Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So many complained but so few of them understood that this is what was going to happen.

Around 25% of your cable bill each month goes to ESPN. That's right, a single channel gets a huge chunk of the money. The rest is divided amongst the rest. People are cool paying $60/month for 100 channels but when you start looking at $15 a month for just ESPN, that seems crazy to most. Thanks to bundling, you get a price that seems more reasonable as it includes far more for the money.

With unbundling, a number of things happen. First, you have less subscribers. This means that each channel has to increase their rates. ESPN can't afford to charge just $20 a month because now they have far less subscribers. So they have to increase their price in order to make the same amount.

The sad second thing is that you put a lot of channels out of business. Within your typical subscription bundle, there are plenty of channels you might not watch but some others do. With a bundled service, everyone helps pay for those. Maybe you even really enjoy one of the small channels. But now that they aren't bundled, they aren't going to make enough to survive. Say goodbye to channels like FX and others that don't have the huge viewership of the big 10 to keep them in business.

There are goods and bads to bundled TV subscriptions. But most don't understand the goods, only believing they'll be able to pay less than what cable companies charge now for even greater choice. That simply isn't true. Enjoy having subscriptions to Netflix, HBO Go, and a dozen others if you want the same choices you use to enjoy.

I agree with everything you said, but there is also an alternative for these smaller audience television shows - they can move to YouTube, where they can still get a lot of advertising revenue. I think the main hope here is eliminating the middle man - but since owners of content can charge whatever they want, it rolled over to custom exclusive content instead.
 
Except here it will be between $10 and $15 per month with minimum wage at about $10 per hour.

I believe it was originally £9.99 when it launched here (according to a 2015 guardian article), so you might well be right, but if they had to drop the price here to increase demand they might accept that thats the going rate and launch at the lower price in the US
 
. . . .
The sad second thing is that you put a lot of channels out of business. . . . .

Exactly. The cable companies are making bad choices about which channels to fund. If a channel can't get enough subscribers at a willing price point to be viable, then the channel needs to go away. That is how it is supposed to work. Welcome to natural selection. Welcome to the way the world has worked for 1000s of years.
 
I go from service to service. I stay with one service for few months, then go to the next one, and then the next one. by the time I get back to the first one, it has something to watch again.

Looking like thats the best way to go...
 
Steve Jobs personally acquired a large chunk of Disney stock in exchange for Pixar. Does his estate (widow) still own this? If so, wouldn't she have a say in whether Apple has access to Disney content?
 
Aren't Apple and Disney linked anymore? Steve Jobs was a link between the two. Is that link gone?

Have you seen Watch OS4? It features not 1 but 3 Disney faces. No, that link is not gone. It's stronger than ever. Bob Iger is on Apple's board.
 
Precisely. Many people used the logic "I can get Netflix for $7.99 a month, I don't need cable for $50 a month" ... and now people are finding by the time they subscribe to DirecTVnow, Netflix, and the ala carte stuff they want to add, they're back up spending the $$$ they initially wanted to get away from spending. LOL

LOL all day long if you want. Frankly it shows ignorance. If people wanted all of those extra channels, they would've kept cable. So guess what? Those same people won't be turning around subscribing to every single service out there. ummmmm… Why do you think they cut the cord in the first place?

Also, you might want to double check the price of cable with all those channels these days. If you get all the channels, like you are stating, the bill is almost $200 a month. Not sure where you getting the idea people are paying $50 a month for cable. What company is that? It sure is not Xfinity. And what do you get with that that price? Please be specific. And don't forget to roll in the cable box surcharge, DVR charge, FCC fees, taxes, etc.

Don't worry, you won't even come close to today's average cable bill...
 
I only subscribe to certain streaming services when a certain show comes on that month. Like Game of Thrones, Stranger Things etc. Oherwise I could do without those streaming services.

As far as ESPN I just subscribe during College football and NFL season really. Otherwise I could care less about ESPN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt and cylack
More value in a Disney service if only for quality of product. Netflix is overwhelming with its choices, but many are garbage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonyr6
Kind of saw this coming.. I still think disney anywhere will be going away at some point too because it's to readily available. They want to lock down all their stuff for some crazy reason. I see no reason to pay separate for their content.
 

It's not clear when Disney plans to remove its content from Netflix, but in 2012, the two companies inked a deal that saw Netflix getting exclusive access to Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm, and Pixar films. Currently, there are dozens of Disney movies available on Netflix, like The Chronicles of Narnia, Moana, Zootopia, Finding Dory, The Jungle Book, Pirates of the Caribbean, and more.

I like how Chronicles of Narnia are the first Disney movies mentioned. They just scream disney...
 
*sigh*

Aside from the issues of having to pay more for each service, this is a horrible UX problem.

If we're going to do this, someone needs to invent a standard way to catalog the contents of each network's service centrally. Apple *may* be able to do this with their TV app, but unfortunately that's Apple, who rarely ever shares their work as an open standard (or "embraces" open standards before dropping them as soon as the money starts to roll in)

Right now though, you have to get an app for each provider. Pretty soon you have to search 5 or more apps to figure out which studio is offering the content you want for streaming. Even if you're willing to pay $10/month to 10 studios, you still have no way to just search all the content and find something!

PLEASE. If we're going to have companies doing their own streaming networks, PLEASE, media companies, agree on a standard way to index and search them! The TV Guide did this for classic cable TV years ago.

But of course, every network thinks their content is the only content worth consuming, so why would anyone help you search others' content...
 
I only subscribe to certain streaming services when a certain show comes on that month. Like Game of Thrones, Stranger Things etc. Oherwise I could do without those streaming services.

As far as ESPN I just subscribe during College football and NFL season really. Otherwise I could care less about ESPN.
THIS. If you don't dig college football, zero reason to stream ESPN for majority of users.
 
I agree with everything you said, but there is also an alternative for these smaller audience television shows - they can move to YouTube, where they can still get a lot of advertising revenue. I think the main hope here is eliminating the middle man - but since owners of content can charge whatever they want, it rolled over to custom exclusive content instead.

How much do you think the typical TV station needs to stay in business? Now how much do you think the most highly paid YouTube stars make? Sure they can make six-figures but that's not anywhere close to what even a small cable channel is going to need to pay the numerous people that help create the programming they show.

There's a reason we haven't seen seen small stations shutting down and moving over to YouTube. It simply wouldn't be financially feasible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cigsm
Steve Jobs personally acquired a large chunk of Disney stock in exchange for Pixar. Does his estate (widow) still own this? If so, wouldn't she have a say in whether Apple has access to Disney content?

No. Stockholders do not have a say in day-to-day operations. Those are management decisions. The Jobs stake in Disney is also under 5%.
 
Why I just subscribe to Directv. Have fun having 10 different streaming subscriptions. I just red box the 2-3 good movies that actually come out a year.
 
Exactly. The cable companies are making bad choices about which channels to fund. If a channel can't get enough subscribers at a willing price point to be viable, then the channel needs to go away. That is how it is supposed to work. Welcome to natural selection. Welcome to the way the world has worked for 1000s of years.

I'm sure you'll have the same attitude when your favorite station goes off the air or when a friend or family member loses their job.

You might want to read up on natural selection. Seems it isn't anything like what you believe.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.