Disney, Apple Arguing Over Channels to Be Included in New Streaming Television Service

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Umm, its not exactly a small list.... Check it out:

I appreciate all the points you made in that post. Many of them are from your own personal view, feeding your own personal tastes, etc and/or twisting concepts to fit your own message. For example, why does a Comcast support more competition to hold down the broadband price increase? Let me guess, the GOV will step in and force them to hold broadband prices down by forcing broadband competition. If we want to imagine fantasy, then we can fully expect Apple to deliver everything we could possible want, commercial-free for a nickel.

That's an impressive list of "original programming" from Netflix. Unfortunately, I should have used the adjective good and/or masses-desirable. There's definitely a few GREAT (original) programs produced by Netflix but if we're going to count every little thing including cartoons, I'd hate to compare it to the subtotal of all original programming produced by any of the big 4 (where every single bit of original programming was similarly listed).

Unless your judgement of what constitutes a "good" show is the ONLY such judgement for everyone, the implication that there's been nothing good to come from the big 4 or 5 but plenty from a Netflix is probably something that only works for a relatively small segment who can see the world just like you. In my house, we have Netflix and DirecTV. Personally I see nothing in Netflix original programming that I consider a good show. But there's a few shows even on the lowly CW that we really like. CBS has several. ABC has several, NBC & FOX too. You judge nothing good there? That's fine. But your view is not my view... and vice versa.

$8/month won't last. Netflix is artificially aggressive in pricing from long-ago deals that won't renew at such favorable rates and roaring stock wealth won't hold down that price forever either. Eventually, Netflix will have to adapt to market costs and content-owners demands or they will lose higher value content (like when they lost the whole Starz programming bundle).

Relative to the "business math" counter, your view of business math revolves around you while my suggestions about business math revolves around the whole industry. I could easily embrace the fantasy to imply the everything-for-a-nickel math if I wanted to do so. But my "business math" is logical for the establishment "as is". Wishful thinking or fantasy won't move those who own the content to want to take the haircut so we can get the huge discount.

I'd like everything for nothing as much as anyone else here. But wishing for it doesn't make it happen. And once you think through the math and the absolute dependencies, I don't see a way we could possibly replace a Comcast with an Apple, keep it all coming much like it comes in the "as is" model, have Comcast just let Apple take that revenue without making it up on broadband rates, kill the big subsidy revenue of the commercials, and the masses get this huge discount on what we pay.

But, all that written, if you can see a way, good for you... and I'll hope you're right, as I'd like to get everything I want for a fraction of what I pay as much as anyone here.

 

[Solomani]

I was thinking along the same lines. But "negotiating" just doesn't sound as dramatic.

At least MR refrained from using the phrase "Going Thermonuclear On Each Other"

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Since Disney and Apple own a share in each other you would think that deals will be fairly easy to come by.

Each has shareholders who demand profit maximization. Disney doesn't maximize profits by favoring Apple's profits and vice versa.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Channels are too greedy. Bundling is the thing I hate most about subscription TV and why I've turned to the internet for my shows.

And since Apple isn't greedy and desires to make the least amount of profit possible, they should be able to get this done since they care more about the consumer than they do themselves.

 

[laurim]

Yes and no, that's a broad stroke to paint "all" torrent sites. Many do police and regulate with membership only and penalties.

Simply fueling my vehicle, I am part of the oil and gas industry that has strong-armed their way into nations using government force, often resulting in conflict and tension amongst governments. Does this mean I am directly responsible for such tensions? Perhaps, yet that too is a straw-man's argument and a "slippery slope" .

Yes, but needing to drive is a little more of a necessary evil than seeing the latest Transformers movie, right? AND, there are a myriad of ways to legitimately see that movie so really torrenting is just getting something for free so totally unnecessary (including the part where no one NEEDS to watch entertainment to live). Your example isn't really appropriate. The torrent sites would die if no one used them and the people who supply them would find another way to get money. But it's good to make it harder for them to fund whatever they are doing. Bottom line, when we "buy" entertainment, we aren't actually buying the movie, music or tv show itself. We are buying the entertainment it gives us when we watch it. We are also paying for the convenience of watching it when and where we choose, as opposed to having to wait until it's out for free on tv or in the library. When you torrent, you aren't paying for that priviledge and that's wrong and an affront to all of us who DID pay for that priviledge. It's the same as cheating on taxes or bogus insurance claims or getting welfare when you don't actually need it. It's not a victimless crime to abuse other people's money.

But here we go. Get ready for the private message spanking for going off topic

 

[xmichaelp]

Pleeeease give me the option of omitting useless sports channels like ESPN!

This thing will only appeal to me if there's different tiers and sports are on a more expensive one so I don't pay for it.. Actually, this thing won't really appeal to me no matter what. Hulu Plus and HBO covers my television needs. Apple would have to blow it out of the park with features and content. If this thing doesn't have back catalogues of every network is has it's dead to me. Live TV sucks.

