I agree. After all - he made those eBook negotiations that had no negative consequences! Oh wait...
Touche. But you still have to admit that was a pretty sweet deal for Apple.
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.
Apple Negotiating With Cable Companies and Networks to Allow Viewers to Pay to Skip Commercials
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Touche. But you still have to admit that was a pretty sweet deal for Apple.
WHy are they trippin?
They need to work with advertisers, not against them. Commercials are not hardly the problem, sometimes commercials are better than the shows they sponsor. I will take commercials on free shows if I didn't have to pay for television or if it would signifcantly lower the cost. But it is grade AA bullship to pay and get more commercials.
They need to work with advertisers, not against them. Commercials are not hardly the problem, sometimes commercials are better than the shows they sponsor. I will take commercials on free shows if I didn't have to pay for television or if it would signifcantly lower the cost. But it is grade AA bullship to pay and get more commercials.
If this talk is correct it sounds like they are trying to set up all those video apps in an ad free mode where Apple will pay the hit fee that goes to the site on behalf of user" or even just a blanket fee for them to turn off the ads.
It would make particular sense with Hulu which I rather wish had sold. To Apple
Such short sightedness
This is just an early volley in disruption of the ridiculous packaged cable deal. I, personally would not have cable if I could watch my local baseball team without it. Beyond that there are no channels I can't get elsewhere. I see no other reason to pay $100 a month for the massive fail that is 95% of the programming on network and cable television.
Apple is, and I say this quietly lest the media companies hear me, trying to find the weak spot in the dam. Once the water starts to flow it's just a matter of time before the media giants' hold is broken on this tyrannical and oppressive model.
As long as the media companies have free reign over the policies, along with control of both sides (cable companies and media companies being owned by the same parent) this will only get worse.
When I think back to when cable first started to gain a big foothold in the US (late 70s to early 80s) I remember the big catch phrase being "but you don't get commercials." Then, more and more of the channels that were being "given" to us in the packages had more commercials than the broadcast channels did. Now, not only do you get a boatload of commercials, but you get those stupid pop ups and banners that run along the bottom of the screen, disrupting the show you're watching. You get to watch commercials BETWEEN the commercials!
Don't even get me started on the "free weekends" that the premium channels throw out there. I pay a monthly fee for a premium channel, then I have to get banners all over the bottom of my movies telling me that I can subscribe to the channel I'm already subscribed to!?! Ridiculous.
A disruption is needed, and Apple appears to be working that angle.
I hope it's clear the profound difference between skipping and fast forwarding.
Fast forward on my comcast remote was like this: fast forward > fast forward > fast forward (cause I need to accelerate the silly thing) > wait ... > oh crap, rewind > damnit, fast forward > play.
Skipping works like this: NOTHING. It's automatic.
It's might seem like a subtle thing, but I think it's really, really important. It's a senseless pain point.
This is what I don't understand. Commercials aren't the problem. THE CABLE COMPANIES ARE THE PROBLEM! Why should I have to pay for TV, and then see the commercials? Shouldn't it be one or the other?
I could see the justification when content delivery was a problem. But with the Internet, that's not an issue anymore. Apple TV should be an à la cart device for TV. Apple should be working with networks directly to get content... and cutting out the cable companies.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I would pay $50/month to be able to access the iTunes library on my authorized computers. I would even pay that same price if Netflix expanded its content to be more current. I would EVEN watch commercials like on Crackle to be able to watch HD current content through and Apple TV or similar device.
I don't believe that for many people, all this talk about that much anticipated APPLE TV, is about money, but rather more about customization, integration and overall user experience. Most reasonable people know, there's no 'free lunch'.
To accomplish this herculean task, what is needed, is a shift of momentum. Our vastly changed viewing habits of the last 30 or so years, plus the proliferation of tablets, may just be a small push aiding that momentum. For companies like APPLE to come in and change the whole tv viewing status quo, content owners/creators would have to be convinced beyond any doubt, that they could make more money with the new 'distribution' system than the old tried-and-true, before they would decide not to renew those contracts they currently have with the cable/satellite operators.
If and when that becomes a reality, companies like APPLE can do their thing, and give us our awesome, much anticipated, and more customizable, yet not necessarily less expensive, real APPLE TV. I know we wanted it yesterday, but this will take time, and every time I read another rumor about more negotiations going on, my hope is strengthened that the dream is still alive.
