How will Apple deliver their content to your home without an internet service provider? And you only support people or a company protecting their assets if it's Apple? How about Apple's DRM?
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 Pushing Ahead with Plans for Subscription TV Service by Christmas?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How will Apple deliver their content to your home without an internet service provider? And you only support people or a company protecting their assets if it's Apple? How about Apple's DRM?
While I agree with the skepticism, it's not because of the competition. There were always strong competitors before iPod and iPhone. It's rather content providers not cooperating.
As Pink Floyd stated so succinctly 33 years ago... "I Got thirteen channels of ****** on the T.V. to choose from."
True dat
For most people, you can get a great bundle (without movie channels like HBO) for only $2 a day. Even if you only watch a couple of hours of programing per day, that is better value than the $4.00 Starbucks that get consumed in 20 minutes, or the 13 miles of driving you can do on the half gallon of gas you can buy with $2.00.
TV, even as currently priced, is still one of the very best entertainment values out there. Take a family of four to see a single movie for 90 minutes and you have just exceeded a basic bundle cost. (That's without popcorn and drinks).
TV, even as currently priced, is still one of the very best entertainment values out there. Take a family of four to see a single movie for 90 minutes and you have just exceeded a basic bundle cost. (That's without popcorn and drinks).
AppleTV is going to fail on these negotiations
AppleTV is going to fail if Apple keeps a heavy hand on negotiations.
Movie and TV content is expensive to produce. Apple can't simply demand that content providers give the lowest bottom of the barrel price. This is true particularly since the content providers already have established contracts with Cable TV companies and Networks where they make tons of money. Apple can't come in and ask them to make LESS money than they do currently.
What Apple can do is offer content providers a platform on which to make the same OR MORE money than they do now.
For example, the iPad allows Comcast Cable to provide a streaming content app for its subscribers.
This allows Comcast to keep its subscribers (who pay up to $200 month or more for Comcast's services), while offering them another method to get their content. Comcast gets to keep earning the same amount ($200+ a month per subscriber). It also may attract new subscribers since the streaming app works similarly to Netflix.
Apple should do the same for all the content providers and simply aggregate their streaming services - just like it has with Netflix - on the AppleTV.
Thus everyone wins.
Apple gets to sell AppleTVs.
Content providers get to keep making the same money OR MORE by attracting more subscribers.
The difference is that Apple doesn't get a piece of the income that content providers make. This is a huge incentive for them to add their services to AppleTV.
AppleTV is going to fail if Apple keeps a heavy hand on negotiations.
Movie and TV content is expensive to produce. Apple can't simply demand that content providers give the lowest bottom of the barrel price. This is true particularly since the content providers already have established contracts with Cable TV companies and Networks where they make tons of money. Apple can't come in and ask them to make LESS money than they do currently.
What Apple can do is offer content providers a platform on which to make the same OR MORE money than they do now.
For example, the iPad allows Comcast Cable to provide a streaming content app for its subscribers.
This allows Comcast to keep its subscribers (who pay up to $200 month or more for Comcast's services), while offering them another method to get their content. Comcast gets to keep earning the same amount ($200+ a month per subscriber). It also may attract new subscribers since the streaming app works similarly to Netflix.
Apple should do the same for all the content providers and simply aggregate their streaming services - just like it has with Netflix - on the AppleTV.
Thus everyone wins.
Apple gets to sell AppleTVs.
Content providers get to keep making the same money OR MORE by attracting more subscribers.
The difference is that Apple doesn't get a piece of the income that content providers make. This is a huge incentive for them to add their services to AppleTV.
AppleTV thrown out...
I'm in the home A/V business and was hired by a personal assistant to design and install a single room entertainment system. The wife approved the design. However, when the husband discovered the AppleTV in the final installation, he "threw a fit" and had it taken out; their family owns a major cable company.
I'm in the home A/V business and was hired by a personal assistant to design and install a single room entertainment system. The wife approved the design. However, when the husband discovered the AppleTV in the final installation, he "threw a fit" and had it taken out; their family owns a major cable company.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
But that is kind of what I am saying... Burger king sells 20 kinds of burgers, and if they introduce a new one and no one buys it they will kill it. But if they release a new one and it sells better than every other, it deserves extra $$$ for marketing. It's kind of the same thing.
