Apple did have that connection to Pixar years ago when Steve Jobs was still around. Perhaps Apple needs to strike up some sort of partnership with Disney.
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
Apple did have that connection to Pixar years ago when Steve Jobs was still around. Perhaps Apple needs to strike up some sort of partnership with Disney.
That's not my point. I'm not saying nobody watches those channels, I'm saying the channel itself brings nothing to the value table when it comes to a streaming model. When a streaming viewer wants to watch a particular show, they don't care at all what subchannel it was once shown on. For example, if someone wants to watch a Nickelodeon show, they don't care if it was first shown on Nick, NickJr, NickToons, NickTeen, or whatever. As long as the streaming service has the show, and it's associated with the Nick brand, that's all that matters. Likewise, another example, Seinfeld was shown on dozens of different channels all over the cable list, none of which matter to a streaming viewer that wants to watch Seinfeld. If someone doesn't have a show-centrist view, the channel doesn't matter so much as the genre. They want to watch MTV because they like that category of TV, whether it's on MTV1 or MTV2 or whatever - they can just select that category. The concept of channels is useless. Channels don't matter. Nickelodeon isn't worth more just because they have more channel numbers than Disney. Content is king - channels are just buckets for dividing that content.
I gave HBO for $15 and Netflix for $10 as objective examples because people are obviously willing to pay those prices due to the services' respective successes and because those prices seem fairly reflective of the quality/quantity score. Nobody cares about your personal opinion, nor my personal opinion. However, neither of us can deny the fact both services have many happy subscribers. Thus, they are really the only good benchmarks we have for what pricing per content content works. They will be what every attempt at streaming is judged against.
Yeah, it kind of sucks that the cable companies have such an iron grip on the industry but honestly an Apple television service is not a good deal if you ask me. You can get everything you need, minus sports, without having to pay for cable TV or an Apple television service.
The market will eventually fix all of this. Those of us who are cord cutters are just a little too far ahead of the game. Once more and more people get fed up with cable companies and cut the cord, issues like these will be resolved.
The market will eventually fix all of this. Those of us who are cord cutters are just a little too far ahead of the game. Once more and more people get fed up with cable companies and cut the cord, issues like these will be resolved.
Apple should just buy Logan from Marvel, problem solved! They will hold leverage over Hollywood
On the next Siri Remote, they should add Touch ID and put it up front were the microphone is (replacing it) and have the same microphone design instead of circle.. like the iPhone
Apple really needs to take this seriously, by adding features like: you watch a movie while eating and you want to filter the disgusting scenes
On the next Siri Remote, they should add Touch ID and put it up front were the microphone is (replacing it) and have the same microphone design instead of circle.. like the iPhone
Apple really needs to take this seriously, by adding features like: you watch a movie while eating and you want to filter the disgusting scenes
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OK, I can readily buy the "it's about shows, not channels" argument. But Apple has ALREADY taken best al-a-carte shot at that. We can already "subscribe" or buy/rent just the shows and not the whole channels in the iTunes store. Been able to do that for years now. Why hasn't that taken hold? Because we consumers don't want to pay for that.
I agree with your idea here. But Apple's already taken it's best shot at that. It didn't work. The Studios don't want to give away the most desirable shows for dirt cheap to enrich Apple OR give us consumers a big fat discount. They want to be profitable too.
I can buy this thinking too. But the "as is" has tens of millions of paying, apparently "happy" subscribers (because so many more are buying their television that way). Does sheer numbers of paying subscribers mean that the "as is" is far better than this "cord cutting", app-based model? I don't think so.
So yes, lots of people like HBO (streaming) at $15 and many more like Netflix at $10. But lots of people also love the Kardashians... or Sunsports for Heat games (here) or local channel 12 (here) for local news, etc.
I wish that there was a poll that would allow all of us Apple diehards to objectively pick the 35 channels we must have in this Apple package and see what we end up with. I would bet BIG that we end up with votes for about 170 channels, meaning that the lot of us could not even be objectively unified enough to already identify the 35 or so that Apple will hand down to us as THE group of ideal channels.
To the earlier point, I'd love to see another poll of favorite shows that must be delivered through this new Apple replacement "future". Once again, I think the diversity of that list would be ENORMOUS... even among us diehard Apple fans.