To accomplish this herculean task, what is needed, is a shift of momentum. Our vastly changed viewing habits of the last 30 or so years, plus the proliferation of tablets, may just be a small push aiding that momentum. For companies like APPLE to come in and change the whole tv viewing status quo, content owners/creators would have to be convinced beyond any doubt, that they could make more money with the new 'distribution' system than the old tried-and-true, before they would decide not to renew those contracts they currently have with the cable/satellite operators.
If and when that becomes a reality, companies like APPLE can do their thing, and give us our awesome, much anticipated, and more customizable, yet not necessarily less expensive, real APPLE TV. I know we wanted it yesterday, but this will take time, and every time I read another rumor about more negotiations going on, my hope is strengthened that the dream is still alive.
Maybe they could do it where premium time TV shows don't have adverts but other shows do. Or if users subscribe to channels then they could have 1 or 2 favourite channels where ads aren't shown but they are shown on the non favourite ads.
To be honest though ads are departing either way and they are being replaced by product placements. With more and more people using things like TIVO ads are starting to be fast forwarded, so either companies accept changes in the way shows have advertisements (like one of my ideas before), they scrap ads altogether for product placement, or they fix it so ads aren't skippable like they are on DVD's and on youtube videos (for a little while at least).
Therein lies the rub. Everybody wants it now and wants it free.
A large part of the cost of TV is offset by advertising costs and subscription fees. Everybody likes the idea of less commercials and more content....but are they really willing to pay a al carte pricing for it. And are there enough buyers of the content YOU like to underwrite the creation of new programming.
Or do networks start producing the lowest common denominator shows that are going to appeal to the widest audience?
----------
That's one of the few realistic responses I've read about the Apple TV topic.
Too often people subscribe to the 'free lunch' idea where suddenly they can watch all the TV shows they enjoy today for less money and no commercials.
They ignore the fact the current system of 500 channels, subscription fees and advertising spreads the cost over a lot of views and makes it economically viable for companies to produce a wide spectrum of shows. Unless a new system would provide the variety of programming viewers want at a price they are willing to pay, it's DOA.
The technology isn't the problem. It's finding the pricing/distribution method that makes it better than the current system.
I don't really mind commercials all that much. Especially when they're tailored to my demographic. But one thing I hated about Hulu was the fact that they show commercials for products that don't apply to me. I couldn't tell you how many kitty litter or cat food commercials I've seen on there and I will never ever ever own a cat. Ever.
It's a waste of time and money for everyone.
It's a waste of time and money for everyone.
/ thread. You nailed it. The best shows are on HBO and showtime and using a DVR box is just as easy unless the price to skip is equal to or less than an HD DVR
We cut the cable too. We used to have a deluxe service, then we cut down to basic, and after we realized that nobody in the house was ever watching it, we cut it totally.
Now its Netflix, YouTube and torrents for us.
I can hear Eddie now:
"Providers - Imagine a world in which you get paid more than you do today and skip dealing with advertisers. Your revenue stream will be predictable and repeatable for the first time ever, and making your content available for secondary rental/purchase via the Apple TV Store gives you even more chances to capitalize on your content.
We've already signed up some of the major players. Don't miss the boat.
Lastly, feel free to charge your advertisers the new rates we're proposing. It will make you more money and keep them from deflating the value of your product. Just don't tell the DOJ I said that. Thanks."
"Providers - Imagine a world in which you get paid more than you do today and skip dealing with advertisers. Your revenue stream will be predictable and repeatable for the first time ever, and making your content available for secondary rental/purchase via the Apple TV Store gives you even more chances to capitalize on your content.
We've already signed up some of the major players. Don't miss the boat.
Lastly, feel free to charge your advertisers the new rates we're proposing. It will make you more money and keep them from deflating the value of your product. Just don't tell the DOJ I said that. Thanks."
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I have done this math many times before. To fully replace the revenue made by having commercials (which is a major subsidy in which others pay to make our television programming costs lower), it works out to about $54 per month per U.S. household.
