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.
Disney, Apple Arguing Over Channels to Be Included in New Streaming Television Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If I wanted an expensive package that included all sorts of channels I won't watch, I'd sign up with a cable service.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
In some al-a-carte, new model, that's exactly what I expect.
As is, pricing is such that the model yields about $74/month on average from us for a television channel bundle subsidized by an additional approx. $54/month from the commercials that run on the 10-20 channels "I" watch and the 180-200, "I don't want".
If the whole industry was forced into an al-a-carte model adoption, I'd expect price modeling to be done so that the handful of channels we would pick will yield at least as much revenue (I actually expect it would yield more revenue like is so often the case when an entity like the GOV forces changes to established business models). So, since we throw about $74 + $54 into the model now, I expect any new model to throw at least $74 + $54 into the new model too (but probably more than that... which translates into us paying more).
Keep the commercials for the $54 subsidy and we pay $74/month or more on average.
Kill the commercials and the $54 subsidy and we pay $74 + $54/month or more on average.
If it's an Apple that steps in to deliver this "new model" they need to be paid too. And since an Apple's replacement model is entirely dependent on the broadband pipes typically owned by the Cable company who will take the hit of Apple replacing them for TV service, expect broadband pricing to rise to make up for those financial losses.
If the whole industry was forced into an al-a-carte model adoption based on shows instead of channels... well, we already have that. The iTunes store has tried it two ways: rentals and purchases. We can already see how shows are al-a-carte priced either as rentals or purchases and neither way appeared to be compelling enough to drive a masses shift from cable/satt to iTunes on-demand, commercial-free, al-a-carte.
The dream works when we consumers get to imagine the pricing. We typically imagine the pricing in one of two ways:
1. "Well Netflix is $8 for a lot of programming, so everything I want should be about $8... or maybe $16 or $24 for 2 or 3 times Netflix" (to get the rest of what I want). OR...
2. by taking a bundled price, spreading that cost over a quantity of channels, imagine we only want a subset of those channels and thus imagine a fraction of the price we pay. For example 200 channels at $100/month = 50 cents per channel. I only want 10 channels, so my bill should be $5/month. Oh and I want it commercial-free, on demand and I want Apple to get paid and I expect Cable who feeds the broadband to my home to just roll over and let Apple have it and not raise broadband rates either. And if they dare try, I expect my GOV to force them to just accept the losses to the benefit of Apple and/or I expect lots of broadband competitors to pop up (maybe like Google), lay fresh broadband pipes to all of our homes and thus hold prices down through competition.
If we want change, instead of thinking solely of ourselves, we need to innovate a way for the other links in the chain to get what they want. What do companies want if they have to make a big change? A way to make MORE- not less- money. So, show the:
-content producers how they are going to make MORE money in an al-a-carte model.
-content owners how they are going to make MORE money in an al-a-carte model.
-new show pilot-creator entrepreneurs who take huge risk gambles how they are going to make at least as much as they make now.
-content distributors how they are going to make MORE money.
-Apples and similar their cut for piling in on top with breakthrough "new models".
If we want commercial-free, show how that $54/month per U.S. household is going to be made up.
WHEN we can show all of the various players how they can be more profitable by making a major change to any system, they'll jump all over it.
The problem??? The first requirement on the list of al-a-carte desires tends to be "huge discount" for the source of most of the money in the system. The desired change is shot in the foot on it's very first step. That's why we don't already have an al-a-carte "new model".
As is, pricing is such that the model yields about $74/month on average from us for a television channel bundle subsidized by an additional approx. $54/month from the commercials that run on the 10-20 channels "I" watch and the 180-200, "I don't want".
If the whole industry was forced into an al-a-carte model adoption, I'd expect price modeling to be done so that the handful of channels we would pick will yield at least as much revenue (I actually expect it would yield more revenue like is so often the case when an entity like the GOV forces changes to established business models). So, since we throw about $74 + $54 into the model now, I expect any new model to throw at least $74 + $54 into the new model too (but probably more than that... which translates into us paying more).
Keep the commercials for the $54 subsidy and we pay $74/month or more on average.
Kill the commercials and the $54 subsidy and we pay $74 + $54/month or more on average.
If it's an Apple that steps in to deliver this "new model" they need to be paid too. And since an Apple's replacement model is entirely dependent on the broadband pipes typically owned by the Cable company who will take the hit of Apple replacing them for TV service, expect broadband pricing to rise to make up for those financial losses.
