Apple's Upcoming TV Service To Launch In Over 100 Countries In 2019, Starting With the US (macrumors.com)

A new report from The Information says that Apple's upcoming TV service that is in the works to showcase its original TV shows will be available in more than 100 countries next year. The service will launch in the United States in the first half of 2019, with a global expansion to follow later in the year. MacRumors reports: According to The Information, Apple's original content will be made available for free to Apple device owners, a rumor we heard earlier this month from CNBC. While Apple's content will be available at no cost, Apple will encourage users to sign up for television subscriptions from other cable networks such as HBO or STARZ. Apple has reportedly started negotiating with content providers about what it will pay to carry TV shows and movies, but programming is not expected to be the same in each country. It is also not quite clear how Apple content will be positioned alongside content from third-party services.

Comments

Another shell

[fluffernutter]

I'm still waiting for one internet TV service that gives me even 90% of traditional cable because I refuse to play a perpetual shell game of switching out services as I want to watch new things. Looks like I'm still waiting.

Re:Another shell

[vlad30]

https://motherboard.vice.com/e... they were on the right track now they are derailing the train again

Re:Another shell

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting that you want to drop cable, just to watch the same channels in a different way.

Strange.

Re:Another shell

[Anonymous Coward]

You will never get this. CableTV was the last time. Once we move(d) to the open playground which is the internet, there is no reason to have a single provided aggregate everything.

Re:Another shell

[Darinbob]

$120/month vs $10/month?

Re:Another shell

[fluffernutter]

In a different way, meaning I can play them when I want to play them yes.

Re:Another shell

[tepples]

Traditional cable television services, such as Xfinity by Comcast, come with a selection of video on demand in addition to the linear channels.

Re:Another shell

[Maury Markowitz]

> a selection of video on demand

Which doesn't address:

> I can play them when I want to play them

If you think "a selection" is somehow addressing that statement, you need to go back to grade school.

For myself, it's its not on-demand, I don't watch it. I'm not alone.

Re:Another shell

[anegg]

It's interesting that you want to drop cable, just to watch the same channels in a different way. Strange.

I don't think it is so strange.

The delivery of A/V content by a provider who has to install a physical media system (traditional cable) results in most communities selecting, at the community level, a single provider for that community. Everyone in the community is locked into that choice. Market forces are largely inoperative, and heavy regulation is needed (with accompanying corruption) to mediate pricing for content between the consumers and the provider. Battles over the content (puritans don't want to see the Playboy channel in their community, for example) erupt, where local gatekeepers of "community standards" want to enforce their morality on everyone. Moreover, because the physical delivery system is based on a broadcast technology, the number of simultaneous channels that can be offered is limited. When enough bandwidth is available, providers offer the same programming on multiple channels, time-phased in an attempt to match the broadcast to the consumers needs. Elaborate recording and playback systems are developed in order to overcome the technological limitations of the broadcast system and allow consumers to view content on a schedule that works for them.

Contrast that with a physical media system installed by a single provider, regulated as a utility telecommunications service, where the only pricing is for the base service itself, much like water, sewer, and telephone services are regulated. Then, layered on top of that physical media system is a communications protocol that provides access to a wide variety of content from a wide variety of content providers. Market forces act broadly, with a vastly reduced opportunity for heavy regulation (except of the base telecommunications service) and accompanying corruption. There is significantly increased opportunity for content providers to be innovative in content, content development, and delivery. As a side benefit, the opportunity for morality gatekeeping at the local level is significantly reduced. The medium supports unicast, multicast, and broadcast content delivery. There is no need to develop elaborate consumer-owned content recording and playback systems because the delivery system supports true on-demand content access and delivery.

That is why I don't think it is so strange to want to drop "cable" and watch the same channels in a (vastly) different way.

If I were to look for faults in Internet-based content delivery over traditional broadcast media (terrestrial free air and wave-guided [i.e., "cable"]), I would take a long look at the elimination of societal synchronization. Communities are glued together, in part, by what the communities do together. Broadcast radio and TV act to keep communities synchronized, even over large geographical distances. The advent of content access/delivery over the Internet has eliminated that synchronization, except where the content is live or almost live (i.e., sports events and Saturday Night Live). Is society becoming more fragmented, compartmentalized, and partisan partially because of the loss of synchronization that broadcast technologies provided as a side-effect?

Re:Another shell

[Anonymous Coward]

No reason other than for the fact, that people will not pay for more than couple of them at a time. Most people will probably only pay for one. Some, like me, won't pay for a single one. Keep your pay tv.

Yeah no

[bobstreo]

I'll take a chance and guess the free content won't last long, after the "introductory" period is over.

Should I run out and buy a used appleTV now, or will they even support this brave new initiative?

Netflix is spending $2 billion on new content. How much is Apple going to spend?

Other than that, it looks like Apple will just be taking a chunk of the money from 3rd parties like they do with everything else.

This should be good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the shows have token heterosexual characters who are way over the top with their straightness?

Re:This should be good...

[bobstreo]

Will the shows have token heterosexual characters who are way over the top with their straightness?

Only the black and Hispanic characters. /s

Re:This should be good...

[bn-7bc]

Does it realy matter, as long as the main plot pot is not "oh we ar gay/lesbian, whatwever" if the story is good what does the sexual orientation of the caracters matter? This is not an atempt at a troll/SJW

Re:This should be good...

[nukenerd]

if the story is good what does the sexual orientation of the caracters matter? This is not an atempt at a troll/SJW

Of course not. Just sounds like it though.

Sounds like bollocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would Apple restrict their original content by country? They don't do that for anything else they can own and operate by themselves, like iOS. They only do it when they have to make deals with other organisations. It would be far better for them to launch worldwide.

Apple becomes a TV network

[Tough Love]

Out of ideas about phones, Apple decides to become a TV network. Hey, doesn't this conflict with the strategy of selling phones for ever higher prices so there are fewer buyers?

Apple vs Netflix, I will bet on Netflix.

Re:Apple becomes a TV network

[anegg]

Out of ideas about phones, Apple decides to become a TV network. Hey, doesn't this conflict with the strategy of selling phones for ever higher prices so there are fewer buyers?

Apple wins some, loses some. The Newton PDA wasn't so successful; the iPod Touch/iPhone as a PDA (among other things) has been a wild hit. Their personal computer business waxed and waned until they hit it big with the iMac and they became the personal computer of choice for "creative professionals." Their cooperative multi-tasking operating system was niche, their first attempt at pre-emptive multitasking (Copeland) was a disaster, but OS X has done quite well, putting a very usable and attractive graphic overlay on top of a Unix O/S. iPod music players started slow, but became a must-have device for many people. When Apple first talked about becoming a mobile telephone handset provider, the entrenched vendors snickered their derision - now they are a major market force. When Apple set their sights on selling music over the Internet, they became a significant player in the changeover from physical media for music (CDs) to soft-music sales. iTunes Radio? meh. No one is breaking down the doors for that. AppleTV? A decent, low-cost streaming media terminal that integrates well with other parts of the Apple eco-system, but works well stand-alone too. Can they leverage it into becoming a big A/V content provider?

I'm not going to root for them, and I'm certainly not going to go out and invest in them over this opportunity, but I wouldn't bet against them being successful, either.

Re:Apple becomes a TV network

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of ideas about phones, Apple decides to become a TV network. Hey, doesn't this conflict with the strategy of selling phones for ever higher prices so there are fewer buyers?

Apple vs Netflix, I will bet on Netflix.

Considering your track record - Netflix is doomed,

I prefer off line TV these days.

[Anonymous Coward]

2TB Hard drive, Media Player, cases full of DVD's I've collected over the years. I have a nice media library and more than enough TV to last me till I kill over and then someone is going to get very lucky or disturbed by all the movies and TV series I collected over the years ranging from the mid 1900's on forward. Hope they're a Trekkie cause I got lots of Trek.

Netflix's missed opportunity

[juancn]

I think Netflix dropped the ball. They were the effective monopoly in terms of digital distribution.

They should have allowed others such as HBO, etc. to sell premium packages on top of Netflix. They take a cut, and become the distribution platform, plus they compete with their own shows. They could have pulled it off, building a reliable streaming platform is not easy/cheap.

Streaming is fantastic, but having to deal with many apps and sites to get what you want is a usability nightmare, to the point that people are resorting again to piracy.

I think Gabe Newell was right when he said piracy is a quality of service problem.

Re:Netflix's missed opportunity

[JaredOfEuropa]

I think Gabe Newell was right when he said piracy is a quality of service problem.

It certainly is, but at some point it becomes a monetary issue as well. I'm happy to pay to see Game of Thrones, the Expanse, House of Cards, and some of the other great original content out there, but I don't really want to shell out north of $100 a month in subscriptions to every streaming service, effectively paying multiple times for access to the generic stuff they all carry.

And sure, I also don't want to deal with all these damn apps, and I most certainly don't want to add another box. I've recently switched to NVidia Shield devices running Android TV throughout the house, and I'm very happy with that: it does most of the streaming services very well, plus Youtube, and Kodi for locally stored media. But I doubt it'll have an app for Apple's exclusive content.

Re:Netflix's missed opportunity

[Kjella]

I think Netflix dropped the ball. They were the effective monopoly in terms of digital distribution. They should have allowed others such as HBO, etc. to sell premium packages on top of Netflix. They take a cut, and become the distribution platform, plus they compete with their own shows. They could have pulled it off, building a reliable streaming platform is not easy/cheap.

Neither is herding a bunch of cats who'd want their own pricing models, promotions, branding, recommendation and search algorithms etc. into one solution. That is, if they were at all willing to become a Netflix package even if they offered it. And who'd really like to be just "Netflix basic"? I bet they'd almost all hide behind some premium wall. I don't think you should underestimate how important the "if you got it you got it" business model has been for customer adoption. If it was a portal to be constantly nickel and dimed it might never have reached the popularity as it has.

