Time Warner pulls MTV, FX from iPad app to placate broadcasters

Posted:
in iPad edited January 2014
After complaints from the three big media companies Viacom, Discovery Communications and News Corp., cable operator Time Warner has agreed to stop providing several channels from its iPad app.



Time Warner had been distributing its cable programing to its paid subscribers via the iPad app as a convenience, but the media companies want more money from the cable operator for providing the same content to the same customers via iPad in addition to their conventional TVs.



Time Warner said it believed it had ?every right to carry the programming on our iPad app," according to a report by the New York Times.



"But, for the time being," the cable operator said in a statement today, "we have decided to focus our iPad efforts on those enlightened programmers who understand the benefit and importance of allowing our subscribers ? and their viewers ? to watch their programming on any screen in their homes. In the meantime, we will pursue all of our legal rights against the programmers who don?t share our vision.?



It added, "the enthusiasm of our customers and the programming partners who have embraced the app, rather than those who are solely focused on finding additional ways to reach into wallets of their own viewers, has convinced us more than ever that we are on the right path."



The operator said it would replace the blocked channels with new programming from different sources. Time Warner's iPad app had been carrying 32 channels, representing a small portion of its entire cable lineup.



Cablevision separately said it would also offer an iPad app that mirrored all the content available to its TV watchers, including video on demand. It hasn't yet reported any complaints from media companies, according to the Times report.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    phxdocphxdoc Posts: 4member
    Just get a slingbox and screw 'em.
  • Reply 2 of 43
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    The Time Warner app is pretty nice, I've been testing it for a few days, ever since I got my iPad2. It's not like streaming youtube crap, it's basically realtime live cable TV on your iPad, and it's been working flawlessly with good quality.



    I'll side with Time Warner on this VS the broadcasters. It's none of their business if somebody chooses to watch a channel on a Television hooked up to a cable box or through an iPad.



    And yeah, they did pull a whole bunch of channels on the app. Yesterday there were about 32, now it's around 20. Time Warner should offer all their channels on the iPad. I want HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz, Encore and more!
  • Reply 3 of 43
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    TW app was simple. The Slingbox requires a lot more stuff.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by phxdoc View Post


    Just get a slingbox and screw 'em.



  • Reply 4 of 43
    Viacom, Discovery Communications and News Corp., all claim to be embracing technology and looking out for their customers. What happened here? How big of a deal did News Corp make out of The Daily iPad app? Nut jobs all.
  • Reply 5 of 43
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Landcruiser View Post


    Viacom, Discovery Communications and News Corp., all claim to be embracing technology and looking out for their customers. What happened here? How big of a deal did News Corp make out of The Daily iPad app? Nut jobs all.



    Time Warner must not have listened to News Corp, because Fox News is still working.
  • Reply 6 of 43
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    The contracts for basic cable stations aren't as strict or binding. Fox has long been attempting to squeeze as much as it can out of cable providers. They would want to make streaming a specific item in contract negotiations.



    Pay cable contracts are an entirely different story. Pay cable stations like HBO strictly prohibit any unauthorized transmission of its content. HBO has set up its own streaming service that cable operators have to pay an addition fee to offer to their subscribers.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    And yeah, they did pull a whole bunch of channels on the app. Yesterday there were about 32, now it's around 20. Time Warner should offer all their channels on the iPad. I want HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz, Encore and more!



  • Reply 7 of 43
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    You do have to sympathize with the broadcasters, to some extent.



    After all, you?re already paying for cable twice: your monthly bill plus a ton of ads. Shouldn?t you be paying a third time based on which screen you?re using? Seems only fair
  • Reply 8 of 43
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post




    Pay cable contracts are an entirely different story.



    Sure, I realize that. I already pay for every single premium channel, including every movie channel. I meant that they should offer those channels on the iPad to those people who pay for them.
  • Reply 9 of 43
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    That's the whole point TW can't without permission from those networks. Premium channels won't give that permission because they are setting up their own streaming services.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    Sure, I realize that. I already pay for every single premium channel, including every movie channel. I meant that they should offer those channels on the iPad to those people who pay for them.



  • Reply 10 of 43
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    That's the whole point TW can't without permission from those networks.



    Ok, I understand now.
  • Reply 11 of 43
    zorinlynxzorinlynx Posts: 170member
    There must be something I'm missing here.



    Isn't the television industry all about getting as many eyes as possible on your programming?



