Like I have been saying all along, this is one of the big differences between Cook and Jobs. Jobs as head of Pixar was a made man in the content industry, and he could negotiate deals such as getting music on iTunes. Cook as only head of Apple is the enemy of the content companies and will never be able to negotiate the same kind of deals, no matter who he brings in as lieutenants such as buying Beats.
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 TV Plans Fell Apart Over Content Owners' Resistance to Skinny Bundles
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not talking about their content. I'm talking about their hardware base. If you buy Apple hardware you tend to stick with it. Since they have a large base of iPhone/iPad/Apple TV owners, that's a large number of devices you'd like to be on if you're a content provider.
Except, customers are getting smarter and are turning in ever increasing numbers to alternatives to the traditional cable/sat offerings. At this rate, sooner rather than later, increased pressure on the networks and various other content creators will force them to evaluate those restrictive contracts they have with their current distribution channels, i.e. the cable/sat cos, and come back to the bargaining table with the likes of Apple and others who wish to replace the rigid, aging, and virtually unchanged distribution model that currently rules the roost.
Considerably improved set-top boxes appearing in greater numbers of homes may be the incentive the aforementioned networks and content creators need to stop renewing those restrictive contracts with the cable/sat conglomerate and to finally conclude their bottom lines won't suffer and make that leap of faith to truly help transition our entertainment options to better serve the needs of today's customers. It's certainly high time our entertainment options received that much needed transformation so many of us are looking forward to.
I'm still optimistic this will happen, time is on our side.
Last edited:
It's interesting that people think Apple will be the TV savior when you look at the iTunes Store compared to Netflix.
Both offer you the ability to buy/consume TV shows from previous seasons. But while Netflix charges a flat rate and lets you stream, Apple charges a pretty penny to buy the same content. Yeah, it's true you 'own' a show instead of stream it. But I'd bet the overwhelming majority of people watch shows they purchase once or twice and are done.
Yet some people think that same company that charges a premium is going to make things better for consumers if they get in the market.
Though I also think it's unfair to compare the Netflix market to 'skinny bundles' or cable content. 95% of Netflix is TV shows and movies that have already made the bulk of their ad revenue/ticket sales when they were run/released. The content producers (and networks) had already made their money - so anything Netflix gets is gravy.
That gravy money is being used to produce new content....but it's essentially the same network model people on here are blasting. They are using the vast interests of their subscriber base to subsidize the few shows they are creating. If they relied on people who were willing to pay for House of Cards or Orange is the New Black....they probably wouldn't be creating those shows.
Which is why there is growing friction between Netflix and content producers. They were fine getting some residual money on old inventory. But they don't want to see Netflix use that revenue to create content that competes with their first runs stuff.
That makes sense. If I own a bakery and give you all my old stuff to sell as 'day old', that's great. But when you use the revenue from that to start baking fresh stuff to compete with mine, I have to wonder why I'm selling you my day old stuff.
And likely the end of a lot of shows you like. Cable TV pushed the quality of programming up signficantly. But a lot of that was either made by premium channels like HBO or cable networks that used the safety net of bundled channel revenue to pay the way. Shows like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, etc are a lot riskier when they have to pay their own way.
Everybody assumes that a la carte and skinny bundles will save the shows that THEY like. But many of those shows/stations are part of larger network packages that use the revenue from those subscription fees and ad dollars to fund the whole spectrum.
I really dislike this post.
Not only is it not possible to prove one way or the other, it adds nothing to the discussion and is, a best, a tired old "joke". Enough already.
Last edited:
Following comments made by CBS CEO Les Moonves on the state of Apple's rumored television service, news leaked confirming Apple has put plans for such a service on hold for the time being due to difficulties securing content deals.
While Bloomberg spoke to a source that chalked the failed negotiations up to media companies demanding more money than Apple wanted to charge for the service, Re/code's Peter Kafka has added some additional context, pointing towards a reluctance to unbundle channels as another factor that killed the service.
Apple was hoping to offer a limited bundle of approximately 25 channels at a price of $30 to $40 per month, but even early on, there was pushback from content providers who wanted Apple to offer all of their content rather than just a few select channels. A rumor in April concerning negotiations between Disney and Apple suggested Disney was pushing Apple to include most of its content, including ESPN, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, and more, while Apple wanted to offer just a few of Disney's channels.
According to Kafka, the situation with Disney happened with other content providers, many of whom did not want to offer just a small selection of channels from their content catalogs.iTunes chief Eddy Cue offered media companies an option to sell additional tiers of channels (such as a sports package) alongside a core service, but refused to compromise on offering a larger number of base channels. "He doesn't want to have filler," a TV executive told Re/code.
According to Re/code's TV industry sources, Apple has been "quite vocal" about the end of negotiations with media companies, which stopped a couple of months ago. While Apple has suspended its plans for the time being, rumors have suggested the company isn't "giving up entirely" on a television service.
For the time being, Apple will focus on its tvOS App Store, offering content providers a platform to sell content to customers. As Kafka says, Apple may be able to change the minds of media companies if it can prove the Apple TV is a "transformative platform," but the company has a long way to go to reach that goal.
Article Link: Apple's TV Plans Fell Apart Over Content Owners' Resistance to Skinny Bundles
What might have been.
Meanwhile, people are streaming, FOR FREE, what these companies won't offer for us to pay for... and they are worried about their current business model? They better worry about their next model. As much as I would love for Apple to crack this nut that Steve Jobs said he already cracked, $40 for 25 channels is a non-starter for me, especially with what Sling TV is doing.
I probably will never be in any bundle, skinny or otherwise. When the day comes I can just pick the 5 or so channels I *would* want to watch, then let me pick the 10 *shows* I do watch, I'd be in. Some hybrid with live programming, and viewing credits for stuff in the iTunes Store, that would work.
$40 -> 25 channels = FAIL for me.
I probably will never be in any bundle, skinny or otherwise. When the day comes I can just pick the 5 or so channels I *would* want to watch, then let me pick the 10 *shows* I do watch, I'd be in. Some hybrid with live programming, and viewing credits for stuff in the iTunes Store, that would work.
$40 -> 25 channels = FAIL for me.
Sounds EXACTLY like my grandpa, now deceased, who lived his whole life in the past, claiming those all the now dead ppl he knew would have done it better and different with not one tiny bit of proof. Loved him to death, but boy he had trouble living in the present.
$30-40 will only end up getting you maybe 5 channels when all this a la carte stuff is all said and done I wager
But if those 5 channels are the only ones that the viewer watches, it would be money well spent on getting quality content. I would pay the same if more money went to my favorite content creators.
The Apple hardware can run competitors' video services too, and those also run on more popular platforms like Android. As much as I like Apple's ecosystem, it's not going to ever be the one that dominates.
Lol. You know both sides have to agree to a purchase right?
There's way too many stup posts here to comment on.
Then - surprise - you are not the target market for Apple's TV streaming bundle.
This was well said. It's sad people think a la cartel will be 2 bucks per channel. Lol
Crawl before you run bro. Baby steps. The market isn't just going to shift from subscription to all carte.