Apple's apparent new TV streaming service

[JuryDuty]

$5 is way too much for each channel. I watch maybe 9 channels, and no more and at $5 a channel that would be $45, and with my cable modem tacked on, it would be almost right where it is now that I pay. Not good. How about $2 max instead.

Well, it depends on the channel. I'd pay no more than about $3 for HGTV, but I'd pay $5 for AMC because of their hit series. So certainly it would be a sliding scale, depending on demand for the network.

 

[Lord Hamsa]

Cable providers have got to be hating this. I don't know why though Apple doesn't offer the channels ala carte. Let me build my own cable network by choosing my channels at $3-$5 each instead. The bundles are fine, but also let me choose.

I'd love to get just 2-3 channels for $10 to supplement my ATA antenna.

The range is going to be wider than $3 to $5. Some channels essentially pay to be on cable/satellite packages, others are relatively expensive parts of the package. If you want ala carte pricing, expect the range to be $0 (entirely ad-supported) to probably $15 (original content and ad-free; using HBO as a guideline).

 

[oneMadRssn]

Who cares about channels? The future is about on-demand access to a certain catalog. People will pay $15/month to access HBO's awesome catalog on-demand, not to watch whatever is on HBO or HBO2.

Measuring the value of content by $/channel is silly. At $9/month for Netflix, is that the equivalent of 1 channel or 10? The sooner we forget about channel numbers the better.

 

[2010mini]

Lol... $2 for an entire channel. You all are in a dream world. A channel is full of individual content who's episodes can costs sometimes millions to produce. But you want not just one show, but an entire channel of content for that little money??? Wow

If your company came to you and said 'hey we love your work but we want it for a huge pay cut' would you say yes?

Unless you provide a model that make studios/pay TV company the same or more money, your dreams will be just that: dreams.

 

[Lord Hamsa]

Lol... $2 for an entire channel. You all are in a dream world. A channel is full of individual content who's episodes can costs sometimes millions to produce. But you want not just one show, but an entire channel of content for that little money??? Wow

It's only ridiculous when you tack "ad-free" onto it. I'm sure there would be a lot of "channels" (think of a "channel" as a collection of content) available for fairly low rates, possibly even free, but those channels would have to be ad-supported.

Ad-free with original content? The range would be between would be Netflix ($8/mo.) and HBO ($15/mo.) most likely.

 

[ABC5S]

Lol... $2 for an entire channel. You all are in a dream world. A channel is full of individual content who's episodes can costs sometimes millions to produce. But you want not just one show, but an entire channel of content for that little money??? Wow

If your company came to you and said 'hey we love your work but we want it for a huge pay cut' would you say yes?

Unless you provide a model that make studios/pay TV company the same or more money, your dreams will be just that: dreams.

Multiply $2 by how many people rent this channel, to get the over all total they receive.

 

[JoshMKB24]

I'm just glad that I held off on buying more Apple TV units, since it looks highly likely they get an update finally!

 

[2010mini]

Multiply $2 by how many people rent this channel, to get the over all total they receive.

In the current model studios get paid even if you never knew a specific channel exists let alone watch it. Your model they get paid ONLY if people subscribe to that channel.

Example: XYZ Cable company has 50 million
TV customers. Studios/networks make money
PER customer from that cable company to
Carry their channel/content.

In your model there is no guarantee they will
Get 50 million subscribers in that market.

So....Again, why would they risk their current cash cow model???

 

[Lord Hamsa]

Example: XYZ Cable company has 50 million
TV customers. Studios/networks make money
PER customer from that cable company to
Carry their channel/content.

For the popular channels (or more often, packages of channels). Other companies essentially have to pay the cable companies to get carried and make their money back on advertising. Those channels could easily switch to a low cost or free streaming model.

 

[Hookemfins]

Example: XYZ Cable company has 50 million
TV customers. Studios/networks make money
PER customer from that cable company to
Carry their channel/content.

In your model there is no guarantee they will
Get 50 million subscribers in that market.

So....Again, why would they risk their current cash cow model???

One problem with the above; no one single provider has 50 million subs. The top two (DirecTV and ComCrap combined are 42 million). Otherwise you are correct.

Even for those who sign up for Dish's sling service or Apple's proposed streaming service, you are still relying on a provider. Technically you're not cutting the cord.

ESPN charges $6.04/subscriber alone. ESPN2 is another $.74. Combined that's around one third of the cost of Dish's sling service. Apple's is more because they'll provide more channels.

IF you were to string separately the channels in Dish's sling I don't think it would add up to $20. However there is no way al la carte you'd only pay $20. I bet ESPN alone would be a $12-15 monthly charge. And I'm sure the other channels would also place a premium on an al la carte method.

What I think cable and satellite providers next move is to allow online streaming of all the content we presently for. That would be there way to compete agains the cord cutters.

They are already starting to move in that direction. DTV just signed new contracts with ESPN and Fox Sports to allow online streaming. If you subscribe to HBO or Showtime you can stream online.

 

[Snoopy4]

The problem here of course is....commercials. It's not a DVR....