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

[mantan]

The funny part is watching the light bulbs slowly go on with people.

There is this incredibly naïve dream that a'la carte programming is going to be cheaper...and that Apple was somehow going to magically bring it to you. You know, the most profitable CE company in the world by a mile...was going to get their cut and save you money....

This isn't the music industry which was in a digital crisis and needed someone to reinvent the distribution model. The content producers/networks are making good money with the current system. The costs are spread out, the revenue income model is predictable and stable - and as much as we complain about cable/satellite providers, most customers accept the delivery model.

Yeah, there is some niche stuff with Netflix, Hulu, some ad hoc digital channels - but the real revenue for first run content/movies is pushed through the cable/satellite distribution model with bundled network subscription packages.

From a customer perspective, pulling it into a an a'la carte model only makes sense if you're able to do it significantly cheaper or with a much better user experience. Otherwise you're not going to get the customers to push the industry for change.

 

[bushido]

10 bucks for one channel? thats half of what i pay for the complete premium HD package with 30+ channels over here.

 

[69Mustang]

But will you get the same experience? I can see the benefit of Apple's TV service being that you get the channels you want from cable but on demand and seamlessly integrated with a great user experience on all your devices. And if the Apple TV becomes the hub for your tv streaming service, music streaming service, gaming, and connected home experience (HomeKit) as expected to be revealed at WWDC, then I'd actually pay more than what I currently do with the clunky cable boxes and disconnected experience to access all sorts of media.

And once you have a single box that can do everything, you no longer need to switch inputs. Everything becomes much simpler and user friendly. Airplay becomes something you can always rely on working without having to switch from one input to another. I can set up all sorts of home media centers but the bottom line is if it's to complicated for my wife and family to use they won't be happy. I'm hoping Apple delivers.

You make some compelling points. Especially about the hub running everything (with one caveat). Your thoughts on Apple's TV service however, contains one glaring error. You have no idea if you will get the channels you want. Based on all the rumors, Apple will basically be offering a skinny package of channels. What's in that package has yet to be determined. What if they offer 25-30 channels and you only like 6, 8, or 15 of those? To get the other channels you like you may have to subscribe to the next tier of channels and there's no guarantee all of your other favorite channels will be in that tier. This is only an example so I hope no one comments with "I only watch 4 channels." The same principle applies. The skinny package might only offer 2 of the 4. So far Apple's offering amounts to cable-lite, and depending on a person's desires, it could easily become cable regular.

That caveat I mentioned earlier. A hub running everything is great until you have an issue with the hub. Then it's not so great. The more things running through the hub, the more affected you become if the hub has a tummy ache. I know because my receiver had a tummy ache a week ago and all of my A/V stuff ran through it.

 

[Popeye206]

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.

Obviously, I'd like the price to be about $5 a month for the premium channels. However, what's sort of nice (and something to remember), take HBO Now.. $15 a month. Well, I want HBO for Game of Thrones. But it's only on air with new episodes for about 2 months. So, it's going to cost me $30 to watch Game of Thrones and other HBO content for that 2 months. Then I'll nuke my subscription for the other 10 months out of the year.

My point is, being able to jump in and jump out of the subscriptions very easily makes it very cost effective even at the current rates. All depends on your habits.

Again... I'd like lower too... but that will come with time.

Oh... lastly... everyone should keep in mind, it's not just "Apple's fault" on the pricing. The publishers are driving the prices and Apple is just trying to get them on-board. Right now, they are all just trying to figure it out.

 

[tate-316]

Capitalism and the consumer are the real winners here. There is more choice and competition in the marketplace now and this will drive what the experience and price looks like in the future. In the immediate future, yes a half dozen a la carte channels adds up to a comparable price to cable, but that's not the end game.

I cut the cable cord a year ago. Like so many others, I felt shackled both economically and socially to cable. I did some personal analysis on what I wanted to watch and how I could watch that without cable. What I found out was I haven't missed what I thought I was sacrificing!!! My user experience with my television changed and so did my appetite and decision making process for what I actually wanted to watch.

HBO, Showtime, Amazon, Netlfix, Hulu, Apple (kind of, but disappointingly so to this point. I bought into the infamous "I finally cracked it") are all changing the "experience" of television. Evolving it, pushing it, testing it, etc. As these evolutions proliferate the marketplace, the consumer will also evolve which eventually defines marketplace. Freeing some premium content channels from the shackles of cable/satellite is the tip of the iceberg. Sports is next and that revolution is under way as well. The actual user/human interface with the television and its content is also up for grabs.

So while we can speculate and draw reasonable conclusions on the short term impacts, I believe ultimately in 5 years the television experience is going to be far different than anything we're talking about now.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Until you realise that you don't need all those channels you think you "want and/or need".

You only think you need and/or want them because that is what years of cable TV have done to your brain, with the cable companies making you believe that cable TV was a utility like electricity and water and gas that you must hook up right away when you move into a new apartment, and that all these channels they threw at you were "essential" (the ironic thing is that Internet service is and should be a utility, and now that it's being treated as such, they don't want that. Oh well, tough **** cable co's.)

I haven't had cable since May 2009. I don't miss it. Not one bit. I was paying for something I was almost never using. I subscribe to Netflix, and watch programming through it, iTunes movie and TV show sales and rentals, and Amazon Prime streaming to my AppleTV via AirPlay. Between all of that and YouTube, with an antenna receiving the broadcast networks for FREE. WTF do I need cable for? I don't (and neither do you!) News you say? BBC World and France 24 English give you all the world news and current events you need, and are far superior to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC News (they all suck in comparison). France24 streams live via AirPlay or on YouTube. Oh yes, and do more reading of news online through the New York Times, or whatever newspaper you choose.

Do you really need garbage like "Real Housewives" or "Bizarre Foods" all day marathons? I mean you really want to pay money for that kind of crap?

Sure, but all those micro channels you mention cost next to nothing. It's the "big" channels like ESPN, CNN, that take the biggest bite out of your cable bill. Add in equipment fees and also taxes. Also while BBC is A good source, I'd rather not rely on just ONE news source. One can get very jaded that way and not have a true perspective of events. A synthesis of a wide sampling typically yields a truer portrait of events. I say truer because it's all biased because that's human nature.

 

[bpeeps]

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.

Because we have no choice. Neither option necessarily needs to be better than the other, but currently their is no choice in the market. Everyone is focusing on the prices. I just want HBO, Showtime, and the OTA channels separate from a cable subscription. I don't need 120 channels priced at $50 that I'll never watch. As it is, I can only watch ABC, CBS, NBC, or FOX if I have rabbit ears plugged into my TV. I'm willing to pay 15 + 11 + whatever Apple TV subscription charges for OTA channels to come in clear.

Choice creates competition. Competition can hopefully drive market prices in the future. But you have to start somewhere.

 

[freediverx]

Samsung got a jump ahead with the SmartTV concept, leaving Apple to work on content.

Samsung makes decent TVs for the price, but their software is a joke - especially anything "Smart TV" related. It's laughable to suggest they got any sort of "jump ahead".

Oh I agree, I have one too. I don't use the Smart features at all, as it's so badly designed.
It's another perfect example of Samsung taking an Apple rumour and getting a version to market first, like watches, phone features, tablets, etc.
But as usual, it fails in every comparison to the Apple equivalent..

Perhaps we can still hold out some hope of Apple working on a front-end user interface to TV.

This is the typical user experience when interacting with a TV's native interface:

 

[Popeye206]

I guess Steve Jobs did not "crack" anything.

By the item this all shakes out one would pay $ 100 or so including premium channels.

Looks like Netflix and the like are on a better path than Apple.

WWDC may set that straight (hopefully)

Okay... maybe I'm missing something, but I tried Netflix about a year ago and found that the content was so limited that it wasn't worth $5 a month. Within like a week we had seen everything we wanted and we're more frustrated that most of the things we did want were not available. Same thing with Amazon Prime. Everything included in the monthly deal was lame and we would have had to pay for anything decent on top of our Prime account.

To me, you got what you paid for and it was not a lot. What did I miss????

 

[Antares]

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.

