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

[ckurt25]

yes you are right, but go look at how "cable cutters" compare prices to make themselves feel better. They always act like cable tv is $100/month when that's not the case. They are going from one extreme to the next. If they are paying $100 for TV alone...they have a problem IMO. You can't compare having every channel known to man then go to zero channels and say all cable tv costs $100.

We have standard cable on TWC which is like 53 channels or so that we stream via our Roku with their app. We also have "extreme" internet at 30mbps...all for $99.98/month. Our TV portion which gets all the main network channels is less than $50/month.

But the 53 channel package may not contain even 1 channel I'd even pay for. You don't get the Big Ten network until you get into the 3rd or 4th tier of packages where I am. Cable alone, with an HD receiver is at minimum $60-70 at that level. Add HBO for $20 a month. So if I got to pick what I wanted I could pick those two channels, ESPN, Fox Sports maybe FX (gotta watch Archer) and get the rest off an antenna and Netflix.

I don't know why giving consumers a choice or having competition is is a bad thing. If the cable companies want they can change their model and offer competitive pricing to go up against Apple and Google.

 

[dragje]

it sounds appealing until they tell u the pricing structure. I think people are hoping that channels are gonna be like $2/month...do you really think they are going to sell themselves so cheap? What will end up happening is the consumer will end up paying more or about the same as a giant bundle.

Yeah but the giant bundles comes along with 99% crap. Channels I never watch. I've what? Like 80 channels now? I don't care to pay for channels that I never bother to watch to begin with. Why should I pay for MTV if I never watch MTV? It's for minors, i'm 41. Same for kids channels, I don't have kids so why paying for it? And I don't even start about bundles that offers 200+ channels. Seriously, that's only interesting for TV addicts who find it stimulating to switch between Daffy Duck on cartoon network and a meditating Guru on on the mediation channel. But it does't appeal to me....

So I end up with a TV which is for me nothing more then a device I put on and where I select a specific program to watch or using my iPad to watch a program using streaming internet and my Apple tv on my television or on my cinema home beamer...

I'm sure that if I would only pay for the subscriptions to program's I really prefer then I would pay way less then what any cable offers as bundle prices. I only watch the national Dutch channels 1,2 and 3, BBC 1,2 and sometimes Al Jazeera for news (among Dutch and Belgium news programs and BBC News). On occasion I might watch History channel when I'm bored or a Dutch channel that's only broadcasting documentaries called Holland Doc. That's about 10 channels, so why would I pay for 100+ channels? Let alone 200+?

But we'll see

----------

Yeah, would be cool if Apple had a website or a portal that you could buy individual episodes or seasons from.

Yups.

 

[MacManTexas56]

But the 53 channel package may not contain even 1 channel I'd even pay for. You don't get the Big Ten network until you get into the 3rd or 4th tier of packages where I am. Cable alone, with an HD receiver is at minimum $60-70 at that level. Add HBO for $20 a month. So if I got to pick what I wanted I could pick those two channels, ESPN, Fox Sports maybe FX (gotta watch Archer) and get the rest off an antenna and Netflix.

I don't know why giving consumers a choice or having competition is is a bad thing. If the cable companies want they can change their model and offer competitive pricing to go up against Apple and Google.

you are exactly the problem why cable companies have done what they have done all these years. You are their dream customer!

here's what i get.....
A & E*
ABC*
ABC Family*
AMC*
Animal Planet*
Azteca*
BBC America*
BET*
Bravo*
Cartoon Network*
CBS*
CNBC*
CNN*
Comedy Central*
CSPAN*
CSPAN 2*
CSPAN 3*
CW*
Discovery*
Disney*
E!*
ESPN*
ESPN 2*
Food Network*
Fox*
Fox Business News*
Fox News Channel*
Fox Sports*
FX*
Galavision*
Golf*
HGTV*
HISTORY*
HLN*
HSN*
Lifetime*
MSNBC*
MTV*
National Geographic*
NBC*
Nickelodeon*
Oxygen*
PAC 12*
Palladia*
PBS*
QVC*
Speed*
Spike TV*
SyFy*
TBS*
Telemundo*
The Weather Channel*
TLC*
TNT*
truTV*
TV Guide Network*
TV Land*
TWC DEPORTES*
TWC SPORTSNET*
Univision*
USA*
Velocity
VH 1*

I don't have an HD box....not a single one. I stream in HD via Roku through the time warner cable app.

