Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Not sure why I would pay $35 when commercial-free Hulu only costs $12. I get all the big network shows except for CBS. And I don't know of anything I'd want on CBS that I'd be willing to pay an extra $23 for.

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.

Can you have hulu without a cable subscription? I thought they required you to authenticate your cable service. If so then watching TV on Hulu really costs you cable subscription + 12$ a month.
 
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.

Why would you think that? The driver of all of this is every player trying to maximize their profits. The players who own the broadband pipes have no interest in removing caps. Caps actually work FOR their maximizing profits objective. What they should be doing is looking for ways to tighten caps even more, akin to cell phone throttling above the "unlimited" soft cap and similar if they can't find an effective way to just tighten the stated cap outright.

Whatever this "new model" is going to be, it will need to show all parties how it can be better for them. It doesn't work for just one party- say, us consumers- dreaming of getting everything we want, commercial-free, for a fraction of what we pay now. Why do the sellers want to cut their revenue throats to do that for us? For a new model to gain traction, it needs to be an obvious win for both sellers & buyers. If we want to dream of some new model perfection, the key is getting in the seller's shoes and showing them how they are going to make more money than they do in the "as is."

Other players in the chain are beyond Apple's control. Content creators own the content that any kind of Apple replacement needs to be appealing. Broadband "middlemen"- often the very same cable companies some Apple solution would replace- own the pipe on which any Apple replacement entirely depends to deliver 1 minute of programming. An Apple replacement solution has to show these other players how they "win" by facilitating the change, let Apple take their 30% or so right off the top and have us consumers en masse swallow the price to deliver those wins AND let Apple in as another new middleman so they can get their 30% too.

In short: the dream of some "new model" replacement and the delusion that it means we consumers would pay a fraction of what we pay now seem largely incompatible. The existing middlemen cannot be ejected by an Apple replacement. So they are going to get theirs no matter what. Apple plugging in as a new middleman means that costs must go up- not down- to pay Apple what they want too. Where does the money come from for all those links in the chain? Subsidy dollars from commercials (mostly running on those "180 channels I never watch" while my TV is off) and subscription dollars from us consumers. Some of us want to kill the commercials (and thus that big fat subsidy paid for by other people) too, leaving only the subscription fee to pay Apple and all of the existing players for this "new model."

Think it through. The only way we get a "new model" is if the consumer masses pay more. The only way the consumer masses pay less is in dreams & illusions, where we can arbitrarily name our own prices for what channels or shows should cost or where we believe the cost-per-channel is equal across all 200 or so channels so that in picking our favorite 20, we get a 90% cut to our monthly bill (hint: the math doesn't work that way and won't work that way at all).

I'm right with everyone wishing I can watch anything I want (commercial-free) for a fraction of what I pay now. But think it through. I'd also like to be able to buy Apple products at 90% off what they charge for their products. I suspect both big-discount dreams have about an equal chance of being realized.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: co.ag.2005
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.
This is probably one of the reasons Apple put it on hold. This is what Tim Cook said last month:

Is Apple set to launch its own content subscription streaming service? “We will see. The key question for us is: can we do something better, that acts as a catalyst? If we conclude that we can, then we would. But I wouldn’t do something just to do something.”

When I read that I knew this was being put on hold or rethought inside Apple.

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.

What incentive do content providers or cable companies have in letting Apple (or Google for that matter) do this? They'll just do it themselves. Already cable and satellite providers allow you to stream live and on demand content from mobile devices outside the home.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 69Mustang
WTF is a "Hold Button"? Like on an old-style office phone from the 1970's? My goodness these media empire executives are certainly out of touch with today's technology...

All modern multi-line office phones have a hold function.

Yep, here's mine. From that old-fashioned non-tech company Cisco. :p
 

Attachments

  • From Skitch.jpg
    From Skitch.jpg
    87.7 KB · Views: 82
With the discussed pricepoint being 30-40$, it's not exactly surprising Apple pressed the Hold button. No cord-cutter is going to be willing to pay more than 10-20$.
 
