I don't know if its the same thing. I'm pretty sure Apple gets rid of stuff people don't like on a regular like newsstand for instance.
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
Why would this terrify them? You still need a cable provider. This doesn't have anything to do with receiving service. It would just be Apple manufacturing the box, which then has to work with a bunch of different infrastructure from various providers.
So basically what you have is ala carte options like Youtube, Hulu and Netflix are going to kill Cable TV. I think Apple should start featuring some of the ala carte providers and maybe act through them to produce new content. Some reality shows, some news. Get a provider to create news TV (conservative, liberal) for ipads and entertainment TV from another provider... and from another reality TV.
Last edited:
Perhaps-- but don't they also charge monthly/annually? And I'm not sure if they include antennas--its just a DVR, right?
It seems like the kind of middle-man Apple would try to squeeze out or make redundant.
I applaud Apple for sticking to its original plan. Content providers are still in denail about the fact that many current cable/satellite subscribers (like me) want to not just drop channels they don't want but want to significantly cut their total annual spend on TV in the process.
What it will eventually come down to if Apple is not able to implement their plan is that many people (like me) will just drop cable/satellite TV completely, and just make do with over-the-air TV programming supplemented by a very select set of subscription apps on an Apple TV (or equivalent box), completely abandoning the bundle TV kingdom of providers like CBS and Disney (I personally don't have any use for the bundle of channels that either provider offers).
What it will eventually come down to if Apple is not able to implement their plan is that many people (like me) will just drop cable/satellite TV completely, and just make do with over-the-air TV programming supplemented by a very select set of subscription apps on an Apple TV (or equivalent box), completely abandoning the bundle TV kingdom of providers like CBS and Disney (I personally don't have any use for the bundle of channels that either provider offers).
lets be honest here, everyone's been burned by the cable/satellite companies. my bill was $49.99 in 2001. in 2013 it reached $148 when i finally bailed.
The current system is definitely going to collapse, but I'm not sure Apple's plan for a small bundle will work. The fundamental problem is that everyone only watches like 10% of the channels they have access to (or whatever the number is) but it's not the same 10%.
The vast majority of the channels I pay for, I will never watch. And the vast majority you pay for, you will never watch. Unfortunately, what we do watch might not overlap at all. So people may only need 20ish channels or something, but it's not the same 20ish. Trying to force a specific thin bundle for everyone is not good for consumers unless what they pick happens to be your favorites.
So, yeah, the big cable companies need to adapt or die, but they do have a point when they say all of their channels are in some way must-haves.
The vast majority of the channels I pay for, I will never watch. And the vast majority you pay for, you will never watch. Unfortunately, what we do watch might not overlap at all. So people may only need 20ish channels or something, but it's not the same 20ish. Trying to force a specific thin bundle for everyone is not good for consumers unless what they pick happens to be your favorites.
So, yeah, the big cable companies need to adapt or die, but they do have a point when they say all of their channels are in some way must-haves.
Very true, I am on the verge of doing that. My DirecTV is expiring early next year and I am not considering renewing unless they give me a substantial discount for a 2 year commitment something I don't expect them too.
I am thinking getting a OTA antenna and just subscribe on ATV some channels and Netflix. The only thing I will miss is the DVR that I really enjoy using it, but I am tired of paying $80 plus for content I don't watch too much.
Yup, comes down to a stoic executive crew wanting to keep a business plan that is beyond its maturity. These services sell advertising based on demographics across multiple channels. If you offer smaller bundles or a-la cart, you break the demographic models and the revenue stream model.
A time will come when more and more people chord cut, move to Internet only and these crony media exes are forced to do something other than their dying revenue stream. Unlike the best in Silicon Valley, most media have no long term plans for changing revenues streams when technology alters their market. Some are so stoic, they petition to regular and mandate their business model since they can't see beyond their business model and staffing issues.
Why would any company that has a strangle hold on anything, be willing to give it up? They have built their cable system up to what it is today, why should they just decide to make less money? Once cable has any major competition from Apple or anyone else, the price of internet connections will go through the roof. They aren't going to just let someone walk in and take all their money.
2014: Apple gave the NFC open standard a kick in the pants= Apple Pay
2015: Apple gave open standard RSS Feeds a kick in the pants= News App
2016: Gotta do something with open standard OTA TV.
Figure it out.
2015: Apple gave open standard RSS Feeds a kick in the pants= News App
2016: Gotta do something with open standard OTA TV.
Figure it out.
