People forget the most basic concept of television: it's not the shows, it's the advertising that the cable companies care about. If Seinfeld or Lost does well, that means more viewers, which means they can charge advertises MORE. If the show tanks, well, bye bye Mr. Show. The cable execs have finally figured out in the late 90s that they could package up the shows and sell them as dvds to make even more gravy money. Oh...and don't forget to put those mandated-to-watch ads in the dvd! The first thing I do when I buy/bought a dvd was to copy it...but copy the movie only...no ads, no warnings, no other nuisances. I can plop my dvd-r in and the movie starts in under 5 seconds...literally.
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
But it wouldn't work the same because of Sports... You can't compare the CD model to TV.. Sports leagues are always negotiating and obviously demanding more money for access to view their games/content..
So that raises the question, with these channels as individual apps would Sports be included in the "App" purchase or is it strictly limited to television shows/series..
So then the sports leagues get their own app and prices??
Do you really thing Apple 'fanboys' in large enough numbers will drop their $90/$120 cable bills that allow them the freedom to watch hundreds of channels anytime they want to pay $200+ to watch a limited number of shows that they're charged individually for and have to download?
Seriously. Apple didn't become a 1/2 billion dollar company doing stupid things like this. Apple has thought about this next revolution in television for years. Dream about what you hope for it to be, and I think this will be more what Apple is planning.
Heck, why doesn't Apple just purchase their own cable network, and call it The Apple Core. Then they could produce their own content for their channel; TV shows, movies, sitcoms, reality tv ( can you imagine a reality tv show centering around life at Apples headquarters in Cupertino?! ).
Then they could start to compete against ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, etc......
Then they could start to compete against ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, etc......
Last edited:
Hasn't worked on the iPad. Very few apps, and many of them junk, mainly because they don't bother to give them useful features or update even for bugs. Or because they still require a cable/sat subscription. Which means they are little more than Airplay.
As mentioned, Hulu is already owned by several networks. The dirty secret is they STILL can't get decent programming. They will have a show, then suddenly drop it for a few months. Or randomly not have the rights (or so they claim) to just a couple episodes. Not sure how a complete 3rd party like Apple could improve that when they can't get it done as a related party.
Agreed. There's also another stream of revenue that goes towards the development "pot" that hasn't even been mentioned. That's the revenue made when successful shows are sold to international markts. Take a show like CSI; the rights to show that in other countries are very lucrative for the production house and I would guess CBS as well. In some markets, they may even be able to sell two sets of broadcast rights (once for pay TV, once for Free To Air). That money goes into the pot too. Take that away, and where is the financial backing for the "good shows" that are in development.
Some TV shows build fanbases over time, and they're only really classed as successes after a year or two. Under this new scheme, I doubt anyone would be willing to give a show that's risky anything more than one or two episodes at best to establish itself. The end result is surely a "safety first" mentality amongst content creators, given the sums of money involved, and a death of creative TV as we know it.
Wouldn't it be easier for you to license your content to Apple via iTunes?
That's what I would do an cut-out the cable companies all together
I think unless/until they get a huge buy in from content providers - Apple's vision of TV and how it should be will be on par with iBooks. Yes - they will maintain a store and have content and make money - but it won't "explode" on the same level as music.
Heck, why doesn't Apple just purchase their own cable network, and call it The Apple Core. Then they could produce their own content for their channel; TV shows, movies, sitcoms, reality tv ( can you imagine a reality tv show centering around life at Apples headquarters in Cupertino?! ).
Then they could start to compete against ABC, CBS, FOX, NBS, etc......
Please tell me you're joking. This goes far beyond fanboyism. Also, there is no freaking way Apple would ever let cameras roam around their headquarters.
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)
Reading through this entire thread I think that whatever Apples plans may or not be, we are all agreeing that the current way of doing things, both sides of the pond, blows at a consumer level.
If Apple can change that, kudos to them.
Reading through this entire thread I think that whatever Apples plans may or not be, we are all agreeing that the current way of doing things, both sides of the pond, blows at a consumer level.
If Apple can change that, kudos to them.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Good thoughts. But think it through. What are those better TV shows? I bet your list will not be the same as mine. And our lists will not be the same as someone else reading this comment. You may love a particular show enough to pay for it al-a-carte that perhaps no one else loves. If so, this move would kill your show. Or you may love a show that a small pocket of other people love too. However, in this new model where just those that want it pay for it, the revenue minimums on which the show depends to keep airing may fall below a survival threshold.
Example: personally, I detest reality programming- including some of the shows that are among the highest rated television programming available. However, that's some of the cheapest-to-produce programming on the air. So my al-a-carte buying would definitely flow no money toward that kind of programming. Stuff I do like- scripted, high production quality, talented artists- costs much more to produce per episode. In al-a-carte world, there might be a small pocket of people that are willing to pay enough for reality programming to cover it's lower costs. Thus, those shows survive. However, there may not be enough of people like me willing to pay enough to keep the kinds of shows I like on the air. If so, the pool of choices for you & me end up being low-production-cost shows.
See how that works. Imagine if Apple could launch this ultimate, no commercials, al-a-carte service today. My guess is that in just a few months just about everything on television would be gone. The survivors would probably not be the best quality television shows but those popular enough (and cheap enough to produce) to woo enough al-a-carte dollars to survive.
Now quit imagining. iTunes has long offered exactly that: al-a-carte programs with no commercials... just not at the super-cheap prices we all want to imagine. What's keeping all the choices in the iTunes store is that all that production is still supported by that "outdated", "archaic" model that "has been in place for years". Kick that old model out of the way and most of the new programming goes away. Or either WE make up the difference in revenue flows... or Apple pays for it. If it came down to just Apple or us paying the difference, who do you think would foot the bill?
Last edited:
I'm good with just paying for the channels I watch VS 300 channels where 280 of those channels are filler.
My concern is AT&T U-Verse has control of my pipe and will most certainly start applying those bandwidth caps they have been threatening if this type service gets implemented. Especially when I cancel my U-Verse TV, but keep my internet service. Their needs to be some regulations put in place and/or existing regulations enforced.
Note, I'm not for Apple taking over content delivery; I am for Apple redefining how content is delivered. Of course, let the law suites fly when Google, Amazon, Roko, etc. come into the newly defined content market.
My concern is AT&T U-Verse has control of my pipe and will most certainly start applying those bandwidth caps they have been threatening if this type service gets implemented. Especially when I cancel my U-Verse TV, but keep my internet service. Their needs to be some regulations put in place and/or existing regulations enforced.
Note, I'm not for Apple taking over content delivery; I am for Apple redefining how content is delivered. Of course, let the law suites fly when Google, Amazon, Roko, etc. come into the newly defined content market.
No. Not necc. Because if I owned a production company that produced several shows - some hits, some not - I would want the lesser shows to be part of a "block" of content.
Removing that aspect of Cable TV - as someone else wrote more eloquently - puts new/future shows at GREAT risk of ever making it off the page.
TV channels are dead
The future of TV is clearly based on the consumers selecting specific content rather than letting the TV stations decide what we should see, and when. The old/current TV concept is the way it is because of the limitations of the then-ways of distribution; broadcasting over the air and later through cable, but in this age it's of course easily possible to bypass the inconvenient/expensive intermediate joint between the content creators and the content consumers; the TV stations.
I want to see my team play football, I want to see movies with specific directors/actors, I want to see shows that fit my personal interests - and I want to pay for these ONLY.
- and if I don't want to pay, I should be offered the option of letting ads pay instead.
The future of TV is clearly based on the consumers selecting specific content rather than letting the TV stations decide what we should see, and when. The old/current TV concept is the way it is because of the limitations of the then-ways of distribution; broadcasting over the air and later through cable, but in this age it's of course easily possible to bypass the inconvenient/expensive intermediate joint between the content creators and the content consumers; the TV stations.
I want to see my team play football, I want to see movies with specific directors/actors, I want to see shows that fit my personal interests - and I want to pay for these ONLY.
- and if I don't want to pay, I should be offered the option of letting ads pay instead.
This is a totally awesome concept, especially if you could only pay for the channels you watch. What's the point of paying for 500+ channels if you only watch 10? (Especially since cable services are tiered; certain channels are not available with all packages).
I cut the cable cord two years ago. Not going back.
