The Apple TV has so much crap on the home screen now it's almost as crappy and cluttered as my Xfinity box. I don't get how this improves things.
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.
CBS Sports and USA NOW Channels Now Available on Apple TV [Update: And More]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Apple TV has so much crap on the home screen now it's almost as crappy and cluttered as my Xfinity box. I don't get how this improves things.
Funny coincidence: Today ARTE starts offering its content directly on Apple TV (http://www.presseportal.de/pm/9021/3014422/arte-jetzt-auch-ueber-apple-tv-zu-empfangen)
To me, it's not really a channel if you must have a cable subscription to use it. HBO Now is a channel. CBSN is a channel. USA Now is not.
I'm willing to bet that this is the big announcement coming at WWDC.
Apple has all these channels on Apple TV that require cable subscriptions currently, but then at WWDC they'll reveal that you can buy all of them with a single monthly payment of $25 to Apple. Bam. Suddenly Apple has all the channels you want, at a price lower than any other network.
autrefois
macrumors 65816
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
None of the players- Apple included- share "our" desire for "everything we want to watch" at a huge discount. None of them want that. That's unique to us consumers. What they all want in any new model is a way to make MORE- not less- money than they make in the "as is" model. Else, why change?
We are the biggest obstacle to getting this al-a-carte, commercial-free dream we so often sling around this concept. Why? Because paramount in that dream is the huge discount we expect it to also deliver. Might as well pine for MacBook Pros for $100 and iPads for $50 because it's pretty much the very same thing. The suppliers of television entertainment want to grow their revenues & profits just like Apple wants to grow their revenue & profits. They can't do that by eating a huge cut to their revenues and killing the huge subsidy revenues that come from commercials... any more than Apple can just discount their products by 70% or more and be just fine.
But every one of these threads fills with these same comments, pointing to Hulu & Netflix as some grand example of how all programming should be available at Netflix-like monthly rates. Even Netflix & Hulu won't be able to stick to those rates forever. As contract renewals come up, they either pay up or lose content (like Netflix lost the whole Starz package). As they have to pay up, they will have to raise their rates and/or tier their offerings. It is inevitable.
Both only work now because the masses have not moved on them. When the masses try to go there, it will end... either by the better (non-original) content getting pinched out of those services OR their prices going up to cover significantly-increasing costs AND/OR by broadband rates getting jacked up for "heavier data users" (like video streamers).
And even Apple can't do anything about some of that, as an Apple replacement would entirely depend on broadband pipes owned by "evil" cable companies their "new model" would conceptually replace.
Impossible, or nearly so.
Content provided by broadcast companies, et. al. is bounded by ownership and distribution rights. Those VERY complex agreements would have to be completely rewritten, packaged, and sold to a new entity - or at least completely rewritten - to allow Apple to decide pricing, content, or how and when it could be distributed.
No - I believe Apple is very interested in changing two specific areas - how to unbundle content for on-demand consumption, and how to clean up the interface between content and the eyeball. In other words, pretty much what most of the world wants - an easy to understand and search (and play) method of subscribing only to the content we want.
Apple might want folks to pay for the use of their interface, but I think it is MUCH more likely that cost would be shouldered by the content providers - perhaps in exchange for data regarding viewing habits, etc of the eyeballs watching. Even that would be quite un-Apple; however, it is also very likely to be the lynchpin for ANY negotiation with the content providers.
If I were Apple I think I'd do this... Get a ton of channels that require cable subscriptions on the AppleTV to get a census of who uses what channels and then after I had a good selection of "channels" create my own cable service and allow subscribers to login with the $30/month iCloudTV (or whatever) instead of Comcast, Uverse, etc.
...unless the person posting actually knows what they are talking about. Go back to bed, Junior.
That is my point. Might as well pay Comcast, but the point of this is to NOT have to isn't it? I like the idea of selecting exactly what I want but the subscription models are still too high priced. We can only hope that the bill to have internet as a "utility" will come into play AND that it will cost much less... Like $40. While that bill may come, the price obviously won't be low.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The main rumor that has been flying is a $30-$40 package of about 25 traditional channels. There's been some speculation that there may be some tiers above that. Basically, the rumor is selective cable with Apple picking the channels. It may be cheaper than cable if one likes the channels that Apple has selected and one's cable doesn't have a similar bundle of channels in some kind of "basic" tier. It may not be cheaper if unbundling from paying the cable company results in an increase in broadband rates when one goes with Apple for cable TV but must retain a broadband-only subscription to cable.
