Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

First HBO, now CBS too

Right. Every one of these al-a-carte threads tend to load up with guys who want to name their own (dirt-cheap) price to get everything they want, often commercial-free (which also would kill off that huge subsidy). They expect Apple to be able to do it though that would involve Apple piling on and almost certainly wanting a hefty cut. It all only works in a dream.

We already have Apple's best cut at commercial-free, al-a-carte. We've had it for years now. Why is that not a roaring success? Because we want a whole month's worth of shows from each channel for a dollar or two, not a per-show charge of a dollar or two.

We already have a version of al-a-carte where tons of programming is produced for free or near free. It's called youtube. Why does that enormous pool of free programming not do the trick? Vast majority of that reflects the lack of any money flow in that model. If the money doesn't flow, the high quality of programming we want doesn't get made by the artists that make it.

We already have a few cracks at on-demand al-a-carte in the form of services like Netflix. Of course, the vast majority of that programming is "in the can" and often b-movie stuff- not much in the way of brand new, never-before-seen-anywhere programming and no sports or local programming. Yet we expect that kind of price to eventually encompass something like everything we get for $60-$120/month cable/satt programming subscription now.

The biggest key to the dream is to figure out how all of the other players beyond us consumers are going to make more money, not less with Apple piling on top and taking their cut too. That doesn't work if the source of that money is expecting a HUGE cut in the monthly toll. Al-a-carte would already be here if we wanted to pay more than we pay now for it. We don't. And that's why it persists as a dream.
 
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Right. Every one of these al-a-carte threads tend to load up with guys who want to name their own (dirt-cheap) price to get everything they want, often commercial-free (which also would kill off that huge subsidy). They expect Apple to be able to do it though that would involve Apple piling on and almost certainly wanting a hefty cut. It all only works in a dream.

We already have Apple's best cut at commercial-free, al-a-carte. We've had it for years now. Why is that not a roaring success? Because we want a whole month's worth of shows from each channel for a dollar or two, not a per-show charge of a dollar or two.

We already have a version of al-a-carte where tons of programming is produced for free or near free. It's called youtube. Why does that enormous pool of free programming not do the trick? Vast majority of that reflects the lack of any money flow in that model. If the money doesn't flow, the high quality of programming we want doesn't get made by the artists that make it.

We already have a few cracks at on-demand al-a-carte in the form of services like Netflix. Of course, the vast majority of that programming is "in the can" and often b-movie stuff- not much in the way of brand new, never-before-seen-anywhere programming and no sports or local programming. Yet we expect that kind of price to eventually encompass something like everything we get for $60-$120/month cable/satt programming subscription now.

The biggest key to the dream is to figure out how all of the other players beyond us consumers are going to make more money, not less with Apple piling on top and taking their cut too. That doesn't work if the source of that money is expecting a HUGE cut in the monthly toll. Al-a-carte would already be here if we wanted to pay more than we pay now for it. We don't. And that's why it persists as a dream.
Click to expand...

Truer words have never been spoken. Bang on. People want free or cheap but they want good quality content.

I cut the cord in 2007 and I've accepted that buying seasons of my fav shows is far better than paying $100/month for hundreds of channels I don't watch. For back catalogues, I pay $8/month for Netflix. At this point, I've saved thousands of dollars and I've contributed to the continued production and availability of A grade content on iTunes.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Right. Every one of these al-a-carte threads tend to load up with guys who want to name their own (dirt-cheap) price to get everything they want, often commercial-free (which also would kill off that huge subsidy). They expect Apple to be able to do it though that would involve Apple piling on and almost certainly wanting a hefty cut. It all only works in a dream.

We already have Apple's best cut at commercial-free, al-a-carte. We've had it for years now. Why is that not a roaring success? Because we want a whole month's worth of shows from each channel for a dollar or two, not a per-show charge of a dollar or two.

We already have a version of al-a-carte where tons of programming is produced for free or near free. It's called youtube. Why does that enormous pool of free programming not do the trick? Vast majority of that reflects the lack of any money flow in that model. If the money doesn't flow, the high quality of programming we want doesn't get made by the artists that make it.

We already have a few cracks at on-demand al-a-carte in the form of services like Netflix. Of course, the vast majority of that programming is "in the can" and often b-movie stuff- not much in the way of brand new, never-before-seen-anywhere programming and no sports or local programming. Yet we expect that kind of price to eventually encompass something like everything we get for $60-$120/month cable/satt programming subscription now.

The biggest key to the dream is to figure out how all of the other players beyond us consumers are going to make more money, not less with Apple piling on top and taking their cut too. That doesn't work if the source of that money is expecting a HUGE cut in the monthly toll. Al-a-carte would already be here if we wanted to pay more than we pay now for it. We don't. And that's why it persists as a dream.
Click to expand...


