Apple may have dropped its plans for an Apple TV streaming service

“While Apple may be letting Dr. Dre star in his own show, it seems the company is setting aside plans for a standalone TV service,” Nate Swanner reports for TNW. “CBS CEO Les Moonves says his company has had “no recent talks” with Apple regarding its TV service, which many believed would cost $30-40 monthly.”

“Though not specifically laid out in any report, scuttlebutt suggests Apple is leaving its TV service plans alone because networks like CBS want too much money,” Swanner reports. “To that, it sounds like Apple is bullish on its pricing scheme, and wants to incorporate all major networks.

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Note: Today is Washington’s Birthday in the U.S.A., a federal holiday and, as such, the U.S. markets are closed for the day. We will resume our normal posting schedule tomorrow.

Washington’s Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Dr. Dre to star in Apple’s first, sex-soaked scripted television series ‘Vital Signs’ – February 12, 2016
CBS CEO Les Moonves: Talks with Apple have stopped – February 11, 2016
CBS CEO Moonves says Apple puts live TV service ‘on hold’ – December 8, 2015
Fox’s James Murdoch, CBS’s Les Moonves hint at looming Apple Web TV service launch – November 5, 2015
CBS CEO Moonves says Apple TV content deal is likely – October 14, 2015
CBS CEO: We’re still in negotiations with Apple over new Internet TV service – May 27, 2015


  1. Can’t blame people for wanting to protect their income stream. Apple can only bang their heads against the wall for so long. Eventually cord cutters will increase and deals will need to be struck. Meanwhile Apple will move on.

    1. I’m not sure Apple has a value add here. Except for Amazon’s Prime offerings Apple TV already has an app for every major network (with more coming daily). They’re pretty much covered. Now if they could just get live sports and local news they’d be complete.

  2. My guess is that Apple has found negotiations too frustrating and has dropped plans for co-operating with the existing TV companies to provide a streaming TV service and will now go it alone to deliver an entirely new sort of TV service.

    There seems to be no intention from the TV companies in being prepared to change the industry. They are desperate to keep things just as they are.

    I think that the TV companies would have done very much better by working with Apple, rather than trying to sideline Apple, but they have made their choice and time will tell whether it turns out to be a wise choice.

    1. I think you’re right about that. The TV networks wouldn’t play ball with Apple, so now Apple with partner with the production companies instead and create a competitor to Hulu and Netflix.

  3. With such a high ratio of dreck to good stuff being offered by the existing TV content distribution system, it seems like a pretty low bar to get some meaty content flowing through an alternative distribution path. All it would take is two or three must watch shows coming in through the internet to make cable, satellite and a lot of broadcast just shrivel up because they’re unable to get enough subscribers to support their distribution paths. Then a few current content creators jump ship to the new path (i.e. HBO becomes HBO NOW only and drops their distribution deals with cable and satellite) and bang, paradigm has shifted.

    This is dependent on ubiquitous inexpensive fast internet access. But Apple can work that (buying Sprint of T-Mobile and implementing 5G connectivity?).

    When the winds are shifting, it’s sometimes hard to figure out which direction they’re going to be blowing.

  4. Apple will wait till existing TV companies become weaker, that’s the trend. Then Apple will move back and make a better deal.
    Better to have patients than make a bad deal.

  5. My father started working in the TV industry in 1948. He always predicted the eventual demise of free over-the-air broadcasting. Basically, all that has kept the free services afloat is the government’s insistence that the VHF and UHF bands are a public resource that cannot be used exclusively for encrypted broadcasts behind a pay wall.

    The financial model for advertiser-supported broadcasting was nearly destroyed when cable systems (originally marketed as Community Antenna TV) began offering their own competing channels. The FCC saved the broadcasters with must-carry rules. Now most broadcast stations get most of their viewers via cable and satellite, not over the air; the digital transition accelerated that switch. Their transmitters are an added and increasingly irrelevant expense, like the printing press for newspapers that offer digital editions.

    As with local papers, we may see them shedding the expense. All that keeps them on the air now is the safety net of contracts and regulations that prevent the broadcast networks from presenting their content live on cable or online to a subscriber in a significant TV market except through a local affiliate that is obligated to provide a live broadcast signal. In turn, the affiliates are forbidden to compete for eyeballs outside their local market. As more programming is offered outside the broadcast networks, fewer people watch the local affiliates and the more irrelevant over-the-air gets to the industry’s revenue model.

    About all the affiliates have to offer is local news, sports, weather, and advertising. So far, that and their monopoly on broadcast programs been enough to keep them popular enough with local viewers that the cable and satellite companies have found it impossibly difficult to drop them. That might change if the providers could drop the affiliate and still provide network programming. Without the viewers on cable systems, there aren’t enough people with antennas to keep the local stations afloat.

    The proposed Apple system would further shake up the system, particularly if it could offer programming from the broadcast networks. Over the air free broadcasts might no longer be a feasible expense for stations outside a few major markets. Everyone else would be forced to get satellite, cable (where available), or watch online. The areas outside major TV markets also lack high-speed internet, so all those folks will have to get library cards instead.

  6. The tipping point . . . When Fortune 500 companies that are paying billions of dollars on Ads realize, “Hey, nobody is watching these commercials” . . . something similar happened back in the 2000s, when Procter and Gamble realized, “Why are we running these ads on daytime soap operas, when our original target audience (women) are gone — Procter and Gamble then pulled their ads, and Soap Operas were cancelled . . . In coming years, when advertisers pull their money out of the system, we will start to see networks crumble and be forced to reorganize— then Apple’s offer may not seem so extreme.

  7. Maybe CBS isn’t going to be included in the service. For example, Disney is expecting additional over-the-top services will be available in the future. Here is an excerpt from Disney’s latest call:

    “The expanded basic bundle will remain the dominant product for consumers for the foreseeable future, but competition from new video services and products will only grow. Better user interfaces and greater mobility make these newer services enormously appealing, especially among young people and many of our brands, including Disney , Marvel, Star Wars and ESPN, are tailor-made for over-the-top direct-to-consumer app-based video products. So expect innovation and continued pursuit of new distribution opportunities.”

    Apple’s calling card is “Better user interfaces and greater mobility”. This sounds to me like Apple is going to be offering a streaming video service, or does it? The point is, I can infer just like the writer of the article is guessing there will be no Apple streaming service because CBS says there is no deal.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.