Did you like Seinfeld? In this example, Seinfeld was generally a bad burger through it's entire first season (almost got canceled, required NBC to cough up money out of a production budget to cover a few more episodes; NBC tried to dump it to FOX, etc). It took a whole season+ (and some NBC gambles on sticking it in choice (good show) "piggybacking" slots) to start to find it's audience. A show is not a hit or miss in one pilot episode. Sometimes it takes many episodes to gain steam. In al-a-carte, if a show didn't get a lot of takers right out of the gate, it would die. I think there would be no Seinfeld (and many other well regarded shows that did not roar out of the gates) if al-a-carte had been the way all along. They would have died before they got their legs under them.
On the other hand, the cheap production shows (reality programming) would likely take over as their cheap costs would come with much less risk for those who gamble on new shows. So then we end up with YouTube+ level programming as the bulk of our choices when the shows we like now run their course.
Last edited:
I love the idea of a la carte television, but based on the premium prices apple tends to try and sell there products for, do we think the prices will be significantly cheaper than cable/dish? (it would depend on the business model)
If they have the leverage to push this through they have an excellent opportunity assuming they price it right. currently the season passes to shows are far more than buying them on dvd/blu ray...
also a la carte television will likely kill off many of our current channels, while some of you may not like popular channels such as ESPN for example, it's those popular channels that are artificially propping up the less popular media channels through the current all or nothing business model
If they have the leverage to push this through they have an excellent opportunity assuming they price it right. currently the season passes to shows are far more than buying them on dvd/blu ray...
also a la carte television will likely kill off many of our current channels, while some of you may not like popular channels such as ESPN for example, it's those popular channels that are artificially propping up the less popular media channels through the current all or nothing business model
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
...and vice versa (it's so many more commercials running on a bunch of channels "I" never watch that flows other-peoples-money to production studios so that they can make the shows "I" do watch). I'm well past Disney cartoon channels but all those commercials that run on those channels flows revenue to Disney. In turn, some of that money pays professionals to make some Disney/ABC/ESPN programming I do watch. Kill off those networks in al-a-carte and somebody has to make up for those revenue flows.
There's a whole bunch of Turner channels I don't watch. But I do watch a few shows on TNT. Some of the money made from the commercials running on those other Turner channels pay for the production of some of the stuff I do watch on TNT. Kill off those other channels and somebody has to make up for those revenue flows.
Etc. In both cases- in this Apple replacement dream- the only players left would be Apple and us consumers. If so, who is the "somebody" who makes up for those revenue flows?
There's a whole bunch of Turner channels I don't watch. But I do watch a few shows on TNT. Some of the money made from the commercials running on those other Turner channels pay for the production of some of the stuff I do watch on TNT. Kill off those other channels and somebody has to make up for those revenue flows.
Etc. In both cases- in this Apple replacement dream- the only players left would be Apple and us consumers. If so, who is the "somebody" who makes up for those revenue flows?
I currently have DirecTV HD DVR and it does pretty much everything I want. I have video on demand for most channels, movies on demand, access to youtube and now pandora. Plus every sports package that's available. And for sports like golf and tennis special coverage during major tournaments. I'm not sure what Apple could provide that I don't already have, and I doubt it would be cheaper. Certainly not if it required you to purchase an Apple TV set. As far as my DirecTV box....it's 'sleek' enough for me.
I think it was easy on the music side - the record companies had to do something as people were stealing their stuff in droves. But on the TV side is there really a huge problem that Apple needs to solve? Are that many people unhappy with their cable/sat provider?
When journalism dies, democracy dies. We cannot fix stupid ... or ignorant or uninformed.
I see your point and I agree with it. But, if you are buying a channel, there is still room to carry possible hits, still room for development.
Absolutely not. Just like to make simple observations about relative costs of things we all spend money on. Cable is low on the list of per/day expenses. If I could cut my cable bill in half, it would save me about a buck a day. Not seeing that as life-changing.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Again, read this thread carefully. The dream is substantial cuts to the revenue flows from consumers through cable/satt middlemen to studios making the shows. Many people dream of going from flowing $100 in subscription fees now down to something like $5, $10 or maybe $20.
Apple would become the new middleman, probably with their 30% off the top approach.
The dream generally includes no commercials, so that washes out $54 per U.S. household per month.
Who pays to "carry possible hits" in this scenario? Where does the spare money come from to motivate the risk takers to stick with a show like Seinfeld or to even gamble on any quality, scripted, professionally-done, new show production?
The content providers are already making an insane amount of money through the ridiculous prices in the iTunes Store. A digital version of anything should never cost more than the physical version, especially not in the case of something like Blu-ray. And yet they charge ludicrous prices for a 720p file that isn't backed up by their server, whereas you can probably buy the 1080p, high bitrate Blu-ray from Amazon for a lower price and you don't have to worry about data loss with a physical disc.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The video players don't want to end up under Apple's thumb like their music industry cousins. They don't want Apple dictating that all of their content- good or bad, quality or crap, etc- shall be ONE price that Apple chooses. They don't want Apple's option to become the best option. They would rather have many customers rather than just ONE customer that wants to tell them how their stuff shall be priced, how it shall be sold, etc.
We (here) see Apple as solely responsible for saving the music industry. If the music industry saw it that way, they would be doing everything possible to help Apple grow, grow, grow. Instead, they are taking greater hits to their own bottom lines by trying to help others- like Amazon- bite into the Apple dominance. You can't buy digital music cheaper on other sites because those other sites are more generous... nor because the 'greedy' music industry has become less greedy there (by choice). They desperately want to get out from under Apple's dominance.
Just think how you would feel if some other company stepped in and decided how the products made at your company shall be priced... that one product is the same as all others and should be priced the same... etc. There is no great love between the music industry and Apple. It's a situation they simply must deal with because Apple was able to get such a huge bite of that pie in a relatively short period of time.
The video side absolutely does not want to allow history to repeat with their content, which is why there are alternatives like Netflix $8 subscription with no iTunes subscriptions, why Blu Ray discs can cost less than iTunes versions of the same film, why Redbox can get you a disc-based rental much cheaper than the same via iTunes, etc. As consumers- and Apple fans- we can see this as terribly wrong... but all that's really happening there is they are trying to look out for themselves, their own control desires, their own bottom line objectives... just like Apple does.
I bet if Apple changed policy and allowed the Studios to price their stuff however they wanted, the iTunes store would be flooded with all kinds of new content. So why not do that? Why not let the owners of the content price per market supply & demand rather than making the best movie ever made be priced the same as the worst movie ever made (or within a few dollars of each other). Apple could help themselves by loosening up a little on content they don't create/own themselves. If a Studio is too greedy, they just won't sell much in the iTunes store. As is- and as you point out- we consumers can generally save money by buying hard media from someone other than Apple... which is what the Studios want.
We (here) see Apple as solely responsible for saving the music industry. If the music industry saw it that way, they would be doing everything possible to help Apple grow, grow, grow. Instead, they are taking greater hits to their own bottom lines by trying to help others- like Amazon- bite into the Apple dominance. You can't buy digital music cheaper on other sites because those other sites are more generous... nor because the 'greedy' music industry has become less greedy there (by choice). They desperately want to get out from under Apple's dominance.
Just think how you would feel if some other company stepped in and decided how the products made at your company shall be priced... that one product is the same as all others and should be priced the same... etc. There is no great love between the music industry and Apple. It's a situation they simply must deal with because Apple was able to get such a huge bite of that pie in a relatively short period of time.
The video side absolutely does not want to allow history to repeat with their content, which is why there are alternatives like Netflix $8 subscription with no iTunes subscriptions, why Blu Ray discs can cost less than iTunes versions of the same film, why Redbox can get you a disc-based rental much cheaper than the same via iTunes, etc. As consumers- and Apple fans- we can see this as terribly wrong... but all that's really happening there is they are trying to look out for themselves, their own control desires, their own bottom line objectives... just like Apple does.
I bet if Apple changed policy and allowed the Studios to price their stuff however they wanted, the iTunes store would be flooded with all kinds of new content. So why not do that? Why not let the owners of the content price per market supply & demand rather than making the best movie ever made be priced the same as the worst movie ever made (or within a few dollars of each other). Apple could help themselves by loosening up a little on content they don't create/own themselves. If a Studio is too greedy, they just won't sell much in the iTunes store. As is- and as you point out- we consumers can generally save money by buying hard media from someone other than Apple... which is what the Studios want.
