Apple Frustrated by Inability to Reach Deals With TV Programmers for Television Service

[mantan]

That's a slipper

Sure everyone here seems to think they know what the customer wants.

But reality is, even when cable subs are going down its still a profitable business. And as long as it stays that way they will put their foot down.

If apple can persuade content creators, that's a different story. And it's unclear why they can't (or don't wanna) do that. As long as they don't offer content, they aren't in direct competition. So maybe the prefer being a platform?
And what kind of content do they want to offer? They want to seek the Netflix crowd? I'm not sure Apple likes them, I tried Netflix but didn't like it...

It's because content providers get a steady stream of content from the networks that are sold on cable bundles.

Finding an alternative revenue stream only works if it doesn't risk that main source of revenue. Think of it this way, would your business open up a new line of business if it encouraged your current customers to leave and pay less? Probably not.

Trying to get customers to pay for a separate delivery model that provides the same revenue to content creators is a tough trick. (As Apple is finding out.)

In the music industry change was forced by piracy. Content creators realized there stuff was going out for 'nothing' and was happy to for Apple to take in so they could get 'something'...even though it was less than what they got before. No such pressure exists in the TV world. Yeah, there is a growing number of cord cutters...but they are a source irritation, not full out pain.
[doublepost=1453240386][/doublepost]That's a slipper

Sure everyone here seems to think they know what the customer wants.

But reality is, even when cable subs are going down its still a profitable business. And as long as it stays that way they will put their foot down.

If apple can persuade content creators, that's a different story. And it's unclear why they can't (or don't wanna) do that. As long as they don't offer content, they aren't in direct competition. So maybe the prefer being a platform?
And what kind of content do they want to offer? They want to seek the Netflix crowd? I'm not sure Apple likes them, I tried Netflix but didn't like it...

It's because content providers get a steady stream of content from the networks that are sold on cable bundles.

Finding an alternative revenue stream only works if it doesn't risk that main source of revenue. Think of it this way, would your business open up a new line of business if it encouraged your current customers to leave and pay less? Probably not.

Trying to get customers to pay for a separate delivery model that provides the same revenue to content creators is a tough trick. (As Apple is finding out.)

In the music industry change was forced by piracy. Content creators realized there stuff was going out for 'nothing' and was happy to for Apple to take in so they could get 'something'...even though it was less than what they got before. No such pressure exists in the TV world. Yeah, there is a growing number of cord cutters...but they are a source irritation, not full out pain.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I pay $70 a month for gigabit internet from uverse (internet only plan). That is pretty cheap by comparison.

That IS pretty good. See if it can stay there should an Apple start seriously biting into UVerse's cableTV subscription revenues.

That's one of our biggest delusions in this dream- we think Broadband will remain static WHILE an Apple eats up the broadband-providers CableTV revenues. It's a HOT dream but put yourself in Uverse or Comcast, etc's shoes: Apple's service completely relies on the broadband pipes you control:

• Let Apple just have all that business or
• make up for it with higher broadband prices and/or tighter tiers and/or
• you (counter)offering the same bundle as Apple plus a couple of other juicy channels Apple chooses to leave out for the same or less price (and no impact on your broadband quota).

It all looks fantastic from our own (consumer) perspective. But it needs to look just as fantastic from the other end of the chain. Who takes the hit to deliver everything we want at a big fat discount. Since we know that will NOT be Apple and we know that the broadband provider can easily get theirs by having a monopoly/duopoly on local broadband, who is going to take the hit to deliver that big fat discount? Who's left? And then think about how they keep cranking out the new stuff we do want at 70%, 80%, 90% off what they make now.

When I'm dreaming this dream, as soon as I look at it from the other players perspectives or as soon as I do that math, I always wake up... realizing it was just a dream.

 

[yossi]

How was google so easily able to get all the channels for their TV service on fiber?

 

[Lone Deranger]

If there was one company that could break the power companies have, I was hoping it would be Apple. '

Too bad

Steve Jobs? No problem! Tim Cook however......

 

[oneMadRssn]

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?

I like how you're trying to break it down economically. However, I think your emphasis on channels is misplaced. What is a channel but a fictional bucket of content?

Some channels make absolutely no original valuable content - they just show shows and movies made by others, usually their parent, or add very minimal commentary to existing content and aren't worth anything in streaming (e.g., tv land, fxx, mtv2, nick2, nicktoons, etc.). Other channels have a great deal of very valuable original content and have some value in streaming (e.g., amc, discovery, tbs, etc.).

I think the channel differentiation is fiction, a hold-over from the old A/B cable days, and a total anachronism today. Take HBO for example, which has 7 "channels": HBO, HBO2, HBO Signature, HBO Family, HBO Comedy, HBO Zone, and HBO Latino. However, all of this content is available streaming under one service with no differentiation based on channel. It's not $15/month for 7 channels, it's $15/month for a whole bunch of awesome original content and some decent movies.

Likewise, Netflix is one service for $10/month. But Netflix could easily be as many as 10 channels if it were on cable. (e.g., Netflix, Netflix2, Netflix Comedy, Netflix Romance, Netflix Westerns, NetflixTV, Netflix Oldies, etc.).

I think this is how content should be valued. HBO has many dozens of original series, tons of comedy specials, tons of excellent documentaries, and some good movies. It's worth $15/month for access to that content.

Netflix has rights to a ton of movies, good, bad, and hilariously bad. Netflix also has close a dozen original series now. It's worth $10 for access to that content.

This means for whatever deal Apple gets for $30-$40/month, it has to have about double the quantity or quality of HBO, or four times the quantity or quality of Netflix. That's quite a high bar.

 

[mantan]

Dish has a cable broadband bypass into our homes. And that $50 month all-inclusive package with DVR is quite a bargain BTW. I actually anticipate that as a showdown vs. this Apple package: 190 channels with a HD DVR for $50/month vs. Apples 30-40 channels (and you know they're going to leave at least 1 or 2 important to you out of their choices) for $30-$40 per month. OR, "for $10 or $20 more dollars, I can get another 150 channels" (the value reverse of the "I don't want to pay for 200 channels I never watch" argument).

Cable doesn't have to pay Cable to use the pipe, nor is Cable pinched by Cable for using the pipe.

An Apple subscription service is entirely dependent on the very same pipe owned by the competitors from which they would take all this TV business. Furthermore Apples wants their 30% right off the top AND a low price which means that the providers of content have to take a big hit to further enrich Apple. And the video side of media doesn't want to end up like their music-side cousins.

Somewhere on this site there is quote from Les Moonves about this topic from 2 or 3 years ago in which he says something along these lines: "the problem with Apple's subscription service is that they want everything." If you do some some searches you can find links showing what Apple is trying to do:

• take the 30% right off the top, pinching the partners providing the content Apple wants to sell
• take a slice of the channels commercial revenues, pinching the partners providing the content Apple wants to sell
• trade consumer data for better deals (ala Google, FaceBook).

Do searches and you find all 3 of those in play.

Easy solution: let capitalism work. Launch the service and let each channel charge whatever it wants for it's channel. If they are "too greedy" they don't make money. Then we consumers can vote with our wallets. Everyone would want to be in on that offering and we can strike the actual balance of al-a-carte between sellers & buyers. If Apple insists on it's 30% right off the top, each channel just adds that onto their pricing.

Will it ever happen? Of course not. We already have great cuts at al-a-carte in the iTunes store. The problem with that? The masses don't want to pay those prices for the individual shows enough to bring that al-a-carte "future" to replace the "as is." Instead, we delude ourselves into

• thinking there is some (legal) way to get something towards Netflix pricing for all of the first-run productions from all of the networks AND
• give Apple their 30% AND
• have the broadband providers not make up for their losses in higher broadband-only rates or tiers AND...

Way too much real talk and common sense in this post.

I don't get where people think Apple is going to get into the game and they are going to spend less money and get what they want. The math doesn't work. The channels you get now are discounted because they are included as part of a bundle. (law of large numbers at work, just like insurance). If you pay for what the channels you want in a skinny bundle, it requires more money to make up for lost guaranteed subscriptions and ad revenue. Oh, and Apple wants their 30% as well. It's no surprise Apple is frustrated, the math doesn't work.

But way too many customers let their blind love for Apple and hatred of cable and satellite companies (who actually try to toe the line in reigning in network costs) make them believe in the unicorn vision of a $35 skinny bundle that's going to give them 'just the channels they watch'.

 

[malexandria]

I'm not mad at them. Unlike the record industry. The TV/Movie biddness works. Why give up their control and power just appease Apple? They probably saw what iTunes did to the record industry and are leary of doing a similar deal.

 

[mantan]

Dish has a cable broadband bypass into our homes. And that $50 month all-inclusive package with DVR is quite a bargain BTW. I actually anticipate that as a showdown vs. this Apple package: 190 channels with a HD DVR for $50/month vs. Apples 30-40 channels (and you know they're going to leave at least 1 or 2 important to you out of their choices) for $30-$40 per month. OR, "for $10 or $20 more dollars, I can get another 150 channels" (the value reverse of the "I don't want to pay for 200 channels I never watch" argument).

Cable doesn't have to pay Cable to use the pipe, nor is Cable pinched by Cable for using the pipe.

An Apple subscription service is entirely dependent on the very same pipe owned by the competitors from which they would take all this TV business. Furthermore Apples wants their 30% right off the top AND a low price which means that the providers of content have to take a big hit to further enrich Apple. And the video side of media doesn't want to end up like their music-side cousins.

Somewhere on this site there is quote from Les Moonves about this topic from 2 or 3 years ago in which he says something along these lines: "the problem with Apple's subscription service is that they want everything." If you do some some searches you can find links showing what Apple is trying to do:

• take the 30% right off the top, pinching the partners providing the content Apple wants to sell
• take a slice of the channels commercial revenues, pinching the partners providing the content Apple wants to sell
• trade consumer data for better deals (ala Google, FaceBook).

Do searches and you find all 3 of those in play.

Easy solution: let capitalism work. Launch the service and let each channel charge whatever it wants for it's channel. If they are "too greedy" they don't make money. Then we consumers can vote with our wallets. Everyone would want to be in on that offering and we can strike the actual balance of al-a-carte between sellers & buyers. If Apple insists on it's 30% right off the top, each channel just adds that onto their pricing.

Will it ever happen? Of course not. We already have great cuts at al-a-carte in the iTunes store. The problem with that? The masses don't want to pay those prices for the individual shows enough to bring that al-a-carte "future" to replace the "as is." Instead, we delude ourselves into

• thinking there is some (legal) way to get something towards Netflix pricing for all of the first-run productions from all of the networks AND
• give Apple their 30% AND
• have the broadband providers not make up for their losses in higher broadband-only rates or tiers AND...

Way too much real talk and common sense in your post.

I don't get where people think Apple is going to get into the game and they are going to spend less money and get what they want. The math doesn't work. The channels you get now are discounted because they are included as part of a bundle. (law of large numbers at work, just like insurance). If you pay for what the channels you want in a skinny bundle, it requires more money to make up for lost guaranteed subscriptions and ad revenue. Oh, and Apple wants their 30% as well. It's no surprise Apple is frustrated, the math doesn't work.

But way too many customers let their blind love for Apple and hatred of cable and satellite companies (who actually try to toe the line in reigning in network costs) make them believe in the unicorn vision of a $35 skinny bundle that's going to give them 'just the channels they watch'.

 

[MasterRyu2011]

I can understand why these tv companies are not trigger-happy about jumping into deals. TV is their bread and butter and they do not want to relinquish control to a 3rd party who may ultimately decide their fate. They want to do it on their own terms. Quite frankly, there is really nothing Apple can do about it.
[doublepost=1453241484][/doublepost]

Apple should start producing shows like Netflix and Amazon does. Then encourage independent producers to bring their shows to iTunes. There is no way they are going to win against cable companies at this moment. Once they established and provide streaming services make the AppleTV subsidized or free with a 2 year commitment. The new ATV is an expensive device to begin with and nobody is willing to sacrifice for a limited program. But once they have streaming service people might ditch Netflix.

Or Apple could just do nothing and focus on iphones, tablets, and computers and let the Netflix/Hulu's of the world worry about TV deals.

 

[koruki]

Apple: we want 30% of all profits
Cable company: No, how about 29%?
Apple: ARGH THE FRUSTRATIONNNNN!!

 

[mic j]

Just build in a beautiful OTA DVR Apple!

Doesn't work for those of us that cannot get OTA. I rent in a large metropolitan city with the signal in my apartment being weak with an indoor antenna and it is just not feasible to mount an outside antenna.

 

[macnylonguitar]

Former Apple engineer employee and one having seen these trends unfold.

We are in the midst of a paradigm shift, away from Cable TV (those ridiculous high costs, the old technology on so many levels, and the seeming locked in "tiers"), and going towards IPTV, and "a la carte" channel model. The industry is confused and scared.

I cut cable over a year ago and could not be happier with my bill, instead of being over 250 bucks per month, it is $75, with internet, Sling TV, Hulu and Netflix. (Still cannot watch certain shows due to these channels / networks being available only on Cable TV): USA Networks: Royal Pains, Colony, PBS Downton Abbey, BBC America (AMC just purchased) Doctor Who, etc.


So you have the old cable companies with their current infrastructure: TWC, Comcast, etc, have their old technology (MPEG-2, non IP), but did not have content, so TW goes out and gets content: Warner Bros, Turner, HBO, DC comics, etc. And then Comcast goes and buys Universal and all that content. These cable companies have that kind of money to buy content and then not have to share it.

But here's the rub Comcast, TWC, etc do not have a clue about IPTV, or modern technology, they are a joke.

Jimmy Iovine said something recently: Entertainment companies are clueless with technology, and tech companies are clueless about (culture), I would say creative content, etc.

Apple will and should use their money to get into the content media business, if they do not, they will be left in the cold. Apple has the talent, infrastructure and vision, but no content, no media.

He who has the media has the power, that simple. Apple go and buy something like Warner media division of Time Warner, it's the missing piece.

And, oh while you are at it, buy Adobe. When I was at Apple on the Final Cut team in 2001-2003, there was a pride, Apple making actual apps, software development.

Look around, Apple does not make apps anymore, really just the OS side. Any apps they do have were acquired and many are just a mess (FCP), Logic is not bad. Adobe knows how to make professional apps that people will use.

Pull a Disney, and acquire Adobe and let Adobe be Adobe, making great pro apps, (Don't make them be Apple). Disney lets ESPN be ESPN, Pixar be Pixar, etc.).

Apple you have a ton of money, billions, you have the tech infrastructure and a vision for what TV / entertainment could be (no more 6 remote controls), being one example.

You need the media, go buy it and get busy, before some other tech company or Cable company keeps buying the content before you do. The big studios are not dumb, they know they have the goods (the media content), but they suck at digital distribution and will continue to suck (Cable is still MPEG-2) for God's sake, they have no interest in modernizing or shaping the home digital media world.

Apple you could do it, what are waiting you for. Cut a check for billions for Warner (to start), and whatever billions for Adobe, and get back to quality software / application development, Please.

 

[Vicrooloo]

C'est la vie

Sayonara to my dreams of a la carte television service

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I like how you're trying to break it down economically. However, I think your emphasis on channels is misplaced. What is a channel but a fictional bucket of content?

Some channels make absolutely no original valuable content - they just show shows and movies made by others, usually their parent, or add very minimal commentary to existing content and aren't worth anything in streaming (e.g., tv land, fxx, mtv2, nick2, nicktoons, etc.).

We don't have a bunch of useless channels just because those who own them want more channels. They don't want to waste money paying something for programming that nobody watches. We have all the junk channels because they are able to show enough eyeballs watching them to make a profit on the commercials that run on them. And all that commercial-driven revenue is OPM that flows into the pot to pay for the production of the brand new original programming that we DO want to watch.

If there really were even 50 channels that absolutely no one watches, the "eyeball" count would be nill and thus no fools would want to run ads on such channels. With no revenues, all 50 would quickly die. Pick the junkiest of the junk channels and a good number of SOMEBODY is watching or there is some other kind of revenue stream (such as heavy infomercial sales) paying for the channel to exist. They are not in there to force them on the public.

And they do not exist for their theoretical 50 cents (200 channels/$100 per month) which is not actually paid to many of them (just in case anyone thinks otherwise).

I think this is how content should be valued. HBO has many dozens of original series, tons of comedy specials, tons of excellent documentaries, and some good movies. It's worth $15/month for access to that content.

That's YOUR judgement. I think that's great content too but I don't want to pay $15 for it. On the other hand, I'd pay $10-$15+ for my local sports channel Sun Sports for only Miami Heat games in HD. I'm guessing you wouldn't unless you're here in South Florida too.

Someone else- actually many someone else's- lives and breathes Kardashians. I wouldn't pay 1 cent for that (subjectively-judged) "junk" but my "junk" is someone else's treasure. And that is how we end up with channels we can subjectively judge total, worthless junk and yet those channels exist anyway. Why? Because enough "someone's" watch to sell enough commercials to make them profitable.

My personal opinion is that even Apple cannot pick an ideal 30 or 40 channels. Why? Because there's no such thing. My SunSports channel will matter a lot to people here in South Florida but if Apple included that in their 30 or 40, how many will gripe to no end about it's useless inclusion OR that their regional sports equivalent did not make the cut?

Get rid of that $15 HBO slice because I don't want it makes you unhappy. Get rid of Kardashian channels makes the multitudes of Kadashian fans unhappy. Etc. Apple cannot get this right. But I look forward to seeing them try and seeing how even "we" respond.

From my own perspective right now, that Dish $49.99 for 195 channels with DVR looks like a killer deal for "cheap" TV fans. If that includes 175 channels someone never wants to watch, they use Dish's DVR to block those 175 channels so that only the 20 channels they do want to watch show in the on-screen guide. Pair that with a pretty great DVR and an AppleTV for iTunes stuff and it seems like a pretty rich package. They have been offering 1 year of Netflix in that deal too. Let's watch for Apple to really compete with that.

 

[georgetang]

It won't be easy (already proven) for Apple to get the deal from TV Networks, Cable Networks and Content Producers to become an alternative to current CableTV/SatelliteTV, etc.

Even though, all these players are looking how cord cutters segment is growing, but still majority of their revenue comes from established MVPD (distributors like Comcast, AT&T/DirecTV, Dish, etc.).

Sure, what Apple is planning would be the future, unfortunately this time around, the luck won't fall to them. They had their run with Music Industry. So, most likely would be someone (company) new and small, and rapidly grow to become the next BIG Thing.

TV Networks, Cable Networks, Content Producers, even Hollywood worries if they partner with Apple, as they all see the consequences of what happened and where the Music industry is heading after working with Apple.

Same applies with Google.

Both Apple, Google have their own agenda.

Then, you all might think what about Netflix or Hulu.

Well, Netflix changed the status quo with their content providers (TV/Cable Networks & Content Producers), by producing their own "original" shows.

And Hulu is a join venture from selected TV Networks, and per business practice, they cannot compete with their business partner who does the distribution, therefore, they will never get "Live" TV content nor able to attract other TV networks to supply contents.

Yes, CBS is offering their streaming, but let's be serious, if every single TV Channel or Network starts offering their own subscription, how would subscribers keep up with all different accounts?

At the end of the day, it would comes back to an aggregator, MVPD but using new delivery method, Internet perhaps?

So, let's wait and see...

ESPN president John Skipper spoke with The Wall Street Journal in an interview this morning, revealing some insider details on Apple's struggle to establish deals with content providers for a streaming television service.

According to Skipper, Apple is "frustrated" by its ongoing inability to find a mutually advantageous way to work with programmers. Though no deals have been established, ESPN "continues" trying to work with Apple on some kind of partnership.

Skipper's comments are in line with recent rumors made by CBS CEO Les Moonves, who said Apple "pressed the hold button" on its streaming television plans after it was unable to establish the necessary deals. Rumors throughout 2015 suggested Apple was aiming to create a web-based television product that would offer a small bundle of channels for $30 to $40 per month.

Apple has been attempting to create some kind of television service since 2009, but the company has run into resistance from cable and content providers time and time again because of a reluctance to interrupt existing revenue streams and fundamentally shift the way cable is provided.

ESPN's deal with Sling TV, a service that offers streaming access to major cable channels, offers some insight into where Apple may be running into trouble establishing deals. There is an option in ESPN's contract with Sling TV that lets the deal be terminated should it cannibalize ESPN's core pay TV business, something Apple likely wouldn't have agreed to. Apple is also said to have run into trouble getting content providers to unbundle their channels.

While Skipper believes 2016 will see "further announcements" of different streaming packages from new companies, it is not likely Apple will be among them. The company's content struggles have caused it to put its streaming service on hold, with plans to instead focus on the tvOS App Store and its position as a platform that gives media companies tools to sell content directly to customers.

Article Link: Apple Frustrated by Inability to Reach Deals With TV Programmers for Television Service

 

[ToroidalZeus]

Of course it can. But if you are the owner of cable bandwidth, why do you do that to enrich another corporation? You are actually obligated to maximize profits for your shareholders. So you can't just nicely hand over the revenues to another company because you CAN reallocate your cable bandwidth usage for Apple to use it as broadband channel. Instead, you likely jack up the cost of broadband per "heavier bandwidth users like video streamers" and/or pinch the tiers but keep your cableTV bundle NOT counting against broadband usage.



Let me know when "eventually" gets here. And paired with the first point, even it gets here this Tuesday, the net result for us consumers is apparently:

• Smaller bundle of channels chosen for us by Apple
• Cheaper cable bill for that bundle of channels
• Higher broadband bill

NET result: more expense for less video viewing access. I suspect it won't be too long after "eventually" when we're longing for the good old days when we could spend only a little more than "today" to get 200 channels instead of 35. But we'll both see "eventually".

1st) Corporations aren't obligated to maximize profit for shareholders. That's a choice. (one that steve jobs didn't give a **** about FYI)
2nd) You seem like a glass half empty type of person. Broadband costs have been going down over time. Google Fiber is bringing competition into markets. I don't see this doomsday scenario.

 

[Robin4]

Apple should make Canada its test bed !

Starting March 2016 Cable provider have to offer a standard cable bundle for $25, and then offer channels piece meal as the user wants. It has been mandated by the CRTC (our version of the FCC).

Now our cable companies are as bad and consumer unfriendly as the states, so I'm sure they will manage to screw the customer regardless. However an opportunity is opening up in Canada. Channels will have to offer themselves piece meal.

Well, many here say that cable is well positioned to continue to function as a mafia-type of domination, then we may have to have the FCC take over and mandate a standard bundle of $20 or $25 of basic channels and if you want more you can pick and choose according what your taste and wallet allows. Canada has mandated it starting this in March. Why can't the FCC do the same?

 

[d21mike]

Apple: we want 30% of all profits
Cable company: No, how about 29%?
Apple: ARGH THE FRUSTRATIONNNNN!!

I have read Apple wants 30% a lot here. For "streaming apps" it is well known that they now only get 15% for HBO Now, Netflix, Hulu etc. Still a problem, but we need to stop quoting the misleading 30%.

