Definitely do not want Apple becoming part of the Content Owner Group...eventually their execs will start believing that their interests coincide with the MPAA and have their computers and iThings modified to support those goals...and that will be the end of Apple the hardware company.
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 Shows Interest in Buying Time Warner Assets for Streaming TV Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Or even worse, what happened to Sony when they bought Columbia for "synergy." Now they both stink.
I can't help but thinking the Federal Trade Commission (and every other anti-monopoly group in the USA) will try to intervene here.
Ala Carte / build your own package is the only thing I'm interested in. I keep sending that feedback to Sling and Vue, and sadly I'm sure Apple will need an ear-full as well.
If I'm going to break from cable, it's not going to be a continuation of paying for channels I wouldn't watch if you had a gun to my head. Let me pay for broadcast (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, CW) and HBO, Starz, SyFy, FX, AMC, TNT, Velocity, FS1/FS2 and NBCSN. I'll pay for a bundle.. made up of content I'd actually want to watch... I'll pay a fair price, but I will NOT pay for crap I won't watch. Otherwise I may as well stick with cable.
If I'm going to break from cable, it's not going to be a continuation of paying for channels I wouldn't watch if you had a gun to my head. Let me pay for broadcast (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, CW) and HBO, Starz, SyFy, FX, AMC, TNT, Velocity, FS1/FS2 and NBCSN. I'll pay for a bundle.. made up of content I'd actually want to watch... I'll pay a fair price, but I will NOT pay for crap I won't watch. Otherwise I may as well stick with cable.
Add to that they're [allegedly] making a car, maybe buying a media conglomorate ....
All of this seems so un-Apple. I don't like it, not one single bit.
You wanna expand, Apple? Get into VR: it's hot & it's gonna be a huge industry!
Apple should consult with Ted Turner and Steve Case about how doing business with the boys at Time Warner might work out.
I'd love to set that in my market. I think Apple's brand and clout will drive the price to $30/mo. Sling TV is $20/mo and has me thinking about going with it and the $8/mo Hulu options. If Apple offers a combo to match that offer... Yeah, $30/mo will work exceptionally well.
I would assume they would buy Time Warner Cable before they bought Warner Bros. Studios and the remainder of the company. The entertainment business bleeds too much money for it to be worth Apple's time.
It's inevitable that Apple will end up buying out a huge company at some point. Either something to boost their car project or something to assist a different product, such as in this case. Apple are enormous and they have the ability to buy some of the world's largest companies.
What are you taking about? Check your math. Netflix is ONE CHANNEL. The Apple package is a focused constellation of channels for people who wanna replace their bloated $150 cable bill, not a substitute for a ONE CHANNEL television package.
Getting HBO, Netflix, ESPN, CNN, Bravo, TNT, etc. + local channels in HD would be a steal by any measure.
[doublepost=1452721757][/doublepost]
I've been using the FanTV app for a while, and have listed after the functionality of their little TV box for a while, but it was for Time/Warner customers only. Would be great if buying TWC meant Apple could fold aspects of FanTV into Apple TV. With Amazon owning IMDB, it would be a huge boon for Apple users to make Apple's TV platform "smarter".
[doublepost=1452722715][/doublepost]
The best platform is the one with the best content. And you get the best content by having leverage. This is the reality in the new, de-regulated entertainment media landscape, which is way different than the music industry. If Apple owns HBO, and some other much desired assets, it might help them negotiate better with other media streamers who control content (Comcast, Amazon, etc.) Without it, Apple may "bide their time" and be on the outside forever.
[doublepost=1452722922][/doublepost]
What about this don't you understand? Yes.
[doublepost=1452723467][/doublepost]
Do you have any idea what it costs to create content? The world isn't free. People who create content work for a living. Not so that you can watch the richest, most diverse content in the history of TV for nothing. If you don't value the content, don't buy it. But if taking a family of 4 to ONE movie in a theater is $30-40 bucks, then dozens of the most watched TV channels for the same price seems more than fair.
Last edited:
Feel free to provide your own anecdotal proof of that assertion, but from where I sit, having been enjoying a la carte (of shows, not even channels) for the past 7+ years, a la carte is coming in as a massively cheaper option than the forced bundles.
But, and this is key, I didn't actually watch everything in that bundle, and a good portion of what I watched was only on because it was available. So, I'm not paying for CNN 24/7 because I don't watch that, and I'm not paying for ESPN because I'm rarely in the mood to watch a sports event that they happen to be airing. I'm not paying for five MTV/VH1 channels. I'm not paying for the Food Network or HGTV or TLC. But, if there is a show on any of those channels that I do want to watch, for less than half the cost I'd been paying each month for the service in 2008 - less than a third of the cost of getting the minimal DirecTV bundle to cover what I do watch today - I can buy a season pass of the show and watch every episode at midnight the day after it has aired "live".
I've heard the rationale before. A la carte has to be at least as expensive as bundle subscriptions because all those subscriber dollars are going into funding shows (except, of course, the massive cable company profits and network profits, which only incidentally affect show quality). In fact, it has to be MORE expensive because the content provider and cable provider lose all their advertising revenue. But there is a massive "invisible hand" of economic theory pushing bundled costs up - they reduce the options to the consumer and thus the ability for any consumer to tailor their subscription to their consumption. It is not a zero-sum game; playing by rules which are heavily favorable to the bundlers means that the costs will always heavily favor the bundlers.
