Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple in Negotiations With Content Providers for Internet-Based Subscription Television Service

mozumder said:
ESPN charges cable companies $15-20/month.
Click to expand...

From a site called roopstigo:

"But according to the media research and analysts firm SNL Kagan, basic cable customers paid an average of $5.06 a month for ESPN in 2012, making ESPN, which has nearly 100 million subscribers, by far the most expensive product on basic cable."

Cable companies are in the business to make money so if $5.06 of the avg. customer's cable bill goes toward ESPN, then they're more likely paying ESPN $2-3 per subscriber for broadcast rights.
 
I see quite a few issues...

- This will take years to work internationally, Europe and Asia will probably get this by 2020 :)
I'm only half-joking, think about all the negotiations for all local TV content rights, a nightmare.
TV content is even more local than music, few people care about the NFL/ESPN outside the US, for example...

- Many countries/providers have bandwidth caps in place. Imagine viewing lots of HDTV content before you have to pay more money...or have to quit watching until next month.

- Why a TV set? Apple could release all this functionality in an upgraded Apple TV box for $99. I see no reason why I should get a TV (screen) from Apple ? Most people I know are happy with their current HDTV. All I want is a new hockey puck from Apple (Apple TV box on steroids) and an HDMI cable.
 
Last edited:
Be careful what you ask for... you might get it.

I am a huge ESPN fan like a lot of you. What some seem to be missing is Disney is not going to allow EPSN to be a singular option unless they can get more money than they are currently receiving. These are all for profit companies. None have ever been, nor will they ever be altruistic. They want money.

A key consideration for these discussions is Apple's very, very attractive profits and relatively weak bargaining position. It's not like a deal with Apple is going to increase the market penetration for ESPN (just using them as an example). We are all, for the most part, already getting ESPN. The only thing Apple will have to offer as incentive is cash, and lots of it. Digging even further, think about ad revenue. Mention ads in this forum and prepare to be skewered. Somebody will have to make up for that money. Initially, it would have to be Apple. Apple likes big profits and someone will have to make up for that initial loss. That's where the consumer comes in. We will pay regardless. It will be just a matter of whom we pay.
 
Last edited:
This is a perfect idea. Remember, years ago, right before the first iPhone was introduced, there were all these rumors of apple coming out with a touch screen iPod. The rumors were that as your fingers approached the touchscreen, a virtual clickwheel would appear on the screen and you could use that to navigate your music collection. Everyone thought that was amazing. No one thought that a clickwheel was ridiculous if you had a touchscreen. It just made sense at the time to use the virtual clickwheel.

This is a similar situation. After Isaacson's book everyone is imagining a typical television, but Jobs' solution, as always, is much simpler. Just use aps and an apple TV to bypass the cable companies. I love it.
 
I primarily watch live sports and network TV, so obviously I've been longing for this day for years. If I can get WatchESPN by subscription, I'd cut the cord immediately (although I'd hope Fox Sports would launch a similar program with access to all the FSN channels). If they can add local channels cheaply (hopefully free since they're already free over the air - Apple TV would only be better for convenience), it's a done deal. Hulu Plus and/or Netflix should cover everything else.
 
I never understood why they have to deal with a 3rd party like Dish or Time Warner. Obviously it's possible to enter the TV space, IE Verizon. Why can't Apple just become a provider of content like any other company.

Well at least I hope that's what happens :)
 
FlatlinerG said:
But what if ESPN was all you wanted? There are plenty of people that would be content with one or two channels. And even at $20/month for each channel, it's still cheaper than the alternative of having to subscribe to hundreds of other channels that are, essentially, useless to that person.
Click to expand...

OK doing the Math ... I have Cable for the Internet and Phone only. That's comes to about $90.00/month .... I could cut phone service and go only with iPhone service and save $40.00/month (but AT&T still wants its $$$) ... so, with phone service via cable it's 90.00 + say, 20.00 for ESPN = 110.00 ... then it's Netflix 7.95/month and Hulu Plus for another 8.00 or so ... total: $126.00 (don't forget to add tax and other 'hidden fees') and it all comes down to not such a great deal ... could just as well keep cable with the least expensive package, offering better reception, and more channels .... for about same price. With cable co. I could just as well order same films offered by Apple TV/Netflix ... so, it seems to me that there is really no way to beat a rigged set up so long as one needs to get content/internet, etc via cable or via the Dish ... Also, don't forget that much of what we pay for via CAble/Dish, etc is $$$$ for lots of stuff ... one is the high costs of paying NFL and other sports ... how else can they be so generous and give out these absurd salaries to our 'sport heroes' . . .
 
Last edited:
Apple believes it does not need all content providers on board before releasing a TV set -- instead, it needs standout programming to distinguish the product and pioneer the concept of Internet-delivered video programming
Click to expand...

That certainly sounds like Apple, but other than the WSJ pedigree, is there any reason to trust this new source?
 
FlatlinerG said:
But what if ESPN was all you wanted? There are plenty of people that would be content with one or two channels. And even at $20/month for each channel, it's still cheaper than the alternative of having to subscribe to hundreds of other channels that are, essentially, useless to that person.
Click to expand...

mozumder said:
ESPN charges cable companies $15-$20/month just for them.

If you want A-la-carte, it's going to cost at least that much.

It really is going to be that expensive.
Click to expand...

Why should I let ESPN or any channel curate the content at all? I want access to buy the content, not the channel. Currently, the middleman to the content is the cable company and the channel, but it doesn't have to be this way. What about a Pandora- or iTunes Radio-like system where I choose a "theme" or a "genre" and it shows me content within that theme or genre; or for a more premium price I can choose to purchase the exact content I want.

I would have a 4-6 playlist stations for passive viewing, and I would buy the episodes of shows I want to own outright. Of course, this gives the consumer way too much control over their content, allows them to budget and save based on the real cost of content, so obviously the industry wants none of it. They'd rather stick you on an overpriced one-size-fits-all subscription contract.
 
I will never cut the cable... because I never bought cable to begin with. It always seemed like a terrible waste of money and a barrage of ads.

Digital TV over rabbit ears plus EyeTV for Mac, along with iTunes, Hulu, Netflix and the like, are plenty for me.
 
It's not always about what is the cheapest...I see Apple having little interest in providing that model, and making no money from it other than device sales. Let Google/AndroidTV do that.

I would pay exactly what I pay now to have:
-Exactly the channel lineup I want
- no bs channels, ie. religious, shopping
-Everything available on-demand on same day as it airs, so no in-home DVR required

And please add a premium charge to get rid of all commercials and I'll pay that too, my channel skipping finger is getting tired.

What is the saying people have around here? "Apple, take my money!"
 
Last edited:
Channel Apps with direct subscription for same day viewing. That's what they will be going for. No more of this 'if you have the right cable company'

Then give us an Apple TV interface we can hide etc apps with bigger storage for those apps and streaming buffers and we are in.

Even better would be killing geographical lines so at the least we can watch 'local' shows when traveling out of the country. Better if we can subscribe to overseas stuff as well. Even if there's like a weeks delay. That is still better than six months to a year.

Plus this could mean better product for buying if that is ones preference.
 
FlatlinerG said:
Give me the ability to buy one channel at a time and I'll gladly pay a premium for it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind if there were small packages. Say by owner. So GE might have a package that has NBC, USA, Bravo etc. Perhaps still in separate apps but on a bundle price. So like say they own 5 channels which are $5 a piece. Perhaps if you get all 5 they are only $20.

Or a bundle based on topics. Like news channels or sports channels.
 
mozumder said:
ESPN charges cable companies $15-$20/month just for them.

If you want A-la-carte, it's going to cost at least that much.

It really is going to be that expensive.
Click to expand...

But if the only TV you watch is ESPN then paying them $20 a month is still cheaper than the $60+ you pay for cable

And if folks wish to buy that many channels that having cable with add on access to these apps is cheaper that will likely still be an option
 
alent1234 said:
some people are dumb and will a la carte themselves to high prices

time warner and comcast both offer cable + internet for $90. stand alone internet is $50. why would i spend close to $40 a month for a few channels when i could just buy the whole package and get the streaming with it as well

unless ESPN and others will start selling the streaming separate and it won't be part of the cable TV price
Click to expand...

Yeah the only bad part is that time warner and comcast's service aren't available in some people's areas and we are stuck with cheap a** ATT or charter etc. :(
 
Tilpots said:
The NFL would be the game changer. I just don't want to have to buy the whole TV to get it. If the AppleTV could do it, just fine with me.

And I'm one of those cable cutters who want "something for nothing." I'm fine with ads and I'm fine with subscribing, just don't make me do both.
Click to expand...

Oh I would love an NFL package but they seemed bent on exclusive deals.

They really need to follow the MLB model.
 
oneMadRssn said:
Why should I let ESPN or any channel curate the content at all? I want access to buy the content, not the channel. Currently, the middleman to the content is the cable company and the channel, but it doesn't have to be this way.
Click to expand...

Kind of depends on the channel. For example, rather than subscribe to HBO, I'd just like to be able to subscribe to Game of Thrones (the only thing they show I'm interested in) and get new episodes the same time they would normally air on HBO. Ditto for BBC America and Doctor Who (although I believe I can do that with Doctor Who now, at least on a next-day basis).

Channels that deal with a lot of live events, sports channels in particular, are a little fuzzier. Looking at the cost of the major sports packages, the idea of subscribing to each individual sport is daunting, but a channel (or channel family) like ESPN or NBCSN provides 24/7 sports content, live when possible, for potentially a lot less (if ESPN currently costs cable subscribers $5.06/pp/month, ESPN would make a killing at a $5/mo. subscription rate).

Channels are a good way to group similar forms of entertainment, especially if there are options - you could, say, subscribe to Food Network as a whole for one fee, or just individual shows for less each, with maybe 3-4 shows being the break-even point for the whole channel. Options are good. More options are better.
 
Last edited:
Rogifan said:
How in the world can anything be free? Someone is paying for it.
Click to expand...

$300 for 7 years 'free' service, or $25/month for 12 months and one cable box.

My cousin's building in downtown Kansas City MO is finally getting the service in September.
 
0029937 said:
Not all of us want 50-100 channels. Some of us have better things to do than wade through that much crap. Personally I need 3-4 channels to fill all my television viewing needs.
Click to expand...

I don't even particularly want channels. I want better access timing, quality etc to the shows I buy. I don't want to have to wait two years, be missing subtitles and alt audio, have them release box sets both features that were missing in the season so I would have to buy it all again etc

----------
derbladerunner said:
- Why a TV set? Apple could release all this functionality in an upgraded Apple TV box for $99. I see no reason why I should get a TV (screen) from Apple ? Most people I know are happy with their current HDTV. All I want is a new hockey puck from Apple (Apple TV box on steroids) and an HDMI cable.
Click to expand...

I think that is exactly what it will be. Apple might make a TV worthy Cinema Display but I don't see them making a TV.

A new puck, perhaps with a major spec bump is what I see. And it will sell even at twice the cost.
 
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