Apple in Talks With Discovery and Viacom Over Streaming TV Service

[AppleScruff1]

Example, I'm using DirecTV, and get internet from Charter. I'm already paying a little more for internet because I'm not in a bundle, and wouldn't use Charter's craptastic DVRs if they were free or even if they paid me!

DirecTV now costs me $150/month for 2 TVs (1 Genie DVR and one thin client). I have a medium package that doesn't include things like Science HD, and others etc. I do have HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime. Plus hundreds of other channels I never watch. I have a stupid On-Demand system that uses my Internet connection already and doesn't let me Fast Forward through shows (not just commercials, but the whole show?!:!)
Admittedly DirecTV was cheap the first year I had it, but has gone up every year since.

Here's my math, so correct me if I'm wrong:

New AppleTV Service $40 (max rumored price)
HBO Now $15
Let's Add $10 for Hulu+ to get any NBC crap I'm missing... (if something's still missing I can live iwth that)
Let's Add $20 for Taxes and Fees just for good measure.
-------------------------------
Total: $85

I'm still missing Cinemax, but expecting HBO will add another Tier to the package to include that eventually.... take it from $15 to $25?

Now up to $95

I'm still missing Showtime, but they also have a Showtime Anywhere APP and I expect they will follow suit with this kind of service if HBO is successful. HBO set the price point at $15, so Showtime will probably copy that:

Now up to $110

If they don't add it, the monthly savings buys anything they make that I want to watch on BluRay eventually... I can live with that.

Now go ahead and let Charter up my internet fees by a full 50% another $30 and I'm almost back where I started.

Now up to $140

Hell, let them up it 100%, I can price shop a different internet service - race the bottom for all I care....
Remember I'm already paying for Internet.........and will continue to do so.

Additional Savings could be in not charging me for every TV in my house like all Cable/Dishes do... And buying AppleTV boxes $69 each instead of paying MONTHLY DVR fees forever?

Not everyone, in fact I see few people here claiming they are saving a fortune, but instead the primary point being that even if it costs the SAME or even a little more, I would pay for a better service with a modern interface that doesn't suck as bad as EVERYTHING else does right now.

Bring it!

It sounds like Apple's streaming service is perfect for your needs.

 

[mic j]

Something that no one has touched on is: How will this "service" provide an aggregated menu of all this content? Am I going to have to go from site to site and browse to try and find something to watch? Or will there be some sort of search function that will aggregate things. When using the aTV it seems like I spend more time trying to find something to watch than actually watching something. If I use DirecTV, I can scroll down a list of whats available in about 30s.

Also, what about OTA feeds? I'm a little over 40 miles from the OTA sources and reception is very sketchy. And no, I'm not going to put a big antenna on top my house to get it (that's why I like DirecTV, they provide all local channels). Additionally, I don't want to have to constantly switch sources on my TV and AVR. Lot's of questions about this speculated new service. They are going to have to do something really good to make me want to switch.

I will say that I thinks it's great to offer alternatives to all the local monopolies out there. Competition is a good thing.

 

[evaporateddwarf]

I don't really understand the cable cutting mentality. I have comcast internet at 100mbps peak, X1 box, HD stations (Probably around 100, most of which I don't watch) and the HBO channels for $78 a month, including taxes. To go down to just internet would cost me upwards of $60-$70, unless I can maintain permanent 'special' rates of $40.

Even at $40, add in Netflix, HBO, and Apple streaming at $30, and I'd be looking at $95. At the regular rate I'd be looking at $125, and I'd lose access to all the live sports channels I get, as well as periodic shows i may watch on other stations.

 

[harley3k]

I don't really understand the cable cutting mentality. I have comcast internet at 100mbps peak, X1 box, HD stations (Probably around 100, most of which I don't watch) and the HBO channels for $78 a month, including taxes. To go down to just internet would cost me upwards of $60-$70, unless I can maintain permanent 'special' rates of $40.

Even at $40, add in Netflix, HBO, and Apple streaming at $30, and I'd be looking at $95. At the regular rate I'd be looking at $125, and I'd lose access to all the live sports channels I get, as well as periodic shows i may watch on other stations.

It's not always about price...some people just hate the Comcasts of the world and their lack of customer service. If you've never had to deal with them, be happy, but if you've ever done business with Apple and understood why the level of service they offer is worth more $, then just imagine ordering your TV service through them......

