Showtime's Standalone Streaming Service Set to Premiere on Apple TV [Updated]

[drewyboy]

I know it might sound crazy to some of you, but there are people that currently pay $0 for cable. So for those people, including me, I might just want HBO. That's it. Maybe it's because they have GoT and that's the only main reason.

It "looks" more expensive to people who have cable because you want so many different shows on cable. I mean, I hardly have time as it is to follow 2 OAT shows with my occasional Netflix show here and there. You've grown accustomed to having a billion options, but if you slim it down to a few shows you really like, it's a ton cheaper. But hey, it's your money and time, do with as you please. Remember though, I really don't think anyone expected this type of system to completely replace cable for all.

 

[freediverx]

Exactly. So are HBO and Showtime subscriptions going to be in addition to Apple's skinnied down cable package?

Showtime is crap. For me, Apple TV's free channels (or rather than few that are worth watching such as PBS) combined with HBO and optionally either Hulu or Netflix add up to a perfectly reasonable cord cutting kit. Everything else, including Apple's rumored basic cable package, I would instantly hide/delete from my TV, so the mere thought of paying $40 for them is a joke.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I would guess, yes (on HBO & Showtime (and others) being separate add-ons to Apple's rumored bundle of channels). If Apple can fold them into the package, that would make it much more appealing at $30-$40 per month for those that love HBO & Showtime. BUT, it would also be another variation of "why do I have to pay for HBO & Showtime when I don't even like movies"... which- to some degree- I think we're going to see no matter what bundle of channels Apple chooses to include in their rumored bundle.

 

[FSUSem1noles]

Exactly. So are HBO and Showtime subscriptions going to be in addition to Apple's skinnied down cable package?

I'd imagine so. I can't see how HBO and/or Showtime would be included in Apples package priced between $30 and $40.

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

You make a very solid point on hardware. We are moving, and subsequently HAVE to change media providers. I've done as much research as possible, even looking into using my Synology as a DVR for OTA TV (which is one of the most infuriating rabbit holes I've run down recently).

But basic plans, are basic plans, are basic plans - and the cost is nearly doubles simply by wanting to have that basic package actually displayed on 2 TVs.

Still - the price for connivence - I mean they know how to price stuff.

The cable industry has learned a lot over the years, from their own experience and from the record industry/NAPSTER/iTunes era. That's why they're so leery of deals with Apple. Remember when you would receive one coax line into your home, run it through a distribution amp and then split it to as many sets as possible? They figured out how to lock that down and monetize it so that now you have to buy (or worse, rent) hardware for each screen.

Another point to remember when wishing for $1 per channel pricing is that a song on iTunes more or less has a set cost to produce, promote, etc. Once you've met the cost, all else is profit. For television, those costs are ongoing and a lot more than $1 per month, per subscriber.

I'm all for bundles and their associated costs, but let ME pick the channels.

Ex: Choose 10 channels, no commercials, $50/month. (or something like that)

(I just noticed that my buddies Rogifan and FSUSem1noles are right above me. We regulars have to stick together! ChupaChupa is up there too!)

 

[johnfrombeyond]

HBO was the first crack in the dike, this is the second. I would not want to be investing in cable company monopolies right now.

I don't know of ANYONE who thinks they get good service from the cable monopolies. Any time you move or want to change services, you get the run around and hard sell to upgrade. I spent 6 months and hours on the phone trying to get Comcast to send me a new modem that they told me I needed to upgrade to. (Finally I figured out it was MUCH cheaper to buy my own) Dealings with Comcast are some of my worst customer service memories. Breaking out of their grip is a good, good thing. I would gladly pay the same amount to a variety of companies just so I am not rewarding their terrible customer service.