This should be quoted in every thread that people post ridiculous low a-la-carte
Pricing.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
We already have Apple's best cut at commercial-free, al-a-carte. We've had it for years now. Why is that not a roaring success? Because we want a whole month's worth of shows from each channel for a dollar or two, not a per-show charge of a dollar or two.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you said except this. Early on Apple offered al-a-carte for RENT but they dropped it because they claimed that most wanted to purchase. My problem with the RENT was the price. It was only $1 less then purchase. The Purchase Price for each HD Episode is $2.99 and the rental for that was $1.99. I believe if they offered the RENTAL at .99 per episode the it would be very successful. So a season pass would cost $12 for 12 episodes. Now 12 episodes is $36. My point is that Apple's best cut was with the Rental not the Purchase of TV Series.

----------

I did not subscribe but I did do a test. Apparently you can watch some of the episodes without the subscription. I was able to watch a older episode of Stalker and was able to Airplay it along with FF the commercials. The only problem with FF is you could not see the show flash by so hard to see the end of the commercial. Anyway, if this is the way it will work on the AppleTV (FF Enabled) then it would allow me to drop the use the DVR for CBS. This would be worth $6 per month for me. However, it would be nice if the FF allowed you to see the commercial going by.

By goal is to reduce my hardware cost. The only (main) reason for the DVR is so I can FF Commercials. If they allow that then I would not need the DVR at least for CBS which is by far the most shows I DVR. If only Hulu allowed this I would probably be able to go 90% AppleTV. However, would need some live TV for the News Channels.

Can anyone else confirm the FF with a full Subscription.

Lastly, I was getting some streaming buffer issues but hoping that is just initial startup pains.
 
d21mike said:
I agree with most of what you said except this. Early on Apple offered al-a-carte for RENT but they dropped it because they claimed that most wanted to purchase. My problem with the RENT was the price. It was only $1 less then purchase. The Purchase Price for each HD Episode is $2.99 and the rental for that was $1.99. I believe if they offered the RENTAL at .99 per episode the it would be very successful. So a season pass would cost $12 for 12 episodes. Now 12 episodes is $36. My point is that Apple's best cut was with the Rental not the Purchase of TV Series.

----------

I did not subscribe but I did do a test. Apparently you can watch some of the episodes without the subscription. I was able to watch a older episode of Stalker and was able to Airplay it along with FF the commercials. The only problem with FF is you could not see the show flash by so hard to see the end of the commercial. Anyway, if this is the way it will work on the AppleTV (FF Enabled) then it would allow me to drop the use the DVR for CBS. This would be worth $6 per month for me. However, it would be nice if the FF allowed you to see the commercial going by.

By goal is to reduce my hardware cost. The only (main) reason for the DVR is so I can FF Commercials. If they allow that then I would not need the DVR at least for CBS which is by far the most shows I DVR. If only Hulu allowed this I would probably be able to go 90% AppleTV. However, would need some live TV for the News Channels.

Can anyone else confirm the FF with a full Subscription.

Lastly, I was getting some streaming buffer issues but hoping that is just initial startup pains.
Click to expand...

What is it with people and their hatred for commercials?? They do help pay for the content you love. Network can afford shows because they can tell companies that at a given hour 10 million people's eyes will be watching their channel.
 
2010mini said:
What is it with people and their hatred for commercials?? They do help pay for the content you love. Network can afford shows because they can tell companies that at a given hour 10 million people's eyes will be watching their channel.
Click to expand...

I would happily pay rather than watch the mindless drivel that are commercials on television today. I certainly will not pay (under any circumstances) to watch them. Quite personally, I think that unsolicited commercial advertisements are a drag on modern society, and I avoid them whenever possible. If I could pay rather than see them - in any and every context - I would gladly do so.

A.

When I was 18, I spent a summer away from home. When I came back in the fall I turned on the the television to watch for the first time in 3 months. I lasted about 15 minutes and when the first commercial came on I turned it off, thinking "how can people watch this garbage". I have not watched television since.
 
2010mini said:
What is it with people and their hatred for commercials?? They do help pay for the content you love. Network can afford shows because they can tell companies that at a given hour 10 million people's eyes will be watching their channel.
Click to expand...
That is a crazy response. What is your hatred for people who would rather pay for content then get it free with advertising. Many internet company's offer a free service with advertising or for a fee you can get it without advertising. MSN is a good example. I prefer while doing my email not to have 25% of my screen filled with advertising. Also, if I watch a 1 hour TV show there are 20 minutes of commercials. That reduces the number of shows I can watch in an evening. I love TV and simply do not have the time for that much commercials.
 
