Haha and I want a cadillac for 5 grand.
That service would cost a minimum of 100 dollars.
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 Enlists Networks to Negotiate With Local Affiliates in Streaming TV Talks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Haha and I want a cadillac for 5 grand.
That service would cost a minimum of 100 dollars.
Please Apple, release the beast! Please free us from the shackles of Cable companies! And yes I know there is a catch and other kind of shackles coming...
Just watch The Weather Channel on the day of a major tornado outbreak to know why ending local TV is an awful idea.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If we go to the math, it really paints the picture...
AMC is owned by AMC Networks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Networks which also owns a typical cable bundle of other channels including IFC, WE tv, Sundance, just shy of half of BBC America, the IFC center in NYC and the film company IFC Films. As you see there, total revenues for 2013 was $1.6 Billion. Let's assume that your desire for AMC means that's the crown jewel of their bundle and assign- say- HALF of the $1.6B to that most desired channel as revenues. That's $800M dollars. Number of U.S. Households with Broadband Internet is apparently 92 Million per http://www.statista.com/statistics/183614/us-households-with-broadband-internet-access-since-2009/ Now let's take your offer of $1-$3 per month in an Apple replacement al-a-carte model. Apple will likely want it's 30% right off the top, so let's use- say- $2 per month less 30% = $1.40 per month net of Apple's cut. $1.40 times 12 (months) = $16.80 per year that could flow to AMC al-a-carte pitched to us consumers at $2 per month.
$800M that AMC needs to make from this channel divided by $16.80 = 47,619,047, which would represent the number of broadband households that would need to choose AMC al-a-carte to generate the same revenue. About 48M/92M = 52% of all broadband households. Is AMC popular enough for that?
But wait. If our al-a-carte model has killed off those other channels that AMC Networks offers because they are not as desirable as AMC, we exterminate their subscriber revenue AND their commercial revenue to AMC Networks. That needs to be made up or why should AMC Networks have any interest in embracing an al-a-carte model (certainly not to lose money).
So let's re-work math on an assumption that everyone interested in any of that family of channels is actually only interested in AMC (which probably is not true, but some bundle of channels may have just one jewel channel). So that pushes us up toward using the full $1.6 Billion. Let's arbitrarily knock $400M off for the non TV channels assets of IFC Center and IFC Films (I'm just wild guessing there, but it means I'm guessing that those 2 can produce $400M on their own). So now the math looks like this:
$1.2B/$16.80 per year = about 71 Million broadband households having to choose to subscribe to AMC for the whole year or about 77% of ALL broadband households to replace that number.
Contrast that with CBS and their $6 al-a-carte offering. $6 times 12 months = $72/year. If AMC had a CBS price for al-a-carte, $1.2B/$72 = about 17M broadband households, or about 18% of ALL broadband households. To me, that also looks pretty challenging but maybe doable. I don't see 52% (48M households) to 77% (71M households) as a realistic goal for a channel like AMC. Why? As a point of comparison, according to this: http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/netflix_statistics-facts/ Netflix has a little over 40 Million U.S. subscribers to it's very popular service offering far greater breadth & depth of content than an AMC could offer on it's own. I find it difficult to think an al-a-carte AMC could get more subscribers than Netflix which is why the 17M is IMO a maybe at best (and that would only be able to get down to 17M by using CBS's $6/month not your $1-$3, and I didn't even take about $2 bucks out of CBS's $6 to give to Apple).
Bring it down to the net $1.40 per household or even use your $2.99 less Apple's 30% or $2.09 net to AMC and it needs between about 48M and 71M to simply replace the $1.2B that needs to be replaced or else why should AMC Networks be interested in embracing an al-a-carte model? Note that as each studio considers the same question, the driver of real change is the opportunity to make MORE money, not less or the same, so the enticement of al-a-carte from THEIR perspective needs to be something greater than my (admittedly wild) guess of $1.2B or so.