The cost discussion comes down to whether you (think) you need 300 channels or not. If you want to watch the cake channel and aquarium channel all day long, by all means pay for those channels and get them cheaply on a per-channel basis. If you are like me and just want live TV plus about 5 premium channels, you will actually save lots of money, and aggravation. My cable TV bill was well over $100 without HBO or Showtime, so I would gladly pay piecemeal for 5-7 premium channels that I can turn on and off at will. I also prefer the iTunes billing and Apple TV interface to anything that I've seen from the cable company. And I don't see prices going up 10% every year for this like cable TV bills have always done. (I remember when my cable TV bill was $45 for the same set of channels that I watch now; I guess I have to subsidize all those people watching the cake channel)

Being able to purchase HBO and Showtime without a cable TV subscription is the best thing to happen to home entertainment since color TV was invented, and this is just the beginning.

 

[FSUSem1noles]

HBO was the first crack in the dike, this is the second. I would not want to be investing in cable company monopolies right now.

I don't know of ANYONE who thinks they get good service from the cable monopolies. Any time you move or want to change services, you get the run around and hard sell to upgrade. I spent 6 months and hours on the phone trying to get Comcast to send me a new modem that they told me I needed to upgrade to. (Finally I figured out it was MUCH cheaper to buy my own) Dealings with Comcast are some of my worst customer service memories. Breaking out of their grip is a good, good thing. I would gladly pay the same amount to a variety of companies just so I am not rewarding their terrible customer service.

The cost discussion comes down to whether you (think) you need 300 channels or not. If you want to watch the cake channel and aquarium channel all day long, by all means pay for those channels and get them cheaply on a per-channel basis. If you are like me and just want live TV plus about 5 premium channels, you will actually save lots of money, and aggravation. My cable TV bill was well over $100 without HBO or Showtime, so I would gladly pay piecemeal for 5-7 premium channels that I can turn on and off at will. I also prefer the iTunes billing and Apple TV interface to anything that I've seen from the cable company. And I don't see prices going up 10% every year for this like cable TV bills have always done. (I remember when my cable TV bill was $45 for the same set of channels that I watch now; I guess I have to subsidize all those people watching the cake channel)

Being able to purchase HBO and Showtime without a cable TV subscription is the best thing to happen to home entertainment since color TV was invented, and this is just the beginning.

Let's not forget but there is also the additional savings of not having to pay the monthly charge on the boxes. With AT&T we had 4 boxes. They gave us one free but the other 3 were charged $9.99 a month. At least I own my Apple TV after the initial upfront cost.

 

[Rogifan]

I'd imagine so. I can't see how HBO and/or Showtime would be included in Apples package priced between $30 and $40.

Then I'm struggling to see how whatever Apple is rumored to be offering is better than cable. Right now with DirecTV I can get 120 channels (including local affiliates) for $50. The only thing that could make Apple's service enticing is if you have the ability to watch any channel live on any device wherever you are. Right now with DirecTV only a fraction of their channels are available to watch live on iPad while outside the range of your receiver. If Apple could nail that it would be a huge win.

 

[Rogifan]

Let's not forget but there is also the additional savings of not having to pay the monthly charge on the boxes. With AT&T we had 4 boxes. They gave us one free but the other 3 were charged $9.99 a month. At least I own my Apple TV after the initial upfront cost.

With DirecTV you own the boxes too, but you pay $10/mo for HD and another $10/mo for each additional receiver you have.

 

[KdParker]

The cost for all these channels is adding up. I might as well keep the bundled cable with all these separate subscriptions.

Looks like it is working out to be cheaper to stay with cable. Especially when adding in the broadband costs.

 

[FSUSem1noles]

With DirecTV you own the boxes too, but you pay $10/mo for HD and another $10/mo for each additional receiver you have.

Right, but it's still a monthly "rent" fee.

 

[KdParker]

Then I'm struggling to see how whatever Apple is rumored to be offering is better than cable. Right now with DirecTV I can get 120 channels (including local affiliates) for $50. The only thing that could make Apple's service enticing is if you have the ability to watch any channel live on any device wherever you are. Right now with DirecTV only a fraction of their channels are available to watch live on iPad while outside the range of your receiver. If Apple could nail that it would be a huge win.

