I thought that more people would see this. Cable providers sell the whole bunch, because it wouldn't be profitable to keep smaller channels alive otherwise. You'd end up with the stuff that just the majority wants and lose the stuff that has no mass-market appeal. That's an unfortunate loss of diversity in media.
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 thought that more people would see this. Cable providers sell the whole bunch, because it wouldn't be profitable to keep smaller channels alive otherwise. You'd end up with the stuff that just the majority wants and lose the stuff that has no mass-market appeal. That's an unfortunate loss of diversity in media.
Would those bundles be customizable? Otherwise it's just like regular cable service, which is useless to me. I only want a handful of channels.
I buy shows off of iTunes, and that's way cheaper. Instead of paying $40/month for channels that have content I probably won't watch, I just pay $30 per season of a show that I'd want to watch. So in total for the year I'd pay, what, $120? Instead of hundreds.
I buy shows off of iTunes, and that's way cheaper. Instead of paying $40/month for channels that have content I probably won't watch, I just pay $30 per season of a show that I'd want to watch. So in total for the year I'd pay, what, $120? Instead of hundreds.
Aereo was a completely different animal.
They setup their own tuners and servers and tried to re-transmit it over the internet for a fee-- A big No-No.
If you can perfect the tuner to fit in a phone or computer directly, it becomes no different than watching on a standard TV.
I'm finding that one of the predominant ways people watch tv is to download ripped shows.
This is the music industry all over again. Cable companies and TV stations want you to buy more than you want or need. This is worse for Cable Companies because people will end up doing their own things and competing with cable in other ways. They are introducing competition into the TV market Cable TV cant possibly win.
Last edited:
I used to work on broadcast until a year ago, Apple is illiterate to say the least if it plans to make changes to the tv network industry. The networks are literally a mafia, it is like the oil industry, if you find a better alternative than oil, the companies will wipe you out. Is like NBC trying to take over the computer industry or releasing an smart phone to compete with Apple, even that they would have a better chance.
This is easily solved in either of two ways:
- Don't provide a base package at all. Divide everything up by interests. Have a kids package, a sports package, a movie package, an over-the-air networks package, a sci-fi package, etc. Then the execs can't complain that any particular channel isn't in the base package, because there isn't a base package.
- Buy Disney/ABC/ESPN. Apple could easily buy a controlling interest with less than half of their cash on hand, without even needing to do a stock swap. If they did it carefully enough through brokers, they might even be able to complete the hostile takeover before anybody noticed, thus preventing the stock price from soaring. Then they could replace the board, put in people who actually have vision, get that company's myriad channels on board, spin off the company into an independent entity again, and watch all the other TV networks fall into line faster than their executives can soil themselves.
Sports programming is the main thing keeping the cable industry alive in my opinion. All of my sports friends keep their cable for that reason alone. All of my "non-sports" friends ditched cable a LONG time ago.
To be fair, you can ignore those channels with cable as well. Windows Media Center is free however. Free + satisfaction is a deal no one can overcome. As long as you're satisfied, stick with it. If that attitude gains critical mass maybe something will change. Hopefully that change won't come in the form of highest rated content being only offered in subscription model.
Apple will make it happen eventually, but it won't happen in the first round. What Apple is essentially asking the media companies to do is completely transform their core offering, one that has worked for many years and made them billions while doing so. Yes, consumers media consumption habits are changing and the media companies are recognising this and trying to adapt as quick as they can, however without cannibalising their core product, of which consist of lets say, 20% premium content, and 80% re-runs and filler.
A huge contributing factor that will work in Apple's favour are SVOD services. Once they build up their back catalogs a bit more and reach critical mass, middle America will recognise that there is no longer any need to pay $100/m for hundreds of channels they don't really need, and consumer demand will drive the switch to select premium OTT TV channels that Apple's proposed business model would deliver.
How do people think they will cut the cord and only watch Netflix, HBO Now when they have no cords that provide Internet connectivity?
Comcast is only 1 of two providers in our area, and if you call them to even cancel tv service and just go with Internet service the price is the same or more to JUST have Internet service. They make it hard to cut the cord. You can't stream tons of video on your cell phone plan. Most people do not have unlimited data.
Comcast is only 1 of two providers in our area, and if you call them to even cancel tv service and just go with Internet service the price is the same or more to JUST have Internet service. They make it hard to cut the cord. You can't stream tons of video on your cell phone plan. Most people do not have unlimited data.
I love netflix because 1) $8/month 2) No commercials 3) no concept of channels - just program I want to watch 4) Original shows like Jessica Jones, etc 5) 1080p excellent quality 6) Wide hardware support. 7) No logos or ads for other shows obscuring and ruining the experience. 8) Dolby Digital Plus 7.1 support.
Am I missing something here? The reasoning is because TV execs want to sell us "filler" content?
Sorry, but no.
I'm not going to pay for content that A) I don't watch, and B) isn't worth my dollar. Which is why I've cut the cord, and am perfectly happy to do so until I have a choice other than "packages." Cable packages are extremely bloated with channels that have sub par content. Put out quality programming and people will gladly pay for it. Until then, they shouldn't be surprised to lose more and more customers
I'm surprised Apple was aiming to offer as many as 25 channels per package for $30-$40. I'd pay anywhere from $1.99-$3.99 a month if I had the option to choose a la carte. I'm only interested in around 10 channels anyway, and I'm sure most people fall in the 10-20 range.
Sorry, but no.
