CBS head says talks for Apple streaming TV have stopped for time being

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
CBS is no longer in talks with Apple regarding the latter's frequently-rumored streaming TV service, the network's CEO admitted in a recent interview.




"We had conversations awhile back, and we haven't had recent conversations with them," Les Moonves remarked to CNNMoney. This is despite the network being regularly contacted by other tech firms looking to partner on content.

Moonves noted that he also had no idea when Apple might launch a service. "You'll have to ask Apple that. I don't know that," he said.

In December Moonves suggested that Apple had "pressed the hold button" on a streaming TV service, a view that was echoed by later reports. The main obstacle was allegedly Apple's insistence on a "skinny" channel bundle costing less than $30 per month, and the unwillingness of content providers to leave some channels out.



More recent rumors have hinted that the project is still alive, and that Apple may even be preparing to offer original TV shows in a package that could arrive as soon as September. Subscribers might be able to watch live NFL games as well, assuming Apple successfully bids for the rights.

A streaming service was at one point rumored to launch alongside the fourth-generation Apple TV as a flagship feature. In the interim, Apple has been looking to spur content providers into producing tvOS apps.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,044member
    CBS is a joke. They want you you to pay for Total Access even when you have it thru your TV subscribers. ACC, NBC or Fox allow you to stream free if you've already had it with your cable. Fuck CBS.
    jbdragon
  • Reply 2 of 28
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,471member
    Wither on the vine...when they are the last one to the party, the stakes will rise.
  • Reply 3 of 28
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    This crap is getting old.
  • Reply 4 of 28
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Apple should launch their service soon in my opinion.

    If there are still one or two holdouts, then I say screw them. It will end up being the holdout's loss, and they will eventually come on board I think, because if Apple releases an entire package without CBS for example, but everybody else is there, then who cares. Launch without them. 

    Apple's package will be very successful if the basic selection is good, and eventually, any few holdouts will be begging to be a part of it probably.
  • Reply 5 of 28
    I really hope some or all of these dated content providers really take it in the shorts when all of this evolves to something better for the consumer.  I am still holding out hope that it will happen soon.
  • Reply 6 of 28
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    Hate to say it but I think buying a content company may be Apple's only chance to get the ball rolling at this point. They just seem too stubborn otherwise.

    I like my legacy/New content idea. Buy old school shows like TV Land has and create new exclusive content and fuse into Apple TV. Should keep costs down if I'm thinking correctly. Flat out buying Time Warner may be too expensive, then again they may own all those old shows too :(
  • Reply 7 of 28
    apple ][ said:
    Apple should launch their service soon in my opinion.

    If there are still one or two holdouts, then I say screw them. It will end up being the holdout's loss, and they will eventually come on board I think, because if Apple releases an entire package without CBS for example, but everybody else is there, then who cares. Launch without them. 

    Apple's package will be very successful if the basic selection is good, and eventually, any few holdouts will be begging to be a part of it probably.
    What service? How do we know Apple has one ready to go?
  • Reply 8 of 28
    "The main obstacle was allegedly Apple's insistence on a "skinny" channel bundle costing less than $30 per month, and the unwillingness of content providers to leave some channels out."

    This statement is confusing in the context of this article that is about direct discussions with 'the content'.
    "Content providers" are the Cable Companies.  CBS is the content.
  • Reply 9 of 28
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    This service is certainly why I bought (2) Apple TV's.

    Not the sole reason but certainly a key one.

    I know, Apple has never promised a service so I took my chance.
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 10 of 28
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    cali said:
    Hate to say it but I think buying a content company may be Apple's only chance to get the ball rolling at this point. They just seem too stubborn otherwise.

    Yeah, I wonder how much would HBO cost? That would provide a great library and grow from there.
  • Reply 11 of 28
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,988member
    I really hope some or all of these dated content providers really take it in the shorts when all of this evolves to something better for the consumer.  I am still holding out hope that it will happen soon.
    You can hold out forever if you like. Nothing of the sort will happen. When has a major corporation ever “taken it in the shorts”? The content providers are in the driver’s seat. They produce the programs, shows, and movies you want to watch and they control who gets to deliver them to you. It’s called copyrights. It’s always hilarious to read posts from people like you who are always hoping AT&T, or Verizon, or CBS, or NBC, or whoever goes bankrupt. So you want it all for free or next to nothing? “Better for the consumer”? The consumer is the sucker who pays for it all.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 12 of 28
    I have to agree with some of the posters here. Apple should buy at least one content provider and put a significant scare into the rest of the industry. Launch a service with what they have, do it well, do it cheaply so it's popular, and leave the rest to fight it out to get themselves on Apple's platform later, if at all. I would personally leave CBS or any other laggard network in the dust if they don't want onto the service that Apple provides. Let them explain to their shareholders the loss of customers as people cut the cord. Let them explain to advertisers what value proposition they have as a network when their base is shrinking. Maybe Apple should offer content providers two options - today's opportunity, and tomorrow's, with the present being the best chance they'll ever have at revenue sharing.
  • Reply 13 of 28
    I am really getting tired with Xfinity. The only reason I will continue to have them is for their internet service (They are the only provider who is giving me 100+ mbps). Apple should onboard whoever is ready right now for their package and provide the streaming service. Maybe this will force the others to join.
  • Reply 14 of 28
    fallenjt said:
    CBS is a joke. They want you you to pay for Total Access even when you have it thru your TV subscribers. ACC, NBC or Fox allow you to stream free if you've already had it with your cable. Fuck CBS.
    It didn't take a lot of thought for me to realize that the only reason I tuned to CBS recently, and as far back as I can remember, was to watch the Super Bowl.



