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

[Michael Scrip]

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?

Oh I agree.

I'm just saying there are clearly people who are sick of "paying for channels I don't watch"

On the flipside... most of TV wouldn't exist without those channels. So what are ya gonna do?

But if you are going to pay for some new service... it should be on-demand and not the same ol' live TV 24/7 scheduled broadcast. Otherwise you're just switching from cable "channels" to Apple "channels" or whatever. I didn't say it would work though

I think we've just figured out that TV can't really change! Good talk!

 

[malexandria]

Don't understand the issue with people getting channels they don't want. Simple, don't watch those channels. People seem happy to subscribe to music services like Spotify even though it's almost certainly carrying a lot of music they don't like.

Best comment ever! People are just entitled whiners these days. Like you said, just don't watch the channels you don't like and stop whining about it. Ala Cart services won't be some magic bullet and will screw over people who actually DO like TV. It isn't like Alacart channels will magically be .99 cents when is what a lot of idiots assume. No, "AlaCart" means paying MORE for less probably $10 PER Channel. Only people who don't watch a lot of tv would like this BS scheme.

Right now I pay $130 and I get over 300 channels of which I watch 10 or 15 religiously and occasionally there will be something on the other channels that will catch my eye. Then through my cable subscription I also get access to the streaming sites like HBO Go, Showtime, etc. On top of that I get Unlimited Xfinity Blast Internet at 150 MBPS, and a phone that I don't use. Yeah, $130 a month for all of that is sooo unreasonable.

If I dropped all that, I wouldn't have access to many of the programs that I love, my Internet would be $75 a month, plus $10 for Netflix, $11 for Hulu, $99 for Amazon, $10 for HBO Go and I would still be missing some programs that I like. So exactly what is so "AWESOME" about chord cutting?

Again a bunch of self entitled whiners who don't watch TV ANYWAY screaming the loudest.

Now if you want to complain about poor customer service issues, then I'm right there with you. But Xfinity has actually been pretty great in the last two years, you complain on the tweet machine and they respond within 24 hours - usually in an hour and they call me trying to resolve everything to my satisfaction and have bent over backwards to please me. When my bill spikes, I complain and they find a good package price for me.

 

[blut haus]

Its actually the Networks and Studios that want it that way. They sell bundles to cable companies who in turn sell it to you.

Well, either way that's the way we are forced to consume content at the moment, and I'm probably not alone in my dislike for it.
[doublepost=1453252349][/doublepost]

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.

Boy, you sure do seem sour at Apple. I don't need to explain a darn thing to you. If you don't get it, I can't help you. How do you suppose Apple got all that cash? By selling cheap PC's? Come on. So, since they have a ton of money they should lower the price on their premiums machines? No. BMW doesn't do that. Mercedes doesn't do that, etc. And why should they?

 

[Stella]

People want to watch programs or channels they want, when they want. Bundles of channels isn't what most consumers want. This is why Netflix et al are so popular. They let people choose what they want.. even better for a flat fee.

Given this trend, I don't see how the rumour "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." is going to work... unless you get to pick and choose what is in that bundle. Otherwise, not any different to what cable companies currently offer.. which mostly suck.

 

[malexandria]

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? What a crock of S.

 

[blut haus]

Best comment ever! People are just entitled whiners these days. Like you said, just don't watch the channels you don't like and stop whining about it. Ala Cart services won't be some magic bullet and will screw over people who actually DO like TV. It isn't like Alacart channels will magically be .99 cents when is what a lot of idiots assume. No, "AlaCart" means paying MORE for less probably $10 PER Channel. Only people who don't watch a lot of tv would like this BS scheme.

Right now I pay $130 and I get over 300 channels of which I watch 10 or 15 religiously and occasionally there will be something on the other channels that will catch my eye. Then through my cable subscription I also get access to the streaming sites like HBO Go, Showtime, etc. On top of that I get Unlimited Xfinity Blast Internet at 150 MBPS, and a phone that I don't use. Yeah, $130 a month for all of that is sooo unreasonable.

If I dropped all that, I wouldn't have access to many of the programs that I love, my Internet would be $75 a month, plus $10 for Netflix, $11 for Hulu, $99 for Amazon, $10 for HBO Go and I would still be missing some programs that I like. So exactly what is so "AWESOME" about chord cutting?

Again a bunch of self entitled whiners who don't watch TV ANYWAY screaming the loudest.

Now if you want to complain about poor customer service issues, then I'm right there with you. But Xfinity has actually been pretty great in the last two years, you complain on the tweet machine and they respond within 24 hours - usually in an hour and they call me trying to resolve everything to my satisfaction and have bent over backwards to please me. When my bill spikes, I complain and they find a good package price for me.

lol never thought I'd read a post where someone who watches a bunch of TV thinks they are better than others. Amazing.

 

[smdc76]

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.

Absolutely. 110% right. Apple used to say they won't go into anything they can't do better, but in this case, I believe they absolutely could.

