CBS rejected Apple TV streaming service offer over revenue split

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
CBS boss Les Moonves revealed in an earnings call on Thursday that his company had been approached by Apple about a potential streaming TV service that would share ad revenues, but the network declined to strike a deal because it prefers to license its content.



As noted by GigaOm, Moonves, who serves as the company's CEO, made the comments in response to an analyst question on whether CBS would pursue partnerships with "success-based or non-guaranteed" streaming players.



"We've even been against joining Apple TV, which was an advertiser split," SeekingAlpha reported him as saying.



With the rise of online content, CBS has stuck to a strategy of upfront license fees for syndication, the report noted. That approach led the network to keep its distance from Hulu, a joint subscription venture by NBC, Fox and ABC. CBS did, however, recently agree to allow Hulu to air reruns from the CW network, a joint venture with Time Warner. It has also reached similar agreements with Netflix and Amazon.



The licensing route appears to be paying off for CBS for now, as Moonves said on Thursday that the network is already receiving "hundred of millions of dollars" annually from online streaming agreements with possibly even more deals to come. The executive is confident that online viewership will continue to bring in significant money over the years.



Rumors of an Apple subscription TV service have existed for years, but CBS' comments come as the first public confirmation of it. The network reportedly considered a proposal from Apple as early as 2009.



Apple has gradually been adding channels and partners to its Apple TV set-top box. A recent software update added Wall Street Journal Live and National Hockey League content in addition to new features such as Photo Stream and AirPlay Mirroring.



Recent indications have pointed to an upcoming Apple television set with an innovative interface. The late Steve Jobs reportedly told biographer Walter Isaacson that he had "cracked" the concept for a "simple and elegant" connected TV.



Jobs' comments have reignited speculation that Apple will enter the TV market. The New York Times noted late last month that, according to sources, such a device is definitely coming.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    swiftswift Posts: 436member
    Run by the 80-year-oldish guy who sued YouTube because they can't stand getting publicity. Who took the Daily Show down, and uses DRM and Flash on his sites because... because he's a stupid old man who doesn't get it.
  • Reply 2 of 22
    Doesn't really bother me much, although I know some will be upset about this. At least for my tastes, there's not much on CBS worth watching anyway. How many procedural cop shows can you cram onto one network anyway? ABC and Fox seem to have the best all-around lineups, and I like NBC quite a bit as well (Chuck, The Office, Community, Parks and Rec).
  • Reply 3 of 22
    We simply must have 100% of all revenue. Even if somebody else figures out a great way to increase revenue and asks for only a fraction of the increase, that would put us out of business right away.



    100% of nothing is infinitely better than less than 100% of something.



    They told us that at MBA school.
  • Reply 4 of 22
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    CBS boss Les Moonves revealed in an earnings call on Thursday that his company had been approached by Apple about a potential streaming TV service that would share ad revenues, but the network declined to strike a deal because it prefers to license its content.




    Sounds like he made the right choice.
  • Reply 5 of 22
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by whatisgoingon View Post




    100% of nothing is infinitely better than less than 100% of something.



    They told us that at MBA school.



    "The licensing route appears to be paying off for CBS for now, as Moonves said on Thursday that the network is already receiving "hundred of millions of dollars" annually from online streaming agreements with possibly even more deals to come."
  • Reply 6 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post


    "The licensing route appears to be paying off for CBS for now, as Moonves said on Thursday that the network is already receiving "hundred of millions of dollars" annually from online streaming agreements with possibly even more deals to come."



    Oh no! Now I will have to turn on my cable box to ignore CBS.
  • Reply 7 of 22
    Content is king, and in a few years, I bet these content companies will simply do what Amazon is doing and just borrow Android and tweet it then sell their own tablets with TV streaming services for a subscription fee. There's nothing that can stop them from doing it, they can earn both the Ad revenue and the subscription revenue, 100%, plus the device revenue.
  • Reply 8 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Swift View Post


    Run by the 80-year-oldish guy who sued YouTube because they can't stand getting publicity. Who took the Daily Show down, and uses DRM and Flash on his sites because... because he's a stupid old man who doesn't get it.



    That's Viacom. Moonves is not 80.



  • Reply 9 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rtapps View Post


    Oh no! Now I will have to turn on my cable box to ignore CBS.



