Apple's over-the-top television service put on hold, says Les Moonves [u]

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited December 2015
Apple TV owners waiting for an Apple-branded over-the-top television service will likely be twiddling their thumbs well into 2016, as the company has reportedly tapped the brakes on its Internet streaming initiative, according to CBS chief Les Moonves.




Moonves dropped the Apple TV tidbit at Business Insider's Ignition conference in New York on Tuesday, saying he thinks Apple is putting the program on the back burner, reports Bloomberg.

"They've had conversations on it and I think they pressed the hold button," Moonves said. "They were looking for a service."

Rumors of an Apple TV subscription service date back to 2013, when reports claimed the company was going over cable companies' heads to negotiate directly with content providers. At the time, and for many months following, it was speculated that a subscription-based product would launch alongside new Apple TV hardware.

Unlike monthly offerings from cable companies, Apple is said to be working on what is referred to as a "skinny" bundle featuring live and on-demand TV from major networks and select cable channels. Subscription price estimates are up in the air, but some suggest Apple could charge anywhere from $10 to $40 a month.

Apple debuted a revamped fourth-generation Apple TV in October, complete with a new tvOS operating system and dedicated App Store, but an over-the-top streaming service was nowhere to be seen. Moonves, however, believes skinny bundles are the future.

"This will happen," Moonves said. "It has four major networks and 10 cable networks, let's say, and the price point will be in the $30s, $30 to $35, $40 maybe. People will not be spending money on channels they don't want to watch."

The concept is popular with cord-cutters and thrifty consumers, but cable companies are keen on keeping their revenue structures in place. With Apple putting a hold on negotiations, it seems the enterprise is being pushed further into the future, perhaps beyond the rumored 2016 release reported in August.

Update: Bloomberg, citing informed sources, has confirmed Apple's decision to suspend its streaming television service initiative. In lieu of a branded channel package, the company is said to be focusing on building out the tvOS App Store as a platform on which media companies can sell directly to customers.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    It's already happening with AppleTV, Roku, etc, and streaming services like HBO, Netflix, and the like. For a portion of the population, it's enough to replace cable subscriptions.
    jbdragon
  • Reply 2 of 32
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    This has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with the networks and content producers. They have dipped their toes into this new market with Hulu, Netflix, etc. Service providers like cable and satellite companies will fight this tooth and nail as long as they have leverage over the networks. Does anyone think for one second that these outfits will give up their revenue streams willingly. Look how long it took the music industry to wake up. First they demanded DRM before they would sell music online. Then they fought streaming, demanding advertising or subscriptions or both.
    jbdragon
  • Reply 3 of 32
    I bet CBS and Moonves are two of the obstacles that necessitated the tap on the brakes.
    cornchipjbdragon
  • Reply 4 of 32
    Not surprising. Tim Cook telegraphed that in one of his interviews last month. The question is is it just on hold or did they decide to scrap it altogether? 
  • Reply 5 of 32
    lkrupp said:
    This has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with the networks and content producers. They have dipped their toes into this new market with Hulu, Netflix, etc. Service providers like cable and satellite companies will fight this tooth and nail as long as they have leverage over the networks. Does anyone think for one second that these outfits will give up their revenue streams willingly. Look how long it took the music industry to wake up. First they demanded DRM before they would sell music online. Then they fought streaming, demanding advertising or subscriptions or both.
    I don't really see any advantage to skinny bundles until people are able to select channels ala carte and build their own bundle. I can guarantee you some of the channels I watch most frequently would never be part of an Apple skinny bundle. but no doubt ESPN would have to be there whether you're interested in sports or not.
    cornchip1983
  • Reply 6 of 32
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,056member
    Translation: Apple refused their demands, and will simply wait them out while the content owners subscription base through cable companies continues to dwindle. When the content providers see the losses mount, they'll come come back. Of course, Apple will them move the goal posts back.

    CBS is the only network that charges separately for a streaming service. Even if you have a cable subscription, you can't use their app to get time shifted content. Wonder what will happen when Apple offers everything but CBS?
    cornchippmz
  • Reply 7 of 32
    lkrupp said:
    This has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with the networks and content producers. They have dipped their toes into this new market with Hulu, Netflix, etc. Service providers like cable and satellite companies will fight this tooth and nail as long as they have leverage over the networks. Does anyone think for one second that these outfits will give up their revenue streams willingly. Look how long it took the music industry to wake up. First they demanded DRM before they would sell music online. Then they fought streaming, demanding advertising or subscriptions or both.
    I don't really see any advantage to skinny bundles until people are able to select channels ala carte and build their own bundle. I can guarantee you some of the channels I watch most frequently would never be part of an Apple skinny bundle. but no doubt ESPN would have to be there whether you're interested in sports or not.
    I agree. I don't see the point of skinny bundles. At the rate providers charge now for streaming, you are already up in cost that's the same as a cable subscription. I imagine its going to be a very long time until we see affordable a la carte channel packages. 
    cornchip
  • Reply 8 of 32
    I think maybe the problem here is people are holding out for a perfect solution. I really think we are 80% there at this point. Sports being the last big hurdle. It is my understanding that some of the contractual agreements on sports don't run out until early 2020's. With HBO and Showtime standalone, Netflix, and Hulu's commercial free subscription I will be cutting the cord the day after Super Bowl 50. I am done waiting for these greedy bozo's dragging the inevitable out.
  • Reply 9 of 32
    I bet CBS and Moonves are two of the obstacles that necessitated the tap on the brakes.
    Viacom, maybe. CBS is one of the original three networks and those predates the US cable TV system. CBS broadcasts OTA signal without requiring cable or satellite providers whatsoever.
  • Reply 10 of 32
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    Obvious report. This is why I think Apple didn't go "all in" with AppleTV
    tallest skilcornchipdrunkzombie
  • Reply 11 of 32
    I find the possibility of paying for a subscription to cbs, abc, nbc, or the cw ridiculous.  Either make me watch the commercials and make your money by selling commercials or make me pay for service and have no commercials.  Having it both ways is BS.

    At least with cable you can say I'm paying for the bundling of several free stations.  Here you can't even claim that... you're paying extra for something that's already supported by commercials.


  • Reply 12 of 32
    Not surprising. Tim Cook telegraphed that in one of his interviews last month. The question is is it just on hold or did they decide to scrap it altogether? 
    When / where was this?
  • Reply 13 of 32
    Boom! Apple knew exactly what they were doing. Distract the media companies with the idea they were going to come out with their own cable service. While they opened the App Store on the AppleTV with little to no problems with the media companies.

     Think about what Google tried with their GoogleTV years ago they got shut down and blocked by the media companies. Now Apple has created a new must have product and media companies will want to get their content on it with apps. It's a win win for consumers, media companies, and Apple. I can now choose what apps I want that will give me shows or music.
  • Reply 14 of 32
    Distract the media companies with the idea they were going to come out with their own cable service. While they opened the App Store on the AppleTV with little to no problems with the media companies.
    When the traditional media services finally do come to the table, they’ll be in a position of begging, not dictating, after the App Store (should have been Channel Store…) continues to subvert their marketshare.
    cornchipargonaut
  • Reply 15 of 32
    bluefire1bluefire1 Posts: 1,301member
    Apple, just like with its new products, will be patient and wait as long as it takes to get it done the right way. It's not always about being first. It's about being best.
  • Reply 16 of 32
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    eightzero said:hi 
    Translation: Apple refused their demands, and will simply wait them out while the content owners subscription base through cable companies continues to dwindle. When the content providers see the losses mount, they'll come come back. Of course, Apple will them move the goal posts back.

    CBS is the only network that charges separately for a streaming service. Even if you have a cable subscription, you can't use their app to get time shifted content. Wonder what will happen when Apple offers everything but CBS?
    CBS is the only one not part of the Hulu consortium. 
  • Reply 17 of 32
    Probably a good thing! I think Apple working on the TV OS platform is the right call and Apple probably knew that media companies were going to be pain. My ideal solution would be that all media companies build their respective streaming Apps using Apple TV OS and then I can download their apps and subscribe to channel of my choice. Using Apple TV and it's interface I will navigate to content of my choice. Common interface with media company specific Apps delivering the content. Win-Win situation. If each media provider uses Netflix pricing model, I am perfectly fine - This would easily bring my cable cost down.
  • Reply 18 of 32
    Update: Bloomberg, citing informed sources, has confirmed Apple's decision to suspend its streaming television service initiative. In lieu of a branded channel package, the company is said to be focusing on building out the tvOS App Store as a platform on which media companies can sell directly to customers. 

    Again this doesn't surprise me. Tim Cook's comments in that overseas interview last month pretty much telegraphed this. I'm sure that will freak out some wall street analysts that have recently been peddling this 'Apple as a service' notion.

  • Reply 19 of 32
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Who wants a bundle? That just makes Apple the cable company.

    Ala carte is the way to go. XYZ network isn't just one of a dozen that gets paid the same no matter what they offer. They actually have to offer compelling, interesting, worthwhile content, for the user to decide they are worth subscribing to.

    If I decide ABC is worth paying $x/mon for live + ondemand, but CBS is a pile of crap, I want to pay ABC for the effort and say the hell with CBS. etc. etc. etc. etc.
    edited December 2015 jbdragon
  • Reply 20 of 32
    Tapped the breaks? Do you mean brakes?
Sign In or Register to comment.