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.
/article-new/2012/12/product-product.jpg)
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.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)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.
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.
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.
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.This does sound promising, but I'm more a fan of the a la carte model - or something like it. Hoping for good things ...
So what's next for Apple TV... QVC and the Trinity Broadcasting Network?
HBO is the single worthwhile addition.