Thus, back to point: I think this is a fun dream that Apple can't deliver no matter what. I don't think they can pick a skinny bundle of channels that will have the channels we must have as a group to be happy. I don't think they can bundle up a hand-picked selection of "best" shows and include what we all think are the best shows. And if they can't, we find ourselves right back at the same spot of arguing: "why do I have to pay $40/month for a bunch of shows/channels I never watch?" or "Now I have to pay Apple $40" AND pay ______, _______ and _______ to get what I used to get in one bundle via <cable/satt provider> for $12 less.
I've never ever said this before but the only reason this is happening is because we don't have Steve Jobs anymore. Mr. Jobs had the ability to make people say "Yes" even when they didn't really want to. He was a master closer and we will miss him dearly when it comes to making deals with various companies and especially the entertainment industry.
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
You can disagree with me all you want but I believe this to be 100% to be true!!!
How do you know it's a bunch of channels you don't want if you've never seen any of them?
Isn't that like a truck driver giving someone an opinion of how to fly an airplane? A literary critic who hates books he refuses to read? If you have no experience in that area, what makes you think you are qualified to have an opinion about what's good or bad?
Think about that. I wish a lot more people here would also do that before posting.
Okay, the way I see it:
Television will die in five years if they don't follow Apple's vision. Not that it's up to Apple to safe television but they (the channels) should be on their knees right now, beg for a platform that competes with Youtube. Apple can build that and give an audience from the start.
This is all about the wrong people making wrong decisions to save their own ass and income. Sad to see that their only way of earning money right now is provide online content with poor developed apps and killing it with advertisement. I'm sure that my generation is sick of reality tv and would love to pay to make a trip back to memory lane on a solid platform with quality content.
Television will die in five years if they don't follow Apple's vision. Not that it's up to Apple to safe television but they (the channels) should be on their knees right now, beg for a platform that competes with Youtube. Apple can build that and give an audience from the start.
This is all about the wrong people making wrong decisions to save their own ass and income. Sad to see that their only way of earning money right now is provide online content with poor developed apps and killing it with advertisement. I'm sure that my generation is sick of reality tv and would love to pay to make a trip back to memory lane on a solid platform with quality content.
Last edited:
I recommend you read this. It also talks about the Cable Providers get a much larger piece of the pie from HBO.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 moreTV 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.
http://www.cultofmac.com/319040/apple-only-takes-15-cut-on-hbo-now-netflix-and-hulu-subscriptions/
Regarding your other comment about DISH. I agree. I do not have a problem with larger bundles at the same price (or lower). Where we my differ is I see the DVR as becoming obsolete. There is NO need for a DVR if everything is ON DEMAND and no commercials. If you think that can not happen just look at Hulu with the no commercial option. You pay $12 per month for a LOT of current connect which you can watch the next day without commercials and dealing with the FF to skip them. This one thing significantly reduced my need for a DVR. I would generally only watch the next day anyway. Of course Original Content from Netflix, Amazon, HBO etc. all come without commercials. No one would even consider a need for a DVR when you have those. For me Apple has to be thinking along these lines. Maybe Live content with commercials but everything else with no commercials. This is what is needed for a better experience.
I haven't gone through all the comments here, but I think Apple will have an almost insurmountable challenge to get cable companies to let go of the system they created to make money. Sure, more people are cutting the cord, or never even plugging into cable in the first place, but there is a really big market of people who don't think about paying for cable to have what can be an almost unlimited offering of shows and movies.
Ideally, what I would like to see is the ability to pick just what I want for channels, and not have each one cost $10 or $15, as there are probably about 20 channels the family watches on a regular basis, including local stations. Using HBO's model of $15 a month, scaled across even 10 other stations, would quickly make my current $200 / month for 125gb / 25gb internet, phone and 400 channels of cable seem like the cheap option.
Maybe the best way to approach paying for tv would be to charge based on usage? The problem is that this would be great for people who watch little tv, bad for heavy users or big families with multiple tv's. It would also cause issues for content providers - which may just be a good thing in the end. We're all currently helping to fund the high salaries in professional sports, but if you take away the money that those people who don't watch ESPN / B1G Network, etc., would have contributed in the current packaged deals, things would have to change.
Ideally, what I would like to see is the ability to pick just what I want for channels, and not have each one cost $10 or $15, as there are probably about 20 channels the family watches on a regular basis, including local stations. Using HBO's model of $15 a month, scaled across even 10 other stations, would quickly make my current $200 / month for 125gb / 25gb internet, phone and 400 channels of cable seem like the cheap option.
