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
Not necessarily. Cingular bought AT&T wireless for $41 billion back in 2004.
The economic climate's shifted a whole heck of a lot since then, so buying a wireless provider or a satellite company isn't too far fetched. Likely? Maybe not, but you never know.
Dish, DirecTV, *.CableCompany... I've said for many years, that when À la carte programing becomes available, there would only be one choice to be made.
I really hope this comes to fruition. Satellite and Cable need some real competition.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Then I hope you are right, but I think I've seen different from DISH. But, for now, "from my cold, dead hand" it is!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That DISH buyout might fit, and it would come with lots of subscription revenues already in place (and I wonder how many people would give DISH a second, much more serious look if Apple took over). The whole industry would shake in their boots (slippers? pumps?)
That whitespace stuff (the buffers between broadcast TV bands) is also a very REAL possibility to be sold off. Right now AT&T & Verizon (the ones who bought the bulk of that spectrum (why didn't the Gov lease the spectrum instead of sell it off by the way, so that taxpayers could have a forever stream of cash instead of one shot of cash?) are the ones fighting it the hardest (because they don't want the competition)). But I've never clearly seen just how much bandwith potential exists in that white space.
Are AT&T & Verizon fighting it because it would open up cell phone competition from Google, Apple or others who might buy that spectrum? Or is the bandwith such that it could only really handle non-realtime flows, such as ordering a TV program to download ASAP, but not in real-time?
From what I've seen, I'm pretty sure that Apple's cash could make either of these actually happen (and not even use it all). Both- but especially the DISH concept- appear to offer a way to bypass the Devils who own the broadband pipes that are in place now. And either could get done pretty quickly, especially relative to just about any other (all of) North America option.
I hope they can get this launched along side the Tablet.
Side note: Why the crap aren't the Transformers movies on iTunes?
Transformers 2 came out on October 20th and it is nowhere to be found on iTunes and neither is the first one! What the crap is going on?
Side note: Why the crap aren't the Transformers movies on iTunes?
Transformers 2 came out on October 20th and it is nowhere to be found on iTunes and neither is the first one! What the crap is going on? 
$30/month to stream or download one watch expiring files (that you could redownload to watch again next time) as much as you want from the whole catalog. with no ads
a lot of folks would go for that. even at SD. especially if they keep trying to get older shows and more networks. folks wouldn't even mind having to wait until midnight to see the show to not errode the on air ad stuff that the networks still rely on.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Why the crap aren't the Transformers movies on iTunes?
Because they want to sell the disc and give Walmart the cut, rather than fuel digital downloads and have to deal with someone like Apple. They know what happened to their peers in the music industry. They are terrified of Apple getting that much control over visual media.
Plus, Apple doesn't seem to be sufficiently engaged in wooing every possible movie & TV show out of the owners of the content. Apple should be outrunning Netflix, et all in this, but they seem to lack the will.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Guys, com'on. It's not going to be like that. Right now the networks get almost ALL of the ad revenue. More popular networks also get paid a bit by the cable/satt companies for carrying their channels.
They don't want to go to this new thing from Apple if they are going to lose all the ad revenue, and only get paid a little piece of a cheap(er) rental fee. If you are the network getting nearly 100% of your ad revenue (that's CASH in your pocket) plus a percentage from EVERY SUBSCRIBER'S BILL WHETHER THEY WATCH YOUR CHANNEL OR NOT, why are you going to embrace getting NO ad revenue and a percentage of a (lower monthly) fee charged to sell your show to only the consumers that want to watch it via iTunes?
Think about it beyond the dream of being able to beat the Devils (cable monopolies) by getting your favorite shows commercial free and much cheaper than you pay for them now "commercial full". The consumer only wins in a highly-competitive, monopoly-free capitalistic system. That's not what we live in.
says who. the network finally embraced the whole DVR notion and realized that folks watch shows other than the airing time. they posted them on websites and realized that has some market. why wouldn't they leave that for those that dont mind the ads and take a cut of money to allow this subscription as well. tap all the markets they can to bring in the money. cause then they might recover budget on existing shows and keep those up longer, avoiding the higher cost of creating a replacement. win-win
also to those saying the ISPs won't go for this. sure they will. it will allow them the means to have tiered pricing for higher monthly bandwidth use. and the cable/isp's will use that as a way to recover some of the lost TV income.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You got it except that "some" in the last sentence should be "all", which is what will really happen if this came to pass.
because the decision belongs to the studio, not itunes. same as tv shows that are missing. the network and/or studio doesn't want them up
says you. but who is to say that they wouldn't be able to use this money, as they do the downloads, as a compliment to the ad money and cable fees. now they would have ad money, cable fees, hulu ads, ads on their sites, itunes download cuts, amazon download cuts AND itunes subscription cuts (working a program similar to cable most likely) to potentially fund the recovery of those tv show budgets instead of the current ad money only which is why some shows get canned 5 eps in, invoking massive campaigns, negative press etc
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Sorry. Let me clarify. My feedback throughout this thread is based on the idea that this would be a big impact concept, such that the masses could finally ditch cable, save a bundle every month, and get all their favorite shows commercial free (as the general theme of the positive dreamers seems to flow). If there is virtually no adoption- such that none of the established players really notices this Apple solution- then you are right about this being just another market from which to seek some extra revenue.
BUT... note that for each person that plays this (new Apple solution) game, they probably don't buy that same content through established channels. For example, I don't see a lot of posters saying, "great now I'll buy my favorite shows from Apple AND keep my cable bill too". So it may not be "extra revenue" but instead (it will probably) be an either-or proposition. I find it hard to believe that Apple can deliver the cheaper, commercial free, everything-when-you-want-it model, and have the existing models of higher fee, commercial full, only-when-we-schedule-it still thriving at about the same level they thrive now.
I agree.
And anyone who has any experience with the tv business knows it to be a predominately ad driven market model. After market sales are secondary revenue drivers, and predominately for the production companies of the shows rather than the networks themselves.
That said...I think eventually Apple will get into the subscription rental market...for movies and TV shows that have been already available on iTunes.
As for the streaming video idea for the TV networks...it very well may happen. And tying it to iTunes does make some sense.
The idea of the networks themselves getting into it though, in an overarching "official" capacity, joined as one and with Apple...not so much.
Frankly, I find it more likely that Apple would simply open up the App Store to apps for devices other than the iPhone/touch. This would include but not be limited to AppleTV and Apple computers. These apps, of course, would be available through iTunes, thus tying the Apple ecosystem closer together. And by opening up the App Store to iTunes as a whole rather than just iPhone/touch devices, with perhaps some platform specific sections (apps that only work for iPhone, or Apple TV, or Macs, respectively), Apple would thus basically allow for the networks to extend their currently operating online steaming video services into a more tightly integrated standard that would work best among Apple's product line and tie it in with the existing Apple iTunes ecosystem (ads in the streaming apps pointing to "purchase the higher quality commercial free version on iTunes").
Networks could even then charge a fee themselves if they so wish for "commercial free", higher quality video subscription programming "apps", give Apple the no fuss 30% cut for hosting the service that all app developers pay, and avail themselves to the overall iTunes market. Apple thus wouldn't have to cut their own deals, wouldn't have to deal with the various unions, etc. All they would do is as they do now: host the apps, take their 30% cut, and have relatively little to no cost themselves.
This type of scenario wouldn't harm the traditional tv ad based model at all, and would, in fact, open up the networks to the "pay to play" service afforded the premium cable networks on an individual basis (HBO, Showtime, etc.). If you want, say, NBC programming uncut and uninterrupted, you'd pay NBC directly, not Apple directly, with cuts going to residual payments for those producing the shows and 30% off the top going to Apple as per the app agreement.
And this would allow NBC to offer things like concerts, unedited content, etc. to pay subscribers without really harming the "traditional" network at all. The service would only be available to those willing to pay, say, $10 per month as they do now for stuff like HBO and Showtime channels. The rest unwilling to pay that premium could always stick to the traditional ad based free to play services available by watching via broadcast, cable, satellite, or through the official internet streaming video sites.
I understand this, but I can't remember the last time I have seen DVD titles released without them being on iTunes!
I often see new releases only for sale and not rent till a month or so later and it is REALLY ANNOYING! But this sucks!
Why are studios so afraid of technology? Idiots!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I understand this, but I can't remember the last time I have seen DVD titles released without them being on iTunes!
I often see new releases only for sale and not rent till a month or so later and it is REALLY ANNOYING! But this sucks!
Why are studios so afraid of technology? Idiots!
While "Idiots" may seem to apply, it's not the technology that they are afraid of. It would cost them less to not have to make that plastic disc, package it, and ship it, if they would embrace digital distribution. So if they could sell it for about the same price- or if they could sell it at whatever price THEY want to sell it for...
Tadah!
This will never happen..at least not with HBO since it will hurt its cable, sat TV subs and DVD sales. Recall that HBO wanted to charge netflix subscribers $10 per month just to stream their content.
Personally, I think in that sense it will be only newer shows. Much like iplayer in the UK and iview in Australia, you'll have the last current 2 or 3 episodes of a show available to download, where you have 24 hours to watch once you hit play or something like that.
They still want to sell episodes in the store. Think about it, you'd never have to actually buy a show again. That would be bad for them. I'd like to see the entire tv collection open up to this idea, but Apple (no, make that the TV networks) aren't that generous...
I wish I could show you the website, but the website sadly is only available to Australians. Over here, we have a website called iview, which is an online version of something similar. No ads to start with (cause it's The ABC, which is ad free even on television) and they have the last two episodes of the shows they get, which are available to watch for those two weeks whenever you like. The good thing is some ISPs have turned off the quota so your download limit isn't sucked dry at all... Unfortunately it's only The ABC, but we do get stuff like The Wire, Doctor Who, Ashes To Ashes, Afro Samurai, etc.
I'm thinking it will be something similar to that, except more options to download it to your apple tv, or iphone or touch or something like that. Done right, season passes will be a thing of the past...
I'm thinking it will be something similar to that, except more options to download it to your apple tv, or iphone or touch or something like that. Done right, season passes will be a thing of the past...
Greed! iTunes Extras are AWESOME. All I want now if for them to all be 1080P and BOOM we have a winner!
Hollywood can keep skirting around the issue all they want. More chance for me to embrace and take the cake!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Now BEST BUY joins the party
While not perfectly matching the message of this thread, Best Buy has announced they will now enter the digital distribution arena (to compete with services like iTunes). Here's a link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601093&sid=aGts_TcpQ4L4
The partner behind this is Sonic Solutions, the same people behind Blockbusters DD service, also known as CinemaNow. It apparently involves a library of about 22K movies. Best Buy is apparently getting big name AV Hardware manufacturers to essentially build the functionality for the service into the hardware devices like disc players (like how some have other streaming services built in now).
While not perfectly matching the message of this thread, Best Buy has announced they will now enter the digital distribution arena (to compete with services like iTunes). Here's a link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601093&sid=aGts_TcpQ4L4
The partner behind this is Sonic Solutions, the same people behind Blockbusters DD service, also known as CinemaNow. It apparently involves a library of about 22K movies. Best Buy is apparently getting big name AV Hardware manufacturers to essentially build the functionality for the service into the hardware devices like disc players (like how some have other streaming services built in now).
Yeah, 'cause when I think 'Best Buy' I think 'digital download of media' ... it's an off-core-competency push (way off, for that matter) from Best Buy, the likes of which (Walmart's music service, for instance, and Blockbuster's by-mail DVD rental service to a slightly lesser extent) tend to be disastrous.
Unlike BB with its warehouse focus, Apple has been doing digital content distribution for a really long time and is really good at it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I know we all love Apple and that they are the best at everything they do, and all
, but Best Buy is only partnering with the company doing the digital distribution. That company started as CinemaNow in the DD business, about 3 years BEFORE Apple rolled out the first iPod, and about 5-6(?) years before Apple added video downloads to the iTunes store. They might know a thing or two about DD too.And did I mention they already have 22,000 movies in their service?
And did you look at the article, which has Best Buy's part really working with the various hardware manufacturers, building in the ability to access this DD service by Best Buy from within the major manufacturers hardware (such as a variety of disc players from a variety of big name players like Sony, Samsung, and others)? Those disc players that will be under the trees this year will have a direct link to the movie library from Best Buy- maybe Netflix and others too- but NO link to iTunes/Apple.
Not saying they are better than Apple or anything.
If a DD movie you want to watch can be rented via a box already in your AV equipment stack, is there a good reason to go out an buy a closed iTunes-only box from Apple so that you might be able to rent a subset of those same movies? I'm a big fan of Apple, and I own an Apple TV, but they better get their video model cooking if they want to own that space. The "hobby" had better be in name only by now.
