CBS CEO: Apple's 'Pressed the Hold Button' on Streaming TV Service [Update: Bloomberg Confirms]

[QquegChristian]

After reading the update to the story, it makes complete sense that Apple with compete with Netflix/Hulu rather than content providers/networks. Apple knows that consumers aren't interested in Live TV at the prices networks want. The things people are willing to pay for are Hulu/Netflix. I definitely imagine Apple combining both services in Apple Video.

I honestly think Apple is seeing how Amazon Prime Video approach would work. Imagine, if you will, the following....

You have a base streaming service (i.e. Netflix) for $9.99 a month. This includes a vast majority of iTunes movies and tv shows. It won't include the newest content, and it will have patches in what is available to stream, but that's because of license agreements and I think consumers are pretty aware of this and find it annoying but acceptable.

This service wouldn't let individuals download movies like it does for Apple music. Like I said earlier, maybe a 24 Hour download period so people who are going on trips can have access to some movies and shows while they don't have reliable access to internet. But, if you want to keep a movie or show for longer, you'll need to purchase it. Think of the lack of downloadability as Apple trying to up-sale. And honestly, most people don't seem to care about being able to download movies.

Newest content could be offered through a Hulu-Like subscription, but I don't think Apple would go this way. It's much easier for them to sell season passes and let consumers decide which shows they value. The 'Netflix' subscription gives you access to back seasons while the newest season will be for purchase only. This seems fairly reasonable. Plus again, it is Apple trying to up-sale its services.

I doubt they'll do Live TV. I think they're happy with 3rd Parties developing their own Live TV apps. Like, why does Apple need to offer Live TV when CBS has their own All Access service? Even then, what's the point? You still have commercials, you still have shows you don't like.

I could imagine Apple saying 'Look, CBS, no one wants to have your App. It's not a good user experience. What if instead WE let you charge people $5.99 and WE give them access to all of your content.' They propose this solution to each and every content provided. It seems like a no-brainer. It's basically a 'Channel Pass' instead of a 'Season Pass'.

Not to mention, this easily monitories podcasts. You could easily add podcasts to the mix. Hell, they could have their own 'Music Video Channel' and charge $1.99/Month for it. They could do what Google has been trying to do with YouTube for years.

This gives people a ton of options. Lets say you really like A CBS show. You have the option: purchase the one CBS Show you like for $30 and get it via season pass, or subscribe to the CBS Channel Pass. If you watch lots of CBS shows, of course you'd get the 'Channel Pass' but if you only watch one you could get the 'Season Pass'. Plus, Apple tells the company that they don't allow downloads unless you purchase the TV Show. And, if you don't really care all that much about the newest content, wait a year until it becomes 'old' and stream it. It appeals to everyone, depending on what you want and how you want it.

This, is what I believe the future of content consumption and distribution should be.

I've been saying something like this for years... That if Netflix sold and rented all content not available to stream with the service, they could crush iTunes. Netflix has the delivery mechanism in place, they have an insanely large user base, they have our credit cards on file. So if I search for some obscure old movie and it isn't available to stream, offer to rent it to me like any other service. It would instantly become the most cross-platform digital video store.

Amazon is like this, but their whole system is a mess. You've got to separate the store from the streaming service for browsing, but unify the search.

 

[thepixelpusher]

Let's be honest. Nobody really cares about dinosaur networks and cable companies anymore. I can get my content through iTunes purchases (TV season passes, movies, etc.), Youtube app, Netflix app, Hulu Plus app, Crunchyroll app and beaming websites hosting TV/Movies to get all I need for far less than Live Cable TV.

The new Apple TV 4 with apps such as Plex and the ability to stream iPhones and iPads to it mean that I don't give a damn about Live TV. I cut cable 4 years ago and I still see the same content as before without commercials every 10 minutes and on demand.

Screw LIVE TV and the cable companies! Good for Tim Cook that he rejects these insignificant money grubbing cretin executives.

 

[QquegChristian]

Netflix is just another channel. How do you see them as changing TV?

Exactly what I wanted to say! Netflix has good programmers, but they are going backwards and becoming HBO. As they focus less and less on licensing and more on original content, they become less of a convenience and more of a luxury.

As a filmmaker, I'm bummed out by the evolution of Netflix. They killed video stores by offering EVERY movie ever made on DVD, direct to your door at a cheap price. Then they (smartly) killed themselves by launching streaming before they could be beaten to it... But it just keeps getting further and further away from that brief period of time where you could put any movie ever made into your queue.

Kids are growing up streaming movies on demand without additional fees from Netflix. The concept of a rental fee is forgotten. But Netflix isn't buying movie licenses like they used to. They changed consumer behavior but then changed to focus on their own television shows, leaving movies with an extremely weak market.

Not saying it is Netflix's fault really... I'm sure they WANT everything and got into the content game after finally getting fed up with the big movie studios' unrealistic demands.

It is exactly what Apple faces with TV studios. Glad to see Apple holding off... If they can't get everyone on board there's no point... We have enough half-baked choices we have to switch between to see all content.

 

[Unami]

 

[Stella]

I'm surprised Apple pursued this for as long as they did. For a long time now people don't want to pay for channels forced upon them in cable packages that they'll never watch, which is exactly what Apple were offering. Even ala carte type channels selection would be an improvement

People prefer the Netflix type model, proven by cable tv revenue consistently falling and those cable tv companies coming out with netflix type competitors.

 

[Noble Actual]

Screw a live TV service. I want iTunes to become a Netflix competitor. #AppleTakeMyMoney

Like making their own high quality shows?

Bahahaha

Apple should also get into house appliances like Samsung.

 

[Tech198]

yay... Apple finally gets something ..

Only took them 1 and a half years..... can't blame them for something i knew instantly.

Glad Apple finally is focusing on a platform on tvOS and Apple TV ........ They have a good boom.. stick with it, you'll clean up.

They already have HBO, Fox, Cartoon Network, CNN etc as standard on Apple TV...... keep going, and forget the TV package deals... u won't last going in that direction...

If it's failed 2 times already you know Apple won't get there..

 

[Michael Scrip]

It is simple. Make tv competitive. You choose your package and channels, 5 channels for 10$ month, 20 channels for 40$ a month, etc. These would be live tv channels.

That would sell in a heartbeat and apple would takeover the live tv market. People would access TV through Apple.

20 channels for $40 a month?

People should examine their current cable bill.

Figure out how much of it is for internet and how much is for TV channels.

People are probably already paying $40 a month for TV.... but they're getting over 100 channels of live TV. Even if you don't watch them all... it's still a better value for the same $40/month.

There are problems with true a la carte TV:

1. It will probably never happen.
2. Even if it does... you won't save any money. The current TV bundles with too many channels would be the same price as the handful of your selected channels.

So why bother?

Hell... I've heard of cable companies charging more for internet-only packages. So you're better off getting whatever the TV package they offer.

Sure... it might depend of how much they charge for DVR rental or whatever... but it still might be a good value to get the TV channels from the cable company instead of a 3rd party.

The cable company wants to sell you as many services as they can... so they make their packages attractive.

So 20 channels for $40 a month doesn't sound too good if you can get more channels for the same amount of money.

 

[Tech198]

u all have cable anyway,, pay TV services u'd get more bang for your buck...... maybe the odd few or so u don't even want, but if Apple did do a TV package, would that be any different ?

No, it would still be a bundle. and half u may not want. so u'r in the same situation as cable/Pay TV..

Best effort is just keep adding to Home screen... Only solution. That way no one has to sign up to anything they don't want.


Whats the issue with having all these subscriptions to Hulu, HBO Now, Fox, etc on Apple TV ? At least their all *separate* subscriptions, which is want we want anyway.

 

[Juicy Box]

20 channels for $40 a month?

People should examine their current cable bill.

Figure out how much of it is for internet and how much is for TV channels.

People are probably already paying $40 a month for TV.... but they're getting over 100 channels of live TV. Even if you don't watch them all... it's still a better value for the same $40/month.

There are problems with true a la carte TV:

1. It will probably never happen.
2. Even if it does... you won't save any money. The current TV bundles with too many channels would be the same price as the handful of your selected channels.

So why bother?

Hell... I've heard of cable companies charging more for internet-only packages. So you're better off getting whatever the TV package they offer.

Sure... it might depend of how much they charge for DVR rental or whatever... but it still might be a good value to get the TV channels from the cable company instead of a 3rd party.

The cable company wants to sell you as many services as they can... so they make their packages attractive.

So 20 channels for $40 a month doesn't sound too good if you can get more channels for the same amount of money.

