That sounds good because you assume the stuff you like is popular and will continue to be made. In reality, content providers would try to appeal to the lowest common denominator. (Even more than they do now.) There are a lot of really good shows that never would have seen Season 2 if they had to earn their keep from day 1. The bundled model provides networks the opportunity to let a show find it's legs....rather than just rolling out 'America's Smelliest Farts' or 'Kicked in the crotch-5'.
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
That sounds good because you assume the stuff you like is popular and will continue to be made. In reality, content providers would try to appeal to the lowest common denominator. (Even more than they do now.) There are a lot of really good shows that never would have seen Season 2 if they had to earn their keep from day 1. The bundled model provides networks the opportunity to let a show find it's legs....rather than just rolling out 'America's Smelliest Farts' or 'Kicked in the crotch-5'.
Did you read what I actually said? I am watching free live CBS right now on my Apple TV 4.. All without ugly coax inputs circa 1993.
Did you read what I actually said? I am watching free live CBS right now on my Apple TV 4.. All without ugly coax inputs circa 1993.
Wow-- that's amazing!
We should all tell Apple to forget this stupid idea of theirs.
Hate to break it to you sir, but if you're paying $5.99 a month for CBS All Access-- it ain't free.
However, with an 'ugly' coax input-- it is
They aren't very loyal. Most people watch TV and movies on Netflix now. The iTunes Store has tiny market share in video, and it's only available on Apple's platforms. If anyone has the power, it's Netflix, not Apple.
Last edited:
Wow-- that's amazing!
We should all tell Apple to forget this stupid idea of theirs.
Hate to break it to you sir, but if you're paying $5.99 a month for CBS All Access-- it ain't free.
However, with an 'ugly' coax input-- it is
Do you know how to read, and if so, did you miss the part where I said " I am watching free live CBS right now on my Apple TV 4" ?
I am not paying $5.99/month for CBS access. I am streaming live TV over IP with HDHomeRun tuner.
That combo will let you use either an antenna provided or cable provided programming as a viewing source. But unless you are using an antenna, it sure doesn't get your 'free' tv at all.
True, the $1 billion that a channel currently pays for NFL would be small potatoes to Apple. But, I think the only way to implement the type of package Apple wants is to actually purchase one of the big media companies, probably Disney. It would be fun to see the purchase be CBS and kick Moonves out once and for all, but Disney probably makes more sense. THEN Apple can finally dictate the channels and change the television model.
I have a small antenna connected to HDHomeRun hidden away in the attick. From there - I stream live TV to 3 Apple TVs around my house via WiFi.
The point I was making is - the legacy "cable box/antenna" technology doesn't need to be build into Apple TV, like some people keep suggesting. IP-based streaming is the way to go in 2015.
Furthermore - I don't care for Apple's paid TV package either. Apple is just a middle man here, and it's looking for its slice of the pie. App based TV model works just fine - if I want to pay for certain things (like HBOgo or NFL channel) - I'd rather do it a-la-carte, and pay directly to content owners. Apple doesn't need to sit in the middle of this.
That works well from what I've seen. I don't use OTA as I never could get a really solid signal. I use either Dish or Cable w/TiVo as I have both. And Playon for the 'channels' that ATV apps don't exist for yet, and get it on the ATV with LocalCast at the moment.
In other words, greed rules the day once again.
Much like the music industry, the cable tv industry will fail to adapt until its too late.
People are growing tired of paying an arm and a leg to the likes of Comca$t and others for 150 channels of nonsense, when they really only want 10 or 20.
Much like the music industry, the cable tv industry will fail to adapt until its too late.
People are growing tired of paying an arm and a leg to the likes of Comca$t and others for 150 channels of nonsense, when they really only want 10 or 20.
So everyone agrees with Bruce Springsteen - 57 Channels (And Nothin' On)
Except the networks who want you to pay for all those channels you'll never watch.
Apple trying to give the customer what the customer really wants.
Who's got a problem with that? (other than the networks)
Except the networks who want you to pay for all those channels you'll never watch.
Apple trying to give the customer what the customer really wants.
Who's got a problem with that? (other than the networks)
$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
Which is how many I want. Comedy Central, CBS, E!, Food, and HGTV covers everything my wife and I watch regularly. If we got a sixth to pick, it'd be Fox or ABC, but neither of us regularly watch their shows.
And albums in the form they existed needed to die. Two decent songs and 10 crappy filler tracks for $16? No thanks.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
People are delusional if they think the price of this 10 or 20 channels in al-a-carte world would be any less than that same "arm and a leg" and probably another arm. The math in this change would not be 200 channels/$100 per month = 50 cents per channel. I want only 10 channels, so my bill should drop from $100 to $5/month.
Instead, al-a-carte world would be: we (the players in the chain that are not us consumers) make $100/month now. We let Apple in as an additional middleman and they want their 30% right off the top. We don't want to change unless we make more money too. So this "new model" needs to generate about $160/month. Our price modeling says that if we embrace al-a-carte channels, the average number of channels that subscribers will buy is 15 channels. So we will price each channel al-a-carte at $160/15 = approx. $10.67.
Then, they monitor early adoption to see if we consumers will average those 15 channels. If not, price modeling will rise to achieve the new target revenues and cut Apple in too. Under no circumstance are they going to let Apple in (and take a big bite right off the top) and lose money. If you were them, why should they?
If you look around right now, certain al-a-carte channels like HBO are already well north of $10.67. What is generally thought of as a "free" channel (CBS) is trying to offer an al-a-carte channel for $6. That is the al-a-carte future if we get it. Moral of the story: be careful what you wish for. Nobody else in the chain- Apple included- wants to take the huge financial hit to deliver us consumers "everything I want for a fraction of what I pay now." Only WE think that it should be that way. Until the sellers are motivated to think that way too (and what's their motivation to do so?), it's pure delusion.
Else, enjoy the commercial-subsidized (with the vast majority of those commercials running on those channels you never watch- even when you are asleep- helping to make the cost of the channels you do want to watch less than if you had to pay for them in an al-a-carte subscription too- especially if you wanted an al-a-carte, commercial-free version), bundled discount (golden goose) deal we already have. If you can't stand 180 channels in your on-screen guide, learn to use the channel hiding or "FAVS" option to hide the 180 channels so that your guide shows only the 20 channels you actually do watch. The commercials that help pay for it will still run on those 180 channels and you won't ever have to even know they are there. Wishing away the golden goose will not keep delivering the treasures you do want. And best I know, letting another for-profit middle man into a chain between creators and consumers has never resulted in lower prices for the latter.
Last edited:
The content providers and networks have you duped that the cable/satellite providers are the issue. The networks LOVE bundling because it provides them a steady source of revenue. As you've probably seen when their is a dispute, the cable/satellite companies often get into disputes with the networks about raising the prices of content.
Now it's not that the cable/satellite companies are great consumer advocates....they just know the more prices go up, the more people will think about cutting the cord or pursuing other options. And they won't get to make money on cable boxes, fees and all the other revenue they get as the middle man.
The network and content providers have a vested interest in the current system. And quiet as it's kept - most consumers do as well. A lot of content that's made is funded by the idea of shared interests paying for a wide spectrum of programming. Can it be pared down? Absolutely. And that needs to happen.
But a lot of people are blaming the cable/satellite companies because they are an easy target. When the real issue is further upstream.
The album is a great format if created correctly. Maybe the bands/artists you chose to listen to aren't so good at it....
As a consumer what benefit is there for Apple owning content. Once they have that type of control, do you REALLY think they are going to charge less? Apple has always charged a premium for everything. The last thing I want is for them to have control of quality content.
I'm not talking about their content. I'm talking about their hardware base. If you buy Apple hardware you tend to stick with it. Since they have a large base of iPhone/iPad/Apple TV owners, that's a large number of devices you'd like to be on if you're a content provider.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Some of us think Apple is a Saint... or should be the first corporation that is Sainted.
In this topic, we imagine there is some way to let Apple in as a new or additional middleman, let them get their 30%, and have a "just works" solution where we then get to pay a fraction of what we pay now.
I think we're delusional on both topics.
All anyone with any objectivity has to do is think it through, especially from the perspective of the other links in the chain that are not us consumers. Does Apple subsidize our costs to make our package cost less? Why does the cable company that also owns the broadband pipe let Apple take their cable TV revenues without making up for it in higher broadband pricing? Do the content creators at the other end just take huge cuts to their revenues so that the Cable middleman can continue to make what they make now, Apple can slip in and make a bunch of new revenue on the content creator's content too and we consumers can get our huge discount?
SOMEBODY has to take the big hit for Apple to slip in as new middleman and the source of the money- us consumers- to get our big monthly subscription discount. Who is that somebody?
Content Creators (Studio) -> Cable & Broadband Player -> Apple -> Consumers
And if you are them now, why do you want to embrace this "new model"?
Last edited:
Yeah, because I am the ONLY person in the world who's ever complained about that.
I've owned hundreds of albums in the past. I can count on one hand how many of them were good from start to finish. Unless, of course you include greatest hits albums.
The benefit of the new paradigm is that artists and record labels are forced to produce a quality product if they want to sell an album. See how it works when the consumer has the power instead of the seller?
This isn't about money in the instant. It's about power. Once the media companies give up the ability to bundle their crap with their gold they know there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. They don't want things to change, because they know that a la carte will cause their product to correct to its true value, and everyone in the industry will have to tighten their belts. No more pedestrian stars making $12 million for a movie. No more gold plated private jets. No more champagne waterfalls. Red carpet dresses might need to be worn more than once. Egads!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OK, can I buy Apple products at my "name my desired price" of about 90% off of current pricing? No more gold plated private jets for Apple Execs. No more champagne waterfalls. No more spaceship campus construction. Etc.
But let me guess: Apple corporate Execs earn every penny and are fully deserving of every perk. It's all the other Execs at other companies that won't do whatever Apple wants that are the greedy crooks selling overpriced products.
But let me guess: Apple corporate Execs earn every penny and are fully deserving of every perk. It's all the other Execs at other companies that won't do whatever Apple wants that are the greedy crooks selling overpriced products.
Lets make this simple:
Completely free streaming for anything that I can get OTA, this could be verified by billing zip code on credit/debit card.
For addition channels, offer me a per channel price and a discount at say 5, 10, 15, 20 & 25 channel bundles, but let me pick each channel in the bundle. Do not bundle totally useless stuff for me with it. While some will want ESPN, I don't, instead I want a very simplistic bundle of:
BBC America
Disney Channel
Travel Channel
History Channel
Food Network
Discovery Channel
HGTV
Animal Planet
And I want full access to all of their shows on demand and if I am paying a monthly fee, I expect them to not have any advertisements.
Completely free streaming for anything that I can get OTA, this could be verified by billing zip code on credit/debit card.
For addition channels, offer me a per channel price and a discount at say 5, 10, 15, 20 & 25 channel bundles, but let me pick each channel in the bundle. Do not bundle totally useless stuff for me with it. While some will want ESPN, I don't, instead I want a very simplistic bundle of:
BBC America
Disney Channel
Travel Channel
History Channel
Food Network
Discovery Channel
HGTV
Animal Planet
And I want full access to all of their shows on demand and if I am paying a monthly fee, I expect them to not have any advertisements.