“Leslie Moonves, the CEO of CBS, talked about its negotiations with Apple over its rumored upcoming TV service today at Code Conference,” Matthew Panzarino reports for TechCrunch.
Apple TV is trying to change the universe a bit… I think the age of the 200 channel universe is slowly dying. The average home has between 100 and 150 channels, but the average home is watching between 14 and 17 of these channels regularly. I think what Apple will offer… is a more select group for a lower price. We look at Apple TV… it’s an ongoing conversation — I met with [Apple media head] Eddy Cue last week to talk about it. — Les Moonves, CBS CEO
“Moonves did say that CBS would ‘probably’ sign up for the service, adding ‘we’re very excited about it,'” Panzarino reports. “The problem doesn’t appear to be technology. When Moonves asked what the holdup was he replied, simply, ‘money.'”
Read more, including Moonves’ thoughts regarding a possible acquisition of CBS by Apple, in the full article here.
Money changes everything. – Cyndi Lauper
I love how something that is “free” over the air suddenly becomes a money issue when over broadband, even though the same commercials and ads play on the local affiliate channels. You would think they would just be thrilled having another outlet for their lousy moneymaking adverts to be played and subsequent increased ad asking prices.
You’ve hit the center of what annoys me, and I imagine most others, the most. Why do we have to watch ads when we pay the subscription fee? That may be what Apple is trying to change, and why “money” is “holdup”; i.e. the channel providers want both the ad and the subscription fee money.
Well there are also other cable channels that show commercials. Would love for our online paid-for viewer experiences to all be ad-free. What a concept! Of course the temptation to have so many eyeballs to show ads to is hard to resist.
Who watches commercials anymore anyway ?
We fast forward through or if live we go to restroom or kitchen or catch up with texts or emails during commercials ..
I want to watch commercial advertisements when they are relevant to me. I don’t mind taking a minute out of a show if the ad is about something that I want or need if it means that I don’t have to pay for the show I am watching.
The problem is that most ads are done on a ‘shotgun’ approach and hope that 1% of the audience is positively affected. The networks don’t care about the 99% of us who are forced to sit through it and end up hating the advertiser. It harms the advertiser as well as the audience. We need well targeted ads to pay for the programs or be allowed to pay for the programs ourselves.
I think the real problem is that advertisers have sold their souls to FB,Google, and Twitter. There is no such thing as an informative advertisement any more. They are all annoying emotional/fantasy BS that leaves the user with more questions than answers. Apple is no better in this regard, either. With such rubbish advertising being pushed to ever surface that we look at, people like me will actively avoid ALL adverts. I will not subscribe to services that are significantly ad-supported, period. If Apple thinks that we will accept “targeted anonymous” and “location based” iAds shoved at us in addition to whatever subscriptions they demand, they can forget it. You can’t offer “ultimate personal” technology while pushing adverts, Apple. Don’t follow Google’s lead.
Why do you say the same commercials play?
e.g. cable replaces some commercials that were OTA.
The *AFFILIATE* has the rights to air that programming, so they *directly* are losing money when someone watches it some other way.
(Don’t get me wrong, I avoid virtually all ads with Tivo, but the affiliates do have the rights to air the shows in an area.)
Often the same national commercials play and the affiliates are usually given some local time to sell. Everybody I think knows that. I would think streaming a network feed would mean they use a local version for each market for that reason. But I don’t know if that’s true. Won’t keep me up nights.
aereo tried that argument and couldn’t even convince the supreme court
I was going to say something about the companies losing local advertising revenue. That that’s not true any more. I get bombarded with awful local ads at YouTube these days. Google managed to crack that little problem.
So this could potentially end up similar to wearing advertisements as clothing: Fork over $20 so you can wear our Nike logo shirt, etc. I think I’ll *gag*.
“You can have my answer now, CBS”. “My offer to you is nothing”. “And I expect you to pay cab, flight, a hotel stay”
To paraphrase a movie’s dialog.
Negotiations = money misalignment. CBS wants more, Apple wants less.
Missing something here. If I connect a $40 antenna to my TV I can view CBS channels. So what’s the big deal? Incorporate an antenna and switch into the Apple TV and the problem is solved.? No comprende boys and girls.
Oh I’m sure its over money! CBS and others probably want to much per channel!
I love that you guys quoted Cyndi Lauper in the MDN take 😀
CBS Corporation is controlled by Sumner Redstone through National Amusements, which also controls the current Viacom.
Another voice within the media oligarchy. Their chief rival within the oligarchy is the Hulu conglomeration of companies:
– NBC, aka Comcast
– Fox, aka News Corporation
– ABC, aka Walt Disney Company
After that group would be the various cable media production companies, i.e. HBO etc., as well as the MPAA conglomerate of film production companies. Or something like that. 😉