It is not as simple as you stated. It depends on what Apple's service offers to determine if it is worth the $30-$40 a month.

If it is live TV only, it will be DoA. If it offers all the seasons of current and past shows of the participating networks on demand, plus live TV, then $40 a month doesn't sound that high.

Another point, when comparing Apple's rumored service to the cable companies, you must consider equipment rentals. While for some, this might be pretty cheap, but for many, especially for large families, their cable bill could have over $30 a month in equipment fees.

 

[TouchMint.com]

Idea guys at apple:

Lets offer what Hulu offers but brand it apple and charge 4x.

I mean I kind of understand how they got away with charging 4x for unique products but it seems like now a days they just take other companies idea put a slight apple spin on it then sell it for about 10x the cost to build it.

 

[Michael Scrip]

It is not as simple as you stated. It depends on what Apple's service offers to determine if it is worth the $30-$40 a month.

If it is live TV only, it will be DoA. If it offers all the seasons of current and past shows of the participating networks on demand, plus live TV, then $40 a month doesn't sound that high.

Another point, when comparing Apple's rumored service to the cable companies, you must consider equipment rentals. While for some, this might be pretty cheap, but for many, especially for large families, their cable bill could have over $30 a month in equipment fees.

Oh sure. I was going on the assumption that both options were strictly Live TV. The cable company already offers Live TV so it would be wise to see what they are actually charging for it compared to other Live TV options.

When people talk about choosing their own channels... I assume they are talking about Live channels.

On-demand would definitely be a whole other thing.

And yes... I addressed the equipment costs too.

 

[Juicy Box]

Idea guys at apple:

Lets offer what Hulu offers but brand it apple and charge 4x.

I mean I kind of understand how they got away with charging 4x for unique products but it seems like now a days they just take other companies idea put a slight apple spin on it then sell it for about 10x the cost to build it.

Yea, the Apple brand is not what it use to be, but they keep making that money.

As a life long Apple fan, with a few dozen Apple products, I have been starting to question my brand loyalty to Apple.

The past few months I have been having all sorts of issues with a few of my Apple products and services.

My fully upgraded late 2012 27" iMac has been giving me issues for months, with what appeared to be a fusion drive issue. Luckily I bought the Applecare, but after complaining about the issues for months over the phone and in the store, Apple told me that there wasn't anything they can do if iMac passed their hardware tests. It passed every time, and they would just erase my drive and I would reinstall everything, only to have the issue come back.

Luckily, 12 days until my Apple care was over, the drive finally took a crap, which started as my iMac saying my log on password was wrong, which is wasn't, then in wouldn't boot in normal, safe mode, or the internet recovery.

I took it to the Apple store that day praying that their hardware tests would show something was wrong, and it did.

It is being fixed right now, but my experience with the situation has left me with a rotten Apple taste in my mouth.

 

[Juicy Box]

And yes... I addressed the equipment costs too.

You mention DVRs, but judging by the statement below, it seemed like you were overlooking the cost, like it was a negligible amount. Many families equipment charges could be as much as Apple's rumored service.

Sure... it might depend of how much they charge for DVR rental or whatever...

Oh sure. I was going on the assumption that both options were strictly Live TV.

There was a front page article on this website stating that Apple's rumored TV service will be live TV only. I honestly do not believe that this would happen, because it was DoA, but there are people that do.

 

[MacGizmo]

Not sure why I would pay $35 when commercial-free Hulu only costs $12. However, if they throw in ESPN (not ESPN3), FOX Sports, FX (for Fargo), AMC (for Better Call Saul and TWD), BBC America (Orphan Black), and Discovery, I *might* consider it. But then it's just a cable service with a better interface.

The list of channels you mentioned missing from HULU is part of the reason why they're teetering on being shuttered completely.

 

[Rogifan]

Pretty disappointing to just roll over. This isn't (or wasn't) Apple's style. Honestly it makes the AppleTV- MUCH less appealing and I've got one. I hope this is all BS. But since Jobs passed everything has turned from a 'can do' to a 'well maybe, maybe not' attitude.

What exactly were you looking for from Apple? I'm trying to understand what is so appealing about a skinny bundle. Seems to me it's just a cheaper cable package without the cable box. And cable/satellite companies are now allowing users to watch on-demand and in many cases live programming on their mobile devices wherever they are. Until a skinny bundle allows people to choose the channels they want I don't see it gaining a lot of traction. Especially with ISP data caps.

