New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

Apple in Talks With Discovery and Viacom Over Streaming TV Service

Discovery and Viacom are in discussions with Apple to be included in its rumored streaming TV service, reports The Wall Street Journal. The partnerships could see mid-tier channels such as Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon available through the subscription-based service on devices including the iPhone, iPad and Apple TV.

apple tv
The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that Apple is planning to launch a streaming TV service anchored by American networks ABC, CBS and Fox. The rumored service would offer a lightweight package of about 25 channels for between $30 to $40 per month. Apple is expected to announce the service at WWDC in June ahead of a September launch, according to the report.

Rumors of Apple working on a streaming TV service have circulated since at least 2009, when it was reported that CBS and Walt Disney were considering participating in the web-based service. Later reports indicated that Apple had ambitious plans to launch the service in the second half of 2012, but those plans have yet to materialize nearly three years later, likely due to roadblocks with content providers.

Related Roundup: Apple TV
Tags: Discovery, Viacom, streaming TV service


Top Rated Comments

(View all)

16 months ago
Apple should be in talks with Apple to make a new Apple TV!
Rating: 11 Votes
16 months ago
Same Old Bundle BS - You Pay For What You Don't Watch

How is this rumored streaming Apple service (or others like Sling TV) any different from any other cable company or business models of content providers of the past? "But, but, it's a smaller bundle, so it's cheaper!"

So what?! I ask again, how is this model any different than the past? I thought we were on the eve of an industry revolution, not evolution or a re-hashing of the same thing that consumers clearly DON'T want. Smaller bundles is just more of the same, with more limited networks/content providers.

It's the same 'bundle' model cable companies have had for years that they're holding onto with their cold, dead, out of touch, greedy fingers.
I want ala carte channel subscriptions of live/streaming TV, dammit! Let the free market decide which channels are worth paying for! Stop forcing us to pay for channels that nobody wants to watch! It's madness! All TV customers have been begging... literally BEGGING for this for YEARS.

I will only call it a revolution when I get what I want:
1) I want to pay only for what I actually watch
2) I want to be able to watch whatever I want (meaning I can choose from a wide plethora of content providers), not limited to a select few networks
3) I want to watch whenever I want - I want to be able stream it live or stream it later after it airs. I don't want to have to organize my schedule around what show airs at whatever time. That's just stupid. I also don't want to have to remember to record it on my DVR or worry about running out of hard drive space. That's also stupid. Streaming is the way of the future, baby!
4) I want to be able to watch it on any device

In summary, all networks need to be streamable at any time from any device and no more bundling BS.

Now that would be a game-changer. We'd no longer be stuck in 1970.
Rating: 9 Votes
16 months ago
I'll gladly sign up for Apple service so that I can get rid of those fugly stupid decades old UI from those cable/disk companies. It makes me frustrated every time I have to navigate.
Rating: 8 Votes
16 months ago

How is this rumored streaming Apple service (or others like Sling TV) any different from any other cable company or business models of content providers of the past? "But, but, it's a smaller bundle, so it's cheaper!"

So what?! I ask again, how is this model any different than the past? I thought we were on the eve of an industry revolution, not evolution or a re-hashing of the same thing that consumers clearly DON'T want. Smaller bundles is just more of the same, with more limited networks/content providers.

It's the same 'bundle' model cable companies have had for years that they're holding onto with their cold, dead, out of touch, greedy fingers.
I want ala carte channel subscriptions of live/streaming TV, dammit! Let the free market decide which channels are worth paying for! Stop forcing us to pay for channels that nobody wants to watch! It's madness! All TV customers have been begging... literally BEGGING for this for YEARS.

I will only call it a revolution when I get what I want:
1) I want to pay only for what I actually watch
2) I want to be able to watch whatever I want (meaning I can choose from a wide plethora of content providers), not limited to a select few networks
3) I want to watch whenever I want - I want to be able stream it live or stream it later after it airs. I don't want to have to organize my schedule around what show airs at whatever time. That's just stupid. I also don't want to have to remember to record it on my DVR or worry about running out of hard drive space. That's also stupid. Streaming is the way of the future, baby!
4) I want to be able to watch it on any device

In summary, all networks need to be streamable at any time from any device and no more bundling BS.

Now that would be a game-changer. We'd no longer be stuck in 1970.


You can already do all of that. It's called iTunes.
Rating: 8 Votes
16 months ago
$30 - $40 per month still seems pretty steep to me. I currently have Netflix (which is $8/month) and TiVo (which costs me nothing since I bought the "lifetime" subscription up front and have long-since broken even on that). So I'd struggle to justify paying up to 5 times as much for content that I don't really need. That's why I "cut the cord" to begin with. If this rumored service is also ad-driven, there's even less incentive to subscribe to it.
Rating: 5 Votes
16 months ago

A bundle of a few networks, many of which I'm not interested in, for $30-$40 is exactly why I dropped cable over 12 years ago.
This does sound promising, but I'm more a fan of the a la carte model - or something like it. Hoping for good things ...


Agreed. Most of these channels contain nothing but garbage, which is a key reason why people are watching less television than ever. Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, TLC, and MTV are but a shadow of what they used to be, now containing little more than crap reality shows about rednecks, faux celebrities, ghost hunters, and alien conspiracy nutjobs. Comedy Central might have been nice years ago, but with the departure of Steven Colbert and John Stewart, there won't be much worth watching there.

So what's next for Apple TV... QVC and the Trinity Broadcasting Network?

HBO is the single worthwhile addition.
Rating: 4 Votes
16 months ago
This looks like a great start to the future of TV as we know it. Cable and Satellite box's don't provide an as easy-to-use experience as Apple TV.
Rating: 4 Votes
16 months ago

available through the subscription-based service on devices including the iPhone, iPad and Apple TV.


This is good, and also very interesting. not sure about the pricing though.
Rating: 3 Votes
16 months ago

How is this rumored streaming Apple service (or others like Sling TV) any different from any other cable company or business models of content providers of the past? "But, but, it's a smaller bundle, so it's cheaper!"

So what?! I ask again, how is this model any different than the past? I thought we were on the eve of an industry revolution, not evolution or a re-hashing of the same thing that consumers clearly DON'T want. Smaller bundles is just more of the same, with more limited networks/content providers.

It's the same 'bundle' model cable companies have had for years that they're holding onto with their cold, dead, out of touch, greedy fingers.
I want ala carte channel subscriptions of live/streaming TV, dammit! Let the free market decide which channels are worth paying for! Stop forcing us to pay for channels that nobody wants to watch! It's madness! All TV customers have been begging... literally BEGGING for this for YEARS.

I will only call it a revolution when I get what I want:
1) I want to pay only for what I actually watch
2) I want to be able to watch whatever I want (meaning I can choose from a wide plethora of content providers), not limited to a select few networks
3) I want to watch whenever I want - I want to be able stream it live or stream it later after it airs. I don't want to have to organize my schedule around what show airs at whatever time. That's just stupid. I also don't want to have to remember to record it on my DVR or worry about running out of hard drive space. That's also stupid. Streaming is the way of the future, baby!
4) I want to be able to watch it on any device

In summary, all networks need to be streamable at any time from any device and no more bundling BS.

Now that would be a game-changer. We'd no longer be stuck in 1970.


Can I ask...what are you willing to budget on a monthly basis for all of these wants?

I bring this up because many people assume that "cutting the cord" or some new al la carte business model automatically means lower "cable" bills. But it absolutely will lead to a more dispersed set of costs, including things like:

1) Higher internet service fees (possibly just increases from the Internet service providers or possibly because you need to increase your incoming bandwidth)

2) Various subscription fees (do you want HBO Now, Netflix, a couple of PPV sporting events a month, etc).

3) Hardware investments (new/faster routers, new set-top boxes to replace the current AppleTVs and Rokus of the world). Plus, investment into new devices to every TV n the house.

My point is not that your wants are unfounded or undesirable. It is that there will be a cost, and in fact we might find in a few years that the overall TV programming expense on a monthly basis is actually the same or higher than it is today.

No so long ago, cell phone plans were in the $30-$40/mo range, and any overage was on talking and texting. Now, individual plans for high data packages run us 2x-3x more per line. So we pay more per month, but consider what we have now a necessity. At a cost.
Rating: 3 Votes
16 months ago
Will these be live streaming (only) or offer all of their shows "on demand" - because without the ability to use the Apple TV as a DVR, live programming (only) is likely not worth the bundle price.
Rating: 3 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]