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.
U.S. Cable Companies Reportedly Assessing Potential Infrastructure Impact of 'Imminent' Apple TV Product
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah but you said it inside 10 words, and I wish someone would tweet it around the globe. TV really is such a waste of time.
I cut the cord in 2003. I will NOT pay for cable/satellite as long as I can get TV with an antenna in my attic. I don't watch a whole lot of TV, but I do have a Netflix and Amazon Prime membership. Netflix has a lot of stuff for my kids, and I like some of the shows. I sometimes probably spend more in a month on buying episodes than I would if I had cable, but that doesn't bother me. I mostly read books, but I love a good show - Sons Of Anarchy, The Walking Dead, Boardwalk Empire, etc
Apple could revolutionize the TV industry by making shows ala carte, at reasonable prices. Part of that being that the content would be available in one place. Netflix should already be doing this, they are going to be crushed if they don't act. I get the same feeling now as when the iPhone was a rumor - there is a huge opportunity here. Who will be the first to seize it?
----------
The more I think about it, the more I think that an actual TV is not a smart move for Apple. I wouldn't buy it. At least right now, because I have perfectly functioning tvs. It needs to be some sort of AppleTV upgrade - the content delivery and interface is what's important here, not a new TV itself. IMHO.
Also, I really hope they aim this at the "cord cutters" but I'm fairly certain it won't be. It'll likely be aimed at people who currently subscribe to cable/satellite.
Apple could revolutionize the TV industry by making shows ala carte, at reasonable prices. Part of that being that the content would be available in one place. Netflix should already be doing this, they are going to be crushed if they don't act. I get the same feeling now as when the iPhone was a rumor - there is a huge opportunity here. Who will be the first to seize it?
----------
Gene Muster on TV today still claiming Apple will release an actual TV in 2013. Doesn't he ever get tired of saying this?
The more I think about it, the more I think that an actual TV is not a smart move for Apple. I wouldn't buy it. At least right now, because I have perfectly functioning tvs. It needs to be some sort of AppleTV upgrade - the content delivery and interface is what's important here, not a new TV itself. IMHO.
Also, I really hope they aim this at the "cord cutters" but I'm fairly certain it won't be. It'll likely be aimed at people who currently subscribe to cable/satellite.
My thoughts exactly... I highly doubt that they will introduce a TV unless they have all the content our little hearts desire....
if they DO: they will introduce a TV and a set top box
if they DONT: set top box first.
The old dinosaurs that run the cable companies are running scared. They need to get slapped into the 21st century opportunities for consuming this kind of content. Hopefully Apple can do it. I cut the cord a while ago until someone figures it out.
For the record, I was being sarcastic and agree with you. Your logic is disgusting. We don't use that here.
Well they better hurry up as Google has already launched their own FO service in Kansas City. https://fiber.google.com/about/
But as HobeSoundDarryl has so eloquently and logically noted, the studio, the network and/or the cable/satellite service provider has to take an "unreasonable" price cut to provide the consumer a "reasonable" price. And none of them seem to be willing to do so.
Apple could certainly draw billions from their bank account on an annual basis to pay the studios/networks/ISPs to let them stream the content, but unless they could sell it to consumers at a price that at least breaks-even (which would likely mean an increase in the cost of the hardware to recover margins), investors won't accept such a deal for too many years. And if Apple is forced to cancel the project after 2-3 years, not only does it reflect poorly on Apple (and it's stock price), but it also would return us to the current status quo and significantly retrench that position.
Netflix took advantage of the fact that the studios, the networks and the cable/satellite service providers didn't understand how valuable their content was so they signed deals very favorable to Netflix.
Take Starz - the original deal with Netflix was $6 million a year. After five years, it expired and it's been said that Stars wanted $200 million a year. Once those entities realized they'd left a significant amount of money on the table, when it came time to renegotiate those deals, they demanded "fair market value" and Netflix was either forced to drop content (losing Starz cost them some 3500 titles - many of them very popular) or raise prices to pay or the new contracts (which they did to massive customer discontent).
