Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cable Channels Panic Over iPad Streaming App

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the ice-delivery-men-have-no-sympathy dept.

DRM 346

jfruhlinger writes "Time Warner Cable this month released an iPad app that would allow its subscribers to stream (some of) the channels they already pay for to their iPad, so long as they're connected to home Internet service provided by Time Warner Cable. The app probably seems like a baby step to most Slashdotters, and was extremely popular among subscribers — but it's thrown the owners of those channels into a panic, and they're threatening lawsuits. Time Warner says the contracts they've signed with the channels allow broadcast to any device in the home — 'I don't know what a TV is anymore,' says one company exec — but the channel owners fear that this will disrupt current and future revenue streams and that they need to stop it now. 'If we allow this without litigation, everyone will do it tomorrow,' says an anonymous source. 'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (4, Insightful)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614510)

"If we litigate, we have a chance to win."

Is that really the lines a business should be thinking on to advance and expand business??

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (2)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614524)

Yes.

See: recent patent issues with Android.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (2)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614544)

I mean no, but they do it anyway. :|

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (4, Insightful)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614536)

"If we litigate, we have a chance to win."

Is that really the lines a business should be thinking on to advance and expand business??

Yes, if your business model is dying.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (-1, Flamebait)

jvillain (546827) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614582)

Did that guy work for Microsoft?

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614560)

What, exactly, are they winning? Less viewers???

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (0)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614756)

No, but they might be winning fewer viewers.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (2)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615040)

I bet they're hoping for less fewer viewers. ;)

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (1)

enderjsv (1128541) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615092)

You sure?

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/less-versus-fewer.aspx [quickanddirtytips.com]

Wouldn't viewers be a mass noun? Whatever. Off topic anyway. Fairly certain no one was confused by the term "less".

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (1)

nebaz (453974) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615196)

Anything you can put a simple number in front of uses "fewer" rather than "less". If you can say "10 viewers" then you can say "fewer viewers". Something like "beef", you can't say "10 beefs", you could say "10 pounds of beef", but that's not a simple number. So you could either say "less beef" or "fewer pounds of beef".

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615232)

Please read your link.

I'll summarize though. If you can say "two [plural noun]" it is a count noun (can be counted).

An example of a mass noun would be snow (you can't say "two snows").

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (4, Insightful)

count0 (28810) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615030)

>What, exactly, are they winning? Less viewers???

If they win they get more viewers and more money.

MORE VIEWERS
That's one of the points of TFA - Nielsen screws shows that allow streaming. By the measures that matter to them, they will actually win *more* viewers, because streaming isn't counted by Nielsen. Since tablet streaming cannibalizes views on a traditional TV, their Nielsen ratings will get worse if their show is a runaway success with ipad streaming households. Which sounds like they should be suing / working with Nielsen rather than the cableco.

MORE MONEY
It's not just about ratings, it's about revenue. Shareholders& the execs that answer to them demand growth, and here's a potential new source. They're hungry and implacable and not very thoughtful--something like zombies, or brain-sucked minions of Cthulu. The fact that a cable subscriber can already sit down, turn on the TV and watch the exact same paid-for content that TimesWarner now lets them stream in their house doesn't matter one bit to the crowd of shambling shareholders marching towards media innovation, drooling and murmuring "Grroowwwwth. Growwwwtthttthhhhh".

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (1)

ifrag (984323) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614700)

Another outbreak of insanity. There is also a chance it will swing the other way.

Hopefully a strong ruling will set precedent to prevent any such stupidity in the future.

Unless ads are being cut, I don't see what this has to do with revenue different from TV.

They get paid ~75 cents per home. (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614728)

Yes they like litigation, but what they're really doing is protecting their income. Each channel gets around 75 cents per home, per month. (Some get as little as 10 cents, others like ESPN get 300 cents.)

It is only natural for a business to want to protect itself from losing a valuable revenue stream.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home. (2)

gabereiser (1662967) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614848)

But it's still going to the home, via the iPad app... And you can only access it through your home network (Provider provided network) so essentially, you can only access this content from your home, of which it's already going to your TV! You just happen to be watching it on an uncomfortable 10" TV with no HDMI inputs or Coax Cable and with a giant paywall of use...

