Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Desktops (Apple) Iphone Media Media (Apple) Television Apple

Time Warner Cable Cuts iPad Live TV Access 50% 225

Posted by samzenpus from the half-as-good dept.
Junior Samples writes "According to the article: 'Time Warner Cable March 16 slashed the number of channels available for live streaming on the Apple iPad — less than 24 hours after launching the TV Everywhere app. The No. 2 cable operator reduced to 15 channels from the original 32 offered up as the first-ever live TV broadcasts available for streaming on a portable media device. The concept allows participating media providers to grant unlimited on-demand access across multiple devices to monthly subscribers at no additional charge.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Time Warner Cable Cuts iPad Live TV Access 50% More

Time Warner Cable Cuts iPad Live TV Access 50%

Comments Filter:
  • Perhaps they meant for very large values of 15.

  • Bait and Switch (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It is called "Bait and Switch".

    • Re:Bait and Switch (Score:5, Informative)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Thursday March 17, 2011 @12:30AM (#35512586) Homepage

      According to this article [9to5mac.com], their authentication servers got overloaded, and they cut down the number of channels to reduce the authentication load while they bought more.

      While I normally rally against evil corporations hiding the truth, somehow "we couldn't convince the higher-ups to buy enough servers until everything went to pot" seems like normal operating launch-day problems.

  • And Android...no? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 )

    Why won't these 'successful' companies release Android apps as well? Android outsells iOS big-time, but still gets the short end of the stick!

    Heck, even my bank, which made 2.1 billion dollars in profit (last quarter), does not have an Android app...yet it keeps advertising iPhone and iPad apps as if iOS is the king in the mobile arena.

    I just do not get it especially when the notion of Android fragmentation is a myth [goo.gl] and Google seems to confirm this. [goo.gl] I am bewildered.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Android outsells iOS big-time, but still gets the short end of the stick!

      No, it doesn't. There are more Android phones than iPhones, but the iPhone isn't the only device that runs iOS. In terms of units sold, there are far more devices that run iOS.

    • Why won't these 'successful' companies release Android apps as well?

      For the simple reason that Android Tablets haven't taken off.

    • Re:And Android...no? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @08:18PM (#35510630)

      They released an iPad-specific app. Last I checked, the iPad is outselling all other competitors combined about 4:1.

      Another point of consideration with something like this is the rights protection/DRM that Apple has in iOS, which is consistent across the devices. Refer to the problems Netflix has been having in bringing their service to Android because of the inconsistent DRM protection offered across the Android lineup of devices.

      Also, you're conflating iPhones and iOS. Android smartphones are indeed outselling iPhones on a quarterly basis, and have been for the last few quarters. That said, all Android devices are, last I checked, still behind all iOS devices when it comes to sales on a quarterly basis. I saw some numbers from late last year that put iOS ahead by about 30-40M units in terms of installed base, with both the Android and iOS lines on the graph growing at the same rate, essentially meaning that they're keeping pace with each other, but that Apple got the head start. That's not to say that they'll always be ahead, of course, but they are for now.

      As for OS version fragmentation, you're right. It's not nearly the issue that some folks make it out to be. That said, there is an issue for customers who want to update to later versions and can't since their carrier won't permit reasonable updates after just a few months, but that's more of an issue with bad business practices that affect consumers negatively, rather than a problem for app developers.

      • but that's more of an issue with bad business practices that affect consumers negatively, rather than a problem for app developers.

        I'd say it becomes a platform problem if(or when, you pick) the bad business practices are rampant across most devices, up to the point where app developers need to take it into account when developing software, especially since the more fragmented markets seem to be the loud, highly visible, trend-setting north american markets.

        I thought they already did need to take precautions for software, denials from google notwithstanding

      • That said, there is an issue for customers who want to update to later versions and can't since their carrier won't permit reasonable updates after just a few months, but that's more of an issue with bad business practices that affect consumers negatively, rather than a problem for app developers.

        That's something that I wish Google had been a little more proactive about. If the Android license had some requirement for support of some sort in regards to updates I think the entire Android environment would benefit tremendously. That being said, Google has more of a challenge on their hands compared to Apple because Google went to all (or most) handset and networks.

