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's Desire to Include Local Stations in Streaming TV Service Could Delay Launch Beyond WWDC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The buzz around the new season of House of Cards was over and done with in a few weeks. It has no legs because everyone watches at a different rate. Compare that to the sustained interest Mad Men or Walking Dead or any other 'appointment TV' show can generate. As soon as the show starts people talk about it on social media. After the show airs people talk about it on social media, around the water cooler, reviews go up and entertainment 'news' will discuss it, etc.,. After people are done talking about what just happened on the previous episode they will start talking about what might happen on the up coming episode. Wash, rise, repeat. Every week.
The problem with ads in a on-demand, streaming environment is multifaceted but basically, TV ad time is valuable because it is scarce and on-demand is much less valuable because it is not scarce. Ad revenue is based on ratings and ratings are based on how many eyeballs you can attract to a specific place at a specific time, but on-demand is all about *not* attracting eyeballs to a specific place at a specific time.
I used to work at a company that mainly created original video content for the web but they also did some TV shows. One of the TV shows aired at 1:00 am on a B-level cable channel and the ad revenue from that show dwarfed the ad revenue our original web content generated. Same team, same quality product just one was ended up on cable TV and the other ended up on the Internet. Yer asking people to trade dollars for quarters and wondering why they don't jump at the opportunity.
Another large problem for streaming in general is that there is also no currently agreed about rating system for online viewing so even if a network live streams its shows, the streaming audience can cannibalize the TV audience. This is one reason why if you buy a show on iTunes or Amazon you have to wait until after the show airs to watch it. DVR viewing is taken into account for ratings though and eventually streaming will be as well. Once streaming is accounted for then I suspect we will see more simulcasting going on.
I agree, but streaming is no different. If not enough people watch the show it gets axed. For example, there was a show on Amazon called Betas in 2013 about a tech startup in SF (kinda like Silicon Valley but rated PG13). I thought it was a decent show but it didn't get renewed for a 2nd season.
What are the reasons OITNB can only succeed via streaming? I would argue that Amazon's Transparent never would have been made on regular cable due to the nature of it's content, but OITNB isn't all that edgy.
The industry is changing with it. How else can you explain the plethora of ways to watch movies and TV shows now? Hulu, Vudu, Amazon, Netflix, CBS All Access, HBO Now, PSN, XBL, iTunes, WWE Network, UFC Fight Pass, etc.,. The ad-based business model for TV (and radio before that) has been around since the 1930's. Just how quickly do you expect an entire industry to completely re-invent the way it does business?
As HobeSoundDarryl has mentioned in multiple threads, the only thing people seem ready to accept as 'change' is for all content to be on demand, commercial free and/or offered at a deep, deep discount price. It ain't gonna happen. These shows cost 10's of millions of dollars each, per season. That's a lot of dough and a lot of risk to assume up front. I've spent years working in both 'old media' and 'new media' and most of what people want to change is completely unrealistic, at least for the foreseeable future. There's just too many interdependent players working in concert to make content, but the many players are need, in part, to help spread out the financial risk because the costs are so high.
Yet 10's of millions of Americans do it every day. For example, the season finale of Walking Dead pulled in nearly 16 million viewers.
On the flip side, after being a cord cutter for nearly 6 years I signed up with cable a few months ago and I watch a much wider variety of shows now than I did as a cord cutter.
Freddie W put up a post-mortem about what he's learned from three seasons of Video Game High School and I think it's well worth the read (it's pretty concise). Link
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That whole post was juicy. I especially like that quoted line. "We'll" never get it around here (every new
TV thread fills with posts about wanting everything on demand and commercial free for relatively nothing) but that's so true. Or maybe it should be dimes? Or nickels? There's always a few "or I'll just pirate it" people that might make it pennies or half-cents... or maybe the entertainment industry should pay them to watch?In any event, the entertainment industry is one of our best... one of THE best in America. It's one of the few where a nobody can become a somebody, where rags can turn to riches, where all kinds of artists can actually get paid- sometimes well- to make something that can last and bring joy to people for decades. It turns ideas into finished products, imagination into tangible spectacle. It can crank out a lot of seeming garbage but it can also deliver dazzle.
And what do some of us want to do? Pretend like the whole thing is worth quarters/dimes/nickels at best and think Apple plugging in as a new middleman in place of a Comcast can somehow keep it all coming AND further enrich Apple while costing us a fraction of what we pay now.
I'm going to the movies this weekend. I'm going to get less than 2 hours of new programming entertainment for a total cost of about $40 for a few people in my party. It might be remarkable art or just an enticing trailer for a junk movie. When I get back home, I'll have the choice of about 200 channels costing me about $80 for a whole month. That might be about 180 channels of absolutely junk I'll never watch but that leaves 20 channels with lots of stuff I will- or can- watch, plus a ton of on-demand programming available from that bundle of 200 channels.
I'm certain that over the course of the month, I'll find at least twice as much visual viewing value as I'll get in the $40 I'll spend at the movie. And if that's all I got, it would yield equivalent value. If I get any more than about 4 hours of entertainment value- and I will- out of those 200 channels over the course of a whole month, the bargain that is the "as is" model will be that much greater.