2010mini said:
What is it with people and their hatred for commercials?? They do help pay for the content you love. Network can afford shows because they can tell companies that at a given hour 10 million people's eyes will be watching their channel.
Click to expand...
lol

Internet- Adblock
Phone- Adblock
TV- DVR
Radio- Change the channel 😛

I don't do ads.
1254172884282.jpg
 
d21mike said:
That is a crazy response. What is your hatred for people who would rather pay for content then get it free with advertising. Many internet company's offer a free service with advertising or for a fee you can get it without advertising. MSN is a good example. I prefer while doing my email not to have 25% of my screen filled with advertising. Also, if I watch a 1 hour TV show there are 20 minutes of commercials. That reduces the number of shows I can watch in an evening. I love TV and simply do not have the time for that much commercials.
Click to expand...

Hatred??? Way? Where did you get hate in my statement???

And everyone right now has access to content free of commercials. Amazon and Apple right now can fill this need.
 
2010mini said:
Hatred??? Way? Where did you get hate in my statement???

And everyone right now has access to content free of commercials. Amazon and Apple right now can fill this need.
Click to expand...

You introduced the word "hatred". I was just following your lead. Why use the word "hatred" just because we prefer to spend our time doing something other then watching commercials. Based on my prior post 20 minutes out of every tv hour is commercials. That is 1/3 of your tv watching time. If you average 4 hours per night of tv watching you are spending 80 minutes watching commercials. Does it make sense to you that some of us do not have time to watch 80 minutes of commercials. Maybe you do but that is your preference not ours.

Regarding TV Free of commercials at a price. Amazon and Apple do offer you the opportunity to BUY the shows that you normally only watch once with commercials. If they offered a rental option that was available in the past then I would agree with your argument.

What is it with people and their hatred for commercials??
 
d21mike said:
You introduced the word "hatred". I was just following your lead. Why use the word "hatred" just because we prefer to spend our time doing something other then watching commercials. Based on my prior post 20 minutes out of every tv hour is commercials. That is 1/3 of your tv watching time. If you average 4 hours per night of tv watching you are spending 80 minutes watching commercials. Does it make sense to you that some of us do not have time to watch 80 minutes of commercials. Maybe you do but that is your preference not ours.

Regarding TV Free of commercials at a price. Amazon and Apple do offer you the opportunity to BUY the shows that you normally only watch once with commercials. If they offered a rental option that was available in the past then I would agree with your argument.

What is it with people and their hatred for commercials??
Click to expand...

My query was about the disdain for commercials that go a long way to pay for the content they want to watch. The reality is it would cost you a hell of a lot more than Apple currently does if commercials were not covering the lion's share of the costs
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
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.
Click to expand...
You work for cable company? 😛

A la carte pricing is never meant to be cheaper if you have the same number of crap channels. The saving comes from picking only handful of channels not dozens or hundreds.

With your HBO monthly fee being upward of $30 per month, all five subscribers won't have the high Internet traffic penalties as they're way too small to be id'ed.
 
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about having the same number of "crap channels". My math is based on getting in the other guys shoes. From their perspective ("their" being all of the players that aren't us consumers in the chain), their goal in embracing any "new model" change will be to make MORE- not less- money. They have no incentive to change the system and cut their (revenue) throats.

So, assuming al-a-carte arrives, the suggestion is that al-a-carte pricing will be modeled to support the (make) MORE money goal. That doesn't happen by- say- having a channel like HBO bundled in the "as is" model at $15/month and then offering it unbundled in the "al-a-carte" model at $15/month (or $8/month or $1/month).

If we imagine that in al-a-carte world, we would all want our favorite 10 channels then those 10 channels at al-a-carte pricing should likely equal what we pay now for those same 10 with the 190 channels "we" never watch PLUS the markup to let Apple in as new middleman PLUS the markup to deliver the "more" in MORE money.

Otherwise, if the end result of al-a-carte is that we all go from paying $100/month (on average) to say $5-$10/month, the whole thing will implode. You can't strip 80%-95% of the revenues out of any model and expect that business to keep right on cranking out the goods. I'd like to buy that new retina iMac not for the $2499 Apple wants but for $249 or $125. I'd like to buy that new 128GB iPhone 6+ off contract, not for about $1000 but for about $100 or $50. That doesn't work for Apple and it wouldn't work for the whole entertainment industry either.

As I've said many times before, I LOVE the dream as much as the next guy but it falls apart as soon as we step beyond our own self interest. Why do the Studios want to take a huge hit to their revenues? How can they? Why do the cable companies allow an Apple to take their cableTV revenues when an Apple replacement entirely depends on the very same "broadband" pipe owned by that cable company? And on and on. The other players change if they see a way to make MORE money. Apple wants to pile on top and take their cut too. How do the other players make MORE money if the source of all of the money- us- get to pay a tiny fraction of what we pay now?