I'm not going to pay for content that A) I don't watch, and B) isn't worth my dollar. Which is why I've cut the cord, and am perfectly happy to do so until I have a choice other than "packages." Cable packages are extremely bloated with channels that have sub par content. Put out quality programming and people will gladly pay for it. Until then, they shouldn't be surprised to lose more and more customers
I'm surprised Apple was aiming to offer as many as 25 channels per package for $30-$40. I'd pay anywhere from $1.99-$3.99 a month if I had the option to choose a la carte. I'm only interested in around 10 channels anyway, and I'm sure most people fall in the 10-20 range.
People aren't going to pay for more product than they need/want forever. They just wont.
The problem is, the ISPs are the cable companies, so even if we do move to cheaper TV, they will just raise the price of internet access so that profits stay the same (or go up!).
I don't really see the advantage of "skinny bundles" unless the customer can choose the channels. I don't think paying a la carte for TV is going to result in cheaper TV either. I look at how much I pay today for Netflix, commercial-free Hulu, and HBO. Throw in a "skinny bundle" and I might as well just pay for cable again. In fact, that's what I'm considering. I haven't had cable in 6 years, but I'm tired of waiting for a better Internet-based solution. I don't want to jump between multiple apps and devices either, and that's the reality of streaming today. Sad to say, but the most elegant solution, is still cable+DVR, especially if you pay for Tivo and get a nice UI.
I was with you up the the point where you listed content that I hate, which is basically all the crap wasting bandwidth and resources already. :-D But the model of Netflix.... YES.
I just want a monthly subscription service for everything in iTunes (Movies and TV) like they did with Music. If we upset the traditional cable model too much, we'll all be paying out the ass for our high speed home internet with data caps. How much was the average cellular bill before the iPhone?
Full disclosure: I haven't had cable tv service for over two years. Just FiOS internet service and Netflix.
Full disclosure: I haven't had cable tv service for over two years. Just FiOS internet service and Netflix.
So your belief is what, then? To not pay for anything? $30-40 is far better sounding to me than the approximately $110 I pay for HD Cable with 2 DVRs and 4 rooms total. I'd much rather be able to pick out the 5-10 channels I DO watch and pay $40 a month for them with the option of adding more if I find something I like in the future.
I understand the industry's resistance to this model. They want to maximize their profits. They will only relent when enough people ABANDON traditional models that they realize lower profits are better than NO profits. The day is coming when all stations will be ala carte (and that many will have to go to paid no commercial models as well to retain customers in an era where it's too easy to grab commercial free episodes off the Net).
Personally, I would have dropped cable entirely by now if it weren't for the DVR's ability to at least fast forward through commercials. I've spent decades watching that garbage and I'm DONE watching garbage and that means every means at my disposal to avoid them. I don't CARE if the companies don't like it. My life is getting shorter and I have ZERO interest in watching them try to push their CRAP on me. I find out about new products through news/review sites. If I have an interest in a product, I will find them instead. Shoving a product in my face with pop-ups and obnoxious commercials that compress the volume so it's 2-3x louder sounding than the program do one thing and one thing only and that is make me NOT want to buy their product or even actively AVOID it (as does all forms of unwanted advertising and spam). The sooner THEY learn that the better as far as I'm concerned.
That's the point. We just need networks that operate exclusively through non traditional means. If people just switch to watching different things via their iPads and iPhones Browsers... The networks will lose in that scenario.
i think, even $25-40 is way too expensive. don't know how the rest of the world figures into those calculations, but where i live i can get unlimited internet for €25 (allthough only at 75mbit), and 100+ tv channels for another €15. or even cheaper (with even slower, but still not capped internet) from other providers. from those 40-100 channels, i need and want about 10. one drawback of some digital cable subscription is, that you have to use a stupid media box with a bad ui, where you can't even re-order channels. also, you have to pay extra for a disk-recorder. so i'd pay extra for a good ui and the option to record.
so, i'd be willing to pay about the same i pay now but for the 10 channels i really want, instead for the 40-100 i can get now for the same money - so that would be between € 0.50 to € 1.50 per channel max (which would only be worth it, if that gets you a recording option as well).
granted, i'd rather pay microtransactions for the time i really watch tv. say 10-50 cents per tv-series episode, if i can rewatch them as long as i pay a monthly basic service fee (like playstation plus, where the monthly free games stay in your library as long, as you are a member), below 10 cents for news and live television and whatever people are willing to pay for live sports.
a single programme would probably still earn much more money for the producers than it does now (and could be used to finance some not so popular programming, like it does now)
so, i'd be willing to pay about the same i pay now but for the 10 channels i really want, instead for the 40-100 i can get now for the same money - so that would be between € 0.50 to € 1.50 per channel max (which would only be worth it, if that gets you a recording option as well).
granted, i'd rather pay microtransactions for the time i really watch tv. say 10-50 cents per tv-series episode, if i can rewatch them as long as i pay a monthly basic service fee (like playstation plus, where the monthly free games stay in your library as long, as you are a member), below 10 cents for news and live television and whatever people are willing to pay for live sports.
a single programme would probably still earn much more money for the producers than it does now (and could be used to finance some not so popular programming, like it does now)
Last edited:
I want to be able to pay the fee each network charges cable/satellite providers for each channel I want. The problem is most people, even if they like TLC or Discovery, etc, would probably do without. Most people would look at USA, TNT, Spike, etc, and only choose one. There's a lot more money in bundles.
For me, if I could just have Disney for the kids, plus what I get over the air, I'd be fine for entertainment. Everything else I care about is on Netflix or iTunes.
For me, if I could just have Disney for the kids, plus what I get over the air, I'd be fine for entertainment. Everything else I care about is on Netflix or iTunes.