When put in perspective, it sure is hard to fault $80. I sometimes spend more than that on a single meal which- as great as that can be in the moment- is really a nice experience for an hour or two and maybe some physical nourishment for a day. Again, hard to fault $80 for a month's worth of entertainment programming over 200 channels.
Last edited:
Mad Max is well worth the price of admission.
That's pretty much where I am with cable. I don't know if I'll keep it after the intro rate expires, but for cable, faster Internet and phone service (I haven't had home phone service in about 15 years and still don't own a home phone) it was so cheaper that I was like, "Why the hell not?" Many of the shows that I watch a lot (like Might Ships and How it's Made) aren't on the all-you-can-eat streamers like Netflix and I'm not about to pay $1.99 per episode for them. When I was a cord cutter, yeah, I'd pay that for SoA or Justified but I'm not paying that for How it's Made.
I only wanted 5 cans of coke but a 12 pack was only $1.50 more so that's what I got.
This is a longer read, but here's another interesting article about the cost of getting things made. The Economics of a Hit TV Show. I might have posted this before but I'm not sure.
EDIT: And it's not like I don't want things to change (hell, much of my success wouldn't have been possible 15 years ago) but I'm just trying to be realistic about what's possible and why.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I've found great success in 2 consumer moves: 1) either hop around- for me it's back and forth between Dish and DirecTV or 2) quit for just a little while and any of them will offer you new customer promotional rates within as little as a few days of quitting.
I've looked at cord cutting options and there seems to be just too many compromises, starting with picture quality which- to me anyway- is just about paramount, to not seeing shows until hours/days/months after first run to having to jump through hoops like streaming + airplay and so on. I realize it can work for some people but for the difference in price, the savings sure seems to cost a lot (of things beyond money).
Besides, I like live sports too much. There's a bundle of channels that deliver the sports I like. I especially like the regional sports channel which seems to have most of my area teams available most of the time (and it's a bonus with DirecTV and Dish packages).
I applaud those who can be satisfied with cord-cutting options. But I don't mind paying less/the same/more for what I like. I'm always looking for ways to trim monthly tolls but there sure is a lot of entertainment value for < $100 month in either satt offering.
I've looked at cord cutting options and there seems to be just too many compromises, starting with picture quality which- to me anyway- is just about paramount, to not seeing shows until hours/days/months after first run to having to jump through hoops like streaming + airplay and so on. I realize it can work for some people but for the difference in price, the savings sure seems to cost a lot (of things beyond money).
Besides, I like live sports too much. There's a bundle of channels that deliver the sports I like. I especially like the regional sports channel which seems to have most of my area teams available most of the time (and it's a bonus with DirecTV and Dish packages).
I applaud those who can be satisfied with cord-cutting options. But I don't mind paying less/the same/more for what I like. I'm always looking for ways to trim monthly tolls but there sure is a lot of entertainment value for < $100 month in either satt offering.
The VAST majority of television shows watched on any of the streaming services are old and/or reruns of past shows.
The percentage of new content is very small.
The percentage of new content is very small.
The TV options people have today are considerable, especially for those in or near cities. I used to be a DirecTV person, but cut the cord some years back. Today I use an OTA antenna and Tivo unit to watch whatever network shows and news (network and local) I need. Tivo units have good fast forward for skipping content you want to miss. Couple that with Netflix and an Apple TV, and the content is quite considerable and timely. Tivo is about $15 and Netflix $8. For me, that works well. I rarely every watch anything live. That combo also includes 2 or more sources for renting movies as well, for the times when that is desired.
What, if anything, Apple does here will be interesting. Many modern TVs already include OTA tuners. Apple could do one as well, which Tivo did. City folks can get good HD level content for $0. The press reports indicate negotiating content agreements with networks is anything but easy. Local content is an even wilder playing field.
One completely different approach for ATV might be a Tivo like unit. Couple what is there today with OTA and a DVR capability for $10 or less. Maybe consider USB port for added storage. That requires few if any agreements, and almost zero recurring costs. Couple that with existing ATV channels, the addition of Siri for voice control, and games and other features via developer apps, and you have a very different ATV that would likely cost less than $200 with perhaps zero or very low recurring costs. Might be a game changer, who knows
What, if anything, Apple does here will be interesting. Many modern TVs already include OTA tuners. Apple could do one as well, which Tivo did. City folks can get good HD level content for $0. The press reports indicate negotiating content agreements with networks is anything but easy. Local content is an even wilder playing field.
One completely different approach for ATV might be a Tivo like unit. Couple what is there today with OTA and a DVR capability for $10 or less. Maybe consider USB port for added storage. That requires few if any agreements, and almost zero recurring costs. Couple that with existing ATV channels, the addition of Siri for voice control, and games and other features via developer apps, and you have a very different ATV that would likely cost less than $200 with perhaps zero or very low recurring costs. Might be a game changer, who knows
Sports is the one item which holds me back from all of this. Basically, any live game broadcasts.
Once I can watch my football games each Sunday (live) I am all in.