For the love of Pete,
Here's what you do Apple:
Figure out a way to integrate this:
into this: ------->
and also add this:
to this --------------------->
Pour your billions of dollars and engineering to perfecting OTA reception. Slap on the usual Apple interface polish (7.1 WHABC-TV listing = ABC) and....
Voila! The TV industry will collectively **** its pants and will come back to the table and reason for a more acceptable price.
This would terrify them.
Windows media centre already does this but no one ever used it. Sure they didn't make it easy like Apple could but Apple has no incentive if they can't charge money for a service
I am perfectly happy with my free OTA TV that I get through windows media centre. I get all the channels that I used to watch (just network TV really) plus I get a bunch of other crap that I don't watch just like I did when I had satellite. Luckily with windows I can just tell it to ignore the channels I don't watch
In ten years those same content creators will be begging Apple on their hands and knees.
and this is why i will continue to download tv shows until companies get their crap together. i don't need to see the latest tv show immediately, i can wait another few hours and download it without crappy commercials that have no influence on me anyways.
let me pay for the channels that i want. YOU don't tell me what i want to watch, i tell me what i want to watch.
let me pay for the channels that i want. YOU don't tell me what i want to watch, i tell me what i want to watch.
That's just the reality of the situation. Apple has no upper hand in these negotiations. Eddy Cue can demand $30 or less for a skinny bundle and the content owners will just laugh in his face. Outside of sports live TV is becoming less and less important. Who needs a bundled package of channels skinny or otherwise if you're mostly watching things on demand? just let content creators offer apps for this stuff and let Apple provide universal and voice search to easily find things.
I think you're misunderstanding the matter. What Apple was offering was no different than what's currently available. In fact, I would say it's worse. 25 or so channels of Apple's choosing for $40. Where in that scenario do you get to pick content? Even if Apple had 10 different packages and an ability to add 5-10 additional channels for a fee, you're still going to get channels you don't want to watch. FYI, you have it backwards regarding sports channels. That revenue finances a lot of the stuff that you, and the rest of us want to watch. We all seem to think in this new paradigm the shows we personally like will make the cut. Sorry to break it, but what you'll get in the selective content era a crap ton of procedural dramas, reality TV, sitcoms, and sports. Gloriously lovely sports. Mmmmm. Bacon. Baaacon. Wait, what?
In that new world, this is what we get because this is what makes money: http://www.tvinsider.com/article/1989/top-50-tv-shows-2014-2015-highest-rated-winners-and-losers/
Your shows in there?
$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 they will be "channels" I want to watch, instead of three channels I want, and 80 that I don't.
Imagine if you went to the grocery store and they told you that they had already picked out a nice cart of food for you. It includes a ribeye steak, some chicken, some ice cream, some fresh produce, a bottle of wine, and 37 spices you have no use for. You can't take out the spices. You must buy the whole cart or you get nothing. Sure, you can add a box of mac and cheese and some peanuts and chips for an additional charge. But you can't take anything out of the basket that was already in there, because it's so great, and they know you'll want it. Besides, it only causes the basket to cost $50 more, so the entire cart costs $100, instead of the $50 you would have paid for the steak, chicken, produce, ice cream and wine.
That's exactly what pay television does to you now.
Me, I'll take a la carte all day long. You keep the extra spices, and I'll keep my $50. If I ever want the spices I'll come looking for the ones I use.
Actually they do have people stealing their product like popcorn time etc. Its just not at the critical mass that will make them change yet...and I doubt it will ever be because of what Apple did to get people to pay for music rather than stealing it has carried over to getting people to pay for television instead of stealing it. If anything what Apple did for music is having a lasting effect on television. Some artists blame itunes for killing albums but really albums were already dead when people starting using Napster instead of buying CDs
That didn't work out well for Aereo. Tablo is trying something similar. This isn't a new idea. Tablo is actually pretty cool
And thats great if you only want a few channels. I would like a few more than that. I would imagine buying the channels a la carte is going to be more expensive than the current model - otherwise the cable providors have no incentive to offer it to begin with.
Once I take TV out of my bundle and pay for only internet that $30-$40 a la carte is going to match my current bundle cost that has way more channels
The more original programming that is on places like HBO Now, Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, and heck even Vimeo, the more cable subscribers will disappear. What may be the death knell for cable is if one of these can step up and challenge the networks when sports broadcasting rights are next negotiated.
The simple solution that we'll never get is a la carte programming. No one wants to overpay for a bundle of useless channels they never watch, but TV companies know their bottom like will shrink considerably if they lose those useless channels. In the mean time, everyone loses.