Apple's TV Plans Fell Apart Over Content Owners' Resistance to Skinny Bundles

[cylack]

These content owners are stupid. I’ve already “unbundled” using the OS X App Catch and the website showrss. Live sports are the only things I may want cable for since the free streams are good but not great, but eventually there will be free HD streams of live sports. Then the networks are really cooked. They better offer an affordable a la carte package now while people are still willing to give them money.

 

[MH01]

First world problems for our American friends. Initiatives like this ..... Sometimes make it outside of the US, for the rest of us Apple fans.

 

[Thunderhawks]

I’m just wondering how this is any different from paying for Apps that you don’t want or use……….Stocks, Game Centre, Tips, Watch - in fact anything you don’t want that could be replaced with something better or not at all.
Their business model depends on including some useless crap. Just like Apples.

Apples useless crap is free!

 

[Art Mark]

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.

They key idea is - things change. The way they WANT to continue to do business isn't necassarily how it will work out. I'm sure horse and buggy makers had fine arguments why it was in everyone interest to keep using horse and buggies. Change brings some opportunities too. The issue is big companies get lazy and feel like they have a right to their revenue stream. They are saying, well, it's always been done this way, so it must stay this way. Ahhh, no.

 

[philfry]

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.

Exactly this. I would have dumped DirecTV if it wasn't for sports. Plus the blackout restrictions make it almost impossible. Even if I wanted to pay for MLB.TV or something similar I couldn't watch my home team unless I used a VPN.

 

[cylack]

How else will former hairdressers turned network CEO's continue to enjoy yearly $40-50 million bonuses?

People are bailing the cable/satellite game because content is useless on almost all channels. Pick-n-choose entertainment like Netflix has begun to rule. The dinosaur media, corrupt with useless content supported by package schemes, is going to have to rot off a few limbs before it limps into the bandwagon of the future.

 

[vreedy76]

What if you had a pool of 150 channels, and you could choose the 15 you want for $30, and $2 for each extra channel that you might want to add?
(of course this would include "on demand" for stuff that has been on the air already).

That would be great, but where is that deal?

 

[vreedy76]

Channels? Who wants channels? Most people want specific SHOWS and movies. The "channel" concept itself is a dying dinosaur.

this, this, this a thousand times

 

[iReality85]

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.

Agreed. Conceptually, it shouldn't work any different than how it works on iTunes, where the labels put their artists' albums up on iTunes, and customers can choose to either buy the whole album (usually for a price less and sometimes much less than the sum of its parts) or buy songs individually. After which, Apple gets a cut since they are the hosting service.

I have to believe that such a model could and would be competitive with what content producers negotiate with cable companies.

 

[robbyx]

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.

No offense, but I don't think you understand the economics of the TV industry. A sizable percentage of programming would not be profitable and would disappear, including lots of quality programming. When people talk about garbage on TV, a lot of that garbage makes money and subsidizes the stuff that isn't so popular. And everything depends on advertising. I'm loving commercial-free Hulu at $12/month. I think $12/month is reasonable too for no commercials. But that only works because the shows are airing on cable/broadcast TV first, with commercials, and making tons of money there. If suddenly people were only paying for the shows/channels they like, the cost of each show/channel would go up significantly. Take out commercials and the cost goes up even more. Breaking TV up into apps and multiple content providers is going to make TV more expensive than ever.

 

[jklps]

They key idea is - things change. The way they WANT to continue to do business isn't necassarily how it will work out. I'm sure horse and buggy makers had fine arguments why it was in everyone interest to keep using horse and buggies. Change brings some opportunities too. The issue is big companies get lazy and feel like they have a right to their revenue stream. They are saying, well, it's always been done this way, so it must stay this way. Ahhh, no.

I don't think that change won't happen, I'm saying is that there are many reasons that it won't.

Yes it is great that some people are happy cutting the cord, but they are still watching shows through Hulu and Netflix that are made by the "dinosaurs" and basically whether people like it or not, they are still subsidized by the people paying for cable.

Maybe one day there will be a world where shows are produced and sold individually, but that isn't going to happen overnight.

I also get the impression that many people are unhappy with anything less than free television forever. Unlike music where now an album or song can be a promotion for a band or arist's live performance, there is no other stream of revenue for television.

 

[mattopotamus]

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.

They do not include the antenna, but that is typically a 1 time ~$50 purchase. They do lifetime subscription cost or $15 a month, which is not bad for their service and DVRs.

Streaming really is the best since antenna signal is hard to get for a lot of people. I wish OTA was a streaming option.

 

[flux73]

Of course. Many have tried and failed to do this, and I didn't think Apple had any special way to make it work.

Sure, but Apple has something that most other did not. A massively loyal user base willing to pay for things like music, movies, TV shows, and apps. This provides a lot of negotiation leverage. Don't count them out just yet.

Plus, as demand for traditional cable wanes, and more and more people start relying on online services, the position of these 'old-guard' content providers will weaken. At some point, they will either go along with them, or get left behind.

 

[tam305]

Look Apple he not stupid here. For Once they have what content providers don't have is money... Apple has lots and lots of money sitting in the bank. Also Apple invest in other companies for reason they have lot of Disney shares (Hostile Takeover) So Content Companies better be very carefully because Apple have about 200 Billion with no debt.... a lot of company don't have that type of War Chest laying around like Apple Do.....

