Screw the cable companies. They know that eventually they will simply become dumb pipes like water and power. Better to let Apple and others (Boxee, Roku, Netflix, etc...) keep chipping away at the old model of television and bring us new ways to access content outside of the grasp of cable. Internet and podcast shows are getting better all the time. Let the dinosaurs go extinct.
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
Which is why Apple has to find the solution to this as well.
If I had months to think about this, I could figure it out as well. Apple has many people which are thinking about this right now. Possible solutions I've thought of (there are doubtless many, many more much better ideas):
a) have the networks pay for the usage they use, not consumers
b) have a national maximum-fee a provider may charge per hour/GB of video.
c) roll out a national public internet service (much like we had 'public airwaves')
d) Apple develops their own 'internet service', which is free, and which only works with Apple TVs
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Oh I think about that all the time. The Comcasts of the world will not lose out no matter what happens. To make the dream fly, it takes more than just making better deals with content providers. Apple needs to innovate a way to completely bypass the middlemen. While you have Comcasts, AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, etc dependencies in any Apple solution, you have tiered pricing tightening, bandwidth cap tightening, throttling at will, etc. The cable people typically have the monopoly/duopoly (with another cable tv provider) on Internet broadband for a reason.
Yeah, there's a lot of delusion out there about how it would be handled. Either way we're going to be shelling out a lot of money to get the content. Just the way it goes. What I don't like is the cost of Internet in the U.S. compared to Asia. Insane to think I would pay $110 for 110 Mbps when someone in South Korea or Japan can get 10 times the speed for less than half the price.
I was also paying a lot to my cable provider (Comcast) for stuff I didn't watch. I do not want to give Comcast any more money than they deserve. I would rather give my money to Apple and only pay for what I want to watch. Plus Apple's hardware and GUI are much nicer than Comcast's.
To get the Asian pricing Americans would have to agree to live in Asian-type housing (20+ story apartment buildings being the only option). You can't have suburbs and cheap broadband
)
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You're thinking too simply. It doesn't work like that. Our subscription dollars are not the only dollars that support the existence of a channel like comedy central (hereafter CC). Let me try to explain...
CC is a Viacom channel. The Viacom "package forced on us" includes all kinds of channels (the various MTVs, VH1s, TV land, CMT, BET networks, Palladia, Logo, Viva, Spike, various Nickelodeons, etc). Like you, I like CC too, so let's say I'd pay for it in an a-la-carte model. Now let's also say that I wouldn't pay for any of the other Viacom channels in the al-a-carte model (I'm so over Sponge Bob, etc).
So, now instead of getting my 25 cents times say 20 channels (or $5/month) from me, Viacom will only get $1. That's an 80% cut in revenues from me to them. Can Viacom survive an 80% cut in their revenues if many agree with you & me and only buy CC al-a-carte. Probably not. Which means CC folds too. So we get our new al-a-carte system but Viacom can't make enough money with it to keep giving us CC. Did we win or lose?
Many see cable packages as forcing us to pay for a bunch of channels we don't watch. We don't see it as getting a bunch of channels we many never watch as an added bonus for the channels we are paying to watch. Glass half full or glass half empty? Either way, the existence of other channels generates other revenues for the production houses that makes the shows we don't- and do- watch. Wipe them out by al-a-carte survival-of-the-fittest and shows we don't and do watch will go away.
And again, $54/month per U.S. household is paid by companies running commercials on channels we watch and channels we never watch. Kill off the channels we never watch with al-a-carte and that $54/month needs to be made up somewhere (as it too pays for production houses to make stuff we do and do not watch).
While I can love the concept of al-a-carte, the math to make it a reality is very messy. I can say with great confidence that we wouldn't end up with only the shows we each want to watch, as big cuts to revenue flows would put most production companies out of business. My guess is that CC wouldn't be priced at $1 al-a-carte but probably something more like $8-$12. Why? Because Viacom would want to make up for the revenue loss by no longer getting 25 cents times about 20 channels in it's portfolio by pricing it's more desirable offerings at sufficiently high prices to maybe do that.
End result: instead of having 10 channels we watch and 90 we don't for $100, we end up with 10 channels we watch for $100. Or if Apple is somehow able to motivate the content producers to cut their costs of content solely to help Apple be more successful (think about that), we end up with 10 channels we watch for $50 and a broadband price increase for us "heavy video streamer" users of $60+.
Last edited:
Of course you'd rather give money to Apple. Because they are good and Comcast is evil?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
More power to you Apple. Would love an ala carte system myself. Always thought $0.99 per channel/month would be a good place to start for someone like me who may want the Tennis Channel but not the Cooking Channel
More power to you Apple. Would love an ala carte system myself. Always thought $0.99 per channel/month would be a good place to start for someone like me who may want the Tennis Channel but not the Cooking Channel
To get the Asian pricing Americans would have to agree to live in Asian-type housing (20+ story apartment buildings being the only option). You can't have suburbs and cheap broadband
I live in an apartment so that's not a problem for me. Even with the space issue, our technology itself is lagging behind.
Then switch to a non-cable ISP that doesn't have any vested interest as a TV provider?
For instance, I can switch from my existing package (140 euros per month for 30Mbps broadband phone & TV) to a fast DSL provider (80 euros for 24Mbps but no contention, and phone). The DSL package is actually faster, it costs slightly more, but without paying for TV it comes out much cheaper.
That said, there is something very broken about many ISP's business model - the more demand goes up, the more their entire model falls apart and they start whining.
TV industry resistance
This New York Post maybe completely unfounded but its speaks sense. I can definitely see Apple doing this.
What is important is that if you don't like the current subscription 500 channels of ads model, we have to jump on whatever Apple puts out. Even if that means backing an incomplete content list. Lets vote with our wallets as consumers to tell those TV networks and cable operators their time is up. Evolve or die.
