First HBO, now CBS too

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by 2010mini, Oct 16, 2014.

  1. 2010mini macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    #1
    CBS is offering a web subscription version without needing a cable tv sign in. You will get live shows, on demand and their library of older series.


    http://recode.net/2014/10/16/now-cbs-is-selling-web-subscriptions-to-its-shows-too/
     
  2. Vetvito macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
  3. 2010mini thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    #3
    Yes, but not their on demand library. Basically they are just doing what aereo did.

    Oh and not everyone has good access to clear OTA signals
     
  4. mic j macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    #4
    Yes. But if you live in a fringe area, like I do, and subscribe to a cable service, like I do, getting a high quality picture without having to subscribe to a cable service is a good thing.

    But I think there is a bigger point here. We are beginning to see cracks appearing in the current system for providing media to homes. I think 2015 is going to be a very interesting year.
     
  5. Vetvito macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #5
    ^ fringe area? You just need a bigger antenna and extender.

    Also on the cbs app you can watch tv shows already.

    Cbs sports streams games for free for a certain amount of hours.
     
  6. Ray Brady macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    #6
    Not that simple, I'm afraid. I live on the other side of a mountain range from my nearest broadcast area. Those signals simply do not get through.
     
  7. Vetvito macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #7

    Now that sucks (the signal part).
     
  8. cycledance Suspended

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    #8
    sounds like they are all preparing services for apple tv.

    i really want a tv channel store. 1 buck/month for a channel. do it :apple:.
     
  9. 67bmer macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    #9
    one of the big restrictions was sports programming.

    I wonder how they will handle NFL games on Sunday?
     
  10. nefan65 macrumors 65816

    nefan65

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    #10
    My understanding from another post, on a different site is that NFL games will not be available because of NFL restrictions.

    If they could get the NFL on board, I'd be all in! I have hockey via the NHL channel on ATV. If HBO and a couple of other premium channels go the cable free route I'd just have Internet from Comcast and nothing else.
     
  11. betabeta macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    #11
    5.99 seems a little high, maybe some fear from cable providers? But they could make more if they charged just 3.00? Or even a year sub for 29.99?

    Add that to the ad supported feeds, and money from netflix, amazon and cable.

    I think they get like 50 cents per sub per month from comcast, but they do get ad revenue from that, still 5.99 seems high, but it's a start:)
     
  12. d21mike macrumors 68040

    d21mike

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Location:
    Torrance, CA
    #12
    Watch ABC is FREE with a CABLE SUB. CBS should also be FREE with a CABLE SUB. Or charge a subscription without commercials. Maybe if watching LIVE then there can be commercials but if you watch the next day or later it should be commercial free. Or at least allow us to FF like we do with the DVR.

    Until I can skip commercials I will continue with my DVR Approach no matter what the cost is.
     
  13. BladesOfSteel macrumors regular

    BladesOfSteel

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Location:
    St. Paul
    #13
    As others have said, the 6 bucks a month is kinda costly.

    I don't think this pricing will break the "a la carte" floodgates open.

    If CBS, which, again is free via OTA, charges 6 bucks a month, what will HBO charge? 12? 15?

    If you're in need/or want certain "basic" channels - say CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX and they each charge 6 bucks a month, that is 24 dollars per month.

    Then, I assume there'd be a second tier - Discovery, HGTV, Disney, Nickelodeon, and TNT. Say they charge 8 dollars each. Well, that would be 40 dollars.

    On top of that, there would be a third tier - AMC, ESPN. Say 10 bucks a month.

    Then maybe the "premium channels" like HBO at 12-15?

    To get all these, obviously, you'd need high speed internet... which I'm sure as cable subs go down, and the amount of broadband per user goes up (you know they will use that as an excuse) the price for internet will go up...

    So, hypothetically, if networks went all out and offered cable free subscriptions, it could actually cost more.
     
  14. d21mike macrumors 68040

    d21mike

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Location:
    Torrance, CA
    #14
    Exactly. A lot of us have been saying this for some time. I would like Premium service and the ability to use my own hardware. Like the Apple TV. But I expect the cost to be the same or more. A big part of the cost is the hardware rental not the bundled content.
     
  15. TsMkLg068426 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    #15
    Ehh, all this Networks going a la cart is only going to make things expensive or their needs to be some package deal and I should prepare myself soon all this studio going in this direction is no longer going to want to work with Netflix.
     
  16. Suture macrumors 6502a

    Suture

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
  17. jtara macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    #17
    Some places just have lousy OTA, because of terrain. San Diego is one of them. And our cable prices are sky-high.

    What I would love to see is for the cable companies to start ala-carting the premium services that they do not charge customers for (or package) but that they have to pay for. Why do I have to subsidize somebody else's spectator-sports habit?