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home. (1)

David89 (2022710) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614870)

yes but you would only be getting channels that you are already paying for and can watch them only inside your home. if i didn't own a tv i wouldn't have the cable contract in the first place. if im watching it on my tv i surely wont be watching it on my phone, and viceversa. therefore they aren't loosing customers, actually the way i see it they are permitting viewing of simultaneous channels at once (instead on a parent having to watch a kid show because of his child, he can get his phone and watch another channel, therefore doubling the amount of commercials viewed inside the house).

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615000)

You mean I can't watch on my iPad while in my backyard using my neighbor's wireless? How will Time Warner know that I am not in my neighbor's home? He pays for TV and internet service from TW. That should be all I need. Now I won't need to have my own TW tv service. Sweet!

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home. (1)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614884)

But they still get that income. They can only stream to the iPad in the home through Time Warner's gateway, i.e. "devices in the home".

This is about a cash grab. Another "my content is making your offering more compelling, so I get the money even though you did the work".

On the bright side, it's happening to Time Warner.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home. (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614926)

They're trying to preserve theoretical income they don't have yet.

Time warner is a middle man. The channels want to bypass the middle man and sell streaming content over their (Time warner) internet connection to end users for retail price (instead of discounted prices you sell to a middle man at), while still charging Time warner high prices deliver the same channels to the same subscribers' TV.

Re:They get paid ~75 cents per home. (1)

jejones (115979) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615208)

Heck, I'd be willing to pay the channels I actually use $0.75 per month in exchange for the ability to stream their programming over the net, especially if I can stream it to my system running Linux. BS such as "TV Everywhere" is just a way for cable companies to keep as many people as possible paying for both internet service and cable TV. They are avoidable middlemen trying to preserve their government-granted monopolies.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614808)

If you can't innovate, litigate.

Re:"If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'" (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615198)

Is that really the lines a business should be thinking on to advance and expand business??
What it is, is desperation. And that makes me giggle a bit.

lol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614518)

They also busted out laughing after finding out that one needs a microscope to see Rob's penis. Even a Japanese fetus is more hung than Rob.

My thought is... (5, Insightful)

mace9984 (1406805) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614520)

" but the channel owners fear that this will disrupt current and future revenue streams and that they need to stop it now." No, me not watching your shows because they aren't in the format I wish will "disrupt your current and future revenue streams" though.

Re:My thought is... (5, Insightful)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614662)

Although the more likely scenario is "me not watching your shows because they suck".

Re:My thought is... (3, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614734)

This lawsuit has nothing to do with you or your formats. It's strictly a business deal between content producers and a cable distributor; the content producers think Time Warner is welching on their deal to distribute the data according to their contract. What if a cable channel wants to stream their channel themselves for direct subscription revenues? TWCs action makes it less likely this would work, and it looks like TWC is just trying to make build a technological end run in order to stymie cable channels from selling themselves to subscribers a la carte.

It's remarkable how many people here are suddenly on the side of Time Warner Cable(!) and iPads(!!) as long as they're providing Teh Shiny New Modality.

Re:My thought is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614812)

It's remarkable how many people here are suddenly on the side of Time Warner Cable(!) and iPads(!!) as long as they're providing Teh Shiny New Modality.

Is it that remarkable? You talk about channels streaming their content directly, but how many of them actually were before this happened? If TWC comes up with a good idea, we're not going to attack them just for being TWC.

Re:My thought is... (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614958)

If TWC comes up with a good idea, we're not going to attack them just for being TWC.

Time Warner is using its position as middleman to screw over its vendors and maintain its iron grip over channel lineup and billing. This is not a "good idea."

Re:My thought is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615002)

- TWC is providing a benefit to consumers for free.
- Most people are, in fact, consumers.
- TWC at least claims to have contractual rights to do exactly what they're doing.

Why should I be on the side of content creators again?

Re:My thought is... (4, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614864)

No, me not watching your shows because they aren't in the format I wish will "disrupt your current and future revenue streams" though.

I know the smug response to this idea is going to be along the lines of dismissing the guy who talks about how they don't watch TV in their house. There is this underlying belief that the mainstream is chained to their favorite programs and they will climb every mountain in their way to maintain their program loyalty. Those who make a big deal about breaking that bond are the ones who turned their backs on the water-cooler society and fled to the mountains to be strange social pariah hermits; nobody else wants to be like that. But that's not it.