Last edited:
All very reasonable and very well stated. Apple needs to start it's own TV/movie production company and bypass the middle man.
If they're running scared, Apple is the grim reaper. To them it's proven science that the music industry lost a huge amount of profit due to the popularity of iTunes. They don't care to understand the nuances - that 50% of their previous profits is better than EVERYBODY stealing their content and them making bupkis.
Unfortunately, your cord cutting gesture is feedback that is most likely lost in the noise. For most TV watchers and families, cable is a incredible deal. I personally never liked it, I like broadcast, paying for media, and never having to deal with a DVR.
I would benefit greatly from cable dying a painful death and networks to sell me their products directly. I'd love to be up-to-date on my favorite shows and not seasons behind. But it's beyond hope.
I think that the whole problem should be solved with a pairing service where families with multiple kids can share their HBOgo passwords with single folks or childless couples. That will happen a long time before cable dies and would send a signal to HBO that they can make a GO of it on their own. Pun intended.
iTunes' real disruptive impact on music sales was in the area of albums.
Before iTunes, if you liked a song you had to buy the album of it (Europe did have "EP CDs" with multiple mixes of popular songs, but those still were priced around half of what the CD album cost).
iTunes allowed you to buy the one song you liked and you only had to pay 1/xth the cost of the album since all tracks were the same price. Studios could not charge $5 for the most popular song and then $0.50 for the other 10 tracks.
However, for a studio the costs to master and distribute a single song are not too much more than mastering a dozen songs. And by offering more songs they hoped to have, if not more hits, at least more reason for consumers to buy the next album because the consumer might feel that there was more than one song they liked and therefore felt they received better value for the higher price.
But with iTunes, you buy the one song you like and you don't have to take a risk on spending more money in the hope there are more songs you will like. So the studio makes less money and they worry that unless the artist has another hit with their next album, they won't recover the costs of making the album. So they become more conservative in what they will back and this is why all Top 40 songs sound the same - only what the studios know will sell is allowed to be sold.
Every television channel company wants to have a big hit because they can leverage consumer demand for that hit to force the cable and satellite providers to carry their channel. And once they are carried, they have a new audience to throw other programs against with the hope some of them will stick (and generate advertising revenue). Think of the collection of shows on a channel like AMC or Food Network as a "video album".
If iTunes allowed the same level of disruption for television distribution that it did for music distribution (and that is what many want to happen), then AMC will be able to sell The Walking Dead, but perhaps not The Killing. And Food Network could sell Giada at Home, but not The Barefoot Contessa.
My fear is that could turn television into a very narrow media catering only to shows that have strongest followings.
I love The Universe on The History Channel, but could care less about Ice Road Truckers. But I'm scared that IRT is far more popular than TU and therefore in this new model my show would be cancelled. Or the popularity of IRT means each episode is $.50 and the lack of popularity of TU means each episode is $5.00.
Yes, it's a real concern, and would be a bigger loss than the gain of making sure that content providers pay basic attention to their users.
Say what you will about Cable but it does help keep an a hyper-competitive industry from being even more cut throat. It socializes what would otherwise be high stakes capitalism and encourages a minimal amount of experimentation.
There are a lot of savvy consumers who say that they want to vote with their wallet, but I'm not so certain that they'd be happy to have the market follow the final vote tally. We'd have even more polished turds that are good at drawing us in but bereft of any substance.
I will not pay 100 a month for 100 channels i don't watch and 2-3 i would watch (or at least some shows on these specific channels).
That's 1200 per year for crap i never wanted anyway. I spend maybe 400 a year on iTunes and years later i still have that media in my library ready if i feel like watching something.
I'd suggest these media companies start pulling really good content or no one will want to pay hundreds just to see that one tv show they really like which is worth wasting 45 minutes every week for few months.
With all due respect - my personal opinion.
