Sidebar Sidebar
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

HobeSoundDarryl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yea, they have. It's lacking in two ways though.

They haven't marketed it the same way that say Netflix or Hulu market themselves. For example, Apple could make an add that says "own your favorite shows for $20/season, commercial free, available instantly after the show airs." Then we can make all sorts of comparisons of how many shows do I watch and is it more economical to just pay for Hulu or pay by show for Apple.

Also, as you said and I agree, people don't want to pay for owning the shows and renting is still too high in price.

HobeSoundDarryl said:
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.
Click to expand...
How about this dream bundle: A product called Apple Streaming, which includes a Netflix subscription, Hulu subscription, Showtime subscription, HBO subscription, CBS subscription, Apple Music subscription, and 50GB of iCloud, all for $49/month billed through iTunes. Individually, those add up to $65/month or so. The product includes a unified interface that allows making lists, automatically marking favorite shows with notifications of when new episodes are available, siri search, and offline caching on all iDevices. Optionally add MBL.tv, NHL.tv, NBA.tv, or NFL.tv for an extra $20/month each during their respective seasons, no blackout restrictions.
 
d21mike said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apple/Jobs bought this argument too and convinced a number of studios to offer commercial-free (popular) shows for rent for a while at 99 cents (or about half price at the time). Did that work? No. Because we don't want to pay 99 cents either. We really want everything for nearly nothing and we delude ourselves into believing that somehow that can happen... that Apple will be able to make it happen (and get their 30% too... and maybe commercial-free) and the broadband players will let Apple have it without making up for their losses on broadband fee hikes, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt
oneMadRssn said:
How about this dream bundle: A product called Apple Streaming, which includes a Netflix subscription, Hulu subscription, Showtime subscription, HBO subscription, CBS subscription, Apple Music subscription, and 50GB of iCloud, all for $49/month billed through iTunes. Individually, those add up to $65/month or so. The product includes a unified interface that allows making lists, automatically marking favorite shows with notifications of when new episodes are available, siri search, and offline caching on all iDevices. Optionally add MBL.tv, NHL.tv, NBA.tv, or NFL.tv for an extra $20/month each during their respective seasons, no blackout restrictions.
Click to expand...

Those who would be happy with that particular mix might buy that. It sounds good if that particular bundle would cover someone's bases. I like sports, so that wouldn't do it for me. I bet I'm not the only one.

And at $49, I'd buy DISH's $50 190-channel "price lock" which includes Netflix and a DVR, hide the junk channels I don't ever want to watch and get all the ones that I do. Is my option here as good? For me, it's preferred. Someone else would not be able to get what they want in that offer. That's the problem. You configure the perfect bundle of channels/shows for you and there may be a bunch of other people that loves your choices. But not everyone will. I configure a bunch of channels/shows as my perfect bundle. Lots of people might like my choices. But not everyone will.

And thus, Apple can NOT get this right. There is no overall favorite "skinny" bundle of channels or shows that Apple can pick and match up with the mainstream's wants. It is futile.

BUT, even if they do manage to pick a favored 35 channels or 100 shows, etc. and somehow gets the owners to give them all that so they can sell it for $40 or so AND take their 30%, I still expect 2 reactions from cable:
  • a matching bundle offer at a better price that doesn't count against our broadband caps and probably includes a handful of popular & desired channels Apple excluded or couldn't get AND/OR
  • higher broadband rates and/or tighter tiers to make up for any potential losses.
...which if the latter is right, we end up paying just as much to basically cut Apple in and reduce the diversity of what we could watch at any given time. For all those who argue "180 channels I never watch" I bet many of them occasionally find something to watch on some of those channels (if that was actually true for ALL of us, the 180 channels would not exist). I could easily argue that I have 180 such channels I don't watch too but I can also be truthful that sometimes I do find something to watch on some obscure channel that I barely knew was there.

I just recently discover ME-TV and LAFF, which are basically 2 new versions of what TV-LAND used to be. I find myself watching them quite a bit. Many people have probably never heard of either of them. If I was making a list of my top 35 channels right now, I'd likely put either or both of those in that list. 2 months ago, I didn't even know they existed. 2 months from now, my retro-watching whims might fade and they wouldn't make my list. Should Apple include those 2 in their "skinny" bundle?

If we look at it for the mainstream, how can Apple possibly get this right? Families with kids are going to want Disney and cartoon channels. Kidless households probably won't. Some are going to want heavy sports channels. Others will want heavy movie channels. There will be no "best 30 channels"- just some Apple chosen mix for us.

