows and announcements about what was coming up?
      Once hooked though... a scattered ad or 2 barely was noticeable until Cable is the same as Network and nobody remembers the ad-free days.

    9. Re:Hey Apple, here's some free consulting by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 3, Informative

      What annoys me are all the youtube adds that overlay the video until you manage to click the little "x" on each of them.

    10. Re:Hey Apple, here's some free consulting by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Anyone remember the original premise of cable TV. No Advertising.

      No. The original premise of cable TV was to provide good TV signals from broadcast stations to places where either antennas couldn't be installed or would be expensive. I.e., apartment buildings or distant signal areas. Since broadcast TV has ALWAYS had advertising, cable could NOT promise "no advertising".

      The acronym CATV (early "cable") does not stand for CAble TV, it stands for Community Antenna TV. One antenna serves a community and distributes signals via cable. Broadcast, ad-supported signals.

      Once programming networks popped up that were being distributed only via cable THEN it was possible to have certain channels that were "no advertising", because you could go to a pay-channel system. (Early broadcast pay-channels suffered from several problems, including limited bandwidth, scrambling systems that degraded the signal, and piracy, so they were never very profitable.) Early players in the satellite-distributed cable programming channels included WTBS and WGN (both "free" and ad supported), and pay channels like HBO ("ad free", during movies.)

      Once hooked though... a scattered ad or 2 barely was noticeable until Cable is the same as Network and nobody remembers the ad-free days.

      Nobody remembers what never was. I was around from the time HBO was a small single-channel network, and I worked with people who were there long before me. HBO was one of the first ad-free channels on the system, not one of the last.

      I have no idea what you mean by "Network", but since cable is one medium for distribution of network programming, it's hard to say that cable is not "network"-- and it was from the very beginning.

  2. They already have this.... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  3. Late to the party... by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Informative

    Someone else is already offering this sort of service (Sling TV).

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    1. Re:Late to the party... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps YOU are unfamiliar with Apple.

      Apple is never first to market, but make the best-of-class product in the category, and is able to sell it for a premium because it IS best-of-class.

      Nobody wants to pay higher prices for a product. Apple doesn't force anyone to buy their products. Apple delivers better value, therefore they can charge higher prices. Other companies would LOVE to charge the higher prices that Apple does, but can't - because their products just aren't worth it.

    2. Re:Late to the party... by Jhon · · Score: 2

      I have Sling. Had it for just about a week now. $20/mo for 12 channels. News? CNN. Sports? ESPN 1&2. Entertainment? ABC Family/TBS/TNT + HGTV, Food network, Cartoon network and Disney.

      I went from nearly $200 for internet+home securty+TV down to ~$90

      Sling is really just starting. Minor glitches (sound sync sometimes), stream quality (sometimes switches to lower quality with no known bandwidth issue on MY side). They have a few other packages with 5 stations each that you can add for an additional $5/month.

      So far, i'm very happy with the service. Got it installed on my Fire Stick (side loaded) and I launch it through Kodi. They should have a Fire Stick/TV specific app in the near future, too.

    3. Re:Late to the party... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      Just got on Sling this week as an early customer as well. It takes trained eyes to tell the difference between Sling's network stream and the digital TV stream from Comcast. This is good quality of a service that is at the early adopter stage.

      I decided after my weekly end-of-year reckoning about expenses that the price of Comcast, which slowly creeps up on a nearly monthly basis, isn't justified when I watch 2 channels. I decided to end my TV service with comcast within the next year. Then Sling comes along and has the two channels I happen to watch.

      The downside is Sling is operated by Dish and it has all the inherent customer service problems that entails. Since Comcast is a disreputable company then this is a wash though, and on aggregate Dish service is probably equal or better. The customer service problems have been on display with their roll out, as people who were REALLY excited about the service aren't being able to get the invites for the service. The excitement for Sling has been very great, but due to the usual idiocy from the top brass (giving out bad dates for when the service was going to start) and the usual corporate idiocy of not answering legitimate questions (see @Sling on twitter).

      I can't see Apple's offering to be any better. At least Sling is concerned about various platforms. I am sure Apple will force you on to their equipment, there will be no allowance for non-Mac and Android users, etc... Sony is coming out with a similar service with the same problems. I don't want to buy a PS4 when I've a Roku boxes in my house for a decade already.

  4. problem by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:problem by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I use my Apple TV for Netflix 95% of the time and other various non-Apple sources the last 4.95% of the time. The last 0.05% is using my Apple TV to watch movie trailers, that's the only Apple service I use.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    2. Re:problem by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Considering the iphone 6 outsold all Android phones put together since it's release?

      http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/...

          I think your america is insanely different than the one that really exists.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:problem by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      I use also it for the apple movies, because every Blu Ray I get has a code I can enter that gives me a "free" copy through apple. Youtube and Hulu Plus is also great through it as well as the PBS app so I can stream Austin City Limits episodes.

      You should explore the other services on the ATV.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:problem by Princeofcups · · Score: 2

      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.

      Which type of fallacy is this? Where you ways "everyone knows" when no such thing is true.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  5. a la carte by retech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  6. "Over the top" by imidan · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:"Over the top" by halivar · · Score: 2

      Oh. I thought they were gonna turn their baseball cap around so you knew they meant business. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

  7. Step 1: Kill Forced Bundling by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  8. Re:Already done, and better. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple will not attempt to create a TV set top box [...]

    The Apple TV doesn't exist?

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  9. Re:Already done, and better. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    It's only a 'hobby'. It's not a real product.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  10. Re:COMPRISE! by sexconker · · Score: 2

    You're wrong, as is the idiot trolling Wikipedia with his edit crusade and baseless essay. (I fully support any and all trolling of Wikipedia.)
    Comprise is a transitive verb, like the word make. It originates from the Latin comprehendere. If you want to take up this clown's crusade you'll have to take up the same crusade against nearly every transitive verb there is.

    Shit makes your posts.
    Shit makes up your posts. (The "up" isn't necessary, but is common as it can disambiguate "Shit".)
    Your posts are made of shit.
    Your posts, being made of shit, are shitty.

    Shit comprises your posts.
    Your posts are comprised of shit.
    Your posts, comprising shit, are shitty.

    If you still don't get it, think about why a transitive verb is called a transitive verb.

  11. Re:NAS / torrent by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

    I'm guessing you're younger. I was there once too - perpetually broke and willing to tolerate anything to save $10.

    A lot of people aren't there anymore. The cost for these services is trivial, and far worth saving the hassle of downloading stuff for sketchy websites that may or may not even be accurately labeled. Plus you get well maintained clients or professional devices. XBMC on a Raspberry Pi might work OK, but its a lot more hassle and far less polished than Netflix's app on Roku/FireTV/etc.

    Eventually there comes a point when the hassle of piracy outweighs the monetary cost of just going the legitimate route.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain