Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
BLACK FRIDAY DEAL: Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom--A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at $48 with coupon code "BFRIDAY20" ×
Businesses Movies Television The Media Apple Entertainment

Apple Said To Be Working On a Pay TV Service 155

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Said To Be Working On a Pay TV Service

Comments Filter:
  • by n0w0rries ( 832057 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @01:38PM (#48991211)

    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.

    • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @01:43PM (#48991275) Homepage

      Tell Comcast that.....

      • 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.

        • by Ksevio ( 865461 )
          I don't think that was the original premise - although there are a few channels without advertising, it was more of a better connection to get broadcast channels.
        • 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.

          On

          • "Nobody remembers what never was."
            I remember visiting my cousins in LA who had cable. We watched many hours of programming with no ads at the time in the late 70's. The big appeal for them is not having to watch ads which was a big draw of cable at the time. I think HBO was one of the many channels available and I don't remember ads in the sense that Network TV had ads. It was a revelation to me at the time. I thought this is a cool way to have TV content delivered. Pay up front and not have pesky ads inte

            • I remember visiting my cousins in LA who had cable. We watched many hours of programming with no ads at the time in the late 70's.

              Then your "cable" was really just a pay movie distribution service and not what cable TV started out to be. If your "cable" didn't carry the local broadcast TV then it was something different. Like back in the mid seventies there was an OTA pay service in Chicago which wasn't broadcast TV even though it used the same technology for distribution.

              I remember in the mid to late 70's when HBO became the first and at that time only pay service on our cable system. The only other channels that didn't have ads we

              • Not really here to argue. Just to relate the experience as I know it. You have more information on the particulars. Fine.
                I know my cousins and many other's were lured to cable for its ad free stations and were willing to pay for them.... Like HBO for instance. That is what drew them to paying for service.... as you say... a pay movie distribution service. Without cable they could still pull in 20+ stations over the air if they wanted and yet they paid for services with fewer to no ads.

                So given this experien

        • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

          Same as the networks? When I worked at comcast we helped test and install MPEG2 stream compressors that would drop frames here and there from a movie or TV show to give us 2 more advertising insertion spots than what the TV network had. Yes that's right, we inserted MORE ad's than the network had by dropping frames.

          There is a reason that I refuse to have Comcast Cable and Comcast Internet even if it's the fastest I can get around here... After working for them, I will never ever give them any money Or

          • Anyhow too much advertising to be worth my time anymore.
            That is part of why I have cut the cord now, way to much of life wasted on unwanted advertising...and less and less meaningful content.
            Now Netflix has become similar to what the reason my cousins switched from the networks to cable for. Less ads and more content. And I don't mind paying for that.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MouseR ( 3264 )

      Works well for Netflix/ 8$ a month and no commercials.

      My cable TV bill used to be 160$ to get HD/PVR/Channel On Demands (which the pileup of all the crap you dont want but are forced to get through CRTC and "cable packages").

      Quite a savings since I dumped cable TV out the house.

    • by Merk42 ( 1906718 )
      Enjoy your $500/mo bill, or do you think that you could have the same shows with their large budgets without advertising?
      • 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

      • I pay $8 a month for Netflix with no ads. a streaming service could easily have a massive library and be quite affordable while staying profitable.

        • Barring the very small amount of new content Netflix funds, most of that massive library you have access to has already been paid for through traditional means.

  • No "of" after comprise. But at least you didn't use its meaning incorrectly like most people.
    http://www.merriam-webster.com... [merriam-webster.com]

    Comprise == consists of

    • dupe comment
      http://news.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

    • 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 o

      • TL;DR.

        Convince the dictionaries to change their minds, and I will too. For now they recognize such usage only as "nonstandard" or "idiomatic."

        The proper usage of a word comprises that specified in the dictionary.

      • The original and erroneous post states, "[the] service would comprise of bundles," which is an improper construction regardless of the subject/object relationship. It could "comprise" or "be comprised of," but it could not "comprise of."

        The irony, as I said, is that the OP has the subject/object in the proper order, he just has that errant "of" in there.
        I wonder if he didn't read the recent Wikipedia article here on Slashdot and try for a play on it. =) He almost got it. Were it not for that post, this stu

  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @01:42PM (#48991255) Homepage

    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

  • Late to the party... (Score:4, Informative)

    by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @01:43PM (#48991283) Homepage

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

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by maliqua ( 1316471 )

      perhaps you're unfamiliar with apple.

      first to market is for innovators, not incumbents they simply take existing idea's wrap it in aluminium and sell it at a premium.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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.

      • by Sebby ( 238625 )
        Indeed, "Apple" is synonymous with "Copycat"

        Tablets? Phablets? Nope, Apple didn't think of those.

    • by Jhon ( 241832 )

      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 additiona

      • 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 a

      • by kuzb ( 724081 )

        That's great and everything, but since buying it is invite only it's worthless to most of us.

