Premium Channel 'Showtime Anytime' Comes to Apple TV

[TheRealTVGuy]

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.

Problem is, it is that one cable company who has spent many thousands of dollars to install the copper and fiber into the ground. If there was a way that competitors could use the physical resources and just lease those resources from the entity that installed and maintained them, then there would be more options.

Of course, if it's the cable companies and they're forced to lease out their lines, then they'll just charge a large amount and maintain their profit margins that way...

 

[alent1234]

Problem is, it is that one cable company who has spent many thousands of dollars to install the copper and fiber into the ground. If there was a way that competitors could use the physical resources and just lease those resources from the entity that installed and maintained them, then there would be more options.

Of course, if its the cable companies and their forced to lease out their lines, then they'll just charge a large amount and maintain their profit margins that way...

didn't work with phone wires
the small companies that resold verizon wires weren't that much cheaper and most went out of business

 

[El Hikaru]

I wonder, if you have cable subscription, why don't you just watch TV?

 

[d21mike]

I wonder, if you have cable subscription, why don't you just watch TV?

Mainly because no cable box on every TV. They cost about $10 per month. If you have 10 TV's then that is $100 per month just for the boxes. I have a 5 bedroom house with TV's, plus all of the other rooms. Also, a hassle to switch back and forth from ATV (with Netflix and other shows) to the CABLE TV Box. Would be nice if ATV had a HDMI Passthru like other solution so solve that problem.

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

I wonder, if you have cable subscription, why don't you just watch TV?

Which is one of the arguments people make about whether or not to purchase an AppleTV. If you do subscribe though you'll have access to those channels on your AppleTV if you travel and use it at hotels, friend's houses, etc., as well as on your laptop or tablet while you're waiting on a bus or sitting on an airplane.

Now, with cable providers switching to all-digital delivery and leasing out small nodes for each additional TV in your home, you can forgo those smaller boxes and have one TV as your "Live" TV and use AppleTVs to provide content for the other screens in your home.

 

[TsMkLg068426]

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.

You are kidding yourself no cable company or network is going to offer each channel for 5 cents please lay off whatever you are taking because you are not thinking clearly.

 

[BaldiMac]

You are kidding yourself no cable company or network is going to offer each channel for 5 cents please lay off whatever you are taking because you are not thinking clearly.

I don't think you read his post very closely.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

Do you look through these threads? The very first one I responded to in THIS thread was a guy wanting an al-a-carte subscription to HBO for $9.99/month (and even he acknowledged how unlikely that was himself). Most of these threads tend to have people pitching revised monthly subscriptions via al-a-carte under $20 per month. Some talk about going as high as $29. I just about never see anyone talking about a "new model" and throwing out a rate above that.

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.

Again, look through these kinds of threads. I don't see many "realists" when they offer up what they want to pay. I don't see people expecting to pay more than $29 in some "new model".

Broadband competition.

From who? I'm lucky enough to live somewhere with 2 choices for broadband. Both are in the cableTV business too. Pick your poison.

If you have tangible insights into all of this, please point me to cheaper broadband alternatives. I'm very interested. I even shared my current number at $48/month. Where can I get cheaper broadband competition?

If you are aware of other threads on this topic here with lots of posts by "realists" where they post about spending a lot more than $29/month for this "al-a-carte" alternative, please point me to them, because I've completely missed them every time this topic comes up (for years now).

 

[d21mike]

Apple would not get 30% of HBO Go

Why does everyone assume that Apple would get 30% of HBO Go Subscription if they offered it. Or even ESPN os Showtime. Or other content that may come along. Apple gets 30% in the App Model because the App is purchased from the App Store or any in-app purchases. Remember the problem with magazine subscriptions where you had to purchase the subscription from the magazine wed site to avoid paying the 30%.

As we all know Apple does not get 30% of Netflix and Hulu Plus if you purchase the subscription on those sites. Right? So why are you appling a 30% hit on any of the a-la-cart models?

 

[TsMkLg068426]

I don't think you read his post very closely.

I want to pay $5/month to get my favorite 10 channels.

That one is a laughable he is expecting to pay $5 month to get his favorite channel and I can assume it would be HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and Starz if he really thinks that they are going to offer premium channels for only $5 than he is crazy.


Next he will tell me those channels should be available free on OTA, the only channels should cost only $5 are OTA channels on cable no one will ever offer those big networks that cheap.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You didn't read my post closely.

I've posted about 7 times in this thread painting a very different picture. That should tell you something about that one post.

 

[Robin4]

I'm never going back either. Not willing to be held hostage to cable whims.

I'll be grateful to the person or company that figures out how to break out of this chokehold.

 

[BaldiMac]

Do you look through these threads? The very first one I responded to in THIS thread was a guy wanting an al-a-carte subscription to HBO for $9.99/month. Most of these threads tend to have people pitching revised monthly subscriptions via al-a-carte under $20 per month. Some talk about going as high as $29. I just about never see anyone talking about a "new model" and throwing out a rate above that.

One guy at 9.99 is not the same as most guys at 50 cents.

Again, look through these kinds of threads. I don't see many "realists" when they offer up what they want to pay. I don't see people expecting to pay more than $29 in some "new model".

Probably because you ignore the "realists" in favor of the extreme numbers that are easier to refute. I certainly would expect to pay more than $29.

From who? I'm lucky enough to live somewhere with 2 choices for broadband. Both are in the cableTV business too. Pick your poison.

Once again, we have to repeat the same discussion. You really want my argument to be more extreme than it is!

I've said that an increase in broadband competition and a commitment to net neutrality are important steps to making an a la carte model viable.

 

[2010mini]

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.

----------



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 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.



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.

It's just funny to me that people actually think they pay the exact costs for TV.