I agree. The ala cart cost is getting up to the same cost for cable.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

HBO was the first crack in the dike, this is the second. I would not want to be investing in cable company monopolies right now.

I appreciate the sentiment of your whole post... but who controls the pipe through which the dike crackers stream this content? And isn't any broadband competitor to them- if you happen to have more than one choice- also in the cableTV business too?

None of those dike-cracking solutions work at all without a broadband connection. Conceptually, Apple could take it's cash hoard and buy all of the best content available and give it away for free to TV "subscribers" but Apple can't deliver that free cable killer to us without the connection between iCloud and our TVs. And who is the toll master(s) in the middle of that?

Cable companies have positioned themselves to do very well no matter what. This is why I think they are in the broadband business. If an Apple can entirely consume their Cable TV revenues in some "new model", they'll just get theirs on higher broadband rates and/or tiers. Thus, we consumers will pay more. What would you do if you were them?

Those "monopolies" are only at risk if there is a big breakthrough that would allow consumers to bypass their pipes and connect directly to iCloud and similar sources of content. That's the missing innovation that would add a lot of potential to the al-a-carte, cable (company) killer dream. And that's entirely missing from the scene.

Even the "then I'll just pirate it" crowd can be squeezed out by cable if it wanted to do so, since piracy also depends on a broadband pipe.

 

[KdParker]

It usually costs $150-$200/month on all the cable providers (and satellite services) to get all the channels including the premium ones. (Except for the 'first year discount' as an incentive to get new subscribers)

Another cost that is being left out is data since you will need a good plan for the streaming to work well. Some companies ( looking at you COX cable) are charging more based on a gigabyte limit for you data plan.

 

[Antares]

This ^.

Granted no one wants that option either, so basically studios are just giving everyone another crappy option to get fragmented offerings. If only the technology existed to have all TV shows and Movies available to watch on demand on any platform, that'd be something I'd be willing to spend hard-earned money on. Oh wait...

Are you implying that such a service exits? What would that be? Are you thinking cable and the on-demand that a lot of cable companies have?

 

[Mackinjosh]

By the time you get through buying all the channels you want A la Carte, you'd be better off just buying a cable subscription.

In what world is that a true statement? HBO Now costs the same as getting HBO from Time Warner and Directv. Showtime also costs the same.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

Can't we at least be glad about the fact that Apple TV is gaining content? Sure it may not be the 'tv cracking' Jobs talked about, but there's definitely something brewing in Cupertino. I'd rather them take all the time they need instead of bringing out a rushed product just to please everyone.

 

[johnfrombeyond]

I appreciate the sentiment of your whole post... but who controls the pipe through which the dike crackers stream this content? And isn't any broadband competitor to them- if you happen to have more than one choice- also in the cableTV business too?

None of those dike-cracking solutions work at all without a broadband connection. Conceptually, Apple could take it's cash hoard and buy all of the best content available and give it away for free to TV "subscribers" but Apple can't deliver that free cable killer to us without the connection between iCloud and our TVs. And who is the toll master(s) in the middle of that?

Cable companies have positioned themselves to do very well no matter what. This is why I think they are in the broadband business. If an Apple can entirely consume their Cable TV revenues in some "new model", they'll just get theirs on higher broadband rates and/or tiers. Thus, we consumers will pay more. What would you do if you were them?

Those "monopolies" are only at risk if there is a big breakthrough that would allow consumers to bypass their pipes and connect directly to iCloud and similar sources of content. That's the missing innovation that would add a lot of potential to the al-a-carte, cable (company) killer dream. And that's entirely missing from the scene.

Even the "then I'll just pirate" it crowd can be squeezed out by cable if it wanted to do so, since piracy also depends on a broadband pipe.