The problem is you are willing to go 3 or 4 tier AND add HBO AND add HD box or even multiple boxes. There are TONS of people like you. Why should they change their business practice if everyone is willing to fork out a car payment to have TV in their house?

It always amazes me when I see just 2 people living in a house and they have 5 tv's and each tv has a dvr attached to it.

 

[JAT]

yes you are right, but go look at how "cable cutters" compare prices to make themselves feel better. They always act like cable tv is $100/month when that's not the case. They are going from one extreme to the next. If they are paying $100 for TV alone...they have a problem IMO. You can't compare having every channel known to man then go to zero channels and say all cable tv costs $100.

We have standard cable on TWC which is like 53 channels or so that we stream via our Roku with their app. We also have "extreme" internet at 30mbps...all for $99.98/month. Our TV portion which gets all the main network channels is less than $50/month.

Speaking as a cable cutter, I only use my actual cost savings to make comments. Pretty sure that's what the others do, also. We don't have to make up numbers. Mine was $94.xx/month for TV, I've forgotten the cents, that is the final bill including tax and everything. Perhaps sometimes I'll round it off to say ~$100.

Is your actual bill total $99.98, or is that before tax, equipment fees, etc? And yours is a temp rate, is it not? 6 month introductory pricing? Sure, you can probably call every 6 months and get another "intro" rate, but I got sick of playing games to get TV I could afford. How do you time shift? Personally, I'm not at home at the precise time that every show I like airs, I need DVR or something. Something like $25 of my $94 was equipment fees. Now, for antenna-only Tivo, my bill is $9.95/month, no tax.

 

[ckurt25]

you are exactly the problem why cable companies have done what they have done all these years. You are their dream customer!

here's what i get.....
A & E*
ABC*
ABC Family*
AMC*
Animal Planet*
Azteca*
BBC America*
BET*
Bravo*
Cartoon Network*
CBS*
CNBC*
CNN*
Comedy Central*
CSPAN*
CSPAN 2*
CSPAN 3*
CW*
Discovery*
Disney*
E!*
ESPN*
ESPN 2*
Food Network*
Fox*
Fox Business News*
Fox News Channel*
Fox Sports*
FX*
Galavision*
Golf*
HGTV*
HISTORY*
HLN*
HSN*
Lifetime*
MSNBC*
MTV*
National Geographic*
NBC*
Nickelodeon*
Oxygen*
PAC 12*
Palladia*
PBS*
QVC*
Speed*
Spike TV*
SyFy*
TBS*
Telemundo*
The Weather Channel*
TLC*
TNT*
truTV*
TV Guide Network*
TV Land*
TWC DEPORTES*
TWC SPORTSNET*
Univision*
USA*
Velocity
VH 1*

I don't have an HD box....not a single one. I stream in HD via Roku through the time warner cable app.

The problem is you are willing to go 3 or 4 tier AND add HBO AND add HD box or even multiple boxes. There are TONS of people like you. Why should they change their business practice if everyone is willing to fork out a car payment to have TV in their house?

I'm not asking them to change their practices. I'm looking forward to them being forced to by Apple and Google. Before Apple came along with the buy a song, not a CD approach, record companies were pretty happy with how things were going and that has changed. TV will change just like music did. How long it will take is the question.

 

[MacManTexas56]

Speaking as a cable cutter, I only use my actual cost savings to make comments. Pretty sure that's what the others do, also. We don't have to make up numbers. Mine was $94.xx/month for TV, I've forgotten the cents, that is the final bill including tax and everything. Perhaps sometimes I'll round it off to say ~$100.

Is your actual bill total $99.98, or is that before tax, equipment fees, etc? And yours is a temp rate, is it not? 6 month introductory pricing? Sure, you can probably call every 6 months and get another "intro" rate, but I got sick of playing games to get TV I could afford. How do you time shift? Personally, I'm not at home at the precise time that every show I like airs, I need DVR or something. Something like $25 of my $94 was equipment fees. Now, for antenna-only Tivo, my bill is $9.95/month, no tax.

we stream through roku so don't pay for any equipment. I just don't understand how you can go from having a ton of channels and equipment and your tv alone is $100...to saying i'm tired of playing games to get TV i can afford....so you then drop cable completely and do an antenna?

You aren't comparing it equally. Why not just drop down to a lower package and not have $25 worth of equipment on your account?