What they don't realize is ala carte already exists......
Go on iTunes and purchase just the content you want. Of course the costs of this would make even the most ardent cord cutter run back to cable.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's just funny to me that people actually think they pay the exact costs for TV.

What they don't realize is ala carte already exists......
Go on iTunes and purchase just the content you want. Of course the costs of this would make even the most ardent cord cutter run back to cable.

Weird. I did this for a while and saved significant amounts of money. I only ran back to cable for live sports (after an increase in income .) Again, the only people that are going to save money on a la carte are people who want access to significantly less content.

(Shockingly, these are probably the biggest proponents of the a la carte model.)

 

[d21mike]

It's just funny to me that people actually think they pay the exact costs for TV.

What they don't realize is ala carte already exists......
Go on iTunes and purchase just the content you want. Of course the costs of this would make even the most ardent cord cutter run back to cable.

Clearly this is NOT the al a carte model most people want. iTunes was closer to it when they offered that same thing for RENT and not PURCHASE ONLY as the case now. In the past a single episode was $1 less then the purchase price. Example: HD is now $2.99 per episode and in the past it was $1.99 per HD Episode. The SD was $1 less then that. Also, there are no commercials within the iTunes offering where most network tv has commercials. With commercials iTunes Retails could be much cheaper.

Anyway, I believe in the bundled approach. I just think there should much more bundles to choose from and from who.

I think Hulu Plus is pretty close (as a start) if they could get CBS on board and maybe others and also offer a PREMIUM NO Commercial Price.

Bundles should start with the FREE OTA Network Channels in HD. It could be priced with or without commercials. After you could subscribe to Premium Movie Channels and Sports etc. And Sports could be broke out my Sport as well. I enjoy golf but not football or baseball. Why should I pay for the really expensive football when I do not watch it.

 

[sandler77]

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

Exactly... Live sports are the only reason why I still have DirecTV at all. Take out the option for that and I can see any show after the fact on any app or any device. I would be fine with that, and I would pay each provider the minor fee for access. It would save me $$$ each month, and also make me feel better about paying for hundreds of channels I don't watch, dozens of "music channels" I don't listen to and all the other things that come along with a satellite/cable provider...

 

[pubius]

Any of you that think a-la-carte won't happen are delusional. The industry changes. The music industry was rewritten and so will tv. Granted, I understand the hurdles are greater as the cable companies own the access (as ISPs).

But that power will shift, or it will be bought up by other companies… or they will be forced to comply.

I think that there are a lot of people that are stealing HBO Go that would actually pay for it if it were offered a-la-carte at a decent rate (don't underestimate those numbers). As the next generation enters it's 30s and starts renting apt's and living alone, they will demand this. They are more tech savvy, more accustomed to this model, and will steal it all otherwise.

Things change. Industries change. This will be no different. It will be a bigger animal to shift the current model as the cable/isps will grab anything as they fall. But we already see it happening. House of Cards is just the beginning. The power is shifting. The world hates (really hates) the cable/isp's right now and loves the streaming providers (except those that don't subscribe to the a-la-carte model). Demand will prevail. It's just gonna take a while.

 

[perealb]

or "hobby" level interest or disinterest

It doesn't make sense. It's already making money and an ATV store would make a lot more.

 

[2010mini]

Problem is, it is that one cable company who has spent many thousands of dollars to install the copper and fiber into the ground. If there was a way that competitors could use the physical resources and just lease those resources from the entity that installed and maintained them, then there would be more options.

Of course, if it's the cable companies and they're forced to lease out their lines, then they'll just charge a large amount and maintain their profit margins that way...

I say break up the cable companies into a seperate broadband and traditional cable company in markets where there is no competition.

That way the two can compete. One offering TV via cable, the other via Ethernet.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It doesn't make sense. It's already making money and an ATV store would make a lot more.

I was half joking.

I'm all for an app store. Should have had one years ago (IMO). If Apple wants to treat it like a hobby, let the third parties see what they can do with it.

 

[mattopotamus]

About damn time.

 

[mattopotamus]

Any of you that think a-la-carte won't happen are delusional. The industry changes. The music industry was rewritten and so will tv. Granted, I understand the hurdles are greater as the cable companies own the access (as ISPs).

But that power will shift, or it will be bought up by other companies… or they will be forced to comply.

I think that there are a lot of people that are stealing HBO Go that would actually pay for it if it were offered a-la-carte at a decent rate (don't underestimate those numbers). As the next generation enters it's 30s and starts renting apt's and living alone, they will demand this. They are more tech savvy, more accustomed to this model, and will steal it all otherwise.

Things change. Industries change. This will be no different. It will be a bigger animal to shift the current model as the cable/isps will grab anything as they fall. But we already see it happening. House of Cards is just the beginning. The power is shifting. The world hates (really hates) the cable/isp's right now and loves the streaming providers (except those that don't subscribe to the a-la-carte model). Demand will prevail. It's just gonna take a while.

If you watch more than 4 or 5 channels a-la-carte will cost more. HBO alone would want $8+

 

[Tech198]

How can this be available to *all users* if its limited to cable companies ?

That's a oxy-moron.

What it may have meant to say is "available to all users in the U.S"

And i bet the free ones are nothing special either. All he good stuff is via cable companies.

 

[El Hikaru]

Mainly because no cable box on every TV. They cost about $10 per month. If you have 10 TV's then that is $100 per month just for the boxes. I have a 5 bedroom house with TV's, plus all of the other rooms. Also, a hassle to switch back and forth from ATV (with Netflix and other shows) to the CABLE TV Box. Would be nice if ATV had a HDMI Passthru like other solution so solve that problem.

Really.
I skipped cable TV and did not know watching TV cost that much.
Antenna to just let tv talk, and Netflix & iTunes are just fine for my life.