Popular channels essentially subsidize less popular ones. We're never going to be able to pick the channels we want a la carte because half of the channels on TV today would disappear, all those jobs would be lost, etc. Never going to happen.
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
Popular channels essentially subsidize less popular ones. We're never going to be able to pick the channels we want a la carte because half of the channels on TV today would disappear, all those jobs would be lost, etc. Never going to happen.
They should rename this site to "Eddy Cue failures". Not knocking the coverage... there just seems to be a repetition to this executive's failure to get the job done.
Apple has so much going for it, but something is really off with the leadership these days.
Apple has so much going for it, but something is really off with the leadership these days.
I am confused on part of it. Most Cable Providers including Version FIOS offer a small bundle for like $10 - $20 (+ video tax of $10 or so). Includes the local channels and some others. Maybe a little hard to find but they are there. Also, FIOS has the Custom Package where you get a fixed set of channels and smaller add on's (but not a great deal). Also, TWC is testing in New York an Internet TV Service and maybe Comcast is doing the same thing. Also, you have Sling TV with there small bundle except they require sports in the bundle. I just do not think we understand what the real problem is.
For me, I am using the HDHomeRun Network Turners to grab the Channels I want and on the New ATV 4 I use an App called Channels to play Live TV on the Apple TV. I am also using their Network DVR solution with another App on the ATV 4. The DVR is still in beta and very limited but the Live TV Channels App is pretty good. I have returned $67 per month in STB's to Verizon. This is all very New and some problems still need to be worked out. But at least I am only using the Apple TV Box on all of my TV's. I don't really have a problem in buying content from any source as long as the content is reasonable priced. Also, don't mind extra channels in the bundle that I can simply ignore. Again, if reasonably priced. Apple wants to charge around $40 for 25 channels then more for additional channels. For around $50 without the STB's you can get a huge number of channels. Just create a favorite list of what you want to see.
For me, I am using the HDHomeRun Network Turners to grab the Channels I want and on the New ATV 4 I use an App called Channels to play Live TV on the Apple TV. I am also using their Network DVR solution with another App on the ATV 4. The DVR is still in beta and very limited but the Live TV Channels App is pretty good. I have returned $67 per month in STB's to Verizon. This is all very New and some problems still need to be worked out. But at least I am only using the Apple TV Box on all of my TV's. I don't really have a problem in buying content from any source as long as the content is reasonable priced. Also, don't mind extra channels in the bundle that I can simply ignore. Again, if reasonably priced. Apple wants to charge around $40 for 25 channels then more for additional channels. For around $50 without the STB's you can get a huge number of channels. Just create a favorite list of what you want to see.
Agreed. Eddy is the worst Apple exec I can think of in recent years. The majority of Apple's pain points are under his command (cloud services, iTunes, etc.) and he comes across as a total shlub on stage. I'm embarrassed for Apple every time he opens his mouth. Apple leadership does not inspire confidence these days. They're doing a great job of making money, but the cracks are starting to show.
Look for Earthlink and see if they provide cable internet for cheaper price. Some places they have agreement with cable companies to provide internet for cheaper price.
Yep, you got it exactly right.
The music industry was also in trouble as CD sales were declining and people were pirating MP3s. Apple jumped on the opportunity.
AFAIK, the TV networks aren't hurting all that much from Netflix. Cord cutting is still too radical and there's a lot of sports fans out there who need their ESPN. Everyone still has cable or satellite and people are still buying packages with tons of useless channels just so they can get their ESPN. So why would they give up all this luxury and this control to Apple? How does this possibly benefit the networks?
I don't know how good Eddie Cue is at his job, but inability to not persuade studios to sell their product for less money doesn't seem like its his fault as much as it is good thinking by the studios. Once they start selling individual channels for cheap, everyone will switch to that and the studios will lose money fast because no one will pay for the crap channels. The current model works very well for studios and I don't think Eddy Cue is going to be able to fool them.
The problem is not really the Tuners its the transmitters. I lived in CT for a couple of years and had to install a pretty sophisticated steerable antenna system with amplification to be able to get the OTA channels. Way too much bother and complication for most people.
Thats the biggest problem with cable right there - getting rid of the STB / Box / Equipment fees and you will likely have a bill lower than a la carte with more content.
I ended up switching to uverse in the meantime since we only regularly use 2 tvs and the promo was good. I cant wait for hdhomerun to get everything working smoothly with their cablecard DVR application. I need it to be 'wife approved'
Thee cable networks are too powerful but hopefully, eventually, when more and more customers are cutting their cable subscription, they will learn. Only when they let me chose the few channels I want then I am changing to cable. They killed Aero, which means that where I live I cannot get even the free channels over the air (digital shoulder, all masts somewhere in Manhattan) and Aero was the saver - but that is gone. And I cannot watch a channel I would get free over the air on the AppleTV without entering my cable subscription (which I don't have). Yet, I don't want their 98% of crap channels, its like subscribing to the NYT but I also have to get the Post, Man's health, The Flyfisher, Modern Architecture, TV today, Baby and me, WSJ and Vogue to name only a few of the 150 I would be forced to subscribe to and pay for (granted, some of those I mentioned are solid publications and some names I just made up)
Last edited:
The issue is though, that most of the channels being subsidized put out crap programming, which is why they're subsidized to begin with.
I hope that the idea of 'app channels' catches on, as I really like the new Apple TV, it just needs to be taken one step further, which is paid subscriptions per channel. But that would involve Apple negotiating directly with content producers like AMC, instead of the Cable providers. Negotiating with either can be tricky.
In the "clearly you haven't been paying attention" category, I would think the content providers would benefit from the micro-transaction in-app purchase model of the app store. Charge $3/channel/month and for an extra $2 you can go ad-free on scripted programming.
Channels like ESPN could do things like geo-locate you when you first start the app and then lock you into games normally broadcast in that area, with full access being an up-charge. It would suck from a "wow, everything has an up-charge" perspective, but users have already demonstrated that they will often pay a little extra for a little convenience, but rarely want to pay a lot extra for a lot of convenience.
Channels like ESPN could do things like geo-locate you when you first start the app and then lock you into games normally broadcast in that area, with full access being an up-charge. It would suck from a "wow, everything has an up-charge" perspective, but users have already demonstrated that they will often pay a little extra for a little convenience, but rarely want to pay a lot extra for a lot of convenience.
Always great to hear from the people who don't want to pay for a service, yet seem perplexed that no one wants to offer them that service. 
We pay £7 a months for a few extra channels, and we watch them. We got a NowTV box for Sky Atlantic, plus it gives us the option to pick a choose if we want to watch sports or a month of movies. No contract, we can cancel with 28 days notice.
Apple need to be offering customers something different, not more of the same.
Apple need to be offering customers something different, not more of the same.
One person's crap is another person's treasure. I agree that there's a lot of crap, but you're never going to be able to pick just what you like or the whole model collapses. Unbundling and moving to apps isn't going to make things cheaper either. It's just going to be more of a nickel and dime approach. $12 for Hulu, $20 for HBO, $10 for Netflix, $6 for CBS, etc... Enough of these and you'll quickly find yourself back at $100+ a month for TV. Why not just subscribe to cable and make it easy? You don't have to watch the stuff you don't want to watch.
I have Netflix. And Amazon Prime. The sport I watch is baseball and MLB.com has that covered.
So, I got rid of cable 4 years ago. Bliss.
I do also like college basketball/March Madness (but just to get through the end of winter until spring training) so last March I signed up for Sling TV. Unfortunately, I then found out Sling has HGTV and I can't exercise portion control where HGTV is concerned. I finally was able to quit Sling this October.
Yesterday, I signed up for my free month of Acorn TV (British TV) on Amazon Prime. Hooray!
And I purchase a few series, such as Chopped.
I have all the "television" I can handle.
So, I got rid of cable 4 years ago. Bliss.
I do also like college basketball/March Madness (but just to get through the end of winter until spring training) so last March I signed up for Sling TV. Unfortunately, I then found out Sling has HGTV and I can't exercise portion control where HGTV is concerned. I finally was able to quit Sling this October.
Yesterday, I signed up for my free month of Acorn TV (British TV) on Amazon Prime. Hooray!
And I purchase a few series, such as Chopped.
I have all the "television" I can handle.
For the moment, Apple's plans for Streaming TV service has gone bust. All this because content providers got greedy and were making demands to bundle UNWANTED channels and FORCE them on subscribers.
Bundling is one of the factors that's killing cable and satellite. Companies like CBS, Disney, and others demand certain channels get carried because they SUCK, few would pay for them à la carte, and they make NO money for the company. The ONLY reason they are on cable or satellite is because media providers threaten to withhold channels that viewers DO want, or else!
SlingTV is owned by Disk Network and that's why they pretend to be for cord-cutters but bundle unwanted channels, the same as their satellite service.
The FACT is consumers have choices and are tired of paying TOP DOLLAR for channels they DON'T want! That's why streaming services like Netflix and Hulu have become so popular.
Until media providers realize that their bundling is DEAD, they are going to continue to lose subscribers.
Bundling is one of the factors that's killing cable and satellite. Companies like CBS, Disney, and others demand certain channels get carried because they SUCK, few would pay for them à la carte, and they make NO money for the company. The ONLY reason they are on cable or satellite is because media providers threaten to withhold channels that viewers DO want, or else!
SlingTV is owned by Disk Network and that's why they pretend to be for cord-cutters but bundle unwanted channels, the same as their satellite service.
The FACT is consumers have choices and are tired of paying TOP DOLLAR for channels they DON'T want! That's why streaming services like Netflix and Hulu have become so popular.
Until media providers realize that their bundling is DEAD, they are going to continue to lose subscribers.
All of the shows on Hulu, Amazon and Netflix that aren't exclusive(ie paid for by those companies to develop and film) won't be created by NBC/Fox/CBS/ABC and their cable counterparts(often the same company) if the companies aren't compensated somehow. Those shows aren't free to make, somebody has to pay for them.
The other half nobody wants to talk about is that many of the content provides are publicly traded companies, which means they are trying to get profits for shareholders, who could be some of the very same people complaining about the system.
The other half nobody wants to talk about is that many of the content provides are publicly traded companies, which means they are trying to get profits for shareholders, who could be some of the very same people complaining about the system.
I think Apple should change. Agree to be the clearinghouse for all and therefore take their cut of all. All suppliers offer single episode, series and channel offerings to Apple we pick the ones we want, pay apple who pays provider. Apple TV. Only pay for what you want, but have access to all at anytime.
We cut the cable cord two years ago, when many friends did too. We don't miss it. We buy HBO as an app. We have Netflix and Amazon Prime. But we are still way shy of a hundred a month for mostly stuff we NEVER watched. That's my real beef. It was inefficient. I don't want all those channels and I resent paying a large portion of my bill for sports networks as we watch no sports in our house. I think Apple is doing the right thing and I think pay for what you want is the future. IF the monopoly that cable companies enjoy with high speed isn't used to shred those of us who chose not to play for cable's 'packages' wasted bandwidth.
So, how is what Apple wanting to do here any different than what Roku, Amazon and others are already doing? I guess I didn't think Apple was behaving any differently towards content then the other streaming companies.