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.

Capitalism also works the other way - sellers choosing how to sell products. They know pope will buy a bundle to get a few channels they want, and different people may want different ones in the bundle. So , they bundle the product because they'd rather get $1 from 150K subscribers than say $3 from 30K people who actually want the bundle. Only the most popular channels would be available a la carte, such as they are today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 69Mustang
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.

Actually, it's just the opposite. The rise of streaming services has two impacts:
1) Allowing cable cutting; and
2) Increasing demand for bandwidth

so caps let you take advantage of increased demand and make up for lost revenue from cable cutters. The ISPs will simply make the internet connection more expensive if you cut the cord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: co.ag.2005
There's no way in hell I'm spending $30-40/month on a TV subscription. Not doing it with cable, not doing it with Apple.
 
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.
I think Apple is moving ATV into being a hub rather than simply being than a streaming device. By integrating with iPhones, Macs, etc they will eventually allow a seamless transition for calls, messages, home automation all via one device. One possibility for streaming is to partner with cable companies to deliver their services via the internet using ATV as a set top box. Given Apple's closed architecture they can ensure DRM, commercial non-skipping, targeted ad insertion, etc is enforced at the hardware level.
 
Actually, it's just the opposite. The rise of streaming services has two impacts:
1) Allowing cable cutting; and
2) Increasing demand for bandwidth

so caps let you take advantage of increased demand and make up for lost revenue from cable cutters. The ISPs will simply make the internet connection more expensive if you cut the cord.

What is "cable cutting" though?
I'm just really curious about this whole streaming problem in the US, and why there isn't an ISP (like we have BT) that can offer unlimited bandwidth and not be tied up with TV services too. Are the two the same in the US (internet provider+TV provider)?
 
What is "cable cutting" though?
I'm just really curious about this whole streaming problem in the US, and why there isn't an ISP (like we have BT) that can offer unlimited bandwidth and not be tied up with TV services too. Are the two the same in the US (internet provider+TV provider)?

At times, areas of the U.S. had multiple ISPs. However, Cable companies buy them up and merge them in. Now individual homes are lucky if they have more than 1 choice. In my own case, I have 2 choices: Comcast (cable) and AT&T. Both also sell TV subscription services through their same "cable" (broadband) pipes and both would feel the pain of an Apple "new model" replacement solution that gobbles up their cable TV subscription revenues. So, even in cases where some Americans have more than 1 choice of broadband provider, both broadband providers want to prop up the broadband-only pricing to protect their cable TV businesses.

So won't new ISPs pop up to compete with higher broadband prices? A startup ISP that serves a big area is an expensive business to start up. But, when they do, they tend to get acquired by the established players.

How about wireless LTE as a competitor? Most of the same players are also owners of the wireless space. For example, AT&T wired broadband and AT&T wireless is AT&T.

How about Google saving us all with their fiber? First, Google has to lay that cable pipe to individual homes if homes are not already wired (and the vast majority are not). That "last mile" cost is steep... and SLOW to realize. Second, where Google already offers broadband, they also offer a cable TV-like subscription service too. And pricing vs. other cable + broadband providers has no "huge savings" in it. For example: https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/ If one can look past like pricing, note that Google has already been rolling this out for a very long time. How many cities already have the Google option? How long until it's a real option for everyone?

How about the GOV saving us by forcing broadband owners to price their broadband lower or remove caps? See what the GOV has done with wireless broadband sellers and their installation of wireless caps.

So, how could Apple get the job done? Since the key is bypassing the middleman (broadband toll masters) on a national and global scale, I think the potential solution is buying DISH network in the U.S. and other SATT players around the world. Repurpose those systems as an Apple's own wireless pipe from iCloud to homes and it cuts out (bypasses) the Comcasts & ATTs. Until there is some innovation like that- something that makes it possible to have a direct link between iCloud and consumers- I think Apple as "new model" salvation that also brings us consumers huge discounts vs. what we pay now for the "as is" is a complete delusion on our parts.
 
