I don't need ESPN. I just need live NFL games. I get MLB & NHL. Netflix, Hulu, PBS, & CBS. I'm good once live NFL becomes available.
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 Frustrated by Inability to Reach Deals With TV Programmers for Television Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, they don't use child labor or have to deploy suicide nets.
Probably because even adding an ESPN bundle would kill cable.
I found this graph showing cable's yoy growth is negative. http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-tv-subscribers-plunging-2015-8
I've heard from a lot of people the only reason they have cable is sports. If Apple was to stream the broadcast networks (abc, nbc, fox, etc) and offer an ESPN bundle that would kill cable.
My principles of cord cutting:
- It must either be commercial-free, or have a commercial-free option, except for minimal internal content cross-promotion which does not interrupt the main content.
- It must be priced based on the volume of content available and the value of that content, and not the number of "channels" available.
- It must have an tvOS app.
Between Hulu, Netflix, HBO, and MLB.tv, I don't think I'm missing much. Really the only pieces missing are Showtime content and CBS content. The latter I am not interested in at all, and the former is nice but not really worth the cost today imo.
Also, people keep harking on live tv (other than sports, I get why live is important for sports). What is so important about non-sports live tv? Instead of live tv, an app like netflix or hulu could just throw you into a randomly picked episode or movie, about 10-20% in so it seems like channel surfing. Instead of being random, it could use a algorithm that looks at your history to predict what you would like.
- It must either be commercial-free, or have a commercial-free option, except for minimal internal content cross-promotion which does not interrupt the main content.
- It must be priced based on the volume of content available and the value of that content, and not the number of "channels" available.
- It must have an tvOS app.
Between Hulu, Netflix, HBO, and MLB.tv, I don't think I'm missing much. Really the only pieces missing are Showtime content and CBS content. The latter I am not interested in at all, and the former is nice but not really worth the cost today imo.
Also, people keep harking on live tv (other than sports, I get why live is important for sports). What is so important about non-sports live tv? Instead of live tv, an app like netflix or hulu could just throw you into a randomly picked episode or movie, about 10-20% in so it seems like channel surfing. Instead of being random, it could use a algorithm that looks at your history to predict what you would like.
Apple is notoriously greedy too, so both parties are not backing up. Cable providers ARE the content creators now so they have leverage. Even if they would get others they will not get HBO and Netflix and the service will be crippled.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Here's my guess at the problem...
Apple wants $39.95 pricing
Apple wants 30% right off the top.
$39.95 times 70% = $27.96 to be divided among the 30-40 channels Apples wants in their package.
Meanwhile you have CBS pricing all-access at $6/month. Other channels are going to want something comparable to a "free" channel. $27.96/6 = about 4.66 channels getting what they want/need.
And if CBS is "too greedy" $27.96/$4 = only about 7 channels.
$27.96/35 channels = about 80 cents (that's CENTS) per channel.
I completely get why we want all television to cost nothing (or next to it). I get why Apple wants all of the television it wants to serve up to cost about 80 cents per channel while taking the lions share of the revenues in the package... far more than ANY of the channels). But why do the channel owners want to give it all away so cheap? And if you know the costs of television production, HOW could they give it all away so cheap even if they wanted to further enrich Apple?
And even if we can answer those with something other than the "well I'll just pirate it then" (which would be the "better deal" all the way down to 1 cent per channel) or "but Netflix..." (which is really NOT the same), why don't the broadband providers who are also the cableTV providers that would be so hurt by Apple taking all this revenue from them make up for their losses with higher broadband fees "for high bandwidth users like video streamers" and/or tighten those caps and tier the broadband pricing?
Apple wants $39.95 pricing
Apple wants 30% right off the top.
$39.95 times 70% = $27.96 to be divided among the 30-40 channels Apples wants in their package.
Meanwhile you have CBS pricing all-access at $6/month. Other channels are going to want something comparable to a "free" channel. $27.96/6 = about 4.66 channels getting what they want/need.