Look at Beats1- Apple's cut at a curated music radio station. Is that perfect for everyone? Can Apple pick a best 30 channels or a best 100 shows and make us all happy?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost, ohio.emt and Stella
Greg Gehr said:
Just build in a beautiful OTA DVR Apple!
Click to expand...

Seriously! That would have made the appleTV a killer device.

Although, I'm frustrated that the freaking weather channel app can't even show me the classic local forecast presentation. It thinks I'm a city in Florida. Good grief.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
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.
Click to expand...

The price is locked in for 3 years. Not sure where it will go after that, but it's a nasty deal they had for the small group of people who live in a uverse market with gigabit
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Apple/Jobs bought this argument too and convinced a number of studios to offer commercial-free (popular) shows for rent for a while at 99 cents (or about half price at the time). Did that work? No. Because we don't want to pay 99 cents either. We really want everything for nearly nothing and we delude ourselves into believing that somehow that can happen... that Apple will be able to make it happen (and get their 30% too... and maybe commercial-free) and the broadband players will let Apple have it without making up for their losses on broadband fee hikes, etc.
Click to expand...

We don't delude ourselves into thinking this can happen. It does happen. Netflix and Amazon Prime already have it. Apple is so far behind on this they've missed the puck completely.
 
rizzo41999 said:
I mean let's be honest; the cable companies saw what happened to the music and telecommunications industries when Apple got involved and don't want any part of it. From a business standpoint, can't blame them
Click to expand...

People used to buy a bundle of songs on a plastic disc. You paid for exactly what you wanted. You like Aerosmith? You bought Aerosmith.

Then they could buy individual songs and listen to them on their mobile device. The music industry might have hated Apple and iTunes for that... but the alternative was piracy. I think they preferred iTunes to piracy.

Now you can also get all the songs you could ever listen to for $10 a month.

TV is different though. No one paid for individual shows. I mean... you can buy shows on iTunes... but that's not exactly the popular option.

The primary way most shows are delivered are on scheduled live TV channels. That's an outdated model though. People are so used to being able to access nearly everything on-demand in a matter of moments.

While sports are best viewed live... nothing else should remain being delivered on an old-fashioned schedule.

And if the cable companies keep using their outdated model... they will become their own worst enemies.

At least other companies are trying to change television.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: magicman32
blut haus said:
The cable providers are notoriously greedy and out of touch with what people want.
Click to expand...

How can you say that cable providers are notoriously greedy when the most greedy company ever existed is Apple?? Who else has almost 200 Billion in the bank and charge a premium price for their products? Please explain to me?? Apple is trying to have the upper hand with this media deals and the cable providers are aware what Apple is trying to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost, ohio.emt, Avalontor and 1 other person
rizzo41999 said:
I mean let's be honest; the cable companies saw what happened to the music and telecommunications industries when Apple got involved and don't want any part of it. From a business standpoint, can't blame them
Click to expand...

Why does everybody keep blaming the cable companies and not the content providers/networks? Those are the people who like the current system and want status quo. Those of the people who keep trying to push subscription rates up every year? They get a complete free pass while everybody blames 'the evil cable company.'

HSD hit the nail on the head when he said this is all about Apple substituting themselves as one middleman for another. But they are still going to want to make a profit. Content providers are going to want to make the same revenue. And the customers somehow have this fantasy of paying a lot less....and getting everything they love ad free and with a deep discount.

The math just doesn't work. You can get a skinny bundle in the future. Maybe with a slicker design interface and more 'on demand', (though the cable/satellite companies have made up a ton of ground here) - but it'll likely be for $99/year, not the $30-$50 people fantasize about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost and ohio.emt
mattopotamus said:
The price is locked in for 3 years. Not sure where it will go after that, but it's a nasty deal they had for the small group of people who live in a uverse market with gigabit
Click to expand...

Right but that would be 3 more years of a locked price for 190 channels + good DVR very close to the rumored Apple "skinny" bundle, not at "$250/month for my cable package" and other such extremes slung around here. Add an :apple:TV for the rest of the :apple:TV benefits and that has to be compelling vs. the rumored skinny bundle service.

