Apple's Desire to Include Local Stations in Streaming TV Service Could Delay Launch Beyond WWDC

[laurim]

They use some of the time they would normally spend posting on tech forums.

Or they do both simultaneously like I am doing now. I'm a freelancer and work out of my house most of the time so my tv is on all day long, if only for ambient noise. I still think the TV should have an OTA port and they can add live tv channels later for people who can't get OTA very well. Doesn't hurt to have the options, even if an OTA port doesn't make Apple money selling a subscription for it (which is probably why they won't do it, to be honest). It could be OTA port but you still have commercials vs local channel subscription with no commercials. I think that's a fair trade since I can always use my OTA antenna regardless of what Apple does. I just need a dvr function for it and would like the TV to be that device vs buying a separate Tablo.

----------

Why do they need to negotiate streaming rights to put a tuner and an antenna jack on the box? I've been OTA for years now, and haven't missed cable AT ALL. Apple needs to leave the cable companies out of this deal altogether; let those networks create apps (a la HBO Now) if they want to be seen by Apple TV users, or let them slowly disappear as Netflix, Amazon, HBO and the other more forward-thinking content providers take over.

Apple needs to add an App Store to Apple TV and be done with it.

I like the idea of every channel having their own app. That would be the a la carte nirvana many people want.

----------

Does anyone want streaming TV channels, let alone local TV?

Don't most of us want to subscribe to programmes or packages of programmes?

Not really. How would you find out about new programs you might want to start watching? I suppose you could find out via friends or social media but a lot of times I discover new programs by surfing around. That's the danger of focusing things too much. You could miss out on new stuff you would like.

 

[co.ag.2005]

I believe DVR functionality is coming to Xbox One. It has been reported numerous times in rumors lately and seeing as how Microsoft wants Xbox to be the be all end all "One" media center of everyones living room, I would imagine it will be coming sooner then later.

Thats a bummer about your internet. We pay $30 a month for just internet. Netflix is $7 and sling tv is $20, with OTA being free. I dropped amazon prime until they actually provide decent content and Hulu is complete trash. Soo... yeah, it's about $57 a month for out "TV" needs. And depending on how much we watch, we drop Sling TV occasionally sense like Netflix, its a month to month deal with no contracts.

I guess dependting on your ISP, you milage may vary.

thanks for the response. I'll have to keep my eye on the xbox one development in that department.

yeah, I have Charter for internet/cable and they are the only ones that provide internet greater than 3Mbps to my house. When I lived in Denver, it was the same way with Comcast. To break apart internet was way too expensive. Where do you live and who's your provider?

 

[LethalWolfe]

There's only one way to crack television and that's to acquire or create the content.

Agreed. The only way to be competitive is to have your own original, premium content which is why other 'new comers' like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, YouTube, PSN, XBL, etc., have all started creating original, high quality content in addition to the content they license (and in the case of YT, user generated content). That's the only way to separate yourself from the competition while also gaining some independence (and with that, leverage).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I like the idea of every channel having their own app. That would be the a la carte nirvana many people want.

Again, be careful what you wish for. CBS's app is $5.99/month. If they make that go well, why doesn't the other big 4 or 5 decide they want that too, pull out of Hulu (or raise the price of Hulu). CBS + ABC + NBC + FOX at $5.99 each = $24. If you count CW too, add $6 to make it $30.

$30/month for just 5 channels generally viewed as free* now. What will ESPN cost in al-a-carte world? TNT? TBS? Comedy Central? And so on. HBO Now which is really not a complete replacement for traditional HBO on satt or cable is priced at $15/month. So shouldn't Showtime, Starz, etc follow that lead?

The point is that even in the al-a-carte dream of being able to buy just the handful of channels we actually want, pricing makes it look like a little bundle of 10 or 20 channels may cost more than a current bundle of those same channels plus another 190 "I never watch". With the latter, one can hide the 190 outside of a FAVs channel list so that they approximate the al-a-carte idea, while still allowing the commercial revenue subsidy to continue (via commercials running on those 190 channels we'll never see).

The idea of every channel as an app probably kills much of the commercial revenue subsidy, which is a LOT of money by itself. That will need to be made up, which supports the above insinuation that a channels-as-apps model will probably prove more to much-more expensive than the "as is".

