Apple's Attempt At A TV Revolution Runs Face First Into Comcast Corporation
from the the-TV-revolution-will-not-be-televised dept
For years now, media reports have suggested that Apple has dreamed of offering a disruptive broadband TV streaming service that rattles the status quo. The problem for Apple (and countless companies before it) has been that the broadcasters in charge of said status quo haven't historically been willing to budge on the kind of flexible licensing needed to make this dream a reality. That has resulted in year after year of Apple TV service rumors that never materialize as Apple repeatedly ran face first into licensing negotiations. Similarly, cable operators, wary of Apple getting the same kind of power it now wields in the music industry and losing set top revenues, haven't been keen on Apple's proposals for Apple-made set top boxes.Just about a year ago, the Wall Street Journal ran a story stating that Apple was in negotiations with Comcast regarding an internet TV service that would get priority over Comcast's network. One year later, and a new Wall Street Journal report notes that while a new Apple TV service is finally slated to launch this fall (and the Apple rumor gods really, really mean it this time), it's going to likely be without Comcast/NBC Universal content. Why? Apple insiders claim Comcast is stringing the company along to delay Apple while it focuses on its own efforts:
"For now, the talks don’t involve NBCUniversal, owner of the NBC broadcast network and cable channels like USA and Bravo, because of a falling-out between Apple and NBCUniversal parent company Comcast Corp., the people familiar with the matter said. Apple and Comcast were in talks as recently as last year about working together on a streaming television platform that would combine Apple’s expertise in user interfaces with Comcast’s strength in broadband delivery. Apple came to believe that Comcast was stringing it along while the cable giant focused on its own X1 Web-enabled set-top box, the people said."While what business arrangements Comcast engages in is of course the company's prerogative, this sort of thing is certainly fodder for those worried about Comcast's growing power post Time Warner Cable merger. Whether it's raising rates on Netflix via interconnection, using NBC to withhold licensing agreements, imposing broadband usage caps or refusing to authenticate HBO Go on the Playstation 4, there are plenty of ways Comcast can constrict internet video's growth -- without running afoul of our new net neutrality rules.
Meanwhile, Apple's pretty clearly realizing the company needs to ease off of its own (often draconian and bizarre) control demands if it's going to get a foothold in the broadcast and TV industry, as the sort of success and control Apple enjoys in wireless simply isn't going to be replicated in cable without some major concessions. Insiders suggest Apple's willing to go the extra mile to get cable operators and broadcasters on board, including sharing more viewer data than Netflix traditionally does:
"The company is willing to share details on who its viewers are, what they watch and when they watch it to entice broadcast networks and others to go along with the service, sources said...Apple, which is known for tightly controlling its ecosystem, is taking a more hands-off approach with programmers, such as letting them decide whether they want to air ads. "They’re allowing a lot more decision-making by the content owner," said one source familiar with the talks, adding that Apple has told potential partners, "It’s up to you, whatever you guys want to do."Despite a decade of the cable and broadcast industry fighting internet video tooth and nail, 2015 actually appears to be the year internet video gains meaningful traction anyway. Whether that's through Dish's Sling TV, HBO Now or Sony's Playstation Vue, we're finally starting to see some broader choices when it comes to TV packages and pricing. As for Comcast getting in the way of this progress, it's very possible the FCC and DOJ may approve their merger but impose some conditions that they play nice. Of course whether those conditions are intelligent, meaningful or actually enforced is another question entirely.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: apple tv, control, internet, streaming, streaming video, tv
Companies: apple, comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
...assuming what you want to do fits neatly into our infrastructure and business model and lines up with what we want you to do.
It can be any color you like - as long as you like white.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've got to wonder if we might see that sort of thing, maybe 30 years from now, when a company like Comcast simply owns it all, from beginning to end, and any company that wants to do anything, from creating content to building hardware, must come to Comcast on bended knee -- or be shut out completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would guess there are a few reasons for that, but so far, it hasn't had to. All of the companies that do any of what you are talking about cannot manage to get it done with the Comcast blessing at this point. Why bother to try to get into something you may not be very good at when you can simply squeeze money out of the people that are good at it? They can keep risk low and pull in lots of cash this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A nation-wide cable tv company that produced it's own content would have much additional leverage to not only force independent channels to offer their content for free (they already get paid for running ads), but force them to pay for the privilege of being carried on and distributed through the cable network, in the same way that they would have to pay a broadcast tower.
And of course a monopoly could charge monopoly prices. Being the sole gatekeeper, a super-sized cable company would have this power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish I could say I was surprised. I also wish I could say that any part of that is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Imagine an Apple store with Comcast support people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony Alert!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, there's not a chance I'd sign up for that service. Half the reason I don't have cable now is because of the constant barrage of ads and invasive marketing such as direct mail sent by Comcast and their "partners". Sure, Apple makes pretty good products, generally speaking. That doesn't make the invasion into my personal viewing habits acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doomed from the start
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doomed from the start
"Comcast’s strength in broadband delivery"
say what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Doomed from the start
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why can Apple share viewership info?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why can Apple share viewership info?
The bizarre effect of it is that the rental history from video rental stores has a higher level of protection than almost any other data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The big conglomerates won't let us have up to date content free of geo restrictions and stupid windows that easily. They could have embraced the model a decade ago already if they wanted but they are blind with their money milking machines and refuse to see that they can get an entire freaking Biblical flood if they make the content more accessible, restrictions free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....
Too much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paraxodical Question
Imagine the dinosaurs telling those upstart mammals that they are not allowed to do something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember the golden age of movie houses....
It is time we did something like that with these giant conglomerates. No company in the US should EVER be allowed to own both production studios AND television stations ever again. Also, no company should ever again be allowed to own both production studios AND streaming-internet TV-content services. This would mean that NBCUniversal would have to be split back up into NBC and into Universal Studios, and would also have to split off Comcast, too.
This is something that should have happened a long time ago, in fact, well before these companies ever could have gotten a chance to become so big and powerful that they could elbow, elbow, ELBOW their politicians into giving them privileges and power they don't deserve, and/or stomp on the little guy Just Because.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]