At times, areas of the U.S. had multiple ISPs. However, Cable companies buy them up and merge them in. Now individual homes are lucky if they have more than 1 choice. In my own case, I have 2 choices: Comcast (cable) and AT&T. Both also sell TV subscription services through their same "cable" (broadband) pipes and both would feel the pain of an Apple "new model" replacement solution that gobbles up their cable TV subscription revenues. So, even in cases where some Americans have more than 1 choice of broadband provider, both broadband providers want to prop up the broadband-only pricing to protect their cable TV businesses.

So won't new ISPs pop up to compete with higher broadband prices? A startup ISP that serves a big area is an expensive business to start up. But, when they do, they tend to get acquired by the established players.

How about wireless LTE as a competitor? Most of the same players are also owners of the wireless space. For example, AT&T wired broadband and AT&T wireless is AT&T.

How about Google saving us all with their fiber? First, Google has to lay that cable pipe to individual homes if homes are not already wired (and the vast majority are not). That "last mile" cost is steep... and SLOW to realize. Second, where Google already offers broadband, they also offer a cable TV-like subscription service too. And pricing vs. other cable + broadband providers has no "huge savings" in it. For example: https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/ If one can look past like pricing, note that Google has already been rolling this out for a very long time. How many cities already have the Google option? How long until it's a real option for everyone?

How about the GOV saving us by forcing broadband owners to price their broadband lower or remove caps? See what the GOV has done with wireless broadband sellers and their installation of wireless caps.

So, how could Apple get the job done? Since the key is bypassing the middleman (broadband toll masters) on a national and global scale, I think the potential solution is buying DISH network in the U.S. and other SATT players around the world. Repurpose those systems as an Apple's own wireless pipe from iCloud to homes and it cuts out (bypasses) the Comcasts & ATTs. Until there is some innovation like that- something that makes it possible to have a direct link between iCloud and consumers- I think Apple as "new model" salvation that also brings us consumers huge discounts vs. what we pay now for the "as is" is a complete delusion on our parts.

Thank you, that's really interesting! I think it's exciting considering Google and Apple could push the existing infrastructure, or replace it entirely.
 
Thank you, that's really interesting! I think it's exciting considering Google and Apple could push the existing infrastructure, or replace it entirely.

Only if they can cut out the middleman. Google is trying with Fiber but that's a very slow, very long-term project that may never be available "everywhere". And even there, Google is just replicating the "as is" by pricing it similarly and also offering a cable TV-like subscription service. So an Apple replacement for Cable TV via Google Fiber is basically the same as an Apple replacement via a Comcast or AT&T broadband pipe. Google/Comcast/AT&T would feel the same revenue pain if Apple succeeded in eating up their Cable TV subscription revenue, so why won't Google (too) update pricing and/or cap policies to make such an option less appealing?

Basically, if I'm any of these players and Apple rolls out a compelling cableTV-like offering as rumored for about $40/month, I do any one of these few things in response:
  • Offer the same package plus a couple of other channels or other programming and/or services NOT available from Apple for the same or slightly less price
  • Same as above but don't count any of that against the broadband cap
  • Raise broadband rates "for heavier broadband" users "like video streamers" (which is exactly the same thing done by the wireless broadband sellers with no resistance by the GOV)
In turn, I still get what I make now and maybe more. Since the replacement entirely depends on my broadband pipe, there are no other options (which is why I think Cable players are also in- and dominating- the broadband business).

So, I guess I can say that I would share your excitement if there was an announcement of some kind of broadband distribution breakthrough- wireless or via acquisition of someone like DISH- that would allow an Apple replacement service to bypass the existing middlemen. Until then, the middlemen own the middle. And while they own the middle, they will get theirs no matter what. Where Google already is, they are just another cut of the same kind of middleman.

And if Apple is just going to pile on top of the "as is", they become another middleman looking for their own cut above and beyond the "as is". Thus, I don't see how Apple can get their 30% added on top and we consumers get the oft-stated dream of everything we want at a huge discount. If we pay more, then something like the dream can happen. If we pay less, who else in that chain is taking the hit to give us that big discount and let Apple have their cut? If someone tries to answer that question, the next question would be WHY does that player take that hit to enrich Apple?
 
