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
I have a funny feeling this package won't be too much different than the rental set up. pay a certain amount a month and be able to watch all the episodes of a show for a certain amount of time, and maybe the option of say, an extra 50 cents or something (no idea) to keep it for good. There's no way they'd let you download and keep EVERYTHING that say, NBC bring out for thirty bucks a month. It will be much like a recorder now, just with more options to watch back at a later time..
Perhapps after Steve dies from recurrence of his cancer.
I heard this sort of talk before, every few years.
I wonder if you will have to stream everything (like netflix) or if it will be like iTunes rentals? Maybe you can download a TV show and you have 24 hours (or whatever) to watch it. I would guess that would be the way to go so you could load up content on to your iPhone/iPod/iTablet or whatever, and watch it on the go.
Either way, I am super excited about this whole idea. It won't be perfect at first, but it will change the way we watch TV before we know it.
I agree. I just wish I could rent TV shows. 1.99 for a show I'll never watch again is a rip off.
AMEN!
I would love to pay a lower subscription rate of $30.00 that allows me access to a variety of current and past shows that would enable me to set-up my own "line-up" of tv programming that I enjoy!
I would dump my Cox Cable in a heartbeat and tell Verizon's FIOS and the satelite Direct tv and Dish Network to take a hike! I would love to stop paying for the idiotic shows I have to contend with and the "empty" channels that have nothing on them that I have to click past with the remote just to be able to get to a channel that airs a program I like watching.
I think advertisers are looking at this in a bad way... There has got to be a way for advertisers to be added to the mix to pay to have their products targeted and shown to a receptive audience while helping to keep subscription costs down. I think if done well, this is a win, win, win, win for the companies that own the content, for the advertisers that can still advertise to their target markets, for the consumer paying a lower monthly rate and viewing what they enjoy and of course for Apple! 
I would love to pay a lower subscription rate of $30.00 that allows me access to a variety of current and past shows that would enable me to set-up my own "line-up" of tv programming that I enjoy!
I would dump my Cox Cable in a heartbeat and tell Verizon's FIOS and the satelite Direct tv and Dish Network to take a hike! I would love to stop paying for the idiotic shows I have to contend with and the "empty" channels that have nothing on them that I have to click past with the remote just to be able to get to a channel that airs a program I like watching.
I think advertisers are looking at this in a bad way... There has got to be a way for advertisers to be added to the mix to pay to have their products targeted and shown to a receptive audience while helping to keep subscription costs down. I think if done well, this is a win, win, win, win for the companies that own the content, for the advertisers that can still advertise to their target markets, for the consumer paying a lower monthly rate and viewing what they enjoy and of course for Apple!
Competition is Good
I think thgat this is a stupendous idea if Apple can get the major networks (both broadcast and cable) on line. The cable companies have long needed competition but somehow have managed to hoodwink both the feds and local governments into providing monopolies that only result in spirally escalating fees. Here is San Francisco, basic cable will set you back $450 per annum. If you add in some premium channels and one or two subscription services, you can easily shell out $1200-1400 a year. And this does not include internet service, which for decent broadband speeds, adds another $500 (at least). This is a hell of a lot of money to pay for television, particularly in view of the fact that cable companies have slowly but steadily gotten us used to their double-dipping, which now occurs on every channel, save the premium subscription services such as HBO. In the beginning, cable operators touted their service as superior to broadcast television because cable was commercial free. Over the last twenty years, cable operators have introduced more and more commercials to the point now that purely cable channels, such as BBC America, TNT, SiFi, etc., interpolate as many (or even more!) advertisements than their broadcast TV competitors. This is double-dipping on a grand scale and there is simply nothing the consumer can do to protest because there is no cable competition in local markets. Given the amount of money involved and the number of lobbyists ion DC and each of the state capitols, it is highly unlikely that any antitrust action could ever be successfully prosecuted.
