Exactly!!! It's a great concept to pay $1.29 for a song.. but when you're talking about 2.99 a pop for "EACH" tv show episode.. Screw that!!! The bill on that alone would top what you would pay for Cable/Satellite..
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
Exactly!!! It's a great concept to pay $1.29 for a song.. but when you're talking about 2.99 a pop for "EACH" tv show episode.. Screw that!!! The bill on that alone would top what you would pay for Cable/Satellite..
Although in general I love the idea of some kind of AppleTV system where I can pick and choose my shows and end up, hopefully, saving a LOT of money every month...the main problem still exists: bandwidth.
I have a 30Mb/s connection and tried MLB.TV last year...worst streaming experience I have ever, ever encountered...at home or at work. I have tried Netflix a few times with their "instant streaming" and not sure how they have not been sued yet when the movie takes 90 seconds to even start and then it's deathly painful to rewind 30 seconds. No, it's not my connection as I have tested thoroughly during the pains and I easily pull my max...my devices are also wired so wireless snafus are not part of the problem. So obviously the issue is somewhere "out there" and likely at the Netflix and MLB.TV data centers where they simply don't provide the bandwidth as well as data access speeds.
Now factor in all the people out there that do not have 30Mb/s connections...the average in the USA is like 10Mb/s. Theoretically barely able to push HD on a good day with the wind blowing. I remember MLB.TV telling me that all I needed was a 5Mb/s connection and I laughed at them. So you have the common user, in 2012, with a 10Mb/s connection and Apple (or whoever) is still pushing the stream-over-the-internet parade that has been pushed since 1999 yet the vast majority of the times it doesn't work well or even come close to the high quality/uptime of Cable tv or dish tv. Who's going to sign up for this product/service when their tv shows display poorly and/or stop and start randomly? Not me. Let's also think about Youtube...it provide millions of 30second-15minute video clips at random quality to tens of millions of users on demand. I would say at least 15% of the time, on any given day, a video I try to play either takes forever to start (no, it's not the commercials as many don't have commercials) or they just keep stopping during playback. It's a lot better than 5 years ago, yes, but it's nothing I would pay for. And again, that's for a few minutes of usually 720p or less quality. Now imagine all the vids are 30-120 minutes AND at 720 or 1080.
I could write a lot more on this topic but the issue really comes down to bandwidth. Sure, if there were only 5000 subscribers and they all had FIOS, I'm sure it would work well. But trying to bump that up to millions or tens of millions of users, all choosing to watch shows at their own times (unlike tv just broadcasting at a certain time and you sit your butt down then to watch it or record it locally and watch later locally), the network system has to be able support that...from the end user's ISP to the backbone(s) to the pipes coming in/out of the datacenters...as well as the architecture of the datacenter to provide the i/o performance if we were to assume the network performance was magically perfect. It's one thing to have a 100Gbit connection but if you're servers are only pushing out at a rate of 1Gbit/sec, the bottleneck is the servers.
You also then have the ISPs who, unless are getting a cut of the deal, are not going to be happy when the average home's data usage surges from 3GB a month to 300GB/month now that they're all watching HD programming streamed over "the internet" rather than the cable system. A Bluray disc is typically about 25GB per 2 hour movie. You get a household that watches 40 hours of HD programming every month (about an hour a day) and that's 500GB/month of tv streaming. Even with my highest tier 30Mbit/s connection, if I were were to pull down more than 300GB/month I would get a hateful letter from my ISP immediately. So again, what's in it for the cable/phone operators who are now "switching" out their entire tv infrastructure for streaming internet?
I would love to see this all work...but I've been hearing about it since at least 1999 (remember all those Qualcomm and Cox commercials in 2000?) and 12 years later it still stinks. My bet is this day won't arrive until 2020 in any kind of mainstream fashion.
I have a 30Mb/s connection and tried MLB.TV last year...worst streaming experience I have ever, ever encountered...at home or at work. I have tried Netflix a few times with their "instant streaming" and not sure how they have not been sued yet when the movie takes 90 seconds to even start and then it's deathly painful to rewind 30 seconds. No, it's not my connection as I have tested thoroughly during the pains and I easily pull my max...my devices are also wired so wireless snafus are not part of the problem. So obviously the issue is somewhere "out there" and likely at the Netflix and MLB.TV data centers where they simply don't provide the bandwidth as well as data access speeds.
Now factor in all the people out there that do not have 30Mb/s connections...the average in the USA is like 10Mb/s. Theoretically barely able to push HD on a good day with the wind blowing. I remember MLB.TV telling me that all I needed was a 5Mb/s connection and I laughed at them. So you have the common user, in 2012, with a 10Mb/s connection and Apple (or whoever) is still pushing the stream-over-the-internet parade that has been pushed since 1999 yet the vast majority of the times it doesn't work well or even come close to the high quality/uptime of Cable tv or dish tv. Who's going to sign up for this product/service when their tv shows display poorly and/or stop and start randomly? Not me. Let's also think about Youtube...it provide millions of 30second-15minute video clips at random quality to tens of millions of users on demand. I would say at least 15% of the time, on any given day, a video I try to play either takes forever to start (no, it's not the commercials as many don't have commercials) or they just keep stopping during playback. It's a lot better than 5 years ago, yes, but it's nothing I would pay for. And again, that's for a few minutes of usually 720p or less quality. Now imagine all the vids are 30-120 minutes AND at 720 or 1080.
I could write a lot more on this topic but the issue really comes down to bandwidth. Sure, if there were only 5000 subscribers and they all had FIOS, I'm sure it would work well. But trying to bump that up to millions or tens of millions of users, all choosing to watch shows at their own times (unlike tv just broadcasting at a certain time and you sit your butt down then to watch it or record it locally and watch later locally), the network system has to be able support that...from the end user's ISP to the backbone(s) to the pipes coming in/out of the datacenters...as well as the architecture of the datacenter to provide the i/o performance if we were to assume the network performance was magically perfect. It's one thing to have a 100Gbit connection but if you're servers are only pushing out at a rate of 1Gbit/sec, the bottleneck is the servers.
You also then have the ISPs who, unless are getting a cut of the deal, are not going to be happy when the average home's data usage surges from 3GB a month to 300GB/month now that they're all watching HD programming streamed over "the internet" rather than the cable system. A Bluray disc is typically about 25GB per 2 hour movie. You get a household that watches 40 hours of HD programming every month (about an hour a day) and that's 500GB/month of tv streaming. Even with my highest tier 30Mbit/s connection, if I were were to pull down more than 300GB/month I would get a hateful letter from my ISP immediately. So again, what's in it for the cable/phone operators who are now "switching" out their entire tv infrastructure for streaming internet?
I would love to see this all work...but I've been hearing about it since at least 1999 (remember all those Qualcomm and Cox commercials in 2000?) and 12 years later it still stinks. My bet is this day won't arrive until 2020 in any kind of mainstream fashion.
Yes, because as we keep saying, the industry is still stuck in the dark ages. Remember before iTunes exploded how expensive CDs were getting? It was not uncommon to walk the aisles of a Best Buy or record store and see $20+ for a standard album on CD. Look what happened to those prices. Why can't the same happen for TV?
Thoughts
1. The sources in this article are clearly the cable companies, and that explains the tone. They are not happy with the terms about is dictating and are making it clear.
2. Whether you are an Apple fanboy or hate them, you should be for this. Nobody in cable TV has users best interest in mind for anything. The cable companies have a great thing going and only innovate in baby steps, and only when they fell threatened.
3. That's not to say Apple is being altruistic. They want to make money... huge stacks of money. But their plan has been to focus on user experience in markets that no one else does. MP3 players, phones, etc.
4. The experience of streaming content to mobile devices in mostly horrible now. ABC has an iPad app, but not iPhone. NBC has both but many shows are missing, Netflix is great but partners give and take content with no warning, HBOGO is fantastic but you have to pay for HBO on a cable system to have it. Time Warner streams content but only over your home time warner wifi.
5. Unfortunately when Apple made it's industry saving music deals that industry needed saving. That's not the case now. Cable companies are doing fine.
6. This is why I think they released Mountain Lion the way they did, to clear the WWDC Keynote for this announcement. It would be smart for them to let people who want to buy a TV know to wait, it's coming. Same as they did with the first iPhone.
1. The sources in this article are clearly the cable companies, and that explains the tone. They are not happy with the terms about is dictating and are making it clear.
2. Whether you are an Apple fanboy or hate them, you should be for this. Nobody in cable TV has users best interest in mind for anything. The cable companies have a great thing going and only innovate in baby steps, and only when they fell threatened.
3. That's not to say Apple is being altruistic. They want to make money... huge stacks of money. But their plan has been to focus on user experience in markets that no one else does. MP3 players, phones, etc.
4. The experience of streaming content to mobile devices in mostly horrible now. ABC has an iPad app, but not iPhone. NBC has both but many shows are missing, Netflix is great but partners give and take content with no warning, HBOGO is fantastic but you have to pay for HBO on a cable system to have it. Time Warner streams content but only over your home time warner wifi.
5. Unfortunately when Apple made it's industry saving music deals that industry needed saving. That's not the case now. Cable companies are doing fine.
6. This is why I think they released Mountain Lion the way they did, to clear the WWDC Keynote for this announcement. It would be smart for them to let people who want to buy a TV know to wait, it's coming. Same as they did with the first iPhone.
Last edited:
The math doesn't really work out anyway unless you only like 2-4 shows.
Figure a season typically is 22 episodes. Even if each was .99 or sold as a series for $20 - once you hit 3, 4, 5 shows, you're in line with what cable costs for all your channels.
I'm not sure if people think that moving to Apple's model = only having to pay a fraction of what they pay now. I think that's wishful thinking.
Figure a season typically is 22 episodes. Even if each was .99 or sold as a series for $20 - once you hit 3, 4, 5 shows, you're in line with what cable costs for all your channels.
I'm not sure if people think that moving to Apple's model = only having to pay a fraction of what they pay now. I think that's wishful thinking.
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)
+1
Apple buying premier league football in the uk exclusively streaming on iOS devices around the world, would sell millions of the rumoured Apple HDTV around the world.
Not gonna happen. Just using it as an example.
FSUSem1noles said:
+1
Apple buying premier league football in the uk exclusively streaming on iOS devices around the world, would sell millions of the rumoured Apple HDTV around the world.
Not gonna happen. Just using it as an example.
Buy a Cable alternative
Apple can and should buy a Cable alternative to counter the extortive US Cable chokehold on consumers.
Apple would, as an alternative, give the people what they want, including respect and unrivaled user experience.
Apple can and should buy a Cable alternative to counter the extortive US Cable chokehold on consumers.
Apple would, as an alternative, give the people what they want, including respect and unrivaled user experience.
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)
Entropys wrote:
" content providers/cable companies(') business model is built around charging you for dreck you never watch by bundling it with the stuff you do want to watch."
Isn't that the same as when you could only buy CDs that contained the hit song and were forced to buy a bundle including a dozen others? Apple challenged--and broke--that model by selling singles.
Entropys wrote:
" content providers/cable companies(') business model is built around charging you for dreck you never watch by bundling it with the stuff you do want to watch."
Isn't that the same as when you could only buy CDs that contained the hit song and were forced to buy a bundle including a dozen others? Apple challenged--and broke--that model by selling singles.
And you know the price tag will be higher then .99, for arguements sake say even if it were priced similar to songs.. $1.29 (which is still on the low side) 4 shows you're already paying what you would with cable or satellite and getting A LOT less content!! because don't forget you're only getting the shows/episodes you paid for! so you're actually paying the same if not more for less...
Cable is a waste of money
There is just too much even in a "standard" cable package that I will never watch yet I am paying. I would love to trim down the options get HBO and still get a lower bill. With TV more is less yet you pay the same price regardless.
There is just too much even in a "standard" cable package that I will never watch yet I am paying. I would love to trim down the options get HBO and still get a lower bill. With TV more is less yet you pay the same price regardless.
BRING IT ON!!! I also just switched my home internet from home use to business use so I don't have a cap anymore!! 
- Joe
- Joe
I mean that's not really a surprise. Apple's basically coming to them and saying "Hey, we know how to do TV delivery better than you." Billionaire TV moguls probably don't like to hear that. Or give away any of their billions.
It looks like other industries are wising up to Apple's scheme, which, is fair enough. But time will tell. Seems like gets it's way mostly, eventually.
Even if Apple got it's way with this, wouldn't the cable companies just turn around and gouge you in the internet access if their subscribers started to drop cable TV service? I can't how they're going to let their customers start chewing up more data streaming so much video and not figure out a way to recoup the costs lost from the cable TV side.
Wow! Thanks for this. This should be printed and saved! Now that you put it this way, I see the many challenges the TV model faces, looks even more challenging than the music business model that apple cracked, or even the publishing model that Amazon changed as well (Sorry guys, as much as I love Apple, it was Amazon that made eReading hip, and they cut the middle man and allowed people to publish directly to amazon).
I can understand that, but I think if Apple can successfully reinvent the current model to something more fitting for consumers, that'd be great. Currently the cable and content companies control the industry and they are in no hurry to give the user a great experience in any innovative ways. However, I don't think buying each show individually is the answer like some are suggesting.
Bull. Total bull. I have never spent more than $15 for a regular, single-cd album at brick and mortar stores. Ever. I have over 5000 cds and have been buying since 1985. Yes, I have a few collectibles and double cds that were $20 but that is because they are rare or limited editions.
Since 1990 I have purchased new release cds every Tuesday and typically pay $9.99 to $12.99. If I don't buy them on the release date, I still can buy them anywhere for those prices. Since 2001, Amazon has supplied me with all my cds because of the price and free shipping.
That's the other side of the coin also! you'll start seeing a hefty up charge in data prices!! Unless of course Apple just buys their own.. According to some people in this thread Apple should just buy the world and then everything will be right!
I think the article is saying it will be more like pay by channel... I'd rather pay $75 a month for something like this than $75 a month for 500 channels through Comcast. The reason I say this is because the money would be better allocated to the networks that make the better TV shows, resulting in even better TV shows in the long run!
It'll be very similar to when CD's went to mainstream digital (thanks for that too, Apple)... You used to buy an entire CD for a couple of songs, giving an artist money for some crappy songs that were made because you wanted to buy 1-3 songs. It's a shift to correct the money that networks (or artists in the previous example) make due to how good/bad their product is.
- Joe
Yes but...
[/COLOR]
Actually that's their best shot. Clean up the messed up cable operators. Instead of dealing with 100s of regional providers they can work with one national/worldwide provider.
As a content provider... the mess of the providers is so big that I do not see Apple resolving anything my December this year.
For example, we have movies that can only be displayed in certain regions, those are 3 years contract and depending on the operator.
I see what Apple wants but is as complicated as to reorganize the government. My point is that I do not believe Apple will do it in the time frame they say, at least not in the way the article says it.
[/COLOR]
Actually that's their best shot. Clean up the messed up cable operators. Instead of dealing with 100s of regional providers they can work with one national/worldwide provider.
As a content provider... the mess of the providers is so big that I do not see Apple resolving anything my December this year.
For example, we have movies that can only be displayed in certain regions, those are 3 years contract and depending on the operator.
I see what Apple wants but is as complicated as to reorganize the government. My point is that I do not believe Apple will do it in the time frame they say, at least not in the way the article says it.
It wouldn't work the way he says... It would be better because networks would get paid what people think they are worth - and the good networks would in turn have more money to produce better shows while the crappier networks would get less than they currently do because they have been running off of this group cost that currently exists. Read my previous post, where I compared it to CD's.
- Joe
Because they will get completely slaughtered otherwise. Just like the brick and mortar music industry did.
AT&T and Verizon both own huge Cable TV segments and Apple has a right to come calling to get in with them. Apple has done very well for both of their bottom lines. If they start there the rest will cave.
Dont even get me started on the movie industry and their anti-piracy tactics. People want convenience and a reasonable price. Such a service could finally get them to move in that direction like the music industry did. People are going to buy 80 inch 4kx4k res 3D TVs so they can keep going to the theater and paying 10 bucks for popcorn etc?
Free TV
I don't pay for TV. I get 50+ channels from OTA digital in 1080i and DD. Also 500 channels of FTA DVB S2 in 1080i and DD. I never watch TV live, always recorded on EyeTV through a MacMini and a Samsung TV used solely as a monitor. I can record up to five programs simultaneously. I do pay for Netflix BR and stream.
I used to get TV channels ala carte from C-band satellite. With the change to digital satellite, the choices narrowed. When Motorola dropped the data stream, another company picked it up and still offers ala carte.
http://www.skyvision.com/programming/alacarte.html
I use my old 10' dish for FTA and get all major networks, live sports feeds, foreign language broadcasts.
If Apple sells a TV they will need to provide access to OTA signals; if they sell a display only they will not need to do this. The processor in such a unit will only have to be fast enough to display an HD image or two. I don't see any need to record programs.
Apple will need to provide some sort of internet service to make this work. Both Dish and DTV can provide broadband, but not very well. Satellite is the only option for broadband for Apple. They will need to get it to work at probably a minimum of 10mbps everywhere in the country. This means buying one of the little dish companies.
I don't pay for TV. I get 50+ channels from OTA digital in 1080i and DD. Also 500 channels of FTA DVB S2 in 1080i and DD. I never watch TV live, always recorded on EyeTV through a MacMini and a Samsung TV used solely as a monitor. I can record up to five programs simultaneously. I do pay for Netflix BR and stream.
I used to get TV channels ala carte from C-band satellite. With the change to digital satellite, the choices narrowed. When Motorola dropped the data stream, another company picked it up and still offers ala carte.
http://www.skyvision.com/programming/alacarte.html
I use my old 10' dish for FTA and get all major networks, live sports feeds, foreign language broadcasts.
If Apple sells a TV they will need to provide access to OTA signals; if they sell a display only they will not need to do this. The processor in such a unit will only have to be fast enough to display an HD image or two. I don't see any need to record programs.
Apple will need to provide some sort of internet service to make this work. Both Dish and DTV can provide broadband, but not very well. Satellite is the only option for broadband for Apple. They will need to get it to work at probably a minimum of 10mbps everywhere in the country. This means buying one of the little dish companies.
If Apple's model stays the same and is 99 cents an episode, it will NOT be cheaper, and will be a total failure. Don't you think Apple knows this?
Apple's new subscription service will be something completely different. The terms of this is what you have to wait for. It has to be something like $3 a CHANNEL per month. I'd like to watch like 10 channels, so $30/month is a lot better than the cable/satellite bill I was paying (~$120) before I pulled the cord.
I'm open to hearing what Apple has to say. Because, Steve Jobs didn't 'figure Television out' by just doing the same thing as Apple has always done.
I would love it if Apple were able to undo the current system. As for those that think a la carte channel selection is not possible, it is already being trialled in at least one area of the US by Comcast so it may happen whether Apple get involved or not.
If I could pay a monthly sub for an app that works on the computer, iPad, iPhone, Apple TV and the cable box I would be very happy. I know that I watch less than 20 channels but I currently have 200 to get the ones I want. If the individual channels were available at a reasonable price I would save a lot.A
Remember there are customers out there who prefer the current system and there is no reason why the Cable companies could not continue to offer packages to those that prefer that route.
I do think there is a danger that some of the less popular channels would go under but I am not in favor of any kind of subsidy so thats ok by me.
If I could pay a monthly sub for an app that works on the computer, iPad, iPhone, Apple TV and the cable box I would be very happy. I know that I watch less than 20 channels but I currently have 200 to get the ones I want. If the individual channels were available at a reasonable price I would save a lot.A
Remember there are customers out there who prefer the current system and there is no reason why the Cable companies could not continue to offer packages to those that prefer that route.
I do think there is a danger that some of the less popular channels would go under but I am not in favor of any kind of subsidy so thats ok by me.
1) Maybe. Some of the article sounded like content folk though (which could be the same - i.e. Comcast).
2) Agree.
3) Apple wants people who deserve to get paid to get paid (premium content providers).
4) Look at Disney/Comcast. They are unveiling a new app that will have almost 70 different Disney-owned content sources (ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN). All in one app.
5) Agree.
6) Anything is possible, but I wouldn't bet on that. We are still in the early innings of this "TV" thing.