Once one misses one or two episodes of a show because of scheduling conflicts, it is much easier to miss the 3rd, 4th, and 5th episode and so on. If that happens enough, the show loses viability. That happens to enough shows on a given channel, the channel loses viability. The key here is what constitutes a scheduling conflict. In the day of Tivo, bit torrent, and other competitors who don't mind streaming their shows... the bar for conflict is dropping steadily.

One can almost hear the sound of revenue streams being disrupted line pane after pane of glass being shattered. It's already happening as people outside the industry proper toss around DVR and P2P rocks. Its only going to get worse as competing networks pick up a bat and start casting their programs through alternative channels.

'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614568)

You've already lost.

Re:'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.' (2)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614970)

Hey execs, call Charlie Sheen. He's #WINNING all the time, right? Seriously. This app is basically, "Turn your iPad into a TV while it's tethered to Time Warner service," which is effectively the opposite analog to TVs that now have Netflix/Vudu support built into them so you can turn it into a quasi-PC. If anything, the TV channel execs should have been more pissed about that, because eyeballs that used to watch reruns of Dawson's Creek are now checking out Netflix and other cheap/free streaming video options on their TV. This app is doing nothing more than making their content get seen by more people in more ways. The reason they're pissed is because THEY want to sell streaming apps of their own, so you can buy the Glee app and pay every month for that. What they're not seeing is that you have to be tethered to home (and your TW internet connection), which makes this app only marginally useful. If you wanted to take your iPad to the beach and watch Glee, this app wouldn't help you and you'd need to buy the silly Glee app from the network anyway.

Re:'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.' (3, Informative)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615114)

The right solution here is for somebody to make a TV/Internet service that allows 100% a la carte channel/content offerings. I have to pay $80 for TV to get all the stuff I want to see, but I have interest in fewer than 1% of what's available. I don't want your Music Choice, or your porn (I have my own of both). I don't want Martha Stewart. I don't even want football games other than the ones my team plays in. Seriously, the best model for stuff like this is iTunes right now. For the last season of Stargate Atlantis, I didn't have a cable subscription, so I paid $20 for a 4-month season pass for SG:A, effectively paying $5 a month for the one show I cared about rather than $100 a month for a zillion shows that I couldn't care less for. I got all the episodes, in HD, when I wanted to watch them, and without commercial interruption. My only gripes are that the people who watched on TV got to see it a few days earlier, and that the video purchase ratings don't count as heavily when determining whether to renew a show. Maybe that's the solution - let's take a recently cancelled show (pick any of the ones SyFy recently axed). Set a production budget for a season of the show, and then post online, "We need X dollars, which is X/20 subscriptions at $20 each. If we can get at least X/20 pre-order subscriptions, we'll have a season." I bet they'd make a pretty nice profit, and have nobody to share it with (except maybe Apple/Amazon/Netflix).

Old buisness models (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614570)

In other news, buggywhip makers decry the surging popularity of horseless carriages.
And big content wonders why no one wants to watch TV anymore...

It's dumber than that (2)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614988)

In other news, buggywhip makers decry the surging popularity of horseless carriages.

No, as far as i can tell from the description they're not worried that people don't want to buy buggywhips anymore. This is buggywhip makers complaining that people have discovered a new way to use their buggywhips, but each person is using the same whip for multiple purposes instead of buying a separate whip for each way in which they want to use it.

Re:It's dumber than that (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615072)

Buggywhip manufacturers can't stop S&M! S&M is the wave (or whip) of the future. They can litigate if they wish, but if we choose to repurpose our buggywhips in the privacy of our own homes, they can't stop us. I'll pirate a buggywhip if I have to. I can get one through bitetorment.

Fear of technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614574)

Embracing the future instead of being afraid of it is the only way these companies will survive. Listen to consumers.

Re:Fear of technology (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614738)

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
-- Jack Valenti [wikiquote.org]

Re:Fear of technology (1)

MorderVonAllem (931645) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614910)

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

was not - it was Jack Valenti's

Re:Fear of technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615146)

that's his sig, not part of his post...moron

they're right (4, Funny)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614580)

The channel owners are right. You have NO BUSINESS getting what you already pay for! Especially if it is more convenient for you.

Re:they're right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614860)

Exactly! If it is more convenient, a lot of people would be willing to pay money for the convenience, but no one is charging them! It's like giving money away! And if someone invents a better sofa that improves the TV watching experience, of course content providers have to be compensated!

Re:they're right (4, Insightful)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615086)

I think the key sentence in the summary is "I don't know what a TV is anymore". The line between a TV and a computer has become so thin, that I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with a DRM system/License that TV makers have to have in order to ensure the device is an "actual TV", just like HDCP compliance. But as long as they get all the money for broadcasting poorly produced shows (realities, which lack actors and writers) and get lots of profit, they will litigate as much as they can, because all that money has to get into the pocket of some executive.

they're right! (5, Funny)

eagl (86459) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614584)

Good god, if a tv show intended for viewing on a tv inside a home was allowed to be shown on one of those newfangled gadgets that are electronical and have viewing screens that show magical MOVING IMAGES while inside a home, who KNOWS what might happen NEXT! We gotta stop this NOW, before someone thinks of a way to somehow magically store those shows to see them later inside that same house, or, god forbid, see the shows on TWO TVs in the same house at the same time!!!!!111eleventyone

everyone panic and someone for the love of god CALL THE LAWYERS!

why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614586)

Why is it a threat and tv is not? Both can serve content and ads

Re:why? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614946)

Your neighbor could watch it (if you give him your password...)

You could even rebroadcast it via P2P and the whole world could watch.

Oh my God, they are only paying me ONCE. (4, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614596)

Person A has paid for the service. They have the right to get the TV. The channels are upset that they are only getting paid once when they see other businesses have managed to cheat and get paid twice.

The fact that other companies have found a way to rip consumers off does not give you the right to do the same.

Re:Oh my God, they are only paying me ONCE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615144)

Except they do get paid twice, just not by the consumer. They get paid once by the advertisers and then again from the cable company based on subscribers.

Fuck them, fuck corporate America.

if we litigate we have a chance to win... (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614598)

Yes, if your suite can stop the passage of time you can win! As soon as you enter the future, you're finished.

Re:if we litigate we have a chance to win... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615132)

Unfortunately they are actually turning back time, by litigating us back to the stone age.

Not sure what the big deal is (3, Insightful)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614610)

This is way less of a threat than the Slingbox [slingbox.com] , which has been around for years. I've been streaming my TiVo and cable content to myself over the Net for 5 years. And of course they have iPad and iPhone apps now...

Media hype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614780)

It's because one of the running stories by the media is that the iPad is "the device of the future" and it has to somehow be a part of every fourth story. So the mostly unexciting story that Time Warner customers can watch cable at home on their iPad without a Slingbox or similar is much bigger in the "news" than it actually is. The executives and lawyers hear this and think "WE ARE LOSING THE FUTURE THE IPAD AND FACEBOOK ARE EVERYTHING" so they make a lawsuit which is also huge news.

iPhone

Facebook

iPad

Hear more at 11!

Re:Not sure what the big deal is (1, Insightful)

E-Rock (84950) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614818)

The difference is that most people don't know they can do it or just won't put in the effort to set it up. Now, it's install a free iPad app from the AppStore I already use and connect to the home WiFi I'm already using.

It's like how USENET is the biggest channel for illegal programs and media, but most people don't know how to use it. So it flies under the radar.

Re:Not sure what the big deal is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615212)

I see web ads trying to entice me to join up with a USENET feed service "really cheap" with access to all the free movies and applications I want. It is hilarity.

Re:Not sure what the big deal is (3, Interesting)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614822)

Yup, I do the same thing. I have a Slingbox hooked up to my sister's cable service in Canada so I can watch programming I can't get here in the states. Works like a dream, yet I don't hear any bitching by the content producers.

Re:Not sure what the big deal is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615098)

The numbers using Slingbox are far fewer than those using iPads and other mobile devices.

Re:Not sure what the big deal is (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615138)

Hm, if I would watch TV anymore the Slingbox would be quite useful.
Just looked what I could watch and the only decent movie is Star Wars V, which I have on DVD and a rip on my media server, also I watched it already like 50 times.