Also, Apple needs to offer a better "experience". I expect it will not be cheaper. People that "cut the cord" do buy streaming apps like Netflix and Hulu so they are willing to pay a fair price for good content.

My son is on TWC and the additional cost for about 25 channels is $10 extra (+tax) on top of his Internet Cost. He then added 2.75 per month for a Cable Card. This is pretty cheap for LIVE TV on the Apple TV. He also needed to buy the HDHomeRun Prime and the Channels App to get this. I think the content will be available from multiple providers. The big savings can be in the recurring cost of hardwire. Also, with Hulu offering a NO Commercial Tier this is the big carrot that I think Apple needs to address.

 

[blut haus]

Well, they don't use child labor or have to deploy suicide nets.

Wow, that was wildly off topic.

 

[jdillings]

The hang up is obviously with Disney (who own the ESPN and ABC channels). Disney requires cable/satellite companies to carry ESPN on their lowest tier meaning Apple would have to force everyone to pay for ESPN which is the most expensive channel on cable/satellite (Disney is reportedly getting $6 per subscriber from cable/satellite companies with it increasing to $8 in 2018). Apple isn't going to go for this but Disney isn't going to sign a deal for its Disney channels or local ABC stations unless Apple also signs a deal for ESPN. So Apple is stuck between a rock and hard place.

 

[Carmenia83]

But still no Live sports...

Perfect!

 

[d21mike]

The hang up is obviously with Disney (who own the ESPN and ABC channels). Disney requires cable/satellite companies to carry ESPN on their lowest tier meaning Apple would have to force everyone to pay for ESPN which is the most expensive channel on cable/satellite (Disney is reportedly getting $6 per subscriber from cable/satellite companies with it increasing to $8 in 2018). Apple isn't going to go for this but Disney isn't going to sign a deal for its Disney channels or local ABC stations unless Apple also signs a deal for ESPN. So Apple is stuck between a rock and hard place.

This is not complete true. Verizon FIOS offers their Custom TV package where ESPN is in the Sports Add-on.
http://fios.verizon.com/fios-tv.html

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

The cable providers are notoriously greedy and out of touch with what people want. They insist on garbage bundling. One good channel with 10 other crap ones. Apple is going to need to use some of that famous cash reserve and invent us something entirely new. Go straight to the content creators.

I agree with the first sentence. But I rather pay a package than subscribe separately to all the channels I like, which will turn out to be more expensive.

 

[jyen]

Steve Jobs? No problem! Tim Cook however......

Seriously. Steve wouldn't have allowed this to happen. He would have forced them into making a deal.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I have read Apple wants 30% a lot here. For "streaming apps" it is well known that they now only get 15% for HBO Now, Netflix, Hulu etc. Still a problem, but we need to stop quoting the misleading 30%.

Here's one article that talks to this: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-tv-service-release-date-rumors-2015-7 Key quote from the article:

"That doesn't mean there aren't any obstacles moving forward. Apple is trying to force its notorious "30% tax" on TV partners too, meaning they would have to fork over 30% of the subscription fee to Apple if they buy it through the App Store, the Post reports."

Now, it's certainly true that this could be heresy or someone's guess but there's more than just this reference out there (and that could all be heresy or lots of someones guessing too) yet there's this great obstacle to get this done in spite of Apple quoting more TV units in homes than Dish Network's total subscriber base.

DISH is offering 3 years of 190 channels for $49.99/month and that includes a DVR which also has apps (and some of the offers have been throwing in Netflix for 1 year for free too). So if Apple's deal is not too rich and it looks at least as lucrative as whatever DISH is paying 190 channels AND Netflix, what's the holdup?

My guess is that the 30% off the top IS real and that's one of the big obstacles to getting a deal done. But that is a guess. Perhaps everyone just doesn't like Apple but loves DISH so much more that they'll give them about 150 additional channels vs. Apple's rumored bundle even with DISH including a DVR that makes it easy to block all the channels in that 190 that one would never want to watch? I'd also bet that Apple's 30-40 channels are all likely in that 190 channel list.