 

[mantan]

People want to watch programs or channels they want, when they want. Bundles of channels isn't what most consumers want. This is why Netflix et al are so popular. They let people choose what they want.. even better for a flat fee.

Given this trend, I don't see how the rumour "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." is going to work... unless you get to pick and choose what is in that bundle. Otherwise, not any different to what cable companies currently offer.. which mostly suck.

Netflix has given a lot of customers a false sense of what programming costs.

I always use the day-old bakery example. Netflix is like a day-old bakery. They go to the main bakery (content providers/networks) and essentially buy their leftovers. They sell them at a deep discount as an 'all you can eat' for their customers. The main bakery doesn't mind because it's extra money for stuff they've already sold and is just sitting around. Customers love it because they get a lot of product for a cheap price.

But a lot of customers lose sight of the fact the content is paid for by the main bakery. In this example the subscription revenue and ad fees make up the revenue that pays the content creators to keep churning out content....not the day-old bakery fees.

If you remove the main bakery revenue from the equation or push for a different delivery model, you have to make up that revenue somewhere. But a lot of customers think they can pay Netflix pricing or a lot less than the current model and still get the same product.

I'm with you in that I don't see how Apple was going to do this for $30-$40. If you add Apple's profit, there is not enough to make it worth the content producers time.

 

[iZac]

I would love live TV to die. (that is not to count live events of public interest)

When I'm at home I don't have any sort of live TV. I have a computer connected to my TV set. Netflix and Blu-Rays(mostly blu rays). When I want to watch TV, I actively turn it on, then I turn it off.

But when I go home to visit my parents, I'm lulled into watching absolute tripe, simply because the TV is on and people feel compelled to channel surf to find the lesser of the evils. Interspersed with 25-30% of the screen time being direct advertising, not to mention product placement in content - for two weeks a year I'm acutely aware of how offensive this commercial culture is and how much money the networks make off of our lethargy.

But people love passive TV because it's easy and brainless and fills the conversational void.

 

[apolloa]

Living in the UK I couldn't care less to be honest, because we have never had all the channel app options like America on any platform, take the Fire TV, I love mine, but it doesn't have any of the channel APP's like HBO you get in America, and neither does the Apple TV. You can get them by workarounds like VPN's etc and American accounts but to me that's not how it should be.

Alas we are but a slave to the cable and satellite corporations in the UK. Unless you know how to work around it I think Now TV and the TV Player Plus apps are the closest we have currently, on top of Amazon Prime and Netflix of course.
[doublepost=1453254036][/doublepost]

I would love live TV to die.

So you don't want ANY live sporting event to be televised, ever? I think you're in the minority on that one.

 

[iZac]

So you don't want ANY live sporting event to be televised, ever? I think you're in the minority on that one.

Apologies, I was referring to live TV as the rolling 24h drivel that saturates the world. I'll tweak my post to reflect my error.

Although actually other than a bit of Snooker, I couldn't care less about live sports. (certainly in the minority though)

 

[wikiverse]

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

Too bad

Apple want 30%. That's a higher percentage than the producers that made the programs make.

Apple invested nothing into the development or production of the programs - and took no risk. They still take no risk in the way that a traditional distributor does with Film or TV - since they don't pay for the show up-front.

Apple are being greedy. A 3-5% cut would be appropriate. Anything over 10% is excessive.

 

[gimikinc]

I would rather pay for the channels I want (a la carte) vs. paying for ultimate channel package to get 90% junk and the 10% I want.

 

[2010mini]

All the more reason Apple should buy Time Warner Inc. so they will own the content. And thus have a more powerful position at the negotiations table.

 

[SusanK]

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

Too bad

He died

 

[macs4nw]

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.

Many of them are apparently locked-in with long term restrictive contracts they have with the Cable/Sat camp.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I would rather pay for the channels I want (a la carte) vs. paying for ultimate channel package to get 90% junk and the 10% I want.

You realize you'd probably be paying more for just a few channels than if you got them all, right?

Cable companies and the channels they broadcast are funded by the sheer volume of cable subscribers.

So if people only wanted a few channels... the cost per channel would be ridiculous. And that is assuming the cable companies would even offer such a solution.

Right now... the cable companies are making about $80/month per subscriber household. On the other hand... they'd be getting ZERO dollars if you're unhappy and cancel altogether.

It's a tough situation. I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions.

 

[HiRez]

1. Borrow some money.
2. Buy Comcast.
3. Sell off all the parts you don't need (LOTS, Comcast is ridiculously huge) to subsidize the purchase.
4. Use the content yourself, and as leverage to bring everyone else to heel. All those other outlets who have deals with the other content providers also want (need) NBC, Universal, SportsNet, etc. content.
5. After some time, if desired sell off the content providers your purchased, but only with a contract to allow Apple to continue purchasing all content at the same rates everyone else is paying.

 

[richardsonrs]

Headline should read


Apple Frustrated by inability to force TV programmers to give them 30% of their profits AND sweet TV deals

 

[apolloa]

Apologies, I was referring to live TV as the rolling 24h drivel that saturates the world. I'll tweak my post to reflect my error.

