Apple's subscription TV service might not debut at WWDC
Apple has postponed plans to reveal a rumored over-the-top streaming television service at WWDC due to disagreements with networks relating to content licensing and backend technological requirements, according to a report on Monday.
Citing sources familiar with the matter, Re/code reports Apple informed network executives that it planned to reveal a branded Web-based subscription service at this year's Worldwide Developers Conference, set to start next week, but was forced to push back the announcement due to licensing disagreements.
Aside from financial concerns, networks are hesitant to roll out new technology that would allow Apple to stream local programs to customers. It was reported earlier this month that Apple was gunning for rights to stream local TV content over the Web, a feature rarely offered by competing services.
Rumors of an Apple-branded Web TV service proliferated earlier this year after the company restarted talks with content owners in February. Subsequent reports claimed Apple was looking to charge between $30 and $40 per month for over-the-top content access, well above existing offerings from Dish Network and Sony, but would include features and channel packages not available elsewhere.
Despite the Web TV setback, Apple is still expected to debut revamped Apple TV hardware at WWDC, rumored to include an A8 processor, dedicated App Store and Siri integration. Recent reports claim the set-top streamer will sport a new remote control that replaces the old version's radial button layout with a touchpad.
Citing sources familiar with the matter, Re/code reports Apple informed network executives that it planned to reveal a branded Web-based subscription service at this year's Worldwide Developers Conference, set to start next week, but was forced to push back the announcement due to licensing disagreements.
Aside from financial concerns, networks are hesitant to roll out new technology that would allow Apple to stream local programs to customers. It was reported earlier this month that Apple was gunning for rights to stream local TV content over the Web, a feature rarely offered by competing services.
Rumors of an Apple-branded Web TV service proliferated earlier this year after the company restarted talks with content owners in February. Subsequent reports claimed Apple was looking to charge between $30 and $40 per month for over-the-top content access, well above existing offerings from Dish Network and Sony, but would include features and channel packages not available elsewhere.
Despite the Web TV setback, Apple is still expected to debut revamped Apple TV hardware at WWDC, rumored to include an A8 processor, dedicated App Store and Siri integration. Recent reports claim the set-top streamer will sport a new remote control that replaces the old version's radial button layout with a touchpad.
Comments
If you ask me, revealing services like that at WWDC makes no sense. It's a developer conference.
you gotta get developers to develop to the new service. If your timeline is an October launch of subscribable 'channels', you'll want a 2-3 months of hard core developer time to populate the 'channel store'
IF they announce... you'll probably see a current AppleTV app partner (e.g. HBO) showing the beta of how they will integrate with the amazing new subsystem.
Dear Apple: please keep your stupid useless watch and give me a product that eliminates cable TV. Sincerely, most of America.
you gotta get developers to develop to the new service. If your timeline is an October launch of subscribable 'channels', you'll want a 2-3 months of hard core developer time to populate the 'channel store'
But this isn't like the general app store: the only developers who are going to be involved here are the ones contracted by the content providers (likely with the help of Apple) to create channels for their content. And if the content providers aren't on board, then it doesn't matter.
But this isn't like the general app store: the only developers who are going to be involved here are the ones contracted by the content providers (likely with the help of Apple) to create channels for their content. And if the content providers aren't on board, then it doesn't matter.
We don't know. Maybe there will be apps and it will become more a "console" than just a media player. Angry Birds etc on your TV.
We don't know. Maybe there will be apps and it will become more a "console" than just a media player. Angry Birds etc on your TV.
Then there'd be no holdup in the rollout for that type of system (other than technical issues). These negotiations make it sound like something different.
Then there'd be no holdup in the rollout for that type of system (other than technical issues). These negotiations make it sound like something different.
Independent questions. If the hypothetical new Apple TV supports third party apps, it would be of interest to developers (hence WWDC appearance). It may ALSO have a new unbundled TV service that Apple wants to launch with it, which is what these negotiations are about. This is independent of the third party app support being hypothesized about, but might certainly affect Apple's plans for announcement and rollout of the device.
Independent questions. If the hypothetical new Apple TV supports third party apps, it would be of interest to developers (hence WWDC appearance). It may ALSO have a new unbundled TV service that Apple wants to launch with it, which is what these negotiations are about. This is independent of the third party app support being hypothesized about, but might certainly affect Apple's plans for announcement and rollout of the device.
So why not rollout the device with 3rd party app support (i.e. console functionality) but without the TV service? Then if/when content providers get on-board, iterate on the hardware (or deliver the functionality via a software update if possible). Since when does Apple wait for anyone?
So why not rollout the device with 3rd party app support (i.e. console functionality) but without the TV service? Then if/when content providers get on-board, iterate on the hardware (or deliver the functionality via a software update if possible).
Maybe the marketing plan calls for them to be rolled out together. Marketing impact and all that.
They certainly could do that. It all depends on what their plans are for it. We'll have to see what happens.
I just gave up on this golden goose.
Ain't happening in 2016 either.
Apple TV is DEAD.
Don't know why I even held out hope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ
I am so sick of waiting for an Apple TV update.
Dear Apple: please keep your stupid useless watch and give me a product that eliminates cable TV. Sincerely, most of America.
Yeah!! Because we'd rather Apple put out a product before it's ready!! /s
Seriously... I waiting for the new one as well and hoping it is what I need to finally cut the cord. However, I know that it would have to involve other players outside of Apple - like the media conglomerates - and agreements be set in place to allow ATV to be the one-stop hub for modern TV streaming.
So don't get your tighty-whities all in a bunch. I'd rather wait for everything to be polished, than some half-backed solution. If Apple did that, I'm SURE you'd pop up again and complain about that too!
I think these 'content providers' are just bunch of ....holes. They KNOW how Apple innovation is over the top and usually does extremely well. I just don't get it. This has dragged on seemingly forever...
Totally agree, however, Apple might be saying no personal information will be made available to the content providers, which is all these companies want anyway. They could care less about delivering TV content, they want customer information, trends, etc., so they can market other garbage and until they get Apple to allow this, I doubt we'll see anything from Apple. I'm not expecting ad-less channels but I am expecting Apple to control all the connection information sending anonymous information and money to the content providers instead of my name and credit card info. That's worth the $30-$40 cost as long as I get enough reasonably good channels. (In other words, I do not want to see any home shopping channels, phony religious broadcasting, or any other worthless content forced on me. I do want educational TV.)
I am so sick of waiting for an Apple TV update.
Dear Apple: please keep your stupid useless watch and give me a product that eliminates cable TV. Sincerely, most of America.
No one gives a **** what you're sick of "waiting" for. Also, are you referring to the same "stupid, useless" watch that they can't even keep in stock?
Apple does not need to sacrifice a device to launch another, that is not even in the same category.
So let me make sure I got this right. A rumored service that Apple has not made any mention of is now rumored to be delayed? Can rumored vaporware be construed to exist if another rumor says it’s been delayed? Do two nothings make a something? Is this how tech journalism works? And if the rumored service is not announced how could any journalist keep a straight face and write a tome describing the details of how it did not come to be since it never existed in the first place? The really sad thing is that a good number of gullible people will take it as gospel that it really did exist and really did get delayed. They will believe in something that doesn’t exist and never did.
And some of you criticize Gene Munster for predicting an Apple HDTV for years? And then there’s the car of course.
Isn't Re/code part of the massive troll king Vox network now?