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
The cable companies need to accept the fact that the old system is dying.
Have a look at the young people today. Most do not subscribe to cable or satellite TV, but rather simply download what they want from the web.
Why? The current system is broken.
The larger issue for most of us seems to be that we are sick and tired of being force-fed and paying for channels that we don't want.
Secondly we want a better user experience. Personally, I want a far simplified channel guide. I don't need to see a ton of channels that I have no interest in. Just show the channels that I've decided that I want.
The cable providers want to continue to force feed us and make us pay for crap that we don't want. They've got away with it for years and don't want to give that up.
The record companies complain about Apple, but if it wasn't for Apple, they'd be far worse off. The same shift is about to happen in television.
Note to cable providers... Get with the game or die a slow death, we're not going to play by your rules anymore.
Have a look at the young people today. Most do not subscribe to cable or satellite TV, but rather simply download what they want from the web.
Why? The current system is broken.
The larger issue for most of us seems to be that we are sick and tired of being force-fed and paying for channels that we don't want.
Secondly we want a better user experience. Personally, I want a far simplified channel guide. I don't need to see a ton of channels that I have no interest in. Just show the channels that I've decided that I want.
The cable providers want to continue to force feed us and make us pay for crap that we don't want. They've got away with it for years and don't want to give that up.
The record companies complain about Apple, but if it wasn't for Apple, they'd be far worse off. The same shift is about to happen in television.
Note to cable providers... Get with the game or die a slow death, we're not going to play by your rules anymore.
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.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Wave a quick goodbye to the cash hoard if Apple did this. It would burn through really fast. Or, Apple would pass along those costs to us. Meanwhile Comcast & Time Warner would up the broadband costs through which Apple's increasingly expensive service would flow.
If there was more profitability in delivering just what we want to watch for $5-$20 or so dollars per month, many companies would already be all over it. All the related players don't want to make less in support of Apple than they make with things "as is". And for Apple's solution to show them more money than they make now means that more money must come from somewhere. Somewhere is not us cutting our cable bills from $100/moth to $10/month... and certainly not with Apple's cable replacement flowing through our cable providers Internet pipe.
Last edited:
The blackout rules are the most critical component to this. Living in Massachusetts, I have zero access to Celtics, Red Sox, Bruins, or Patriots coverage with the respective League Passes. The Pats would be the only team I could theoretically watch over-the-air; however I live a great distance from the broadcast site and getting reception with an antenna has been problematic. Unless and until those blackouts are removed, cutting the cord is a non-starter.
Reading this thread makes me think people believe that advertising couldn't possibly be part of Apple's solution. You guys do know that you can include ads with streamed content right? There's plenty of examples of that. In fact, Apple going to a channels as apps model would certainly include advertising.
Channels and shows can be offered individually (not bundled) and still include advertising. Those are separate issues.
Channels and shows can be offered individually (not bundled) and still include advertising. Those are separate issues.
Why not? What is currently stopping a network like 'The History Channel' from working with Apple? Nothing. If Apple can pay what Comcast, Time/Warner, etc. can, and possibly offer MORE, I see nothing stopping them.
And if Apple can allow the 'bundling of channels' temporarily (for the first couple of years), so that ABC, ESPN, ESPN 2, Disney, etc. are all together, then those channels will be on-board as well.
Or if the cable channels that aired those games were available online through an app as a channel package like this article suggests... There's nothing special about cable, it's only where your content is right now.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
Trust me, we're not getting channels as apps. Cable companies aren't having a problem with consumers stealing their content, they have a tight industry, that offers 0 alternatives to their current way of programming.
What Apple will most likely do is do what is currently done by the Logitech Harmony Link (Something like that). They are going to design a solution that replaces the ugly/inconsistent experience that you receive from different cable providers, and make an interface that is similar no matter what company your with (Logitech struck gold, but they messed it up).
But - doing it Logitech's way, is very un-Apple. It adds another box to the living room, which increases clutter. Apple wants to design an Apple TV that replaces the cable box in your living room.
By controlling the hardware, Apple can design a cable box solution that directly integrates your living room TV into their ecosystem. This opens up huge possibilities, as every living room TV will be controlled by an Apple interface.
This solution is logical, but cable companies are scared of Apple (Think of how big retailers, & banks are scared of Google). They don't want Apple in their industry, because introducing a competitor that powerful can really affect their profit line.
But hey - what do I know, I'm just a screen name on a forum. Have fun everybody!
Trust me, we're not getting channels as apps. Cable companies aren't having a problem with consumers stealing their content, they have a tight industry, that offers 0 alternatives to their current way of programming.
What Apple will most likely do is do what is currently done by the Logitech Harmony Link (Something like that). They are going to design a solution that replaces the ugly/inconsistent experience that you receive from different cable providers, and make an interface that is similar no matter what company your with (Logitech struck gold, but they messed it up).
But - doing it Logitech's way, is very un-Apple. It adds another box to the living room, which increases clutter. Apple wants to design an Apple TV that replaces the cable box in your living room.
By controlling the hardware, Apple can design a cable box solution that directly integrates your living room TV into their ecosystem. This opens up huge possibilities, as every living room TV will be controlled by an Apple interface.
This solution is logical, but cable companies are scared of Apple (Think of how big retailers, & banks are scared of Google). They don't want Apple in their industry, because introducing a competitor that powerful can really affect their profit line.
But hey - what do I know, I'm just a screen name on a forum. Have fun everybody!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
No you're wrong here. This al-a-carte dream only flows more money to the networks if a very large crowd agrees to pay directly for the network. Again, the al-a-carte with no commercials dream has to make up about $54/month to just cover the revenues made on the commercials alone. I don't see anyone in this thread pitching how great this Apple solution would be at a price above $54/month (and again, that's just the commercials alone).
Conceptually, it would work as you imagine. In practice it wont. We've had iTunes music being sold for what- 10 years now? How many artists have deals to sell us their music direct through iTunes (bypassing the middlemen)? How many of the "good" artists have those kinds of deals in place (bypassing their middlemen)? Apple has had the ability to cut out the music industry middlemen all along but it hasn't happened. Why not? Shouldn't the good quality artists be rewarded with the bulk of the money flowing from us to them? How many have that arrangement in place?
Now, why will THIS be different?
Last edited:
Only way for Apple is to start purchasing company like Comcast and change the subscription policy to a la carte to force others to follow similar to $1 a song for music industry. They'll never get out of comfort zone voluntarily.
It has less to do with cable and more to do with the respective leagues. They're almost as reluctant to move into the 21st century as the content providers. "NBA League Pass: where you can watch any team streaming online.....except the one you actually care about." What a joke.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You are right, but that's not the dream. The dream that fuels this same rumor is:
- super cheap (a fraction of what is being paid now)
- everything I want to watch
- on demand when I want to watch it
- commercial free
As we chip pieces out of the above list, the dream gets much less attractive. For example, if commercials are forced in to make the cost (to us) math work better, do we like the proposition as much? Can we skip those commercials like we do with our cable/satt DVR or is there no skip options (which is more desirable to those making money on commercials)?
We don't want stuff we don't want to watch pushed on us but we're forgetting that on those "filler" channels that maybe others watch are commercials running that help pay for what we want to watch. We're not forced to watch THOSE commercials but their revenues do indeed flow to the production houses- some of which may make the shows we want to watch. We don't have to cover that revenues out of our pockets. The companies running those commercials on the channels we never watch are chipping in to help pay for some of what we do want to watch.
If the shows aren't included, how do we discover them to decide if we want to add them to our must watch list? For example, does anyone like Seinfeld? While that is remembered as a GREAT show by many, it heavily struggled in its first season. In this al-a-carte, buy-only-what-I-want model, I doubt it would have survived long enough to find it's audience. There are many shows that find their following over time. In the al-a-carte dream, if enough people don't buy in early and stick with it, the show won't have the ongoing funding to survive to become a television classic.
Don't get me wrong. Conceptually, I love the idea of it. And no consumer can hate potentially getting things they like to consume for less than they cost them now. Plus, just about everyone here wants Apple to prosper in all things. However, just beyond that, it starts getting messy. Someone has to foot the bill for the dream. Or the dream can't be as pretty as we can imagine it without worrying about the money flows.
----------
How does Apple pay more than the established system, yet then deliver a cable-TV replacement for less than it costs us with the established system? Where does that money come from that delivers more money to the content producers, Apple gets theirs, and we consumers end up paying substantially less?
Somebody pays and/or somebody sacrifices.
I hate regional blackouts as much as the next person, but that's not preventing the game from being streamed online. It's only preventing it from being streamed through NBA League pass. The channel with the rights to the game could stream it online.
My point is that if it's on cable, it could be online. If it's not on cable (local blackout to encourage fans to go to the game), then it not being online wouldn't be a reason to keep cable either.
This is what I've been hoping Apple would do for a long time. Apple TV with channel apps that provide live streaming as well as on demand content to eliminate the need for DVR.
I hate the system now. If I wanna subscribe to CNN I have to pay for an entire "news" package that also includes HLN, MSNBC, FOX news, etc, none of which I watch. Why not just let everyone pay for the channels they watch?
I hate the system now. If I wanna subscribe to CNN I have to pay for an entire "news" package that also includes HLN, MSNBC, FOX news, etc, none of which I watch. Why not just let everyone pay for the channels they watch?
This is one area I don't envision Apple having great success in. With Hulu +, Vudu, Netflix and the in-house offerings of DirectTV or your favorite Cable provider, there are just too many entrenched players here. Apple would have to come up with something crazy good to make me leave my all-in-one blu-ray player with all those Apps. Or my Xbox 360 which has Netflix and soon HBOGo, with a 250GB hard drive to store it on.
I don't like the channel-as-an-app concept. I don't want to fire up the ABC app to watch one show, and some other network's app to watch a different show. Especially when I don't often know which shows are on which networks anyway. I just know I like a particular show. So I like the way shows are currently categorized on the ATV. Right now, you can pretty much get whatever show you want, and it works well. The problem is pricing.
First, there's the per-show price. $2.99/episode. I actually don't have a problem with this. Initially I was thinking that this price needed to come down, but now I've reconsidered. Here's why: The per-show price is for people who are already watching/DVR'ing the show via cable but somehow the DVR screwed up and they missed the show. So, on rare occasions, you go in and buy that single episode you missed. For rare occasions, $2.99 is bearable. There is a way, though, that the price could be improved while keeping the networks happy: Offer a version with ads (which, unfortunately, you won't be able to skip past). Maybe it's one ad, or a just a few ads, compared to the number of ads you get with regular TV. So, the ad-free version is $2.99, and the version with ads is $0.99-1.99.
The bigger problem is season pricing. If I want to drop cable and subscribe to the shows I like, the total cost needs to be competitive. As others have mentioned here, anyone wishing for costs to be dramatically cheaper than cable are dreaming. The ATV solution will be more pleasant to use, but it won't be cheaper (by much, anyway). And it might even cost a bit more. But it shouldn't be dramatically more, or it will be a non-starter. That's the situation we're in now. iTunes offers pretty much everything, but the season prices are too expensive. They discount that $2.99/episode cost quite a bit when you buy a season, but it's still way too expensive, once you start adding up the multiple shows you like. The current season of The Middle costs $45. Previous seasons cost $40. A typical season consists of 24 episodes. That's just over $2/episode for the current season, which is a significant discount, but wait...If you watched just three different shows each day, that's 21 different shows. 21 x $45 = $945/year = $78.75/month. What's worse, you're potentially going to get hit with that $945 charge the first month (and then pay nothing for the next 11 months), if you jump into the iTunes ecosystem at the start of a new TV season.
Some realistic improvements that can be made:
1) First, some of these past season prices are more expensive than buying the season on Blu-ray. That just doesn't make any sense. The 2nd season of The Middle cost $25 on Blu-ray thru Amazon, but $40 on iTunes. The iTunes price should be no more than $25, and I'd say that $20 is more realistic, since you're not getting a physical disc, compression will be higher, and there is DRM (which I'd like to see go away, but won't hold my breath for that for a while).
2) That's fine for old seasons you want to own, but if we're talking about getting rid of cable TV, you want the current season, and for that you'll pay a premium. Fine, but $45 for the current season, once you add up all the other shows you watch, will be too high. So let's get that price down, too. Say $25-30 ad-free and significantly cheaper ($10-15?) with ads. And you can upgrade your ad-filled season to an ad-free season at any time.
3) The first episode of every show should always be free (albeit, with ads). This should be a requirement, and it's for the networks' own good. There are lots of shows to choose from that I might like, but I'm not going to pay $3 to find out. They don't need to make the first episode of every new season free, just the first episode of the 1st season will suffice.
These are mostly easy tweaks to pricing that could be made without needing to drastically reinvent the business model. The ads, though, would be a significant change from Apple's current iTunes TV show purchase business model. This would be a revenue sharing thing, with the networks getting a percentage, Apple getting a percentage, and the user getting a lower price to purchase the show.
Beyond that, we also need to accommodate some live programming. This would just be needed for news and live sporting events. They've already made inroads into sports with MLB.TV and others via apps, and I think that works, but we need to get the NFL on-board, and we need to make sure PQ is top-notch. I purchased the highlights of this past season for one of the NFL teams and wasn't happy with the PQ, and that was pre-recorded, so there was even less of an excuse for the PQ to be so poor.
For live news, high-bitrate video isn't as much of a necessity, IMO. But how are they going to deliver local news? This gets tricky. But here, too, I could see this being delivered via an app that your local news network offers. As an app, they can control the video feed and PQ, and they can include commercial breaks.
Of course, for weather, Apple can include built-in weather functionality, a la what they already offer on the iPhone (though hopefully better, including radar, more details, etc.).
First, there's the per-show price. $2.99/episode. I actually don't have a problem with this. Initially I was thinking that this price needed to come down, but now I've reconsidered. Here's why: The per-show price is for people who are already watching/DVR'ing the show via cable but somehow the DVR screwed up and they missed the show. So, on rare occasions, you go in and buy that single episode you missed. For rare occasions, $2.99 is bearable. There is a way, though, that the price could be improved while keeping the networks happy: Offer a version with ads (which, unfortunately, you won't be able to skip past). Maybe it's one ad, or a just a few ads, compared to the number of ads you get with regular TV. So, the ad-free version is $2.99, and the version with ads is $0.99-1.99.
The bigger problem is season pricing. If I want to drop cable and subscribe to the shows I like, the total cost needs to be competitive. As others have mentioned here, anyone wishing for costs to be dramatically cheaper than cable are dreaming. The ATV solution will be more pleasant to use, but it won't be cheaper (by much, anyway). And it might even cost a bit more. But it shouldn't be dramatically more, or it will be a non-starter. That's the situation we're in now. iTunes offers pretty much everything, but the season prices are too expensive. They discount that $2.99/episode cost quite a bit when you buy a season, but it's still way too expensive, once you start adding up the multiple shows you like. The current season of The Middle costs $45. Previous seasons cost $40. A typical season consists of 24 episodes. That's just over $2/episode for the current season, which is a significant discount, but wait...If you watched just three different shows each day, that's 21 different shows. 21 x $45 = $945/year = $78.75/month. What's worse, you're potentially going to get hit with that $945 charge the first month (and then pay nothing for the next 11 months), if you jump into the iTunes ecosystem at the start of a new TV season.
