Apple Pitching iTunes Subscriptions to TV Networks?

[iOrlando]

this space is about to blow up big (within 5-6 years). Comcast is buying NBC and all the channels that come with it, Hulu will then be owned partly by Comcast and now through Apple into the mix. So many moving variables.

I really see a monthly subscription model working great for a third or fourth tier cable network that struggles to get on cable providers main line-ups.(such as G4TV). I would have to upgrade to like the 3rd cable package to get access to G4TV. But if G4TV instead made shows available online through itunes and made viewable through apple tv, their audience can instantly grow. Of course the number of variables about this is so large and confusing, I doubt it would work so simple but it nevertheless is interesting.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Boring. Apple isn't going to offer the vast selection of programming I watch and certainly won't offer it in the HD quality that is expected. 1080i is where most HD cable systems are at and some of Apple's HD quality leaves a bit to be desired. I am curious on what networks do sign up and what the monthly cost would be however. Depending on the cable company you use and how much content will be available, I wonder how long it will be before your cable provider starts billing you more and more as you reach your montly usage limit. Comacst offers 250 gigs a month I think.

My experience with Comcast HD is lackluster. I may get 1080i but ugly postage-stamp artifacting is always visible, and sometimes severe. At least iTunes HD content remains consistent while watching, and the encoding has improved over time.

I'm tired of paying to watch commercials, all my shows having watermarks on them - sometimes even obnoxious, long-running animated watermarks that fill up half the screen and appear every 5 minutes.

I also think it is about time this primitive way of watching television - 3 digit channel numbers, and schedules - went away. When you watch a show on Apple TV, you get a nicely trimmed product. A DVR is just a band-aid technology.

 

[pmjoe]

I can go to pretty much any TV program's website and watch the latest episode for free the day after it airs. Why in the world would I want to pay for this, especially given that none of the programs will probably be anywhere near their original HD quality?

 

[Nimiety]

OK - everyone who thinks the apple tv should get a PVR can now officially shut up.

 

[ob81]

I would drop down to basic cable in a heartbeat if the content was HD. I watch football and popular TV Series. That is about it. Would save me a ton.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

I can go to pretty much any TV program's website and watch the latest episode for free the day after it airs. Why in the world would I want to pay for this, especially given that none of the programs will probably be anywhere near their original HD quality?

A few people in the USA have purchased these newfangled "television" devices. They're like computer monitors but much bigger. Proponents say it is nice to watch them while sitting on a couch.

Have you watched any HD TV show episodes on an Apple TV attached to an HDTV lately?

 

[blackpond]

I can go to pretty much any TV program's website and watch the latest episode for free the day after it airs. Why in the world would I want to pay for this, especially given that none of the programs will probably be anywhere near their original HD quality?

Because if networks jump on this it won't be free on their website anymore...

 

[iOrlando]

If disney jumps aboard the rest will follow suit. Theres so many hannah montana tween viewers with ipods/iphones that they would no doubt profit off of.

one word comcast

comcast will not allow disney to go through this subscription-based model on itunes and continue to support all their channels on their cable lineup. However, and this is a big however, if Disney said screw it, and jumped anyway (with their long list of channels)....followed by at least one other major network (like CBS)...comcast will be SOFL. Maybe why comcast is buying NBC? they see change coming? hmm

biggest problem i see...realistically..the US is not ready to substitute TV for Internet. Think of all the people over 50...they dont have the capacity to view shows on a computer......and in my above example...i had Disney switching over completely..which wont make sense if they are losing millions of viewers due to their incapacity from a technological point of view of watching shows.

lets get Woz's point of view.

 

[Colrath]

I would absolutley KILL for a monthly subscription to the entire iTunes store, movies, apps, music, tv shows. Everything.

 

[Ambrose Chapel]

Depending on the details this could be fantastic news. If it becomes a success, I wonder if it would be the straw that finally forces the cable companies to offer a la carte channel packages (which is the only thing that would keep me as a customer instead of going to Apple).

 

[ghostface147]

You watch way too much TV !

Not at all, I watch maybe an hour a night live. I will DVR a lot of shows and catch up on them every now and then, but in most cases, the DVR automatically deletes them after a few days if I didn't watch it. My point was that I want to be able to choose from a lot of channels what I want to watch.

 

[stickyd8]

Sign me up!

I was just talking about this a few months ago with friends. If Apple were to offer a subscription-based service where I could choose the networks or shows to watch, I'd be willing to pay $50 per month! I'm just wondering what the Comcasts and Time Warners of the world would do. I know Comcast is/was trying to by NBC, which would prevent NBC's content from being distributed this way............but who knows! I'd love to be able to get rid of my DirecTV service. $120 per month for HD programming is just ridiculous!

 

[blackpond]

1) "Hobby" device to test the water
2) Huge new internet data center
3) Advertising system patent
4) Peddling subscription service contract to tv networks

... Apple has not given up on the media center in every living room concept.

 

[ghostface147]

My experience with Comcast HD is lackluster. I may get 1080i but ugly postage-stamp artifacting is always visible, and sometimes severe. At least iTunes HD content remains consistent while watching, and the encoding has improved over time.

I'm tired of paying to watch commercials, all my shows having watermarks on them - sometimes even obnoxious, long-running animated watermarks that fill up half the screen and appear every 5 minutes.

I also think it is about time this primitive way of watching television - 3 digit channel numbers, and schedules - went away. When you watch a show on Apple TV, you get a nicely trimmed product. A DVR is just a band-aid technology.

My experience is different. Even when watching sports, artifacting is minimal and no different than a friend's dish or a show that was downloaded from iTunes. iTunes has improved their encoding, but not the point where I will rely on it heavily. I like to watch my small selection of shows I watch live and not have to rely on another product to release it. I am sure if this option does become available, some will buy into it and enjoy it. Me? Not so much.

 

[DipDog3]

So is this the end to cable?

Probably not but would be nice to see Apple get into the game.

 

[freediverdude]

Yes, this is what I've been waiting for. The cable companies will fight this very hard though. So THAT's why Comcast bought NBC- they wanted to be able to withhold a major network from any IP TV deal. Well screw them, I can do without NBC. If Apple can make this happen, even with only a few networks to start, it will be huge.

 

[paradox00]

biggest problem i see...realistically..the US is not ready to substitute TV for Internet. Think of all the people over 50...they dont have the capacity to view shows on a computer......and in my above example...i had Disney switching over completely..which wont make sense if they are losing millions of viewers due to their incapacity from a technological point of view of watching shows.

lets get Woz's point of view.

It wouldn't have to be as big of a jump as you think. They would simply be replacing the cable box with an Apple TV, you wouldn't need the capacity to view shows over a computer to take advantage of this model. It would come down to the Apple TV interface that Apple came up with.

Although I doubt that Apple will come up with a complete cable alternative anytime soon (would be nice though).

 

[EasyRider]

If we get charged a ridiculous $1.99 or $2.99 per episode... how much would a month long subscription to one channel cost????

Maybe they are planning an ad supported subscription? So we can pay for free over the air tv?

 

[newdeal]

...

Too bad I have a data cap on my Internet so this wouldn't be very useful to me

 

[QCassidy352]

here's the snag - This will require fast connections, and many cable companies tie their TV and internet offerings together. When I had comcast, I thought about doing just internet and buying seasons off itunes, but it turned out it cost me literally $4/month more than I was paying for internet to add 100 channels of cable. I think this would have to be pretty cheap to be more cost effective than just sticking with a cable company bundle.

But that aside, I'd love to see this. I have a ridiculous number of channels that I don't need or want.

 

[pmjoe]

Of course if people want this and think it is really going to happen, they should get off their butts and support net neutrality.

 

[iGod 2.0]

Nice Move Apple

Sounds like Apple is going to make the same move for music maybe...?

 

[iOrlando]

It wouldn't have to be as big of a jump as you think. They would simply be replacing the cable box with an Apple TV, you wouldn't need the capacity to view shows over a computer to take advantage of this model. It would come down to the Apple TV interface that Apple came up with.

Although I doubt that Apple will come up with a complete cable alternative anytime soon (would be nice though).

and who would pay for the apple tv? not sure people would pay $30 bucks for anything.

look at all the chaos surrounding this digital box converter switch that occurred this past Spring (and which was free) and that impacted what..7-8% of people if not less? Anytime technology is involved in a switch..the majority of people get so confused and lost. The more I think about it, I just dont see an instant switch possible with this topic. Its like making the switch from dial-up to broadband. Give it 4-5 years..and you get 70-80 adoption rate.


also i see alot of people complaining about channels they dont watch. Cable companies know you dont watch a majority of channels offered. They purposely include them in the lineup so that it appears they are offering more channels. In reality, they pay very little for these channels, and if they were removed, your monthly bills wont actually fall by much. I remember seeing something like $8-$10 of your cable bill is the direct result of ABC and their family of networks. Its that large..while you might have 10-15 no-name channels that collectively cost a buck to provide.

 

[reckless2k2]

Before anyone starts getting too excited about this, I don't think the consumers are really going to make out on this deal if it flies. You've got to think about it from a revenue perspective first.

I pay about $50 a month for basic plus cable TV through Comcast. I get all the channels in that package. If the medium changes to digital through the internet, why wouldn't Comcast just raise my internet package ($50) to cover what they are loosing over on the TV side especially if the burden is now on the internet side?

This would really turn out to be a loser for the consumer. Apple is going to want to make some money along with everyone else and then the burden on the internet infrastructure will be thrown around equaling to higher end user prices. So you get to pick only 3 networks for programming from at a price like $30 a month and I bet internet will go up in price. So now you are loosing period.

I want to get rid of Comcast like the next person but this isn't the answer. It'll just be a cost shift and then the Apple fee on top. Oh and probably the networks and the studios yadda yadda..for moving everything to digital. Start up a strike. Unfair wages or something like that.

 

[pmjoe]

here's the snag - This will require fast connections, and many cable companies tie their TV and internet offerings together. When I had comcast, I thought about doing just internet and buying seasons off itunes, but it turned out it cost me literally $4/month more than I was paying for internet to add 100 channels of cable. I think this would have to be pretty cheap to be more cost effective than just sticking with a cable company bundle.

Right, that's the issue. At least on Comcast, you get something like a $30/month discount for bundling cable and broadband (which nearly pays for the cable). Even if people started to ditch cable in droves, the next step would be for cable broadband prices to go through the roof to compensate for the lack of cable subscribers.