Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Good luck with that. There is almost no scenario where an al-a-carte HBO or similar will be had for $9.99/month. I could see something like maybe $49.99/month or maybe $79 but not about the same rate it can be had with the rest of a current model cable subscription. The economics just don't favor the concept.

I'm not sure whose numbers are more ridiculous in this discussion.

HBO is currently $16-17 bucks a month with a cable subscription. HBO gets half of that. Obviously, that price wouldn't decrease a la carte. But the idea that HBO would need to make 4x-6x the revenue to make a la carte worthwhile is just silly.
 
In the short-term I think the tangible benefit of these additions to :apple:TV might come down to feeding TVs in other rooms without having to rent a cable/satt descrambling box. It seems each box tends to have a $5-$15/month lease so if one can get what they want to watch via these "apps" through an :apple:TV at a one-time cost of about $75 (refurbished), they actually come out vs. the second box lease after about 7-10 months or so. This play is like buying the broadband modem for about $75 instead of leasing the same modem from the cable company for $7 or so each month. After X number of months, laying out the purchase price up front starts working better than leasing forever.
 
Last edited:
It is a shame that HBO and Showtime don't go alacarte. The post above (#8) is a great read, but I still hope it will happen one day. I would subscribe to the Showtime Anytime app just to watch Homeland...
It will happen someday. But only after the current business model has been run into the ground and run over repeatedly by piracy .... piracy caused by viewer frustration with a business model that defies customer demands.
 
Not my experience. I'm always checking out new channel apps on iOS and Android when they post and the only one I saw that works is Cartoon Network and CNN I think. Almost every other app I've checked out never has DTV listed.

Then maybe your viewing is slimmer than mine.

Apps that work for DTV subs off the top of my head:

All Time-Warner channels (the Turners, HBO, etc)
Showtime
Starz
The NBC cable channels
Viacom channels (Comedy Central -- actually doesn't require login, MTV, TVLand)
Fox channels (FX, FoxNews, Biz, etc.

Theres a whole bunch on the DTV app as well. So again, I'm curious as to which ones you pay other than ESPN which the apps block your access.
 
I'm not sure whose numbers are more ridiculous in this discussion.

HBO is currently $16-17 bucks a month with a cable subscription. HBO gets half of that. Obviously, that price wouldn't decrease a la carte. But the idea that HBO would need to make 4x-6x the revenue to make a la carte worthwhile is just silly.

Sure. $49 times 30% for Apple off the top = $34.30, about 2X your $16-$17 number. What HBO nets is somewhat irrelevant as Cable will make up for their cut being taken by an Apple with broadband hikes. So, we could leave out Cable's share in the pricing of HBO but then inject it in higher broadband but the net result of how our pockets are hit is the same.

Al-a-carte would prune the casual watcher getting a subscription within a bundle of the rest of their cable/satt package ("Subscribe to our super-ultimate package and get 3 months of HBO for free" where it's not really free but is paid for by the company selling new subscribers to take on the super-ultimate package). That would have a revenue cost to HBO. Total subscriber count would probably go down unless the masses would want to pay up for HBO when they are freed from having to also buy 180 other channels "I" never watch. However, those people would also be facing higher al-a-carte costs for many other more popular channels. For instance, I would expect an al-a-carte ESPN to probably be priced at about $25/month.

The point is that an al-a-carte replacement will need to flow through MORE money (in total)- not less- than the current model to get everyone on board and pay Apple it's cut. If "we" currently average about $75/month for the 10 channels "I" want and the 190 channels "I" never watch, I would expect the al-a-carte price modeling to make the 10 channels "I" want to tally about $100/month or more. Therein lies the "more money" that motivates the change.

That doesn't seem to make economical sense from our consumer point of view but figure out how the other players all grow their revenues in any new model with Apple piling in on top (and taking a cut) and the Cable company owning the pipe that an Apple replacement needs. Do the Studios cut the staff involved in production and the quality of programming to YouTube levels to make their costs fit our huge (desired) discounts? Else, show the math for how we consumers pay a fraction of what we pay now and still get everything "we" want.
 
Last edited:
I'm beginning to think that most of these channels that keep getting added are a "test run" so to speak to see how many people actually use their apps/channels. Once they confirm the high usage, the networks will finally be all in with subscription based streaming. Interested to see how all this pans out in the next few years when the Apple TV gets refreshed.
 
Sure. $49 times 30% for Apple off the top = $34.30, about 2X your $16-$17 number.

Stop right there. Why did you take off Apple's theoretical cut but not the cable companies' actual larger cut?