Re:Netflix's missed opportunity

[Ranbot]

What will probably happen is the big ISPs (Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) will shift from being the distributing platform of conventional cable TV to the distribution platform for streaming TV. The ISPs already have all the connections and experience with networks and they [literally and metaphorically] have a connection to the customers. The switch could be almost seamless.

no title

[slothman32]

Oh joy, another cable channel.
There are almost more streaming sites than actual channels on my TV.
And it would cost like 10 times as much to get all of them.
Well maybe only a few times for the same amount of content.

Boring....

[Anonymous Coward]

more crap from apple.

Nope.....

[sit1963nz]

Sorry, I pay for Netflix.
I am not paying multiple suppliers.

I don't subscribe to music services, Radio is free. I don't "rent" my music from iTunes, I buy CDs, everyone can go out of business, but my CDs will still play fine.
I also don't rent software.

Re: Nope.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Great story grandpa! How is your desktop computer doing?

Re:Nope.....

[Corbets]

Fantastic. You did note that the service is free, right?

Re:Nope.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Free for people who pay the apple fee... hardly free.

Re:Nope.....

[sit1963nz]

Nothing is free. There is ALWAYS a catch.

Foundation

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care about the rest of their stuff, but I want to see their Foundation TV show.

"available for free to device owners"

[Anonymous Coward]

device owners who update each year to a minimum cost of $799. What a bargain, as usual with Apple.

Divide device price by support period

[tepples]

A service that requires an Apple device is only free as long as your device remains supported. Then it costs the price of a new Apple device. For example, a new version of macOS drops support for Mac mini models older than about four to six years, causing people who bought a used Mac mini just for Xcode to have to buy a new Mac.

Re:Divide device price by support period

[elohssa]

I think I paid $160 for a gen4 Apple TV about 2 years ago. It's now worth about $80. That's $3.33 / month.

Re:Divide device price by support period

[anegg]

A service that requires an Apple device is only free as long as your device remains supported.

I agree with your statement, but the costs seem to be low in this situation. Apple's costs for dedicated media devices are lower than general purpose computer systems. The original AppleTV shipped in March 2007; Apple dropped services to it in 2015. I have a gen2 AppleTV I bought in 2010; it cost around $80 (I bought a refurb model; I think the new models were $100 at the time). It is a multi-media streaming terminal that can access a variety of Internet-based content sources. It works and still has service (It works with Apple's movie "store" although I don't typically use it that way); due to technological limitations it can't install "new apps" the way the 4th/5th generation can. I actively use it on my living room TV, primarily for Hulu and AirPlay. I have a gen5 AppleTV that I acquired fairly recently using credit card points; I think the market price was around $160. I expect it to last quite a while.

I sympathize with the plight of those who got into older Mac hardware for software development yet need the latest O/S for software support, but the media terminal market as a whole, and Apple's slice of it in particular, is both less expensive ($100 to $200) and tends to have longer legs (upwards of 12 years it would seem).

In case anyone cares, I have other similar devices (so not just Apple crap): A Sony Blu-Ray player that acts as a media terminal that I bought for $100 in 2010; it still works although I don't use it for anything but physical media playback at this point. A Panasonic plasma TV from 2013 that has an embedded streaming media terminal that is still functional; I used it for Amazon Prime TV until I recently acquired a 5th gen AppleTV (which finally had Prime TV support). An Amazon FireTV Stick ($40?) that I use beside my older (3gen) AppleTV in the living room for Amazon Prime TV.

Re: Grandpa's Desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

My desktop is doing great! Thanks for asking. It is on its third motherboard transplant, third video card, fourth monitor and fourth set of RAM. When is the last time you updated your laptop's motherboard, sonny? Oh, I'm sorry, you CAN'T. It's just not possible in today's quest for the thinner/lighter/more bling/more fragile laptop. Make sure you don't grab that laptop anywhere but the approved carrying points, throw it in a backpack with books, or $DEITY forbid, let a child near it. So you have to shell out about $1250 each time you want (or have to) to upgrade, I spend about $600. Oh, and I can play games and watch movies on my desktop without burning up the family jewels, and I don't have the glare issues those crazy ultra-glass laptops have. Best part? All those old parts go on to new homes in other peoples computers.

Now get off my lawn! It's my naptime, and I'm feeling cranky. Oh yeah, it's time for my meds, too - which I can afford because I didn't buy laptops!

NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Definetely not looking at any original content from apple, Product placement!
They probably have scenarios were the authors need to insert MAC, APPLE or IPHONE in every conversation, where utopian schools all have Apple Computer and look they are actually productive

Catch-up or binge watching?

[tepples]

I guess I need to understand your viewing model. Are you referring to catch-up, where subscribers can watch a half dozen episodes of each series that were most recently aired on a channel, or binge watching a whole season? I'll admit that VOD from the cable company leans toward catch-up more than binge, though last I checked, the catch-up selection on Xfinity On Demand was fairly extensive. Conventional wisdom is that Netflix and other over-the-top VOD services are better for binge.

Is there demand for, say, the Super Bowl or the Academy Awards on demand?

Thanks BeauHD

[ramlaljhon]

Thanks BeauHD for great update on Apple TV services