Although actually other than a bit of Snooker, I couldn't care less about live sports. (certainly in the minority though)

hehe thanks, I agree as apart from sports and the news, anything else live seems drivel like the X Factor etc etc.. the majority of what I watch apart from sports and news is pre-recorded.

 

[XTheLancerX]

I think the content delivery providers (read Cable & Satellite) are throwing their weight around behind the scenes in all of this, preventing many of the networks from reaching deals with Apple. I feel like they saw what happened in the music industry and are terrified they may have to give up their stranglehold on content, and most importantly the consumer dollars they're currently milking from us.

With Google able to provide gigabit fiber for $30 or $40 per month in some homes, the Cable companies especially don't want to become "Just a dumb delivery pipe" because eventually customers will refuse to pay what I'm sure will be artificially inflated and unjust rates.

Yup. Something needs to be done about this extremely tight grip cable companies have on consumers. just look at TWC! They have SO many people, including me, stuck with their internet service. Besides DSL or Dial up, there literally are not any other options in my area. People aren't ever going to easily switch away from having one huge enormous set of TV channels and such.

I think people are stuck with the local news, simple, live, watch whatever show is on sort of thing, flipping channels and stuff. Maybe it could eventually be made into one large stream over the Internet, but internet speeds vs rates just aren't there yet because we have a monopoly. TWC/Comcast, to name the major one. People don't feel like seeking out several different companies, several different apps, several different experiences, some live, some exclusives, some late to the game streaming options... It's all a big headache. Average people don't like toying with stuff like that. We need to move forward but it will be incredibly difficult.

We pay like $65 a month for Internet and get 15 down and 1 up. $10 more? It's only 20 down and 2 up. Another $10 more, 30 down, 3 up, etc. It's terrible. It costs $15 a month for 2 down, 1 up, but take into the like $8 modem fee, probably $5-$10 county tax, and the fact that TWC pretty much doubles the rate after a year or two... You get the jist. Terrible.

I have issues simply playing an online game if somebody in the house is just watching Netflix. Take a bunch of photos and videos over vacation? Screw it. iCPL is frozen for days, Internet is trashed. Get a new PS4 game? *rarely* have less than a 30 minute wait to download stuff for it. Had to wait 6 hours to download Fallout 4. Sure, I can tough out a little waiting. But the fact that it TRASHES your internet on every other device for the entire duration of the download is horrible... Stuck with ~400 ping and .25mbps down.

I know this is a huge 1st world problem and there are worse situations, heck, I don't even have a data limit each month (that would piss me off) but this feels like a crime nonetheless. Extremely annoying.

 

[Snoopy4]

Apple needs to think differently here.

Local Channel Pack
Sports Pack
Education Pack
Kids Pack
News and Info Pack

Build something with those who will work with you. The rest will follow.

 

[Dmunjal]

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 and it is Apple's vision. But others like Sling, Roku, and Playstation VUE are already moving forward with that vision leaving Apple further and further behind.

 

[mantan]

1. Borrow some money.
2. Buy Comcast.
3. Sell off all the parts you don't need (LOTS, Comcast is ridiculously huge) to subsidize the purchase.
4. Use the content yourself, and as leverage to bring everyone else to heel. All those other outlets who have deals with the other content providers also want (need) NBC, Universal, SportsNet, etc. content.
5. After some time, if desired sell off the content providers your purchased, but only with a contract to allow Apple to continue purchasing all content at the same rates everyone else is paying.

You're a fool if you honestly think Apple owning content is going to result in lower prices for you. This is the same company that charges a premium for everything it does. One middle man for the other....but this one expects a premium for the products/services it provides.

 

[Bigredhunk]

I'm frustrated with the HBO go app not saving your location. Everytime I turn it on I have to navigate back to the show I was watching and remember the last episode I was on.

Agreed. And how long is it going to take HBOGO to update the app to include autoplay? I get autoplay on my Apple TV 3, Amazon Fire TV, Amazon Fire TV Stick, Roku 2 XS, iPhone, iPad, Macbook. AT4 has been out 3 months and still no autoplay? C'mon HBO.

We're getting ripped off right now. We pay just under $130/month for Dish:

$80/month for America's Top 200 (TCM is the only commercial-free movie channel we get)
$38/month just for the equipment ($12 for DVR service , $12 for 1 Hopper, $7 each for 2 Joeys, 1 Hopper w/Sling free)
$8/month for protection plan

We also pay:

$12/month for Hulu sans commercials
$8/month for Netflix (goes up to $10 in May)
$100/year for Amazon Prime

The Dish part bothers me the most. I feel 1/2 of what we pay would be a great plenty for what we get. We watch fewer than 10 of the channels with any consistency. Anything over $100/month without premium movie channels is insane. But live news/live sports, living where we live (no OTA's available) makes it tough.

Netflix and Hulu are great values IMO. Subscription TV is a ripoff.