A-bit off topic, but... Anybody know why Amazon Prime is still not on AppleTV?
A-bit off topic, but... Anybody know why Amazon Prime is still not on AppleTV?
gee....I wonder...
Excellent thoughts. However, another variable that has a big effect on Cable pricing is sports. Sports entertainment is extremely expensive and part of the reason your cable bill is so high (even if you don't subscribe to a bunch of ESPN channels) is that you're subsidizing a lot of crap that you don't even watch. I'm not sure how big a variable that is... but it is a factor.
What's the point of these apps? You need cable TV anyways, so why not watch it directly instead of going through Apple TV? Seems redundant.
Could it be that Amazon and Apple are competitors and Amazon may not wish to give Apple the time of day, much less the rights to access the Amazon library?
But, Amazon Prime is on iOS devices, you just have to go thru the head-ache of airplay (e.g. just an inconvenience to the end-user). I kind of assumed it was Apple being the road-block in terms of an Amazon Prime app, just don't know why, they allow Netflix, Hulu, etc.. They are competitors in the streaming content market.
All fail and crumble to the mightiness that is the Logitech Harmony remotes.
I wish these channels would sell me access instead of requiring a cable subscription. I'd gladly pay $2-3/month each for the small amount of channels I watch. Maybe more for premium channels like HBO. Hell... if HBO could get $5.99/mo from 10 million subs. (Doable. Netflix has 44 million), That would almost $60 mill per month in revenue.
It is really getting time for a new UI ... getting way to cluttered and not well integrated.
For perspective, HBO generated nearly $5 billion in revenue and almost $2 billion in profit in 2013. Selling direct to consumer would radically devalue HBO in the eyes of cable/sat companies which means consumers would have to pay a lot more than $6/mo for HBO GO. HBO isn't going to take on additional risk unless it's nearly ironclad that they'll make substantially more income by doing so.
That's fine, but I barely use the Sony smart tv apps anyway. Point being, for most people with a cable subscription, there is already more than enough content to watch, so I just struggle to understand the benefit of Apple TV if I have to have a cable subscription anyway to get much out of it.
If it's not saving any of my money from going to Verizon or Comcast, than it just adds more content flexibility to an already overwhelmning menu of content from cable. That said, $99 is a fair price for what it does I suppose. Just doesn't seem like an impressive product to me and never really has. A la carte channel subscriptions are the game changer that we'll probably never see.
For perspective, HBO generated nearly $5 billion in revenue and almost $2 billion in profit in 2013. Selling direct to consumer would radically devalue HBO in the eyes of cable/sat companies which means consumers would have to pay a lot more than $6/mo for HBO GO. HBO isn't going to take on additional risk unless it's nearly ironclad that they'll make substantially more income by doing so.
Not to mention a lot of people don't like to be nickel and dimmed to death. And even if you only watch 10 Channels. The cost of basic cable (if your channels are part of that package) is a far better deal than this mythical wonderful world where you can purchase channels ala-cart. Do you really think ala-cart programming would cost less than $10 per channel? I have a bridge to sell you if you think that.
Good stats. $5 billion in annual revenue would be just over $400 million per month. 41 million subscribers (Is that current?) puts revenue per subscriber at around $10.
Currently $16.99 or so to add HBO to cable lineup. Seems like a reasonable price. Assuming 30%, Apple would get a smaller cut than the cable companies currently get.
According to this WSJ article, Netflix has almost 32 million paying U.S. subscribers and HBO has about about 29 million U.S. subscribers. Of the $16 HBO 'add on' fee half goes to the cable/sat provider and half goes to HBO. The $8 HBO gets is on par with the $8 Netflix charges for streaming (though a Netflix price hike is rumored) but, and this is a big but, HBO has less overhead than Netflix and if HBO offers a direct to consumer option there is no way in hell their deal with cable/sat companies stays the same. HBO is immediately looking at a drop in revenue and an increase in operating costs that it *hopes* will be negated by tons of people signing up for HBO GO that aren't already HBO customers.
It's a gamble and one I don't see them making until there are legions of cord cutters willing to pony up the cash to make it worth HBO's while. Keep in mind HBO, like all companies, is looking for ways to make more money. Not the same amount of money. Not less money. More money.
Could it be that Amazon and Apple are competitors and Amazon may not wish to give Apple the time of day, much less the rights to access the Amazon library?
Can't see the article. According to HBO's website, they have 41 million subscribers in the US and offer "HBO Services" to another 35 million outside the US.
EDIT: It looks like the 41 million includes Cinemax subscribers.
I don't see where the gamble is. Same price for consumers. More money for HBO. Where's the risk?
All fail and crumble to the mightiness that is the Logitech Harmony remotes.
that $100 includes internet as well so you would need to spend way less than $50 a month on a la carte to make it worth it
and Hulu's selection is mostly the last few episodes
How the al-a-carte dream won't work:
I pay $100/month for 200 channels now. I only watch 10 channels. $100/200 = 50 cents per channel. 10 channels I want times 50 cents = $5/month
How the al-a-carte replacement would work:
10 channels I want times about $16 per month each = $160 per month. Apple gets it's 30% off the top and the rest of the players get about $12/month more than they do now.
In no scenario are the masses going to get $5/month or $10/month television with everything we want to watch. If everyone switched to such a system, the whole thing would crumble. We already have cheaply-produced channels that could support $5 or $10/month for the masses. It's called youtube. That's what the future of television looks like if we somehow get what we think we want. Apple won't take the big hit. Cable/Broadband won't take the hit. Who's left if we get $5/month? The Studios. If the Studios take the entire hit, they won't make the money to keep cranking out the stuff "we" love. Instead, we'll get the very cheaply produced stuff like youtube channels and 24/7 Kardashians.
It's risky for HBO because the cut they get from cable/sat providers will go down even though their number of subscribers via cable/sat will probably stay pretty much the same.
Cable/sat providers currently handle customer service, billing, etc., for HBO as well help cover HBO's advertising costs. All of those new costs (plus building out their streaming infrastructure as currently it's not very robust) will eat in to HBO's bottom line.
The direct to consumer move has to cover these new costs, cover the lost revenue from cable/sat providers *and* make HBO more profit than the previous business model.
Not to mention the demographic we are talking about (people that want HBO but currently do not have a cable/sat subscription) is really, really small right now.
There's no point in making a disruptive move like this if it's not going to boost revenue and profits.
For those who are complaining the point of these apps that require a cable sub, in my case, I have 4 TV's (3 in kids rooms) that I don't have to lease extra cable boxes for at $5-6 a pop. I also don't have to worry about cable runs or wallplate locations. Worth it for me.