Appleflix: A netflix-like subscription service

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by Mad Mac Maniac, Aug 13, 2013.

  1. macrumors 68040

    Mad Mac Maniac

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Location:
    A little bit of here and a little bit of there.
    #1
    How amazing would it be if Apple could pull off some sort of a subscription service with all their video content. I understand that that would require negotiations with the content providers, and thus probably could never happen. In fact, that might even be what Apple has wanted to do all along, but just couldn't get the agreements.

    But think about it. Apple has a vast majority of movies and tv shows. Much larger selection than netflix (including current seasons of tv shows). Of course as a result, the service would also cost significantly more than netflix and would likely need to be tiered. There could be many different ways apple could tier the plans (GB download size, specific content providers, time-limit, genre, etc).
     
  2. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    #2
    You do realize though the reason that they have so many more movies is because they are selling them. The reason Netflix selection and "quality" are poor is because that is all the content providers will allow for $8/mo.

    Just because Apple has the movies to sell, doesn't mean it will get the rights to stream.
     
  3. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    #3
    But to ask a related question - what would you be willing to pay to have unlimited streaming of the entire iTunes catalog?
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    chumawumba

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Location:
    Ask the NSA
    #4
    If I know how Apple works - More than you should be
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    boomhower

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    #5
    It would be prohibitively expensive. Your talking about unlimited streaming of just about all current TV and DVD's. Getting the content owners to give up subscription TV income and disc sales would be insanely expensive. Honestly I don't think there is a way that they would do it at all.
     
  6. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    #6
    Personally, I would be willing to pay $30/month for it, but only if it included all TV shows as well.

    My reasoning:

    I already pay $16/month for Netflix and Hulu Plus. If I signed up with Apple, I could cancel those 2 services. We rent 1-2 movies per month from Apple and 1-2 movies per month from Redbox, so that's worth about $14.

    One area where I would hope Apple could do it better than Netflix & Hulu is with offline viewing options. Those services are worthless on airplanes and in hotels with crappy wifi. The ability to locally cache content would be nice.
     
  7. thread starter macrumors 68040

    Mad Mac Maniac

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Location:
    A little bit of here and a little bit of there.
    #7
    I'm sure it would be significantly higher than that. At least for an "all you can eat" type of offering. Cable TV typically ranges from.. what, like $40-$100 depending on what all is included. Now imagine all that content, no commercials, all on demand.

    All that would surely have to be at top end of Cable prices. Which is why I suggested some way of tiering the content. It could be subscribing to specific shows, specific channels, specefic content creators, or amount of viewing time. There could be many different ways it could be broken up.
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    #8
    lol, that's never going to happen. They would probably have to charge $100+ for it, and even that is still a good deal considering you get almost every movie and tv show ever made. At $30 everyone would just cancel cable, Hulu, and Netflix, and that's not what the content providers want.

    The thing is, if you know where to look you can already get access to most of the itunes library for free. Hint- WEB-DL
     
  9. jdechko, Aug 14, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013

    macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    #9
    I know it's unrealistic, but the question was what I would be willing to pay. If it's significantly more than that, it's a non-starter based on my viewing habits. At $100, I would rather just subscribe to cable, as would many others, which defeats the whole purpose.

    Realistically, for this to succeed, I think it needs to be considerably less than what people are currently paying. For instance, a $60 cable bill (estimated. Internet service is usually bundled, but would be necessary in either case) + $8 for netflix + $15 for movie rentals is almost $85 per month.

    EDIT: How much is my time and effort worth to switch? How much value do I place on the convenience of being able to watch live vs watch whenever (not to mention that OnDemand is included in many cable packages). Many cable providers are allowing you to watch on your computer, phone or tablet (and not limited to Apple devices either).

    I'm not sure tiered content makes much sense for the same reasons we don't have a la carte cable subscriptions right now. Content people want would be priced disproportionately higher (just look at how cable tiers are currently structured). Apple already allows you to subscribe to specific shows via season pass; I'm not sure renting that same content is any better for the users.