The answer? Best I see, use the FAVs channel guide in the "as is" to only display your favorite channels. That will feel like al-a-carte without killing the golden goose. I love the dream as much as the next guy but the math just doesn't work in the ways it's usually slung around here.

----------

Agreed. The only way to be competitive is to have your own original, premium content which is why other 'new comers' like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, YouTube, PSN, XBL, etc., have all started creating original, high quality content in addition to the content they license (and in the case of YT, user generated content). That's the only way to separate yourself from the competition while also gaining some independence (and with that, leverage).

Can we imagine Apple doing this though? Could Apple actually do it? Apple has the reputation of "control freaks;" even if they bought a big studio, could they leave the artists alone to create or would they want to control everything?

And even if they did, there is always content from other Studios we will want. As much as one might love- say- Netflix original programming or HBO or Amazon, etc, nobody is so good at developing hit shows that all of the hits come from one source. Would Apple be able to do something HUGE entertainment conglomerates have NEVER been able to do before?

OR, can even the most fervent Apple fans really be able to love only Apple-developed programming, marginalizing all other content away as junk & stupid and "99% don't want to watch"?

I find it hard to picture Apple wanting to be a visual content creator. I find it hard to imagine them wanting to own a Studio (even Jobs unloaded Pixar rather than making it a part of Apple and Pixar is about as close to an only-hits factory as there's ever been).

Basically, the BIG problem is us. We consumers are dreaming that there is some way we can get everything we want, when we want it, at much lower expense. But everybody else in the chain wants to make more money, not less. If we truly want some "new model", we have to get over the idea that it must be delivered at cheap to dirt cheap. Once we can show all of the other players how they can make more money- and we're the source of that "more money"- they'll quickly move to some new model.

 

[MarkNY]

I've been asking this very question for months about the local affiliates. I just didn't see how Apple was going to do it -- it's all but impossible given how Congress shifted all the power to the affiliates in the 1990s in a classic example of giveaways to special interest groups. The networks essentially don't own the rights to the stuff they create, the local affiliates do, and they bring nothing to the table.

The local affiliates are complete leeches in the system and need to die. Apple and others won't be able to offer big network programming until the law is changed.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The local affiliates spend a LOT of money on infrastructure, equipment, electric bills and human talent to deliver the most popular television programming in the world for free* to much of the population.

Leeches are usually ripping us off in some way. Affiliates are just about the opposite of the term, finding a way to support their existence without having to hit us up for a nickel.

Of course, maybe the definition of leech here is akin to troll and other such terms defined by "in opposition to what Apple wants? You're a troll, a leech, a hater"

 

[MarkNY]

The local affiliates spend a LOT of money on infrastructure, equipment, electric bills and human talent to deliver the most popular television programming in the world for free* to much of the population.

Leeches are usually ripping us off in some way. They are just about the opposite of the term finding a way to support their existence without having to hit us up for a nickel.

Of course, maybe the definition of leech here is akin to troll and other such terms defined by "in opposition to what Apple wants? You're a troll, a leech, a hater"

LOL. You don't get it. Yes, CBS creates a lot of value with their shows. WTF does the Kansas City or any other affiliate do other than re-broadcast a show? Apple can't deal directly with CBS for the stuff CBS creates, they have to negotiate with every single affiliate in the entire country and pay them off. Get it now?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

No you don't get it. If CBS would have it's way, it's app will cost $5.99/month. That Kansas City affiliate will beam Kansas City people CBS programming for free*. $5.99 or free*?

Is that a tornado approaching Kansas City? My Palm Beach, FL CBS affiliate never cuts in to warn Kansas City people to seek shelter. Does yours?

Are the Kansas City Royals or Chiefs playing some weekend? My Palm Beach, FL affiliate never shows their game unless they are playing my local area teams. Does yours?

Does NY or LA news broadcasts tend to cover much of what is happening in Kansas City or Palm Beach, Florida? Is there ANY Kansas City or Palm Beach news on the NY or LA newscast? How about local weather? Last time I was in NYC, their local news did not say a word about Palm Beach weather. How about local sports? Not a word.

The Big 4 are generally based in NYC or LA. Why would they bother with Kansas City Chiefs or Kansas area tornado warnings? Better to leave those games for sports packages at a fee and tornado warnings to some other app. Etc.

If CBS can get $5.99 for it's programming, doesn't ABC, NBC, Fox and maybe CW follow suit? That's about $30/month for 5 channels generally viewed as free* now because the affiliates have a model that has other people paying enough to deliver it without charging us consumers. And don't pretend like Hulu will remain priced as is if CBS is fairly successful at proving people will pay $5.99 per network.

I get what you are trying to say but I'd much prefer free* OTA to allowing an Apple or similar to control the flow of programming as a new middleman and having networks currently available for free* becoming a $5.99/month proposition. I'm NOT in Kansas City. I'm in Florida. We occasionally get pounded by Hurricanes which can knock out broadband for up to a few days. My local OTA affiliates can still get news and programming to me even while broadband is dead (got an update that way while in the eye of a hurricane once, when everything else was down). Apple or networks in NYC or LA can't resolve that problem. Even if broadband wasn't down, would NBC LA bother to give some Florida families updates about a hurricane or Kansas City families updates about an approaching Tornado?

Apple doesn't have to pay any affiliate off if they just build an OTA cable hookup and a OTA tuner into a new Apple TV box. Apple wants to strike deals with them because they want to control their content. Then, Apple infrastructure arguments can be used as excuses toward justifying why we are paying for channels that are otherwise available for free*.

 

[BruiserBear]

CBS may be trying to charge $6 a month right now, but if every channel went that way there would immediately be a lot of competition and you'd immediately see prices go down from there, at least for most channels.

Sure, ESPN could get away with $10 a month, but channels like ABC would probably end up around $3-4.

 

[MarkNY]

No you don't get it. If CBS would have it's way, it's app will cost $5.99/month. That Kansas City affiliate will beam Kansas City people CBS programming for free*.

Is that a tornado approaching Kansas City? My Palm Beach, FL CBS affiliate never cuts in to warn Kansas City people to seek shelter. Does yours?

Are the Kansas City Royals or Chiefs playing some weekend? My Palm Beach, FL affiliate never shows their game unless they are playing my local area teams? Does yours?

The Big 4 are generally based in NYC or LA. Why would they bother with Kansas City Chiefs or Kansas area tornado warnings? Better to leave those games for sports packages at a fee and tornado warnings to some other app. Etc.

If CBS can get $5.99 for it's programming, doesn't ABC, NBC, Fox and may CW follow suit? That's about $30/month for 5 channels generally viewed as free* now because the affiliates have a model that has other people paying enough to deliver it without charging us consumers. And don't pretend like Hulu will remain priced as is if CBS is fairly successful at proving people will pay $5.99 per network.

I get what you are trying to say but I'd much prefer free* OTA to allowing an Apple or similar to control the flow of programming as a new middleman and having networks currently available for free* becoming a $5.99/month proposition.

It's really simple actually. If Congress hadn't added the retransmission consent to the Cable Act of 1992, on your Apple TV, you could just *get* your local affiliate feed, (complete with all the commercials) with Apple's hypothetical streaming service. How is the local affiliate being harmed in that case? They're not. Right now, given how the law tilts everything in their favor, they can hold out and demand fees for programming they didn't create.

Now given today's technology, there is no need for the local affiliate and it's a huge waste of valuable EM spectrum, but that's another issue entirely. At least quit allowing them to clog up over the top subscription models.

 

[LethalWolfe]

What I described in my other post doesn't even have to be Ad free. It could contain much better targeted ads instead of the wide net approach advertisers now use. But fully on demand would be huge!

I agree fully on demand would be huge- with or without commercials.

How would this even work? Having all episodes of show available for streaming would completely kill its ability to generate ad revenue. Plus, since all the episodes for a season would have to be finished beforehand, that means the company footing the bill for the show would incur a bigger upfront risk while having to wait a longer time to recoup that cost.

TV shows are typically made in 'just in time' fashion where a season is still being worked on as it starts airing. Not only does this help the production recoup costs faster, but it also allows for flexibility such as tweaking the show based on viewer response or just out right canceling the show if it sucks.

