"Apple’s Mr. Cue arrived 10 minutes late and was wearing jeans, tennis shoes with no socks, and a Hawaiian shirt, says a person familiar with the meeting. The other executives were wearing suits. (sounds like Silicon Valley culture clashed with East Coast Media Establishment; establishment whinges)
The talks dragged on. Apple wanted full on-demand seasons of hit shows and rights to a vast, cloud-based digital video recorder that would automatically store top programs and allow ad-skipping in newly aired shows.
TV-channel owners “kept looking at the Apple guys like: ‘Do you have any idea how this industry works?’ ” one former Time Warner Cable executive says. Apple has said doing new things requires changes that often are unsettling."
I'm guessing your point about the "original" programming is to prove that Cue and/or Apple, et al, are lying now because of previous comments about "original" programs, but at the same time, there isn't any evidence that Apple is attempting to compete with Netflix or Comcast at this point in time. But they surely will at some point, so, I guess that makes them liars. or something bad.
BTW, Netlix got beat up by WS for losing some 300k long time subscribers who didn't want to ante up the $2 a month change to their subscriptions; few like constant cost increases, and even infrequent increases is a risky proposition.
Reread: I said exactly the opposite of what you seem to believe I said. I don't think Apple was lying at all, that Mr. Cue was sincere and truthful saying they had no interest in "creating original programming". It's a few others in this thread, and perhaps you're one of them, that thinks Apple wasn't exactly being upfront.
"Apple’s Mr. Cue arrived 10 minutes late and was wearing jeans, tennis shoes with no socks, and a Hawaiian shirt, says a person familiar with the meeting. The other executives were wearing suits. (sounds like Silicon Valley culture clashed with East Coast Media Establishment; establishment whinges)
The talks dragged on. Apple wanted full on-demand seasons of hit shows and rights to a vast, cloud-based digital video recorder that would automatically store top programs and allow ad-skipping in newly aired shows.
TV-channel owners “kept looking at the Apple guys like: ‘Do you have any idea how this industry works?’ ” one former Time Warner Cable executive says. Apple has said doing new things requires changes that often are unsettling."
I'm guessing your point about the "original" programming is to prove that Cue and/or Apple, et al, are lying now because of previous comments about "original" programs, but at the same time, there isn't any evidence that Apple is attempting to compete with Netflix or Comcast at this point in time. But they surely will at some point, so, I guess that makes them liars. or something bad.
BTW, Netlix got beat up by WS for losing some 300k long time subscribers who didn't want to ante up the $2 a month change to their subscriptions; few like constant cost increases, and even infrequent increases is a risky proposition.
Reread: I said exactly the opposite of what you seem to believe I said. I don't think Apple was lying at all, that Mr. Cue was sincere and truthful saying they had no interest in "creating original programming". It's a few others in this thread, and perhaps you're one of them, that thinks Apple wasn't exactly being upfront.
Of course Apple's negotiation tactics did not work. How can they? It's the same problem as with Apple Pay. Both, AppleTV and ApplePay are disruptive and the current players in the market need some time to realise that the days they can milk the cows (until they implode) are over.
What is so disruptive about Apple TV? Content providers are already going OTT. With my DirecTV app I can live stream almost every channel in my package anywhere I want. The same can be done with the Comcast Xfinity app. All of that can be done without an Apple TV.
It seems to me the reason Apple isn't getting anywhere is because this isn't the music industry in the early 2000s. These aren't desperate times for the TV industry and they don't need Apple to swoop in and save them. Also Apple doesn't really need a streaming TV service so they can afford to play hardball.
Of course Apple's negotiation tactics did not work. How can they? It's the same problem as with Apple Pay. Both, AppleTV and ApplePay are disruptive and the current players in the market need some time to realise that the days they can milk the cows (until they implode) are over.
What is so disruptive about Apple TV? Content providers are already going OTT. With my DirecTV app I can live stream almost every channel in my package anywhere I want. The same can be done with the Comcast Xfinity app. All of that can be done without an Apple TV.
It seems to me the reason Apple isn't getting anywhere is because this isn't the music industry in the early 2000s. These aren't desperate times for the TV industry and they don't need Apple to swoop in and save them. Also Apple doesn't really need a streaming TV service so they can afford to play hardball.
There really is a balance of power today between Apple and the content providers, but it also looks like some of the stalwarts (cough, HBO) are having difficulty with maintaining the quality of their programming in a very competitive environment. The scorecards are the awards shows, and the streamers are trending very well against the cable company offerings.
