Apple Pushing Ahead with Plans for Subscription TV Service by Christmas?

[TrentS]

When journalism dies, democracy dies. We cannot fix stupid ... or ignorant or uninformed.

No, you can't fix stupid. But you can always educate the ignorant and the uninformed.

Journalism dies when everyone out there is a journalist, whether they get paid for it or not. Now, with bloggers, Tweeters, texters, threaders, FB'ers, etc.... everyone is an unpaid journalist to some extent. So, yes, journalism is slowly dying.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I 100% disagree. EVERYONE I have talked to about this (dozens) would like to buy their CHANNELS a la carte. Everyone talks about how there's a thousand channels and nothing to watch.

People will pay for quality programming that interests them. Very few people want to buy their TV SHOWS a la carte and have nothing else, every person I've talked to wants 10,20,30 channels of their content. And even if they paid $60 for 30 channels instead of $80 for 1,000 channels, they'd be happy.

Of course, it has to be just as easy to use as the current television environment. Nobody wants to search lots of different sites for content, or open different apps. They want channels, or guide lists like we have now. And Apple has been working YEARS on this. They didn't just decide one morning to do this, and then implemented it the next day... Apple no doubt has a team of people (probably 10-20 people) who all they do 9-5 EVERY DAY is try to develop a way to do television right.

Apple changed the whole music game with iTunes.
Apple changed how developers can develop games through the App Store.
Apple changed how authors can write and sell books through the iBooks app and iBookstore.
I have no doubt that Apple will re-invent television.

And if it's Apple's idea of re-inventing television sucks, like Microsoft's first try at Tablets in the 90s, then they will fail. Apple knows this. They are thinking this through, not rushing to market with crap.

I agree that people aren't ready to purchase individual shows.

But my issue is with selecting certain channels in attempts to reduce your cable bill.

In your above statement... I think the $80 for 1000 channels is actually a better value. And you can already get that today...

You'd be better off trying to save that $20 a month somewhere else.

If I only wanted Comedy Central, CNN and FX... would I ever be able to get just those channels from Apple or elsewhere? And how much would that cost?

I don't think the cost-savings would be as great as you think.

But I do hope Apple has really "cracked" the television industry. It will be interesting for sure!

 

[AppleScruff1]

Comcast has little choice or they will face some significant anti-trust problems.

Why?

 

[Nostromo]

Perfectly reasonable. They also do not need to purchase cable companies to obtain content. Movies, series etc. can be purchased, then bought through the app store...More I think about it, the more I like it...IF the content is of interest..!

Except Tim Cook just said they're not looking to make a lot of money off content, that they make their money in hardware. Bur I'm not sure how they can be competitive in the TV set space.

The TV industry is in a great turmoil of change, and will probably leaving the programming paradigm behind in favor of streaming on demand.

Apple has the resources and it's the ideal time for Apple to start such a thing.

Content is King.

The success of the iTunes store, projected on streaming content on demand.

The company who gets this right - it's like printing its own money.

 

[SeaFox]

Cable is struggling. Maybe Apple will finally do what I've been hoping would happen for years, sell individual channels a-la-cart so that you only get the channels you want.

...

Why can't the same be applied to cable?

Because the cable company doesn't own the content itself? They're a distribution company. If the studios tell them they can only buy the channels in specific packages they have to do it. Like getting ESPN requires a bunch of other channel neither the cable company nor the customer really want. Or getting NFL Network requires the station be paid for on a subscriber-by-subscriber basis (like HBO and other premiums) but then the provider also requires the station be in the "regular" analog lineup (so everyone who subscribes to cable gets it regardless of if they want it) -- this is how NFL Network's contract actually works by the way.

 

[Tiger8]

Because the cable company doesn't own the content itself? They're a distribution company. If the studios tell them they can only buy the channels in specific packages they have to do it. Like getting ESPN requires a bunch of other channel neither the cable company nor the customer really want. Or getting NFL Network requires the station be paid for on a subscriber-by-subscriber basis (like HBO and other premiums) but then the provider also requires the station be in the "regular" analog lineup (so everyone who subscribes to cable gets it regardless of if they want it) -- this is how NFL Network's contract actually works by the way.

I get you, but I am still hoping for something revolutionary. I see the unique challenge here, that in most, if not all markets, the middle man is still involved, since obviously you would need internet so if you can the cable for tv, they will simply raise all their prices together (and don't buy all that bull about cablevision competing against comcast competing against time warner). Vs in the case of iTunes and Kindle, you didn't need the middle man (in this case, music stores and book stores / publishers respectively).