Sure, Netflix and Amazon can do the binge thing because they aren't ad-based, but there's no way CBS, for example, is going to make all episodes of NCIS: New Orleans season 2 available from day one on CBS All Access and then air the episodes on a weekly basis over the following few months. And as much as some people lament 'appointment TV' there's no way shows like Mad Men, Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, etc., could generate the persistent buzz, ratings, and ad revenue that they do if they weren't released one episode at a time.

Can we imagine Apple doing this though?

It would be a complete departure from how they have always run the iTMS and the App store. Apple, to date, has been a middleman, not a music label, movie studio or game publisher.

The networks essentially don't own the rights to the stuff they create, the local affiliates do, and they bring nothing to the table.

The networks own the rights to the stuff they create and partner with local TV stations to broadcast/distribution the network's content. This is why the networks are called networks. If CBS, FOX, NBC, or ABC wanted to build, operate and maintain they own TV stations in every market they are free to do so but they've found out that partnering with someone local is much more lucrative for them.

What local TV stations bring to the table are things like incurring all the hardware costs of broadcast distribution (which the networks don't want to incur) and generating locally produced news and programs.

 

[laurim]

No you don't get it. If CBS would have it's way, it's app will cost $5.99/month. That Kansas City affiliate will beam Kansas City people CBS programming for free*. $5.99 or free*?
...

If CBS can get $5.99 for it's programming, doesn't ABC, NBC, Fox and maybe CW follow suit? That's about $30/month for 5 channels generally viewed as free* now because the affiliates have a model that has other people paying enough to deliver it without charging us consumers. And don't pretend like Hulu will remain priced as is if CBS is fairly successful at proving people will pay $5.99 per network.

...

Apple doesn't have to pay any affiliate off if they just build an OTA cable hookup and a OTA tuner into a new Apple TV box. Apple wants to strike deals with them because they want to control their content. Then, Apple infrastructure arguments can be used as excuses toward justifying why we are paying for channels that are otherwise available for free*.

Call me naive, but I think the fact that OTA makes those channels free for most people and other channel competition would drive down the subscription price for those channels. But I still think an OTA port AND the option to get a commercial-free app version with access to on-demand shows would be a decent balance between people who simply want free local content and those who are willing to pay for commercial-free and/or on-demand basic channel shows. It's true that one of the other reasons to have OTA local channels is for the local content (local news, sports, local special interest programming, etc.). Remember, MST3K started out as a local Twin Cities show.

I wonder how we would get EAS emergency messages if we went to an all Apple solution? I guess Apple would have to build that in, too.

 

[MarkNY]

If CBS, FOX, NBC, or ABC wanted to build, operate and maintain they own TV stations in every market they are free to do so but they've found out that partnering with someone local is much more lucrative for them.

That's simply factually incorrect. FCC regulations prevent it.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It's really simple actually. If Congress hadn't added the retransmission consent to the Cable Act of 1992, on your Apple TV, you could just *get* your local affiliate feed, (complete with all the commercials) with Apple's hypothetical streaming service. How is the local affiliate being harmed in that case? They're not. Right now, given how the law tilts everything in their favor, they can hold out and demand fees for programming they didn't create.

Or, again, if Apple will just loosen up their control tendencies and build a OTA tuner into a new TV, we could get our local affiliate feed within Apple's hypothetical streaming service. How is the local affiliate being harmed or exploiting us or Apple in that case? They're not.

I know you just want Apple to have whatever Apple wants but you're putting Apple above even what some of us consumers want. Right now, many of us can get the big 5 for free* OTA. And that gets us the best quality of HD vs. anyone else's streaming option. And that will reach us even if our broadband is down.

With broadband providers putting the pinch on data usage, it seems like getting the most popular programming available without having to flow through a broadband pipe would be preferable to many- less bandwidth usage AND higher quality of picture & sound.

Again $5.99/month vs. free*. If one can put self ahead of Apple, that equation should cover this point pretty well by itself.

----------

How would this even work?