3 years from now, DISH might want to then go to the other (pricing) extreme, but we can hop to DirecTV or cable or Apple's offering version 3.0 or Roku etc. I'm not really trying to push DISH as much as saying that there are cable/satt options already quite competitive with this rumored "skinny" bundle that are NOT "$<outrageous amount> cable subscription." Trying to make this go is a BIG challenge... even for Apple. Cable always has the edge since Apple's solution will depend on Cable's pipe.
[doublepost=1453248582][/doublepost]
bobenhaus said:
How can you say that cable providers are notoriously greedy when the most greedy company ever existed is Apple?? Who else has almost 200 Billion in the bank and charge a premium price for their products? Please explain to me?? Apple is trying to have the upper hand with this media deals and the cable providers are aware what Apple is trying to do.
Click to expand...

Well this is MAC rumors. So here we celebrate Apple's "greed" as shrewd, but fully-deserving business expertise (actually no, it's genius). It's everyone else that competes against Apple or hinders where Apple wants to go or competes with something Apple will roll out in the future that are made up of the greediest, slimiest, crooks in the world. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Comcast: it is all their fault. They own Universal/NBC. They own the cable to send it. they own the internet to go with the cable. they are making too much money and will not EVER part ways and allow apple to have any Comcast/Universal/NBS programming a la carte. Just look at the sheer monopoly that Comcast has at their command....

NBCUniversal[edit]
Universal Parks & Resorts[edit]
Universal Studios[edit]
Joint ventures[edit]
Other entertainment[edit]
Other Business Units[edit]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: harley3k
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Those who would be happy with that particular mix might buy that. It sounds good if that particular bundle would cover someone's bases. I like sports, so that wouldn't do it for me. I bet I'm not the only one.

And at $49, I'd buy DISH's $50 190-channel "price lock" which includes Netflix and a DVR, hide the junk channels I don't ever want to watch and get all the ones that I do. Is my option here as good? For me, it's preferred. Someone else would not be able to get what they want in that offer. That's the problem. You configure the perfect bundle of channels/shows for you and there may be a bunch of other people that loves your choices. But not everyone will. I configure a bunch of channels/shows as my perfect bundle. Lots of people might like my choices. But not everyone will.

And thus, Apple can NOT get this right. There is no overall favorite "skinny" bundle of channels or shows that Apple can pick and match up with the mainstream's wants. It is futile.

BUT, even if they do manage to pick a favored 35 channels or 100 shows, etc. and somehow gets the owners to give them all that so they can sell it for $40 or so AND take their 30%, I still expect 2 reactions from cable:
  • a matching bundle offer at a better price that doesn't count against our broadband caps and probably includes a handful of popular & desired channels Apple excluded or couldn't get AND/OR
  • higher broadband rates and/or tighter tiers to make up for any potential losses.
...which if the latter is right, we end up paying just as much to basically cut Apple in and reduce the diversity of what we could watch at any given time. For all those who argue "180 channels I never watch" I bet many of them occasionally find something to watch on some of those channels (if that was actually true for ALL of us, the 180 channels would not exist). I could easily argue that I have 180 such channels I don't watch too but I can also be truthful that sometimes I do find something to watch on some obscure channel that I barely knew was there.
Click to expand...

I think you're right that there isn't a possible combination of skinny bundle of channels that would appeal to a sufficient number of people. However, as I said above, channels are meaningless. In those channels, there aren't that many new shows. This is why Hulu is popular - it lets people watch a few of their favorite shows spread across various media companies. I think it is possible to get a bundle of shows (or rather, of media properties) that would truly satisfy a critical mass.

As you said, you sometimes find something to watch on an obscure channel. But this is a very blunt and ineffective tool for delivering you content you find enjoyable. It's a shotgun approach - if we throw play 250 shows and movies simultaneously, odds are everyone will find something close to what they want. Throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. Streaming isn't bound by this delivery mechanism, which is why it's great. Just like Spotify knows what music will like to an almost creepy accuracy, algorithms can know what shows you will like as well. Rather than channel surf, it can bring up some suggested tv shows and movies to pick or it can just start playing them and wait for you to hit "skip." There is no need for channels. Another analogy I like is Pandora. People can make a custom "channel" based on their tastes. For example, someone that likes home improvement shows can watch home improvement shows non-stop, regardless of whether Viacomm owns it or Time Warner or someone else owns it.
 
blut haus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its actually the Networks and Studios that want it that way. They sell bundles to cable companies who in turn sell it to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt, ptb42 and mantan
oneMadRssn said:
I think you're right that there isn't a possible combination of skinny bundle of channels that would appeal to a sufficient number of people. However, as I said above, channels are meaningless. In those channels, there aren't that many new shows. This is why Hulu is popular - it lets people watch a few of their favorite shows spread across various media companies. I think it is possible to get a bundle of shows (or rather, of media properties) that would truly satisfy a critical mass.
Click to expand...

