Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Eddy Cue: It's 'Complicated' Solving Problems With TV
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I for one would pay the 30% Apple tax if it meant I could sit down at my TV, choose the show I want to watch, and watch it right then, legally--without ads, crappy cross-sells in the menu system, having to pay a box rental fee per TV, etc.
TV in the US is so terrible it's like the cable companies are actively trying to lose customers.
I completely agree with you.
Problem those running the current setup have no intention of letting go, or allowing apple to come in and take a slice.
Alas as the consumer we will continue to get screwed.
----------
Is that piratebay?
Sorry could not resist
In other words, the studios won't play ball, because the networks and cable companies have their balls in a vice.
I'm just pleased to hear more and more people are leaving the networks behind. Subscription based services like HBO and Netflix are doing better than ever. More creators are doing online stuff independent of the major studios. The revolution is here and television is obsolete. Natural market forces will solve this problem eventually when the networks go out of business. There is nothing the networks can do that can't be done by other parties with a better customer experience. Everyone should vote with their eyeballs and their wallets. Don't like how the networks run things? Stop watching their content.
I'm just pleased to hear more and more people are leaving the networks behind. Subscription based services like HBO and Netflix are doing better than ever. More creators are doing online stuff independent of the major studios. The revolution is here and television is obsolete. Natural market forces will solve this problem eventually when the networks go out of business. There is nothing the networks can do that can't be done by other parties with a better customer experience. Everyone should vote with their eyeballs and their wallets. Don't like how the networks run things? Stop watching their content.
You need cable service to get HBO so I'm not sure how HBO's popularity is disrupting the status quo.
The TV networks and cable channels pay for these shows to be produced. HBO pays about $6 million an episode to produce Game of Thrones. AMC paid about $3 million an episode to produce Breaking Bad (which is high for a contemporary, one hour drama on cable but about average for a primetime drama on network TV). You wouldn't have your favorite shows if these 'big, bad' TV networks and cable channels didn't invest 10's of millions of dollars up front to get them made. Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Apple, Vudu, Epix, etc., also wouldn't have 99% of their content without these same networks and movie studios taking large financial risks.
Since 1999 people have been saying that the music labels were dead yet here we are in 2014 and music labels are still a major part of the industry. Why? Because they have money. And what do struggling musicians need? Money. Unless we all become independently wealthy there will always be business opportunities for people with money to invest in people that need money.
I was talking purely about broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CW affiliates. These people shoot their content out using radio waves for free but also negotiate deals to be on cable and satellite services for small fees. So I don't see why Apple, Google, Amazon or anybody else can't start there. Create apps for each network a lot like what they offer now except with a live streaming option.
As I was mentioning, this would be worth it for $5 or maybe $10 for the sports you miss without the actual channel.
The primary source of revenue for network TV (and most cable channels) is advertising revenue. The more people that watch, say, Modern Family Wednesday nights at 9pm on ABC the more money Modern Family can charge for commercial time. Nielsen ratings (which tracks who's watching what shows) hasn't quite caught up with times yet and doesn't really track streaming viewers (they are starting to but I don't know how robust it is). So if someone watched Modern Family Wednesday night at 9pm on the web or streaming through a Roku or
TV instead of tuning into ABC they might not get counted by Nielsen which means Modern Family's ratings wouldn't be as high which means they can't charge advertisers as much which means the show (and by extension the network) is leaving money on the table.That's one reason there isn't more simulcast streaming of TV shows 'live'.
Another reason is the retransmissions fees (what cable and satellite providers pay the over-the-air TV networks for the rights to rebroadcast their content) is in the neighborhood of around $3 billion dollars total annually. It's not a small fee. It's a lot of dough and the cable/sat providers do not like paying it (but of course the TV networks love getting it). So, to try and placate the cable/sat providers the broadcast TV networks won't use apps to stream their content for free. That's why ABC app for
TV requires you to already have a cable/sat subscription in order to use it even though you can tune into ABC for free on your TV.These are just a couple examples of the convoluted mess that is TV production and distribution.
Best Airplay Tool
For me, the search for Film on Apple TV is so not what Apple standards. I personally love Celluloid Film discovery app, it streams non stop trailers via Airplay till I see a movie that I like. Here is a link to it:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/celluloid/id623558136?mt=8
For me, the search for Film on Apple TV is so not what Apple standards. I personally love Celluloid Film discovery app, it streams non stop trailers via Airplay till I see a movie that I like. Here is a link to it:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/celluloid/id623558136?mt=8
The primary source of revenue for network TV (and most cable channels) is advertising revenue. The more people that watch, say, Modern Family Wednesday nights at 9pm on ABC the more money Modern Family can charge for commercial time. Nielsen ratings (which tracks who's watching what shows) hasn't quite caught up with times yet and doesn't really track streaming viewers (they are starting to but I don't know how robust it is). So if someone watched Modern Family Wednesday night at 9pm on the web or streaming through a Roku or
That's one reason there isn't more simulcast streaming of TV shows 'live'.