What is "cable cutting" though?
I'm just really curious about this whole streaming problem in the US, and why there isn't an ISP (like we have BT) that can offer unlimited bandwidth and not be tied up with TV services too. Are the two the same in the US (internet provider+TV provider)?
It's even worse. Not only are the internet providers the same as the TV provider, they are also the content providers for a lot of the most popular shows. Take Comcast for instance. They provide the TV & Internet. They also own NBC, Universal, USA Network, Syfy Channel, E!, Sprout, The Golf Channel, and other networks. Heck they even own two professional sports team. The landscape is pretty much the same with the other large cable companies. Pretty early on they realized being a dumb pipe was not a viable strategy. They own a lot of the content. They own the service. They own the delivery method.
 
For the love of Pete,

Here's what you do Apple:

Figure out a way to integrate this:
mohu_thin_hdtv_antenna.jpg


into this: ------->
big_macbook-air-top-lid.jpg




and also add this:
h75ohmcoaxialjack.jpg


to this --------------------->

Apple-TV-4-Nesil-64-GB_26923_2.jpg

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.
 
So basically content providers haven't produced a number low enough for Apple to add a 400% markup to the final retail price?
 
For the love of Pete,

Here's what you do Apple:

Figure out a way to integrate this:
mohu_thin_hdtv_antenna.jpg


into this: ------->
big_macbook-air-top-lid.jpg




and also add this:
h75ohmcoaxialjack.jpg


to this --------------------->

Apple-TV-4-Nesil-64-GB_26923_2.jpg

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.
OTA is missing the hundreds of cable channels that are out there.
 



Speaking today at the Business Insider Ignition Conference in New York City, CBS CEO Les Moonves made some statements suggesting Apple may have put the development of its rumored television streaming service on hold.

"They've had conversations on it and I think they pressed the hold button," Moonves said, referencing prior talks CBS has had with Apple about joining its subscription service. Apple and CBS were reportedly negotiating prices before Apple paused the discussions.Apple's streaming television service was originally rumored to be launching alongside the new Apple TV, but Apple has had ongoing trouble establishing deals with content providers. Difficulty securing content deals has delayed and shifted Apple's television plans for years, but in 2015, it looked like a things were coming together for a subscription service.

appletvos-800x508.jpg

In May, Moonves, who has been very open with his comments on CBS' negotiations with Apple, said Apple and CBS were still in talks and that CBS would "probably" ink a deal with the Cupertino company. At the time, he had recently met with Eddy Cue and said he was "very excited" about Apple's service. In October, he made similar statements, suggesting discussions between the two companies had not progressed further towards a deal.

Rumors have suggested Apple is aiming for a web-based streaming service that would bundle approximately 25 channels for $30 to $40 per month. Earlier this year, Apple was said to be in discussions with several content providers in addition to CBS, including ABC, Fox, Disney, Viacom, and Discovery.

Given Moonves' comments and the general lack of recent rumors, it is not clear when Apple will launch its streaming television service. An August report from Bloomberg suggested negotiation troubles had delayed its release until 2016, but there's been no word on Apple's plans beyond that. There are a lot of factors involved in the launch of the streaming service, as Apple needs to secure deals with dozens of content providers, including local affiliates.

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."

Update: Citing sources familiar with the matter, Bloomberg has confirmed that Apple has suspended its plans to offer a web-based streaming television service and will instead focus on "being a platform for media companies to sell directly to customers through its App Store."

Apple is not "giving up entirely" on a TV service, but it has not been able to secure deals that would allow it to sell a package of channels for $30 to $40 per month as media companies want more money for content.

Article Link: CBS CEO: Apple's 'Pressed the Hold Button' on Streaming TV Service [Update: Bloomberg Confirms]
The only thing I'm missing on Apple TV is the live sportscasts—iTunes and Netflix get me the rest.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.