8 ms·

Apple Said to Suspend Effort to Develop Live TV Service

30 points by coloneltcb 11y ago

joezydeco 11y ago
I wonder what would happen if Apple bought Dish Network and used that as a wedge to stream local OTA channels to AppleTV subscribers.
- orky56 11y ago
  SlingTV (offered by Dish Network) isn't able to offer local OTA channels via streaming though. The method of delivery (stream/coax) is enough to renegotiate licensing deals. This article provides a good perspective in the areas you're thinking about: http://www.wsj.com/articles/local-tv-creates-hurdle-to-streaming-1441325369 http://www.wsj.com/articles/local-tv-creates-hurdle-to-strea...
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    Why not just build digital antenna into SlingBoxen? It could even produce a map with a diagram showing you how to aim the antenna, and what length to configure it to. The app could even display a real-time signal strength display. This would give fairly good coverage in most of the larger metropolitan areas in the US.
isomorphic 11y ago
> Media executives have said they expect new TV distributors like Apple and Amazon to pay more for their channels than existing distributors. Meanwhile, most people under a certain age are not ever bothering with cable TV. Why would they pay more just to see it via the Internet? I'm trying to understand the nameless "media executives'" mindset, but all the news I read shows their current business model being dead and buried in 10-20 years.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure the death of the media model will coincide with the death of the notion that "real life" is something separate from the Internet.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  the danger is that some in their zeal to not pay for the cable bundle find themselves paying more for less content. it isn't hard to OD on streaming for money, especially when starting out fortunately where I live I can get a lot of local channels which means big networks too through a simple twenty dollar digital antenna
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- joezydeco 11y ago
  There's an advertising revenue stream in the legacy distributors. Either OTA commercials or in-stream ad insertion in the likes of Hulu, etc. It's great to think 10-20 years ahead and dream of a 100% ala-carte VOD world, but someone still has to pay for it all.
- ghaff 11y ago
  "Most" is an overstatement. The numbers I've seen suggest that ~25% of 25-34 year olds don't have cable although the number is rising. I was hoping Apple would be able to pull it off because I certainly don't get my money's worth out of my cable TV subscription. Unfortunately, I can get nothing over the air so it's more or less all or nothing and I haven't quite gotten myself to the point where I cut live TV off 100%.
Osiris 11y ago
The core problem is the idea of "channels" and schedules. We should just have companies that produce media content and license that content to services that provide access to it. It's like how Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu each produce their own content. In the future I'd envision something like NBC Productions just producing shows and licensing them. With each show generating it's revenue stream, we'll have a lot more variety of content because a show doesn't have to reach the widest audience, only an audience large enough to bring in enough revenue to cover the cost of production.
- exelius 11y ago
  But then how do you find that content? You mention licensing it to services; so how do you differentiate yourself as a service? Right now, the answer is to create your own exclusive content. There's a risk pooling problem at play here too: if I'm paying $10/mo for Netflix, how do you allocate the money between the content on Netflix? Spotify faces the same problem: top artists demand higher payouts in return for listing their music on the service. The top artists are what bring the listeners in, but as a result it's almost impossible for someone who's not an international star to make any money from Spotify. Video faces the same issue.
- orky56 11y ago
  Much of the content creators' revenue comes via advertisers. Until the content creators are able to make the transition you are suggesting, they will have to stick with that. I believe that's one of the reasons holding back Hulu from growing their user base despite jumping into content creation: advertisements are still there so On Demand is still limited in value.
- swombat 11y ago
  > We should just have companies that produce media content and license that content to services that provide access to it. Yes. In music this is somewhat solved by compulsory licensing laws. The same should be applicable to movies and TV...
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > With each show generating it's revenue stream, we'll have a lot more variety of content because a show doesn't have to reach the widest audience, only an audience large enough to bring in enough revenue to cover the cost of production. Except each show will still have to reach the widest audience, because it will have to bring in more revenue than the entity producing would expect from the best alternative use of the same input resources, not just enough to break even.
callmeed 11y ago
Somewhat unsurprising. ESPN alone is getting north of $6 per subscriber from the Cable networks.
- exelius 11y ago
  And ESPN's subscriber numbers are way, way down as a result. I would say a full 50% of the market places zero value on ESPN, and the other 50% is more likely to use ESPN's web site (no subscription required) than the cable channel.
  - Gorbzel 11y ago
    ESPN's premium video offerings require a subscription (whether it's traditional cable or something new, like Sling), so at least 50% of what you said is just wrong. As for the other half, it seems as if you are implying ESPN has done something wrong aggressively pricing their content and live programming offerings...which is also wrong. For some reason cord cutters believe that disparaging content providers they don't personally enjoy is productive, but these are the parties with both a) the leverage and b) the most to lose by challenging cable companies and other traditional media gatekeepers. They deserve consumer recognition for their efforts, and despite having problems like any other monolith, I support the Worldwide Leader.
    - exelius 11y ago
      I dunno, I think ESPN's business model falls apart if they can't force ESPN down everyone's throats. ESPN would cost ~$12/mo if they weren't able to force-bundle it with the cable bundle, and I don't know how many of their viewers would pay that. Certainly some would pay more, but for hardcore sports nerds, ESPN is almost too pedestrian. I think we'll see ESPN fall hard in the next few years -- the gap between hardcore sports fans and casual sports fans is growing rapidly (this is more a function of daily fantasy than anything else; so it's a trend largely independent of media diversification).
      - mitchty 11y ago
exelius 11y ago
Good. This is a bad market for Apple; the content rights owners have all the power and the device manufacturers and distributors have next to none. That's why everyone is trying to get into the content creation game: it's the only way to keep users on your distribution service. I'm guessing that Apple balked once the strategy evolved to producing its own content. I think they were imagining a market evolving that was a natural extension of the iTunes/App Store, but what they found was that they would need to structure like a media company to make that play effective. This is ultimately a mixed bag for consumers; because it means that content ownership has won out. That means prices are likely to rise, and another round of media consolidation is in the cards in the near future. But on the plus side, the amount of quality content being produced under this model is amazing: I have probably two dozen TV series on my "to watch" list when I have time.
- sithadmin 11y ago
  >This is a bad market for Apple; the content rights owners have all the power Isn't that what people said when the iTunes Store rolled out?
  - post_break 11y ago
    And I think content owners saw what happened and won't let it happen again.
    - exelius 11y ago
      Video content is also significantly more expensive to produce than music. The distributors and production companies in the music industry really didn't add much value, but distribution and production companies in video absolutely do add a lot of value. You can produce a professional quality album on a laptop with a $50 mic and free software and release it on iTunes yourself. Songs are generally 3-5 minutes long, have only 3 - 5 moving parts, and file sizes are small. It takes minimum $5k of equipment (and a LOT more time) to make professional video content. You have to worry about video, sound, talent, backgrounds, framing, etc. You need a whole team to produce even mediocre video content if you want it to be watchable (I'm not counting YouTube/Twitch streamers here - that's definitely a different niche).
goodcjw2 11y ago
IMHO, simply live streaming the content through Internet is naive and far from enough to make traditional content creators to hand over their content to Apple. To reinvent TV, people need to think out of the box.
- orky56 11y ago
  Recapturing lost revenue from cord cutters is apparently not enough of a value proposition. It would be interesting to give discounts on purchasing the season/series if the user is a customer of the streaming service. Business models will need to change significantly to see fundamental shifts from the industry and the overall services offered.
ksec 11y ago
Apple needs to make a TV that combine TV tuner with tvOS, and just let the App / Channel do the work, not trying to start their own TV services.

30 points by coloneltcb 11y ago

I wonder what would happen if Apple bought Dish Network and used that as a wedge to stream local OTA channels to AppleTV subscribers.

orky56 11y ago
SlingTV (offered by Dish Network) isn't able to offer local OTA channels via streaming though. The method of delivery (stream/coax) is enough to renegotiate licensing deals. This article provides a good perspective in the areas you're thinking about: http://www.wsj.com/articles/local-tv-creates-hurdle-to-streaming-1441325369 http://www.wsj.com/articles/local-tv-creates-hurdle-to-strea...
- stcredzero 11y ago
  Why not just build digital antenna into SlingBoxen? It could even produce a map with a diagram showing you how to aim the antenna, and what length to configure it to. The app could even display a real-time signal strength display. This would give fairly good coverage in most of the larger metropolitan areas in the US.

isomorphic 11y ago

> Media executives have said they expect new TV distributors like Apple and Amazon to pay more for their channels than existing distributors. Meanwhile, most people under a certain age are not ever bothering with cable TV. Why would they pay more just to see it via the Internet? I'm trying to understand the nameless "media executives'" mindset, but all the news I read shows their current business model being dead and buried in 10-20 years.

oldmanjay 11y ago
I'm pretty sure the death of the media model will coincide with the death of the notion that "real life" is something separate from the Internet.
Shivetya 11y ago
the danger is that some in their zeal to not pay for the cable bundle find themselves paying more for less content. it isn't hard to OD on streaming for money, especially when starting out fortunately where I live I can get a lot of local channels which means big networks too through a simple twenty dollar digital antenna
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
joezydeco 11y ago
There's an advertising revenue stream in the legacy distributors. Either OTA commercials or in-stream ad insertion in the likes of Hulu, etc. It's great to think 10-20 years ahead and dream of a 100% ala-carte VOD world, but someone still has to pay for it all.
ghaff 11y ago
"Most" is an overstatement. The numbers I've seen suggest that ~25% of 25-34 year olds don't have cable although the number is rising. I was hoping Apple would be able to pull it off because I certainly don't get my money's worth out of my cable TV subscription. Unfortunately, I can get nothing over the air so it's more or less all or nothing and I haven't quite gotten myself to the point where I cut live TV off 100%.

