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

[ChrisCW11]

Meh, the whole video entertainment industry is in a complete mess, a bunch of old men gripping desperately to their antiquated content and distribution regulations and pricing schemes.

However, Apple is simply looking to insert themselves as a new middleman for content distribution and Apple has never been about bringing value to their customers. Apple will set up a pricing scheme that will have you paying more for less content, guaranteed. Any Apple skinny bundle is simply a bait and switch scheme to bring more people to their platform and then sucker them into wanting to pay more for "premium" services. In the end you will toss Apple something like $120 a month for the same content you want to access on cable that you pay $80/mth today, and you will be made to think that paying more for less content overall is awesome.

If you think a cable company is more greedy than Apple, you are in complete denial. If you think Apple is a champion of "cord-cutters", you are delusional.

I am not saying the the old cable boys need to hang on to their oligopoly or do I support their tired profit schemes, but Apple is no cord-cutting champion and they simply want to hang you with their own Apple branded cord if they get their way.

The only true way to cut the cord is to pick up a book and turn off the TV.

 

[Dmunjal]

Nope-- they won't be using their pipes at all. The BIG 4 (ABC, FOX, NBC, & CBS) are all broadcasted for free OTA.

Build-in an OTA antenna into all of your products w/ slick interfaces and watch them all come crawling back.

Millennials are surprisnigly tolerant of commercials if it is free. It would create an impact.

Watch the oscars, local Sunday football, etc...

If they can legally bake in a DVR into the system= game over.

http://tablotv.com

 

[wlossw]

1 word: sickrage.

 

[gotluck]

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.

Well the only reason you can take that position is because you have access to that dsl service at that cost.

 

[Zoboomafoo]

this, this, this a thousand times

actually, it's a million times. but i appreciate the sentiment

 

[Ecuadorexpat]

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.

Amazing to find something intelligent like this posted.

 

[Takeo]

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.

Well I went from over $250/month for a phone / tv / internet bundle to $75/mo for just internet. And I only had one add-on channel package (History, Discovery, etc.). What got me was all the add-on fees for digital, HD, DVR, etc. You add that all up and it's crazy. So anyway, I'm saving about $1800/year when you take the $20 land line out of the equation. Of course I've re-spent some of that on Netflix + Hulu + Unblock-us and the odd iTunes season pass... but it's still a huge savings overall.

 

[lparsons21]

The problem today is that even though the cable/sat services and media providers are in a pickle with lost subscribers, the pickle isn't big enough! The 'channels' are trying to figure out how to keep the revenue up which is why you are seeing more and more paid subscriptions of one sort or another.

It is an untenable situation for them. If they lose paid subscription revenue then the actual programming suffers, which means more losses of subscribers. Over the long haul, it is nearly a no win situation for them. But we lose too! Those shows that are produced cost real money.

Today you can subscribe to some online services that in combo can fill many peoples viewing wants/needs. But that is only because there are still enough cable/sat/advertising dollars to pay the bulk of the costs.

Personally I pay quite a bit for my TV fix. Dish network with discounted premium channels, Mediacom cable with TiVo, Netflix, Hulu and Amazon. To me it is worth it even if it costs a bit more than I would like. But cutting the cord won't work for me, I'm a boxing fan and there are so few fights on the internet it isn't even a consideration.

 

[rdlink]

Well the only reason you can take that position is because you have access to that dsl service at that cost.

Well, it makes it easier. But I have also decided to draw a line in the sand. Tired of being "bullied" into buying pay television service. I will likely miss my local MLB team's games next season, but it's a sacrifice I will make, because they're not worth $100 a month to a company who isn't listening to and/or doesn't care about their customers' desires.

 

[syndr0me]

SlingTV gets you a login that works on WatchESPN, which when combined with OTA gets you a decent chunk of the sports programming. For the rest, I guess there's KODI. At least SlingTV is month-to-month so you can only pay for it during the sports seasons you care about. It also gets you CNN which some people care about? Not perfect, but it's a start.

Also, as far as OTA goes, having a nice guide that's free goes a long way toward making it tolerable. I'm currently using a tuner with my XBox one, and Microsoft's OneGuide is free for OTA. It looks kinda nice and works well. I wish I could do something similar with the AppleTV, but haven't seen a solid option yet.

 

[apolloa]

I am 100% with the content providers on this one, $40 a month for a few channels is awful value for money and no doubt Apple will get a 30% cut. It costs millions and millions to make these shows, Apple slashing the content on offer for high pricing is not the revolution I would want, just sounds like price gouging by Apple.

In the UK that must be about £30 a month which is around the monthly cost of Sky's base package!

 

[yaxomoxay]

That would be great, but where is that deal?

I am working on it.

Seriously speaking, media owners have to wake up, but unless they lose sport broadcasts they won't do anything.
Let Netflix stream NFL without blackouts and the next day you'll see that deal. Oh well, dreaming is free

 

[mytdave]

CableTV (or Satellite) free for at least 8 years now!

 

[Marvin1379]

Just let us subscribe to cable access (a connection fee every month) and pay for what we actually watch (per minute/hour/show). Kind of like your electric bill. The more you watch, the more it costs. And the content providers have more incentive to produce good content that we want to watch. Not mediocre shows of every flavor. If not enough ppl watch that show, take it off and start over. With independent content producers (Netflix, Amazon, etc etc) there's competition out there -- the old boys club just needs to be broken up. Let the consumers choose.

 

[Tech198]

hehe...@ "skinny bundles"

TV content provides want money, they don't care about anything else.. It's business for them..

It only sounds ok to the customer when they say "They'd like to offer their own channels to customers only want they want", but it doesn't work that way in reality..

