Apple reportedly asking providers handle cost and infrastructure for rumored streaming TV service

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited April 2015
Apple is laying the the cost and responsibility of streaming infrastructure on TV networks participating in its upcoming subscription Internet TV service, according to industry executives quoted in a Wednesday report.




Speaking with people familiar with the matter, Re/code reports that while streaming video is normally a relatively low-cost proposition, Apple is concerned that those costs could escalate dramatically for a heavily-promoted service.

Apple's head of Internet Software and Services, Eddy Cue, is reportedly in charge of negotiations for the new platform and telling TV executives that Apple wants to concentrate on its strengths, namely hardware and software, leaving streaming infrastructure to more experienced parties.

One source lobs a different theory, saying they think Apple could be angling to present Internet service providers with a more enticing deal. If providers field their own streams, ISPs that also bundle content may be less likely to kneecap Apple's rumored service, the report said.

As noted by the publication, Apple's request is to be expected considering many video services already "stand up" their own streams in partnership with third-party content delivery networks. Some content providers supposedly in talks with Apple, like Fox, CBS and Disney, are among those networks.

Little else is known about the upcoming service. Earlier reports have suggested that it could be announced at the Worldwide Developers Conference in June, and launch in September at prices between $30 and $40. In terms of content Apple is expected to offer a "skinny" bundle of channels, including major ones but omitting more niche content.

Subscriptions could launch alongside a new Apple TV pegged for the same timeframe. The set-top is believed to be getting an A8 processor, Siri, and extra storage, the later required for a new App Store.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    April Fools?
  • Reply 2 of 11
    zoolookzoolook Posts: 657member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    April Fools?

     

    It should be... although it was posted a little late for that.

     

    As for this: 

    In terms of content Apple is expected to offer a "skinny" bundle of channels, including major ones but omitting more niche content.

     

    Translation:

     

    In terms of content Apple is expected to offer a bundle of channels of awful content you'd never want to watch, including "Gawping at the Kardashians, American's Stupidest Drivers, Alabama's Dumbest Cops, and California's Flakiest Friends, ones but omitting any quality content content, as they'd want you to buy that from iTunes. 

  • Reply 3 of 11
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,566member

    Unlike Apple to palm off infrastructure to a third party.  I'd expect them to want to be in control of the end-to-end service.

  • Reply 4 of 11
    512ke512ke Posts: 774member

    Why do HBO and Netflix need Apple? Can't the providers just put their stuff on a website and charge people to watch it? Forget Time Warner, Comcast AND Apple. Just sell it to the public over the internet. What am I missing (something obviously or these smart companies would not be making deals with Apple).

  • Reply 5 of 11
    dachardachar Posts: 330member

    Will this be another USA focused service that never gets to more than a handful of countries or are Apple going to be aiming for world wide this time? iTunes Radio never happened worldwide. I have to see real news about Apple Pay coming to other countries across the globe. Will a new set top box be marketed worldwide if there are no services to take advantage of it in most countries? 

  • Reply 6 of 11
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,312member
    512ke wrote: »
    Why do HBO and Netflix need Apple? Can't the providers just put their stuff on a website and charge people to watch it? Forget Time Warner, Comcast AND Apple. Just sell it to the public over the internet. What am I missing (something obviously or these smart companies would not be making deals with Apple).

    Service providers can throttle your connection to the those services. Also other than kids and those who live alone and do not have multiply TV in their house, we do not want to have to go to a webpage to log in and select content to watch on a laptop screen or cable it to a larger monitor. You need a stand alone device for the rest of the world to watch content on a real viewing device.

    Honestly I find it funny I grew up watching TV either black and white or color with snow on the screen of a 13" TV and if lucky I could watch on the 19" TV and today I love my HD high quality video on my 60" TV which I can watch from across the room with full surround sound. Why in the hell would I want to go backwards. I am part of that first TV generation and this is what we have been waiting for. However, kids and young adults rather watch crappy digitize video on the 13" laptop screen with tiny speakers. I do not thing this will last they will aspire to have a better experience.
  • Reply 7 of 11
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 1,891member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 512ke View Post

     

    Why do HBO and Netflix need Apple? Can't the providers just put their stuff on a website and charge people to watch it? Forget Time Warner, Comcast AND Apple. Just sell it to the public over the internet. What am I missing (something obviously or these smart companies would not be making deals with Apple).