Some realistic improvements that can be made:
1) First, some of these past season prices are more expensive than buying the season on Blu-ray. That just doesn't make any sense. The 2nd season of The Middle cost $25 on Blu-ray thru Amazon, but $40 on iTunes. The iTunes price should be no more than $25, and I'd say that $20 is more realistic, since you're not getting a physical disc, compression will be higher, and there is DRM (which I'd like to see go away, but won't hold my breath for that for a while).
2) That's fine for old seasons you want to own, but if we're talking about getting rid of cable TV, you want the current season, and for that you'll pay a premium. Fine, but $45 for the current season, once you add up all the other shows you watch, will be too high. So let's get that price down, too. Say $25-30 ad-free and significantly cheaper ($10-15?) with ads. And you can upgrade your ad-filled season to an ad-free season at any time.
3) The first episode of every show should always be free (albeit, with ads). This should be a requirement, and it's for the networks' own good. There are lots of shows to choose from that I might like, but I'm not going to pay $3 to find out. They don't need to make the first episode of every new season free, just the first episode of the 1st season will suffice.
These are mostly easy tweaks to pricing that could be made without needing to drastically reinvent the business model. The ads, though, would be a significant change from Apple's current iTunes TV show purchase business model. This would be a revenue sharing thing, with the networks getting a percentage, Apple getting a percentage, and the user getting a lower price to purchase the show.
Beyond that, we also need to accommodate some live programming. This would just be needed for news and live sporting events. They've already made inroads into sports with MLB.TV and others via apps, and I think that works, but we need to get the NFL on-board, and we need to make sure PQ is top-notch. I purchased the highlights of this past season for one of the NFL teams and wasn't happy with the PQ, and that was pre-recorded, so there was even less of an excuse for the PQ to be so poor.
For live news, high-bitrate video isn't as much of a necessity, IMO. But how are they going to deliver local news? This gets tricky. But here, too, I could see this being delivered via an app that your local news network offers. As an app, they can control the video feed and PQ, and they can include commercial breaks.
Of course, for weather, Apple can include built-in weather functionality, a la what they already offer on the iPhone (though hopefully better, including radar, more details, etc.).
Yes, he is. and yes, it is.
Your attitude is the reason that mediocrity is the new standard.
I personally LOVE the idea of Channels (aka Networks) as Apps.
Free downloads, with In-App subscriptions. Something like $2.99 per month/per channel.
Compatible on all devices...true Universal App...iPad, iPhone, iPod, iTV & Mac
This way, I'll subscribe to only the networks I want:
Nat Geo Wild
TBS
Maybe ABC since the kid likes watching Jeopardy.
I'll save a ton of money going this route, and actually be able to watch TV shows live, anywhere. Can't wait.
I'm dying for this. I cut the cable cord almost 2 years ago, and would love to see a channel app system. Adverts would be similar to hulu no?
A lot of channels get subsidized by the more popular ones, and wouldn't be able to exist if they had to survive on à la carte pricing. And most studies have shown that most people would pay as much, if not more, without the bundling system. The "must have" channels which make up the majority of the bundle price anyway, would still charge high rates. A channel like CNN or other news favs may still charge $15/month just for their channel.
For most people, bundling offers a little more selection for what would be likely the same buck, and it gives providers enough revenue to ensure the smaller, but frequently good arts and public channels can survive.
There is a reason why most people like that Disney World moved away from à la carte pricing back in 1982. Most people found it was more expensive to pay-as-you-go with "E" tickets etc for just the rides you want. (remember those days). I don't think picking and paying for my favorite 20 channels would run any more cheaply if it were an option.
I left out another way for Apple to deliver much of what we all want. I suspect that they dismissed the idea a while back because it seemed so antiquated, but perhaps they've given it more consideration in the last year or two after seeing how resistant the networks were to their better iTunes-based idea of renting/purchasing shows. That idea is to create an Apple DVR. I've written about this previously, but I'll lay out, again, how it would work:
A new iOS-based AirPort Extreme and TimeCapsule with built-in iTunes server and DVR functionality. These boxes would either have the necessary CableCard tuners built-in (just add your own CableCard), or you might couple these with something like the SiliconDust HDHomeRun Prime. Voila. You'll still need to subscribe to cable, but you'll get all of the major networks' shows for no added cost, including live TV (sports and news).
Or, you can create a hybrid situation where you subscribe to the cheapest "lifeline" cable TV package (about $20/month), which gives you all of the major networks (ABC, CBS, etc.) but you pay a-la-carte via iTunes for the other shows you want which would otherwise require a more expensive cable package.
A new iOS-based AirPort Extreme and TimeCapsule with built-in iTunes server and DVR functionality. These boxes would either have the necessary CableCard tuners built-in (just add your own CableCard), or you might couple these with something like the SiliconDust HDHomeRun Prime. Voila. You'll still need to subscribe to cable, but you'll get all of the major networks' shows for no added cost, including live TV (sports and news).
Or, you can create a hybrid situation where you subscribe to the cheapest "lifeline" cable TV package (about $20/month), which gives you all of the major networks (ABC, CBS, etc.) but you pay a-la-carte via iTunes for the other shows you want which would otherwise require a more expensive cable package.
I hope it happens. I dropped my cable company after they decided they would increase prices on me again. Enough is enough. Of the channel line-up they offered we may have used a total of 20 channels. I just decided to go with Netflix, Hulu Plus and iTunes rentals. Of course...that means I stuck with the CC for internet...sigh
I agree with many here that this will be a difficult task, but where there is a will there is a way. It doesn't hurt that Apple has a good amount of cash. I think they will have to do something drastic and take some risks. Buying out a cable provider will probably be the best way to get their foot in the door.
However it gets accomplished I'm here waiting for someone to do this. I don't care if it's someone other than Apple. I'm just tired of paying an arm and a leg for channels I don't want.
I agree with many here that this will be a difficult task, but where there is a will there is a way. It doesn't hurt that Apple has a good amount of cash. I think they will have to do something drastic and take some risks. Buying out a cable provider will probably be the best way to get their foot in the door.
However it gets accomplished I'm here waiting for someone to do this. I don't care if it's someone other than Apple. I'm just tired of paying an arm and a leg for channels I don't want.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
See the math explained in post #144. It's not $100/month for 200 channels = 50 cents per channel. So rather than paying $2 for CNN, HLN, MSNBC, FOX, I only want to pay 50 cents for CNN alone. Instead, CNN alone might cost $10 in an al-a-carte model. We imagine the math works like that (50 cents per channel) but there are all kinds of other things going on that are derailed in the al-a-carte, commercial-free dream.
For example, those "filler" channels we never watch run commercials that help pay production studios to make programming we may watch. Get rid of the filler channels and that revenue goes away. Guess who then must make up that revenue to keep the shows we do like available?
I have DISH network. It comes with guide features that makes it reasonably easy to block channels. Thus, right now, I can create my own list of channels I'd like to see in my guide- say, just the ones I like to watch- and virtually delete the ones I never watch. Because I understand the math, I don't mind that there are 100+ channels I never watch because I know that the commercials on those channels help pay for what I do watch. Besides my neighbors list of must channels may have those channels I hate.
The al-a-carte dream wouldn’t really deliver much more than we can have now:
- either though blocking channels as I can in my DISH guide, or
- by dumping cable/satt now and just going with the al-a-carte offering already available via the iTunes store
By the way, even though I have that easy ability with DISH (to block out the channels "I never watch"), I generally don't do it. Why? Because sometimes they do have something I choose to watch. In al-a-carte, we do away with channel surfing at no added cost as it is now. Instead, to find something off our usual beaten path means opening the wallet every time.