According to this: http://theweek.com/articles/488314/americas-tv-addiction-by-numbers the average number of viewers of the channel for it's most popular original show- The Walking Dead- is 6 million. So al-a-carte AMC needs to draw somewhere between 8 and about 12 times more viewers to an al-a-carte version of itself to make something like $1.40 to $2.09 work. Therein lies the great challenge at costs-per-channel as we consumers tend to imagine them.
Now, I have excluded commercial revenues from the above and that would be meaningful. Conceptually, commercial revenues could be greater on a per-channel basis than they are now because more eyes would be on what is imagined to be a much lower quantity of channels in play. And that would make it more favorable than the picture I've painted above. But even if we generously layer in a heavy commercial model (of which not everyone wants commercials in their dream of an al-a-carte model) with even more subsidy dollars generated from commercials, a goal of 4-8 times more viewers than what they counted for watching their top show still seems like a stretch in an al-a-carte offering. 6 times 6 million more viewers is 36 million which would only be 4 million less than ALL of Netflix's U.S. subscriber tally.
Sorry for the long post but hopefully it paints a picture. People can plug in their own numbers and make their own assumptions of commercial subsidy or commercial-free al-a-carte but it's pretty ugly unless the average cost per channel is upwards of several times what we usually guess that it should be and then it might be doable if huge numbers of us all embrace it too.
Why would you want anyone to fix that? They pay, handsomely, to even be carried. In other words, without them, your 150 dollars per month would be more.
And anyways... You can remove them, since I see you're on directv. You can create a custom guide.
I couldn't live without my local channels - especially in the fall for NFL and College Football. Plus, there are a few shows I really like on local channels during the week. Obviously for me, I would want ESPN (don't ESPN 2 - ESPN OCHO), FX/FXX, AMC, USA and maybe a few others I am not thinking about right now. If I could have my local channels that I can pause and about 5-10 other channels for about $30 that would be perfect instead of paying over $100 now for 200 channels when I watch only 10 or so...
I travel a lot for work and I really miss having the ability to rewind a live tv show on my hotel room tv when I miss something that happened or was said. I also tape all my favorite programs while I'm on the road so I can watch them when I get home. All those programs are in one place and I don't have to go from one channel app to another hunting them all down if I were to watch them via an app for each channel. Now, if AppleTV allowed me to create a script that makes me my own "Lauri" channel programmer and puts all my favorite shows in one place to watch one after the other when I get the time, THAT would be something I would love.
Yes, definitely not the simple math I came up with.. wouldn't we all be so lucky.
That makes sense.. thanks for all the info. appreciated!
By the way, i don't know about apple taking 30%. They can just go to their competitors like amazon, google, roku... etc
I don't think the 30% ios app store fee is going to fly here.
I thought podcasts were already free.
I any case it seems you want somewhat more than what I described for $5/month.
Because people love to give Apple the run around and make them feel like they have to prove themselves worthy. We all know just about anything Apple release these days is a tremendous success so I say just agree to the terms laid out by Apple and watch the revenue flow in.
There are many options out there right now..I think Apple is in no rush to push out a product that they feel is incomplete or not to their vision. Adding a tuner would be an added cost, change the engineering/form of the product and would more than likely require a rewrite of the Apple TV OS/Interface. As you already said..the product is already out there..a Satellite box. Why make another Satellite type box? Right now we are just guessing what it will be like, no one really knows yet. who knows maybe it will be slightly different than OTA in the way of of commercials? Less? Shorter?. I am assuming most of us here are a bit more technically savvy than the masses who want no part of climbing up to put up an antenna. I don't know and am just guessing..But I assume the majority of people who would or could afford to buy an AppleTV get their local channels via Cable or Sattelite at the moment.
If Apple takes over the cable business... watch them just become another TWC XD
Well, at least they'd have nicer tech.
Well, at least they'd have nicer tech.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
...which are 3 somethings we already expect from the next generation
TV. If it rolls out with no new hardware, no changes to engineering and no adjustments to the OS/Interface, that model of TV is already launched... for years now. Adding an upgrade A chip or storage or RAM will be an added cost. Adding an app store will likely require a change in engineering and even more likely require a rewrite in the OS interface. And so on. If all of that is going to stay the same, why do we need a new TV 4?Because adding a cheap port & part brings much greater utility to this little box AND, more importantly, for many/most prospective users it bypasses the need to negotiate contracts with every local network station in the land. If the holdup for going to market is the wait on such negotiations- as implied by post #1 of this thread- weaving in the tuner option resolves the problem for many/most and brings the product to market... so Apple can make money on it and so that other desirable features like an app store can mobilize third party players to ramp up their support.
Why add Apple Pay to iDevices? That required added cost, changes in engineering and OS/Interface updates. A product to use credit to pay for things was already out there- the credit card. Why make another credit card-type payment system?
Why add USB-C to Macs? That required added cost, changes in engineering and OS updates. A product to connect third party devices to Macs was already out there- USB, thunderbolt, ethernet, etc. Why implement another physical interface system?
Why add A9s to upcoming iDevices? Existing A8s already run every single app available just fine.
Why add Skylake to upcoming Macs? Existing Intel chips run every single app available just fine.
Shall I go on?
There are some among us who wants one box to rule them all for simplicity, not having to switch from one box to another or one UI to another to access another batch of channels or programming.
There are some among us who wants a magical new UI search feature to be able to search across all available (app) services and/or channels to find the desired programming or video, which doesn't "just work" as well if some of the sources of programming are accessible only via other boxes.
This thread is about including locals in the new
TV offering, so conceptually we are not accepting that we simply keep getting them via Cable or Satt as we do now. Instead we assume them into the new TV. To get them in there, it's either streaming all of them (which requires wooing deals with all of the individual stations) or Apple could build in a cheap jack and tuner to make them work with the signals already being broadcast for free by those same stations (no new contracts or deals or added compensation to those stations required). Besides bypassing the legal hurdle, this also means that there would be at least a handful of channels- those that tend to have the most popular programming on them for most people- available even when broadband is down (such as in a storm); in other words, these could be the only, true "cord cutter" channels in the offering, as one wouldn't even need broadband to get them (if they can receive OTA signals where they are). And again, all of the programming watched from the most popular networks would not eat any broadband bandwidth if they can be accessed OTA, so they wouldn't work against any broadband caps either. IMO, that's pretty compelling reasons right there to add a little hardware to a new box form and update the OS to take advantage of it... at least as compelling relative to this product's purpose as adding Apple Pay to iDevices or USB-C to Macs.BUT, if it's too much for Apple to build in an OTA jack and tuner, another option would be to normalize that USB port already there and leave the hardware & software for OTA to a third party players like Elgato, which is pretty much exactly how it is with Macs. Macs don't have the port or the on-board software for local television OTA, but pick up a USB tuner & software from Elgato or similar and our Macs gain the functionality of a local network television without Apple having to do or add anything different in how they make Mac hardware or software: https://www.elgato.com/en/eyetv/eyetv-diversity
Last edited:
I mean... why not? TiVo exists still. Rumors previously were a device that would be a cable box for Time Warner... a device that's provider-agnostic and stand alone would be a pretty big deal. And the form wouldn't have to change much... the DirecTV Genie main boxes are rather small, have 5 tuners and a large hard drive. And the slave boxes to the main are only as wide and tall as the ports on the back still.
...which are 3 somethings we already expect from the next generation
Because adding a cheap port & part brings much greater utility to this little box AND, more importantly, for many/most prospective users it bypasses the need to negotiate contracts with every local network station in the land. If the holdup for going to market is the wait on such negotiations- as implied by post #1 of this thread- weaving in the tuner option resolves the problem for many/most and brings the product to market... so Apple can make money on it and so that other desirable features like an app store can mobilize third party players to ramp up their support.