 

[solafide]

I agree, but...

TV is broken.
500 channels and nothing to watch

I agree, but another take is: 500 channels and nothing to watch. We are broken.

The first take points to the limited amount of good content (of course, a personal opinion, but one I suspect many would agree with, whatever their content preferences), and the antiquated channel broadcast model that is limiting by nature - being time-based, it does not allow real-time access to the massive body of content created over the last 100 years - on demand.

The second take points to the malaise of the addicted human heart that seems to require more and more content to break through the dullness caused by repeated exposure. Content creators often seem to think their new offerings must be increasingly outrageous or shocking to break through the callouses we develop. Maybe we just need to turn it off. I have begun to try to do this, systematically reducing the number of shows or movies I am willing to sacrifice time to, and instead try to remember why I am here: to have an impact for good on those around me and the world. It ends up that it is much more satisfying, because it is what we were designed for. There is still time to relax and enjoy the storytelling I enjoy, but hopefully less of wasted time in the addict's coach potatoe pose.

 

[TallManNY]

Yes, because as we keep saying, the industry is still stuck in the dark ages. Remember before iTunes exploded how expensive CDs were getting? It was not uncommon to walk the aisles of a Best Buy or record store and see $20+ for a standard album on CD. Look what happened to those prices. Why can't the same happen for TV?

It probably can to a certain level, but the studios and networks are going to resist this. Right now, for most people the standard cable package is a great deal. Most people watch 20 to 40 hours of TV a week, maybe more if you believe some of the stats you hear. At that price, the $70 that they pay for cable TV on top of their internet is a good deal.

What might sell is an option to (a) avoid watching commercials and (b) get to watch the episode when and where you want to. Those are two nice advantages. But don't think that you are going to get both those things and at the same time send less money each month to the cable companies.

 

[klrobinson999]

Samsung has their new Smart TV experience on their website, complete with voice and gesture control, full web access, and apps out the wazoo.
This is, I suspect, where Apple is heading with their take on TV. However, they had better beat Samsung's $3600 starting price or most people are NOT going to bite!

http://www.samsung.com/us/2012-smart-tv/

 

[twoodcc]

well i hope apple is able to do something in the tv market. maybe we'll find out more this week

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I agree, but another take is: 500 channels and nothing to watch. We are broken.

One might say it's at least somewhat BECAUSE we have 500 channels that there is nothing good to watch. When there were less cable channels (and just network before that), viewers tended to concentrate on those channels more and thus advertisers could get much higher viewing numbers (relative to overall available viewers, of course). This in turn lead to networks having larger budgets and more overall viewers and thus more incentive to have a good quality show on the air.

Today, because of the sheer number of channels and people doing other things like getting on the Internet, shows are now considered "hits" that would have been canceled as flops in years past due to the fact that NO show (save maybe the Super Bowl) gets those kind of numbers any more since the viewers are more spread out. Thus, budgets are less and quality shows are less (all hail the boon of crappy "reality" tv).

With 500 channels on the air, I should have NO trouble finding a good sitcom to watch. But I can't even find a good OLD sitcom to watch. Channels like TVLand show the same old crap all the time and/or are starting to make new content (good in some regards in their case if you like shows like Hot In Cleveland) and other shows I can't find anywhere. So I end up having to buy old '70s and '80s shows instead and that means I don't need cable to watch them anymore (one less person viewing cable period and the advertisements that come with them). Some channels that were supposed to show me music videos (MTV), history (HISTORY), old sit-coms (TVLAND) aren't doing it anymore and/or have wandered into different territory, thus defeating the ENTIRE POINT of programming designed to cater to someone looking for a specific type of programming.

Then there's the invention of the DVR. This takes time-shifting to a whole new level. You get the original quality (unlike VCRs in the past) and so you have almost ZERO incentive to watch commercials anymore. I'll actually watch a recorded program while recording a live program so I can skip the commercials in the live program later on. I hate commercials. And now that I have a TON of tv shows san commercials entirely on my XBMC/AppleTV whole house system, I'm even LESS tolerant of them (i.e. not having to fast forward is even better yet).