    Unfortunately, they do ridiculous packages like "Sports and Entertainment". They always bundle something you want with something you do not care about. At least make the packages sensible and more fine-grained.
     
  18. 2010mini thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    #18
    $6 a month for an entire channel and library of shows that costs anywhere from $500k to $1M per episode to produce is too expensive?? When single episodes of shows costs $3-$4 each to buy??

    Really??
     
  19. fhall1 macrumors 68040

    fhall1

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Location:
    (Central) NY State of mind
    #19
    Yes....really. By the time you get 10 or 15 "regular" channels, then ESPN (they'll probably try to get $12/mo), then HBO for $15/mo, you might as well keep your cable subscription.
     
  20. CoMoMacUser macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    #20
    Yes. CBS is particularly interesting because for years Les Moonves has talked about the benefits of broadcast networks such as his going directly to audiences via broadband and cable/satellite rather than through affiliate stations.

    Plus, the FCC is about to conduct an auction that gives stations a financial incentive to give up their licenses to make way for cellular broadband. I expect some cashing out by station owners that don't want to scramble for programming in five or 10 years when networks start phasing out their affiliates.
     
  21. HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 604

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #21
    For those assuming the HBO price will be close to the bundled HBO price (about $12-$18/month depending on where you are), this CBS pricing should help paint the picture of how al-a-carte pricing would work. In this case, you have what is generally considered a free channel (free over-the-air because it's fully ad subsidized) being priced at $6/month.

    Think about that in the usual, dreaming context of al-a-carte where we look at a $100 cable bill for 200 channels, divide those out into 50 cents per channel, think we want to actually get only 10-20 or so channels and then expect the math to be something like 10 or 20 times 50 cents.

    The big 4 networks are generally considered core channels. They are usually "basic" cable. If each of them only followed CBS with this pricing, there's $24/month for just those 4. While not everyone can make over the air work, many can, so here's 4 "free" channels being potentially priced at $24/month in al-a-carte world.

    Extrapolate that out into channels that are traditionally considered more desirable than those in "basic" cable packages. ESPN isn't going to be $6/month. TNT? HBO? Showtime? Starz? etc. Imagine your own al-a-carte bundle now. If the "free" ones are $6/month, what are those you desire more going to cost?

    Or, simplify the math. Often the al-a-carte dreamers seem to revolve around how everything "we" want should cost about $10-$20 or maybe as much as $29/month. Let $6/month be the number for ALL channels (even though we should all know that ESPN and others will be priced higher than that). Take the high of $29/month in the al-a-carte dream. $29/6 = a little under 5 (FIVE!) channels.

    If you extrapolate that out to the usual desire for 10-20 favorite channels, that's $60 to $120/month. While "we" commonly throw around $100/month as if we are all paying that now, the national average cable bill is about $70/month. So even if we could get ALL channels for $6/month each, our savings only works at up to 11 channels. If your own al-a-carte bundle would involve 12 channels or more, you'd be choosing 12 channels for about $72 over 200 channels for $70 (AGAIN, if every channel was priced the same as this CBS pricing).

    And the reality that some of those channels that "we" never watch do sometimes have something on them that "we" DO watch. The vast majority of the so-called "I never watch" channels have to have eyeballs to motivate those who buy the commercials to actually buy the commercials. No eyeballs = no commercial revenues = no channel.

    So I'll again share my prediction that the HBO price will be a good deal higher than the bundled HBO price. I think $34-$49/month but maybe as low as $29/month. I know that looks crazy but al-a-carte is likely to only arrive if all of the players can be motivated to risk their existing, somewhat stable revenue stream with cable/satt. What motivates such a change? The opportunity to make more money by doing something else, not the same or less money. By charging a lot more for the al-a-carte version, they can still spin that the best value for any given channel is through the bundled offers of cable/satt. This might fly with the cable/satt partners.

    Of course, if al-a-carte really takes off, I fully expect broadband rates to go up for "heavier bandwidth users" so the Comcasts, etc that are also the broadband pipe toll masters are going to get theirs in full either way.
     
  22. alent1234 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #22
    who says you need all those channels? and i'm a sports fan and hate espn. i watch the regional networks in my area
     
  23. Suture macrumors 6502a

    Suture

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    #23
    Yeah, the pick and choose model really only benefits those that are looking for a few channels -- I think sports nuts would really dig into something like this.
     
  24. CoMoMacUser macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    #24
    I suspect we'll see programmers bundling. So instead of being able to buy just ESPN, you'll also have to buy the rest of the ESPN channels (e.g., ESPNU), plus the SEC Network and Longhorn Network. With Scripps, you'd probably have to buy HGTV to get Food and vice-versa, plus DIY, Travel, etc.
     
  25. seamusk macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    #25
    This. Plus, I think you'll see more sites like Nimble TV, but where they have a broader array of packages. Basically, streaming cable.
     

Share This Page