 

[darwen]

So basically it sounds like we may end up with what amounts to a cable subscription (paying for a lot of channels you won't watch), but with lower quality (more compression)

Who says it will have more compression?

The content I can access through the on demand cable provider app has far less compression than the content I can get over the wire. Cable is compressed, they need to compress it to fit so much data over the wire.

On the flip side, the only way I can watch 4K content is streaming through the Amazon/Netflix apps. I realize that's not the same thing as a live cable stream, but it is an example of how content could actually get higher resolution.

 

[3282869]

Yes, but needing to drive is a little more of a necessary evil than seeing the latest Transformers movie, right? AND, there are a myriad of ways to legitimately see that movie so really torrenting is just getting something for free so totally unnecessary (including the part where no one NEEDS to watch entertainment to live). Your example isn't really appropriate.

I live between NYC and Berlin, having a car is a luxury not a necessity so it does apply.

Plus, we're referring to television programs not movies; one is already paid content included in your cable subscription costs while the other necessarily is not. If you miss a show you pay for, why should you pay for it again? You're paying twice for the same product. The iTunes Store is mostly for those who don't have cable or television subscriptions/access, thus the $1.99/2.99 fee per episode.

The courts are ruling in favor of this, so don't kill the messenger. When it comes to television programming individuals pay for, downloading the same program is increasingly being determined by the courts and setting precedent as not pirating content as you already paid for it. Some are arguing semantics; how the content is acquired is not stipulated in contractual agreements. Hence, downloading a show you already have legal access to is not deemed pirating by recent courts.

 

[sorryiwasdreami]

If anyone can do it, it will be Apple.

Look at the deal they just made with arguably the most premium channel, HBO. Their content is commercial free for $15/month? Other networks will catch on to what Apple/HBO are doing in envy with this service and definitely want on board. However, their networks can't charge or pull $15/month like HBO; maybe $5-10. Those networks can reach a lot of subscribers who can't have (due to availability) or do not want cable or satellite.

Apple adds 2-7 other major content providers (each with their slew of multiple channels) and you have a 25-network, commercial free, a la carte service for the $40/month that we are expecting.

To me there is no argument. If anyone can do it, Apple can, and will.

 

[bigchrisfgb]

Each has shareholders who demand profit maximization. Disney doesn't maximize profits by favoring Apple's profits and vice versa.

True but they both work together very closely. There has been cases (not sure if there is still now) where there has been board members on both Disney and Apple boards at the same time. This has resulted in the ability to come across deals more easily, as seen by the close relationship between the two companies. It's no surprise that Apple has hidden adverts for Disney inside their keynotes (Toy story app is one that comes to mind), as well as the implementation of Apple pay at Disney stores and Disney theme parks.
I'd say that talks between the two companies would be a lot more easier and relaxed than between Apple and others.

 

[laurim]

I live between NYC and Berlin, having a car is a luxury not a necessity so it does apply.

Plus, we're referring to television programs not movies; one is already paid content included in your cable subscription costs while the other necessarily is not. If you miss a show you pay for, why should you pay for it again? You're paying twice for the same product. The iTunes Store is mostly for those who don't have cable or television subscriptions/access, thus the $1.99/2.99 fee per episode.

The courts are ruling in favor of this, so don't kill the messenger. When it comes to television programming individuals pay for, downloading the same program is increasingly being determined by the courts and setting precedent as not pirating content as you already paid for it. Some are arguing semantics; how the content is acquired is not stipulated in contractual agreements thus providers of television content already accessible to subscribers is quickly becoming legal in terms of what the courts are deciding.

I get what you are saying about torrenting something you already have paid to have access to and I think it's less of a sin to do that but I still stand by my contention that doing it at all keeps these torrent sites alive for all the people who absolutely ARE stealing entertainment. Why not do something else instead of watching that show until you get to where you can watch it legitimately? That's what dvrs are for. Take this to the extreme. If everyone "gets savvy" and does it, who is going to fund new entertainment? Who's going to bother making it if there's no money in it? How many additional security features will the rest of us have to deal with just to watch our legitimate stuff because a certain group of leeches can't play by the social rules?

 

[AustinIllini]

If anyone can do it, it will be Apple.

Look at the deal they just made with arguably the most premium channel, HBO. Their content is commercial free for $15/month? Other networks will catch on to what Apple/HBO are doing in envy with this service and definitely want on board. However, their networks can't charge or pull $15/month like HBO; maybe $5-10. Those networks can reach a lot of subscribers who can't have (due to availability) or do not want cable or satellite.

Apple adds 2-7 other major content providers (each with their slew of multiple channels) and you have a 25-network, commercial free, a la carte service for the $40/month that we are expecting.

To me there is no argument. If anyone can do it, Apple can, and will.

That's all fine and good, but Disney holds all the cards. HBO is small potatoes compared to ESPN and ABC.

 

[itr81]

So... Most favored nation is OK, as long as it's not Apple? ugg..

. Lol. Everyone can use this except Apple, because then it would be some monopoly of some sort.

 

[FieldingMellish]

No way I'm paying Apple $40.00 to watch TV.

 

[Gasu E.]

25 Channels huh? OK, let's see...

1. ABC
2. CBS
3. FOX
4. NBC
5. CW
6. Discovery
7. AMC
8. A&E
9. FX
10. TBS
11. TNT
12. USA
13. Spike
14. Animal Planet
15. Food Network
16. Travel Channel
17. Science Channel
18. History Channel
19. TLC
20. FYI
21. National Geographic
22. Nat Geo Wild
23. CNN
24. CNBC
25. SyFy

Yeah, those would work for me.

No problem. Since you didn't specify price, let's say $5/month for each of the cable only channels, plus $2 service charge to provide the broadcast channels... $102 per month? That seems fair.

 

[LethalWolfe]

But let ME choose MY content a la carte so I don't have to subsidize things I have zero interest in watching.
Allow others with disparate interests to do the same.
And let the marketplace dictate what each show is worth instead of forcing people to subsidize crap.

Can't you already choose your content a la carte by paying for shows/seasons on iTMS or Amazon?

 

[furi0usbee]

Sorry Apple, I'm not paying even $30, let alone $40, for channels I don't want. Give me a la carte and I'm all in. For $29.95 you better give me much more than Sling TV. For $40, forget it.

 

[RockSpider]

And since Apple isn't greedy and desires to make the least amount of profit possible, they should be able to get this done since they care more about the consumer than they do themselves.

Spot on, and that's why they're selling the Gold Watch so cheaply because they're thinking of us,its also the reason why it doesn't matter what country they're in they pay higher taxes than anyone else.

----------

Sorry Apple, I'm not paying even $30, let alone $40, for channels I don't want. Give me a la carte and I'm all in. For $29.95 you better give me much more than Sling TV. For $40, forget it.

They wouldn't be making any money out of us, they just charge us enough to keep them from going under.

----------

No way I'm paying Apple $40.00 to watch TV.

That's just nasty.

 

[jhwalker]

Can't you already choose your content a la carte by paying for shows/seasons on iTMS or Amazon?

Only if the shows you want are available :/

 

[sorryiwasdreami]

That's all fine and good, but Disney holds all the cards. HBO is small potatoes compared to ESPN and ABC.

Surely they will make the deal. Disney can't lose.

 

[Urban Joe]

This whole content thing is an enigma wrapped in a riddle.

Can't wait to see what the Apple TV hardware offers.

 

[mrjr101]

Call me old fashion, or maybe I don't understand very well how Apple TV works because I don't have one, but i prefer the "experience" of flipping channels back and forth quicly and feel that I'm watching "live" content vs clicking on an app wait for the stream one channel at a time and then exit to enter another content, too much waiting, and not as intuitive as flipping channels with your remote.

 

[AustinIllini]

Call me old fashion, or maybe I don't understand very well how Apple TV works because I don't have one, but i prefer the "experience" of flipping channels back and forth quicly and feel that I'm watching "live" content vs clicking on an app wait for the stream one channel at a time and then exit to enter another content, too much waiting, and not as intuitive as flipping channels with your remote.

I don't think most of our objections to cable have anything to do with the browsing method. It has a lot more to do with not paying for what we don't want.

If Apple TV doesn't offer a la carte, i'm not interested. I believe most of the people in this thread agree.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Call me old fashion, or maybe I don't understand very well how Apple TV works because I don't have one, but i prefer the "experience" of flipping channels back and forth quicly and feel that I'm watching "live" content vs clicking on an app wait for the stream one channel at a time and then exit to enter another content, too much waiting, and not as intuitive as flipping channels with your remote.

I don't think most of our objections to cable have anything to do with the browsing method. It has a lot more to do with not paying for what we don't want.

If Apple TV doesn't offer a la carte, i'm not interested. I believe most of the people in this thread agree.

I had cable for a few years, then cut the cord for five years and now I have cable again. With cable I watch a greater variety of shows because many times I'll channel surf into a show that I didn't know existed and since I've already paid for it I'll give it a chance and watch it. When I had cut the cord, even if I heard about a new show I would usually wait until I'd heard a lot of good things about it before plunking down money to buy it. I was much less willing to experiment on new shows because each experiment cost money.

There are certainly pros and cons to each.

 

[mrjr101]

I don't think most of our objections to cable have anything to do with the browsing method. It has a lot more to do with not paying for what we don't want.

If Apple TV doesn't offer a la carte, i'm not interested. I believe most of the people in this thread agree.

I understand, but my objection is with the method that all of these streaming service uses. User experience is a big part of why alot of people think regular tv is better. I wish Apple reinvents the browsing and comes up with something innovative because I for instance just like instant channel switching