That's sort of my point. I'm trying to convey how much of a dream, al-a-carte + commercial free is. I can dream it as good as the next guy but I just don't see how it could possibly happen without huge pain to coveted parts of the existing model (like the motivation for entrepreneurs to pilot brand new programming).

It would be a complete departure from how they have always run the iTMS and the App store. Apple, to date, has been a middleman, not a music label, movie studio or game publisher.

Right, which is another reason that I also just don't see them doing it.

 

[MarkNY]

Or, again, if Apple will just loosen up their control tendencies and build a OTA tuner into a new TV, we could get our local affiliate feed within Apple's hypothetical streaming service. How is the local affiliate being harmed or exploiting us or Apple in that case? They're not.

I know you just want Apple to have whatever Apple wants but you're putting Apple above even what some of us consumers want. Right now, many of us can get the big 5 for free* OTA. And that gets us the best quality of HD vs. anyone else's streaming option. And that will reach us even if our broadband is down.

With broadband providers putting the pinch on data usage, it seems like getting the most popular programming available without having to flow through a broadband pipe would be preferable to many- less bandwidth usage AND higher quality of picture & sound.

Again $5.99/month vs. free*. If one can put self ahead of Apple, that equation should cover this point pretty well by itself.

Come on. How many people have antennas anymore? Additionally, lots of people live out range, plus you can *already* do that. Hit the input button on your remote and use your TV tuner. Does Roku do that? Does Amazon fire? There is a reason they don't. No market for it - your TV ALREADY does that.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Call me naive, but I think the fact that OTA makes those channels free for most people and other channel competition would drive down the subscription price for those channels. But I still think an OTA port AND the option to get a commercial-free app version with access to on-demand shows would be a decent balance between people who simply want free local content and those who are willing to pay for commercial-free and/or on-demand basic channel shows.

I'm not arguing differently. It's not an either or. Local OTA doesn't deliver on-demand classics from the network's library of canned shows. So I can easily see a place for BOTH OTA and apps like the one from CBS. And there are people who can't receive OTA, so giving them some way to see programming they want is quite desirable too.

What I am arguing is that we shouldn't be so quick to wish away OTA because Apple wants to monetize the "free*" Sure that may be good for Apple but not all things good for corporations is good for us consumers.

That said, I don't expect them to include an OTA jack because I think they DO want to monetize the free*. But I think a new TV that is trying to offer some kind of cableTV-like bundle of channels would be even better if it came with an OTA tuner.

My current source of programming- Dish network- provides my local channels via Satt and via OTA. I'm very happy to have the choice. Again, in a Hurricane, the rain can come down so hard that I can lose signal via Satt. But those OTA channels can still be locked. It's a GREAT option. And it's free*.

 

[laurim]

Come on. How many people have antennas anymore? Additionally, lots of people live out range, plus you can *already* do that. Hit the input button on your remote and use your TV tuner. Does Roku do that? Does Amazon fire? There is a reason they don't. No market for it - your TV ALREADY does that.

LOL. I bought an OTA antenna a few weeks ago. Can't get a signal to my tv's tuner without it. There are many different versions of OTA antennas. Some for mounting outside, some inside and they come in a variety of ranges and amplifications. The one I bought was only $25 and has a 35 mile range (I actually bought a gently used one for $16 ). There's a website that tells you where the towers are so you can pick the right antenna and what channels you are likely to receive well: http://www.antennaweb.org.

I'm about 20 miles away from my towers and get a bunch of channels. Many of them just show oldie movies and tv (if you like old tv like Gunsmoke and Lost in Space it's awesome!) but the basic NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX/CW HD channels come in great. It's basically the size of a piece of paper and almost as thin. I've tried it on my office tv and it works great. Depending on what Apple announces, I'll permanently mount it then. The thing I want TV to do with the OTA antenna is provide a channel guide and cloud dvr.

 

[Ed217]

LOL. I bought an OTA antenna a few weeks ago. Can't get a signal to my tv's tuner without it. There are many different versions of OTA antennas. Some for mounting outside, some inside and they come in a variety of ranges and amplifications. The one I bought was only $25 and has a 35 mile range. It's basically the size of a piece of paper and almost as thin. I've tried it on my office tv and it works great. Depending on what Apple announces, I'll permanently mount it then.