One thing that the industry has not really latched onto is that viewers will only willingly watch commercials if they're entertaining. I mean the commercials are often more fun to watch than the Superbowl itself. But it seems like that is the ONLY time advertisers make a concerted effort to make funny/entertaining/interesting ads that actually make the viewer want to watch them since they become a form of entertainment themselves. I actually look forward to seeing that M&M candy commercial because it was funny, but now they've cut it down to a few seconds and it doesn't work anymore so I skip over it like everything else (plus everything gets less funny over time with repeated viewings). But if ads were that entertaining for ALL shows, I'd be more inclined to watch them rather than skip them. But that simply doesn't happen.

Funny doesn't have to mean expensive either. That's an issue for entertainment in general, I think. Many movies from the '30s and '40s were excellent and they didn't cost much to make (few locations, very few special effects, etc.). Today entertainment seems to be about the MOST special effects you can fit into something. Look at Star Wars even. It's back at the big screen AGAIN to milk it. What changes has Lucas made to the movies this time? Unless Jar Jar is removed entirely, I don't really care. It's the same BAD MOVIE prequels all over again. Get someone that knows how to make a good Star Wars movie (like the crew that did Empire Strikes Back) and remake them entirely with good actors this time. Otherwise, stop trying to sell me the same crap again.

I think even when you can just buy the content you want, you find yourself boxed into a situation where you cannot find new content easily (unless they make the pilot and/or first few episodes freebies, but then some shows takes awhile to get good so you'd have even MORE canceled shows and more overhead costs for sets, casts, scripts, etc. At some point, it all falls apart because what the viewer wants (to only pay for the good stuff) doesn't work financially for the people that MAKE the content and lets face it, programming isn't cheap to produce even when it's simple these days. They will probably eventually go to a LOT of 3D generated actors to save money (the equivalent of excessing jobs to China) and content quality will drop even more in the future. Heck, in Star Trek they said TV was pretty much a FAD and was mostly gone (in its styled form) by the 1st quarter of the 21st Century. I suspect the time frame is a bit off, but the sentiment may turn out to be true. I'm sure some aspect would continue, but I can't see endless channels with limited funding producing good quality content forever.

 

[MVallee]

See the math explained in post #144. It's not $100/month for 200 channels = 50 cents per channel. So rather than paying $2 for CNN, HLN, MSNBC, FOX, I only want to pay 50 cents for CNN alone. Instead, CNN alone might cost $10 in an al-a-carte model. We imagine the math works like that (50 cents per channel) but there are all kinds of other things going on that are derailed in the al-a-carte, commercial-free dream.

For example, those "filler" channels we never watch run commercials that help pay production studios to make programming we may watch. Get rid of the filler channels and that revenue goes away. Guess who then must make up that revenue to keep the shows we do like available?

I have DISH network. It comes with guide features that makes it reasonably easy to block channels. Thus, right now, I can create my own list of channels I'd like to see in my guide- say, just the ones I like to watch- and virtually delete the ones I never watch. Because I understand the math, I don't mind that there are 100+ channels I never watch because I know that the commercials on those channels help pay for what I do watch. Besides my neighbors list of must channels may have those channels I hate.

The al-a-carte dream wouldn’t really deliver much more than we can have now:

• either though blocking channels as I can in my DISH guide, or
• by dumping cable/satt now and just going with the al-a-carte offering already available via the iTunes store

The way things are, the former just happens to be a generally better value for me than the latter. And al-a-carte would significantly shift the burden for making up for all those revenue streams to someone else. Ultimately that someone else in an artist-to-Apple iTunes-to-us-consumers model is either Apple or us. Who do you think would foot the bill?

By the way, even though I have that easy ability with DISH (to block out the channels "I never watch"), I generally don't do it. Why? Because sometimes they do have something I choose to watch. In al-a-carte, we do away with channel surfing at no added cost as it is now. Instead, to find something off our usual beaten path means opening the wallet every time.

I understand the math and don't expect to pay $0.50 per channel, nor do I think cable as it is will disappear and I also never said I want commercials gone. All I'm saying is I would like the option to pay per channel instead of now where the only option is pay $75 and get 1000+ channels I don't watch.

As it is now I watch maybe 5 channels. The problem is that the way my satellite provider does things is everyone has to subscribe to "the basic" channels which includes local stations and the main networks. The few channels I watch are not in the basic, they are in the "theme packs". So I have to pay for the basic, and the "news and learning" pack, the "lifestyle" pack, the "family" pack, the "music" pack etc just to get one channel out of each package. I end up paying around $75 a month for 5 channels. That works out to $15 per channel. If I could pay $5-10 per channel I'd save money in the long run. If those channels were "apps" with on demand and other features, I'd be getting more for my money as well.