How long until they try original content? It's working wonderfully for Netflix and Amazon.
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.
How long until they try original content? It's working wonderfully for Netflix and Amazon.
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).
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.
Seriously. Steve wouldn't have allowed this to happen. He would have forced them into making a deal.
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.
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.
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
I'm a "cord-never." I've never subscribed to cable and I never will, whether it's literally cable or whether it's fed through an internet pipe. I'm never paying $40/month for a bunch of channels I don't want.
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 $49.99/month and that includes a DVR which also has apps (and some of the offers have been throwing in Netflix for 1 year for free too). So if Apple's deal is not too rich and it looks at least as lucrative as whatever DISH is paying 190 channels AND Netflix, what's the holdup?
My guess is that the 30% off the top IS real and that's one of the big obstacles to getting a deal done. But that is a guess. Perhaps everyone just doesn't like Apple but loves DISH so much more that they'll give them about 150 additional channels vs. Apple's rumored bundle even with DISH including a DVR that makes it easy to block all the channels in that 190 that one would never want to watch? I'd also bet that Apple's 30-40 channels are all likely in that 190 channel list.
99$ a month.Wish apple would just do a service like apple music with their whole movie and tv catalog
I recommend you read this. It also talks about the Cable Providers get a much larger piece of the pie from HBO.
http://www.cultofmac.com/319040/apple-only-takes-15-cut-on-hbo-now-netflix-and-hulu-subscriptions/
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.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.