Delivery of content through iTunes is probably the only way to provide a significant alternative to local cable companies, Satellite providers are great for rural areas where cable can't reach, but it provides no realistic competition because of installation costs, the need to additional interior installations for each tv, poor reception during bad weather and the need to maintain a phone line or internet access for upstream communication (internet, pay-per-view services, etc) with the satellite provider. Apple's entry is, however, by no means a slam dunk. It will need to get licensed content from most if not all of the major tv content providers. Ideally, it will need to provide a way for end users to record content to their local hard drives or provide on demand services for a period of several weeks after a program has been broadcast. Most importantly, it will need to be able to provide all of the content, save for subscription services such as HBO and Showtime, in one cost saving package that is significantly cheaper than what cable providers offer, say $30-40 per month. Otherwise there will be little incentive to drop the cable connection. Finally, it will need to significantly increase the quality of its 780p HD offerings, the resolution of which is scarcely better than 480p resolution one gets from a DVD. If it can put all these pieces together, Apple could well become the leading content distributor on the planet. And as long as competition between Apple and other content providers is secured and fostered, consumers will be the ultimate winners.
I think thgat this is a stupendous idea if Apple can get the major networks (both broadcast and cable) on line. The cable companies have long needed competition but somehow have managed to hoodwink both the feds and local governments into providing monopolies that only result in spirally escalating fees. Here is San Francisco, basic cable will set you back $450 per annum. If you add in some premium channels and one or two subscription services, you can easily shell out $1200-1400 a year. And this does not include internet service, which for decent broadband speeds, adds another $500 (at least). This is a hell of a lot of money to pay for television, particularly in view of the fact that cable companies have slowly but steadily gotten us used to their double-dipping, which now occurs on every channel, save the premium subscription services such as HBO. In the beginning, cable operators touted their service as superior to broadcast television because cable was commercial free. Over the last twenty years, cable operators have introduced more and more commercials to the point now that purely cable channels, such as BBC America, TNT, SiFi, etc., interpolate as many (or even more!) advertisements than their broadcast TV competitors. This is double-dipping on a grand scale and there is simply nothing the consumer can do to protest because there is no cable competition in local markets. Given the amount of money involved and the number of lobbyists ion DC and each of the state capitols, it is highly unlikely that any antitrust action could ever be successfully prosecuted.
Delivery of content through iTunes is probably the only way to provide a significant alternative to local cable companies, Satellite providers are great for rural areas where cable can't reach, but it provides no realistic competition because of installation costs, the need to additional interior installations for each tv, poor reception during bad weather and the need to maintain a phone line or internet access for upstream communication (internet, pay-per-view services, etc) with the satellite provider. Apple's entry is, however, by no means a slam dunk. It will need to get licensed content from most if not all of the major tv content providers. Ideally, it will need to provide a way for end users to record content to their local hard drives or provide on demand services for a period of several weeks after a program has been broadcast. Most importantly, it will need to be able to provide all of the content, save for subscription services such as HBO and Showtime, in one cost saving package that is significantly cheaper than what cable providers offer, say $30-40 per month. Otherwise there will be little incentive to drop the cable connection. Finally, it will need to significantly increase the quality of its 780p HD offerings, the resolution of which is scarcely better than 480p resolution one gets from a DVD. If it can put all these pieces together, Apple could well become the leading content distributor on the planet. And as long as competition between Apple and other content providers is secured and fostered, consumers will be the ultimate winners.
They're definitely planning something
'Heres an interesting data point from Apples recent 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission:
The company has budgeted $1.9 billion in capital expenditures for fiscal 2010. Thats 70 percent more than the $1.1 billion it spent in 2009. What does Apple (AAPL) plan to do with those additional funds?'
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091102/aapl-capex/
'Heres an interesting data point from Apples recent 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission:
The company has budgeted $1.9 billion in capital expenditures for fiscal 2010. Thats 70 percent more than the $1.1 billion it spent in 2009. What does Apple (AAPL) plan to do with those additional funds?'
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091102/aapl-capex/
Goodbye Apple Computers
Apple is a new company now.
Think positive, Think different.
Say hello to Linux
I seriously doubt I will ever buy a Mac again (being a loyal customer since 1999).
Two words:
Food Network
Preach it brother.
That's the only Network I would miss if we ever ditched cable.
... if I could get those channels (A&E, History Channel specifically) with Disney for my kid... yeah I'm in. Please PLEASE snag the discovery channel group of channels (TLC, etc.) and I'd be a long-term subscriber. I really only miss those channels from Directv, and my wife and I currently have a hulu queue getting our network shows that we like, and ONLY those shows updated with email alerts... man that's the way to do shows! Can't go back now.
-Matt
If Apple did this right and I could get the shows from the 4 or 5 channels I watch sent to my Apple TV, I'd drop Comcast soooooooo fast. Well the cable portion at least.
my wife watches a few shows and I DVR a few for my son
for $30 a month i might cancel the cable bill and just rent from itunes. I was checking out blu-ray players and the $300 models all have online video features built in and i'm going to start checking into something where i can cancel cable
the networks will probably like any idea where they stick it to the cable companies. every time there is a contract dispute the cable company shuts the channel off and posts a phone number to the network saying call this number to tell the greedy media execs to lower their prices
for $30 a month i might cancel the cable bill and just rent from itunes. I was checking out blu-ray players and the $300 models all have online video features built in and i'm going to start checking into something where i can cancel cable
the networks will probably like any idea where they stick it to the cable companies. every time there is a contract dispute the cable company shuts the channel off and posts a phone number to the network saying call this number to tell the greedy media execs to lower their prices
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I just hope if they buy Dish Network they don't mess with my $29 HD Absolute package which is grandfathered in, all the HD I care for one low price
Amen, I'm with you on that. BUT, aren't we both doomed in or around Feb, when the 2-year rule probably kills the grandfathering? Or can we go with "from my cold, dead hand..."?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You underestimate the power of the dark side. The Cable/Satt companies being the crucial pipe to get any video content into your home rule. There is no magic solution that will be pumped through their pipes that will then significantly undercut their revenue streams.
As I've mentioned a few times now, if somehow this dream could come to pass, what is lost in cable subscription dollars will be recouped in higher broadband rates. The Gov will stomp & snort to put a good show, but then they'll take the money from the cable/satt lobbies and "do nothing" (as usual). Any new broadband competitor that tries to step in will be bought out. Major established broadband competitors in densely populated markets will merge in time.
For the dreams conveyed in this thread to happen, Apple would need to both make these deals with the content producers AND have an alternative way to pipe their content directly to the end users. I'll need to see that other rumor (the one about the new direct pipeline) to believe any of the dreams in this thread can come true.
It will be a pleasant surprise if any of the networks go for this. For the most part, the networks still think it's 1990. They think the only way to make money is to sell ads, and they think that anything that gives viewers control over how they watch content is bad.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That's because the ad model has a lot of dependency on urgent calls to action. If the big sale ends Saturday, but I don't watch the show until Sun+, the ad can't possibly accomplish it's mission. An on-demand model means they can't move advertisers to lay out the big dollars to get to show their urgency ad to a big number of viewers when the advertiser wants them to see a certain message.
If you are the advertiser, you pay less for just general branding (timeless, no call to action) commercials. But if you need a big impact by a certain point in time, TV advertising casts a very wide net, and the existing models means that if you want to see certain shows, you have to be watching at a certain point in time. Change that relationship, and advertising revenues will plunge, requiring them to be made up by what people pay to rent/buy the show (which flies in the face of many in this thread talking about getting to watch their favorite shows for much lower costs).
It's amazing what 35+ billion dollars in the bank can do... A direct pipe or feed from Apple is not out of the question.