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      They were late to the phone party as well.

  • problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slashmydots ( 2189826 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @01:44PM (#48991285)
    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.
    • Re:problem (Score:5, Informative)

      by ArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @01:49PM (#48991353)

      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.

      • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

        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.

      • Then you should have bought a cheaper device.
      • Oh btw, forget Apple TV. Try deciding to stop using iTunes and bring your purchased music and videos and your Apple ipod over to another store/software platform. Oh wait...
        • Music? That hasn't been a problem in a long time.

          Videos however, are a different story. That's why I've only ever used the "99 cents movie of the week rental" for videos on iTunes.

      • Go ahead and tell us that this Apple TV is your only Apple product.
    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

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

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

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

      • https://gigaom.com/2015/02/04/... [gigaom.com]

        Market share is nearly tied.

        In this case Apple did it first (that's generous though given Blackberry's old position) and Android is arguably doing it better. Of course I think open is better and the man on the street will probably site Apple being better because they don't have that bias.

      • Those numbers are bullshit. There are 7 android phones in the world for every 1 apple phone of any generation.
    • Perhaps you don't have an Apple TV. I use mine, and I've NEVER bought or rented a single movie from Apple. I use it exclusively for Netflix and PBS, neither of which are Apple owned. I also AirPlay to it from my iPhone so I can watch Amazon Instant Video shows. Again, not an Apple product. Your point is invalid.
      • No it's not. Apple TV content has always been limited when compared to more open devices like Roku. I've had a Roku since the days it ONLY had a Netflix app. Today it has hundred of channels. Plus it can do everything you mention in this post. Plus with this weeks Sling introduction in can already do some live TV.

        Lockdown is a HUGE issue with any Apple product. If you already have been locked in to apple products then this new service might be worth it, but the better alternatives already exist.

        • You're conflating issues. Apple TV has dozens (hundreds?) of channels at this point, with the only notable absence being Amazon Instant Video (no one seems to know if it's Apple or Amazon keeping it off of the Apple TV). Roku may have more/better channels. Or it may not. I don't know off the top of my head, and, frankly, it doesn't matter to most people since most of the important channels are on all of the devices anyway.

          Where Apple does lock things down is with the content that you purchase from them, suc

    • 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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by tsqr ( 808554 )

        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.

        You're right, of course. He really should have said, "Everyone in America who's been paying attention knows ...". Much smaller number than "Everyone".

  • a la carte (Score:5, Interesting)

    by retech ( 1228598 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @01:44PM (#48991287)
    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?
    • It depends on how good the a la carte offerings are, I suppose, and what it costs. For me, at less than $10 a month per subscription service, I can get far more relevant content than with cable by subscribing to several services, and it's ALL on demand. Even better, I still pay a fraction of what cable costs.

      Many people hate cable because they bundle hundreds of channels you DON'T want in order to get the two or three channels you really do want. That business model isn't going to last long in the face o

    • All I care about is watching soccer. For me to do that on cable the channels will cost me $110/month. I'm not going to pay that and I find the games by alternative means. If Apple can provide a service where I can watch the games live for $10-$20/month I'll sign up.
      • Check out Dishworld's sports package. All the euro soccer - premiere, la liga, serie a, Mls, champions league, Mexican, etc., and a bunch of other channels that don't matter unless you like badminton or cricket. $9/month. Works for roku, iOS, chromecast, android devices.
  • "Over the top" (Score:5, Informative)

    by imidan ( 559239 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @01:53PM (#48991409)

    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.

    • by halivar ( 535827 )

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

    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      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 like to think it meant they were going to climb out of their trenches and charge across no-man's land to attack the Germans(Google?). I can picture a bunch of people wearing Apple Genius uniforms charging across a muddy, crater filled field waving iPads to confront a bunch of Glass-wearing Google developers. And then suddenly a few Google self-driving cars slowly lumber onto the field sending the Apples back in a panic while flights of Amazon delivery drones buzz overhead dropping 1-2lb hand grenades.

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Thursday February 05, 2015 @01:58PM (#48991455) Journal

    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.

    • Apple already has pay-per-show iniTunes, but it's set at relatively high prices because it's pay-to-buy instead of pay-to-watch/rent.

    • Amazon has pay-per-show as well. However, renting a whole season of shows often costs more than just buying the DVD set (and then you own it...sort of). Good concept, bad implementation.

  • Apple Fatigue? (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by ripvlan ( 2609033 )

    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!!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    All the TV and movies you could ever watch, no commercials, and they're yours forever.

    • 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.

      Eventua

      • Not to mention being spared the stress of getting made an example of by some MPAA law firm.
  • 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.

  • "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?

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll invite himself over for dinner. - Calvin Keegan

Working...