    Agreed. The only time I ever find myself tuning to CBS is for NFL and college basketball.
  • Reply 10 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by drobforever View Post


    Content is king, and in a few years, I bet these content companies will simply do what Amazon is doing and just borrow Android and tweet it then sell their own tablets with TV streaming services for a subscription fee. There's nothing that can stop them from doing it, they can earn both the Ad revenue and the subscription revenue, 100%, plus the device revenue.



    No they won't. The bulk of the money CBS makes is by redistribution through other networks who manage the bandwidth and distribution to its customers.
  • Reply 11 of 22
    all i can think of is what kind of deal CBS has with comcast.
  • Reply 12 of 22
    swiftswift Posts: 436member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    That's Viacom. Moonves is not 80.







    But the old, bad-smelling man who runs Viacom owns CBS.
  • Reply 13 of 22
    This obsession with form to the exclusion of all consideration of content is a particular failing of technophiles. These endless discussions of traditional vs. digital media uniformly ignore how completely irrelevant the medium becomes when the content it conveys is uniformly crap.



    As Lord Northcliffe quipped a century ago, "News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising." When was the last time any television news program broadcast anything other than the most blatant, self-referential advertising? What we call journalism in America is third-rate propaganda recited by failed actors in order to help morons passively while away their meaningless lives while they wait for their equally meaningless deaths.



    Does it really occur to no one that if all of TV news were banned from the Internet tomorrow, the result would be an improvement in the quality of online content?
  • Reply 14 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post


    This obsession with form to the exclusion of all consideration of content is a particular failing of technophiles. These endless discussions of traditional vs. digital media uniformly ignore how completely irrelevant the medium becomes when the content it conveys is uniformly crap.



    As Lord Northcliffe quipped a century ago, "News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising." When was the last time any television news program broadcast anything other than the most blatant, self-referential advertising? What we call journalism in America is third-rate propaganda recited by failed actors in order to help morons passively while away their meaningless lives while they wait for their equally meaningless deaths.



    Does it really occur to no one that if all of TV news were banned from the Internet tomorrow, the result would be an improvement in the quality of online content?



    We are not supposed to mention your name - we are not unique snowflakes - we are the all dancing, all singing crap of the world. The first rule of...
  • Reply 15 of 22
    It is certainly a problem for all media companies these days.



    They support a format by bringing their content.

    It is a whole new world where it is they who take all the risk.
  • Reply 16 of 22
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,011member
    Just speaking personally, I love the Netflix model of a fixed fee for on demand content. The obvious down side is lack of current content. It seems an aggregator, be it Netflix or Apple, is a far better solution than having the content providers all doing their own thing. Plus there's no reason there couldn't be competing aggregators. The solution to the newer content seems obvious to me at least, a premium membership at a higher price for those that wish it? Sound familiar? All I am describing is a 21st century version of cable only now it is on demand and diffent players such as Apple and Netflix become the distribution channel. What becomes of Comcast and Verizon et al! Well they have the opportunity to join in but they cannot be allowed to prevent others using their conduits IMHO. Perhaps one day wifi will use frequencies that allow far greater distances and penetration thus removing the stranglehold currently enjoyed by cable, fibre and phone lines. Not to forget satellite of course ....
  • Reply 17 of 22
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post


    This obsession with form to the exclusion of all consideration of content is a particular failing of technophiles. These endless discussions of traditional vs. digital media uniformly ignore how completely irrelevant the medium becomes when the content it conveys is uniformly crap.



    As Lord Northcliffe quipped a century ago, "News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising." When was the last time any television news program broadcast anything other than the most blatant, self-referential advertising? What we call journalism in America is third-rate propaganda recited by failed actors in order to help morons passively while away their meaningless lives while they wait for their equally meaningless deaths.



    Does it really occur to no one that if all of TV news were banned from the Internet tomorrow, the result would be an improvement in the quality of online content?



    Do you feel better now? How's your high horse up there?
  • Reply 18 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Swift View Post


    Run by the 80-year-oldish guy who sued YouTube because they can't stand getting publicity. Who took the Daily Show down, and uses DRM and Flash on his sites because... because he's a stupid old man who doesn't get it.



    There is so much stupid shit in this post...
  • Reply 19 of 22
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samwell View Post


    There is so much stupid shit in this post...



    The more things change, the more they stay the same.
  • Reply 20 of 22
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,973member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    Do you feel better now? How's your high horse up there?



    Don't you mean, "how's it up there on your high horse?" Regardless its still freaking funny.
Sign In or Register to comment.