Only if you want "all these channels." Some people want just 1, 2, 3 channels. Spend $30 to $40 on them versus $150 to get those channels because you have to get a premium package with 200 channels you don't want to get the 3 you do want.

I currently get over 50 over the air, broadcast channels for free. There are maybe 10 cable channels that I want. and would love to be able to get those, ala carte, for $50 to $60 a month versus the over $130 I would have to pay to get those, via a cable package, now.

 

[LethalWolfe]

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.

AFAIK it does not which is disappointing.

 

[nutmac]

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.

The key difference is that Showtime is rarely offered in lower-tier package (time limited promotion excluded). Showtime is typically bundled only in much pricier packages (e.g., $100 for Comcast). Otherwise, it is typically offered as $10 add-on.

 

[Gregintosh]

I'm getting showtime "free" right now because I ordered the Pacquiao fight. I must say its not worth it as a channel. There is hardly any good original content and they don't even do HD on their channels except the main one (at least on Comcast in Chicago). The movie line up they have in their library is also pretty crappy. HBO has a lot of recent and decently rated movies in their library for subscribers.

I would agree with the sentiment that this a-la-carte stuff may not be so great. I get a discount on my internet because I am also on the TV package. End result is I added about $30 to my internet bill and I got 150+ channels plus HBO with a DVR.

The idea that I would cut the cord and pay $15 a month for HBO alone is crazy, as that leaves just $15 more and theres shows I like to watch all over the place. If this Showtime pricing of $10.99 becomes the "standard" rate for all channels, then getting the right collection of channels is DEFINITELY going be more expensive versus just upping your cable subscription.

Oh, and with the cable subscription I get HBO GO and access to tons of other "Apps" on AppleTV and such, so even if I just wanted to use the Apple TV versus my cable box I am still better off keeping cable and using it to authorize the apps.

The biggest benefit would just be to those who rarely watch TV and have few if maybe a single network they like to watch. I could imagine travelers also, especially overseas, but the current deals don't even let you access the content abroad (without a VPN at least).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You make some compelling points. Especially about the hub running everything (with one caveat). Your thoughts on Apple's TV service however, contains one glaring error. You have no idea if you will get the channels you want. Based on all the rumors, Apple will basically be offering a skinny package of channels. What's in that package has yet to be determined. What if they offer 25-30 channels and you only like 6, 8, or 15 of those? To get the other channels you like you may have to subscribe to the next tier of channels and there's no guarantee all of your other favorite channels will be in that tier. This is only an example so I hope no one comments with "I only watch 4 channels." The same principle applies. The skinny package might only offer 2 of the 4. So far Apple's offering amounts to cable-lite, and depending on a person's desires, it could easily become cable regular.

Good point (and probably right on): how could Apple possibly pick a bundle of 25 channels and get everyone's favorites in there? Those other 175 channels don't exist because NOBODY is watching them. Even the worst possible channel in each person's bundle needs enough eyeballs to sell those who buy commercials on that channel. Thus, one man's garbage is another man's treasure. I could make a passionate case against all Kardashian shows but someone else will rank those among their favorites (they're not on because everyone refuses to watch them). And what I like? I'm sure there are some who could passionately argue against my favorites. I see practically zero chance of Apple picking any 25 channels and it covering the wants of the masses.

But take it another step. Suppose they do find some way to pick a favorite 25 that strongly appeals. If you are cable what can you do? I would assemble the same 25 into a bundle on my cable service and match or undercut Apple's price. And/or I'd offer the exact same mix of programming within my double and triple play bundles for much less than going with Apple's option and paying me for broadband or broadband + voice only. Maybe add a few popular channels that Apple chooses to leave out (or can't get) so that I can tout having everything Apple has plus some desirable extras? If I go the tiered route, I make my copy of the Apple bundle NOT count against the broadband cap... but Apple's will. Etc. Does any of that seem impossible? Not at all. It might even seem easy... likely. What would you do?

If one can see it that way, it would mean the Apple offering will need to win on merits within Apple's control (which is not really a bundle of 25 channels). That's going to be stuff like UI advantages and maybe something in how an Apple subscriber gets a better option for streaming to iDevices too. I do think there is tangible opportunity in the idea of buying a $99 box vs. renting a cable/satt box but the former needs to fully bring whatever is important to each consumer in comparable ways. For example, if I can rent a satt box that is also a DVR, will a new TV offer the equivalent of a DVR? If the satt box can deliver the Superbowl or the Olympics in 4K to my new 4K TV, will the new TV be able to do that too? Can I get my local channels for "free" OTA merged into some kind of channel guide? How about local OTA channels that are not the big 4 networks (lately I find myself watching a fair amount of ME TV of all things).

The point is that whatever is coming can't really hang it's hat too much on a selection of channels. That's much too easy for established competitors to match and undercut if necessary. Whatever it is will need to be more than a bundle of hand-picked channels. Apple is certainly capable of thinking up some great "more." Maybe "I cracked it" will even apply to that "more"?

 

[tdmac]

As far as SHO, besides homeland, one of the best shows is Shameless.

Why are people equating the cost of subscription channels/services the same as cost of Network Al-a-carte programming? As mentioned over and over, Channels like HBO, SHOWTIME, STARZ, CINEMAX, etc are above any beyond the cost any basic or expanded cable channels. You are paying the same, and in most cases, more for HBO Now and SHO Now anyway if you had HBO or SHO with a cable provider. The next point is the reason that these channels cost $11- $15 is that they have no commercials and thus the subscription fee is their sole revenue stream. Like broadcast channels, pretty much all of the other cable channels CBS, NBC, ABC, TNT, DISC, NAT GEO, FX, etc all earn revenue from commercials. That revenue is based on eyes watching particular programs. Thus, its in their best interest to get that program in front of as many people as possible. This is also why many non-broadcast channels have stepped up their game as to their offerings. Sports channels, like ESPN carry some of the highest costs, per channel, to a cable providers. Also, they mandate that cable providers have to take their other offerings as well as a package. But, most channels a cable providers is paying way under $1. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-cable-subscribers-pay-per-channel-1626/

I took a look at my season passes and in my household, besides the network channels, we primarily watch DISC, NATGEO, FX, TRUTV, OWN, USA, HBO & SHO. Occasionally EPIX, & CNBC.
I should make out big time. The question is if the Rumor for Apples offering as a fixed set of channels or if you get the broadcast channels and can pick a-la-carte the balance to round out a package. Plus any subscription channels.

 

[peterdevries]

I came to say the exact same thing. Not sure why some thought a la carte would be so great. These companies are not going to short their revenue. They will evenually make a la carte an option, but an option that will not reduce their profits. If anything, it will be priced to slightly increase their profit.

well, this is not a la carte at all. I don't need a menu of channels. I need a menu of shows independent of the channel.

Once I can buy individual shows from whichever channel or content producer there is I will be happy. Not before that. The channel option still pushes too much crap down my throat that I do not want to pay for.

 

[Zaft]

As an owner of one of Samsung's "Smart" TVs, I can assure you they are anything but.

I second that, Samsung makes great tvs, but the smart hub is slow, laggy, unresponsive.. Its a pain to use. Chromecast is much better.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

well, this is not a la carte at all. I don't need a menu of channels. I need a menu of shows independent of the channel. Once I can buy individual shows from whichever channel or content producer there is I will be happy. Not before that. The channel option still pushes too much crap down my throat that I do not want to pay for.

Peter, you can already do that in the iTunes store... for years now. Much (all?) of that is even commercial-free. That is Apple's cut at commercial-free, al-a-carte in a very full way. It's not like Netflix which is mostly old stuff, long in the can. It includes very new stuff not readily available in services like Netflix. Why hasn't that taken over as a "new model"?

I think Apple has made a very, VERY good try at making that commercial-free, al-a-carte model go. It's just not popular enough for the masses to pay up for it. They even tried to experiment on pricing by implementing discounted show rentals for a while. That too didn't roar with consumers. I think that was a great effort at delivering the dream. We just didn't want it bad enough to pay for it. Instead, we hold out for something pretty much like that at some huge discount... which is not going to come. Even Apple has apparently realized this and are thus moving on with some kind of bundle-of-channels offering. The masses spoke... with their wallets... when they voted against either buying commercial-free, al-a-carte or renting it at rates the other players were willing to do. Maybe Apple was just too early and should try again?