If the whole industry was forced into an al-a-carte model adoption based on shows instead of channels... well, we already have that. The iTunes store has tried it two ways: rentals and purchases. We can already see how shows are al-a-carte priced either as rentals or purchases and neither way appeared to be compelling enough to drive a masses shift from cable/satt to iTunes on-demand, commercial-free, al-a-carte.
The dream works when we consumers get to imagine the pricing. We typically imagine the pricing in one of two ways:
1. "Well Netflix is $8 for a lot of programming, so everything I want should be about $8... or maybe $16 or $24 for 2 or 3 times Netflix" (to get the rest of what I want). OR...
2. by taking a bundled price, spreading that cost over a quantity of channels, imagine we only want a subset of those channels and thus imagine a fraction of the price we pay. For example 200 channels at $100/month = 50 cents per channel. I only want 10 channels, so my bill should be $5/month. Oh and I want it commercial-free, on demand and I want Apple to get paid and I expect Cable who feeds the broadband to my home to just roll over and let Apple have it and not raise broadband rates either. And if they dare try, I expect my GOV to force them to just accept the losses to the benefit of Apple and/or I expect lots of broadband competitors to pop up (maybe like Google), lay fresh broadband pipes to all of our homes and thus hold prices down through competition.
If we want change, instead of thinking solely of ourselves, we need to innovate a way for the other links in the chain to get what they want. What do companies want if they have to make a big change? A way to make MORE- not less- money. So, show the:
-content producers how they are going to make MORE money in an al-a-carte model.
-content owners how they are going to make MORE money in an al-a-carte model.
-new show pilot-creator entrepreneurs who take huge risk gambles how they are going to make at least as much as they make now.
-content distributors how they are going to make MORE money.
-Apples and similar their cut for piling in on top with breakthrough "new models".
If we want commercial-free, show how that $54/month per U.S. household is going to be made up.
WHEN we can show all of the various players how they can be more profitable by making a major change to any system, they'll jump all over it.
The problem??? The first requirement on the list of al-a-carte desires tends to be "huge discount" for the source of most of the money in the system. The desired change is shot in the foot on it's very first step. That's why we don't already have an al-a-carte "new model".
Last edited:
Here is what I would like in a perfect streaming world...
Local channels/broadcast networks
ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU, etc.
Food Network/Cooking Channel
Discovery/Science Channel
Big Ten Network
I don't want to have to pay for Disney XD to get ESPN.
Local channels/broadcast networks
ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU, etc.
Food Network/Cooking Channel
Discovery/Science Channel
Big Ten Network
I don't want to have to pay for Disney XD to get ESPN.
Why would I want this? How is it any different from the bundle that Verizon forces down my throat.
As naive of it is for me to say, an a-la-carte option such as say $2.00 per channel would be far more appealing but we all know that this will never happen whilst the cable companies are also our internet providers and the content owners.
As naive of it is for me to say, an a-la-carte option such as say $2.00 per channel would be far more appealing but we all know that this will never happen whilst the cable companies are also our internet providers and the content owners.
Channels? Packages? Bundles?
I really don't know why these people who manage the studios think that bundles, packages, and channels are even worth doing anymore. Personally, I've dumped satellite and cable because I'd only watch 5 or so "channels" and to get those, I'd have to pay for HUGE packages with tons of crap I don't watch. Why pay for something I don't use/watch??
I'd be willing to pay a small fee for streaming a channel, if it's something that I'd watch. Now that we have the internet, and stream everything, we don't watch "channels". Let me pick and choose which "channels" I want, charge me a small fee for them (say $1-$2 per channel permonth) and let's see how that works.
That's my 2 cents worth on this topic. All providers should re-think their strategy in this market, it's dying and will continue down that path so long as people can stream over the internet.
I really don't know why these people who manage the studios think that bundles, packages, and channels are even worth doing anymore. Personally, I've dumped satellite and cable because I'd only watch 5 or so "channels" and to get those, I'd have to pay for HUGE packages with tons of crap I don't watch. Why pay for something I don't use/watch??
I'd be willing to pay a small fee for streaming a channel, if it's something that I'd watch. Now that we have the internet, and stream everything, we don't watch "channels". Let me pick and choose which "channels" I want, charge me a small fee for them (say $1-$2 per channel permonth) and let's see how that works.
That's my 2 cents worth on this topic. All providers should re-think their strategy in this market, it's dying and will continue down that path so long as people can stream over the internet.
I think the point is is keeps *them* happy, not the customer. They only pretend to treat your right, but it they were, they would give you split it up...
The only truth i got out of Foxtel when i left was "they were gong to make me a discount and a 'special package' with only the channels i liked."
You don't hear that everyday.. a company ASKING you to stay by offering a discount on a unique package....
(umm... i should of takin' it... What the hell was I thinkin').... I'll probably never see that again ...
The only truth i got out of Foxtel when i left was "they were gong to make me a discount and a 'special package' with only the channels i liked."
You don't hear that everyday.. a company ASKING you to stay by offering a discount on a unique package....
(umm... i should of takin' it... What the hell was I thinkin').... I'll probably never see that again ...
And I'd rather be optional for a higher price. The only sports I watch aren't aired on ESPN (F1, MotoGP, WEC, WRC, WRX, WTCC, Dakar, IomTT, Red Bull Air Races) and I pay the leagues directly for access to those events where applicable.
Here's mine:
1. Al Jazeera
2. MSNBC
3. NBC Sports (but only because Formula 1 and the Dakar Rally don't sell their products to me directly)
4. AMC
5. Showtime
6. Cinemax
7. Starz
8. Encore
9. FX
I literally watch no other channels aside from HBO, which is now available standalone for the same price I'm paying my cable provider for.
I am able to directly pay MotoGP and World Rally Championship to watch their races on my phone/ipad/apple tv, and the coverage is better than what Fox Sports airs because it's commercial free, and in the case of WRC, the same day as the race.
My cable bill is $200 a month.
The reason for the bundle, is so that those smaller channels that you would not pay for get included. People want ESPN so Disney will say ok if you want those channels you need to pick up a lower tier disney channel so we get carriage. We won't let you just grab ESPN and not take Disney XD. The same with Discovery. They are going to sell you their entire digital package if you just want Science.
Problem here, though, things like MLB tv and NHL game center etc, you cant watch you in market games, which completely removes any benefit for a majority of potential users.
Yea that is a pain. There is some hope, there have been several big news articles recently about progress being made to at least ease that restriction, or lift it soon. Probably not this year, but eventually.
Until then, adfreetime.com or any other smartDNS service should take care of that. $2/month well spent.
Agree 100% there.
As for watching it when I can, I work for Apple in marketing, soon in Berlin, and I travel a lot. Hardly ever home in NY. This makes it tough, even DVR'ing and watching on the road I'm at the mercy of hotel WiFi connections which, as we all know, are usually abysmal. However, torrenting a file is faster, especially if you're in a cafe or using anything other than hotel wireless.
Then this comes full circle; if a la carte programming was fully launched - watch what you want, when you want, wherever you may be - it may solve this issue. Thoughts?
1) I've been to Berlin twice, awesome city and jealous you get to go there so often.
2) I also travel for my job and vacations. I guess I'm not as into watching stuff on tv, although when I'm in Europe and my hotel room tv doesn't have any english channels I feel your pain. I've actually gone through the trouble of checking the tv menus to see if there's a language option. Was able to unlock english on a couple channels in Barcelona once. In the past, I have pre-loaded movies I bought on iTunes onto my iPhone just for these situations.
Guys I work with torrent so I once looked at what all the fuss was about. I found the process to hunt down seeders for something I wanted to watch, making sure it wasn't in a foreign language, downloading all the pieces, etc. only to get a crappy quality version with issues (once I got all the way to the end of a movie and all of a sudden the ending was in another language) just not worth it. I tested four movies and stopped doing it. A couple I already owned the BluRay of. Deleted all of them. Plus, if a movie is more than a couple years old it's hard to find any seeders for it anymore. It just mystifies me why people do it. I guess if one is desperate but I'm not that desperate to spend that much time to find a movie torrent when it's not that expensive to get it legitimately. Not to mention that I think the whole torrenting thing is seedy and want no part of it. I have to confess to use XBMC to watch porn occasionally for free so I'm not an angel, lol. I assume those movies probably aren't legit for me to access for free since many XBMC add ons aren't but I honestly don't know for sure. I have the Icefilms addon to watch torrents without all that download hassle but never use it. I draw the line there.
Does something like sling box work in Europe? That would be a legitimate solution for you if it did. There are several solutions available to be able to remotely watch your home live tv capabilities.
Last edited:
I hope they include what many would consider one of the "lesser" channels, Disney Junior. It is one of the main things keeping me tied to cable right now, too many shows the kids love.
Little late to the comments on this one, but it seems to me that everyone in the game is still showing up way too late to the online TV/entertainment scene.
Unless you are selling something truly exclusive and can get people to pay for a subscription like live sports, which I happily pay for, the majority needs to go to free streaming and the broadcasters need to make money off advertising. So far I have seen nothing that is going to stop the torrent community. Hell, it's even more expensive to buy a la cart (plus paying for internet access), compared to 1000+ channels of cable/satellite per month. How is this supposed to stop the pirates? Not to mention the entertainment industry has gone global.