    Exactly. The music labels were trying to keep CD prices high, but they were competing with a free product (piracy). Apple came in with 99 cent downloads, which, to the labels, seemed to undervalue their product. However, 70% of $1.30 is a lot more than 0.

    That's why I think that any service with a chance of disrupting traditional TV is going to have to come in at a lower price. If it's too high, there won't be enough movement in the market. People will keep their cable subscriptions for convenience and the opportunists will still pirate (and some segment will never pay regardless of the price).
     
  10. tgi
    macrumors 65816

    tgi

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2012
    #10
    I'd be happy if Apple lowered their prices on renting movies. $5.99 to rent a movie? WTF
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 68040

    Mad Mac Maniac

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Location:
    A little bit of here and a little bit of there.
    #11
    Well I agree that it's hard to directly compare pricing to cable, because there are so many different cable tiers, companies, bundles, etc. But all things equal, I would be willing to pay a bit extra for all on demand with no commercials. Of course there's still the problem of live sports...
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    boomhower

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    #12
    When redbox is what $1 for DVD and $1.50 or so for bluray. $5 isn't worth the convenience to me.
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 68040

    Mad Mac Maniac

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Location:
    A little bit of here and a little bit of there.
    #13
    Yeah, I agree. Especially if you are already out and stop at redbox on the way home. If you are already home the convenience and selection of movies available almost makes it worth it. As opposed to going out to redbox which will likely take 15 minutes, $1 in gas, and yield a significantly smaller selection. Personally, I think $4 is a good upper limit. I can rationalize $4 to watch a movie.
     
  14. macrumors 604

    Jessica Lares

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Location:
    Near Dallas, Texas, USA
    #14
    You really want Apple to pay billions a year to content providers just so you can have all you can eat TV? :rolleyes:
     
  15. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    #15
    With most tiers, Comcast includes On Demand viewing anyway. The big thing iTunes would offer is a much larger back-catalog. But iTunes would be competing with netflix in that space, and netflix usually has a pretty good back-catalog of tv shows.

    Basic network TV is usually good enough for reality tv shows (and/or competitions) with a short half-life If you follow them, you need to watch them soon or any discussion quickly becomes irrelevant after 24 hours.

    Out of everything, live sports is often the deal breaker for would-be cord cutters. If you are an avid follower of sports, the only real way to get your fix is with cable. And if you're already paying for cable, you're less likely to pay a bunch of money for an overlapping service.

    Having said that, if Apple could work deals with all major sports in the US (or just include a subscription to the WatchESPN app, I'd consider paying much more for total access (iTunes + sports streaming).

    Not to mention that iTunes often has new releases before Redbox does. Also, you don't have to worry about reserving the movie ahead of time. New releases are rarely available the first weekend or so at the Redbox near me. And even at $5.99+tax, iTunes rental is still cheaper than going to the movies.
     
  16. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #16
    time warner and comcast both have TV + internet packages starting in the $80 range
     
  17. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #17
    Netflix will figure this out at some point: There need to be different service tiers or options.

    I don't know the best way to do this. But I do know that I personally don't need any anime or 99.9 percent of the kids stuff.

    The obvious change I see Netflix needing to make is offering more recent movies. Put them in some sort of New Releases category like video stores did and charge an extra $3 or $4 per month for access to those. After they've been "new" releases for X weeks or months, they join the rest of it.

    I doubt Apple has too much interest in taking on Netflix on its turf. Netflix has a hard enough time making money, and Apple probably does pretty well selling movies. The iTunes Store is still huge at music, which is why iTunes Radio is coming soon. The ease of "I like that song, I'm going to click "Buy Song" is why everybody involved on the business side is going to love it.

    Maybe when Apple updates the Apple TV software and/or releases a TV with built-in Apple TV software, then it might make a push. But videos are still way more consumed on TVs than on portable devices.
     
  18. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #18
    amazon does this
    if a title is not part of their membership inventory, you can rent it right there. but they aren't on as many devices as netflix
     

Share This Page