It would be a dream for many of us to replace the vendors we hate the most that we are *forced* to use because of monopoly control in our areas - to replace them with a company like Apple that understands customer experience and customer service.

 

[mic j]

I don't really understand the cable cutting mentality. I have comcast internet at 100mbps peak, X1 box, HD stations (Probably around 100, most of which I don't watch) and the HBO channels for $78 a month, including taxes. To go down to just internet would cost me upwards of $60-$70, unless I can maintain permanent 'special' rates of $40.

Even at $40, add in Netflix, HBO, and Apple streaming at $30, and I'd be looking at $95. At the regular rate I'd be looking at $125, and I'd lose access to all the live sports channels I get, as well as periodic shows i may watch on other stations.

Your rate is pretty cheap. How many rooms? DVR service? Locals included? HD (assumed). I have the lowest Directv package and my bill is $97/mo (2 rooms, Genie DVR service, all HD, locals and about the same number of channels, no premium channels like HBO). Also add $55 onto that for DSL service. But, you're right, at that price point cord cutting does not make much sense.

And for all those channels I never watch, I hide them so they don't clutter up my guide.

----------

It's not always about price...some people just hate the Comcasts of the world and their lack of customer service. If you've never had to deal with them, be happy, but if you've ever done business with Apple and understood why the level of service they offer is worth more $, then just imagine ordering your TV service through them......

Now that, I can understand!!!

 

[bigchrisfgb]

Not interested Apple should have their own Movie and TV Show streaming service like Amazon Prime or Netflix. Apple should also make Beats music streaming service part of iTunes Match not a separate service. Until than who cares about how they are working with cable companies.

I somewhat agree with this. I'm surprised Apple never bought the rights to the Premier League (soccer) here in the UK a couple of months ago, I fully expect them to be bidding for the international rights.

 

[Juicy Box]

It sounds like Apple's streaming service is perfect for your needs.

I take it that you mean while it may serve some well, it doesn't serve everyone, including you.

That is a wonderful thing though. Having more choice/options would be great. It wasn't long ago that if I was unhappy with my ISP/TV service through Comcast, I had to deal with it because they were the only option.

While this is not a replacement for the Internet, it might be a replacement for the TV service. It may not be a good replacement, but having more options is good.

I don't really understand the cable cutting mentality.

While your particular billing situation is not the same for most people, it is not always about costs

For many it is about customer service, or lack of it.

Remember the Comcast customer that was called an A**hole, or the one guy that tried to cancel his service and ended up being interrogated for like 30 minutes.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I take it that you mean while it may serve some well, it doesn't serve everyone, including you.

That is a wonderful thing though. Having more choice/options would be great. It wasn't long ago that if I was unhappy with my ISP/TV service through Comcast, I had to deal with it because they were the only option.

While this is not a replacement for the Internet, it might be a replacement for the TV service. It may not be a good replacement, but having more options is good.



While your particular billing situation is not the same for most people, it is not always about costs

For many it is about customer service, or lack of it.

Remember the Comcast customer that was called an A**hole, or the one guy that tried to cancel his service and ended up being interrogated for like 30 minutes.

Choice is good, monopolies seldom are.

 

[ks-man]

Have you paid any attention to Sling TV? ESPN and ESPN2 are included in the $20 package. To add ESPNU, SEC Network and ESPNews, along with a couple other channels is $5 additional. Do a little research before you do your hypotheticals.

The graph below (from a year ago) shows that ESPN charges ~$5/month per subscriber. From what I've seen, most cable plans don't give you the option of excluding ESPN, which means ESPN is making ~$5/month off the heads of a lot of subscribers that will never watch their network.

So consider an a la carte world, where ESPN only gets money from the people who specifically opt in to pay for its programming. i.e. ESPN won't be getting ~$5/month from everyone anymore, just the people who subscribe to it.

How much would ESPN have to raise its rates to compensate for the loss of millions of dollars of revenue that it's currently earning from people who don't have the option to drop it?

IMO, that's what the person to whom you were replying to was saying. Maybe ESPN wouldn't be $30/month, but it'd definitely cost a whole lot more than ~$5/month, no?

Image
http://www.thewrap.com/cable-bill-battle-subscribers-providers-carriage-fees/

Thank you. Perhaps my $30/month was excessive but it would be far higher than $5/month. Also remember it isn't just the loss of subscribers no longer paying for ESPN but they also don't get money from a lot of other channels which people wouldn't buy. Not just ESPN channels but any owned Disney channels.