The first person/company to understand that the industry will never be the same again and build a network offering global free streaming, with revenue based on advertising or paying a minimum charge to skip advertising will be bazillionaires over night. Quite frankly, I'm surprised non of the more "progressive" companies around the globe have jumped on this opportunity.
Unless you are selling something truly exclusive and can get people to pay for a subscription like live sports, which I happily pay for, the majority needs to go to free streaming and the broadcasters need to make money off advertising. So far I have seen nothing that is going to stop the torrent community. Hell, it's even more expensive to buy a la cart (plus paying for internet access), compared to 1000+ channels of cable/satellite per month. How is this supposed to stop the pirates? Not to mention the entertainment industry has gone global.
The first person/company to understand that the industry will never be the same again and build a network offering global free streaming, with revenue based on advertising or paying a minimum charge to skip advertising will be bazillionaires over night. Quite frankly, I'm surprised non of the more "progressive" companies around the globe have jumped on this opportunity.
Online ad rates are a pittance compared to cable and broadcast TV ad rates. Factor in the amount of people using ad blocking software and the situation looks even more bleak. Hell, Google is the king of monetization via ads and they can't even make YouTube profitable. Speaking of YouTube, they recently announced an ad-free subscription plan and that idea pretty much went over like a lead balloon. Obviously content is king and 99% of YouTubes content being worthless doesn't help matters. We also need to discuss what exactly a "minimum" charge is to go commercial free because that's a very ambiguous term. HBO thinks it's $15/mo, Netflix thinks it's $9/mo, WWE Network thinks it's $10/mo and Amazon Prime, which includes streaming, is a bit over $8/mo.
Content that people are willing pay for and/or sit through ads for isn't cheap. Live sports alone cost billions of dollars a year per network/channel. Hour long dramas, on average, cost 2-3 million dollars per episode. Netflix, which is almost entirely old movies and TV shows, spent 3 billion dollars in 2014 alone on programming costs. Under the 'old media' way programing was monetized in a number of ways such as original air date, reruns, syndication, home video, retail and foreign distribution (broadcast and retail rights in as many foreign countries as possible).
In a purely 'new media' way (like say House of Cards, Transparent or Quickdraw) the ability to monetize programing is much more limited. In an on demand world reruns, syndication, rental and retail barely exist (if they exist at all). Advertising revenue is also diminished because scarcity is greatly reduced. No longer will millions of people tune into a certain channel at a certain time on a certain day and see your ad.
A lot of people have thought about doing what you've said, but to do date no one with the capital, infrastructure, connections, etc., has thought it a profitable undertaking.
For those so inclined, here is a good article about the economics behind TV shows.
The Economics of a Hit TV Show
No, the power of live sports sells a bunch of licenses. The power of Disney makes everyone ELSE pay for the same licenses, that we don't need or use.
I get that there are tons of people who love sports and will pay whatever it takes to watch. That's true.
However, I am totally not okay with paying over five bucks a month for a channel that I will never, ever watch. And Disney has made it their mission to ensure that this happens, and that I have no choice in the matter. That's also true.
Disney sickens me.
scrap channels
scrap channels completely and just do shows, sort of like the old rental. Let people "subscribe" to certain shows irregardless of what channel they are on. I am a cable cutter and there are less than a dozen shows on broadcast TV that I would like to watch. I would gladly back $2 per channel
scrap channels completely and just do shows, sort of like the old rental. Let people "subscribe" to certain shows irregardless of what channel they are on. I am a cable cutter and there are less than a dozen shows on broadcast TV that I would like to watch. I would gladly back $2 per channel
No thanks. Pick and choose would nice. Frankly, outside of The Travel Channel, PBS, TCM and the Weather Channel all we watch is the Food Network. If we could get these, plus the Cooking Channel and local news, that would be nice.
Do not need or want much.
Apple will not get much of my money for services (I only buy movies and some music from iTunes), do not use anything else. If Disney continue to release content for sale digitally and in hard copy, perhaps they will continue to see a rare purchase from me, otherwise I will avoid. Not going to reward these companies by paying for products I do not need or want any more.
Do not need or want much.
Apple will not get much of my money for services (I only buy movies and some music from iTunes), do not use anything else. If Disney continue to release content for sale digitally and in hard copy, perhaps they will continue to see a rare purchase from me, otherwise I will avoid. Not going to reward these companies by paying for products I do not need or want any more.