Never has..

When i left Foxtel, i was surprised they offered ME a customized package with only the channels i want..

Very strange, but i guess u know their desperate when they do this to hold on tooth-and-nail.. I think it may have only been the odd customer they would have done this to otherwise they'd be in trouble

When i look back, I should have taken it

 

[RickInHouston]

People like to call the current TV concept a dinosaur.

Our kids will grow up and say, "Why do I need to buy an 'i'this and an 'i' that to make everything work together. Why can't I buy other things. Apple is a dinosaur, there's got to be a better way. I want to by my devices a la carte."

 

[Rogifan]

I am 100% with the content providers on this one, $40 a month for a few channels is awful value for money and no doubt Apple will get a 30% cut. It costs millions and millions to make these shows, Apple slashing the content of offer for high pricing is not the revolution I would want, just sound like price gouging by Apple.

In the UK that must be about £30 a month which is around the monthly cost of Sky's base package!

Wow so now Apple is bad for charging people too little.

 

[apolloa]

The record execs opposed downloads for a long time, until they saw CD sales plummet, then they got on-board.

TV execs will do the same as cable subscribers continue to cancel.

No they didn't, music execs got on board because of the increasingly rampant piracy Napster was doing. Now a days more and more illegal file sharing sites are being shut down or ISPs are being forced by court orders to block access to them, so content providers and creators seem to be handling the piracy enough to still charge for it what they want.

 

[mantan]

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)

LOL! Apple is not in your corner. They never were in your corner. They want in on the billions that networks and content providers are getting.

There are two ways to pay for programming. Ad sales, or pushing bundles that have large number of people paying for programming. One customer's 'filler' is another customer's 'core product.' That's the part that Cue is trying to circumvent.

Even in the Netflix model, the 'filler' is all the old movies/TV shows people pay to get access to, which pays the freight for the new shows they create.

A lot of the posts in this thread reflect the mentality that a small group of people who like what they like will financially float the programming they like.

This isn't the music industry that forced into action by rampant digital pirating. Nor is it the book industry that was upended by digital delivery. The content providers are operating from a position of strength and they aren't looking to cut Apple in on their terms

As a consumer, I have yet to see Apple offer anything that seems like a viable alternative. And I have a hard time believing that I am going to pay less as a consumer and manage to pay Apple their cut.

 

[meegwell]

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.

I have been looking into the Channels App/HDHomeRun combo as well. Do you know what the surround sound capabilities are? Will the HDHomeRun tuner send Dolby Digitial (or DD+) along to the ATV? I believe their website is vague (something like "surround sound!" - which doesnt tell me much).

thanks - and other should look at this.

 

[apolloa]

Wow so now Apple is bad for charging people too little.

Well if that's your idea of 'too little' I'd hate to see what you consider to be expensive! It's terrible poor value for money, I'd rather have Sky with Sky Go, best of both worlds for the same price, what incentive is Apple then?

 

[ctyrider]

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.

No. Your thinking would have been valid in 2008. But it's 2015 now, and we don't need coaxial inputs in Apple TV. There is this thing called The Internet, and it's a perfect medium to deliver content without running antenna cables all over the house.

And if you're really keen on OTA - you can pick up HDHomeRun IP tuner, pair it up with Channels App on your Apple TV, and.. viola. Look ma - no coax cables.

 

[AliMacs]

Meh, the whole video entertainment industry is in a complete mess, a bunch of old men gripping desperately to their antiquated content and distribution regulations and pricing schemes.

However, Apple is simply looking to insert themselves as a new middleman for content distribution and Apple has never been about bringing value to their customers. Apple will set up a pricing scheme that will have you paying more for less content, guaranteed. Any Apple skinny bundle is simply a bait and switch scheme to bring more people to their platform and then sucker them into wanting to pay more for "premium" services. In the end you will toss Apple something like $120 a month for the same content you want to access on cable that you pay $80/mth today, and you will be made to think that paying more for less content overall is awesome.

If you think a cable company is more greedy than Apple, you are in complete denial. If you think Apple is a champion of "cord-cutters", you are delusional.

I am not saying the the old cable boys need to hang on to their oligopoly or do I support their tired profit schemes, but Apple is no cord-cutting champion and they simply want to hang you with their own Apple branded cord if they get their way.

The only true way to cut the cord is to pick up a book and turn off the TV.

ChrisCW11 for president! Only the wise like him can understand all of this TV shenanigan is $$$. Apple want's a huge cut, content providers want their cut, and everyone wants to cut it completely off but yet still buy overpriced apple tv's.

 

[mlabonte21]

No. Your thinking would have been valid in 2008. But it's 2015 now, and we don't need coaxial inputs in Apple TV. There is this thing called The Internet, and it's a perfect medium to deliver content without running antenna cables all over the house.

And if you're really keen on OTA - you can pick up HDHomeRun IP tuner, pair it up with Channels App on your Apple TV, and.. viola. Look ma - no coax cables.

Can't argue with that logic.

Enjoy paying $5.99 a month to stream CBS All Access over that thing you call The Internet rather than Apple innovate with an underutilized existing technology from 2008.

NFC & RSS Feeds would like to have words with you.

 

[ILikeAllOS]

So let me see if this is right.
More and more people are "cutting the cable" and ditching their cable for Internet based services, Hulu, Netflix, iTunes and even Youtube, for everything from TV shows and movies, to their news and entertainment.
Apple comes along and offers these dying cable companies a chance to get with the times and move over to the Internet, apps and the App Store, yet the cable companies say no and quit all negotiations?
Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.