Another reason is the retransmissions fees (what cable and satellite providers pay the over-the-air TV networks for the rights to rebroadcast their content) is in the neighborhood of around $3 billion dollars total annually. It's not a small fee. It's a lot of dough and the cable/sat providers do not like paying it (but of course the TV networks love getting it). So, to try and placate the cable/sat providers the broadcast TV networks won't use apps to stream their content for free. That's why ABC app for
These are just a couple examples of the convoluted mess that is TV production and distribution.
Yeah, I understand it's an awful mess. But these people are going to have to eventually evolve. I work at a newspaper, so I know how people are hesitant to do such.
When using Hulu, what is interesting is the ads that load remotely based on various data instead of just what an advertiser bought. This means if Hulu collects data from me -- assuming I allow it just location, age, gender stuff -- it could much better target ads. I could tell it that I don't need Metamucil ads and instead might be more apt to respond to a video game or comic book movie ad. Ads could be sold by the networks as "all" or broken down by demos. Facebook does this on display ads and obviously makes plenty of money doing it.
I'm sure all of that is more appealing to those networks than me using a DVR and skipping right over those ads. I don't mind about 90 seconds of ads between content on Hulu, but when you get to the insanity of what is now on TV, well, it just sucks. But if done right, you could reduce the number of commercials by selling better targeted ads. That's basically the advantage of cable.
Anyway, I have this feeling that these people won't evolve as quickly as we want. It took the music industry how long to embrace the iTunes model? Kindle or iBooks versions of books aren't automatic for some reason yet, so the fact that the big media industries are lagging doesn't shock me.
Meanwhile, SpaceX just unveiled a freakin' awesome space capsule controlled basically by a humongous iPad. At least some industries are getting better.
The problem with web ads (and I didn't mention this before because I felt like I was being long winded enough) is that they pay a tiny fraction of what TV ads go for. There's an inherent scarcity to TV time slots which makes them valuable as opposed to Hulu (to keep with you example) where you can pretty much watch any episode you want any time you want.
I do agree though that with web ads you can do a much better job of targeted marketing compared to ads on TV.
I honestly thing that the movie/TV industry is moving at a decent pace. I mean, I haven't had cable for over four years and between OTA TV, Netflix, Hulu and Amazon I can stay on top of all my shows. Sure, if I paid for the most recent seasons of a show I have to watch it the day after it plays on TV but that's not really a big deal. Could things be better? Sure, but there's literally hundreds of companies involved in this mess (some with more dependency on the status quo than others) so it's going to take time but eventually it will become a truly 'TV anywhere, anytime' world.
You realize the content creators have to make money or they won't make any more content, right?
I definitely think there are problems with the way things go with cable companies (like bundling mainly) but I doubt ads are just going to suddenly disappear any time soon.
In the spirit of what I wrote: I am willing to pay more money for no ads.
How does that lose them money?
I am willing to pay more money for better UI, convenience of watch-on-demand, selection, and so forth.
By not giving me that, they are the ones leaving money on the table. In the meantime I grow disinterested with TV, and my money leaves with me. I can't be alone in this.
How is ala carte NOT it? It's the ONLY right solution here and the lack of it is the reason millions of people are dumping cable or satellite for streaming and all that. It's this subsidizing of some of these totally useless channels that get watched by about 12 people across the country that's costing everyone else. It's like a TV version of food stamps or heating assistance.
Just like when I go furniture shopping, I don't have to buy a lamp in order to buy a new couch I shouldn't have to fund channels I have zero interest in. If these little channels go under then that's the free market working. Sorry. For example, let Spanish speaking people pay for the Spanish channels!
The cable and sattelite "on/off" switch system is outdated, overpriced, and quite obviously going away. I don't get why I can't just buy shows directly from the content providers as I view them? Why cable or sattelite at all? Why a middle man?
I will answer your last question first. Why a middle man. Your mistake is thinking there really is a middle man. I am assuming you consider the cable companies as the middle man between customer and content providers right? Wrong. A significant portion of the content providers are owned by... wait for it... cable companies. They provide the dumb pipe and the content flowing through it.
Let's look at the content. The only content that will be available will be from those channels that generate money. So we end up with maybe 50 channels. On those channels you will get sports, kids programming, procedural dramas, and reality tv. Since that's where the money is, that's what you will get. BTW, each channel will cost a boatload.
Cable companies have to pay the network for that content. The content is only a conduit for ad revenue. That's where the money is made. With fewer places for ads, less money gets made. That money has to be replaced. How? Outrageous prices on the a-la-carte content. $40 for ESPN, $25 for each movie channel, or $10-15 per channel of non premium content is not out of the realm of possibilities. These companies want to make money. They don't do what they do for altruistic reasons. If you can't show them where an alternate revenue stream like a-la-carte makes more money than the current bundling then your SOL thinking a change is coming.
I can present a number of reasons why content providers will not do a-la-carte. Can you present one viable financial reason for content providers to even think about a-la-carte? Give them a financial reason, they would change in a heart beat. Nothing I've seen an any thread even comes close.