In any case, the "a la carte will be just as expensive" doom and gloom just has no historical evidence backing it up, while the opposite has abundant evidence.
Most new TV episodes are already sitting on Apple's servers for rental or purchase through iTunes.
So what deals would Apple have to make in order to stream those in a monthly package?
So what deals would Apple have to make in order to stream those in a monthly package?
Last edited:
Agreed. Though Apple buying the TW assets and dealing a death blow to the current way of doing business might be one of the the things that helps get us there.
I also agree with most of you guys here. If Apple was to make a TV Service, I would switch to it (depending on what it offered). I also think $30-40 is a little much. I think $15-25 is a more reasonable price range.
SkyTV basic NZ$49
Netflix NZ$12.99 for 3 devices in HD
And we watch far more on Netflix now than we do anything else.
Fox Sports writer Clay Travis wrote a fantastic piece about sports TV and the potential bubble. In that article he did a good job of summing up why the current model is superior to a la carte. It sounds great. But it will eventually lead to a decrease in the quality of content and chase to the lowest common denominator.
While you probably receive in excess of 100 channels, most of us watch only 16 or 17 channels in a given month. If you're a single girl without kids, you probably don't watch Sprout and if you're a single guy you probably don't watch Lifetime, but you pay for every channel you receive. In practice this leads to much better television, because channels can go after small audiences with powerful and compelling programming that might not otherwise be financially feasible. For instance, hardly anyone watches "Mad Men," in the grand scheme of ratings. It's a very smart, slow-paced, intellectual program that appeals to a relatively small audience. On average less than four million people watch each episode of "Mad Men." That leaves over 90 million people who receive the channel and the show but don't watch. Yet these non-viewers subsidize "Mad Men," by paying for AMC. Since most of us receive over 100 stations yet watch only 16 or 17, we all pay for in excess of 80 stations that we don't watch. One positive result of the cable bundle has been a tremendous amount of money rolling into television programming and the flourishing of great shows that wouldn't necessarily work if ten million or more people had to watch. That's why I've written before that I support the idea of cable television bundles, everyone subsidizes everything meaning that the quality of programming is stellar across the television landscape. We may not all like the same shows, but all of us have never had better options. We've been in the midst of the golden age of television.
[doublepost=1452724372][/doublepost]
Yes, but Netflix is largely reruns and things have made money (both advertising and subscription fees/ticket sales) when it first ran.
Think of Netflix like a company that agreed to buy day old leftovers from a bakery. They sell all you can eat leftovers for a small price. Customers who don't want the fresh items think it's fantastic. They can binge on all the stuff they want for an incredibly low price. The bakery likes it because they've already made money off the stuff they sold fresh and any extra money they get is gravy.
The problem is the day old bakery customers start thinking they should pay that price for all content...not understanding the incentive for the fresh bakery was the large money they get for fresh content.
Add to the mix, the day old bakery is now wanting to make a few fresh items. That's great for the day old bakery customers...but is starting to ruffle some feathers at the fresh bakery....who doesn't like them competing in that market.
It's fine if you like Netflix, I do too. But don't think that the model financially supports the quality of the programs you watch on it.
Highly disagree. People will be more than willing to pay $40 for a 2016 version of what TV should be, when they're paying over $100 for cable slop.
Shut up and take my money.
Who wants channels? It's the SHOWS you want, right?
Channels are an old-fashioned delivery method that broadcasts fixed content on a fixed schedule.
8pm... one show... 8:30pm... another show.
DVRs help... but it's still a silly model if you think about it. You record that one episode... but you need to wait until they decide to broadcast other episodes in order to see the rest of them.
People say cable sucks because they're paying for channels they don't want. But even if you got to choose a la carte channels... those channels are still broadcasting 24/7. That includes shows and movies you don't want either.
Let's say it was possible to subscribe to just AMC when Mad Men was popular. And let's say, in this fantasy world, that it only cost $5 a month. Well guess what... you'd be paying for the Mad Men you want and you can watch it when it airs or DVR it. But you'd also be paying for fine movies like American Gangster, Armageddon and US Marshals that AMC is broadcasting. And dozens of other TV shows you may care nothing about.
You'd be paying for that content even if you didn't watch it. Isn't that the problem you're trying to solve? If you think cable bundles suck... channels can suck too.
We live in an on-demand world now. I think what people really want is a streaming service where they can watch any TV episode or movie whenever they want.
The concept of "channels" is antiquated. Even a la carte channels.
Last edited:
Netflix's original content is like a channel, true. One channel. But getting Netflix gives you an On Demand catalog of shows and movies in addition to that "channel". It is massive.
When you get a traditional cable channel, you get...a channel. Whatever is showing. Got a DVR you can record it. There is some On Demand content as well, but it is relatively pathetic to the kind of catalog Netflix offers. Netflix has enough content for 100 of channels, as content from most of the cable channels eventually ends up there (HBO aside).
Time Warner spun off Time Warner cable in 2009. They're completely separate companies.
What are you basing the price on and how many channels would the service have? HBO Now could be considered a "channel". It's $15 a month. I pay $10 a month for Netflix. I think most people are totally out of touch with what they think they should pay for a bundle package of channels vs what reality is.