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

Resubscribe Now Close

CBS CEO Again Says Network Will 'Probably' Reach Streaming TV Deal With Apple

CBS CEO Les Moonves says the network is still in negotiations with Apple over its inclusion in Apple's upcoming streaming television service, reports Bloomberg. In an interview with Bloomberg TV this morning, Moonves said CBS has had conversations with Apple and will "probably" ink a deal with the Cupertino company.
"Apple is having conversations with everyone about doing their own streaming services," Moonves said in an interview Wednesday on Bloomberg TV. "We have had those conversations, as have the other networks. Do I think something will happen? Probably, but I do not know when."
Moonves made similar comments five months ago at Re/code’s Code Conference, saying CBS would "probably" sign a deal with Apple for its rumored streaming television service. "We're very excited about it," he said, and at that time, he confirmed he had met with Eddy Cue to discuss the plans as part of an "ongoing conversation."

les_moonves_bloomberg
Given the similarity between the statement given in May and what Moonves had to say today, there is little evidence of any progress in the talks between Apple and content owners, but it's clear there is still interest in reaching a deal.

Apple's web-based television service was initially rumored to be launching in 2015, perhaps alongside the new Apple TV, but a continued failure to secure all of the necessary deals has reportedly delayed its debut until 2016. Apple is said to be having trouble with content negotiations, with pricing being a sticking point.

Apple's plan is to offer a selection of popular television channels at a price of $30 to $40 per month, a price tag that undercuts most cable television services. While Apple's streaming television service is still in the works with a launch date unknown, the company’s new set-top box will be launching at the end of the month.

The new Apple TV is already in developer hands and will be available to the general public in late October. The device includes a full App Store, universal search, deep Siri integration, and a touch-based remote for navigating the interface and playing games.



Top Rated Comments

(View all)

15 months ago
Exactly. Why the heck would I pay for free network stations unless I was in a seriously rural area (that may not have decent enough internet to support streaming anyway)?

Also, in my mind, even $30-40 a month for TV is absurd. Not to mention those channels are all laced with commercials; why is the subscription price justified? Is that even that good of a price relative to the legacy providers, after factoring in the cost of internet as well?

Above all else, I may be in the minority, but TV is a massive waste of time. 100s of channels to waste away your days staring at a TV. I watch about an hour a day when we wind down for the night and I already think that's too much.

I refuse to pay for channels that are available free OTA.

Latest census data show that over 80% of the US population lives in urban areas, so all these folks are likely well within range of a accessing an OTA tower using a cheap indoor antenna.

For the other less than 20%, I guess it might make sense to pay for streaming CBS.

Rating: 6 Votes
15 months ago
Given how bad the Apple Music service is, I don't I have high hopes that Apple will get it right.
Rating: 6 Votes
15 months ago
I want this to happen so bad and cut ties with cable. I mean I know I will still have internet with them but seriously if apple provided a 30 dollar a month thing that would be awesome. Cut my bill by over 100 bucks.
Rating: 5 Votes
15 months ago

I want this to happen so bad and cut ties with cable. I mean I know I will still have internet with them but seriously if apple provided a 30 dollar a month thing that would be awesome. Cut my bill by over 100 bucks.

Unfortunately, for now we still need them for hi-speed internet access. If or when we all desert them for our content needs, I suspect they'll try to recoup those losses thru increased bandwidth charges.
Rating: 5 Votes
15 months ago

Maybe unbearable where you are.

OTA is typically the very best quality of the most popular network(s) programming, available when first run (rather than waiting for discs or Hulu/Netflix delays). It plays at better quality than cable or SATT and is available for the amazing price of $0. How? Because it's subsidized by other people's money who pay for ALL of it in hopes that we might be watching the channel on which they are running their commercials right when they happen to be running their commercials. Most of the commercials are never seen because we can only watch one channel at a time and we only can watch for only a chunk of the time in each day, and yet they pay for it all... bringing us the most popular TV programming in the world, when it first runs... for FREE!

And what do we tend to think of that bargain? Many of us want to get rid of that subsidy model while also expecting to pay next-to-nothing in some kind of subscription from which Apple will probably take their 30% right off the top... yet we expect it all to "just work" anyway.