I don't see why the other players would want "Apple has all the channels you want, at a price lower than any other network". That would only be good for Apple and us consumers. Why do the owners of the content want to enrich Apple by cutting their own throats?
This is the beginning of the end. Once more and more people watch their shows on Internet instead of cable, the tide will turn so quickly. Comcast has as many internet subscribers as cables subscribers. The time is near.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Correct. I don't know why the generally smart brains around here keep pretending this won't happen. What would you do if you were the cable companies, you pretty much monopolized local broadband and an Apple was rolling out something to take a big bite out of your cableTV revenue stream? Apple's replacement can't work without a broadband connection and the cable company is the toll master.
I bet you were one of the people saying that cell phone minutes would never be unlimited. :roll eyes:
This is NOT entirely true. It is very expensive to start broadcasting any tv shows or movies you'd like to create because of the costs associated with cable companies. It is also difficult to compete with huge networks that already exists because they own so many channels and force your to buy multiple, even if you only want one. GE owns over 30 networks, TimeWarner owns over 25 networks, Disney owns over 20, New Corp owns over 50, CBS 10, etc. etc.
If WE AS CONSUMERS stop dealing with such crap these companies will be required to reinvent themselves and create less content that is better. If I get 200 channels at $100/month ($0.50 each) but can get 10 channels I actually want for $25 ($2.50 each) that still SAVES ME MONEY each month and gives each network more money then they previously had.
Ala Carte Channels!
I don't care if they add a bajillion more of these Apps/Channels if they all require a cable subscription. Doesn't anyone get it?
We don't care about access these through Apple TV via a cable subscription.
We want: a) to access through Apple TV with no cable subscription & b) to be able to pick and choose the channels ala carte in a new, industry disrupting business model
I think we'll get a with Apple's new rumored streaming service, but the cable executives wouldn't relent to apple on point b. So we're going to be stuck with bundles forever, apparently.
But...but... it's a smaller bundle that's cheaper? So what - it's still a bundle - this is an evolution rather than a revolution to the way we watch TV. I was promised that Apple would revolutionize the industry, not slap on a new coat of paint to an existing model.
I don't care if they add a bajillion more of these Apps/Channels if they all require a cable subscription. Doesn't anyone get it?
We don't care about access these through Apple TV via a cable subscription.
We want: a) to access through Apple TV with no cable subscription & b) to be able to pick and choose the channels ala carte in a new, industry disrupting business model
I think we'll get a with Apple's new rumored streaming service, but the cable executives wouldn't relent to apple on point b. So we're going to be stuck with bundles forever, apparently.
But...but... it's a smaller bundle that's cheaper? So what - it's still a bundle - this is an evolution rather than a revolution to the way we watch TV. I was promised that Apple would revolutionize the industry, not slap on a new coat of paint to an existing model.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
How does one connect with iCloudTV if not through Comcast, Uverse, etc (broadband pipes)? So even if that would happen, the Comcasts, etc will just make up for the losses with higher broadband. Net result is that we pay more to basically cut Apple in.
And the whole model "as is" revolves around consumer desire for favorite channels driving the bundled family of channels. None of the players want to go to a model where only the jewel channels of their respective bundle are available for cheap. By pushing additional channels with their jewels, they can make all this subsidized revenue from commercials running on those other channels.
The best way to get our favorite channels without killing the golden goose of the subsidy is to use the "FAV" channel feature in on-screen guides to hide the 190 channels "we don't want" and only display the 10-20 channels we do want. Then the commercial subsidies generated by commercials running on the 190 channels still flow but we won't ever even see those channels in our FAV guide.
This perception that each channel available is actually costing us consumers something is wrong. All those other channels we don't want generate revenue to help pay for the channels & content we do want.
If we really want an al-a-carte, or a commercial-free, al-a-carte option, all we have to do is to get the masses to want it so much they'll pay more for it. As soon as it's more profitable to change the "as is", it will quickly change.
Else, if we want to believe that buying individual channels will cost less than bundles of channels, we should face the reality that everyone else in the chain wants to make MORE money, not less. SO, some kind of al-a-carte channel price modeling would be such that the 10-20 channels we really want will end up costing more than getting the same 10-20 channels with the 190 channels in the "as is" model. In other words:
200 channels for $75 OR
15 al-a-carte channels for $100.