      • Umm when your the consumer fragmentation is a pretty damn big issue. Lets put it this way I was enough for me to decide to ditch my 8 month old Samsung Android phones a few weeks ago and pick up a pair of iPhones, I would have rather stayed on android but at least now I know i'm going to get support for at least a couple phone generations. I was told I should just buy another brand of phone but frankly I just dont trust any of the android phone manufacturers to not just drop support on a whim after rollin

        • I, too, have been tempted by the iPhone, but my iPad experience has convinced me to stay on Android for now. I find the headaches of iOS much, much more annoying than the headaches of Android - but then, I'm savvy enough to install Cyanogenmod on my phone, so I'm not worried about getting EOL'd. (Even if you never plan to install CM, I'd not buy an Android phone that it didn't support - it's your EOL protection.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )

        > They released an iPad-specific app.

        That's stupid. All of the other iDevices are much more portable. You are far more likely to actually enjoy this service if you are running something other than an iPad. If you're running an iPad, chances are that you have easy access to a much bigger screen or a much better method of "home streaming".

        • I disagree. I use my android tablet to stream video into the weight room while working out or the kitchen while working on things in there. In the yard while working on outside projects, etc.

      • actually the figure is 9:1... the ipad has 90% of the tablet market...
        so the priority is clearly ipad over (fragmented) Android table market for now...

    • DRM (Score:3)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 )

      Because Android does not implement system-level DRM, that's why. IE, because it is open, media companies don't like it.

      This is exactly why Netflix has no Android app, they have said so right on their blog.

    • Heck, even my bank, which made 2.1 billion dollars in profit (last quarter), does not have an Android app...

      BOA has an Android mobile banking app. They make slightly more than 2.1 billion/quarter, though.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Karlt1 ( 231423 )

      I just do not get it especially when the notion of Android fragmentation is a myth and Google seems to confirm this. I am bewildered.

      It's not just about the OS -- it's about the different hardware capabilities, the lack of encryption (that's what's keeping Netflix off), the differing resolution, etc.

      Besides, Android users don't buy apps.

      http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/ [techcrunch.com]

    • Because Android doesn't have pervasive DRM, and without that you won't get media companies to sign on. That's why there isn't even a Netflix app for Android. [readwriteweb.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cgenman ( 325138 )

      Getting approval requires a 12 month lead time through many layers of bureaucracy. 12 months ago, nobody knew if Android was going to take off.

      Though, I have to say, citing Google as confirmation that Google's platform doesn't really have it's major problem is... you can see how that might be iffy.

  • Pressure From Above? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by macs4all ( 973270 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @08:06PM (#35510532)
    Methinks that several of the "Channels" first heard about this when it was announced, and SOME of them bitched to TimeWarner that their current agreements didn't cover LIVE streaming of their content.

    Why mujst everybody monetize every single little thing? I understand these "networks" have a duty to their stockholders; but they are not getting the big picture. An iPad in the home of a person that is already a TW subscriber is absoutely the same as adding another TV in that same home. No more. No less.

    • An MSO customer viewing live TV through a stream provided by the MSO could just as easily be network customer viewing live TV through a stream provided by the network.

      • An MSO customer viewing live TV through a stream provided by the MSO could just as easily be network customer viewing live TV through a stream provided by the network.

        Totally out of my element here, but would it be possible to spoof an iPad into thinking it was on the network that was directly connected to the Time Warner cable subscriber while some place not in the household? Seems plausible, but then again, a whole lot of people think that what happens in 24 is possible in real life.

        • It's not the iPad you need to fool, but rather the server serving up the content. Which you could do, by connecting the two though the household, but it would probably be quite slow.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by agrif ( 960591 )

          Totally out of my element here, but would it be possible to spoof an iPad into thinking it was on the network that was directly connected to the Time Warner cable subscriber while some place not in the household?

          You could just set up a VPN at home (I do it through my DD-WRT router, it was simple enough) and then you literally are on the home network. Of course, then you have to deal with the slow VPN connection.