I do like the idea in terms of more original or exclusive content. For those who don't care about the sports, its definitely an option.
Once I can watch my football games each Sunday (live) I am all in.
I do like the idea in terms of more original or exclusive content. For those who don't care about the sports, its definitely an option.
NFL Sunday Ticket MAX from DirecTV will let you stream to you computer, tablet or phone. Out of market games only though I think.
I concur. I've been using Tablo for about a year now and through many mediums, Firetv, Roku, AppleTv, computer , tablet, phone, remotely if needed. The company is still small but product has really matured over the last year.
I would like Apple to open a App Store for AppleTv so that we could get a native app instead of relying on AirPlay, this would enhance the experience in my mind and not require another device to control it.
Downside is the initial hardware $ investment for the nvr/tuner and antenna but beats paying for cable. $ is recovered after a few months of not paying for cable. Of course you also loose cable channels but impact depends on what your needs.
I've looking into Tablo for OTA dvr and schedule and am holding off until I hear about TV. I REALLY don't want to get yet another separate thing to watch tv with. I already have cable, XBMC on an old MacPro, TV, Amazon Firestick, a BluRay player with internet access to Vudu and other sources. I want everything in one frigging place with one frigging remote! I can imagine the energy savings alone not having all those devices constantly plugged in. It's enough effort to make sure I don't rent a movie from iTunes only to find out it's on Netflix already. SOO annoying when that happens.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
For anyone clinging to the al-a-carte (maybe commercial-free too) dream while marginalizing the suggestion that those who own the pipes would put the pinch on with either higher prices and/or tiers, take a look at this: https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/comcast-broadband-caps-even-more-annoying-imagined-163058598.html
As much as we consumers can hate it, we accepted the shift from unlimited to unlimited* to tiers in the wireless broadband arena with seemingly open arms (and wallets). Some of THOSE companies are the very same companies that feed some of us our wired broadband pipe. We shouldn't be even one bit surprised that they'll put the pinch on us. After all, if an Apple (or anyone else) is threatening my cable TV subscription revenue AND that entity's replacement solution would entirely depend on MY broadband pipe infrastructure, this is EXACTLY what I would do too to mitigate the threat.
Since many of us have ONE source of broadband, there's nowhere else to go. Those- like me- lucky enough to have more than one source can think we might switch but isn't the other source ALSO in the cable TV business? Even Google Fiber is also in the cable TV business. Won't any of the others do the very same thing should an Apple threaten their cable TV revenue?
To get to some "new model" where Apple or someone like Apple gets to pile on:
-the content creators will still need to make at least what they make now. If they take some big hit to their revenues, quality and/or breadth & depth of what they produce must go down.
-the cable companies who are also the broadband pipe masters will still need to make at least what they make now. There's no choice here as no replacement can deliver 1 second of new model video without flowing through cable's broadband pipes.
-Apple (or similar) will want to take a brand new cut of money right off the top. No choice here either. Apple will want to profit from doing their part, so they must be paid cash from somewhere.
That means the only link left in the chain will need to cough up that extra money to basically let Apple in. In the dream, that link thinks that Apple is going to be able to pile on top and yet somehow deliver everything we want- maybe even commercial free- for some huge discount. But hopefully, this illustrates the reality of how it will play out should the masses move on some new model. I only expect more of this (meaning ever-tightening tiers should some new model actually take hold with the masses).
I hate it as much as the next guy but it's the only way it will arrive.
As much as we consumers can hate it, we accepted the shift from unlimited to unlimited* to tiers in the wireless broadband arena with seemingly open arms (and wallets). Some of THOSE companies are the very same companies that feed some of us our wired broadband pipe. We shouldn't be even one bit surprised that they'll put the pinch on us. After all, if an Apple (or anyone else) is threatening my cable TV subscription revenue AND that entity's replacement solution would entirely depend on MY broadband pipe infrastructure, this is EXACTLY what I would do too to mitigate the threat.
Since many of us have ONE source of broadband, there's nowhere else to go. Those- like me- lucky enough to have more than one source can think we might switch but isn't the other source ALSO in the cable TV business? Even Google Fiber is also in the cable TV business. Won't any of the others do the very same thing should an Apple threaten their cable TV revenue?
To get to some "new model" where Apple or someone like Apple gets to pile on:
-the content creators will still need to make at least what they make now. If they take some big hit to their revenues, quality and/or breadth & depth of what they produce must go down.
-the cable companies who are also the broadband pipe masters will still need to make at least what they make now. There's no choice here as no replacement can deliver 1 second of new model video without flowing through cable's broadband pipes.
-Apple (or similar) will want to take a brand new cut of money right off the top. No choice here either. Apple will want to profit from doing their part, so they must be paid cash from somewhere.
That means the only link left in the chain will need to cough up that extra money to basically let Apple in. In the dream, that link thinks that Apple is going to be able to pile on top and yet somehow deliver everything we want- maybe even commercial free- for some huge discount. But hopefully, this illustrates the reality of how it will play out should the masses move on some new model. I only expect more of this (meaning ever-tightening tiers should some new model actually take hold with the masses).
I hate it as much as the next guy but it's the only way it will arrive.