Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Report: Apple Wants TV Service By End of 2012

By - Source: The New York Post | B 29 comments

Apple is fighting to launch a streaming TV service by Christmas 2012 despite having a hard time negotiating with content providers.

The New York Post reports that Apple is pushing to launch a streaming TV service by Christmas 2012 despite making little headway in negotiations with content providers. Sources told the paper that Apple is taking an unusual approach summarized as "we decide the price, we decide what content," essentially wanting "everything for nothing."

Apple’s point man, Eddie Cue, has been at it for months trying to nail down deals with content providers. These providers have "largely balked" at Apple's efforts to exert control over all aspects of the proposed video service, including prices. What Apple is reportedly aiming for is offering channels as apps which could be installed in devices like the Apple TV set-top box and the rumored iTV. What's unknown at this point is whether Apple plans to sell them as a bundle, or offer each channel individually.

The proposed streaming TV service will reportedly compliment what Apple already offers on iTunes which includes movies and TV episodes that consumers can rent or purchase. But the TV service could contradict some apps that already exist on the App Store provided by CBS, ABC and others which stream new and old content to iOS devices. Let’s also not forget Hulu Plus which does a very good job offering TV shows just after they've aired on their parent networks.

That said, there's good reason why some networks are hesitant about investing in an Apple-based streaming TV service given their commitment to other platforms. There's also fear that Apple may dominate this particular region of the entertainment industry. For example, the company tried to get cable operators to dump their current set-top boxes and DVRs for its own Apple-branded devices designed to offer an improved look and accessibility of video services.

"They wanted to create the interface, and they wanted to work with the cable guys to manage bandwidth across the TV and broadband pipeline," said one source familiar with the talks. But executives decided against the offering, choosing to keep Apple at a safe distance instead. Cable companies are also launching their own streaming TV services including Comcast, Time Warner and others.

Currently Apple is reportedly pursuing deals with telecom companies like AT&T and Verizon with hopes of landing at least one deal so that perhaps other will follow. But given that Verizon just announced a deal with Redbox to launch its own Netflix killer in the near future, it's highly doubtful the Big Red will sign on.

Along with the iPad 3, Apple is expected to unveil a new and improved Apple TV set-top box next week. It's possible we'll also see the actual iTV as well (as the invitation reads we have something you really have to see and touch), but that's highly unlikely. Apple is reportedly working on launching the streaming TV service first, and will then focus on the actual hardware.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Streaming Video & TVs forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
  • 2 Hide
    amk-aka-Phantom , March 3, 2012 5:11 PM
    Quote:
    But the TV service could contradict some apps that already exist on the App Store provided by CBS, ABC and others which stream new and old content to iOS devices. Let’s also not forget Hulu Plus which does a very good job offering TV shows just after they've aired on their parent networks.


    Knowing Apple, I have no doubt that these apps will be taken out mercilessly.
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , March 3, 2012 5:25 PM
    Is Apple definately going with the iTV moniker then? I thought ITV (the UK TV channel) would have prior claim on the name...
  • 0 Hide
    egidem , March 3, 2012 6:17 PM
    "These providers have "largely balked" at Apple's efforts to exert control over all aspects of the proposed video service, including prices."

    -Pretty much sums up all that's wrong with Apple - their need to have control over everything. They'll go ahead and launch a video streaming service, call it revolutionary and magical (like Facetime lol), patent it then sue everyone else in the market. It's bound to happen, it's just a matter of when.
  • Display all 29 comments.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , March 3, 2012 6:21 PM
    Complement with an "e" not "i".
  • 0 Hide
    alxianthelast , March 3, 2012 6:29 PM
    Still very must interested to see which way this goes, but I'm still not interested in buying 'channels'.

    SHOWS as apps that can be delivered on demand to any platform not just iDevices and the TV sounds great.

    I just don't get if this will split video content from iTunes to a dedicated video service (which was able unit sale of music.. so unit sale of TV shows, movies, live performances etc?)
  • -4 Hide
    ericburnby , March 3, 2012 8:08 PM
    I want to see Apple do the same for TV what they did for music. Why should I buy an entire CD if I only like 1-2 songs? Likewise, why should I "purchase" a channel package with ABC when they only have a couple shows I like?

    I want the ability to watch whatever I choose with no more channels. The concept of having a "channel" is archaic.
  • 0 Hide
    CKKwan , March 3, 2012 9:24 PM
    I don't like Apple, but I hate those Cable / Satelite even more!

    This time I hope Apple can teach them a lesson!
  • 0 Hide
    tomfreak , March 4, 2012 6:51 AM
    ericburnbyI want to see Apple do the same for TV what they did for music. Why should I buy an entire CD if I only like 1-2 songs? Likewise, why should I "purchase" a channel package with ABC when they only have a couple shows I like?I want the ability to watch whatever I choose with no more channels. The concept of having a "channel" is archaic.
    I tot Video on demand/digital download/internet TV already have those thing? beside, no TV content is good unless they can by pass any gov censored/cutting.
  • 0 Hide
    del35 , March 4, 2012 8:02 AM
    Quote:
    I want to see Apple do the same for TV what they did for music. Why should I buy an entire CD if I only like 1-2 songs?


    While I agree with this, I disagree with your claim that Apple was the first to do this. On another note, because Apple has shown itself to be a patent troll promoting locked-down standards and lack of cross-platform support, I would prefer not to see Apple's shiny claws grabbing for my wallet in my living room or computer.
  • 2 Hide
    house70 , March 4, 2012 12:01 PM
    del35While I agree with this, I disagree with your claim that Apple was the first to do this. On another note, because Apple has shown itself to be a patent troll promoting locked-down standards and lack of cross-platform support, I would prefer not to see Apple's shiny claws grabbing for my wallet in my living room or computer.

    Just vote with your wallet and don't buy their overpriced products... Pretty sure there are already some services that could offer the equivalent of that.
    As I said before, the problem with delivering a-la-carte TV programming is that the distributor would have to negotiate for each channel individually, rather than buying in bulk. Add to that the in-predictability of knowing beforehand the amount they'll be able to sell (how many customers will actually subscribe for that particular channel, how many will keep it and how many will dump it after a few months) and you have the perfect recipe for a price hike.
    The perfect scenario would be a receiver box (cable/satellite/broadband ) that one can buy, connect to the content distributor (cable company/satellite via dish/broadband ISP) and select the channels would like to buy, click and purchase directly from the channel owner (CNN, ABC, etc.). That would be ideal. The distributor would make a small percentage from each transaction. There would be no fourth-party (like Apple) to pay.
  • 4 Hide
    del35 , March 4, 2012 1:06 PM
    Quote:
    Just vote with your wallet and don't buy their overpriced products...


    Ummm, I think it is the duty of intelligent and aware people to do more. They must inform the masses and shoot down the iCrap behemoth whenever possible. Apple with its drm infested shiny hardware and locked-down standards threatens the march of technology.... So I will not only refuse to buy Apple products, but as concerned person with a humanist slant, I see it as my duty to deflate the iCrap hype whenever possible. I think it was Primo Levy put it very succinctly when he said: "Silence is complicity".
  • -5 Hide
    ericburnby , March 4, 2012 2:26 PM
    del35Ummm, I think it is the duty of intelligent and aware people to do more. They must inform the masses and shoot down the iCrap behemoth whenever possible. Apple with its drm infested shiny hardware and locked-down standards threatens the march of technology.... So I will not only refuse to buy Apple products, but as concerned person with a humanist slant, I see it as my duty to deflate the iCrap hype whenever possible. I think it was Primo Levy put it very succinctly when he said: "Silence is complicity".

    Why do they even allow idiots like you on Tom's? I think it's Tom's duty to ban a$$holes like you from spitting vile at every Apple article that comes along.

    And Apple wasn't first, but they were the first SUCCESSFUL implementation of the idea of buying only what you want. Doesn't matter how much you hate Apple, you can't rewrite history.
  • -2 Hide
    ericburnby , March 4, 2012 2:31 PM
    TomfreakI tot Video on demand/digital download/internet TV already have those thing? beside, no TV content is good unless they can by pass any gov censored/cutting.

    They only have partial versions of that. I can rent movies and special events from my cable company, but I can't outright purchase a movie or TV series from them. And if I want to watch the latest episode of Law & Order I have to set my PVR to record it the day it comes out. Meanwhile, some cable companies let you watch streamed versions of shows anytime after it originally aired without having to PVR it.

    The point is the existing systems are all over the map. And there's no reason I should have to buy a package of 5 channels to get the 2 that I actually want. Channels have no reason to exist in the digitial age.
  • 1 Hide
    back_by_demand , March 4, 2012 8:26 PM
    Ann ONeamusIs Apple definately going with the iTV moniker then? I thought ITV (the UK TV channel) would have prior claim on the name...

    It does and they have been vigorously warned to keep their grubby mits off the name
    ...
    Time will tell however as they are so used to stealing what they have been denied via licensing before now that I exect them to simply announce and ship and just settle out of court after a lengthy and expensive court case
    ...
    Same as Apple logo, iPad, iPhone, iPod menu, etc etc etc
  • -1 Hide
    back_by_demand , March 4, 2012 8:29 PM
    ericburnbyWhy do they even allow idiots like you on Tom's? I think it's Tom's duty to ban a$$holes like you from spitting vile at every Apple article that comes along.And Apple wasn't first, but they were the first SUCCESSFUL implementation of the idea of buying only what you want. Doesn't matter how much you hate Apple, you can't rewrite history.

    I think the public has spoken, you are not welcome troll - BEGONE!!!
  • -2 Hide
    ericburnby , March 5, 2012 1:04 AM
    ^ Sorry, bub, not gonna happen. So a troll and a few Apple haters vote down a comment of mine and that means "the public has spoken"?

    If you think I'm a troll and del35 posts reasonable comments, then you are beyond stupid.
  • -1 Hide
    back_by_demand , March 5, 2012 8:07 AM
    That's Democracy bud, you a Commie or something?
  • -1 Hide
    ericburnby , March 5, 2012 11:37 AM
    Ooooooh, a Commie insult. What's next? You going to invoke Godwin's law?

    Pretty pathetic when someone makes any comment in an Apple discussion and the 12 year olds come out to thumb-down anyone who doesn't jump on the Apple hate train.

    Funny, I thought you were smarter than that, but I see you're just the same when the topic switches to Apple.
  • -1 Hide
    irh_1974 , March 5, 2012 12:00 PM
    ericburnbyFunny, I thought you were smarter than that

    No you didn't, you never have, trying to appeal to my better nature assumes I have one, I thoroughly dislike Apple business practice and anyone defending it - the hardware may be nice but the way the company runs it business stinks to high heaven, including outright theft of whatever the hell it wants because it has the money to buy its way through the legal system
  • -1 Hide
    ericburnby , March 5, 2012 12:10 PM
    ^ You have more than one account now?

    The life of a hater is a pathetic one, sorry to say. No person who claims to be intelligent or well-informed should have any reason to hate one company over another when they all operate the same.
Display more comments
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter
  • add to twitter
  • add to facebook
  • ajouter un flux RSS