Osiris 11y ago

The core problem is the idea of "channels" and schedules. We should just have companies that produce media content and license that content to services that provide access to it. It's like how Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu each produce their own content. In the future I'd envision something like NBC Productions just producing shows and licensing them. With each show generating it's revenue stream, we'll have a lot more variety of content because a show doesn't have to reach the widest audience, only an audience large enough to bring in enough revenue to cover the cost of production.

exelius 11y ago
But then how do you find that content? You mention licensing it to services; so how do you differentiate yourself as a service? Right now, the answer is to create your own exclusive content. There's a risk pooling problem at play here too: if I'm paying $10/mo for Netflix, how do you allocate the money between the content on Netflix? Spotify faces the same problem: top artists demand higher payouts in return for listing their music on the service. The top artists are what bring the listeners in, but as a result it's almost impossible for someone who's not an international star to make any money from Spotify. Video faces the same issue.
orky56 11y ago
Much of the content creators' revenue comes via advertisers. Until the content creators are able to make the transition you are suggesting, they will have to stick with that. I believe that's one of the reasons holding back Hulu from growing their user base despite jumping into content creation: advertisements are still there so On Demand is still limited in value.
swombat 11y ago
> We should just have companies that produce media content and license that content to services that provide access to it. Yes. In music this is somewhat solved by compulsory licensing laws. The same should be applicable to movies and TV...
dragonwriter 11y ago
> With each show generating it's revenue stream, we'll have a lot more variety of content because a show doesn't have to reach the widest audience, only an audience large enough to bring in enough revenue to cover the cost of production. Except each show will still have to reach the widest audience, because it will have to bring in more revenue than the entity producing would expect from the best alternative use of the same input resources, not just enough to break even.

callmeed 11y ago

Somewhat unsurprising. ESPN alone is getting north of $6 per subscriber from the Cable networks.

exelius 11y ago
And ESPN's subscriber numbers are way, way down as a result. I would say a full 50% of the market places zero value on ESPN, and the other 50% is more likely to use ESPN's web site (no subscription required) than the cable channel.
- Gorbzel 11y ago
  ESPN's premium video offerings require a subscription (whether it's traditional cable or something new, like Sling), so at least 50% of what you said is just wrong. As for the other half, it seems as if you are implying ESPN has done something wrong aggressively pricing their content and live programming offerings...which is also wrong. For some reason cord cutters believe that disparaging content providers they don't personally enjoy is productive, but these are the parties with both a) the leverage and b) the most to lose by challenging cable companies and other traditional media gatekeepers. They deserve consumer recognition for their efforts, and despite having problems like any other monolith, I support the Worldwide Leader.
  - exelius 11y ago
    I dunno, I think ESPN's business model falls apart if they can't force ESPN down everyone's throats. ESPN would cost ~$12/mo if they weren't able to force-bundle it with the cable bundle, and I don't know how many of their viewers would pay that. Certainly some would pay more, but for hardcore sports nerds, ESPN is almost too pedestrian. I think we'll see ESPN fall hard in the next few years -- the gap between hardcore sports fans and casual sports fans is growing rapidly (this is more a function of daily fantasy than anything else; so it's a trend largely independent of media diversification).
    - mitchty 11y ago

exelius 11y ago

Good. This is a bad market for Apple; the content rights owners have all the power and the device manufacturers and distributors have next to none. That's why everyone is trying to get into the content creation game: it's the only way to keep users on your distribution service. I'm guessing that Apple balked once the strategy evolved to producing its own content. I think they were imagining a market evolving that was a natural extension of the iTunes/App Store, but what they found was that they would need to structure like a media company to make that play effective. This is ultimately a mixed bag for consumers; because it means that content ownership has won out. That means prices are likely to rise, and another round of media consolidation is in the cards in the near future. But on the plus side, the amount of quality content being produced under this model is amazing: I have probably two dozen TV series on my "to watch" list when I have time.

sithadmin 11y ago
>This is a bad market for Apple; the content rights owners have all the power Isn't that what people said when the iTunes Store rolled out?
- post_break 11y ago
  And I think content owners saw what happened and won't let it happen again.
  - exelius 11y ago
    Video content is also significantly more expensive to produce than music. The distributors and production companies in the music industry really didn't add much value, but distribution and production companies in video absolutely do add a lot of value. You can produce a professional quality album on a laptop with a $50 mic and free software and release it on iTunes yourself. Songs are generally 3-5 minutes long, have only 3 - 5 moving parts, and file sizes are small. It takes minimum $5k of equipment (and a LOT more time) to make professional video content. You have to worry about video, sound, talent, backgrounds, framing, etc. You need a whole team to produce even mediocre video content if you want it to be watchable (I'm not counting YouTube/Twitch streamers here - that's definitely a different niche).

goodcjw2 11y ago

IMHO, simply live streaming the content through Internet is naive and far from enough to make traditional content creators to hand over their content to Apple. To reinvent TV, people need to think out of the box.

orky56 11y ago
Recapturing lost revenue from cord cutters is apparently not enough of a value proposition. It would be interesting to give discounts on purchasing the season/series if the user is a customer of the streaming service. Business models will need to change significantly to see fundamental shifts from the industry and the overall services offered.

ksec 11y ago

Apple needs to make a TV that combine TV tuner with tvOS, and just let the App / Channel do the work, not trying to start their own TV services.