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
Retina is incredible for devices that are inches from your eyes. On a TV that is 7 feet away, not so much.
Not quite right - People used to buy albums on pieces of plastic - not songs. That was a major barrier for the music industry buying into the iTunes model. People were buying the whole album to get the hit song they wanted.
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)
Comcast jacked my Internet cost up to $70/mth when I cancelled cable too. I let it go for a month then called them back and threatened to cancel my Internet package as well. They conceded and offered me $19.99/mth for 6 months and then it goes up to $34.99/mth for the next 6 months. At the end of the year when it goes back to $70 I'll just do this all over again.
dingamahoo said:
Comcast jacked my Internet cost up to $70/mth when I cancelled cable too. I let it go for a month then called them back and threatened to cancel my Internet package as well. They conceded and offered me $19.99/mth for 6 months and then it goes up to $34.99/mth for the next 6 months. At the end of the year when it goes back to $70 I'll just do this all over again.
We need to remember that the cable companies are the primary providers of broadband service to homes in the USA. They ultimately control what enters your house, at what speed, and at what cost. They have a stranglehold on most all of us.
Cable is struggling. Maybe Apple will finally do what I've been hoping would happen for years, sell individual channels a-la-cart so that you only get the channels you want.
I draw parallels to iTunes, before iTunes you needed to buy an entire junkie CD for a song or two (unless you are lucky and the song you like was released as a 'single'), but selling individual songs, regardless of record industry resistence, turned out to be the way to go. Why can't the same be applied to cable?
I draw parallels to iTunes, before iTunes you needed to buy an entire junkie CD for a song or two (unless you are lucky and the song you like was released as a 'single'), but selling individual songs, regardless of record industry resistence, turned out to be the way to go. Why can't the same be applied to cable?
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)
Since Netflix launched on the Apple TV here in the UK 6 weeks ago my viewing habits have been radically changed.
Been catching up with a lot of old content I've not seen in years and stuff I never got round to watching because of the smegging adverts (I'm a BBC nut). It's early days yet but as more content is added I honestly can't see how the current subscription model in UK (Sky) is going to survive more than 10 years.
I notice that HBO is about to launch an app on the US Xbox live service. If that happens here and on the ATV.... game over. It'll open the floodgates. I can easily see for example the English Premier League launching their own app on an Apple branded TV direct to subscribers, bypassing the middleman (sky) same with the F1.
The cable and content companies can whine as much as they want about the deal Apple wants. The matter is simple enough to understand now.
Apple are the biggest kid in the playground now. Give them 33 percent of your lunch money now and keep your teeth or lose all your lunch money, have your teeth kicked out and find yourself in a red hot shower scrubbing your skin raw.
Your choice cable guys.
Since Netflix launched on the Apple TV here in the UK 6 weeks ago my viewing habits have been radically changed.
Been catching up with a lot of old content I've not seen in years and stuff I never got round to watching because of the smegging adverts (I'm a BBC nut). It's early days yet but as more content is added I honestly can't see how the current subscription model in UK (Sky) is going to survive more than 10 years.
I notice that HBO is about to launch an app on the US Xbox live service. If that happens here and on the ATV.... game over. It'll open the floodgates. I can easily see for example the English Premier League launching their own app on an Apple branded TV direct to subscribers, bypassing the middleman (sky) same with the F1.
The cable and content companies can whine as much as they want about the deal Apple wants. The matter is simple enough to understand now.
Apple are the biggest kid in the playground now. Give them 33 percent of your lunch money now and keep your teeth or lose all your lunch money, have your teeth kicked out and find yourself in a red hot shower scrubbing your skin raw.
Your choice cable guys.
I want them to take it a step further and not only offer individual channels, but individual shows. Why have to subscribe to Comedy Central if all I want is the Daily Show? Can you imagine if we bought our music or movies the same way (through packages of a record company or movie studio)?
The TV industry currently operates on a model that is over 60 years old, when stations BROADCAST a signal to our television RECEIVERS and we had no true choice over what came in our homes. The times have changed and the industry needs a massive reinvention. The technology is in place to give consumers exactly what they want.
----------
Won't you have to be a subscriber of HBO through your cable/satellite company just like you do already with the HBO Go apps? It's stupid indeed but I think that's how it will work on 360 too. I really wish HBO would break the chain and just let me subscribe via the many devices their app now exists on.
The TV industry currently operates on a model that is over 60 years old, when stations BROADCAST a signal to our television RECEIVERS and we had no true choice over what came in our homes. The times have changed and the industry needs a massive reinvention. The technology is in place to give consumers exactly what they want.
----------
Won't you have to be a subscriber of HBO through your cable/satellite company just like you do already with the HBO Go apps? It's stupid indeed but I think that's how it will work on 360 too. I really wish HBO would break the chain and just let me subscribe via the many devices their app now exists on.
Yes, and it's a government supported monopoly, which means we don't stand much chance of getting more options on the table. I think it's embarrassing that countries in Asia have 1,000 Megabit Internet for less than $40 per month. The fastest Internet offered by my cable company is 110 Megabits for $110 per month. That's brutal.
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)
Glad I don't watch t.v.
Glad I don't watch t.v.
Exactly. There may be other (technological) reasons why albums were sold rather than just singles, and tv channels were broadcast rather than programmes on demand; but now the content owners are clinging to the existing model because it suits them. Because it enables them to make more money by bundling their quality content with 'filler' (the hit single in an average album, the hit show on an average channel, or most popular channel in an average package)
Producers won't like a model like Apple's until it's guaranteed they will have revenue to produce their shows. A total subscription model vs what exists now is rightfully cause for concern over financials.
Right now producers can assess budgets based on # of cable subscribers, ad revenue, etc. The model works decently because there's a "safety net" of sorts.
If TV shows were strictly individual purchases or even season purchases - it gets a lot scarier.
Just like (in live theater) - When a show has an advance (tickets sold to groups and individual) before the show opens - they know they can run X amount of weeks based on their operating budget. If a show has no or little advance and they rely on day to day ticket sales - it becomes a much riskier proposition. And even if the show is doing OK - all it takes is one bad week to make it no longer worthwhile to stay open.
So before you condemn the current situation based on your needs and desires - look at the big picture.
Do I think the cable system is "right" or "working" - not necessarily. But that doesn't mean you can just throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Right now producers can assess budgets based on # of cable subscribers, ad revenue, etc. The model works decently because there's a "safety net" of sorts.
If TV shows were strictly individual purchases or even season purchases - it gets a lot scarier.
Just like (in live theater) - When a show has an advance (tickets sold to groups and individual) before the show opens - they know they can run X amount of weeks based on their operating budget. If a show has no or little advance and they rely on day to day ticket sales - it becomes a much riskier proposition. And even if the show is doing OK - all it takes is one bad week to make it no longer worthwhile to stay open.
So before you condemn the current situation based on your needs and desires - look at the big picture.
Do I think the cable system is "right" or "working" - not necessarily. But that doesn't mean you can just throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I absolutely love the fact that I can buy individual songs. I mean I have an Outkast double album because I liked "Hey ya!". (yeah I probably could've bought only the song, but that was in my pre-ipod days).
But, I do think that music is becoming singles oriented and I do miss "albums". Like opuses that is one long track, each track leading to the other. Late Beatles, PF, etc. Or just great albums that are so great that you never skip
I still can listen to those, I just doubt there are much recent ones that matters.
Lilyhammer
Have to disagree with you. It is one of my favorite programs, although I watched the entire season in three days. Anxiously awaiting Season Two, in production.
Have to disagree with you. It is one of my favorite programs, although I watched the entire season in three days. Anxiously awaiting Season Two, in production.
This is the ultimate version of Al a carte cable service. However content providers have always been against that. Interesting enough that I hope it shakes things up in cable land.
Yes, I can imagine this because the Daily Show is available for sale on iTunes. It costs $3 an episode. Enjoy. Wait, you don't like that price? Now you see the problem with a-lacarte pricing for something that you are used to buying in bulk.
Won't you have to be a subscriber of HBO through your cable/satellite company just like you do already with the HBO Go apps? It's stupid indeed but I think that's how it will work on 360 too. I really wish HBO would break the chain and just let me subscribe via the many devices their app now exists on.
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)
Smug, like a school kid subtly bragging about stealing candy bars at the convenience store because he doesn't like the prices. And who doesn't realize some of his peers just consider him a thief.
Smug, like a school kid subtly bragging about stealing candy bars at the convenience store because he doesn't like the prices. And who doesn't realize some of his peers just consider him a thief.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
It can but it won't work as you think. The math is not as people think here. They usually do the math like this: 200 channels for $100/month = 50 cents/channel. "I" like 10 channels so my al-a-carte bill should be about $5/month to get the channels I actually watch.
Now think that through. Suppose Apple had a solution that would involve cutting your own company's (wherever you work) revenues from 100% of what you are making now to 5%. What would happen? With a 95% cut in revenues would your company be able to keep up the exact same level of production? Certainly not. Would everyone's salaries stay the same (or would they get a raise this year)? Certainly not. When people get pay cuts or laid off do they keep doing their job anyway? Few might but most won't. Would quality of production stay the same? No. Would your company even survive a 95% cut of revenue? Probably not.
What happens in the dreamworld where the revenues get severely cut for Apple's benefit is that the money that fuels the cost of production disappears. But that only means the good shows will prosper and the bad shows will fail, right? Not exactly. You have to have a lot of surplus cash flowing into this machine to motivate the risk to create the new shows that will be the "good shows" we want to watch in 3 years, 5 years, 10 years. New shows are loaded with risks so there has to be high return potential to get them backed. Pinch that potential and nobody wants to risk much- if anything- on new shows. No new shows means that when the current "good shows" run their course, there is nothing to replace them.
Commercials added $49 Billion dollars into this revenue stream last year. 300 million people in the U.S. divided about 4 per household = about 75 million households. $49 Billion divided by 75 million = about $654 per year that the commercials contribute toward programming that we don't have to pay for (in the al-a-carte with no commercials dream). $654/12 = $54.50 per household per month. Get rid of the commercials and either that has to be made up for from us consumers (which is far from $5 or $10/month) OR that money no longer goes toward paying the people that make the shows and motivating the entrepreneurs to take a risk at developing new shows.
I love the dream. But it just doesn't fly when one thinks it through beyond what's best for Apple. All the people that make shows and all the people that take the risk to make new shows all want to get paid too. They don't want to cut their revenue throats just to help Apple become the dominant owner of this space (too). What's in an Apple television package priced dirt cheap for them? Just like Apple, they want to make more money this year than they made last year, not less... and certainly not 80% or more less.
The dream we seek already exists from sources like youtube. There you get no-cost/low-cost production being offered commercial-free or near commercial-free for nothing or near nothing. When, we all reduce our programming bills into $5-$10-$20/month, we take a giant step in that direction on the quality of production. That should represent about the quality of programming we would get in our $5-$20/month dreamworld (cost of production would need to fall proportionately with average revenue).
No one should delude themselves into thinking that only the "good shows" will get developed as that would be the way it is now if there was any way for the Studios to recognize the good shows from the bad. The model of backing best guesses at what might be future good shows only to see the vast majority fail is what ultimately yields the good shows we might pay for in this dreamworld. Remove the money to gamble on a variety of what might become good shows and there won't be any good shows developed. Youtube quality of programming would be it.
But, but, but, "I'm all for the artists getting paid, what if this just takes the money from the greedy Studio executives and the cable & satt middlemen?" There certainly is some money made by those who package and deliver the artists work. However, Apple would want to become the new middleman... probably with their 30% right off the top cut (which is not trivial, and certainly challenges how to make the dreamworld package work while still costing us consumers only $5-$10-$20/month). Furthermore, whatever Apple cooks up has to flow through pipes generally owned by the cable middlemen. If Apple starts eating into their cable tv revenues, they'll just raise their broadband tolls for us "heavier users". In other words, if somehow we really could cut our cable bill from $100 to- say- $10, expect our broadband bill to rise by at least the $90 to make up for it. Many people have only one source for broadband but for those- like me- with 2 choices, guess what: BOTH are in the cable business too. They will not let an Apple solution take their cable revenues from them while flowing Apple's solution through their very own pipes. It will not happen.
To deal with this latter issue, we have to see rumors of a way to bypass the middlemen (between the artists output and us consumers of their art). That means we would have to have a way to link directly to iCloud without having a relationship with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner, etc. That would need to be a solution that works world wide, so buying up a cable provider or two doesn't do the trick (nor does even buying someone like Directv or DISH). How about Sprint? There's not enough bandwidth in 3G or 4G to have wireless on-demand, al-a-carte cable-tv replacement service for everyone (and that's not a worldwide solution either).
Personally, I think the way to come closest is for Apple to buy Directv or Dish for the direct connection in the U.S. & Canada, look for similar acquisitions around the globe, launch Satts to cover wherever else Apple wants to directly own the link between iCloud and iCloud users and leverage all that toward motivating the artists to do deals directly with Apple (which will generally be accomplished by showing them how to make more money not 80%+ less). That is heavily loaded with costs and probably not much profit- if any- for a very long time (especially if we're hoping to pay only $5-$20/month to fund all that and continue to motivate the production of our subjectively favorite shows, sports, etc as well as motivating the risk-takers to gamble on new shows). And it still doesn't resolve the other issues touched on above if we users are to end up with a television bill of $5 or $20/month.
Last edited:
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)
As far as I know there is no option to subscribe directly to HBO in the UK. They have a channel on Sky which you pay extra to Sky for. But if and (I think it's only a matter time) when HBO launch an direct subscription model via an app then the old way of watching TV will die very quickly.
As far as I know there is no option to subscribe directly to HBO in the UK. They have a channel on Sky which you pay extra to Sky for. But if and (I think it's only a matter time) when HBO launch an direct subscription model via an app then the old way of watching TV will die very quickly.
Without any sports it's a big FAIL... If it were me, I'd try to lock up as many PRO Sport leagues as possible... MLB, NHL, NBA, NFL, Soccer.. etc,etc..
If you get sports the rest will follow.. simple as that!
If you get sports the rest will follow.. simple as that!
Same here. I quite watching TV more than 12 years ago. However, I have large flat panel device that I use exclusively as a monitor for watching movies or some quality series. But there is no antenna connected to it, nor do I have a satellite receiver or cable.
But it's interesting. People are still PAYING for TV? I thought that business model died in the 1990s?
Anyway. I could imagine paying for some sort of "culture flatrate" (that is something that is being discussed here in Germany for quite a while now) that would allow me to download and keep DRM-free copies of all movies and music files that I want to have -- in full HD quality and with subtitles and in the original language version. And, as I've mentioned, WITHOUT DRM. Yep, I would pay for that. But not for "TV channels".