Last edited:
I question the logic in the idea that it will be 2.99 or whatever to subscribe to each channel they want.
Apple charges in excess of 1.99 PER EPISODE of ONE SHOW. Yes - some is better than none. But I find it completely illogical and unlikely that Apple will offer "channels" of programming for a few dollars. It makes no business sense - especially for hot shows. And full seasons run much higher.
Apple charges in excess of 1.99 PER EPISODE of ONE SHOW. Yes - some is better than none. But I find it completely illogical and unlikely that Apple will offer "channels" of programming for a few dollars. It makes no business sense - especially for hot shows. And full seasons run much higher.
Anyone can dream, no commercials, little money output, dreams.
I posted earlier. I'd be willing to pay. But, give me reliable service, good choices and I mean CHOICES. I know I am not alone in being disgusted with being trampled by cable companies.
I don't blame them, and honestly it's good for the consumer. The iTunes Store is a ripoff, especially in the case of movies and TV shows. I prefer to rent from Netflix or buy the physical media from Amazon. Both of them offer way more affordable content than iTunes.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You're certainly not alone. Hopefully, I don't come off as pro-cable myself... as I see them as monopolistic/duopolistic devils. I just post the thoughts when I see the dream getting too out of touch with reality. Reality is that somebody has to pay for each big piece of the problem that Apple "solves." And in a situation where only 3 players can exist (Studios to Apple to us) it should be easy to see who will have to pay up for the dream to be realized (and that won't work by us getting to go from $100/month to $5 or $10 or $20).
Even if you eliminated the TV part of your deal with the cable company, they will jack up their Internet prices due to the increased usage in bandwidth for streaming. That's the thing people don't think about. I pay $100 per month combined for my Internet and TV. Roughly $40-45 of it is my 24 Mbps Internet connection. The rest of it is 150 channels, including 75 in HD. HD bandwidth is huge, around 10-15 Mbps. If people think they're going to magically drop the TV providers and then not have that same company double their Internet price to be able to use the Internet as their TV provider, they're not living in reality.
Nothing you have posted is what "we all want". You want cable. I don't. Which is why I dumped it 1.5 years ago.
Well, actually, I dumped cable a decade ago. I dumped sat 1.5 years ago.
Why are people thinking that Apple is REDUCING prices for TV shows?
Apple is actually INCREASING prices for each individual network. For example, instead of Comedy Central getting 25 cents per subscriber, they'll get $1 per subscriber. If more than 25% of users subscribe, Comedy Central makes more money being bundled, if less than 25%, they lose money compared with being bundled.
Many networks will make more money, many less.
It's like if McDonald's forced you to buy a value meal instead of each item individually. We should have a choice. With McDonald's, we have a choice right now. With Television, we don't.
If I bought all 200+ television stations, my 'Apple Bill' would be at least double what the same cable bill would be. But if I chose LESS ENTERTAINMENT, my bill would be LESS. The current situation won't last forever.
Some television stations are undervalued on TV, those will win. Some are OVERvalued - those will lose (and those are the ones that won't join Apple's selection of TV stations right away - but be forced in once Apple's model is found to work)
Apple is actually INCREASING prices for each individual network. For example, instead of Comedy Central getting 25 cents per subscriber, they'll get $1 per subscriber. If more than 25% of users subscribe, Comedy Central makes more money being bundled, if less than 25%, they lose money compared with being bundled.
Many networks will make more money, many less.
It's like if McDonald's forced you to buy a value meal instead of each item individually. We should have a choice. With McDonald's, we have a choice right now. With Television, we don't.
If I bought all 200+ television stations, my 'Apple Bill' would be at least double what the same cable bill would be. But if I chose LESS ENTERTAINMENT, my bill would be LESS. The current situation won't last forever.
Some television stations are undervalued on TV, those will win. Some are OVERvalued - those will lose (and those are the ones that won't join Apple's selection of TV stations right away - but be forced in once Apple's model is found to work)