And if CBS is "too greedy" $27.96/$4 = only about 7 channels.
$27.96/35 channels = about 80 cents (that's CENTS) per channel.
I completely get why we want all television to cost nothing (or next to it). I get why Apple wants all of the television it wants to serve up to cost about 80 cents per channel while taking the lions share of the revenues in the package... far more than ANY of the channels). But why do the channel owners want to give it all away so cheap? And if you know the costs of television production, HOW could they give it all away so cheap even if they wanted to further enrich Apple?
And even if we can answer those with something other than the "well I'll just pirate it then" (which would be the "better deal" all the way down to 1 cent per channel) or "but Netflix..." (which is really NOT the same), why don't the broadband providers who are also the cableTV providers that would be so hurt by Apple taking all this revenue from them make up for their losses with higher broadband fees "for high bandwidth users like video streamers" and/or tighten those caps and tier the broadband pricing?
Content creators do not want to nor can they work straight with Apple unless they have contracts that allow this. All the money in the world won't get a content creator to risk a money generating machine they already have in place.
TV is just a mess. I am sure it will get fixed in the next 100 years or so.
So you watch every program on Netflix or Hulu or HBO or whatever you do subscribe to? $40 for a bunch of channels is not a bad deal these days. The only true a la carte service is iTunes and AppleTV. Everything else falls short of content or user experience in some way but most people also think Apple charges too much for shows and movies.
My point is we will never feel like we're getting our dollar's worth for any kind of subscription TV / movie service.
They do have the right but no one is offering it. You're proposing anti-competitive competition. You can regulate competition but you cannot force it by telling businesses how to do business.
I think cable companies are in denial about the pent up anger of their customers. I bought a new house 5 miles from my old house and spent several hours on the phone with Comcast because the bundle that I had wasn't available 5 miles away. In actuality it was, but I had to pay $9 more a month for the same thing I was getting 5 miles away.
The reality is that I only watch sports and sci-fi, and wife only watches a small handful of channels. But to get the sports I have to get the "Extreme" package with all the crap I don't want.
When the time comes that I can stick it to the cable company, they will get my full wrath.
The reality is that I only watch sports and sci-fi, and wife only watches a small handful of channels. But to get the sports I have to get the "Extreme" package with all the crap I don't want.
When the time comes that I can stick it to the cable company, they will get my full wrath.
And Hulu shows air 1 day or more later than TV. That's fine for a sitcom but that's not going to work so well for the big season finale that everyone has already seen except for Hulu subscribers.
Content creators are also probably worried. Allowing TV channels to be streamed freely puts them in direct competition with YouTube and other online websites. 24 Hour news channel like Fox or CNN would become about as relevant as online newspapers.
I don't think price is the issue. Most channels make their revenue from Advertising and Cable revenue is very, very small (from what I understand). I see it more of a "change" and contractual issue. The networks don't want ala carte because it's going to kill their crap channels... which still make Ad Revenue because if it's out there, some people will watch it and they will be able to sell ads for it. As for contractual issues, I'm thinking there's contracts with Cable giants, and there's contracts between networks and production companies that all come into play.
So I think it's just a matter of complexity and resistance from the industry to change that's fueling most of this. Hopefully we'll see some movement soon. I know I'd like to dump my cable company.
I don't understand. If Dish Network can provide a basic service with basic channels for only $50/month, why can't Apple? If my local cable provider can do the same for $35/mo with basic channels, why can't Apple? What is Apple doing differently than companies like Cox and Dish that is making this so difficult?
Everyone is frustrated with the networks. Basically they are dying, the majority of new customers would rather stream and don't want to pay nearly as much as networks are used to getting paid, hence why Netlflix, Amazon, and others are making their owns content now.
Exactly...any deal that means less money to the content providers will go nowhere.
The whole industry needs to be blown up and Apple doesn't want to do it. Apple needs to license, produce and bid for content and bring all of it Netflix style to Apple TV
I'd imagine Apple could be willing to pay the channels if they're making below a certain amount from subscribers.