Why? (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614626)

If they have more eyeballs on their programming at more times of the day watching the ads, and TW is still paying their programming costs, what are they losing?

A chance to win... (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614632)

Summary: 'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'

Win what? There is no prize for being the last one to innovate. Ask Atari, AOL, and DEC.

-d

Re:A chance to win... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615004)

Summary: 'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'

Win what?

Money.

Specifically, the money they feel they should be getting paid every single time you watch a program, and on every single device.

Content providers would love it if we reached the level where every time I watched a movie I had bought on DVD, they get paid for it. Watch an episode again on your PVR, they get paid for it. Re-read a book, they get paid for it. In their ideal world, a single viewing is licensed as a one-time event, with each person watching being part of the revenue stream.

I've already heard the argument that fast forwarding commercials should be illegal because the advertiser paid for that, and you should be obligated to watch. This, of course, completely ignores the fact that local markets already change the ads to those they've sold, and that in a re-run of an episode, it's likely to be a different set of commercials. But, they'd like their commercials to be an unalterable part of the broadcast.

We all knew this was coming... (1)

pasv (755179) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614638)

dont fight it, you'll just end up looking like a fool and be overtaken by more change happy competitors

Re:We all knew this was coming... (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614758)

be overtaken by more change happy competitors

What competitors?

kudos (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614642)

I applaud Time Warner's forward-thinking attitude. Now, if only the cable channels would realize that they have a huge market to tap instead of racing to "protect" their increasingly irrelevant delivery method ...

Would RIAA v Diamond cover this? (3, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614656)

How SCOTUS decided that:

Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user’s hard drive.... Such copying is a paradigmatic noncommercial personal use.

If I buy Time Warner Cable, and have Time Warner Internet, and get shows from Time Warner and this app requires the above, wouldn't displaying the stream on an iPad instead of a television simply be space-shifting the stream.

No surprise (2)

vivin (671928) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614664)

This should come at no surprise to any one. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Of course they're going to panic when they see control of the distribution channels slip away from them. What these idiots don't understand is that if they adjusted their business model, they could make a decent amount of money with current technology. Maybe that's why they're idiots.

I'm sure they'll come up with some bullshit argument as to how this is "stifling competition". That seems to their answer for everything. Kind of like "OMG TERRORISTS!".

Re:No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615064)

The media market has been changing ever since the radio was invented, then the TV appeared, then tapes, VCRs, until today where we can have everything and anything on the phone.

They other change their business model, as their predecessors did when facing change, or read the history books and see what happened to those that didn't. As far as I am concerned, if they deny access, people will either find a service that offers them what they need, or turn to piracy. Either way people WILL get what they want.

Re:No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615210)

I feel no pitty for these knuckle heads. Revenue streams would have been sound had they gone to market first. ABC had a nice app, but then stopped putting their popular shows on. Just because I don't want to watch your show on my already paid for TV doesn't mean I should have to pay you extra money to watch it on a different device. Dish network has a very nice app that uses a sling adapter. It's great.

The time Warner app sounds like a nice deal. too bad these people are too shortsighted to see the ratings boost.

Get Over It! (1)

Ancantus (1926920) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614670)

To Quote Stewie Griffin:

What's this? There's something wrong with the house! I don't like change!

That Time Warner App is a sad and pathetic first step in comparison to even things like Hulu. Those customers are PAYING for the PRIVILEGE to watch their shows! It doesn't matter if they watch it on their TVs, Computers, Ipads. The commercials are still being piped in (which is all those execs should care about), who gives a crap if they watch TV while walking from room to room.

Cry me a river TV execs, build a damn bridge, and get over it.

It's time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614678)

It's time for us consumers to tell these businesses that what really counts is: how we want it. Not how they want us to have it. If they cannot embrace how technology is changing everything, then they deserve to die out.

Netflix (1)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614684)

With competition like this, I'm starting to think Netflix producing its own content is a great move.

Netflix funding movies and television (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615130)

With competition like this, I'm starting to think Netflix producing its own content is a great move.