    Doesn't this mean anything to get more eyes on the programming (including the iPad streaming) would be a GOOD THING for broadcasters?



    More eyes = more people see ads = more revenue, right?



    Or did I miss something? I've always been confused by the way big media acts when it comes to issues that *should* be obvious.
  • Reply 12 of 43
    The issue here is not that those companies don't want you to be able to watch those channels, the issue here is that they don't want TW to pocket the benefit of that. Yes right now the app is free but the reality is that it will quickly become a 'bundle' from TW in the eyes of customers - you pay $X a month to watch TV + watch on iPad, and TW pocket all the money while the channel companies only pocket money based on the TV-only deal they originally signed with TW.



    This case is different from the Amazon cloud thing because technically you don't 'own' the TV programs based on the monthly subscription, so it's not clear whether you've the right to just 'watch it on any form of hardware'.
  • Reply 13 of 43
    maccherrymaccherry Posts: 924member
    This is greed incarnate!

    The program providers are double dipping. The advertisers already pay for the programming and that is why it seems like we get it for free from our local stations.Now when those programs go through cable, it is another tax on the consumers. We already pay for American Idol when we buy toilet paper and dog food. Now the programers want us to pay again because we are cable subscribers.F*** them!!!

    As a matter of fact, my cable bill has gone up twice in the past one and a half years b/c the networks keep asking for more money from the cable people!!!

    So when you head off to the store to buy that coke zero(cherry!) you pay for House. And when you go home to pay your bills online you pay the cable people money AGAIN, for House.

    Now, imagine 30 million cable users paying the cable people an additional $1.80 per month to the network providers. That is $54 million dollars a month of pure effing tax!!!!!!!!!!! And now multiply that by 12 months and you get a whopping $648 million dollars of mother****** slack money.
  • Reply 14 of 43
    vandilvandil Posts: 187member
    Just another example of old media fearing new media because the advertising and ratings numbers aren't measured the same, and in some cases, can be bypassed by people who know how to jailbreak and edit a hosts file.



    People want to consume content but not pay to be annoyed with ads. Make a subscription rate that is reasonable for what is offered (and hopefully ad-free) and people will easily subscribe.
  • Reply 15 of 43
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    Time Warner must not have listened to News Corp, because Fox News is still working.





    Faux News is provide free via Murdock to indoctrinate and brainwash the population. That is why they did not request TW to remove it.
  • Reply 16 of 43
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,899member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    It added, "the enthusiasm of our customers and the programming partners who have embraced the app, rather than those who are solely focused on finding additional ways to reach into wallets of their own viewers, has convinced us more than ever that we are on the right path."



    And TW is not focused on my wallet? Boy that is some 100% pure, unadulterated F.U.D.
  • Reply 17 of 43
    juliojulio Posts: 5member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by johnwhite1000 View Post


    Faux News is provide free via Murdock to indoctrinate and brainwash the population. That is why they did not request TW to remove it.



    Murdock didn't pull Fox News, because he is a smart business man who understands that more eyeballs is more eyeballs. That's why he beats his competitors.
  • Reply 18 of 43
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,285member
    This isn't all that different than Sony saying Amazon had no right to offer cloud storage/streaming services for your already bought and paid for Sony music is it? There's a whole lot of content providers that don't have a clue how to market themselves in mobile services. "Oh Yeah, look there's money over there. Let's get some" is as close as they come to marketing plans.
  • Reply 19 of 43
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by johnwhite1000 View Post


    Faux News is provide free via Murdock to indoctrinate and brainwash the population. That is why they did not request TW to remove it.



    I'm glad that my iPad2 has Fox News. It sure beats the hell out of lying, leftist propaganda crap channels like MSNBC, which hardly anybody even bothers to watch, besides a few ignorant liberals.
  • Reply 20 of 43
    It makes sense that networks should want as many people watching as they can get, and the iPad will probably help with that. It's my understanding though that a major part of their complaints is that there isn't a way of measuring Nielsen ratings through views on an iPad app.

    I don't know enough about the technical side of Nielsen ratings to give any opinion about how apt that excuse is (it's my understanding that their methods are somewhat outdated and flawed to begin with), but I think that networks are wanting to have a better solution for that before this newer way of viewing their content becomes more popular.



    There may or may not also be something about different unions and guilds being compensated for what might constitute a new type of content distribution, but that's probably not an issue.
Sign In or Register to comment.