To this, I think you're missing the point of bundled channels. It is not about having great content for us masses to want to watch on every single channel. It's having enough eyeballs watching something on those channels to profitably sell commercials on those channels. Commercials are free (HUGE) revenue (not from us consumer's wallets) that flows to the Studios to help them cover the costs of some of the most popular new and original programming that is on their more popular channels in some bundle.

Kill the lessor channels per this thinking that they generally don't have much in the way of original programming and you kill all that commercial-driven revenue. Where does that get made up? Apparently not from us who are expecting to be able to buy just the good channels... or just the good bundle of shows ONLY for a big fat discount off of what we pay now. So who takes the financial hit there? Is there enough money leftover in this new "future" to maintain the quality of the channels or shows that make Apple's cut?

And it IS possible to get a bundle of shows (or media properties) that can appeal to enough to satisfy a critical mass. But who gets to pick that bundle? And which critical mass is going to get their satisfaction.

I have a few uncles that absolutely love the fishing channel (24/7 fishing). I like to fish a little but that would definitely not make my list of channels or shows or media properties. So do I get the media properties I want or do my Uncles get the media properties they want. If we vote, they outnumber me, so Fishing channel/shows it is! (if we represented the collective wants of the critical mass).

"As is" there is tremendous diversity of programming for all kinds of wants. I could never leave that channel on even for a fraction of the time they do. But they LOVE it. So "as is" they and those like them get what they want, you and those like you get what you want, me and those like me get what we want, etc.

This alternative is a Corporation picking some mix of channels or shows or "media properties" for us and in one way or another, very likely killing off the diversity that serves up something for about everyone with a narrower selection judged most popular for a large segment. If any one of us is lucky enough to be in the large segment, GREAT. But if we're not, "too bad, Apple has chosen... like it or go back to your antiquated cable/satt" and "$200 billion in the bank can't be wrong," etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost, ohio.emt and mantan
oneMadRssn said:
I think you're right that there isn't a possible combination of skinny bundle of channels that would appeal to a sufficient number of people. However, as I said above, channels are meaningless. In those channels, there aren't that many new shows. This is why Hulu is popular - it lets people watch a few of their favorite shows spread across various media companies. I think it is possible to get a bundle of shows (or rather, of media properties) that would truly satisfy a critical mass.

As you said, you sometimes find something to watch on an obscure channel. But this is a very blunt and ineffective tool for delivering you content you find enjoyable. It's a shotgun approach - if we throw play 250 shows and movies simultaneously, odds are everyone will find something close to what they want. Throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. Streaming isn't bound by this delivery mechanism, which is why it's great. Just like Spotify knows what music will like to an almost creepy accuracy, algorithms can know what shows you will like as well. Rather than channel surf, it can bring up some suggested tv shows and movies to pick or it can just start playing them and wait for you to hit "skip." There is no need for channels. Another analogy I like is Pandora. People can make a custom "channel" based on their tastes. For example, someone that likes home improvement shows can watch home improvement shows non-stop, regardless of whether Viacomm owns it or Time Warner or someone else owns it.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I think it's crazy when people say they want "channels" in any form. Whether it's a skinny bundle... or true a la carte channels... live TV channels are dinosaurs in today's world.

I think what people really want is on-demand solutions. Pay a flat fee and have access to any show at any time.

It's the shows that people want... not a 24/7 scheduled delivery mechanism.

Traditional live cable channels are kinda silly today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneMadRssn
Not sure I understand this. You're going to charge 40 bucks for this service which again is a bunch of stuff you don't want for the same 40 bucks. That's what I pay for cable already. What's the point? Maybe I'm missing something. I'm all about like a pay per channel monthly thing but this is the same format as cable is from what I can tell. I only want to pay for what I want. Same problem with slingtv. Still paying for things I don't want. That's just less of what you want and less of what you don't want for a lower price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stella
Michael Scrip said:
Exactly.

I think it's crazy when people say they want "channels" in any form. Whether it's a skinny bundle... or true a la carte channels... live TV channels are dinosaurs in today's world.

I think what people really want is on-demand solutions. Pay a flat fee and have access to any show at any time.

It's the shows that people want... not a 24/7 scheduled delivery mechanism.

Traditional live cable channels are kinda silly today.
Click to expand...

That sounds great....but who is going to pay for it? The content creators are going to need revenue as incentive to make content. Right now they get it from the steady stream of basic cable/sat fees plus ad revenue. If you take both of those out and make it 'on demand' for everything, how is that going to make up the revenue stream???