Is this how Sci-Fi, Bravo, A&E, TBS, etc., all started to produce their own shows? I welcome this from Netflix, Hulu, Microsoft, or any other vendor -- give us more science-fiction. How do I tell them this with my dollars?

we must focus on (paying to see) the images (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614688)

that's what we must focus on. never mind what's really happening. if it was anything we needed to see, we could easily pay to see it?

all MOMMYS,,, mr. stallman, we're dying here.-- wee key (diaper) leaks group, perishability & play-dates pending world disarmament

mynutswon; posted from my iphone while watching aljazeera, which is only 50% total bs

Re:we must focus on (paying to see) the images (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615062)

You do realize that what you wrote is gibberish, yes?

Increased Revenue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614696)

I don't see the issue here. Its not like their removing the commercials. The users still get counted by the cable company as a viewer thus not hurting the channel owner's revenue stream.

In this case their actually helping it. More viewers more money. I bet most of these users would find alternative means to watch a TV show from their back yards if this service was available and not all being legal.

I must side with the cable company on this one. I pay for a service I should be able to view that service from ANY device within my household area.

The sad part is TWC finally did something GOOD... (4, Interesting)

robmiracle (1938904) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614724)

for their subscribers. For a company that is loated and hated by most of their customers who feel trapped in a dictatorship of ever escalating pricing, poor quality and lack of innovation, this iPad app is a serious step towards them doing something great for their customers.

Slingbox (2)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614740)

I have been doing this with a Slingbox for 8 years now, and I can (theoretically, since I have not really watched TV in at least 5 years now, beyond some BBC news here and there) watch my cable TV anywhere in the world either on my computer or mobile device. I don't remember anyone ever suing Slingbox.

Besides, you would think people wanting to watch your crappy, commercial riddled programming would be a good thing? But no, these fuckers are so set in their ways that any change is perceived as threat.

no different than Slingbox, which has been allowed (1)

neurocutie (677249) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614768)

this TW app (which works pretty well), is not any different than Slingbox (its more restrictive than Slingbox, both in channels and in tying you to your home network, unlike Slingbox). So its not even "place shifting" or time shifting.

what's the beef?

Re:no different than Slingbox, which has been allo (1)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614934)

They're just upset they didn't think of this distribution model first, they didn't contract TW out of doing anything like it with their services and they weren't able to rip off consumer by providing it through their own distribution channels first.

Certainly, who would pay them for their channels to be streamed from their website if they can just stream it to their iPads for free* (free in the sense that you're already paying for it) on their TW accounts!

Which is the other issue, if this story didn't have iPad attached to it, they wouldn't care. It's a ME TOO case where the channel owners want to be making money off of it too and don't like that they were beaten to the punch.

Re:no different than Slingbox, which has been allo (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615234)

And its also less restrictive than a Slingbox, you don't need to dedicate a Stream from your Cable Co. (either hijack your main video feed, or pay for/use a secondary feed).

For a second there (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614772)

I thought they were talking about Canadian media companies.

Winning! (1, Funny)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614828)

Sounds like they've borrowed their definition of winning from Charlie Sheen.

Comcast already does this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614834)

Wow, are they late the party. Comcast already does this. I've not tried to see if I can watch at McDonald's but, I wouldn't be surprised if I can. Please, I get to watch the OnDemand stuff, HBO type stuff and so on.

What about redirection? (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614846)

If I have an app that allows me to watch TV on an IP enabled device, what's to stop someone from writing an application that redirects (aka "rebroadcasts") the content to someone outside of your home network? Now you've got a way to circumvent the cable companies all together because now I could pay for the channels and then rebroadcast the content to all of my friends.

Re:What about redirection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615230)

Uhm, you can already do that with off the shelf parts.

That said, a home internet connection doesn't normally have enough upstream to do this reliably, so 'all your friends' are more likely to just grab a torrent of the show.

First Impression (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614858)

I got the TWC iPad app. The first thing I noticed is there is no DVR, and therefore no commercial skipping. I thought "Wow so it's great I can now watch TV in rooms I don't have a TV in, and the tradeoff is I (more or less) have to watch their commercials now."

I'd thought the content providers, if anything, we're paying a premium to be there. They get way more add eyeballs this way.

Are they really that stupid? I never watched any commercials before this iPad thing came out.