  • Reply 15 of 28
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    msantti said:
    This service is certainly why I bought (2) Apple TV's.

    Not the sole reason but certainly a key one.

    I know, Apple has never promised a service so I took my chance.
    Why not wait until the service is a reality then?
  • Reply 16 of 28
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,044member
    fallenjt said:
    CBS is a joke. They want you you to pay for Total Access even when you have it thru your TV subscribers. ACC, NBC or Fox allow you to stream free if you've already had it with your cable. Fuck CBS.
    It didn't take a lot of thought for me to realize that the only reason I tuned to CBS recently, and as far back as I can remember, was to watch the Super Bowl.



    $20 OTA will serve the need, no subscription needed.
  • Reply 17 of 28
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,044member
    Why would I care if Fox, CBS, ABC or NBC is available in AppleTV ? My $20 antenna already got those and more. I only need those non-broadcast channels like HBO or Showtime. 
    I got rid of cable/satellite TV for a long time. My SlingTV, Amazon Prime and OTA antenna serve 90% of my watching...HBO subscription is seasonal during Game of Thrones only.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 18 of 28
    peteopeteo Posts: 402member
    lkrupp said:
    I really hope some or all of these dated content providers really take it in the shorts when all of this evolves to something better for the consumer.  I am still holding out hope that it will happen soon.
    You can hold out forever if you like. Nothing of the sort will happen. When has a major corporation ever “taken it in the shorts”? The content providers are in the driver’s seat. They produce the programs, shows, and movies you want to watch and they control who gets to deliver them to you. It’s called copyrights. It’s always hilarious to read posts from people like you who are always hoping AT&T, or Verizon, or CBS, or NBC, or whoever goes bankrupt. So you want it all for free or next to nothing? “Better for the consumer”? The consumer is the sucker who pays for it all.
    I guess you missed the late 90's-2000's when every major music label took it in shorts because customers could get the content for "free" then apple came along and saved their ass. But you are right we are in a different world right now. You can still get TV/Movie content for "free" but there are lots of online places that people can get it from now, that while prices are "high" people are willing to pay for it one way or another. These companies all want people to pay $15 to stream their "channels" with ads.  They want more money from you not less. That's why apple is having a hard time and until enough cord cutters stop paying for cable TV these media companies will not play ball. Apple needs to buy time/Warner 
  • Reply 19 of 28
    fallenjt said:
    Why would I care if Fox, CBS, ABC or NBC is available in AppleTV ? My $20 antenna already got those and more. I only need those non-broadcast channels like HBO or Showtime. 
    I got rid of cable/satellite TV for a long time. My SlingTV, Amazon Prime and OTA antenna serve 90% of my watching...HBO subscription is seasonal during Game of Thrones only.
    For the VOD. 
  • Reply 20 of 28
    lkrupp said:
    I really hope some or all of these dated content providers really take it in the shorts when all of this evolves to something better for the consumer.  I am still holding out hope that it will happen soon.
    You can hold out forever if you like. Nothing of the sort will happen. When has a major corporation ever “taken it in the shorts”? The content providers are in the driver’s seat. They produce the programs, shows, and movies you want to watch and they control who gets to deliver them to you. It’s called copyrights. It’s always hilarious to read posts from people like you who are always hoping AT&T, or Verizon, or CBS, or NBC, or whoever goes bankrupt. So you want it all for free or next to nothing? “Better for the consumer”? The consumer is the sucker who pays for it all.
    That is not even close to what my point was but thanks for putting words in my mouth.  Eventually some of these companies will have negative repercussions from holding content too tightly and not evolving with what the consumer wants/needs.  I do not want content for free.  I want to pay a fair price for only the content I want to watch in very similar fashion to the fact that I want to listen to the songs I want to and pay only for those versus the only choice being buy the album.  Maybe focus on being constructive instead of being an idiot.
Sign In or Register to comment.