Maybe the best way to approach paying for tv would be to charge based on usage? The problem is that this would be great for people who watch little tv, bad for heavy users or big families with multiple tv's. It would also cause issues for content providers - which may just be a good thing in the end. We're all currently helping to fund the high salaries in professional sports, but if you take away the money that those people who don't watch ESPN / B1G Network, etc., would have contributed in the current packaged deals, things would have to change.
When it comes to channels like ESPN, they are locked into HUGE contracts with the NFL and other sports leagues. Those contracts were negotiated with certain assumptions: subscriber numbers via the cable/satellite companies multiplied by $ per subscriber plus advertising revenue. ESPN for example is putting a toe in with Sling TV but they must be leery of diluting their per subscriber revenue and they have contracts with cable/satellite companies based on subscribers per cable/satellite company.
I think this will sort itself out but there are some very nervous people in the TV industry.
I think this will sort itself out but there are some very nervous people in the TV industry.
I am also frustrated by Apple's inability to reach deals with TV programmers for television service
Sounds like they should do their own content. They have the cash, they have the draw, they have the balls...
Don't care. This service sounds like crap from what we've heard. No way I'm paying for something like ESPM when I'll never watch it.
[doublepost=1453246041][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1453246041][/doublepost]
99$ a month.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I make no argument that Cable companies are NOT greedy. They are. I get that. I can dream this same dream as hard as anyone else. I just don't see Apple as some kind of white knight here, nor as "less greedy". It's just subbing out 1 middleman, for-profit, very-very-rich corporation for another. BUT, that one getting subbed out still owns the pipe through which Apple's replacement solution flows and they won't just roll over and let Apple have it when they don't have to do that. So I really see this as letting Apple in and giving them a big cut that ultimately we consumers will cover. If we don't, then only the player at the other end can deliver us the big discounts in the dream- that is, the content producers (taking the big hit). Apple will not and Cable/Broadband doesn't have to.
And sure, articles exist that say Apple is taking only 15% from those two. But other articles say that Apple wants 30%. So which is it and which will it be? If an article by a group of Apple fans that banner themselves "cult of Mac" is true and Cable takes 50% off the top but Apple's deal is only 15% (or 30%) why hasn't the whole industry jumped all over the much better deal for them?
Cook just recently announced "18 million Apple TVs". If there's really 18 million out there in use, that's more boxes ready for some kind of video subscription service than all DISH network subscribers. So if DISH can get hundreds of channel/show owners to sign on for deals as cheap as $50 with DVR and free Netflix for 3 years "price locked" why is Apple having so much trouble getting their apparently much more lucrative deal done (per "cult of Mac" reporting)?
When we think that through it implies that something is missing here. When smart business people turn down apparently dramatic cost savings, they're not doing it because they are fools. So what else is in play that would be motivating them to keep paying the implied 50% instead of jumping on Apple's big discount of only 15% (or 30%)? And I wonder if "cult of mac" facts are kind of like the "facts" so readily slung around here?.. stuff like surveys where apparently "99.9%" side with whatever Apple is saying/doing" and "nobody can see the 4K difference" (which used to be "the 1080p difference" when Apple clung to 720p) or "nobody wants bigger-screen phones" (until Apple rolled out bigger-screen phones), etc.
My article reference was objective press. Yours was "Cult of Mac". The latter may be just as objective but I'd trust Business Insider objectivity over any entity that is pretty much devoted Apple press.
Last edited:
I disagree with this. If you are talking about Movies (buy/rent) then I agree because we no longer have DVD Stores on every corner renting movies. This model works good (not great). They need availability to be much quicker and they should offer a rent to buy option (like with music sells where you buy 1 song and a discount on the album). Or when you buy 1 movie before they offer a bundle and you do not get any discount on the bundle. But what we are talking about is TV Shows and the cost is simply too high. It will not take off because for one you can ONLY BUY. There is no longer an option to Rent TV Shows. And when they did offer a Rental it was only $1 less then buy per episode. Only the Movie Buy/Rent Option which is about 1/4 or 1/3 the cost to Rent as opposed to buy. I say there is no option for al-a-carte for TV Shows without something other then BUY Only.