CBS CEO Again Says Network Will 'Probably' Reach Streaming TV Deal With Apple - MacRumors
Skip to Content

CBS CEO Again Says Network Will 'Probably' Reach Streaming TV Deal With Apple

CBS CEO Les Moonves says the network is still in negotiations with Apple over its inclusion in Apple's upcoming streaming television service, reports Bloomberg. In an interview with Bloomberg TV this morning, Moonves said CBS has had conversations with Apple and will "probably" ink a deal with the Cupertino company.

"Apple is having conversations with everyone about doing their own streaming services," Moonves said in an interview Wednesday on Bloomberg TV. "We have had those conversations, as have the other networks. Do I think something will happen? Probably, but I do not know when."

Moonves made similar comments five months ago at Re/code’s Code Conference, saying CBS would "probably" sign a deal with Apple for its rumored streaming television service. "We're very excited about it," he said, and at that time, he confirmed he had met with Eddy Cue to discuss the plans as part of an "ongoing conversation."

les_moonves_bloomberg
Given the similarity between the statement given in May and what Moonves had to say today, there is little evidence of any progress in the talks between Apple and content owners, but it's clear there is still interest in reaching a deal.

Apple's web-based television service was initially rumored to be launching in 2015, perhaps alongside the new Apple TV, but a continued failure to secure all of the necessary deals has reportedly delayed its debut until 2016. Apple is said to be having trouble with content negotiations, with pricing being a sticking point.

Apple's plan is to offer a selection of popular television channels at a price of $30 to $40 per month, a price tag that undercuts most cable television services. While Apple's streaming television service is still in the works with a launch date unknown, the company’s new set-top box will be launching at the end of the month.

The new Apple TV is already in developer hands and will be available to the general public in late October. The device includes a full App Store, universal search, deep Siri integration, and a touch-based remote for navigating the interface and playing games.

Popular Stories

iOS 26

iOS 26.4 Adds Two New Features to CarPlay

Tuesday March 24, 2026 1:55 pm PDT by
iOS 26.4 was released today, and it includes a couple of new features for CarPlay: an Ambient Music widget and support for voice-based chatbot apps. To update your iPhone 11 or newer to iOS 26.4, open the Settings app and tap on General → Software Update. CarPlay will automatically offer the new features so long as the iPhone connected to your vehicle is running iOS 26.4 or later....
Apple Business hero

Apple Unveils 'Apple Business' All-in-One Platform

Tuesday March 24, 2026 8:53 am PDT by
Apple today announced Apple Business, a new all-in-one platform that unifies device management, productivity tools, and customer outreach features. The service is designed to be a consolidated replacement for several of Apple's existing business-focused offerings, including Apple Business Essentials, Apple Business Manager, and Apple Business Connect. It provides organizations with a single...
AirPods Pro Firmware Feature

Apple Releases New Firmware for AirPods Pro 3, AirPods Pro 2 and AirPods 4

Tuesday March 24, 2026 12:31 pm PDT by
Apple today released new firmware for the AirPods Pro 2, AirPods Pro 3, and the AirPods 4. The firmware has a version number of 8B39, up from 8B34 on the AirPods Pro 3, 8B28 on the AirPods Pro 2, and 8B21 on the AirPods 4. There is no word on what's included in the firmware, but Apple has a support document with limited notes. Most updates are limited to bug fixes and performance...

Top Rated Comments

136 months ago
Given how bad the Apple Music service is, I don't I have high hopes that Apple will get it right.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
136 months ago
Exactly. Why the heck would I pay for free network stations unless I was in a seriously rural area (that may not have decent enough internet to support streaming anyway)?

Also, in my mind, even $30-40 a month for TV is absurd. Not to mention those channels are all laced with commercials; why is the subscription price justified? Is that even that good of a price relative to the legacy providers, after factoring in the cost of internet as well?

Above all else, I may be in the minority, but TV is a massive waste of time. 100s of channels to waste away your days staring at a TV. I watch about an hour a day when we wind down for the night and I already think that's too much.

I refuse to pay for channels that are available free OTA.

Latest census data show that over 80% of the US population lives in urban areas, so all these folks are likely well within range of a accessing an OTA tower using a cheap indoor antenna.

For the other less than 20%, I guess it might make sense to pay for streaming CBS.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
macs4nw Avatar
136 months ago
I want this to happen so bad and cut ties with cable. I mean I know I will still have internet with them but seriously if apple provided a 30 dollar a month thing that would be awesome. Cut my bill by over 100 bucks.
Unfortunately, for now we still need them for hi-speed internet access. If or when we all desert them for our content needs, I suspect they'll try to recoup those losses thru increased bandwidth charges.
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
AtheistP3ace Avatar
136 months ago
I want this to happen so bad and cut ties with cable. I mean I know I will still have internet with them but seriously if apple provided a 30 dollar a month thing that would be awesome. Cut my bill by over 100 bucks.
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
136 months ago
Maybe unbearable where you are.

OTA is typically the very best quality of the most popular network(s) programming, available when first run (rather than waiting for discs or Hulu/Netflix delays). It plays at better quality than cable or SATT and is available for the amazing price of $0. How? Because it's subsidized by other people's money who pay for ALL of it in hopes that we might be watching the channel on which they are running their commercials right when they happen to be running their commercials. Most of the commercials are never seen because we can only watch one channel at a time and we only can watch for only a chunk of the time in each day, and yet they pay for it all... bringing us the most popular TV programming in the world, when it first runs... for FREE!

And what do we tend to think of that bargain? Many of us want to get rid of that subsidy model while also expecting to pay next-to-nothing in some kind of subscription from which Apple will probably take their 30% right off the top... yet we expect it all to "just work" anyway.

I wish (too). But in the meantime, I continue to enjoy the free OTA, best quality HD delivery and hope nothing will disrupt a model that costs me nothing to get it. I much prefer the free model as is than one in which free is monetized so that new players can further justify taking a cut.
it's unbearable because of the commercials not the quality. i rather watch in SD than with commercials. personal preference. i rather wait a month for a show and not have to skip commercials than deal with commercials the minute the show comes out. another personal preference.

and hbo and showtime on demand say hi! i get my shows as soon as they air in the east coast and i live in the west coast where i would have to wait if i was watching on cable.

and i don't expect to pay next to nothing. i just won't pay for cable packages that bundle channels i don't want. some i feel ill for supporting. like TBN. why should i pay for TBN so i can get watch nickelodeon? or sports? i hate sports. the bulk of most cable packages are sports.

the cbs deal is not meant to be a changer for OTA watchers. it's for people that are on cable or dish. the point is that cable companies refuse to provide a la carte cable packages and that will be the death of them. apple tv is becoming that model that i wanted. pay only for what i want to watch
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
136 months ago
Exactly. Why the heck would I pay for free network stations unless I was in a seriously rural area (that may not have decent enough internet to support streaming anyway)?

Also, in my mind, even $30-40 a month for TV is absurd. Not to mention those channels are all laced with commercials; why is the subscription price justified? Is that even that good of a price relative to the legacy providers, after factoring in the cost of internet as well?

Above all else, I may be in the minority, but TV is a massive waste of time. 100s of channels to waste away your days staring at a TV. I watch about an hour a day when we wind down for the night and I already think that's too much.
I would cut the cord if Apple delivers all the espn channels and fix sport channels for under $40 a month. 75 percent of directv is crap.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)