True, the cable companies still control the pipes, but once they get relegated to a commodity business like broadband internet provider, all their profits will go down the drain. That is the biggest fear of the cable companies. Same with phone companies, they don't want to be thought of as "just a phone company". I don't know much about the recent ruling classifying broadband internet as a "utility", but hopefully that means other internet providers can rent those pipes and create competition. And although I prefer cable internet to DSL, it's nice to know I can always switch to DSL through a phone company if Comcast decides to jack up that price.

I think that the content licensing situation is the hard part, and once that gets freed up, there is going to be serious disruption in home entertainment options.

 

[Mackinjosh]

For people saying Showtime doesn't have the same quality of content as HBO, that's a load of crap. Penny Dreadful and Homeland are as good as anything on HBO.

 

[FieldingMellish]

waaaay overpriced.

 

[bpeeps]

House of Lies
Penny Dredful
Homeland
Nurse Jackie
Ray Donovan
Masters of Sex

And if you never saw it: Dexter

Wishing lumberjack Dexter on anyone is an awful form of punishment. What did that user do to you?

 

[MarkNY]

Apple and other streaming services are in the process of doing to cable companies what they did to cell phone companies -- making them dumb pipes. I much prefer a phone based on iOS as compared to whatever horrid interface AT&T and Verizon used to put on their phones, just as I predict the Apple set-top box (if we can call it that) will be way better than the god-awful Time-Warner box I have now.

We consumers are still going to have to pay for content, though. The cable companies weren't the problem in that area.

Going forward, this over-the-top TV is going to stimulate competition and innovation in broadband delivery. With IPTV, who needs a cable hookup anymore if there are wireless broadband options? Obviously, I'm talking in the future when there have been tech advances that allow spectrum to be used much more efficiently, and therefore no data caps. That competition will be a big win for consumers.

Also, ridiculous set top box fees and dvr fees will go away, which is a benefit.

Overall, lots of benefits, but little effect on the price of media content -- but in the future, who knows? Do networks/channels even make sense? Will every show be financed independently and sold a la carte? Don't know how this will play, but this move by Apple will be big. Still don't know how they'll get the local channel thing resolved. Without all the live sporting events available, we're still trapped.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

HBO is easily worth $15 a month as a standalone service.

Showtime? I don't think so. I can only think of one decent show on that channel, and their movie selection is abysmal.

Personally I put them on the same level though the quality of SHO's once great series like Homeland and House of Lies are going downhill. Episodes still makes me laugh. I wish they hadn't prematurely canceled the Borgias. But what does HBO have now? Veep can be funny. Silicon Valley. No interest to me but certainly its flagship now: Game of Thrones. What else that isn't pure drivel?

Movie quality on both channels is dreadful, but that's only because, realistically, there are only a handful of great movies each year. The rest are time wasters.

 

[KdParker]

I do not believe I will save a lot of money on CONTENT. But I do expect to save money on Hardware. I currently pay close to $70 per month on Hardware. And I have an Apple TV on every TV as well. The other saving can be with Taxes. I dropped my Phone from my Triple Play and saved at least $10 per month in special taxes besides cost of phone service. I have the same for Video. Maybe mostly in California. I do not pay those kind of taxes for Netflix and Hulu. So my goal is a very high speed Internet (which will cost more without the bundle) and Stream everything else. I really hope Apple comes out with a superior interface and experience then I have now to get the wife to switch.

That broadband cost will creep up too. That might be significant.

 

[bbeagle]

I know it might sound crazy to some of you, but there are people that currently pay $0 for cable. So for those people, including me, I might just want HBO. That's it. Maybe it's because they have GoT and that's the only main reason.

I'm of the same opinion.

If cable costs me $100/month right now....

All I really want is local channels, hockey and HBO. If I can get NHL Center Ice for $10/month and HBO for $15/month, and use my antenna for the local channels, I can get this for $25/month.

Previously, I would have to subscribe to a minimum digital package of cable at about $75/month before I could add $15/month HBO.

It's much cheaper if you only want a subset of the channels - something that was NOT available previously.