What HBO nets is somewhat irrelevant as Cable will make up for their cut being taken by an Apple with broadband hikes. So, we could leave out Cable's share in the pricing of HBO but then inject it in higher broadband but the net result of how our pockets are hit is the same.

Ah. Flim flam. Moving goalposts. What does a theoretical broadband price hike have to do with calculating HBOs revenue?

Again, HBO doesn't need 4x-6x revenue to make a la carte viable. In fact, the 40% increase in revenue by keeping the same price and moving from a 50-50 to a 70-30 split is quite significant.
 
Man.... You are just an ala carte dream killer.

Sorry, I love the idea of the dream. The math just doesn't work as "we" (consumers) want it to work. If "we" all were willing to pay more to get al-a-carte, the other players would have probably long-since delivered it. But "we"- the source of the money that fuels the whole model- want a big discount AND al-a-carte… and that's the problem.

How I get close to the al-a-carte dream is working with the established model. Many digital cable/satt boxes have an option to put favorite channels in a group. So my "15 channels I want to watch" can be my "favorites", hiding the other "185 channels I never watch". Visibly, this is an al-a-carte model where I see only the channels I want to see. Invisibly, there are still 185 other channels running commercials I'll never see to help pay for the overall model with other people's (subsidy) money.

To try to make it as economical as possible involves hopping from introductory offer to introductory offer as soon as contractually possible, working with the retention department just before defecting to see if the current provider wants to cut a deal to try to keep me.

For my situation, the current mix of "cord cutting" options doesn't work, mostly because I like sports programming and I want higher quality HD than many streaming sources will provide. Netflux, Hulu, etc is all fine but they don't cover all bases well enough yet for my wants. And- especially for sports programming- I think for them to eventually get there means big hikes in the monthly rates (as these "TV deals" tends to be important parts of holding up the whole pro sports revenue models).

So, again, love the concept. I just see the holes, that can't seem to be filled by the source of all of the revenue getting a fat discount. If I was any of the other players, I wouldn't want to take a big hit for that. And we all know Apple will want a nice big cut right off the top too.

----------

Stop right there. Why did you take off Apple's theoretical cut but not the cable companies' actual larger cut?

Because the cable company is going to get there's either way. If an Apple could eject them from the cableTV business, an Apple's solution entirely depends on the cable companies broadband pipes. Why are they going to roll over and not make up for those losses when they own those pipes?

Ah. Flim flam. Moving goalposts. What does a theoretical broadband price hike have to do with calculating HBOs revenue?

Ah, Flim Flam counter. I left the "theoretical broadband price" increase out of the prior post to keep the math behind the point simpler. Either way, I assume HBO gets paid what it wants to get paid (which will include taking the perceived risk of shifting to a new model). That can be at my guesses of $49/month or your guess whatever it is. However, I also expect the cable company to lose nothing on such a transition. So build it into the average price estimates per channel or build it into a broadband price increase.

Again, HBO doesn't need 4x-6x revenue to make a la carte viable. In fact, the 40% increase in revenue by keeping the same price and moving from a 50-50 to a 70-30 split is quite significant.

If all of the subscribers stay. If all of the subsidized subscribers are still subsidized by "HBO free offers with this package upgrade". Etc.

You believe what you want. I see NO scenario where the consumer masses can get the dream of al-a-carte for significant discounts to what we throw into the "as is" model. If you do, great. I'll hope the model you envision can be realized and then I'll enjoy the big discount to get everything I want.
 
These flaws still exist with TVs. The signal has to go to analog to support by 30 year old TV, even if it comes into my house and into the cable box as digital. So I can easily record TV without assistance from the cable company, IE, by using an EyeTV, and give myself the ability to rewind and record live TV, without paying extra for it.

Further, I can upload TV to pirate websites and it can be downloaded from there. Heck, it happens all the time.

The reason why this doesn't happen is because non-tech savvy individuals (most people) don't realize that you can totally pirate video, just as easily as you can pirate audio. If everybody was doing it, the cable companies would be powerless to stop it (what are you going to do - sue your entire customer base? A reverse class action lawsuit, hah.) They don't realize it because there hasn't been anything like Napster for TV, which comes in and makes a huge splash, is wildly popular before being noticed by executives/lawyers, and demonstrates that you can pirate TV.

Once the average person figures out they can pirate TV, that will be the undoing of the current model. Because enough people will begin pirating to make it unfeasible to sue them all. They'll have to have a savior like iTunes or Spotify which makes it easier to legally obtain media (and at reasonably prices) than to illegally obtain it.