Based on the rumors it seems clear Apple was trying to do something but my guess is they couldn't what they wanted so they said screw it and will make sure all the major content players are on their platform. Right now I'd rather have them work really hard on universal search, Siri and other areas of TV where they can make a difference right now.

Apple has really been sucking lately. Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs, that's for sure. Apple can't seem to do anything right. Mac Pro is stuck in 2013 and iPad Pro is epic fail. Now AppleTV which is more like Apple Roku. Too little too late. What a bunch of losers.

How is iPad pro an epic fail? By what metric? And I mean objective metric, not personal opinion.

 

[nt5672]

Moonves believes Apple's streaming television service, or something like it, will launch in the near future. "This will happen," he told Business Insider. "People will not be spending money on channels they don't want to watch."

Exactly no money for channels I don't want. Let capitalism work. But I really think that this is just BS from Moonves. Say one thing to make people think you are an OK guy, then work behind the scenes to make something else happen.

 

[nt5672]

I agree and I really don't get why. Curious to know why a company with Apple's resources (and experience!!) does such a crap job with streaming services. With their hardware install base, they could just flat out dominate streaming video, streaming music, live TV, etc. I mean wtf?

Its really simple, the marketing schedule rules, visual quality rules, software quality not so much. Not sure where the rule emanates from but it is very evident. Thats why we get things like 50 new emojis while the core os is still broken.

 

[Mac Fly (film)]

IMO a subscription TV service is the only way Apple can sell a subsidised TV (in iPod quantities). All new TVs in time will ship with a TV version of Android or similar that negates the need for any add-on box—cutting Apple out. They can sell the box as an option, but the market environment will force a TV out of them, and having subscribers makes it all far more easy. I've seen this three times this year where middle aged people I know of were not interested in an Apple TV (or any cable box) as their new TV has apps including Netflix etc. That's lost customers. People don't renew their TVs that often? That means people like this are not buying an Apple TV for the next 8 years then.

 

[0098386]

obligatory it does not matter any more comcast data caps killed everything.

Change your ISP.

 

[b0nd18t]

This model seems quite a ways off from making logical and financial sense. $35 means I'd save about $10 from having all the channels I have now? No thanks.

 

[0098386]

I recently signed up for a Netflix trial and got a message from my ISP that I went over my data cap but since it was the first time they would wave the $10 fee. How do people who go OTT not butt up against their data caps?

It's like another world entirely! So what happens? You hit your limit and then you have to pay more? Here, if you hit your limit you just get a slower connection but almost all ISPs now offer unlimited internet. I thought with the rise of streaming services limits would have been removed.

 

[mlody]

I am glad Apple put this idea on hold.

Since everyone needs the Internet to access any content online, I would never pay $30-40 to Apple to get 20-30 lame channels when Comcast for the same amount will bundle me 200+ channels together with the Internet package which I would need anyway, often including premium etc. Oh, premium channels are also cheaper to add on - they are only $10 instead of $15 or so like they want for HBO GO.

 

[2457282]

Problem with that is the cable companies own a lot of the most popular content. They will never just be a utility. If their bandwidth becomes a commodity, they're probably going to look to make up the profit shortfall by raising the cost on the content. Damned if you do, damned if you don't

I think that it will all come down to the terrible regulations in place. Comcast (which I am not fond of but stuck as no other service provider is allowed in my building) already has an app to deliver all their content, but is restricted to people that have their cable subscription and only on mobile devices. If regulations (plus their smarts - which they lack - and other contracts) were to allow it, Comcast could place the app on the Apple TV and sell subscriptions to the app like HBO does ANYWHERE in the country, not just where they provide cable service. This would give them access to more users without the physical investment of laying cable. In other words they could sell their subscription in Time Warner or Cox territory. And the others could do so in Comcast's. This would allow competition at the content level and that would help contain cost. The problem then becomes the delivery service itself. because cities and states are not going to allow multiple competing companies to run cables everywhere, they will have to run and regulate that like a utility (probably a better term than commodity). It seems like the only reasonable approach that of course is based on a Net Nutrality policy.

 

[mlody]

Change your ISP.

Easier said then done. For many, Comcast is the only solution, unless you expect people to jump to ATT DSL, pay the same as for Comcast and downgrade from 50-100mbps downloads to 1.5-6 mbps (if that)