Time Warner CEO 'pretty confident' Apple subscription TV service in development
Speaking during a Wednesday financial results call, Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes said he is "pretty confident" Apple will be launching a subscription streaming TV service in the near future, callling the company "very forward-thinking about television."
"It's no surprise to anyone that Apple would be interested in launching a TV product," Bewkes added according to CNet.
Time Warner is the parent company of TV network HBO, and recently partnered with Apple to launch HBO Now as a three-month exclusive for iOS and Apple TV devices. During the results call, HBO head Richard Plepler reportedly said he "couldn't be more pleased" with the arrangement.
"We got out of the gate very fast with Apple," he remarked. "We see a lot of momentum there."
Apple and Time Warner have collaborated in the past, and at one point were rumored to be working on an interface that would allow an Apple TV to replace a cable box. That arrangement may have been nixed by Comcast's proposed takeover of Time Warner Cable, which was officially abandoned on April 24.
Apple is strongly rumored to be preparing a streaming TV service for launch later this year. During an Apple earnings call on Monday, CEO Tim Cook fueled these rumors by claiming that "major, major changes in media" are coming, in which Apple could play a part.
Past reports have indicated that Apple is working on a "skinny" channel bundle that should cost between $30 and $40 a month. It's expected to launch this fall, and may be announced at the company's Worldwide Developers Conference on June 8 alongside a new Apple TV set-top.
"It's no surprise to anyone that Apple would be interested in launching a TV product," Bewkes added according to CNet.
Time Warner is the parent company of TV network HBO, and recently partnered with Apple to launch HBO Now as a three-month exclusive for iOS and Apple TV devices. During the results call, HBO head Richard Plepler reportedly said he "couldn't be more pleased" with the arrangement.
"We got out of the gate very fast with Apple," he remarked. "We see a lot of momentum there."
Apple and Time Warner have collaborated in the past, and at one point were rumored to be working on an interface that would allow an Apple TV to replace a cable box. That arrangement may have been nixed by Comcast's proposed takeover of Time Warner Cable, which was officially abandoned on April 24.
Apple is strongly rumored to be preparing a streaming TV service for launch later this year. During an Apple earnings call on Monday, CEO Tim Cook fueled these rumors by claiming that "major, major changes in media" are coming, in which Apple could play a part.
Past reports have indicated that Apple is working on a "skinny" channel bundle that should cost between $30 and $40 a month. It's expected to launch this fall, and may be announced at the company's Worldwide Developers Conference on June 8 alongside a new Apple TV set-top.
Comments
Why do people assume it will get less expensive if pricing is a la carte? If you want more than the "basic" networks, by the time you add up all the stations you would want, I would bet you wind up paying the same or more.
Hey I'm perfectly happy with my DirecTV. A skinnied down cable package would not get me to switch to ?TV. Though since my ?TV is second gen I'll probably get a new one anyway because I hate the UI and non-existent search functionality.
The irony of an Apple TV service is it still requires a subscription from a cable TV company to deliver it. Steve may have cracked TV but the last mile is a tough nut as Google is discovering.
Edit: Clarity for the anally retentive
sorry the world isn't exactly how you want it to be.
you can cry in the corner now.
He's sleeping in the corner until TV has what he wants.
The irony of an Apple TV service is it still requires a cable TV subscription to deliver it.
who told you that because I'll slap that person around with wet noodles?
who told you that because I'll slap that person around with wet noodles?
Absolutely everyone I know gets their broadband from a cable company.
Absolutely everyone I know gets their broadband from a cable company.
This is exactly what you said:
"The irony of an Apple TV service is it still requires a cable TV subscription to deliver it"
No, it requires the broadband internet, not CABLE TV Subscription to deliver it. Get that correct.
This is exactly what you said:
"The irony of an Apple TV service is it still requires a cable TV subscription to deliver it"
No, it requires the broadband internet, not CABLE TV Subscription to deliver it. Get that correct.
My mistake. I meant cable TV company. Split hairs much? I guess it was too difficult for you to discern what I meant with my reference to the "last mile."
It's a start in the right direction. There was no way that they would've jumped from large channel packages to a la carte.
false.
You will save on the DVR/HD boxes. Time Warner charges $25 a month for those.
You will need to share with us the source of all of the final information on Apple's services and costs and how they compare with a Time Warner package. Did you sign an NDA?
I agree that people don't watch anywhere close to the total amount of channels that are offered in cable packages.
But don't expect huge price drops if you got to choose 10 of your favorite channels.
If you currently get 200 channels for $100 a month.... don't expect the cost of each a la carte channel to be 50 cents each.
They'll probably charge you $5 per channel... just to be dicks.
This is the cable company after all. They aren't our friends!
So the future of TV is skinnied down cable like packages over the Internet? Wake me when we get true ala cart pricing where people can pay for the channels they want. A skinnied down package does me no good if it doesn't include the channels I want.
Sounds cool in magical unicorn land. Unfortunately, Apple cannot just do whatever they want in this space, otherwise they would have done so a long time ago. I'm sure whatever Apple comes out with, they would have fought tooth and nail for it, and it's the best they could negotiate or the providers would agree to. Obviously, everyone would like to pick and choose channels, but that's not realistic. Your comment sounds pretty naive and childish.