          For a more tailor-made solution, you could use MobileSubstrate [iphonedevwiki.net] to hook whatever mechanism the app would use to check out the local network, and make it look like you're at home only to the TV app. Similar things have been done to make Apps think you're on wifi when you're really on 3G, so you can use Skype,

    • An iPad in the home of a person that is already a TW subscriber is absoutely the same as adding another TV in that same home.

      It's not *absolutely* the same. The other TV in the home very likely, nowadays, has at least a cable box/DTA/other cable card device attached to it. (In other words, even local stations in analog are gone in some areas already, and will likely be gone in more soon.)

      I have no idea if the cable networks make more money for more 'outlets' in a house.

      • the ipad app issue is certainly the same as Slingbox, which the content providers have begrudgingly accepted as ok... for now...
        indeed, Slingbox does a lot more than this ipad app does.

        This ipad app is actually pretty cool and works well... modulo the slashing of channels available.

    • While I don't disagree with your speculation, I'm just amazed that pure speculation gets a +insightful. Interesting, sure. But insightful? At least the mods will know what to do with this comment. Maybe.

  • What? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mikkelm ( 1000451 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @08:08PM (#35510554)

    ".. offered up as the first-ever live TV broadcasts available for streaming on a portable media device."

    Can't we go back to the days when advertising was merely dishonest? What do they achieve by lying about an accomplishment that does not impact the experience of the product?

    • >> What do they achieve by lying about an accomplishment that does not impact the experience of the product?

      Welcome to Apple era. Check out this "OH SHINY!!" rambling on twitter about this app, and you have the reason why such lies work - it's easy to convince apple userbase (i.e. sheeple (there, I said it) ) if you market it right (no matter how useful the product is, or how truthful the advertisement is)

      http://twitter.com/#search?q=time%20warner%20ipad%20COOL [twitter.com]

  • "the first-ever live TV broadcasts available for streaming on a portable media device"

    Japan has had this technology for quite some time:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_mobile_phone_culture#Features [wikipedia.org]

  • It's a server issue (Score:5, Informative)

    by frdmfghtr ( 603968 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @09:08PM (#35511002)

    According to 9to5Mac, it's a server issue not pissed-off providers (although there may be some of those too)

    http://www.9to5mac.com/56532/time-warner-ipad-app-crashed-servers-halve-offering/ [9to5mac.com]

    ‘It’s not a good party unless you run out of beer,’ says TWC in regards to the loss of channels in the iPad app today. They deny outages are being caused by programmers who could have pulled their content even though some are reportedly upset.

    It appears that it actually isn’t the streaming load that is buckling the servers, but the authentication servers according to ablog post by Time Warner Cable’s Jeff Simmermon:

    Our engineering team is working as hard as they can to put a fix in place and get everything up and running as soon as they can. For the time being, the app is running with only 15 channels. We have found that by temporarily reducing the number of available channels, we can ease strain on the authentication process. This will enable us to offer at least some sort of an experience to our customers while we get a fix in place. We’ll add the other 17 channels back in as soon as we can fix the underlying issue, and we’ll be adding more channels in future iterations of the app as well.

  • Some that come to mind that have been doing it for a while now: livestation.com and flotv.com, NBA and MLB apps, etc. Welcome to like 2009.

    • If you pay attention to tech news, and the comments that follow the typical tech news story, you'll eventually come to terms with the fact that for some portion of our society, nothing matters unless it's done by Apple or done on an Apple device. Unsurprisingly, Apple is often seen as a leader with all kinds of "firsts" by this same group, as they simple don't register that something exists unless/until Apple does it.

  • Don't know where they cut channels; I've still got 32 HD live channels.
  • I'm betting they'll get a lot of cancellations demanding a full refund. After all, they threw away 90% (appx) of the reason most people would have wanted it.

    I'm sure there's something somebody is willing to pay for on the remaining dross, but probably not much. (I know what channels I watch, and what my daughter watches, and those went bye bye in what looked like a major bait and switch scam. Hope they have their papers in order and get the donuts out of the building, there are probably going to be investi

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close