I agree that Apple can afford to play hardball; there's never a barrier to entry for quality programming, and this is a path that Apple can choose if it suits their Apple TV end game.
"Apple’s Mr. Cue arrived 10 minutes late and was wearing jeans, tennis shoes with no socks, and a Hawaiian shirt, says a person familiar with the meeting. The other executives were wearing suits. (sounds like Silicon Valley culture clashed with East Coast Media Establishment; establishment whinges)
The talks dragged on. Apple wanted full on-demand seasons of hit shows and rights to a vast, cloud-based digital video recorder that would automatically store top programs and allow ad-skipping in newly aired shows.
TV-channel owners “kept looking at the Apple guys like: ‘Do you have any idea how this industry works?’ ” one former Time Warner Cable executive says. Apple has said doing new things requires changes that often are unsettling."
I'm guessing your point about the "original" programming is to prove that Cue and/or Apple, et al, are lying now because of previous comments about "original" programs, but at the same time, there isn't any evidence that Apple is attempting to compete with Netflix or Comcast at this point in time. But they surely will at some point, so, I guess that makes them liars. or something bad.
BTW, Netlix got beat up by WS for losing some 300k long time subscribers who didn't want to ante up the $2 a month change to their subscriptions; few like constant cost increases, and even infrequent increases is a risky proposition.
Reread: I said exactly the opposite of what you seem to believe I said. I don't think Apple was lying at all, that Mr. Cue was sincere and truthful saying they had no interest in "creating original programming". It's a few others in this thread, and perhaps you're one of them, that thinks Apple wasn't exactly being upfront.
Thanks for the clarification on your part.
No prob. I'll also note that no one has explained why Apple would be to be less than truthful on ANYTHING they publicly discuss. Being quiet about something is better than issuing statements that are not actually true IMO. At least two regulars here seem to think it good to state misleading things, apparently not realizing it would make Apple appear untrustworthy to potential partners.
So Eddy Cue is incompetent because he (Apple) are playing "hardball"? I thought everyone loved the fact that Jobs was considered a very hard and strong negotiator?
What Apple needs to develop is a framework app that allows us to buy the channels we want operating on one app instead of a jumble of apps. Let each provider set their own price.
I have little doubt they would resist and it would kill the bundles we all hate.
I despise being forced to subsidize a bunch of worthless content I have no interest in.
Cable companies know they have the power and they don't want to lose it so they will not negotiate.
Comcast recently upgraded the residential data caps to 1 terabyte in many US markets as of June from 300 GB. Overages are $10 per 50GB past the 1TB cap.
I have Sling TV and Amazon Prime, which while not perfect, is much better than the ripoff cable service. When the bill hit $200 with no change in my service, I decided to cut the cord. The internet is less than half that and the services are an extra $35 a month. I get all the channels I actully watch and dropped almost $90 off my Comcast bill.
It's all going to apps anyway. HBO, Netflix, CBS, etc... It is only matter of time. A bundled service of channels is making less and less sense
Apple needs nothing from the cable providers. The less they work with them, the better
What would be interesting if Apple could add an antenna to Apple TV for to pull in live HDTV channels which are mandated by law. ABC, NBC, CBS. That would help secure sine live sports programming
This is interesting:
www.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/
There is a (albeit rather expensive) ATV app called "Channels" that works with this; and an iOS version for iPhone/iPad.
Maybe SiliconDust is an acquisition target by AAPL. It does seem like maybe this technology is a standalone box, not an addition to ATV. But who knows - maybe an ATV with a tuner system in it is a separate model.
I have been using HDHR ATSC tuners since i cut the cable cord in 2006.
SageTV (subsequently bought by Google & killed) worked wonderfully on my Mac, and Stage developed small client hardware that could be placed at any TV. It was really (and still is, as i run it to this day to record OTA HD broadcasts) the best PVR system around.
Comments
It seems to me the reason Apple isn't getting anywhere is because this isn't the music industry in the early 2000s. These aren't desperate times for the TV industry and they don't need Apple to swoop in and save them. Also Apple doesn't really need a streaming TV service so they can afford to play hardball.
I agree that Apple can afford to play hardball; there's never a barrier to entry for quality programming, and this is a path that Apple can choose if it suits their Apple TV end game.
SageTV (subsequently bought by Google & killed) worked wonderfully on my Mac, and Stage developed small client hardware that could be placed at any TV.
It was really (and still is, as i run it to this day to record OTA HD broadcasts) the best PVR system around.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1053185/sagetv.html
http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/