Actually, there is a bigger reason 'the average person' (in America) doesn't cut the cord and force an a la carte solution. It's four letters long....


Give up?....


E-S-P-N
 
What's the benefit of that? Have HBO on other TV? I already pay for cable tv, and have ATV, conected to the same TV as my cable box :(

Because I can "borrow" "his" AppleTV. How do you think I can say for sure that it works?
;)

----------

... So even if it was a substitution play- kick out a Comcast or Time Warner to insert an Apple- the former still owns the pipe and will make up for TV subscription losses with higher broadband rates "for heavier users".

Exactly. That's the other issue I'm seeing in several different markets. The cost of "basic" internet, 30/down 1.5 or so/up, is increasing. One way or another, they're going to get every dollar they can.
 
Because I can "borrow" "his" AppleTV. How do you think I can say for sure that it works?
;)

----------



Exactly. That's the other issue I'm seeing in several different markets. The cost of "basic" internet, 30/down 1.5 or so/up, is increasing. One way or another, they're going to get every dollar they can.

It's a ways out there for everyone but the answer to this issue is Google Fiber. Or (and I'm dreaming here) Apple (or Amazon?) decide the only option for solid content delivery is to build their own networks.
 
Still no UK catchup channels like BBC iPlayer or itv Player. Really don't understand that. I've got the apps on my iPhone so why they're still not on the AppleTV is a mystery to me.

----------

Actually, there is a bigger reason 'the average person' (in America) doesn't cut the cord and force an a la carte solution. It's four letters long....

Give up?....

E-S-P-N

It's the same in the UK and the cable companies know that which is why they pay so much for sports broadcast rights. Most of the people I know with cable in the UK only do so to get Sky Sports.
 
It's a ways out there for everyone but the answer to this issue is Google Fiber. Or (and I'm dreaming here) Apple (or Amazon?) decide the only option for solid content delivery is to build their own networks.

Competition that connects us to iCloud would be a HUGE piece of strengthening the idea of the dream. In fact, I consider Cable's lock on broadband to be the single biggest hole in the dream as it is often spun by us dreamers.

However, installing broadband networks- especially wired/fiber broadband is a very expensive proposition that would take a VERY long time to do throughout the country (which should not be read as me discouraging players like Google, Apple, Amazon and others from doing so). Such a big infrastructure investment begs for a solid ROI, which is probably not realized by selling more :apple:TVs but through a monthly broadband rate. As is, my broadband rate is about $48/month right now from the "greedy" cable company. Where Google has installed it's new competitive network, the broadband rate is $70/month: https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/ so, if it was available here, it would increase the monthly out-of-pocket rather than cut it for me.

Sure there could be economies of scale if Google fiber was everywhere and there would be real competition if there was a Google pipe vs. a Comcast pipe vs. an Apple pipe vs. Satt pipes all running to our homes. However, the play appears to be a "superior quality of broadband" at a premium price. I have to think Apple would probably go that way too if they decided to lay such pipe.
 
Last edited:
Because the cable company is going to get there's either way. If an Apple could eject them from the cableTV business, an Apple's solution entirely depends on the cable companies broadband pipes. Why are they going to roll over and not make up for those losses when they own those pipes?

Again, that has nothing to do with HBO's revenue.

Ah, Flim Flam counter. I left the "theoretical broadband price" increase out of the prior post to keep the math behind the point simpler. Either way, I assume HBO gets paid what it wants to get paid (which will include taking the perceived risk of shifting to a new model). That can be at my guesses of $49/month or your guess whatever it is. However, I also expect the cable company to lose nothing on such a transition. So build it into the average price estimates per channel or build it into a broadband price increase.

Again, a theoretical broadband price increase has nothing to do with HBOs revenue. It has nothing to do with what HBO would charge for an a la carte service.

If all of the subscribers stay. If all of the subsidized subscribers are still subsidized by "HBO free offers with this package upgrade". Etc.

40% more revenue per customer can make for some significant advertising and promotion. (And that's keeping the same price point.)

You believe what you want. I see NO scenario where the consumer masses can get the dream of al-a-carte for significant discounts to what we throw into the "as is" model. If you do, great. I'll hope the model you envision can be realized and then I'll enjoy the big discount to get everything I want.

We've had this discussion before, I'm not expecting a discount for the same service. I'm expecting to pay less by getting significantly less. I'm expecting to pay more for anything approaching the same level of service that I currently have. Just like a la carte works everywhere else.

If I want a burger, fries and a drink, the combo is the better deal. If I just want the drink, I pay less.
 