     

    Not sure what you're getting at or don't understand?  HBO is launching HBO Now.  Starting on Apple TV and PC's for the first 3 months.  I get that, makes sense to not get swamped by anyone and everyone on everything all at once.  A limited launch to see how demand is.  I'm not sure what you're getting at with Netflix  needing Apple?  Where are you getting that one at? Are just just another blind Apple hater?  Netflix pretty much works with most all hardware these days.  That was the huge trick Netflix did that other company's at the time didn't do.  Netflix didn't do what everyone else was doing which was make it's own Box for people to buy to use their service.  Much smarter to put your software on everyone else's devices.  This is why it's on Apple devices, Android devices, ROKU, TV's, Blu-Ray player's, etc. 

     

    CBS has their own service now at $5-6 a month.   Apple TV is the #1 streaming Box right now, followed by ROKU, and everything else far behind.  How are you suppose to watch HBO and Netflix without a Box of some type?   Otherwise now  you're hooking up PC's to all your TV's and that just gets silly and costly.  SlingTV has their own bundled service for $20, which is just DirectTV I believe.   These channels make most of their money from Cable and Satellite company's, so just selling some cheap streaming package could really hurt you unless you have some real clout.  HBO does!!!

     

    Just throwing stuff on a Wed site and that's it?  You watch TV on your computer?  I like to relax and watch on the big screen in surround sound.  That's where my Apple TV's, ROKU's and even Amazon Fire stick makes that all possible and with a nice Interface to use with a Remote.  

     

    As a Cable Cutter for the last few years, I'm not going to sign up for a rumored AppleTV Subscription Rumor at $30-$40 dollars either.  I cut the cord for a reason.  I also  threw up a Antenna to get most of my FREE TV.

     

    Do people really want to sign up for CBS at CBS, then ABC at ABC and Pay $5 here, another $5 there, plus $5 there and so on and so on and before you know it, you have a fraction of the channels you had with Cable and paying the same price!!!  Bundling to a point makes better sense.  How about ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and CW for $5 per month for example.  That to me would be worth it if I didn't have a antenna.  You also get a Interface to access all the channels and a program guide.  Having to go to each web site with it's own different interface and trying to find something to watch, sucks!  SlingTV is a small crack in the system.  It'll take time to create even more.  Apple has been fighting for years according to rumors, and gave up and trying something else.  What that is in the end, who knows until Apple announces it.  Nothing to get worked up about.

  • Reply 8 of 11
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,312member
    dachar wrote: »
    Will this be another USA focused service that never gets to more than a handful of countries or are Apple going to be aiming for world wide this time? iTunes Radio never happened worldwide. I have to see real news about Apple Pay coming to other countries across the globe. Will a new set top box be marketed worldwide if there are no services to take advantage of it in most countries? 

    Actually STB out side the US is going to be easier for Apple, why most all of them are IP based today they send video over IP. The US Is a mix of older AQAM based video and wall as IP. IN the US Apple will have to rely on have Broadband internet connections which already exist outside the US for video. The US infrastructure sucks compared to elsewhere.

    The issue is more about content owners allowing streaming and the service providers turning into a fat dumb pipe with not ability to monetize the traffic going over their connections. Apple solution cuts out lots of middle men who profit from what you watch and the ads being placed in front of you.
  • Reply 9 of 11
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

     


    today I love my HD high quality video on my 60" TV which I can watch from across the room with full surround sound. Why in the hell would I want to go backwards. I am part of that first TV generation and this is what we have been waiting for. However, kids and young adults rather watch crappy digitize video on the 13" laptop screen with tiny speakers. I do not thing this will last they will aspire to have a better experience.

    I can fit a iPhone 6+ in my pocket, but barely. How do you fit that TV in your pocket? Or do you just carry it around? Does it consume less energy than an iPad?

  • Reply 10 of 11
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,131member
    zoolook wrote: »
    It should be... although it was posted a little late for that.

    As for this: 
    In terms of content Apple is expected to offer a "skinny" bundle of channels, including major ones but omitting more niche content.

    Translation:

    In terms of content Apple is expected to offer a bundle of channels of awful content you'd never want to watch, including "Gawping at the Kardashians, American's Stupidest Drivers, Alabama's Dumbest Cops, and California's Flakiest Friends, ones but omitting any quality content content, as they'd want you to buy that from iTunes. 

    No. The opposite is true though. That's what omitting niche content means.
  • Reply 11 of 11
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,312member
    cpsro wrote: »
    I can fit a iPhone 6+ in my pocket, but barely. How do you fit that TV in your pocket? Or do you just carry it around? Does it consume less energy than an iPad?

    If I am walking around I am not watch TV I am either interacting with others or experience the real world.
Sign In or Register to comment.