The 'flat fee' that would cover all of that programming would likely be $100+....not the $30-$50 people dream about.

If it's true all 'on demand', then content providers will immediately shift to the lowest common denominator of programming. Forget about the smart shows you enjoy and get more for reality TV and America's Greatest Farts....content providers can't afford to take risks or try to grow a show unless the revenue is there to support it.

And does this 'on demand for everything world' include ads? If not, how do you make up for the ad revenue that content providers and networks rely on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost, ohio.emt, Gaspode67 and 1 other person
With Apple's cash there is a simple way to fix this. Buy the recalcitrant networks. Cut a deal with the wholly owned network and then sell them back off. I suspect you would only have to do this once and the rest will fall in line.
 
All about the viewers. The popular shows and sports support the weaker ones. Ad revenue is sold not on how much the Super Bowl brings in, by revenue, as how many viewers are watching it and all the other shows on its coat tail. Viewers are the end result for advertisers, bundling gives advertisers a larger, more diversified, audience, then just the sports fans watching the Super Bowl, as an example. If bundling went away, most of the weaker shows would be gone along with their viewers. Viewers, are the focus on how bundles are built, not just revenue. The result, cable providers have not found a way to replace the viewers in an ala cart streaming environment. If you are not totally confused by the above, good, me I need a beer. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost and ohio.emt
Yes, I've done the math myself. Just the commercials alone generates about $54 per month per U.S. household. So if the dream is "Commercial-free", there's $54/month in JUST THAT revenue to make up before we have 1 channel/bundle of shows/media property in this "the future" replacement.

We're already getting some peeks at what al-a-carte channels/shows/media properties cost. Look at CBS. $6/month for a channel that most think of as "free" but it also includes a library of popular shows on demand so that must be worth something. Why does ABC, NBC, FOX and maybe CW happily carry on with Hulu at Hulu pricing if CBS shows that CBS can get $6/month on its own? They don't. They'll want their $6/month too.

$6 times 4 or 5 major networks often thought of as "free" = $24-$30 for those 4 or 5 channels in some CBS-like app equivalent. Is that worth it? Is that better?

And if that generally sets the bar, at what should ESPN, TNT, and other popular cable networks be priced? Or if $6 is right for all, our 10-20 channel al-a-carte bundle is $60-$120 for the channels. Commercial-free? Add $54 per household.

Break it all out as shows instead of channels and the revenue goal remains the same. It's not how cheap can we get our favorite shows. It would be how to maximize average monthly revenue-per-subscriber. So show pricing would be such that if the masses embraced a show al-a-carte model, instead of laying out about $73/month now on average (which is- last I checked- the real average that U.S. households pay for cable/satt subscriptions- individual situations may vary), the motivation to embrace a new model means modeling for better revenues than "as is" and thus we get right back to something approximating the shows al-a-carte offerings already and long-since available via iTunes... which hasn't won over the masses.

For any incarnation of this "dream" to actually become reality, the math has to work... not just for us consumers or not just for us consumers plus Apple getting their 30% but for the other players too. Everyone in the chain wants to make more money, not less. How do they do that if we- the source of some of the money (and those who buy commercials the source of most of the rest) are getting a big fat discount?

None of these threads ever work the math so that the players beyond us and Apple can make more money while we get our big discount and Apple gets their 30%. And that's why Apple rumors of this service have been flying for 5+ years now and we still don't have this particular "the future."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost, ohio.emt and mantan
Love it when Apple is frustrated due to their own stupid behavior. They can't call all the shots like they do with their hostile app developer agreements, which is now turning developers away from their platforms (tvOS foremost).

Their control freak attitude has finally crippled them. Apple TV is on life support.
[doublepost=1453251019][/doublepost]TV Programmers know that Apple is after their margins, and will force their industry into a "race to the bottom" competition. This is what happened to app developers, and TV Programmers know this.
[doublepost=1453251092][/doublepost]So now Apple TV is only all about apps (ha), and that's all it will ever get to fail at....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost and ohio.emt
Considering how high my cable bill is and ive got nothing but basic and internet its obvious to me why cable companies want to keep the massive cashflow to themselves.

I dont think streaming services could ever be a better option then cable because you basically subscribe to one channel at a time. once you get caught up in these before you know it your paying almost as much for streaming as you are for cable.

Maybe thats why cable got so tight lipped because apple is trying to set up a bundled option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back