 

[macs4nw]

Will these content providers demand that there be advertisements and that the advertisements can't be fast forwarded? If not, I don't see how the content providers will support this agreement. If playing the ads is mandatory, I don't see how the service will gain widespread acceptance.....

If we are forced to watch commercials (i.e. rewind, pause, but no FFW), that would have to be reflected in the price we as consumers pay for those shows, as the programs are then partially paid for by sponsors.

What I'd like to know is, are we going to be able to record shows like we currently do with our PVRs, or is this going to be strictly streaming? A recording capability would obviously require some type of updated tv.

In spite of the cable/satellite establishment's valiant efforts to thwart this wholesale change in the way we consume content, and hang on to the, for them comfy status quo, change in the way we consume entertainment offerings is definitely coming, although not as rapidly as some of us had hoped.

All we can do is trust Apple will get this right from the get-go, but I'm having some reservations until we see all the details.

 

[topdrawer]

i'm not interested in bundles. i only watch like 3 channels.

 

[rockitdog]

I've never understood why this want done sooner. I don't get why roku and other streamers are so popular when you have to have a subscription service with them anyway.

 

[rotlex]

Still not getting why anyone is excited by any of these announcements. I cut cable 6 months ago and make due with Netflix and Hulu+. $16 a month, plus I might buy a season or two of a favorite show from iTunes. Why in the heck would I want to pay even $30 a month for limited options? Sounds just like cable to me.

Granted, I don't watch sports, so I understand someone that does wanting more than the setup I have, but honestly, it's like the emperors new clothes. Going to cost the same if not more, and provide nothing more. (Except maybe increased internet service costs down the road).

I also find it funny how stressed I was when I decided to give up cable. Looking back over 6 months, it's the best thing I ever did. Saving $125 month even with Netflix\Hulu, and I've actually found things to do OTHER than watch TV, LOL. Really. Should have done this much sooner.

 

[evaporateddwarf]

Your rate is pretty cheap. How many rooms? DVR service? Locals included? HD (assumed). I have the lowest Directv package and my bill is $97/mo (2 rooms, Genie DVR service, all HD, locals and about the same number of channels, no premium channels like HBO). Also add $55 onto that for DSL service. But, you're right, at that price point cord cutting does not make much sense.

And for all those channels I never watch, I hide them so they don't clutter up my guide.

----------



Now that, I can understand!!!

1 room, HD DVR (X1). It's halfway between the starter xf and preferred double play.

And those saying I've never dealt with the annoyance. I have. To get that price, I go in once a year, stand in line for one hour, and ask what specials they can lock me into for one year. Some times it gets screwed up and my package gets messed up and prices go up, and I email them back and eventually it gets straightened out. However, if that can save me $300-$500 a year, then it's worth the annoyance to me.

 

[mic j]

What I'd like to know is, are we going to be able to record shows like we currently do with our PVRs, or is this going to be strictly streaming? A recording capability would obviously require some type of updated tv.

No need for PVR if content is live or on demand. Pause would be required and resume where you left off (or at a minimum FF) would certainly be a good feature.

 

[NikeTalk]

what's the point in cord cutting when internet alone is gonna run you $50-70 then all these TV packs seem to avg about $20-50, HBO is $15, Netflix is $9, Amazon, Hulu, etc... are you really making out that much better?

 

[cr2]

Canadians to be allowed to 'pick and pay' TV channels

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/19/us-canada-television-idUSKBN0MF2JN20150319

Will it ever make it to US? Can anyone guess how much Comcast spend on Lobbying in DC (don't lookup, guess it first).

 

[Juicy Box]

what's the point in cord cutting when internet alone is gonna run you $50-70 then all these TV packs seem to avg about $20-50, HBO is $15, Netflix is $9, Amazon, Hulu, etc... are you really making out that much better?

For the cost, you have to account for equipment rentals, rate hikes, install/service charges, very expensive TV packages. Having a few TVs connected could cost 30-40 bucks a month in just equipment rental fees.

But there are things other than the cost alone that make cord cutting appealing. Such as dealing with crappy customer service, ancient UI, and many others.

Even if this service ends up being about the same in cost as an equivalent Verizon Fios or Comcast, it creates something that this industry has been lacking in, and that is competition.

This service may not be the best for all, but it is moving in the right direction.