Who cares I probably can not access it like HBO GO since I have Charter Communications only place I can access is on my Mac and iPhone another pointless app added, thanks Apple. Maybe they should try to work things out with Amazon to get Amazon Prime.
 
We've had this discussion before, I'm not expecting a discount for the same service. I'm expecting to pay less by getting significantly less. I'm expecting to pay more for anything approaching the same level of service that I currently have. Just like a la carte works everywhere else. If I want a burger, fries and a drink, the combo is the better deal. If I just want the drink, I pay less.

We have had this discussion before and I'll say it again: I prefer your view of al-a-carte. I prefer the dream that "I" could pay less to get less and that "less" would still be everything I want to watch at the same quality it arrives now while still motivating the entrepreneurs to keep funding new pilots so that I'll get to watch the new shows that don't exist yet but that I'll love in the future. I'll want to pay less but still get the live sports programming without a loss of quality there either. I want to pocket all that savings without my broadband bill going up even if the Cable company (who is also my broadband provider) loses all that TV subscription revenue to a replacement from someone like Apple. In fact, I'd like that bill to go down too. Etc.

So I prefer that my perception of al-a-carte would be wrong and that your counterpoint would be right. And I hope that's how it does play out.
 
We have had this discussion before and I'll say it again: I prefer your view of al-a-carte. I prefer the dream that "I" could pay less to get less and that "less" would still be everything I want to watch at the same quality it arrives now while still motivating the entrepreneurs to keep funding new pilots so that I'll get to watch the new shows that don't exist yet but that I'll love in the future. I'll want to pay less but still get the live sports programming without a loss of quality there either. Etc.

So I prefer that my perception of how al-a-carte would be wrong and that your counterpoint would be right. And I hope that's how it does play out.



People who think al-a-carte would be cheaper must be delusional if that ever happens each channel you would like to would probably cost $10 or more and do the math now compared to the price that cable companies offer. Yes most people pay for cable & internet together for $200 or almost $300 but with the package even though some channels are just to stupid to even have is a lot cheaper than al-a-carte would be.


Do not think one second if cable companies ever offer al-a-carte option the price will stay the same the same tactics will be used as they are now. A smarter idea is FCC stop acting like bunch of moronic fools and open up for competition instead of allowing one cable company controlling a huge location.
 
Competition that connects us to iCloud would be a HUGE piece of strengthening the idea of the dream. In fact, I consider Cable's lock on broadband to be the single biggest hole in the dream as it is often spun by us dreamers.

However, installing broadband networks- especially wired/fiber broadband is a very expensive proposition that would take a VERY long time to do throughout the country (which should not be read as me discouraging players like Google, Apple, Amazon and others from doing so). Such a big infrastructure investment begs for a solid ROI, which is probably not realized by selling more :apple:TVs but through a monthly broadband rate. As is, my broadband rate is about $48/month right now from the "greedy" cable company. Where Google has installed it's new competitive network, the broadband rate is $70/month: https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/ so, if it was available here, it would increase the monthly out-of-pocket rather than cut it for me.

Sure there could be economies of scale if Google fiber was everywhere and there would be real competition if there was a Google pipe vs. a Comcast pipe vs. an Apple pipe vs. Satt pipes all running to our homes. However, the play appears to be a "superior quality of broadband" at a premium price. I have to think Apple would probably go that way too if they decided to lay such pipe.

I completely agree with almost everything you have said it would a huge investment, but Google is doing it and I hope it puts the current landline owners on notice in respect to pricing if and when cord-cutting reaches that critical mass.

And by the way, I pay $78 a month for 50/50 on FiOS, so GF would be better for me. I'm not arguing any point, all our situations here are different (which some posters seem to forget a lot of the time) just adding facts....and....maybe just jealous, really. :p
 
I'm not sure whose numbers are more ridiculous in this discussion.

HBO is currently $16-17 bucks a month with a cable subscription. HBO gets half of that. Obviously, that price wouldn't decrease a la carte. But the idea that HBO would need to make 4x-6x the revenue to make a la carte worthwhile is just silly.

is that just for one channel? just curious as i have no idea how the premium tv system works in the US. over here we pay 49€ but that includes every channel you can get
 
is that just for one channel? just curious as i have no idea how the premium tv system works in the US. over here we pay 49€ but that includes every channel you can get

No, it's for all HBO channels. HBO, HBO2, HBO Family, etc. In addition to HBO On Demand and HBO GO.
 
People who think al-a-carte would be cheaper must be delusional if that ever happens each channel you would like to would probably cost $10 or more and do the math now compared to the price that cable companies offer.

