Chances of an Apple TV subscription like Apple Music

[LERsince1991]

I'd LOVE to have an Apple TV subscription which allowed movies and tv shows in the same way Apple Music works and is a huge success!

Anyone read any rumours about a Film subscription service?

 

[cuestakid]

I would pay for it as well but as others have said, chances are next to zero. Too many studios, too many players. CBS, HBO, Showtime and soon ESPN all have their own standalone packages-even youtube now has one.

I agree-an all-in-one for movies and TV shows is something I would pay for in a minute. But I just dont see it.

 

[Moonjumper]

Mac Rumors has had multiple stories about Apple trying to implement a subscription package for TV, but it seems the issue is the TV and movie industries thinking Apple has got too much power in the music industry and want to protect themselves from that. However, iTunes made paying customers of digital content for the first time. Apple probably have so much power because they were better for the industry than them not being there.

 

[LERsince1991]

Given how different TV and Film industries are there should really be 2 separate subscriptions for each.

I guess the difference to the music setup is that Apple had a huge amount of power in the industry before launching Apple Music, whereas in contrast they have very little if any traction/power/influence in the film and tv industry, this translates as significantly more difficult agreements to be made.

iTunes and Apple Music (and their competitors) have converted many people who would have otherwise used unofficial sources, into paying customers. An Apple TV/Film subscription could equally do the same to reduce the amount of piracy out there today.

Amazon, Netflix and NowTV don't have anywhere near the amount of content apple has available on the Apple TV / iTunes Store, nor are their content released as quickly as Apple's... Hence why I don't subscribe to any... and there is a gap in the market! Who wants to pay for a subscription only to find most of what i want to watch is unavailable, even the top providers combined dont cover the majority of releases! The industry seriously needs to respond to the subscription model rather than the rental and purchasing models which are fading.

 

[2010mini]

Unless Apple is willing to play ball with the tv/movie content owners.... slim to none.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I suspect that Apple's demand for it's own cut is just too great to forge a comparable streaming service deal, which is also what I suspect as the primary reason Amazon Prime is not making money on TV (yet) either. If one objectively follows the stories about such deals attempting to be struck (translation: not seeing Apple as Saint and all other potential partners as villains), when they inevitably fall apart, the message seems to consistently be in the direction of "Apple wanted everything..." implying "...leaving us with nothing."

How many of these other players have been able to strike "skinny bundle" package deals now? I suggest that implies that moving content/channel owners to partner is not as complicated as some of us like to spin it as part of rationalizing why Apple hasn't got such a deal done. However, key among those deals is likely making it so that the partners are getting theirs too. In other words, I suspect that DirecTV Now, PS Vue, Sling, YouTube and maybe Hulu are not pocketing the equivalent of Apple's cut right off the top... and, as such, were able to get their steaming bundle deals done.

This is all suspicion, as I have no hard "insider" evidence beyond anecdotal bits & pieces of information shared by those with which Apple has tried to partner... plus the reality in that if there was profit to be made by partnering in this way per Apple's wants, do we really believe these entities would refuse to strike a deal that could potentially be QUICKLY sold to many millions of TV owners and thus immediately generate sizable new flows of cash? In most posts, "we" pretty consistently refer to them as "greedy;" do we believe they will act against their "greedy" nature by refusing the cash flow from upwards of millions of new subscribers that might jump on Apple's version of a PS Vue, Sling, etc?

All of these other players seem to have had little trouble getting deals done. Either we concede that they are superior to Apple in some key way (which I realize is practically heretical around here) or we have to ask ourselves: what are they doing differently than Apple to forge those deals? Personally, I don't believe these players (and Amazon Prime) are refusing profit if profit is there just to spite Apple... or because they are afraid of Apple, etc. I speculate that there just isn't enough for them in such deals after Apple takes it's big bite and yet still demands a competitive price (squeezing "the rest" to basically eat the losses vs. comparable deals with PS Vue, Sling, etc.)

I imagine the solution is in Apple deciding to take a lessor bite so that there is enough "savings" left over to flow through and give these partners what they are probably getting from the other streaming services already in play. In short: money talks... and Apple has more of that than any of these other guys, yet these other players have deals done and this kind of service already being sold. Perhaps this is one of those channels where a flat rate demand just can't work. If so, making an exception to better compete in the dealmaking employed by these others seems likely to get comparable deals struck. Yes, that would imply Apple making less than their usual fat margin on this one thing but what is the alternative: let DirecTV now, PS Vue, Sling or others have that particular business and just be one of the STB sellers on which such apps can run? Full margin on selling a box once or full margin on that box PLUS partial margin on a monthly subscription for up to forever?

 

[2010mini]

I suspect that Apple's demand for it's own cut is just too great to forge a comparable streaming service deal, which is also what I suspect as the primary reason Amazon Prime is not making money on TV (yet) either. If one objectively follows the stories about such deals attempting to be struck (translation: not seeing Apple as Saint and all other potential partners as villains), when they inevitably fall apart, the message seems to consistently be in the direction of "Apple wanted everything..." implying "...leaving us with nothing."

How many of these other players have been able to strike "skinny bundle" package deals now? I suggest that implies that moving content/channel owners to partner is not as complicated as some of us like to spin it as part of rationalizing why Apple hasn't got such a deal done. However, key among those deals is likely making it so that the partners are getting theirs too. In other words, I suspect that DirecTV Now, PS Vue, Sling, YouTube and maybe Hulu are not pocketing the equivalent of Apple's cut right off the top... and, as such, were able to get their steaming bundle deals done.

This is all suspicion, as I have no hard "insider" evidence beyond anecdotal bits & pieces of information shared by those with which Apple has tried to partner... plus the reality in that if there was profit to be made by partnering in this way per Apple's wants, do we really believe these entities would refuse to strike a deal that could potentially be QUICKLY sold to many millions of TV owners and thus immediately generate sizable new flows of cash? In most posts, "we" pretty consistently refer to them as "greedy;" do we believe they will act against their "greedy" nature by refusing the cash flow from upwards of millions of new subscribers that might jump on Apple's version of a PS Vue, Sling, etc?

All of these other players seem to have had little trouble getting deals done. Either we concede that they are superior to Apple in some key way (which I realize is practically heretical around here) or we have to ask ourselves: what are they doing differently than Apple to forge those deals? Personally, I don't believe these players (and Amazon Prime) are refusing profit if profit is there just to spite Apple... or because they are afraid of Apple, etc. I speculate that there just isn't enough for them in such deals after Apple takes it's big bite and yet still demands a competitive price (squeezing "the rest" to basically eat the losses vs. comparable deals with PS Vue, Sling, etc.)

I imagine the solution is in Apple deciding to take a lessor bite so that there is enough "savings" left over to flow through and give these partners what they are probably getting from the other streaming services already in play. In short: money talks... and Apple has more of that than any of these other guys, yet these other players have deals done and this kind of service already being sold. Perhaps this is one of those channels where a flat rate demand just can't work. If so, making an exception to better compete in the dealmaking employed by these others seems likely to get comparable deals struck. Yes, that would imply Apple making less than their usual fat margin on this one thing but what is the alternative: let DirecTV now, PS Vue, Sling or others have that particular business and just be one of the STB sellers on which such apps can run? Full margin on selling a box once or or full margin on that box PLUS partial margin on a monthly subscription for up to forever?

You are correct in that Apple will need to concede in the live tv streaming market. What they did with the music industry won't work here.

Apart from PS Vue, all the current tv streaming offerings are from traditional pay tv companies. This would've given them a leg up since they are already in the game and know all the players.

 

[charlituna]

Unless Apple is willing to play ball with the tv/movie content owners.... slim to none.

actually the issue isn't likely Apple but the content owners. They won't want a cheap price for such a service, they will want to control the quality level and timing of items, they sign exclusive deals with other services that would block or remove items. And so on

 

[Alrescha]

actually the issue isn't likely Apple but the content owners

Just so. The fact that services like Netflix have had to go into the content-creation business themselves is a good indication that the traditional content owners have an inflated notion of their own value. Netflix's success in this area just drives the point home.

Whether it be cell-phone carriers, music labels, or now video, the entrenched players have resisted Apple and stubbornly insisted on trying to do their own thing. It has been demonstrated that what Apple brings to the table has great value, and Apple is right to demand the control and oversight which makes it all come together as a successful product (and they deserve their cut as well).

A.