Trust me, do you think I like to pay my $100/month for internet and tv? but really there is no other option. Sure, i can do an antenna and add on hulu plus and netflix....but then i'm right at the same price that i am with cable. But what annoys me are the people who bash cable prices when they had every channel known to man and every single add on.

 

[JAT]

you are exactly the problem why cable companies have done what they have done all these years. You are their dream customer!

....

I don't have an HD box....not a single one. I stream in HD via Roku through the time warner cable app.

The problem is you are willing to go 3 or 4 tier AND add HBO AND add HD box or even multiple boxes. There are TONS of people like you. Why should they change their business practice if everyone is willing to fork out a car payment to have TV in their house?

It always amazes me when I see just 2 people living in a house and they have 5 tv's and each tv has a dvr attached to it.

So, wanting certain channels is wrong, now? You don't get half the cable channels I regularly watched when I had satellite. All these little "amazements" you have don't all correlate to actual people. And you accused us of making up numbers.

 

[MacManTexas56]

So, wanting certain channels is wrong, now? You don't get half the cable channels I regularly watched when I had satellite. All these little "amazements" you have don't all correlate to actual people. And you accused us of making up numbers.

i'm not saying it's wrong....but obviously you "HAD" to have that channel and were willing to fork over whatever it cost to do so.

my priorities are different....i could care less about tv. I'm not willing to fork over $100/month for TV alone and add a ton of equipment to my account bc it's something i "HAVE" to have.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

my guess is that it's the cable company and traditional provider that are to some degree double dipping, selling broadband and re-packaging & distributing media to be broadcast to our homes over the same wire (not that there's anything wrong with that from a business perspective).

Cable company will not lose in the dream. If Apple- or anyone else- comes up with a CableTV killer, the cable company will just make up the different with higher broadband rates. They will not roll over. A replacement solution dependent on broadband internet must flow through their pipes.

IMO, they need new entrants in the broadband market to compete against the existing providers. The wireless providers are probably going to be it. These providers can sell internet or build private networks for companies (apple, amazon, even netflix).

No. There is not enough 3G/4G/LTE bandwidth to allow on-demand, al-a-carte to the masses. They have a hard enough time "as is" working mostly in voice & small data (somewhat managed by selling the masses on tiers so that we feel some financial punishment if we burn too much data). Imagine the combination of existing tiered pricing with all of the data burn of whatever the average Joe's household watches in television each month (one HD movie can exceed the 2GB typical tier).

 

[MacManTexas56]

Personally, I'm not at home at the precise time that every show I like airs, I need DVR or something. Something like $25 of my $94 was equipment fees. Now, for antenna-only Tivo, my bill is $9.95/month, no tax.

i could really care less? my life doesn't revolve around tv. If i miss it....chances are it will air again

 

[handsome pete]

Why would apple want to give you the same functionality as a $2000 tv in a $99 box ?

First of all, you're applying pricing to a hypothetical TV and stand alone box using the current AppleTV box price. Who's to say this new AppleTV like box would also have to be priced at $99? The box could potentially cost upwards of $200-$300 if the hardware necessary came at a premium. And when I'm talking about functionality, we're mostly talking software and content. That's where Apple is making most of their money.

Apple's goal would be to ultimately get into as many homes as possible. What would allow them to do that better, making everyone purchase an expensive TV? Or giving them the option to buy a television or a box to hook up to their current one?

Apple's world has it all in one box. That's the assumption. Which would simplify setup and wiring.

People like you and me don't care about that, but that's what they mean.

I get that. Though a single HDMI and power cord isn't cluttering much in my opinion.

A model that enables you, the customer, to only pay for each episode of a eerie of any channel you're interested in would be much more appealing.

That's kind of a double-edged sword. That could possibly hinder originality and risk taking, leading to more generic programming.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

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

There are only ~3 live channels that I watch.
I don't need 'live' TV.
I don't need to watch TV on TVs schedule.

Give me News, ESPN, and a Football App and I can procure the rest of my TV watching from iTunes.

 

[handsome pete]

Before Apple came along with the buy a song, not a CD approach, record companies were pretty happy with how things were going and that has changed. TV will change just like music did. How long it will take is the question.

It's just not that simple. The money and people associated with creating and marketing a TV series is vastly different from an album.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

So they'd jump from $6.50 to upwards of $50 for service? When basic cable service that carries ESPN in my market, on 2 different providers, is less than that? I don't think so... My guess is it would be $15 per month. When ESPN is making money at $5.05 for the one channel they won't price it where people will never use it. Remember, we paid $.99 ($1.29 now) for a song, more than a fair value to consumers. $15 seems about right for ESPN and Apple.

I could see a complete sports package for around $25. The ESPN family, Fox Sports, CBS, NBC, Big Ten Network and others. Give me that and the cable will be cut as soon as I can pick up the phone.

The adjustment people may have to make (and/or the providers like ESPN) is dealing without DVRs. If I want to record a baseball game because I'm out in the afternoon will I be able to watch it on demand, even while it's still in progress? Maybe they charge extra for that.

Based on what I know of the industry, no way. $15 sounding about right only sounds about right to us consumers dreaming. Disney would cr*p bricks if al-a-carte was mandated and they were expected to sell the crown jewel of their television offerings for only $15 per interested subscriber.

I appreciate all of the "good for us consumers" logic but the only way a replacement solution will actually replace the "as is" is if it can show all of those involved in the "as is" how they are going to make MORE money, not less. Nobody- Apple included- is interested in making less money. Only we dreamers think that somehow it's all going to work and we are going to get it all at some huge discount... but we're the source of almost all of the money in the chain.

We can't cut the revenues of the Studios if we want to maintain the same quality & breadth & depth of programming.

We can't cut the revenues of the cable company middlemen because they are also the broadband middlemen on which Apple's replacement will depend.

Apple is not going to use the "war chest" to subsidize this at a big loss. No, Apple wants to make money on top of everyone else.

Who's left?

If the above, it's either us consumers or the Studios that would have to take the hit. If the latter, quality and/or breadth & depth must go down (much more so if we want commercial-free too). We're all that's left.

If the idea of standalone HBO at about $30+ is plausible, standalone ESPN should start at $30 and probably go up from there. My best gut guess is about $40/month based on what I know. Certainly not something like $6-$7 plus a "few bucks" or even 2X as you suggest.

With us consumer dreamers, it's always the same: we want everything for just about nothing. How everyone else in the chain thinks is more like this: currently we get $X on average of out of them. If we're going to change the model, we need to clearly see how we are going to make $X + $Y. If we're going to go with Apple's solution, we need to see how we're going to make $X + $Y AFTER Apple takes their fat cut off the top. None of these others are thinking: how can we change the model so that the average consumer's bill drops 50% to 95%.

 

[JAT]

we stream through roku so don't pay for any equipment. I just don't understand how you can go from having a ton of channels and equipment and your tv alone is $100...to saying i'm tired of playing games to get TV i can afford....so you then drop cable completely and do an antenna?

You aren't comparing it equally. Why not just drop down to a lower package and not have $25 worth of equipment on your account?

Unlike you, I care about HD, I think that was $10 of my cost. And there was no Roku-streaming version of HD available 3 years ago. Maybe that would be different, now. I've already said why I wanted DVRs, I'm never home (or at least, not available) during prime time. If I'm not there and have no time-shift, the entire package is entirely worthless.

I sat down with all 5 members of my family to find out what shows they were watching. 90% of it was either on broadcast networks (free) or stuff I was going to shut off, anyway. (parental reasons) We then looked at the internet and found we could get most of the other shows acceptably well from Hulu or network websites. (Burn Notice was one I recall) So, I dropped it.

Some stations that I did want I had to give up, and it hurt a bit. Some of them aren't easily identifiable by a list like you posted above, or even available to all providers, part of why I was with DirecTV. Grand slam tennis, for instance. DirecTV would usually make deals to broadcast most matches in each of these 4 tournaments each year, taking up around 10 channels in their temp-sports section. You had to be at a certain level to get these bonus channels, or sometimes they were ala-carte, like the Olympics. Sunday Ticket was another, although I gave that up a year or 2 before giving up everything, due to cost. (they've actually lowered the cost since then) Big Ten Network, the lesser known ESPN channels were the sports channels I liked, not on the basic package. Etc. Frankly, the basic packages are mostly re-broadcast channels I can get for free, shopping, and re-run drivel (which I can get in better form on Netflix or similar). Why pay $50-70 for nothing? The only channels worth anything to me tend to be on the "extra" packages.

For the NFL, I've found NFL Rewind for $40/year. While delayed, that's how I watched most games, anyway, can't watch all 8 that air at 12noon each Sunday at the same time. And it has built-in DVR, essentially.