Why add Apple Pay to iDevices? That required added cost, changes in engineering and OS/Interface updates. A product to use credit to pay for things was already out there- the credit card. Why make another credit card-type payment system?
Why add USB-C to Macs? That required added cost, changes in engineering and OS updates. A product to connect third party devices to Macs was already out there- USB, thunderbolt, ethernet, etc. Why implement another physical interface system?
Why add A9s to upcoming iDevices? Existing A8s already run every single app available just fine.
Why add Skylake to upcoming Macs? Existing Intel chips run every single app available just fine.
Shall I go on?
There are some among us who wants one box to rule them all for simplicity, not having to switch from one box to another or one UI to another to access another batch of channels or programming.
There are some among us who wants a magical new UI search feature to be able to search across all available (app) services and/or channels to find the desired programming or video, which doesn't "just work" as well if some of the sources of programming are accessible only via other boxes.
This thread is about including locals in the new
BUT, if it's too much for Apple to build in an OTA jack and tuner, another option would be to normalize that USB port already there and leave the hardware & software for OTA to a third party players like Elgato, which is pretty much exactly how it is with Macs. Macs don't have the port or the on-board software for local television OTA, but pick up a USB tuner & software from Elgato or similar and our Macs gain the functionality of a local network television without Apple having to do or add anything different in how they make Mac hardware or software: https://www.elgato.com/en/eyetv/eyetv-diversity
Man this was a long post.
Apple's discussions with ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox for its much-rumored streaming TV service are gaining momentum, according to the New York Post. The report claims that Apple has enlisted networks to negotiate with local TV stations on their behalf, and the networks are said to be close to securing those rights with affiliate groups such as Tribune and Sinclair.
Networks are reportedly telling affiliates that they will be able to share the revenue generated from Apple's streaming TV service if they offer their feeds on the platform. The inclusion of local TV stations is important for the success of Apple's cable-cutter service, expected to launch in the fall for devices including iPhone, iPad and Apple TV. The service is speculated to cost between $10 and $40 per month.Disney and CBS will likely be among the first networks to reach a deal with Apple for its à-la-carte streaming TV service, according to the report, although some sticking points remain in the negotiations. Cable channels such as Discovery and ESPN are also expected to be included in the subscription-based service, which is rumored to include a skinny bundle of around 25 channels.
Article Link: Apple Enlists Networks to Negotiate With Local Affiliates in Streaming TV Talks
Just need live NFL games on ATV. Set it up like MLBtv app. I live outside of my teams viewing area. Just want to watch my team. No I don't/won't do Direct TV.
No, the point of "cable cutting" is to 1) pay for only what you use and to a lesser extent 2) have more control over what comes into your house (speaking as a parent here).
As at least one other commenter said, the whole idea of "channels" and "networks" is pretty archaic anyway. I'd prefer to be able to pay for the specific shows I want to see (case in point: I buy Doctor Who from iTunes rather than upgrade my cable package to get BBC America - I get episodes within hours of US broadcast, which I probably wouldn't have watched live, and with no commercials), thereby encouraging the producers and distributors to make more shows like that than to subsidize the stuff I don't like but that gets bundled in to a "package".
I want this too. But I live inside my MLB team territory so local blackout BS is really preventing me from doing this. They used to have a separate package you could buy from your cable provider to stream local games but they took it all away w/o explanation a few years ago.
the fact that apple seems to be putting so much emphasis on streaming live tv has me concerned. i think on-demand is the best model. i understand that some ppl like to watch live (sports, award shows, etc). but, the hbo on-demand streaming model has shown that things can be made available at the same time as live with the on-demand format. it will be a real shame if some content is made available only to people that watch live.
The real breakthrough will only happen when you can buy a monthly pass for a channel without the need for a cable subscription to make it work. That depends on the TV channels taking a leap of faith that this will generate additional revenue streams rather than kill off their cable revenues.