Unclear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35614886)

How exactly does this affect their revenue stream? The exact same content with the exact same commercials is being shown on the iPad as is shown on the TV. If anything they are gaining revenue because this becomes more convenient. It only works while tied to the cable providers network in the home, so it is essentially like plugging in a 2nd tv. I'm really confused here as to how they think they have any sort of a case here at all.

Re:Unclear (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615158)

How exactly does this affect their revenue stream? The exact same content with the exact same commercials is being shown on the iPad as is shown on the TV.

But they could be making you pay twice, once to watch it on the TV and again to watch it on the iPad. The holy grail of media distribution is to be able to charge you every time you access their media anywhere on anything.

Keep it up... (1)

Dunega (901960) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614904)

Keep it up channel owners and I'll completely stop watching TV. Most of what you have out now is crap but there's a few gems in there. It wouldn't pain me much to stop watching it all together, already stopped buying music a long time ago and haven't gone to a movie in over two years.

I like it... (1)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614982)

...when cable channels are in a panic.

What's good for the goose... (1)

rgviza (1303161) | more than 2 years ago | (#35614996)

I guess it's ok if you are the channel cutting out the cable network (HBO, Starz, Showtime on Netflix) but not the other way around... /shrug

typical

Of course this is like watching two guys you hate beat the shit out of each other. You can't help but to cheer the fact they are beating each other senseless.

People still pay for Cable? (1)

bynary (827120) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615012)

I don't watch much TV anymore and what I do watch I find...ummm...online from...legitimate, yeah that's it, legitimate...sources (in Russia).

VPN TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615018)

So if i VPN my home network i can watch cable from my home network and its still technically the same thing correct?

Imagine if... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615036)

Two industries got together and said, we can let this new technology beat us we must find some way to sue them out of business! They would complain to the government that allowing the new technology would cost thousands of jobs hurting the economy and the working class asking for special tax breaks, subsidies and incentives.

Now suppose those two industries were passenger steamships and passenger trains and they sued passenger airlines. Imagine a world where it would take you two weeks to travel between North America and Europe. Where UPS, DHL and FedEx would not exist as we know them today.

These companies just don't get it. The Internet and on demand media is a disruptive business and technology just like the cotton gin, steam engine, trains, cars, airplanes and countless other examples before them. The quote "I don't know what a TV is anymore" sums up the problem better than anyone else could.

Written while streaming stuff on Netflix bypassing your antiquated business model of watching things when the cable channels feels it is in their best interest, not mine.

Serious? (1)

agent_vee (1801664) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615042)

You would think those channel owners would be happy that their viewers can watch their shows from anywhere in their home and they didn't have to do a damn thing!

This is bad for content generation (1)

sheemwaza (570202) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615080)

This means that the cable company can now track exactly what you are watching (you're asking for a specific channel's content, not a firehose of all channels at once). This could make life difficult for the content networks and affect the efficiencies of bundling. Comcast might be paying 30 cents per household for the Crocheting network now, but when they can show hard numbers that nobody is watching, those numbers might get slashed, which is probably why those entities are scared right now.

Everyone complains about the homogenization of our channels (What the hell is up with the programming on the History channel?!), but this could do more to hurt the more "indy" channels out there.

Re:This is bad for content generation (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615124)

So you're saying that TV channels might show things people want to watch rather than things people don't want to watch? And that's a bad thing?

Xfinitity/Comcast had an app for this for a while (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615178)

Xfinity TV is the name of the app on the App Store. Lets you stream On-Demand stuff over wifi, has your channel guide for your ZIP Code and acts like a big remote control for your iPad 2. One thing I noticed is, its not the same selection as the regular On Demand, its considerably smaller with stuff like Discover channel missing, heavily loaded with BBC, HBO, and some other pay channels. All in all not a bad thing.

omg (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615186)

'If we allow this without litigation, everyone will do it tomorrow,' says an anonymous source.

Everyone's already doing it today you moron. Illegally. And you're making no money off it. STOP FORCING THE PUBLIC TO PIRATE YOUR CONTENT SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU'RE STUPID.

Who am I supposed to hate more? (1)

essjaytee (141772) | more than 2 years ago | (#35615206)

I don't know who to root for here. It's a group of really, really, really evil companys against a merely really, really evil company.

Am I supposed to root for Time Warner? Really?!

They can't stop the future! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35615224)

They can't stop the future, these silly men.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?