I guess we just see TV differently. And, btw, I only have 2 TVs for 5 people.

 

[DotCom2]

TWC used to not track your data usage. now when you go online there is a tool to see how much you use each month. I'm sure tiered data will start when tv starts streaming over the net.

I HATE TWC! Glad I got rid of them!

 

[JAT]

i could really care less? my life doesn't revolve around tv. If i miss it....chances are it will air again

Then why would you pay at all? I still don't see how I'm the one not making sense. At one point, I was willing to pay to get certain programming. I have altered that. You are telling me I'm wrong no matter which way I choose, while claiming you pay almost $100/month for something you don't even want.

 

[MacManTexas56]

Unlike you, I care about HD, I think that was $10 of my cost. And there was no Roku-streaming version of HD available 3 years ago. Maybe that would be different, now. I've already said why I wanted DVRs, I'm never home (or at least, not available) during prime time. If I'm not there and have no time-shift, the entire package is entirely worthless.

I sat down with all 5 members of my family to find out what shows they were watching. 90% of it was either on broadcast networks (free) or stuff I was going to shut off, anyway. (parental reasons) We then looked at the internet and found we could get most of the other shows acceptably well from Hulu or network websites. (Burn Notice was one I recall) So, I dropped it.

Some stations that I did want I had to give up, and it hurt a bit. Some of them aren't easily identifiable by a list like you posted above, or even available to all providers, part of why I was with DirecTV. Grand slam tennis, for instance. DirecTV would usually make deals to broadcast most matches in each of these 4 tournaments each year, taking up around 10 channels in their temp-sports section. You had to be at a certain level to get these bonus channels, or sometimes they were ala-carte, like the Olympics. Sunday Ticket was another, although I gave that up a year or 2 before giving up everything, due to cost. (they've actually lowered the cost since then) Big Ten Network, the lesser known ESPN channels were the sports channels I liked, not on the basic package. Etc. Frankly, the basic packages are mostly re-broadcast channels I can get for free, shopping, and re-run drivel (which I can get in better form on Netflix or similar). Why pay $50-70 for nothing? The only channels worth anything to me tend to be on the "extra" packages.

For the NFL, I've found NFL Rewind for $40/year. While delayed, that's how I watched most games, anyway, can't watch all 8 that air at 12noon each Sunday at the same time. And it has built-in DVR, essentially.

I guess we just see TV differently. And, btw, I only have 2 TVs for 5 people.

I understand where you are coming from man, but my point is you are just 1 guy. I know tons of people that pay close to $300 for TV. My in-laws have 5 tv's...each TV has a box! Why? They pay like $285 and have every channel known to man. This is the reason why cable has never changed their pricing structure or lower prices for the consumers....bc the consumers haven't asked for it! It would amaze me when I would stop off at the TWC store to drop off a modem etc. People with a car that barely runs is in there paying their bill in person and it's over $200 for 1 month. Right now, consumers are willing to put TV at the top of their priority list when it comes to spending.

Now the funny part about all of this man....I "cut" cable myself for about 6 months. After canceling cable and the internet bill going up...then adding hulu and netflix it works out to be just a tad cheaper. It wasn't worth it. for the $20 savings in the end i had to change up many things.

I want something to change as well....but as long as people are willing to pay for multiple cable boxes and extra channels...nothing will change.

Also, with TWC streaming app on roku....all channels are in HD.

----------

Then why would you pay at all? I still don't see how I'm the one not making sense. At one point, I was willing to pay to get certain programming. I have altered that. You are telling me I'm wrong no matter which way I choose, while claiming you pay almost $100/month for something you don't even want.

just bc i'm not obsessed and have to dvr every show doesn't mean i don't enjoy watching tv and every now and again. I'm a big rangers fan....if i miss a game...i miss a game. It's not a life altering event.

also the TV portion is not $100/month. It's around $40/month as the internet is more. I explained in another post.

 

[ckurt25]

If the idea of standalone HBO at about $30+ is plausible, standalone ESPN should start at $30 and probably go up from there. My best gut guess is about $40/month based on what I know. Certainly not something like $6-$7 plus a "few bucks" or even 2X as you suggest.

If and when it comes out, it will be less than that or there won't be a single person who get that app / channel / service. If I can get ESPN on basic cable for $50, why would I pay close to the same amount for a single channel? That's why it's taken years for this to come around. Apple has to price it right or no one will buy it.

It may be over simplifying it but I'll go back to buying CDs or downloading songs. The average CD has 2 to 3 decent songs. If it has 10-12 songs and the CD costs $10, why not price the hits at $3 each? Because there is no incentive for the consumers to go get just a song or two then. If channels like ESPN are $40 no one will get it, even those that have cut cable. At that price you're better of getting cable and getting everything else, that you're probably watching with an antenna or on Netflix, along with it.

 

[JAT]

Also, with TWC streaming app on roku....all channels are in HD.

That is nice. Good to see there is some positive changes.

 

[ckurt25]

No. There is not enough 3G/4G/LTE bandwidth to allow on-demand, al-a-carte to the masses. They have a hard enough time "as is" working mostly in voice & small data (somewhat managed by selling the masses on tiers so that we feel some financial punishment if we burn too much data). Imagine the combination of existing tiered pricing with all of the data burn of whatever the average Joe's household watches in television each month (one HD movie can exceed the 2GB typical tier).

Give it time. Technology doesn't change overnight. I'm old enough to have used 14.4 dial up. From 2006/2007 til now, things have changed drastically. 3G was first coming out and service was spotty. With LTE 6 years later which is faster than my internet at home I think it's safe to say in a few years the landscape of how we watch TV and how it's delivered to us will change.

 

[j-hov]

The only way I can see this competing with Netflix and Hulu+ is if Apple is able to secure a deal with HBO & Showtime. I would jump ship and not look back if they could bring HBO, Showtime and other channels (AMC, Food network, etc.) under one affordable subscription!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

If and when it comes out, it will be less than that or there won't be a single person who get that app / channel / service. If I can get ESPN on basic cable for $50, why would I pay close to the same amount for a single channel? That's why it's taken years for this to come around. Apple has to price it right or no one will buy it.

You're missing the point. You're seeing it purely from the "what's best from us consumer's point of view?" There's already a system of delivering television to us consumers and we've already demonstrated a willingness to throw about $100 each month at that "solution". All the others in the chain that makes something off of that $100 will still want at least $100 in any replacement. Else, why support a replacement?

Apple doesn't get to "price it right". The best Apple can do is either subsidize the price someone like Disney would want for ESPN by spending money out of Apples cash pool (this is how Netflix delivers what it delivers for $8/month... by doing deep in debt to maintain the cheap price) OR try to drive the best deal it can and then pass that deal on to us (with Apple's typical markup added on top of that deal).

It may be over simplifying it but I'll go back to buying CDs or downloading songs. The average CD has 2 to 3 decent songs. If it has 10-12 songs and the CD costs $10, why not price the hits at $3 each? Because there is no incentive for the consumers to go get just a song or two then. If channels like ESPN are $40 no one will get it, even those that have cut cable. At that price you're better of getting cable and getting everything else, that you're probably watching with an antenna or on Netflix, along with it.

Exactly, thus the "as is" model that everyone else in the chain offers now does win. And that's what they want unless a new model can show them how they are going to make MORE money- not how we consumers are going to spend less money.

If the math in a new model suggests we'll be throwing less into their pockets, they'll want to stick with the existing model "as is". Why? Because that makes them the most money.

Disney makes too much money in the "as is" model to allow consumers access to ESPN for only $15 per month. If that's the price you think it has to be, then it needs to be subsidized, meaning Apple needs to pay the rest of what Disney would want for trying the new model.

Don't get me wrong: I personally love the concept of the dream. I'd like to get everything I like to watch at the same quality, commercial-free for a fraction of what I pay now too. But I can look past the dream and see the reality of it. Unless Apple can show them how they are going to make more money, a replacement model won't fly. Apple is not in the charity business (else, we would all have iPhones with unlimited everything plans priced at about $10/month).

 

[ckurt25]

You're missing the point. You're seeing it purely from the "what's best from us consumer's point of view?" There's already a system of delivering television to us consumers and we've already demonstrated a willingness to throw about $100 each month at that "solution".

I think you're missing the point. Why would anyone pay more for less? They won't. Apple, Google, ESPN, Disney, HBO, whoever, won't invest time and money to come up with an alternative if no one will buy it.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Exactly. They don't want al-a-carte. "We" think we do. But we want it with a big cut to our out-of-pocket too. Little wonder why they don't want it.