 

[robbyx]

Agreed. Conceptually, it shouldn't work any different than how it works on iTunes, where the labels put their artists' albums up on iTunes, and customers can choose to either buy the whole album (usually for a price less and sometimes much less than the sum of its parts) or buy songs individually. After which, Apple gets a cut since they are the hosting service.

I have to believe that such a model could and would be competitive with what content producers negotiate with cable companies.

I don't think it's fair to compare music to TV. What Apple did with iTunes is shift how people buy music, where they buy it, but the model is still pretty much the same. We just now buy from a digital store versus a brick and mortar. Of course streaming is changing things, but it sucks for artists and I think we'll see more artists refuse to work with streaming services in the future. Music didn't depend on commercials. And music didn't depend on content bundles. Buying a la carte will only work for the most popular shows. The rest will not be profitable and will disappear, resulting in far less content being available. And a lot the content that disappears will be the "quality" content we want.

 

[calisurfboy]

The amazing thing about having cable in the early 80's was that the cable was localized and didn't have commercials. I ditched my cable 10 years ago because I realized I was paying a high price to do nothing but watch commercials.

This whole cutting the cord to save money is crap. In my area we only have one cable and internet provider; ATT. They have jacked up the cost of internet tremendously to compensate. I went from $33 to $72.34. I dislike having to pay $8 to rent equipment I cannot buy but require to be able to even access the internet itself.

 

[robbyx]

Sure, but Apple has something that most other did not. A massively loyal user base willing to pay for things like music, movies, TV shows, and apps. This provides a lot of negotiation leverage. Don't count them out just yet.

Plus, as demand for traditional cable wanes, and more and more people start relying on online services, the position of these 'old-guard' content providers will weaken. At some point, they will either go along with them, or get left behind.

Or just raise the cost of your monthly Internet service to off-set the losses on the content side. It's not going to get cheaper.

 

[rdlink]

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

If you watch more than a few channels you're likely in a relative minority. Most people who watch television focus on a few channels that they want, and bypass the others. And frankly, many of the channels overlap in the programming they offer. With on demand offerings all over the place I can't see not being able to find what you want to watch in one of a few places, and filling in the rest with streaming rentals.

I, hear you on the bundling. That's another example of cable providers telling you that in order to get a decent price on the product you find useful you are going to have to buy their crappy product, too. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with Comcast to get my internet. I buy mine through a DSL provider who gives me 40Mbps download speed for $30 a month, with no cap, and price is guaranteed for 2 years.

These companies continue to try to steer the herd through the chutes, all the way to the slaughterhouse. Sorry, but I'm getting out of line.

 

[ericg301]

I just like the pert of the article that states "Eddie Cue... Doesn't want filler". Which shows there's still hope that Apple is in the consumer's corner. (Even if it helps their bottom line)

have you seen Eddie Cue at recent Key Notes? Dude's got a lot of filler. Someone's not filling up their Apple Watch rings every day.

 

[Trius]

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.

I think you're on to something here.

 

[robbyx]

The amazing thing about having cable in the early 80's was that the cable was localized and didn't have commercials. I ditched my cable 10 years ago because I realized I was paying a high price to do nothing but watch commercials.

This whole cutting the cord to save money is crap. In my area we only have one cable and internet provider; ATT. They have jacked up the cost of internet tremendously to compensate. I went from $33 to $72.34. I dislike having to pay $8 to rent equipment I cannot buy but require to be able to even access the internet itself.

Exactly! It's NOT going to get cheaper! My Internet service cost, like yours, has risen steadily. If I bundle in TV, it gets cheaper, but they charge a premium for Internet-only service to off-set their losses. The media/cable companies are in the power position here. Apple is not.

 

[Takeo]

In other words, these dinosaurs want to keep the same exact model they've had since the 1980's. The only difference being that it will be delivered "over the top" to an app instead over satellite or co-axial cable. What's the point? Seems like they're truly committed to their own demise.

 

[flux73]

Or just raise the cost of your monthly Internet service to off-set the losses on the content side. It's not going to get cheaper.

I don't know about that. 5G LTE is coming in 2020. I can see a future where mobile broadband ISPs overtake cable ISPs. If not that, it looks like Google Fiber may be an option for many as well.

 

[adam9c1]

mlabonte, I think you are onto something with the whole OTA
It would need to have a DVR... ding ding ding, now I thought of this DVR in Time Capsule.
Whoa

I started to type this to have DVR in the cloud but that would be shut down like Aero was.

So DVR for your home into Time Capsule.
Win
Bam

Apple people, please read this post.
Win Win

 

[robbyx]

I don't know about that. 5G LTE is coming in 2020. I can see a future where mobile broadband ISPs overtake cable ISPs. If not that, it looks like Google Fiber may be an option for many as well.

Good points. It will take true competition in the Internet service arena to force any change. Right now it's hard to get reliable high-speed Internet from anyone who isn't a cable/media conglomerate. If mobile ISPs are able to deliver reliable high speed service, that will definitely change the game.