It get's better. A number of "us" want the new model to be commercial-free too. Yet commercials (most of which "we" never see because they run on those 190 channels "we" never watch) throw about $54/month per household into the model on top of what we consumers pay. That's OTHER PEOPLE (the commercial buyers) throwing that subsidy into the "as is" which helps reduce the cost "we" pay. Kill the subsidy and that revenue also needs to be made up from somewhere. Those dreaming of a $5, $10 or $2X/month bill don't even cover HALF of just what the subsidy revenue thrown into the current model from somebody else's wallet.

I don't work for the cable company or the industry. But I can think through dreams by asking simple business questions like "why would the various players do this?" and "what's in this change for each of them?" The dream as most often stated only looks great from our (us consumers) point-of-view. Up to everybody else in the chain would have to take a HUGE loss of revenues to support the big discount we all covet. While it's very easy for us to love the benefit for us, why does any of the other players want to do it? Answer that question in a "MORE money" way and then the dream gains some legs.
 
Last edited:
2010mini said:
The reality is it would cost you a hell of a lot more than Apple currently does if commercials were not covering the lion's share of the costs
Click to expand...

I think the reality is that we all pay for those commercials in the form of higher prices for products. I suggest that the world would be better off if they just went away and we paid for what we wanted directly. It is true that people in marketing would have to do something other than try to convince people to buy what they do not need at prices that they cannot afford.

A.
 
Alrescha said:
I think the reality is that we all pay for those commercials in the form of higher prices for products. I suggest that the world would be better off if they just went away and we paid for what we wanted directly. It is true that people in marketing would have to do something other than try to convince people to buy what they do not need at prices that they cannot afford.


A.
Click to expand...

And in your utopia there would be less channels and most of the content you want would no longer be able to produced. As the only way to do so would cost a crap tonne of money.

Like watching scandal?? With no more ads to foot the costs, how would you like paying $10-$30 PER episode to make up the difference???

I have seen hundreds of commercials and print ads thought my lifetime. NONE have ever influenced me to buy things I can't afford.
 
Alrescha said:
I think the reality is that we all pay for those commercials in the form of higher prices for products. I suggest that the world would be better off if they just went away and we paid for what we wanted directly. It is true that people in marketing would have to do something other than try to convince people to buy what they do not need at prices that they cannot afford.

A.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the current marketing approach of shouting in your face to try to get you to buy something that you don't even want is really outdated. It is such a waste of time and money. In the future, commercials will be more targeted for things each person would actually consider buying not making you watch a commercial for vaginal cream or erectile disfunction. But for some people I guess these types of commercials have entertainment value.
 
2010mini said:
My query was about the disdain for commercials that go a long way to pay for the content they want to watch. The reality is it would cost you a hell of a lot more than Apple currently does if commercials were not covering the lion's share of the costs
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the commercials are subsidizing the cost Apple is charging you to buy the episodes? I feel the commercials subsidizes the FREE OTA not the Apple Purchase. The CABLE companies also pay the networks a lot of money for the right to re-transmit.

As a comparison, Netflix charges $8 (now $9 for new) for their entire catalog including the hugely successful House of Cards, Orange is the New Black and more. All without commercials. They can do this because they have 50 million people paying that monthly fee. HBO is also doing that with all of their content including original programming all without commercials but with a higher monthly fee. I assume because the movies are more current then Netflix. My point is the more people subscribe the more money available to pay for good content. For me Commercials takes a lot away from my enjoyment and their should be a reasonable price available to be able to get network should without commercials. And I do not what to BUY the season through Apple or Amazon.

Remember this all started with CBS wanting to charge $6 per month and also include commercials. I said it appears you can also FF through the commercials but I was not sure and ask others if they have found out that to be true.

Also, you may not be familiar with DISK Hopper where you can skip commercials but I think only after 7 days from air (I think). Again, more options to SKIP Commercials.

I just do not understand why you are against this option being available. I would think that having millions of people paying a monthly fee would provide more money to the networks to provide even better and more content.
 
2010mini said:
Like watching scandal?? With no more ads to foot the costs, how would you like paying $10-$30 PER episode to make up the difference???
Click to expand...

Did you miss my point, or just ignore it? We *already* pay, it is just a hidden cost in everything we buy. If people paid for what they actually wanted instead of having to pay for everything, the crap would not get produced and the average quality of programming might go up. The net cost could actually go down without that extra layer of marketing engine in the way.

I vote with my wallet. Netflix, yes. Hulu, no. HBO, yes. CBS, apparently no.

A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back