So the future of TV is skinnied down cable like packages over the Internet? Wake me when we get true ala cart pricing where people can pay for the channels they want. A skinnied down package does me no good if it doesn't include the channels I want.
As a cable cutter for the last few years now, I'm sure the F not going to sign up for a $30-$40 a month Channel bundle package. What's so innovative about that? A fraction of the channels and really not saving all that much!!! This is the problem I have with SlingTV. You get a group of channels including ESPN that I don't give a crap about. Drop ESPN and drop it down to $9.99. That doesn't includes the other groups of channels that cost even more money.
Let me know when I can spend $10, and i can pick out at least 10 channels. That's $1 a channel, more then fair if you're going to have ads. Hell if it's a broadcast channel, it should be FREE!!! You can get it over the air for free, there's no difference. As Apple did with the Music Industry, with 99 cents per song, which I still though was to much, so should a TV channel at 99 cents per month!!! Get the HSN and they pay for one of your channels to have them!!! If I can't actually pick what channels I want, then it's the same old crap. Instead of paying Comcast, I'm now paying Apple to be screwed over with. To me, that's not any better. Really, after cutting the cord for this long, it would be pretty hard to get me to sign up and start paying some monthly fee for TV service once again. My Antenna and Netflix takes care of most of my TV watching.
Absolutely everyone I know gets their broadband from a cable company.
Maybe they do,... I get mine from AT&T U-Verse!!! It's not nearly as fast, but you know what, It's more then fast enough to stream HD content from Netflix and I only pay under $35 a month for it!!! That's it!!! I don't pay for their TV service. I use a OOMA Box for VOIP for home phone service. My Bother had Internet and TV from U-Verse. Tried to drop TV, but his wife didn't want to do it for some Housewives whatever shows. He moved into a new house recently and did get Comcast for Internet only. Finally got the Wife on board with no TV service. Went like I did, Antenna, Netflix for the most part.
Anything else and there's Legal and not so legal ways to pretty much get whatever you want. A few season passes on some shows you really like you can no longer get, not a big deal. A drop in the savings you'll have. Why pay $180 a year for HBO Now if all you watch is GOT, maybe one other show. Just buy the season pass, or don't. There's lots of ways to save money. HULU+, I can't take take all the commercial breaks, even under a free trial. There's ways to watch free HULU on other devices if you want besides a PC. It's not even worth it. Sometimes you can watch the content directly from their Web site, again with the right software, you can watch on your HDTV, and not just the computer.
Netflix has a TON of content. i know when you just go and look for something it seems like they don't have it. You start rating shows you like and don't like, it starts really showing you programs you may be interested in. And going that route, finding all kinds of other programs you'd like to see. Old/New, it doesn't matter to me. Throw in Gaming which can really burn up a lot of time, to reading a book, visiting friends, Doing house or yard work. Go for a walk! Why not keep as much money as you can, maybe use it for a Vacation. Why give it to Comcast!!! When I has Comcast, I had mid speed Internet, my own Cable modem, and HD TV service with a Duel HD DVR Tuner Box of theirs. Zero Premium channels. Had Showtime in the past but dropped it as my bill kept going up. I was paying $170 a month!!! 1 TV, it was only me living there, and I finally just had enough. $170 a month is $2040 Per year. Now I have Internet only and I've saving $135 a month!!! That means I have a extra $1600 per year in my pocket!!!
How long have you had cable? How long to you plan to keep it? 10 years? 20 years? I had Comcast for 18 years. Of course it didn't start with Internet, TV only for many years, but even that continued to go, up, up, up. If I was paying that Comcast bill now for another 10 years and the price didn't go up at all, that's $20,400 in 10 years to Comcast!!! That's Car territory. A down payment on a House maybe!!! Just for TV and Internet!!!! To me that's just crazy. How much do YOU pay! Is it really worth it to you? Having all those zillion channels now? I just don't miss it now. I've adjusted to the new much cheaper way of doing things. You sure as hell don't need to sign up to a zillion services. I had Netflix and Amazon Prime when I had cable. I have both without cable so I don't really consider those a extra cost since I was already paying for them before.
Well, a lot of channels, via cable companies, are likely subsidizing less profitable ones.
I believe the US government was concerned about diversity of channels - or lack thereof. It may be that the cable companies may have to carry less profitable or no profit channels. They do carry public access and government channels by law in probably all markets.
There are niche channels that could benefit from a little subsidizing.
We had Comcast (shared with others) for TV and internet. One day, Comcast threatened to off our internet for exceeding the limits, because we were all watching Netflix and whatnot. Then they turned of our internet and we were banned for a year or two. We dropped Comcast completely and we went internet only to Frontier FIOS. Never went back. Luckily we had an option. Comcast abuses its power.
I think on this occasion it's consumers doing the fighting. There's many people cutting the cord and they aren't all Apple users. Verizon is starting to offer smaller channel bundles in hopes of subscriber growth.