 

[happygodavid]

I fully expect Netflix to raise rates and/or tier their offerings to raise average revenue-per-subscriber, and probably add commercials too. Else, I expect them to lose more desirable content as contracts end and content owners decide to follow the apparently more lucrative lead set by streaming al-a-carte offerings like HBO, CBS and now probably Showtime.

I think your prediction may be right, but my hope is that this transition toward buying individual channels will increase the quality of the content produced. Netflix is already producing great shows on its own, as is HBO, Showtime, and a few others. Perhaps soon it will be that channels that create good content will last, and channels that don't will disappear.

 

[69Mustang]

well, this is not a la carte at all. I don't need a menu of channels. I need a menu of shows independent of the channel.

Once I can buy individual shows from whichever channel or content producer there is I will be happy. Not before that. The channel option still pushes too much crap down my throat that I do not want to pay for.

I sympathize with you. I have no answers to solve your issue. Unfortunately, no one else does either. It seems every advocate of a la carte wants this. Yet no advocate seems to come up with a valid reason for content providers to want to make this possible. These are for profit companies. Until someone comes up with a viable plan for these companies to continue to grow profit, nothing will really change. They will put a pig on a diet, slap some lipstick on it's face and call it a skinny package. Still a pig. What you want is a few strips of bacon. mmm bacon. If you abstain from pork, feel free to sub in tofu or something for bacon. beautiful, delicious, bacon.

/arteries tighten just a little

You didn't say this but I'm adding it here to lessen the number of posts. There are advocates for internet providers being the dumb pipe. Not going to happen. The big internet providers either own or partially own a tremendous amount of the content we consume. We're going to pay them one way or the other.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Happygodavid, more money tossed into the system does have that exact potential. More money can flow into bigger budgets which can lead to better programming.

However, the desire for bad channels to disappear may be missing a key contributor of existing money: commercials run on those channels that "I never watch". And that is Other People's Money throwing revenues into the pots of the Studios that make some of the stuff "I do watch". Kill off those "junk channels" and we are wishing away those subsidy dollars. Either those get made up by the other source of revenue- us consumers- or budgets take the hit.

Commercial revenue is HUGE, much larger than many people would guess. I did the math a few years ago and the commercials alone generate revenues of about $54 per U.S. household PER MONTH! In other words, if we really wanted commercial-free television, our monthly bill (everyone's monthly bill) would need to start at $54 for ZERO channels just to cover that part of things.

So I don't wish away the junk channels. Instead, I just hide them using the FAV channel guide feature. That way, my guide only shows the channels I actually watch while those other channels can keep making that OPM to help subsidize my bill. I'm glad they are there so that I don't have to pay more to make up for that OPM or see the quality of what I do watch take the hit to balance with the budgets that would be cut per those OPM revenues that would be lost.

 

[happydude]

anytime there's another cord cutting, a la carte option, we're moving in the right direction. hopefully there will be enough options soon that they'll start competing for customers and prices will drop.

 

[mejsric]

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.

How about "Channel of the Week" free for one week.

 

[2457282]

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.

No, I disagree. I do not watch that many channels to begin with. I suspect that is true for most. I might subscribe to a handful (at most) if I had a la cart. I already have Amazon Prime and Netflix so I really don't need that much more. A news channel and a sports channel. Anything else I can rent/buy through Apple TV/Netflix/Amazon.

 

[mantan]

well, this is not a la carte at all. I don't need a menu of channels. I need a menu of shows independent of the channel.

Once I can buy individual shows from whichever channel or content producer there is I will be happy. Not before that. The channel option still pushes too much crap down my throat that I do not want to pay for.

The flaw in that logic is individual show producers rely on network funding to float shows. If shows are relying on their own merit/subscribers to be profitable...be prepared for a whole lot of junk that appeals to the lowest common denominator.

Great shows will suddenly become riskier to make...because their profitability would rely on the biggest possible audience.

Yeah, Game of Thrones is fantastic. But if HBO wasn't counting on the revenue from selling a package, would they take a flier on making it and it taking off?