AND, if the cable companies have to take the hit because it's an Apple that is going to take their cableTV revenues, expect broadband rates to rise to make up for their losses. So again, all that really happens here is that we pay more to cut Apple in. The content creators will not eat our big discount. Cable (who is also broadband) don't have to take the hit. Apple will want to pile on top and get theirs. We're all that's left.
This may be difficult for members of the Entitlement Generation to understand, but in the real world the best solution sometimes takes time to deliver.
This is nothing like the music industry, which desperately needed a way to distribute music legally so as to present a solution to illegal downloads and sharing. Remember, the iTunes Store launched with a handful or distributors and only 200k songs protected by a proprietary DRM. It grew over time. Artists, distributors, etc held out for "better terms" - but sooner or later, most of them saw the writing on the wall. And then the industry as a whole shifted as a necessity.
Broadcast content is a lot different. To your point, there are already a myriad ways that content providers have slowly allowed their media to be shown and distributed via non-traditional methods. But, again, that is a very incomplete portfolio, a complex way of doing it (including DRM schemes), and in most cases the licensing is temporary (just ask Netflix).
The iTunes Store is an example the content providers are using AGAINST Apple - they feel that, like the music industry, there is too much to lose and not enough gain. See, when you own all the water, it really doesn't matter that the best civil engineers and plumbers have built all the infrastructure needed to plumb a city - you will release the water only when you are good and ready, and pretty much only on your own terms.
The biggest threat to the traditional industry is the current rise of internally-developed content that Netflix, etc are starting to produce. But that is a tiny blip on the radar.
Crawl, walk, run. Apple and other companies will get the content providers to play ball. But you don't get there by poking a stick in their eye. You do it the way the iTunes Store developed - use the content provider rules, show them that it really doesn't work, and then provide a better option. And then the industry will shift. But only when they are good and ready.
Because of piracy. You can take what I, as a market participant, think is a fair price for your content or not. Doesn't matter to me. I'll watch it either way.
Except unlike iPad and Macbooks, once the content has been made it can be copied and replicated for free, and therefore is amortized much quicker. After the initial cost of making the show, the rest is nearly free. There is a lot of room to cut the cost of TV shows.
And you're right that the publishers want to make more money, not less. However, most of them are short sighted and naively think their choice is status quo or more money. That isn't the choice. The choice is some money or no money. Seems to me, many are idiotically choosing no money.
So if the cable subscription is still going to be required...
please give the apple TV cablecard, DVR functionality so I don't have to pay rental fees to my cable company for the DVR/cable boxes. That alone would recoup the cost for the apple tv pretty quickly
Microsoft has effectively canceled windows media center, so there is really noone in the market for DVR'ing copy protected cable content (aside from cable company DVR's). Silicondust is trying but...
please give the apple TV cablecard, DVR functionality so I don't have to pay rental fees to my cable company for the DVR/cable boxes. That alone would recoup the cost for the apple tv pretty quickly
Microsoft has effectively canceled windows media center, so there is really noone in the market for DVR'ing copy protected cable content (aside from cable company DVR's). Silicondust is trying but...
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Believe what you wish. Your math in that last paragraph misses almost the entire point of the "as is". Most of those channels you (and I) don't want exist to sell commercials you and I never see (because we don't watch those channels). Kill off those bundled channels and you kill that subsidy revenue which is much more than can be made up for at $2.50 per channel from you and I. I've done that math. The revenue from commercials alone is about $54 per household per month.
So if you want to kill 95% of the channels that run those commercials, our al-a-carte bill needs to start at about 95% of $54 or about $51/month just to make up for THAT revenue. That's with 0 channels.
The players also like their subscription revenue too. If they are going to switch to a new model, not only will they want/need to preserve their commercial revenue but they will also want to preserve their full revenue & profits from subscriptions. So if the average household pays about $73/month for cable now- and it does last I checked- the price modeling for al-a-carte will be such that those 10 channels you want should cost at least $73/month (but probably more).
Do we see any evidence of that anywhere? CBS which we might think of as "free*" (just put up an antenna) wants their al-a-carte steaming channel to cost $6/month. So won't ABC, NBC, FOX and maybe CW expect at least as much? If so, theres $30/month for just the "big 5" that are conceptually viewed as free* now. HBO Now just rolled out at $15. I'd expect ESPN to be up there too.
$73/10 channels you want = $7.30/channel to maintain present revenues. CBS at $6 and examples like HBO at $15 imply that would be more like al-a-carte, streaming channel costs. You can revise the math from there.
Last edited: