Time Warner working to deliver live & on-demand shows to Apple TV

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 83
    macbook promacbook pro Posts: 1,605member
    tbell wrote: »
    I am confused why Apple gets in trouble for anti-competitive behaviour when Cable companies are allowed to preserve their monopoly by forcing Apple to adopt to their wishes. Ala Carte programming is what I want.

    Apple offers ala carte programming of single episodes and seasons. The best form of ala carte. Furthermore, many programs offer a free pilot to invite viewers to watch new programming.
  • Reply 42 of 83
    The long rumored TiVo killer from Apple may soon appear.

    TiVo died years ago.
  • Reply 43 of 83
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,635member
    Cable industry says a la carte will drive low demand channels out. Everyone will want only buy the top popular ones. They say only bundling can support diversity of content. If that is true, I suggest they require subscribers to buy a certain minimum number of small channels as a part of a custom basket that each customer designs.
  • Reply 44 of 83
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by neckra View Post



    This is awesome! Just a matter of time before Apple TV has apps for local TV based on area - and boom good bye cable cord! Very exciting news!


     


    Isn't that cable cord your internet connection, which is how the Apple TV gets the content?

  • Reply 45 of 83
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by v5v View Post


     


    Isn't that cable cord your internet connection, which is how the Apple TV gets the content?



     


    It's all the same cord, but when people say "cut the cord" they usually mean stopping paying for Cable TV.

  • Reply 46 of 83
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post



    Cable industry says a la carte will drive low demand channels out. Everyone will want only buy the top popular ones. They say only bundling can support diversity of content. If that is true, I suggest they require subscribers to buy a certain minimum number of small channels as a part of a custom basket that each customer designs.


     


    A la cart sounds great, but we already have that with iTunes. The cost would likely be the similar (i.e. more than what people think).


     


    In my view, if Apple can get it so that you can subscribe directly to TimeWarner WITHOUT having a TW cable running to your house (i.e. you bring-your-own-internet via Comcast, etc.), this will be what really changes things. If that ever happens (where you can just subscribe to TW like you do Netflix or Hulu+), you know all the other cable companies will want to be on there too (lest TW steal business from Comcast, for instance).


     


    This would mean actual competition by removing the regional infrastructure monopolies. Prices would go down in all likelihood. 

  • Reply 47 of 83
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Has anyone ever estimated the bandwidth required on the internet providers trunk lines (the lines leaving the cable office to go to your home) if a significant portion of TV watching became on demand streaming? With cable TV a single "stream" of NBC's programming can be split amongst multiple neighborhoods and then further split to individual homes. That single steam on the trunk line might be delivering content to 1000s of homes (which can then record on their DVRs to watch whenever convenient).



    Now switch to the model where a big portion of viewers are streaming their own content, each getting their own stream on the trunk line. It would require massive upgrades to the trunk lines. Translated: your TV bill may go down but your ISP bill is going to skyrocket.
  • Reply 48 of 83


    1) Amazing to see how this "hobby" has grown and evolved from its first 'over-sized' iteration.


     


    2) Don't have an Apple TV, but they are making it more and more desirable for me to buy one and think I need to make the leap.


     


    3) Don't have Time Warner, hopefully AT&T U-verse will do the same soon.


     


    4) Congrats, Mr. Jobs, for another successful and revolutionary and intriguing product.


     


    5) Samsung sucks!!! To compete they'll probably make their newly purchased Roku line (can they make/innovate anything on their own?) and make it so if you bump your Samsung Roku with your neighbors you can share movies.

  • Reply 49 of 83
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    1) Amazing to see how this "hobby" has grown and evolved from its first 'over-sized' iteration.

    2) Don't have an Apple TV, but they are making it more and more desirable for me to buy one and think I need to make the leap.

    3) Don't have Time Warner, hopefully AT&T U-verse will do the same soon.

    4) Congrats, Mr. Jobs, for another successful and revolutionary and intriguing product.

    5) Samsung sucks!!! To compete they'll probably make their newly purchased Roku line (can they make/innovate anything on their own?) and make it so if you bump your Samsung Roku with your neighbors you can share movies.

    Samsung bought Boxee not Roku, and speaking of Roku, they've had a deal with TWC since March.

    http://blog.roku.com/blog/2013/03/05/twc-tv-launches-on-roku/
  • Reply 50 of 83
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mesomorphicman View Post


     


    5) Samsung sucks!!! To compete they'll probably make their newly purchased Roku line (can they make/innovate anything on their own?) and make it so if you bump your Samsung Roku with your neighbors you can share movies.




     


    Dan is right- Samsung bought Boxee.  Also, not only has Roku already had their deal with TWC since March- they have also had a great app store and more flexibility than Apple for quite a long time.  Additionally- Roku introduced their streamer May of 2008, and Apple TV 2 (streamer) was September 2010.


    Roku is pretty freakin' awesome to be truthful.  I really like a lot of things that they do, and they absolutely innovate (headphones in the remote is pretty cool).    There are several small things Roku has that I wish my Apple TVs did.

  • Reply 51 of 83
    pjd813pjd813 Posts: 8member
    The Internet "pipe" just cannot handle the traffic that would ensue with a mass cut the cord transition. Innovation may change this but for now the cut the cord movement is still way in it's infancy.

    On another part of this issue - sports blackout rules are extremely counter productive. The number if households that subscribe to sports channels is surprisingly low and Disney/ESPN/Fox include just enough Baseball content in common cable packages to be truly insulting and aggravating if you want to have the freedom to watch every game of a given team. I tried to see if I could cobble together enough sports content channels so that my wife could see every Yankee game if she so chose and every option included the blackout date weasel language asterisk. Therefore we subscribe to no extra sports package at all.
  • Reply 52 of 83
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,227member


    Cable companies should fight cable OS like xfinity X1.  One way to do it is go with Apple.  That being said, it would be better if Apple could directly get the cable feed instead of streaming over the net like the ipad app. 


     


    I am pretty sure a cable company going with iOS would gain a lot of market share or gain new subscribers. One likely candidates I see is U-verse. They compete in a lot of markets against comcast. 

  • Reply 53 of 83
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,227member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post



    Cable industry says a la carte will drive low demand channels out. Everyone will want only buy the top popular ones. They say only bundling can support diversity of content. If that is true, I suggest they require subscribers to buy a certain minimum number of small channels as a part of a custom basket that each customer designs.


     


    or they could bundle low demand channels has one choice in the line up. The way it works in quebec is you must buy a starter base before you can buy a la carte  channels.  So, they can bundle a few low demand in the base package, then inside a la carte, they can regroup multiple channels that count as one choice.

  • Reply 54 of 83
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,492member
    patpatpat wrote: »
    Doesn't OnDemand HD have a pay per play cost? On My DVR, I record once watch many times at no extra cost.
    Oh I see. In which case, once paid, like buying an app, you should be able to watch again ...
  • Reply 55 of 83
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,492member
    al_bundy wrote: »
    FIOS and att uverse already do this on the xbox. you don't need a cable box to watch cable TV

    no need for itunes

    You need to have a FiOS agreement for HD TV in place to use on any device I've see. Are you saying with XBOX you don't have to sign in with your FiOS account, for example, to watch Verizon's offerings on the XBOX? You can just pay as required directly via Microsoft?
  • Reply 56 of 83
    Does this mean AppleTV users may soon be able to pick and choose which content provider they wish to subscribe to? Would I be able to drop my local Comcast and subscribe to Time Warner if I felt they offered better content?
  • Reply 57 of 83
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,399member
    trekhead wrote: »
    Does this mean AppleTV users may soon be able to pick and choose which content provider they wish to subscribe to? Would I be able to drop my local Comcast and subscribe to Time Warner if I felt they offered better content?

    Probably not IMHO. Providers normally negotiate content for specific territories don't they? Sports blackouts would be an example of that.
    http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/cable-companies-love-compete-right
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-18/apples-tv-deals-like-the-time-warner-cable-pact-fail-its-ambitions
  • Reply 58 of 83
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Ugh, this is totally wrong. Apple, go to the channels themselves. Screw the telecoms.
    al_bundy wrote: »
    take it or leave it

    Tens of millions are leaving it.
    pjd813 wrote: »
    The Internet "pipe" just cannot handle the traffic that would ensue with a mass cut the cord transition.

    Sure it can.
  • Reply 59 of 83
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Ugh, this is totally wrong. Apple, go to the channels themselves. Screw the telecoms.
    Tens of millions are leaving it.
    Sure it can.

    Tens of millions have not left it.

    And why would the telecoms build more bandwidth if the users are looking to screw them when they do?
  • Reply 60 of 83
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Tens of millions have not left it.

    ... It's not worth it.
    And why would the telecoms build more bandwidth if the users are looking to screw them when they do?

    ISP ? telecom.

    Also, uh... are you under the impression that the telecoms who ARE ISPs are... NOT being paid for access to the Internet or something?
Sign In or Register to comment.