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

[jlc1978]

Also, this is probably why there are areas in the US with data caps. If there is no competition, there is no incentive for ISPs to drop their data caps, because what other choice would customers have?

That's part of the reason, but I also think data caps are a way to deal with the rise in popularity of streaming services. No cable company wants to be a dumb pipe that delivers as much data as anyone wants; they want to be able to make up for lost revenue from people switching to streaming and data caps are n easy way to do just that.

 

[fmalloy]

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?

Because they don't have CONTENT, and the content owners (networks and movie studios) are not about to let the 800lb gorilla Apple come in and muscle them, like they did the music companies with iTunes.

Why would providers allow thin bundles and make less money when they can charge big $$$ for tons of channels you don't care about, like they have been doing ever since cable came out?

When it comes to music, movies, and TV it's the content owners that hold the strings and keep progress from happening. Filthy rich execs are not about to hand over the keys to the kingdom.

 

[expectdelay]

Nope, you don't need a cable subscription. Just an internet connection. I haven't had a cable subscription since 2010.

That's great news - i was under the mistaken impression you had to sign up with your cable ID.

 

[jlc1978]

Because they don't have CONTENT, and the content owners (networks and movie studios) are not about to let the 800lb gorilla Apple come in and muscle them, like they did the music companies with iTunes.

I also think there is a very different dynamic with video vs audio content. Audio content is much more of a portable and reuse product than video. People want to be able to listen to their music everywhere and take it with them on their device without and can listen without having to actively pay attention. In addition, it was relatively easy to rip and trade music, right after a CD was released, so the distribution channel is different as well. As a results, iTunes, while not what execs may have wanted, was the lesser of two evils.

Video, however , is fundamentally different. While people may want to be able to view it on different devices they are more interested in availability, i.e. can i get what I want, rather than having it on the device. Many of they will view it are fixed, such as at home, so what is important is a good catalogue and an interruption free way of viewing it. Since much of the content will only be viewed once, having a copy is not really valuable. Having a large selection, however, is an doha tis what the content provers have; thus they have a lot more bargaining power than Apple. Piracy, despite the industry's contention, is really not that big of a threat compared to the threat they were to audio because:

a) Content owners control when a movie make sit o an easily copied medium such as DVD
b) People want convenience, so if you make content easily accessible and in high quality they will pay for it rather than have to find a site hosting what they want to watch
c) It was easy for a friend to burn you a copy of a CD or give you an mp3 version, it's a lot harder to do that with movies and TV and even then you generally need to wait for it to come out on disk so if you want to see it before then you need a reliable source

The content providers are going to use their clout to get as big of a cut of the revenue as possible; and are less likely to give Apple a 30% cut when they can work out their own distribution methods independently from Apple.

 

[Ron Johnson]

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.

This was just an example, obviously not going to reflect actual prices. However, for internet alone people will be paying around 60$ a month average. I know at least where I am from, Digital cable and internet packages are around 160-180$ of course dependent on DVR, HBO channels etc. My idea was just that you can choose out of any and all available channels for a lower cost.

Of course if this happened cable companies may make it appeal more to have a package deal. I think people just don't like paying for what they don't use.