Make no mistake. I have no such confusion. I recognize the math that most people apply when they have the al-a-carte dream:

I pay $100/month for about 200 channels.
$100/200 = 50 cents per channel.
I only like about 10 channels.
In al-a-carte, I want to subscribe to just those 10 channels
10 channels times 50 cents each = $5/month
I want to pay $5/month to get my favorite 10 channels.

Cut 85%-95% out of any businesses revenue and that business will crumble. "We" can't get everything "we" want for a huge discount and not have someone else in the chain take a corresponding hit.

The middleman- be that a Comcast or Apple subbing in for Comcast- are still going to get theirs. If the latter, a Comcast still owns the pipe so they'll make up for their TV businesses losses with higher broadband rates. Why wouldn't they?

So who takes the hit if we get a fat discount? The Studios that make the stuff. I don't know how we can expect the same quality of programming from them if they have to eat our desired monthly savings.

So I'm not confused. That last post was me just showing my desire for the dream as much as anyone else. I have zero expectations of that dream coming true but I can still dream it.
 
Not my experience. I'm always checking out new channel apps on iOS and Android when they post and the only one I saw that works is Cartoon Network and CNN I think. Almost every other app I've checked out never has DTV listed.

You should restart the DTV app then all the apps in the "live stream" column will live stream as long as you are using WiFi. They won't work w/ cellular data unfortunately.

The apps listed will work w/ data I use a few of them when out of town. If your experience is that they don't work then you might have older apps or something else, but they do work. If you have specific examples do tell. So far you have not.
 
Make no mistake. I have no such confusion. I recognize the math that most people apply when they have the al-a-carte dream:

I pay $100/month for about 200 channels.
$100/200 = 50 cents per channel.
I only like about 10 channels.
In al-a-carte, I want to subscribe to just those 10 channels
10 channels times 50 cents each = $5/month
I want to pay $5/month to get my favorite 10 channels.

Cut 85%-95% out of any businesses revenue and that business will crumble. "We" can't get everything "we" want for a huge discount and not have someone else in the chain take a corresponding hit.

The middleman- be that a Comcast or Apple subbing in for Comcast- are still going to get theirs. If the latter, a Comcast still owns the pipe so they'll make up for their TV businesses losses with higher broadband rates. Why wouldn't they?

So who takes the hit if we get a fat discount? The Studios that make the stuff. I don't know how we can expect the same quality of programming from them if they have to eat our desired monthly savings.

So I'm not confused. That last post was me just showing my desire for the dream as much as anyone else. I have zero expectations of that dream coming true but I can still dream it.

the cable TV company pays the TV channels around $35 per month of that $100 for those channels. add in the debt service, cost of service, etc and most of the profit is gone. the profits are in internet service now.

if you bought the channels a la carte, each company selling them would have to build out their delivery infrastructure, billing, support, etc and unlikely you will get them for $.50 each
 
Make no mistake. I have no such confusion. I recognize the math that most people apply when they have the al-a-carte dream:

I pay $100/month for about 200 channels.
$100/200 = 50 cents per channel.
I only like about 10 channels.
In al-a-carte, I want to subscribe to just those 10 channels
10 channels times 50 cents each = $5/month
I want to pay $5/month to get my favorite 10 channels.

I certainly understand the difficulties of moving to an a la carte system, but the ridiculous numbers that you make up to support your point just cloud the real issues. There is no evidence that "most people" would expect to pay 50 cents per channel a la carte. That's just cherry picking the extreme arguments.

(Ironically, even at that rate, most channels would make 3x more per subscriber assuming a 70-30 split. The median cost per channel is only 14 cents.)
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-cable-subscribers-pay-per-channel-1626/

Of course, the business model for the less popular channels will need to be revised when they are no longer subsidized by the popular ones.

Cut 85%-95% out of any businesses revenue and that business will crumble. "We" can't get everything "we" want for a huge discount and not have someone else in the chain take a corresponding hit.

As we've discussed before, we aren't talking about a single business. And nobody is talking about cutting 85%-95% of the revenue. That's just you making up extreme numbers to support your point again.

The middleman- be that a Comcast or Apple subbing in for Comcast- are still going to get theirs. If the latter, a Comcast still owns the pipe so they'll make up for their TV businesses losses with higher broadband rates. Why wouldn't they?

Broadband competition.

So who takes the hit if we get a fat discount? The Studios that make the stuff. I don't know how we can expect the same quality of programming from them if they have to eat our desired monthly savings.

Again, "the Studios" isn't one business. More popular studios will make more money. Less popular studios will make less money.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.