I wish (too). But in the meantime, I continue to enjoy the free OTA, best quality HD delivery and hope nothing will disrupt a model that costs me nothing to get it. I much prefer the free model as is than one in which free is monetized so that new players can further justify taking a cut.



it's unbearable because of the commercials not the quality. i rather watch in SD than with commercials. personal preference. i rather wait a month for a show and not have to skip commercials than deal with commercials the minute the show comes out. another personal preference.

and hbo and showtime on demand say hi! i get my shows as soon as they air in the east coast and i live in the west coast where i would have to wait if i was watching on cable.

and i don't expect to pay next to nothing. i just won't pay for cable packages that bundle channels i don't want. some i feel ill for supporting. like TBN. why should i pay for TBN so i can get watch nickelodeon? or sports? i hate sports. the bulk of most cable packages are sports.

the cbs deal is not meant to be a changer for OTA watchers. it's for people that are on cable or dish. the point is that cable companies refuse to provide a la carte cable packages and that will be the death of them. apple tv is becoming that model that i wanted. pay only for what i want to watch
Rating: 3 Votes
15 months ago
I refuse to pay for channels that are available free OTA.

Latest census data show that over 80% of the US population lives in urban areas, so all these folks are likely well within range of a accessing an OTA tower using a cheap indoor antenna.

For the other less than 20%, I guess it might make sense to pay for streaming CBS.
Rating: 3 Votes
15 months ago

Exactly. Why the heck would I pay for free network stations unless I was in a seriously rural area (that may not have decent enough internet to support streaming anyway)?

Also, in my mind, even $30-40 a month for TV is absurd. Not to mention those channels are all laced with commercials; why is the subscription price justified? Is that even that good of a price relative to the legacy providers, after factoring in the cost of internet as well?

Above all else, I may be in the minority, but TV is a massive waste of time. 100s of channels to waste away your days staring at a TV. I watch about an hour a day when we wind down for the night and I already think that's too much.


I would cut the cord if Apple delivers all the espn channels and fix sport channels for under $40 a month. 75 percent of directv is crap.
Rating: 3 Votes
15 months ago

Unfortunately, for now we still need them for hi-speed internet access. If or when we all desert them for our content needs, I suspect they'll try to recoup those losses thru increased bandwidth charges.


If this were true, then in theory ISPs that provide only internet and don't even sell cable TV would be way more expensive, right? But they aren't (typically those regional ISPs are indeed less expensive). This means if the other providers remove the overhead of cable TV, when we all ditch cable TV packages, their profits will still be high enough.
Rating: 2 Votes
15 months ago
Probably. Maybe. Possibly. Who's to say?
Rating: 2 Votes
15 months ago
I live in a college town of 115,000 (I mean not big at all but decent sized) with their own TV networks and can't even pick up CBS OTA. I've lived on both the north and south sides of town. Even bought one of those fancy Leaf antennas. I only want CBS for football. I'm not eligible for Sunday Ticket streaming service. But I don't see why I should pay to access free, OTA content via IP and still have to sit through so many commercials. I've got too much stuff to do to sit through all of that. But maybe that's why so many young people are cord cutters? We're out living our lives instead of being couch potatoes? On demand content is key.

If Apple's package includes many cable networks, or perhaps a "build your own package" option that includes OTA TV, then I might consider it in the $30-40/mo price range. But as a cord cutter I like being able to watch content when it's most convenient. Many people I know my age and younger (even a few a little older than me) feel the same way. These guys are really going to start hurting once the newer generations start dictating their profits. We won't put up with this old system. There's enough quality, free content online to keep me entertained for years. The rest I pay to stream or purchase on iTunes if I really love it. These executives are so set in their ways that it's incredibly difficult for them to understand such a simple mindset when it comes to entertainment. I want to choose the channels I subscribe to, I want to make my own package, I want to watch content when I have time, and I don't want to sit through a bunch of commercials.

As a side note, I hadn't watched OTA TV in so long that I was really amazed the other day when I watched it. My toddler had fallen and hurt her head (briefly passed out) so I took her to the ER (she was fine). In the observation room we stayed in for a couple hours afterwards and they had Nickelodeon on the TV (was the morning so I think it was Nick Jr. or whatever it's called today). There were so many commercials I couldn't believe it! It seemed like most of the programming was squeezed between corporate sponsorships. Kids are bombarded with so much crap that makes them super materialistic. Anyway, sorry for my rant. OTA sucks.
Rating: 2 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]