It was the shady business (prices kept creeping up for the same service, would bring them down when I complained, creep up again), it was the poor service and snotty customer service.
Would I pay $100/mo again? Sure. Give me good choices, good service, I am in.
It was the shady business (prices kept creeping up for the same service, would bring them down when I complained, creep up again), it was the poor service and snotty customer service.
Would I pay $100/mo again? Sure. Give me good choices, good service, I am in.
I imagine a future of televison as follows:
Thousands and thousands of channels.
Most are free, like amateur podcast-type channels, but the better the channel is, the more content on the channel people want to watch, the higher the price. You'll be charged a monthly fee to watch all the television shows on the channels you choose.
For example, I want the following:
History Channel - $1 a month
Discovery Channel - $1 a month
NBC - $3 a month
CBS - $3 a month
ABC - $3 a month
FOX - $3 a month
Comedy Central - $3 a month
HBO - $5 a month
TwiT - free
So, I pay $22 a month for my 9 channels. There will be a 'live' feed within my channel, and also archives of all the shows on the channel always available for me (no need to have a DVR)
I can change my channel arrangement whenever I want, but when I drop a channel, I lose all content associated with this channel. Sort of like 'renting'.
In the first few years, with Apple's huge cash hoard, and to get networks to agree to this, will sign agreements with the networks to pay them a minimum fee regardless of how many people will sign up for their channels. Thus, where Comedy Central might earn only $X from Comcast and Time-Warner, Apple will match that.
And people will be able to have their own amateur 'channels' just as accessible as professional network 'channels'. This will be the same revolution as bloggers have done on the internet competing with newspapers.
I'm guessing this is more in line with Apple's plans.
Thousands and thousands of channels.
Most are free, like amateur podcast-type channels, but the better the channel is, the more content on the channel people want to watch, the higher the price. You'll be charged a monthly fee to watch all the television shows on the channels you choose.
For example, I want the following:
History Channel - $1 a month
Discovery Channel - $1 a month
NBC - $3 a month
CBS - $3 a month
ABC - $3 a month
FOX - $3 a month
Comedy Central - $3 a month
HBO - $5 a month
TwiT - free
So, I pay $22 a month for my 9 channels. There will be a 'live' feed within my channel, and also archives of all the shows on the channel always available for me (no need to have a DVR)
I can change my channel arrangement whenever I want, but when I drop a channel, I lose all content associated with this channel. Sort of like 'renting'.
In the first few years, with Apple's huge cash hoard, and to get networks to agree to this, will sign agreements with the networks to pay them a minimum fee regardless of how many people will sign up for their channels. Thus, where Comedy Central might earn only $X from Comcast and Time-Warner, Apple will match that.
And people will be able to have their own amateur 'channels' just as accessible as professional network 'channels'. This will be the same revolution as bloggers have done on the internet competing with newspapers.
I'm guessing this is more in line with Apple's plans.
MLB already makes their own app, and provides either some access or full TV broadcast access. Fans don't like the blackout rules that affect this, but otherwise, they are doing exactly what we want.
I was just thinking this when I watched my cable this morning about how awful their menu system is not to mention the look of the menus makes me feel like its 1995.
...then the controller.. I wish apple would develop those too because for some reason these TV providers think we want a remote that is the size of a 19" tv with 800 different and useless buttons.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
How do you cut out the cable companies but get the video to flow from iTunes servers to your HDTV?
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)
First, read this article - http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor?page=4 - and if you still want to buy from Amazon, shame on you!
Second-why keep buying physical media music and video - bad for the environment and will someday be outdated - our world needs less STUFF made, not more...
ericinboston said:
First, read this article - http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor?page=4 - and if you still want to buy from Amazon, shame on you!
Second-why keep buying physical media music and video - bad for the environment and will someday be outdated - our world needs less STUFF made, not more...
Good luck with that. Sincerely. I just don't see that happening anytime soon. And by soon I mean in the next 5 years.
----------
Do you feel the same about printed books? Because I would argue that books aren't outdated. And unlike electronic media - don't rely on technology to be usable. Technology and file formats that change over the years.
Why is it bad for the environment? You plan on throwing it away? That's not the point.
Would be nice to have the History Channel I watch that when my favorite shows like the New Season of The Universe comes on