I too went this route some time back with a Winegard FL5500A FlatWave Amplified Razor Thin HDTV Indoor Antenna. Works great, much better than previous options.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Come on. How many people have antennas anymore? Additionally, lots of people live out range, plus you can *already* do that. Hit the input button on your remote and use your TV tuner. Does Roku do that? Does Amazon fire? There is a reason they don't. No market for it - your TV ALREADY does that.

Look, I don't want to "bring you around". People who care about HD picture quality and can receive OTA signals will have antennas. It's the BEST source of broadcast HD picture & sound available. If you live somewhere where you can receive OTA signals and you care about HD picture & sound quality, you're missing out on getting the very best for free*.

As to the rest, this new TV is hyped up to be the cable TV killer. It's apparently to have some kind of super new form of guide that "cracks it". If we feed our local channels to the tuner in our TV, how do those channels (which have much of the most popular programming available) get woven into a new TV guide?

I appreciate that you hate the idea. I don't. I'd like it to be that way very much. That said, I don't expect it to be. Why? Because Apple wants to monetize the free* channels and that's hard to rationalize if they are arriving for free* OTA. In long existing solutions that blend streaming with local OTA (like Dish network), Dish also can't monetize the locals unless they force them into a package.

I'm happy for you when Apple delivers an TV that (probably) won't be able to receive highest quality HD channel feeds from local affiliates.

 

[LethalWolfe]

That's simply factually incorrect. FCC regulations prevent it.

You are right. For some reason I thought the Owned and Operated cap had been deregulated away.

Come on. How many people have antennas anymore? Additionally, lots of people live out range, plus you can *already* do that. Hit the input button on your remote and use your TV tuner. Does Roku do that? Does Amazon fire? There is a reason they don't. No market for it - your TV ALREADY does that.

Why hasn't anyone done it yet? No idea. But having all your media come through a single box allows for things like universal search which is handy and is something many people seem to want.

 

[2010mini]

How would this even work? Having all episodes of show available for streaming would completely kill its ability to generate ad revenue. Plus, since all the episodes for a season would have to be finished beforehand, that means the company footing the bill for the show would incur a bigger upfront risk while having to wait a longer time to recoup that cost.

TV shows are typically made in 'just in time' fashion where a season is still being worked on as it starts airing. Not only does this help the production recoup costs faster, but it also allows for flexibility such as tweaking the show based on viewer response or just out right canceling the show if it sucks.

Sure, Netflix and Amazon can do the binge thing because they aren't ad-based, but there's no way CBS, for example, is going to make all episodes of NCIS: New Orleans season 2 available from day one on CBS All Access and then air the episodes on a weekly basis over the following few months. And as much as some people lament 'appointment TV' there's no way shows like Mad Men, Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, etc., could generate the persistent buzz, ratings, and ad revenue that they do if they weren't released one episode at a time.



It would be a complete departure from how they have always run the iTMS and the App store. Apple, to date, has been a middleman, not a music label, movie studio or game publisher.



The networks own the rights to the stuff they create and partner with local TV stations to broadcast/distribution the network's content. This is why the networks are called networks. If CBS, FOX, NBC, or ABC wanted to build, operate and maintain they own TV stations in every market they are free to do so but they've found out that partnering with someone local is much more lucrative for them.

What local TV stations bring to the table are things like incurring all the hardware costs of broadcast distribution (which the networks don't want to incur) and generating locally produced news and programs.

The reasons you just stated are why TV hasn't changed since the 50s. It is entirely possible to create a big buzz for a show like Netflix does with House of Cards. If they wanted to, they could charge advertisers a premium to air ads in that series. Lots of TV shows fail not because the show sucks but because TV is set up to sell ads. With hundreds of shows and channels it takes time for shows to build a following over a long season. But because networks need to sell ads they pull the plug....sometimes too early.

Case in point..... I guarantee a show like Orange Is The New Black would be pulled if it was on regular cable. But because its audience could take their time and watch it on their own schedule, it succeeded.

The way we consume TV has changed and is never going back. It's time the industry change with it.

I can't tell you the last time I watched a show live. And a lot of people will tell you the same.

 

[laurim]

The reasons you just stated are why TV hasn't changed since the 50s. It is entirely possible to create a big buzz for a show like Netflix does with House of Cards. If they wanted to, they could charge advertisers a premium to air ads in that series. Lots of TV shows fail not because the show sucks but because TV is set up to sell ads. With hundreds of shows and channels it takes time for shows to build a following over a long season. But because networks need to sell ads they pull the plug....sometimes too early.

Case in point..... I guarantee a show like Orange Is The New Black would be pulled if it was on regular cable. But because its audience could take their time and watch it on their own schedule, it succeeded.

The way we consume TV has changed and is never going back. It's time the industry change with it.

I can't tell you the last time I watched a show live. And a lot of people will tell you the same.

I think the other main reason shows like House of Cards are so popular is because people are sick and tired of "family friendly", watered down tv shows that have zero resemblance to real life and can't tackle any subjects certain loud people will find uncomfortable and will put pressure on advertisers to force cancellation. "One million moms" (which is more like One Hundred Moms) can't tell Netflix what they can or can't show us.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The reasons you just stated are why TV hasn't changed since the 50s. It is entirely possible to create a big buzz for a show like Netflix does with House of Cards. If they wanted to, they could charge advertisers a premium to air ads in that series. Lots of TV shows fail not because the show sucks but because TV is set up to sell ads. With hundreds of shows and channels it takes time for shows to build a following over a long season. But because networks need to sell ads they pull the plug....sometimes too early.

I can appreciate what you are trying to say but what's the alternative? As is, commercials are a subsidy... other people's money (OPM) funding the programming. It's a LOT of money- much more than most people think. Much of that OPM is made on commercials running on channels we never watch or while we're asleep.

In some new model sans-ads, where is that cash flow to give a program time to become a hit? Did you know shows like Seinfeld and Cheers were unpopular their first year? Here's a bit of history about Cheers:

"After premiering on September 30, 1982, it was nearly canceled during its first season when it ranked last in ratings for its premiere (74th out of 77 shows)."

How does a Cheers or Seinfeld stay on long enough to find it's audience in some new model where WE are the source of the milk... especially if we demand a new model that would have us paying a lot less than we do now?

Why do the entrepreneurs that back wacky ideas like piloting a "show about nothing" continue to take those huge risks in this new model where both sources of cash flow are cut to the bone or eliminated? In the existing model where advertising revenues throw so much into the pot, there's plenty to motivate such risks. In a new model where we exterminate the advertising, where is that surplus cash to motivate such high-risk investments in pilots?

We're somewhat confused about television. What television would like is to be able to show nothing but ads. The programming is funded to try to make many of us see the commercials. The industry wishes it could get away with having no programming and just commercials. But what we want is to get rid of the commercials and get just the programming. Many will often say they want to pick what they want, watch it when they want, without commercials. And since they want to watch only a fraction of what is available, they don't want to pay for all of the rest... so they rationalize some huge discount should come with that ideal dream.

As mentioned above, that idea of us getting some huge discount is the biggest obstacle to any variation of some new model dream. We're the source of the money that makes much of it go. Advertising is another huge source of OPM that makes up the rest. We simultaneously want to cut what we pay AND kill the OPM but we somehow expect the rest to "just work" and new shows to keep on coming.

If we're serious about getting some new model, we need to get over the concepts of fat discount and/or commercial-free. Apple has already delivered commercial-free, al-a-carte, on-demand shows. It's been available in iTunes for years now. Apparently, those costs are good enough to get support from the various players. But it didn't "crack it" because we consumers want that to cost a lot less. Apple even talked some studios into a short-term rental option for popular shows at about half those prices. That also didn't work because not enough of us wanted to pay the rental rates to give that legs. We're our own enemy for some glorious new model. All the other players are simply waiting for us to figure that out... and doing their best with what has worked for well over 60 years now.

 

[2010mini]

I can appreciate what you are trying to say but what's the alternative? As is, commercials are a subsidy... other people's money (OPM) funding the programming. It's a LOT of money- much more than most people think. Much of that OPM is made on commercials running on channels we never watch or while we're asleep.

