Disney and CBS interested in Apple's subscription-based iTunes TV idea?
By Darren Murph 
posted December 22nd 2009 5:08AM
posted December 22nd 2009 5:08AM
Disney and Apple -- now, where have we heard about these two mingling in content related activities before? Sure enough, whispers of a potential tie-up regarding a $30 per month TV service for iTunes are turning into more of a gentle roar, with The Wall Street Journal reporting today that both CBS and Walt Disney Company are "considering participating in Apple's plan to offer television subscriptions over the internet." Naturally, this comes from those ever present (and perpetually undisclosed) "sources," but considering that the outfit just shelled out for Lala, we wouldn't put anything past it. As the story goes, CBS is considering offering up content from CBS and CW, while Disney could include programming from ABC, Disney Channel and ABC Family networks; details on the purported program are obviously still under wraps, but we know that both of these guys would be looking for some sort of monthly compensation in exchange for access to their lineups. Whatever the case, it's being bruited that Apple could complete licensing deals and introduce the service sometime in 2010, so we'll be keeping an ear to the ground for more.
This would bring incredible value to Apple TV & give me a solid reason to purchase one. It'll also solidify the dopeness of iTunes ... DRM Free Music & iTunes LP ... Movies in SD & HD you can rent/buy ... All you can eat TV shows & series for $30 a month.
Things I'd like to see but likely won't EVER see:
- Ability to burn purchased movies/tv shows to DVDs (more so series')
- Monthly subscription to unlimited movie views ($10 p/m maybe)
- Slightly higher quality music & $7.99 as base price for standard albums (non-deluxe editions) older than a year.
I've got no problem supporting these artists, film companies, & studios w/ 10% of my unemployment check every week. All you gotta do is give me a darn good reason to.
@Tuan X. the things you see and don't see are due to the record labels, studios and networks. and the latter two have their heads in the sand about a lot of stuff.
be happy any of them might be willing to do this subscription thing. if they can convince enough folks it would be awesome. I could see them doing it with files similar to the rentals. after you watch it, it goes puff. but you can download them over and over if you like. it would well for me. and if they were to release a smallish, flat portable device that could play those 720 versions it would work even better
@Tuan X
Let me guess, the subscription still includes ads, you'll have to wait a week for new content after airing, and you'll need to create a Hulu account. $30....right
Get me live tv that will cripple Comcast or gtfo apple
Given Steve Jobs' ownership, Disney probably has to be first to embrace the iTunes subscription plan. The question is how many others will follow suit - as the plan's appeal depends on content.
http://www.jinni.com
@Phoebe
Let's keep it real here. The music business got pwned by Steve Jobs, the Movie studios are already on board, and the now TV studios are shitting their pants.
Expect a fight against this. But not for business reasons. They're dreading Apple taking over their businesses.
The truth is, as bad as the music business is now, it would be even worse if Apple didn't help the world make the switch to digital the right way.
When is the 20th Dec Engadget Show going to be uploaded? Why is it taking so long?
@Hydraulics I heard earlier via twitter/engadget folk, should be tomorrow aka sometime Tuesday...
@palemoonrises I was there & there was a whole lot of cell phones goin' off, coughing & squeaky shoes from just coming out of the snowstorm NYC had. I think the editors & sound guys had a big task at hand tryna reduce all those ambient noises.
This would be great... if *everything* would be on it. Kinda like how iTunes has every major label represented.
Otherwise... you'll have some of your favorite TV shows on the AppleTV... then the other corporate networks will team up and make their own box, etc.
I guess we do have that one box right now... it's a cable subscription and a DVR...
@Wesscoast When Apple introduced iTunes, there weren't a lot of other promising legal, paid models for online music. True, the TV/movie industry is in flux, but it looks to me like Apple's model will have more competition this time.
@Phoebe
Well, yea, when the iTunes store launched, Apple showed the world how to do it. And so the rest of the world has been trying to take that formula and apply it other industries.
But like I said... the reason NBC is trying to do their own service, etc is because they're petrified that Apple is gonna just take it all over.
The reason they won't is because... TV is still a pretty good deal. There's no urge to have portable shows, like portable music, so its not a killer market. It's still a sit down and watch something market. That's why the AppleTV came out. (A product that, lets be honest, Apple doesn't spend a dime to promote, but when the biggest Apple hater alive, Paul Thurrott, uses and loves your product, you know its gotta be pretty cool)
If this is $30 a month PER "channel" (i.e. $30 for Disney, $30 for ABC, $30 for CBS, etc) then it will fail spectacularly. If, on the other hand, it becomes a service wherein you can access any of the content from any network, then I could see this making a big splash.
What I'd really like to see is something very unique. Steve Jobs should use his position within Disney and Apple to force ABC to let Apple TV stream ESPN's family of channels live on the device. That would be a HUGE coup to the current infrastructure.
And finally, the TV studios shouldn't fear this, because they're going to be making their money somehow or another. The ones who should be VERY worried about this are the cable television providers, Comcast et al. If this ever takes off, they stand to lose a gigantic portion of their monthly revenue...couldn't happen to a better company, in my opinion.
@Hexydes
"If this is $30 a month PER "channel" (i.e. $30 for Disney, $30 for ABC, $30 for CBS, etc) then it will fail spectacularly."
You just made that up, accused Apple of doing it, then called it a stupid idea. Maybe streaming TV shows isn't your biggest problem right now.
@Wesscoast Made what up? I'm simply speculating, since there is no factual evidence for anything in the article. Did you stop reading halfway through the first sentence or something?
I'd really like that. Even though I supposedly have one of the most advanced cable DVR services in the country, I still find it annoyingly slow and cludgy to use compared with iTunes and Apple TV. Distributing content from a DVR is a problem as well - I use a ChannelVision box to make my DVR available on all TVs, but that's over co-ax and is SD only. In contrast, Apple TVs are wireless and can output HDMI. Assuming the right content is there, the convenience of "wireless HDMI" would be a big win for a lot of people, and certainly a nice option to be able to consider.
I wonder how long it will be until you're able to get free TV shows through a P2P service such as limewire.
@Edobe
lol limewire
Now if Apple would just merge the Apple TV with a Mac Mini.
@7egend
That actually sounds like a great idea, and would definitely boost the popularity of the Mini. Won't ever happen though
@7egend - the mini is already poorly designed as a HTPC and not cost effective: http://www.123macmini.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=25412
@Ducman69
Sorry to hear your sentiments on that, but the Mac Mini is very much great for a HTPC.
Combined with it's size, it's IR sensor and remote, bluetooth keyboard and mouse, along with software such as Front Row and Plex. The Mac Mini is one of the best HTPC solutions out there.
This is where you complain that it doesn't have audio outputs (Red/White) or it lacks HDMI, but it does have Mini Displayport, which can be converted to DVI. It also has optical audio out, which some would say is the best.
Hence the reason why I would like to see a Mac Mini and Apple TV merged. Give the Mac Mini the additional features it needs to be a full on HTPC.
They work great now as HTPC, but with modifications to it's IO, it could be the best HTPC out there.
@Ducman69 I am confused. I did a quick read of that post and the Mini comes out ahead in many of the specs. The one place where it is a pain (from what I can tell) is its lack of HDMI ports and its greater cost.
@thefingerofgod - I don't understand where the confusion lies.
The Mac Mini does not have appropriate HTPC outputs nor inputs including a lack of BluRay capability, while costing $1,078.17 shipped with the lowest available processor (going even higher on the processor is wasteful for this application).
The competitor was $388.82 shipped with proper inputs such as BluRay, SDHC, and eSATA and outputs such as a dedicated HDMI + 7 channel audio ATI video card, front audio/mic, with a processor that is more frugal on power and lower heat while still being fast enough for BluRay or high definition flash even without the 10.1 update (approximately double the performance of a Intel Atom), running W7 which offers the purpose-built Media Center interface and remotes that works with extenders in other areas of the house.
Its clearly a more purpose built HTPC box in a very similar form factor.
The Mac Mini can make for a good micro-desktop, but is a VERY poor choice as a HTPC.
I've had an AppleTV for a few years now and even though I find it a great device to bring all that online content to the big TV screen, I've always wondered why they never thought of bringing some more direct and live TV content to the device rather then stick to iTunes Movie and TV Show purposes and PodCasts.
Technically an AppleTV box has everything in it to compete with cable/content providers out there.
So how does this delay of making full use of this device fit in the grand master plan of Apple? Why didn't they take a lead on the competition when they introduced the AppleTV by starting partnerships with content providers like what seems to happen now?
Do we really have to believe that all this time no one was interested in brining their direct and live programming to the AppleTV and iTunes?
@stepvda
because that doesn't leverage any of Apple's core competencies and it sure doesn't leverage the huge ecosystem of devices and accessories they sell, and the millions upon millions of computers with iTunes installed.
The one thing you just can't do on iTunes is sports. News, you can get on the Internet, but you can't get live feeds of sports. And if you're watching a sports game that isn't live, its like wearing a used condom... or sth..:S
It all works great until the cable companies get their say, which they will get. The real motive behind the eventual tiered pricing by TW, Comcast, etc...is to stifle competition from internet providers. $30.00 to Apple is $30.00 that won't be going to TW for On-Demand fees. Tiered pricing on bandwidth will turn that $30.00 fee into $50.00 or $60.00 or more..
I think a lot of people are missing a point in this discussion. Let's assume that the $30 to Apple is for an all you can eat buffet of TV. You still need a good high bandwidth connection. I don't know about you, but my only option is Charter (cough ** sucks *** cough). And through Charter if you only want internet, they charge you extra so then your internet bill is around $40. So now the combined bill is ~$70. Your getting back into the realm of paying for cable. I would definitely be interested in the service. At the moment I do not subscribe to TV and only get the internet service. But @ $30, given the total bill, I might as well just pay for Charters TV service.
