And in the year 2029, Apple released a new type of computer. They called it the iTerminate. It went back through time with one sole purpose: to destroy Apple questioners. It feels no pity, or remorse or regret. And it absolutely will not connect to any FireWire device, ever! Until you are dead!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Pitching iTunes Subscriptions to TV Networks?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And in the year 2029, Apple released a new type of computer. They called it the iTerminate. It went back through time with one sole purpose: to destroy Apple questioners. It feels no pity, or remorse or regret. And it absolutely will not connect to any FireWire device, ever! Until you are dead!
You can thank me later
This is obviously a direct response to my AppleTV feedback from last Friday urging Apple to provide a subscription or ad-based service.
Seriously, though. I imagine this has been in the works for quite a while; it's been an obvious "next step" for Apple for at least 2 years.
This is obviously a direct response to my AppleTV feedback from last Friday urging Apple to provide a subscription or ad-based service.
Seriously, though. I imagine this has been in the works for quite a while; it's been an obvious "next step" for Apple for at least 2 years.
Which takes us right back to why would I want to PAY for this?
Also it's not technically free (even though I said that), it's a advertising model. I'm also a little skeptical that a subscription model is going to pay the networks any better than an ad-driven one.
you do know, you can just switch internet providers if comcast raised their rates by 100%....ATT? Verizon?
Don't forget about Apple's advertising patent. Or are most people still believing that the ad supported features and services mentioned in the patent were for using the Finder and Spotlight?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Networks are stuck in an idea of getting paid for airing commercials AND getting paid by satt/cable companies for their network. They have virtually no interest in going backwards toward a model supported only by commercial revenue NOR only by getting paid for the network.
I suspect that this would turn into paying for the show with commercials (for free, commercial-supported programming) or paying (more) for the commercial free version of the show, both feeling like the price is "too much".
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
For those that want this, "FREE" still beats paying for a show with commercials, or paying more for a show without.
This would be HUGE for Apple. I've always said that on-demand media is the future, but I think many people aren't comfortable with an a la carte purchase option. This would be something people would understand and hop on board with, I'm sure.
Apple TV might even be able to move out of "hobby" status!
Apple TV might even be able to move out of "hobby" status!
Hahahahaha burdon on the Internet hehe; don't tell me you've fallen victim to the bandwidth boggy man. Bandwidth ain't free but it's a hell of alot cheaper than what they are charging us. Crapcast rakes in massive profits and then caps the Internet so we can't stream YouTube and usenet video all day. If there wasnt capacity Comcast wouldn't try to offer their own online tv delivery system while saying the pipes are bursting at the seams.
I wish crapcast would be a dumb pipe like the good ol days of broadband but I guess it's easier to justify dictating the Internet to protect lucrative television profits.
This is exactly what I've been hoping for. I'm in the UK, I can get freesat for bbc, itv and C4 and use itunes for all my other shows like Scrubs and Mythbusters with this subscription.
I think the Apple TV would see a massive boost in this case.
I think the Apple TV would see a massive boost in this case.
I so want this. Can't stand TV per se, but need something for live events (breaking news in particular) and to keep m'lady happy. Broadcast/cable TV is so 20th Century. All the technology is in place, we just need agreements from content providers.
Heck, we just need someone to provide the "live TV" model: pick a topical channel and watch without having to click around periodically. As is, you have to still screw around too much with picking a website, finding their player, activating what you want to watch, etc.
The catch is that the desired content is wedded to old-school distribution agreements. I watched Kodak fail because of this problem: seeing retail stores as their customer (instead of the people who actually took pictures), Kodak hung on too long to the photochemical film model, unwilling to switch to digital because the retailers liked having customers visit 3 times (buy film, drop off film, get prints) and threatened to drop Kodak products if anything contrary to that model was attempted; result was a great photography company dying because they switched paradigms too late because of outmoded business relationships. The same is here: content providers won't extend beyond cable/broadcast/satellite delivery systems because they're afraid of losing customers (who they see as the delivery providers, not the eyeballs watching); if Apple etc. is smart they'll sign up new content providers for a modern-model internet-delivery mechanism, bypassing locked-in companies like Comcast etc., and knock out old-school content providers for new fresh companies.
Give us an all-digital, conduit-agnostic, TCP/IP-driven, couch-potato-friendly content delivery mechanism. The content will follow, as there are a LOT of us who either gave up on cable/etc. delivery or dearly want to.
Heck, we just need someone to provide the "live TV" model: pick a topical channel and watch without having to click around periodically. As is, you have to still screw around too much with picking a website, finding their player, activating what you want to watch, etc.
The catch is that the desired content is wedded to old-school distribution agreements. I watched Kodak fail because of this problem: seeing retail stores as their customer (instead of the people who actually took pictures), Kodak hung on too long to the photochemical film model, unwilling to switch to digital because the retailers liked having customers visit 3 times (buy film, drop off film, get prints) and threatened to drop Kodak products if anything contrary to that model was attempted; result was a great photography company dying because they switched paradigms too late because of outmoded business relationships. The same is here: content providers won't extend beyond cable/broadcast/satellite delivery systems because they're afraid of losing customers (who they see as the delivery providers, not the eyeballs watching); if Apple etc. is smart they'll sign up new content providers for a modern-model internet-delivery mechanism, bypassing locked-in companies like Comcast etc., and knock out old-school content providers for new fresh companies.
Give us an all-digital, conduit-agnostic, TCP/IP-driven, couch-potato-friendly content delivery mechanism. The content will follow, as there are a LOT of us who either gave up on cable/etc. delivery or dearly want to.
You get a $10 discount for bundling services, which is pretty poor when you're paying +$150 a month for all three services. I canceled the TV part of my comcast package at the weekend and my bill went from $158 to $90. I'm looking into VOIP services to cut the phone and just leave the internet.
As it stands today, cable providers also provide most broadband internet connections. They will fight this tooth and nail.
But what happens in 4-5 years when wireless 4G becomes common place? Cellular providers will want to have the ability to bundle tv service with their internet packages, just like the cable companies do, to remain competitive.
Apple is skating to where the puck is headed. If they kick this off next year they will be in a prime position in 4-5 years to compete heavily with existing cable providers.
Digital convergence has been discussed for many years. It has already started but is about to explode.
But what happens in 4-5 years when wireless 4G becomes common place? Cellular providers will want to have the ability to bundle tv service with their internet packages, just like the cable companies do, to remain competitive.
Apple is skating to where the puck is headed. If they kick this off next year they will be in a prime position in 4-5 years to compete heavily with existing cable providers.
Digital convergence has been discussed for many years. It has already started but is about to explode.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Boy, the dream is fantastic. But who makes a lot of profit by being the main source of television delivery today? Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, etc.
Who pretty much has a lock on how Internet broadband signals get to your computer or
TV-like devices? Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, etc.Cut the legs off the cable revenue with this kind of thing, and broadband cost will go up to compensate. There is NO motivation for those who control to the pipes to allow this kind of thing to happen, nor to just take the revenue hit should it happen anyway.
For this to actually work, Apple would need a way to bypass the existing pipes. So, to get to the dream people are describing here- all your favorite programming for less than it costs to get it via cable/satt- you'll also need to see Apple negotiating with someone to create a way to steam the content directly to you. Most likely option would be for Apple to buy DISH or similar, and thus gain a virtual pipe for much of the journey from Apple servers directly to your home. Unless you see that kind of additional option being developed, you don't get to "beat" your cable or satt bill.
I have not used Cable TV or over the air TV for years. Everything I watch is either purchased on iTunes, or streamed from the plethora of networks offering shows to watch online.
I would welcome this feature, as many of the iTunes purchase I have made are TV shows that I have only watched a few times (unless the show is amazing).
I'm in the same boat (Satellite-free since October 2008). I'm a bit worried about Hulu going to a pay-per-view or pay-per-month model sometime next year ... I watch a good portion of my content on non-Hulu sites, and if I needed to pay a dozen different sites a subscription fee I'd rather just not watch anything. Go back to buying DVD box sets.
In any case, a good subscription service from Apple, assuming they are able to bring most of the majors on board, would be a no-brainer for me. As much as I like what Hulu is doing, it's interface sucks (unless you look at it relative to the other Flash-based sites out there, whose interface sucks-squared). Having a subscription delivered directly to my AppleTV for smooth viewing (or even just into iTunes, although that's a 50% solution compared to the ATV) would get my money every time.
IMHO, Apple could go after several different markets here (not necessarily all of them at once, though):
1. The "catch-up". The main problem with episodic TV shows is that you can't just "jump in" and watch the latest episode. Hulu is a complete fail here after late-October: the "last five episodes" of whatever series extending back to the third episode after the pilot is not a good way to "get into" a series. Apple could allow viewing of episodes back to the start of the season.
2. The "browse". You don't know if a TV show is worth spending $2-3 on until you've watched an episode or two of it. I've made a few "conversions" from watching Hulu of a show to buying it off the ATV because I want better quality. However, I'd never have just "bought" that TV show were Hulu not there to give me a "preview" of what the show is like and where it is going. One possibility here is that Apple allows no-fee downloads of the first, say, 5 episodes of any given series (perhaps within a given season), then if you want to continue the series you pay a subscription fee just for that series.
3. The "mainliner". The watcher who wants to completely envelop themselves in a show. Provide links to online content directly from iTunes, etc. I don't know. I generally don't geek out on TV shows like this any more so I'm not the best one to ask about this business model.
4. Largest market: the casual viewer. This is the guy that will turn his TV on at the same time every week (or pre-program his DVR to tune to a channel at the same time every week) to watch the TV shows he wants to watch. Although this is the largest market, I think it is well-served by $85/month cable and satellite subscriptions. Apple will have a hard time cutting into this market without first making a "name" for itself on one of the above markets, I believe. But, it's another market for them to be thinking about.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If they couldn't completely block it from impacting their television distribution (monopoly) cash cow, they would conspire to raise broadband rates to replace that $70 you would be saving.
What percentage of people in the USA do you suppose have access to more than one broadband internet service provider? I live in what would generally be considered a major city and have only one option for cable. Comcast.
The lack of competition is a huge problem.
Technologically speaking, it has been figured out for a pretty long time.
Heavy adoption of a new IP based delivery system that Apple seems to be building will convince these networks to agree to it.
Couldn't agree more.
My Time Warner HD shows never look as good as the same show
on ATV in HD. Macro blocking on cable is too distracting on
action films to even watch.
Doubtful, those shows don't go on iTunes until the DVD is out so you'd have to wait awhile to watch them.
Because you would switch to DSL? Because charging $50 a month for Internet is untenable and will finally lead to some real competition?
Repeat after me kids -- competition is good. This will only lead to improvements for the users whether you subscribe to it or not.
Engadget is reporting the service would cost $30/month.
I wonder where they got that number from and what it would include.
I wonder where they got that number from and what it would include.
I dropped cable around the time my local channels where all available in free HD with and antenna. If I could pay $30 and get the History, Discover and Science Channel back I'd probably do it, especially if I could view it on all my TV's my laptop or my iPhone. It'd be nice if the local channels where there too so I could get all my viewing in one place.
Realistically I think that is a tough sell. The cable companies will fight it and we probably need net neutrality before something like this will work.
Realistically I think that is a tough sell. The cable companies will fight it and we probably need net neutrality before something like this will work.