In some new model sans-ads, where is that cash flow to give a program time to become a hit? Did you know shows like Seinfeld and Cheers were unpopular their first year? Here's a bit of history about Cheers:

"After premiering on September 30, 1982, it was nearly canceled during its first season when it ranked last in ratings for its premiere (74th out of 77 shows)."

How does a Cheers or Seinfeld stay on long enough to find it's audience in some new model where WE are the source of the milk... especially if we demand a new model that would have us paying a lot less than we do now?

Why do the entrepreneurs that back wacky ideas like piloting a "show about nothing" continue to take those huge risks in this new model where both sources of cash flow are cut to the bone or eliminated? In the existing model where advertising revenues throw so much into the pot, there's plenty to motivate such risks. In a new model where we exterminate the advertising, where is that surplus cash to motivate such high-risk investments in pilots?

We're somewhat confused about television. What television would like is to be able to show nothing but ads. The programming is funded to try to make many of us see the commercials. The industry wishes it could get away with having no programming and just commercials. But what we want is to get rid of the commercials and get just the programming. Many will often say they want to pick what they want, watch it when they want, without commercials. And since they want to watch only a fraction of what is available, they don't want to pay for all of the rest... so they rationalize some huge discount should come with that ideal dream.

As mentioned above, that idea of us getting some huge discount is the biggest obstacle to any variation of some new model dream. We're the source of the money that makes much of it go. Advertising is another huge source of OPM that makes up the rest. We simultaneously want to cut what we pay AND kill the OPM but we somehow expect the rest to "just work" and new shows to keep on coming.

If we're serious about getting some new model, we need to get over the concepts of fat discount and/or commercial-free. Apple has already delivered commercial-free, al-a-carte, on-demand shows. It's been available in iTunes for years now. Apparently, those costs are good enough to get support from the various players. But it didn't "crack it" because we consumers want that to cost a lot less. Apple even talked some studios into a short-term rental option for popular shows at about half those prices. That also didn't work because not enough of us wanted to pay the rental rates to give that legs. We're our own enemy for some glorious new model. All the other players are simply waiting for us to figure that out... and doing their best with what has worked for well over 60 years now.

The model I posted about includes ads. And as for new shows catching on... Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and even Apple already do a good job suggesting content. Case in point: netflix suggested a show that on my own would never watch... The 100. I never even knew it existed and because of how Netflix lets you consume content, I liked the show.

All I am saying is the current model is old and needs to change.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Netflix suggestions of shows already in the can is great. For the same $8 or so, one can discover shows they've never seen before. What I was talking about though was brand new shows. Those- not already in the can- need financing, often over many episodes. In some model that is al-a-carte and commercial-free, where does the financing come from if we are paying as little as we seem to want to pay?

And even in a model where commercials survive but we get a big discount to what we pay, we're still taking money out of the pot. Who takes the hit? And remember, Apple wants to pile on and take a new cut. Cable won't take the hit because they'll just up the broadband costs to make up for tv service subscription losses. A new Apple service cannot deliver without that broadband pipe. Who's left if we get a big discount?

That's the other end of the chain. Less money in the pot means less money to fund new shows and/or much greater risk to pilot entrepreneurs.

I've tried to imagine how to make some new model work along the lines of what is often tossed around on this site. Best I've come up with is some kind of kickstarter-like service for television pilots. I struggle with people reading synopsis of brand new shows and being moved to put money up in advance for 6 or 13 episodes. Would that work for a Cheers or a Seinfeld or a Big Bang Theory before anyone knew what any of those would become? Synopsis: a comedy set in a Boston bar. We need to raise $10 million dollars to produce 6 episodes. Synopsis: a comedy about nothing featuring 4 New Yorkers. We need to raise $20 million dollars to produce 13 episodes. Synopsis: a comedy about 4 nerdy geniuses and a cute girl who lives across the hall. We need to raise $30 million dollars to produce 13 episodes.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we gripe about getting 200 channels of programming and having to pay an average of $73/month for it.

If there is no seed capital, then it turns into a game of cutting budgets of programming down to fit the new revenue flows, which, to me can run all the way to youtube quality as we consumers then gripe about the steady decay of quality programming and pull more and more money out of the "new model" system.