@photobugfred
People are forgetting is the fact these cable companies own the pipes to your homes (unless your home is fitted with fiber optic then youre fine) and will start capping your bandwidth if something like this (taking cable subscriptions away) happens. My business is with Time Warner and i do believe if current subscribers are headed to online (Apple TV) content and not TWC, they will resort to metered bandwidth. Its a little early to speculate what they'll be offering but if Apple TV is able to stream live Sports in HD for a minimal monthly price then im game.
never buying anything apple sells. i'd rather watch a 12" black and white tv and listen to am radio.
@krosref
Apple "inspired" MS Windows. Way to give your life meaning.
@Wesscoast
What does windows have to do with anything?
@krosref
You give people who dislike Apple a really, really bad name.
They make some good products. They all have their faults, but good luck never using an iPhone/iPod/mac etc. in your lifetime.
And when we are all watching tv on Apple TV's or whatever else comes along after, have fun with your black and white 12".....
@SolidSnake thanks, i will.
@SolidSnake You know just cause someone is happy with going retro, doesn't make apple products any worse or better.
And judging from the way Droid is being promoted and the rise of other smartphones, I wouldn't be surprised if there are people who will never own an iPhone.
Apple is way behind on video. Maybe they can catch up, but itunes sucks for a content distribution system. Netflix/Amazon VOD/Hulu are all way ahead.
We don't need networks on the net, we need all the cable channels. If you just made ESPN available on the net somehow, I wouldn't even need my Dish Network anymore. Everything else I can already get on the net.
@jcrash
Have you tried espn360.com? I watched a college football game and it worked great.
@rcappo I really just want NFL Games from ESPN. Maybe a couple college games.
@jcrash
If i can get ESPN HD on apple TV along with a few other basic (ABC HD, Fox HD) im all for it.
@eminisp I think that is known and the reason why you don't see it. Who would actually pay for DIYtv when they didn't have to do so?
@jcrash
Hulu and Netflix have a meager selection of content and although I appreciate their subscription-based business model vs. Apple's a la carte pricing, the iTunes store has both a wider variety and includes the ability to take your content with you on a portable device where you may not have fast internet connection (like when we flew to the grandparent's house this Christmas).
Amazon VOD has a nearly identical selection of content as the iTunes store, but lacks good portable device support and their support for TVs isn't as impressive as the Apple TV.
In short, I think you're wrong. Apple has a lot to work out with content distributors, but they're arguably still in the lead or at least not "way behind".
@ColinMcGraw Well, itunes ties me to Apple stuff. I don't want to deal with Apple stuff. I don't want to pay 2x the going rate for a piece of hardware that is non-expandable, has a non-removable battery, and doesn't integrate with multiple manufacturer's devices (a la NetFlix and Amazon), etc. I don't want to be tied to a company who's survival depends on making my product out-of-date instead of providing me more features for the products I already own (a la Netflix and Amazon VOD).
There is a reason you can get a good laptop from everyone but Apple for under $500, a good mp3 phone with Browser for under $100 on plan that costs less than $100 for TWO LINES with unlimited everything, etc from everyone but Apple. You can buy Amazon VOD credits for cent on the dollar...they house your content and you can download it. Not sure what you mean by them not supporting certain TV's - the service comes with a Roku, or an $80 blu-ray player - or an HTPC - no need for specific TV.
@JonS
Theres nothing wrong with wishful thinking ;)
What they need is an MLB.TV subscription service.
I get CBS and the CW for free from two different cities right now using an OTA antenna. I have a Mythbuntu linux HD DVR that costs $20/year. Why would I pay $360/year for this, plus internet fees that I don't pay for now.
I can even download all the shows I want to watch for free on their websites when I do get on-line.
@rcappo When Apple presents the actual service plan and product, then you'll see, then you'll know. And you'll probably want it. As is, we really don't know anything.
@HighestRanked
I have a local network setup between my MacBook and the Linux DVR. I don't see how Apple will be able to compete with the free system I have now. Maybe there are millions of people that aren't like me, but I think they may have problems with a monthly fee.
Actually, I want to watch less TV next year, and am working on ways to reduce the number of hours I spend in front of a TV.
@rcappo well, I for one, have always wanted to go dog sledding
And while these giant companies are fighting it out about how best to rip you off & probably planning on charging up the ass per channel while slapping on the DRM, I'll be downloading all my DRM-less shows via torrent for free.
Thanks for playing. Johnny, tell 'em what they won.
$30 a month to watch CBS and ABC, LOL I think I'm missing something here. Specially since I can go to their web sites and watch pretty much any show for free.
@RLJSlick, don't forget that there are many mindlessly devout people that would gladly pay the $30/month for this lame service just because Apple is offering it.