I don't foresee a scenario where Apple will willingly lose money so that we can skip commericals. There's not enough money in the
TV hardware to make up for this even through the second month. So, we're either dreaming about Apple losing a lot of money by very, very generously replacing the commercial-driven subsidy with Apple cash OR we're looking at an Apple subscription price that would need to incorporate that $54 per month. Take just that and put the Apple premium on top of it and you start getting right into cable TV pricing. But the reality is that some of the cable bill also pays content creators to create content so the real number is $54 + $X (this content creation subsidy) + Apple profit and/or premium.
Now, let's say that it's still attractive to a lot of us (even though you should be realizing that it's right up there if not more than the average cable bill), think it through. Who provides your broadband on which this Apple replacement solution will depend? Is it the cable company? Doesn't the latter like the cable revenues flowing to them instead of Apple? What do they do if Apple starts taking a big bite out of their cable revenues? Hint: which way will your broadband bill go?
So net: unless Apple wants to start losing a LOT of money by generously spending it's cash to make up for the lack of commercial-based revenues, we probably end up paying just as much- if not more- than cable now AND our broadband goes up because the monopoly on that pipe is not going to lose money when the replacement solution must use that very same pipe.
I've been through this over and over. The dream is easy. Realizing it is hard, much more expensive than we dream the cost of it, and fraught with that last problem of the big loser vs. the replacement solution completely owns the pipe on which the replacement depends.
As I've said before, this needs a companion rumor that involves some way for Apple to bypass that middleman (cable company broadband provider). It can't fly when it depends on the cable pipe. We already know how the tolls pile up when companies like AT&T, Verizon, etc own the pipes between us consumers and iCloud. This is no different.
I don't foresee a scenario where Apple will willingly lose money so that we can skip commericals. There's not enough money in the
TV hardware to make up for this even through the second month. So, we're either dreaming about Apple losing a lot of money by very, very generously replacing the commercial-driven subsidy with Apple cash OR we're looking at an Apple subscription price that would need to incorporate that $54 per month. Take just that and put the Apple premium on top of it and you start getting right into cable TV pricing. But the reality is that some of the cable bill also pays content creators to create content so the real number is $54 + $X (this content creation subsidy) + Apple profit and/or premium.Now, let's say that it's still attractive to a lot of us (even though you should be realizing that it's right up there if not more than the average cable bill), think it through. Who provides your broadband on which this Apple replacement solution will depend? Is it the cable company? Doesn't the latter like the cable revenues flowing to them instead of Apple? What do they do if Apple starts taking a big bite out of their cable revenues? Hint: which way will your broadband bill go?
So net: unless Apple wants to start losing a LOT of money by generously spending it's cash to make up for the lack of commercial-based revenues, we probably end up paying just as much- if not more- than cable now AND our broadband goes up because the monopoly on that pipe is not going to lose money when the replacement solution must use that very same pipe.
I've been through this over and over. The dream is easy. Realizing it is hard, much more expensive than we dream the cost of it, and fraught with that last problem of the big loser vs. the replacement solution completely owns the pipe on which the replacement depends.
As I've said before, this needs a companion rumor that involves some way for Apple to bypass that middleman (cable company broadband provider). It can't fly when it depends on the cable pipe. We already know how the tolls pile up when companies like AT&T, Verizon, etc own the pipes between us consumers and iCloud. This is no different.
just now, production companies make the shows for tv channels/networks for cable companies to distribute. that's 3 separate bodies all needing to make money.
Netflix are showing that they understand this model is dead by producing their own content and distributing it themselves, if apple can cut out the networks and cable companies in this chain then that's the future.
Cable companies might not mind as much as the smart ones are oushing their internet service but networks don't see a future for themselves in this new business model that seems to be happening and this is why Apple are finding it so hard to get them onside, they are asking turkeys to vote for christmas
Netflix are showing that they understand this model is dead by producing their own content and distributing it themselves, if apple can cut out the networks and cable companies in this chain then that's the future.
Cable companies might not mind as much as the smart ones are oushing their internet service but networks don't see a future for themselves in this new business model that seems to be happening and this is why Apple are finding it so hard to get them onside, they are asking turkeys to vote for christmas
I agree. After all - he made those eBook negotiations that had no negative consequences! Oh wait...
Not like we'll be losing the iBookstore because of it. Get him on this "ballsy" negotiation. No matter what happens in the long run, we'll have a better TV experience because of it.