OnBdDck
This New York Post maybe completely unfounded but its speaks sense. I can definitely see Apple doing this.
What is important is that if you don't like the current subscription 500 channels of ads model, we have to jump on whatever Apple puts out. Even if that means backing an incomplete content list. Lets vote with our wallets as consumers to tell those TV networks and cable operators their time is up. Evolve or die.
OnBdDck
Satellite Broadband
If Apple does not plan to use DSL or Cable Internet, the only choice they have is satellite broadband. Unfortunately, the geostationary satellites have too much latency and the speed is limited to about 2mbps, which is not suitable. There are some new technologies that are capable of much higher speeds, around 10-15mbps and low latency that target specific areas of North America, about 500 different areas. Prices are a little high right now. ViaSat-1 is the system for North America, and the same technology is used for other systems in Europe and Asia.
http://www.viasatresidential.com/
I don't think Apple should get into this business, but, rather use it.
If Apple does not plan to use DSL or Cable Internet, the only choice they have is satellite broadband. Unfortunately, the geostationary satellites have too much latency and the speed is limited to about 2mbps, which is not suitable. There are some new technologies that are capable of much higher speeds, around 10-15mbps and low latency that target specific areas of North America, about 500 different areas. Prices are a little high right now. ViaSat-1 is the system for North America, and the same technology is used for other systems in Europe and Asia.
http://www.viasatresidential.com/
I don't think Apple should get into this business, but, rather use it.
You're in Ireland. The situation you describe isn't even available to a vast majority of Americans, including myself. Our government supports the cable companies, subsidizes them, and creates HUGE barriers to prevent competitors from jumping into the market. In most cases, you have only two or three options and all of them are cable/satellite providers. In my case, my apartment complex has an agreement with one cable provider and I literally do not have a choice. I will say that this particular cable provider is better than the other one in my town, so at least I'm not stuck with the worse option of the two.
Cable/Satellite menus
The worst part about the cable and Satellite menus is that even when you "customize" your menu to show only what you're subscribed to, it doesn't show ONLY what you're subscribed to!
I hate when I'm at my parent's house flipping through the menu and say "hey, that looks like it might actually be worthwhile to watch! Only to find out it's not a channel they have!
The worst part about the cable and Satellite menus is that even when you "customize" your menu to show only what you're subscribed to, it doesn't show ONLY what you're subscribed to!
I hate when I'm at my parent's house flipping through the menu and say "hey, that looks like it might actually be worthwhile to watch! Only to find out it's not a channel they have!
What is stopping Apple from becoming a Virtual MSO?
They can get the same raw content from the networks,
and assuming the licensing allows them to, convert it
to Apple media format.
I would like to see the commercials ripped from the stream,
but doubt the networks will license it that way.
They can get the same raw content from the networks,
and assuming the licensing allows them to, convert it
to Apple media format.
I would like to see the commercials ripped from the stream,
but doubt the networks will license it that way.
I thought they were using "our" (Cisco) technology? It's just that the amount (and cost) of hardware required to provide good broadband to US-style housing is much greater. On a bright side, where I live (West Coast) we just got 100Mbps broadband at no extra charge (around $40). So things do improve.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Near it's end, capitalism begins to fail consumers when the few own/control so much that there is no longer any real competition. When it is permitted that an area can have just 1 or 2 broadband providers, there is virtually no reason to compete on price. Price moves only 1 direction in this scenario.
In this thread, there seems to be universal disgust for the cable monopoly because prices only go one direction. More competition would be the remedy but you can't be a new competitor through the Internet pipe if the cable company is also the gatekeeper of that pipe.
Our system struggles because we have too much owned/controlled by too few. The few likes their cash flows "as is" or better so they will do anything to persist the status quo. For example, if a new broadband upstart pops up in your town, watch how long they last until they are either crushed or bought out. But that's the bigger problem we live with.
If capitalism was working as its supposed to work, we'd have lots of competitors working hard to compete, driving down the costs of things like broadband, wireless communications, food, energy, etc. Instead, the big dogs keep swallowing the pups until there is no competitive pressure to do good for consumers.
Comcast has little choice or they will face some significant anti-trust problems.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
To get the Asian pricing Americans would have to agree to live in Asian-type housing (20+ story apartment buildings being the only option). You can't have suburbs and cheap broadband
Where there is lots of competition for broadband in America, there is much cheaper pricing. There's just not many places left where there is much- if any- competition.
There's been satellite based internet for awhile .. you use the phone line for the uplink request to send data. Works find for connections that don't need a lot of uplink bandwidth (ie, classical media consumption).
So just launch more satellites, right?
And there's also Anti-Trust laws that makes collusion a no-no.
Not necessarily. The situation that you describe suggests that the current business practices are rife with inefficiencies. Inefficiency is something that capitalism - - by definition - - is supposed to destroy.
-hh
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Hahahahaha. Do you really think our government will protect us from the monopolists/duopolists? Like they do from the Wall Street banks? Like they do from the wireless players? Like they do from the energy monopolists? Remember those massive "too big to fail" bailouts? Did we subsequently make ANY of those "too big to fail" companies break up so they couldn't put us in that position again? Any of them? (no we helped several of them get a lot bigger than before).
The Gov likes campaign dollar flows. The communication industries flow a lot of dollars into campaigns. That last antitrust breakup in communications that I know of was the AT&T split in about 1981. After that, everyone got the message to be sure to flow some of that lucrative money to both party's political campaigns. Even AT&T has been allowed to merge it's way right back into heavy dominance barely 30 years after being broken up. Will they be broken up again? Not by our government.
Last edited: