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

[69Mustang]

Because it saves me over $1000/year (even with the two season passes I had to buy to watch shows that weren't on Netflix, Hulu or Amazon), I still see every show I really want to see, and the time I used to spend channel-surfing, I now spend outdoors. When I feel like catching up on Game of Thrones, I'll subscribe for a month, watch them all, and cancel.

Good for you. You said saves you $1000 a year. What a la carte system are you using? Afaik there isn't one available for the masses. If you're talking about some "system" you cooked up that works for you, congrats. I think we're all discussing a true a la carte system from either cable companies and/or content providers. A little different. Every cord cutter has there own system that fits their viewing habits. That witches brew of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and some season passes isn't going to cut it on a mass level. As for going outside, I don't see the relevance. You doing what you do has no correlation to time spent away from the TV. Someone with a 500 channel could spend just as much or even more time outside than you.

 

[mantan]

That's true, if Apple were to somehow provide something like a satellite that were to directly provide access from your house to their server farms, that could in theory completely bypass the cable companies. If I were Apple that's what I would threaten. That's what Disney World did when other factions in Orlando wanted to put in a monorail from the airport to other attractions, leaving Disney out. Disney then replied, well then within 5 years we will have our own airport up and running on Disney property (they are allowed to do this per the original purchase agreement with the state of Florida), and all 15 million a year or so Disney visitors will then bypass Orlando and go directly in and out of Disney World. Orlando backed down, lol.

That's the same misguided logic people used when they said Apple should creates their own cell network and bypass the carriers.

The amount of money it would take to develop, deliver and maintain and alternate delivery system would make it completely cost prohibitive.

 

[Mr Fide]

Just looked at their list of shows. None that I've watched all series long. Guess I'm not a Showtime viewer. Is that a thing?

 

[griz]

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.

Not if you buy it for a few months to watch a few seasons of shows, then cancel it to go to another service to watch a few shows. Some shows I like watching at there actual broadcast release so I can talk with others about it, but many shows I watch I don't care when I watch. So for instance, when Game of Thrones is over I will likely cancel my HBO sub and go back to whatever is available on the networks websites. Next year I will pick it up again for 2 or 3 months and while I have it, I'll catch up on any other shows I might have missed and watch a few good new movies at the same time. So rather than paying $150/mo for a full cable package, I just get broadband for less than half price and have $80/month leftover to buy a couple seasons of show on iTunes, grab a few months of Netflix, Hulu, HBO and even grab a year of Amazon prime. That $840/year is a lot of money to go around when it comes to content.

 

[a0me]

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.

A la carte is really cheaper only if you watch a few, selected channels.

 

[freediverx]

We can already do this in the "as is". Just use the FAVS (channel) feature to show only the channels we want and hide the rest. This will show exactly what we want to watch and block out everything else... without killing the golden goose of the OPM subsidy money made by commercials running on all of those hidden channels.



Maybe but channels like QVC actually pay cable to be in our mix of 200 channels. We're not paying for them, they are basically paying for us to be able to see them in our bundle. And while I can feel similarly about stuff like QVC and 700 club, others LOVE QVC and 700 club. I can detest Kardashian programming but other people LOVE it. I can argue that much of reality programming in general is absolute crap but millions of people watch it and LOVE it. Much of what is on... much of what you or I could judge as junk programming is watched by other people. Commercials don't sell very well without eyeball numbers.

So what would be the definition of "producing quality programming"? Where you and I might agree on that, others will feel very differently. Would revenues be redirected into your & my favorite programming or their favorite programming? Millions of people watch stuff like Kardashians or 700 Club... often greater numbers than those watching some of my own favorites. If it was eyeballs that drove where such budget dollars flowed, some of my favorite shows would likely get canceled and some of the most detested shows (IMO) would get more money.

Let those who love QVC, 700 Club, and the Kardashians continue to pay for cable. I cut the cord long ago and will never return - even if I have to pay the same for fewer channels. For me the cost is not the sole, nor even the primary factor. It's eliminating my relationship with the cable company and their ilk.

 

[mantan]

Not if you buy it for a few months to watch a few seasons of shows, then cancel it to go to another service to watch a few shows. Some shows I like watching at there actual broadcast release so I can talk with others about it, but many shows I watch I don't care when I watch. So for instance, when Game of Thrones is over I will likely cancel my HBO sub and go back to whatever is available on the networks websites. Next year I will pick it up again for 2 or 3 months and while I have it, I'll catch up on any other shows I might have missed and watch a few good new movies at the same time. So rather than paying $150/mo for a full cable package, I just get broadband for less than half price and have $80/month leftover to buy a couple seasons of show on iTunes, grab a few months of Netflix, Hulu, HBO and even grab a year of Amazon prime. That $840/year is a lot of money to go around when it comes to content.

That consumer behavior is always going to be the exception...not the rule. It's similar to the auto insurance and utility companies (where deregulated). A small segment of the population will actively shop when their term is up seeking out a slightly better deal. The majority of the consumer base won't go through the shopping/selection process over and over again unless compelled because they feel it's a hassle. Even if it saves them a buck or two.... (or as one company likes to always say 15% or more....).

I bet a majority of Netflix users underutilize the service...but since it's just a few bucks a month, they just let it slide month to month. How many customers gets sucked in by the '3 months of free premium channels....' and let it ride because they don't feel like picking up the phone to cancel it...(and likely get pitched to keep it by a CSR.)

 

[freediverx]

Not if you buy it for a few months to watch a few seasons of shows, then cancel it to go to another service to watch a few shows. Some shows I like watching at there actual broadcast release so I can talk with others about it, but many shows I watch I don't care when I watch. So for instance, when Game of Thrones is over I will likely cancel my HBO sub and go back to whatever is available on the networks websites. Next year I will pick it up again for 2 or 3 months and while I have it, I'll catch up on any other shows I might have missed and watch a few good new movies at the same time. So rather than paying $150/mo for a full cable package, I just get broadband for less than half price and have $80/month leftover to buy a couple seasons of show on iTunes, grab a few months of Netflix, Hulu, HBO and even grab a year of Amazon prime. That $840/year is a lot of money to go around when it comes to content.

That's an interesting approach. For me HBO is easily worth the money. Aside from Game of Thrones, there's usually a decent movie available, as well as some other shows I like such as Bill Maher, John Oliver, Vice, Silicon Valley, The Leftovers, and Moving On. For me $15/month is a bargain for this channel.

 

[jdogg836]

People are really hung up on price. Cable is like an expensive all you can eat buffet, but some guy keeps punching you in the face while you eat and bouncers at the door try to stop you from leaving.

I'm happy to pay the same or even more for the small number of channels I actually want to watch, without all the BS that comes with having cable TV.

I agree with this statement. A whole lot of people in this thread are only focusing on how much it would cost if we bought everything a la carte. Honestly I need 3 cable stations any more: HBO, ESPN, AMC. Right now, if it wasn't for HBO I would get those two channels with the basic cable package I have at $50. With that package comes a lot of bullpoop channels that I just delete from the channel scan. Adding HBO, I have to add the "digital basic" tier at a minimum, adding $5 to my bill plus $5 for the box rental. I'm up to $60, then I have to pay for HBO and that adds another $10. Just give me HBO for $15, ESPN for $7, and AMC for $7 and I'll be happy.

 

[furi0usbee]

Networks are needed to fund the show in the first place.

Yes, currently. And someday producers will skip the networks and go directly to the customer, making even more money in the process and giving us better prices on content. I can see up and coming shows/producers. But established producers could offer their content directly on any platform, Apple, Roku, Netflix, their own service, etc.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

If it was as easy and more profitable as just implied, they'd already be doing that. The technological hurdles were knocked out of the way long ago. There are well proven ways to deliver content direct to end users. So why haven't they long since jumped on this "more money" train that also gives us "better prices"?

You have to think beyond yourself. If THEY looked at the middlemen as "greedy" and "crooks" and THEY believed they could make more money by bypassing them, they would have already done that... long ago. Only WE perceive all this greed & crookery in the model, believing there is huge room for a big revenue haircut while those who create what we want to watch will still be able to get paid in full (maybe more) and Apple can glom on and get a big cut too as our new middleman. Meanwhile we generally ignore concepts like the cable industry fully controlling the broadband pipes (so they will certainly get theirs either way) as well as concepts like how brand new shows get funded (many of which never even make it to an episode 2... some never even getting seen as episode 1).

We also hate the commercials but they chip in toward what we want to watch in a HUGE way as a massive subsidy paid for by other people just hoping we might see their commercials when they run. We wish those commercials away (which would take a huge amount of cash out of the model) and we wish the channels "I never watch" away which also takes a huge amount of cash out of the model per the commercials that run on those channels) but we then expect all of our favorite shows to keep on coming at the same quality and we expect brand new shows to still be created and we expect to get all of that for dirt cheap.

If it's as profitable to bypass networks and current distribution, start your own production company and deliver us high quality shows direct for dirt cheap. If it's as lucrative as many say, it seems like very easy money. So do it, get rich while delivering us great shows for much cheaper than we pay now.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Yes, currently. And someday producers will skip the networks and go directly to the customer, making even more money in the process and giving us better prices on content. I can see up and coming shows/producers. But established producers could offer their content directly on any platform, Apple, Roku, Netflix, their own service, etc.

Where will the money to make the shows come from? Currently production costs are typically covered by the TV network or cable channel that airs the show. For a drama these days the budget is about $2-3 million per episode so you are looking at about $26 million on the low end (a 13 episode season on cable) and $69 million on the high end (a 23 episode season on primetime, broadcast TV). And this is just the production budget. The marketing budget can easily be similar and sometimes even exceed the cost of making the show. For example, on season 1 of House of Cards (which was 13 episodes) Netflix spent about $100 million producing and marketing it.

And since everyone 'has to have' all the episodes all at once that means increased risk, and delayed revenue generation, on the production side because every episode has to be finished before the show is released. Right now most shows start airing while production is still going on. Especially on new shows this lowers the financial risk because if the ratings suck then the show gets cancelled and the money lost is only for, say, 8 episodes instead of a full season of 23 episodes.

The false assumption that most people have is that the networks/cable channels are just middle men like Apple or Best Buy that distribute already made products to consumers. The reality is that the networks/cable channels pay to create original content and then distribute via their channels. When Vince Gilligan was shopping around "Breaking Bad" he wasn't shopping around a complete series, he was shopping around an idea and hoping someone would give him money (in exchange for distribution rights) so he could turn his idea into a TV show.

Another false assumption is that the 'little' cable channels are just leeches being subsidized by the bigger, more popular channels. The relationship is more symbiotic and that's why large media companies (Viacom for example) sell their channels in bundles to cabe/sat companies. Viacom's little channels provide a pretty stable, if relatively low, revenue stream while the bigger channels (with their larger budgets) are risker investments but have the potential for a great payday if a show turns into a hit. Even the shows on the 2nd or 3rd tier cable channels can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per episode and there is no way anyone is going to pay that kind money just for craps and giggles. If the content doesn't make money (either directly or indirectly) it won't be around for long.

It's kinda like the stock market. If you are a prudent investor some of your money is in low risk/low reward investments which are stable and predictable, and some of your money is in high risk/high reward investments which might make you rich or might wipe you out. Companies like Maker Studios and Machinma are examples of this same basic mindset in the new media space. Having a bunch revenue streams (aka shows) helps to spread out the financial risk because you have multiple irons in the fire.

 

[mantan]

If it was as easy and more profitable as just implied, they'd already be doing that. The technological hurdles were knocked out of the way long ago. There are well proven ways to deliver content direct to end users. So why haven't they long since jumped on this "more money" train that also gives us "better prices"?

You have to think beyond yourself. If THEY looked at the middlemen as "greedy" and "crooks" and THEY believed they could make more money by bypassing them, they would have already done that... long ago. Only WE perceive all this greed & crookery in the model, believing there is huge room for a big revenue haircut while those who create what we want to watch will still be able to get paid in full (maybe more) and Apple can glom on and get a big cut too as our new middleman. Meanwhile we generally ignore concepts like the cable industry fully controlling the broadband pipes (so they will certainly get theirs either way) as well as concepts like how brand new shows get funded (many of which never even make it to an episode 2... some never even getting seen as episode 1).

We also hate the commercials but they chip in toward what we want to watch in a HUGE way as a massive subsidy paid for by other people just hoping we might see their commercials when they run. We wish those commercials away (which would take a huge amount of cash out of the model) and we wish the channels "I never watch" away which also takes a huge amount of cash out of the model per the commercials that run on those channels) but we then expect all of our favorite shows to keep on coming at the same quality and we expect brand new shows to still be created and we expect to get all of that for dirt cheap.

If it's as profitable to bypass networks and current distribution, start your own production company and deliver us high quality shows direct for dirt cheap. If it's as lucrative as many say, it seems like very easy money. So do it, get rich while delivering us great shows for much cheaper than we pay now.

I honestly can't hit the like button enough on this post!!!

So many people miss the boat in they want just the shows they enjoy for dirt cheap ad free. They ignore the fact the current model uses volume, advertising and predictable revenue to fund it

You make an excellent point about the distribution method (broadband) is pretty much owned by those same cable networks. They key is to keep as much competition as possible between satellite, fiber and cable.

Those middlemen actually end up doing a lot of the fighting to keep network (and subscription costs) down...because they take the heat when the bill keeps going up. But the networks have consumers duped that it's the cable/satellite companies just raising their bill for no reason each month.

Now you could argue that they tend to gouge on hardware costs (DVR leases, box rental fees, etc) - but it'll be tough to find a distribution model that circumvents what's out there that'll be cheaper.

 

[larrylaffer]

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.

That's not really true with HBO and Showtime, because they're a la carte with your cable plan too.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I believe his comment was showing some dismay at al-a-carte pricing in general. Flipping it around another way, CBS is free* (over the air) but CBS the streaming "channel" is going to be priced at $6/month. CBS is often thrown in on cable, sometimes with no cable subscription at all... but in al-a-carte world, what was free* would cost $6. If I'm ABC, NBC, FOX and maybe CW and I see CBS find success at $6/month, why don't I decide to follow that lead? Sure, I might be in Hulu now for a fraction of $6/month but nothing says I have to stay there forever.

So then what? The big 4 or 5 go from free* to maybe $6/month EACH. That's $24-$30/month for 4-5 channels typically thought of as free channels. That's the nature of al-a-carte. Each player will want to make more money, not less than they make now. So each will price their offerings that way. Typically when we talk about this topic, "we" will share that all we really want is our favorite 10-20 channels. 15 at this $6/month level = $90. I know I'm not everyone but I currently get my 15 favorites bundled in with about 185 that I don't watch that much for about $80/month... with on-demand shows... with good DVR functionality... at relatively high quality of picture & sound... along with key sports channels that seem unlikely to ever be available via some service from an Apple-like player. I could leave that on 24/7 for the whole month and not burn 1K of my broadband allotment.

Sure those other 185 channels rarely have something I want to watch on them... but they sometimes DO have something I want to watch... or maybe a guest will want to watch their favorites when they visit. For the same money or so, I'd rather have them than not. It's easy enough to hide any that I absolutely never watch in the FAVS (channel) function of the on-screen guide.

If I was willing to dump Satt for cable, I could get a bundle of about the same channels + broadband + voice service for $100/month (less for promotional periods). These streaming options depend on a broadband connection and broadband outside of a bundle is not priced to make some "new model" via streaming very attractive (and that seems to only be getting worse).

Where I think it can work for some is when those some are happy with only a small amount of programming... especially if live sports is undesirable. Those who don't mind getting some television from one source, some from another, some from still another... over the air, airplay, some from ROKU, some from Amazon, etc may be able to squeeze out a better deal too (at the expense of everything merged into one easy to review on-screen guide and general ease of use for those who might also live with them that are less technically inclined). Those who can rationalize piracy for some or all of their television viewing is another group. There is a general tradeoff in picture & sound quality. The broadband caps is a real issue. Etc.

In a whole replacement that delivers a better experience, many such issues will need to be overcome in some "new model". For masses adoption, it can't be too complicated to see what's on. It can't depend on a mobile device being at home when someone wants to watch something that needs to be airplayed from that mobile device. It can't depend on a mobile device to be THE remote unless the home is made up of one person, living alone. If one's whole replacement involves 3-5 or more sources for various channels, does the non-techy family members appreciate learning to jump from source to source to save $10 or $20 or $50/month? And so on.

Note: I'm not against al-a-carte at all. I just don't see it as many dream it. I don't see how it can bring us everything we can want (plus some want commercial-free) for some huge discount to what we pay now. I welcome al-a-carte and I'll hope right with anyone else that the dream can come to pass in a way that keeps great quality shows coming, maintains the same motivations to create and fund new shows until they find their audiences, etc. I simply don't see how it happens if both sources of most of the money in the current model (us and the subsidy dollars of commercials) get to pay substantially less and get cut altogether. Apple piles on and will want their cut. Cable won't lose a nickel since they've got a lock on broadband pipes. Who takes the hit to give us everything for nearly nothing?

 

[Westside guy]

HBO and Showtime are not part of Basic cable-- they are always sold A la Carte or in Premium bundles. So, while your statement MAY be true, it is not due to these HBO/Showtime moves.

While what you say is often true, "always" is incorrect.

Comcast's Internet Plus - what we currently subscribe to - is their lowest freely-available tier. It is advertised as only including your local broadcast channels... but it also includes HBO and Discovery Channel at no additional cost.

 

[mactracker75]

I've got nothing but good things to say about Showtime. I worked 6 seasons on Nurse Jackie and it paid my bills and put food on the table. Had a blast on that set. However I'm currently getting showtime on a promotional deal for 3.99 so this is not an option for me yet. May consider should I cut the cord.

 

[kd5jos]

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...

What all of you that say this forget is... And these are huge things...

Contract. First, I am under no contract. I can stop any time I want. With cable I have the "joy" of a middle man with a contract.

"Rental" Second, I have no rental equipment. I also don't have to buy any extra equipment.

Delivery. Third, I can have these channels streamed to existing devices. I can watch this on my iPhone at work during lunch. I can use the internet connection I currently have instead of adding another at my house. I use static IP's for VPN's. Comcast does not offer static IP's.

As far as "any platform," HBO is coming to Android this month or next. I am sure Showtime will follow. The verbiage is "launching on iOS devices." It'll hit Android too.

 

[kd5jos]

I've always asked people who though a la carte would be cheaper to explain. Why? In fact per channel will be much more than a package.

Oh and if you "add" this to most cable packages the channel is actually cheaper. I think I pay 5.99 to add showtime to my cable package.

All I want is Showtime and HBO. Based on this rumor that'll be $27 a month (rounded up). I don't want anything else. How much would the cable company charge me for this same "package?"

When I called Comcast they said, "not possible."

How long of a contract would I have to sign? When I asked Comcast if I could go without signing a contract as a new customer, they said, "not possible."

How much would I have to pay for their equipment? When I asked Comcast they indicated a value above $0.

So how is something that is not possible less costly than something that is possible?

$27 would get me a basic package with Comcast, not including rental, and not including HBO and Showtime.

So what exactly are you talking about?

 

[Darrin Bell]

Good for you. You said saves you $1000 a year. What a la carte system are you using?

Roku + Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, and an antenna for local channels. (and if I didn't already have Amazon Prime for the free shipping, I wouldn't bother with Amazon, since I almost never watch it).

Afaik there isn't one available for the masses.

All of that is available for the masses. I'm part of the "masses" and I had no trouble getting any of it.

If you're talking about some "system" you cooked up that works for you, congrats. I think we're all discussing a true a la carte system from either cable companies and/or content providers. A little different. Every cord cutter has there own system that fits their viewing habits. That witches brew of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and some season passes isn't going to cut it on a mass level.

There's no reason Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and a season pass or two "isn't going to cut it on a mass level." More people do it every year. It's a relatively small but rapidly growing percentage of households. According to CNBC, "Millennials are almost four times more likely than other adults to watch streaming video on a TV." It's not some arcane "system" or "witches' brew" that *I* cooked up, it's a widespread practice that's gaining steam. If you're one of the millions who have a Roku box or Apple TV, it's no more complicated than changing channels. We are all discussing a true a la carte system from either cable companies or content providers. Any cable-company-provided a la carte system IS going to end up being more costly, you're right about that. That's why I'm saying there's already an a la carte system that ISN'T more costly. It's exactly what Netflix, Hulu and Amazon - which have all become content-providers themselves, in addition to being content repositories - sell us. There's nothing untrue about this a la carte system. It doesn't come through a cable company, but then sidestepping the cable companies and their many hidden costs is exactly the point.

My bottom line is this: I'm getting almost every show I used to watch, but instead of paying nearly $180/month for them (which included a lot of BS fees and taxes), I'm paying less than $80 (and most of that is my broadband bill), and spending a lot less time watching shows I was only mildly interested in just because I wanted to get my money's worth out of the premium channels.

As for going outside, I don't see the relevance. You doing what you do has no correlation to time spent away from the TV. Someone with a 500 channel could spend just as much or even more time outside than you.

Not if they channel-surf. Unless you work for Comcast, I don't know why you'd deny that channel-surfing is a time sink. That's been common knowledge since the dawn of cable.

 

[FireWall0400]

I don't care if it's the same money or even a little more, I would rather give my money to Apple then my local cable company that has delivered a horrible product to me for the last 15 years.