WSJ on Apple's Video Service: Starz, Showtime, and HBO to Cost $9.99 Per Month, Roku May Gain Apple TV App

[hans1972]

I guess the question should rather be: What does tomorrow's event have to do with a company that used to be known for building professional computer equipment? Somewhere, something went terribly wrong in Cupertino.

Soon, the Apple data centers will host a myriad of Windows PCs for their streaming service for games.
The rest of the servers will be busy streaming video content to their consumption devices: AppleTV, iPad and iPhone.
The Mac will only remain for the few people who write software for those iOS gadgets.

Kiss your "professional" Mac equipment goodbye, because it has lost all relevance for this "new" media corporation.

You have to blame Steve Jobs who changed the name from Apple Computers to Apple in 2007: "The Mac, iPod, Apple TV and iPhone. Only one of those is a computer. So we’re changing the name."

The same guy talked about the post-PC world in 2010.

"I think PCs are going to be like trucks. Less people will need them. And this transformation is going to make some people uneasy... because the PC has taken us a long way. They were amazing. But it changes. Vested interests are going to change. And, I think we've embarked on that change. Is it the iPad? Who knows? Will it be next year or five years? ... We like to talk about the post-PC era, but when it really starts to happen, it's uncomfortable."


Also, Apple does not use Macs in their data centers. In fact, some of their cloud services are/have been hosted in Microsoft's and Amazon's data centers.

 

[HiRez]

This doesn't make any sense for HBO. I subscribe to HBO's $15/mo. service, and if I can get the same thing for $10/mo. through Apple, I'm going there. Why would they go 100% of $15/mo./subscriber to a percentage of $10/mo./subscriber? I'd imagine there's a few people in the boat with me on the math.

I could see Apple maybe cutting a special deal with these companies to lower or even eliminate the % cut. The reason? They don’t have a ton of content yet and this is a way to get people on board the service with a large selection of existing content. Those providers also get people to sign up who might not otherwise seek out the services on their own and pay full price for them.

 

[HiRez]

What we need is an à la carte service based on number of shows. For example, $10/month can access 10 different shows regardless of network (though I'm sure tiers would be needed). I have zero interest in 99% of what I have available to me through conventional subscription services.

I like the idea but I don’t see that happening. Even if they did it they’d make it so the tiered system pretty much forces you to end up paying the most no matter what, the same way that basic cable is relatively cheap but missing so much stuff that it’s almost worthless and almost no one wants it.
[doublepost=1553465588][/doublepost]

Eddy Cue always walks on stage like he just teleported from a Las Vegas casino and is surprised to be where he is but rolls with it. I hope he's not the next CEO and they get someone more tech-minded.

Maybe Scott Forstall will come back and save the company. If only it needed saving . . . they have too much money to appeal to the people they won over when Steve Jobs first came back. Apple was at its best when it was on the ropes. They had an infusion of amazing software by acquiring NeXT. Now I can't even get Disk Utility to work and I prefer pretty much every third party app compared to Apple's equivalent offering.

Personally I’m hoping for Craig Federighi.

 

[w5jck]

Every time I’ve switched cable/satellite service in the past and got three free months of HBO, Showtime, and Starz, I noticed two things: One, all three recycled about the same old movies over and over again, though they tended not to show them during the same month as the other two channels. Two, all three showed very little new material each month. I found that I rarely watched much on any of them and always wound up cancelling them long before the free trial was up.

Like a lot of channels these days, they do offer so good original programming, but none of the channels were worth $10/mo for a decent original show/special/concert or two. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t waste $10/mo even if I could stream all three! Once upon a time HBO and Showtime got exclusive rights to show movies soon after they had made their run in the cinema theaters, then the DVDs were released, then regular TV finally got the movies. That is no longer the case. Today you can rent or by a digital copy of yesterday’s recently released movie. Since very few new movies interest me, it is cheaper to rent or buy the ones I like than to pay for a service like HBO, Showtime, or Starz.

 

[rillrill]

Like I said - DOA.

 

[GizmoDVD]

Even if it was $10 for all 3 I still wouldn’t subscribe. Sho and Starz have next to nothig compelling for original content and HBO really only has Game of Thrones and Westworld.

 

[essinger]

When the last season of Westworld premiered, I think Hulu offered a bundle of Hulu plus HBO for $9.99 for six months, cheaper than HBO alone. So I think it's not impossible that Apple would offer a limited time bundle for $9.99 as a loss leader to get people to subscribe. I'd sign up, even though I don't have an Apple TV, as long as I'd be able to get full subscription benefits and watch on any device. If it's Apple TV only, obviously I wouldn't consider it worth getting an Apple TV for.

 

[M-Life]

Is there any chance that Apple will just offer the main channel for HBO, Showtime, Etc. without all the extras like HBO Family, HBO 2 and others? Just one channel of each for the $10.

I had DirectTV Now and had HBO for $5 a month, but it only came with 3 HBO channels, not the 9 or so I had with cable TV.

 

[78Bandit]

From the WSJ. “As part of the arrangement, much of the Journal’s content will be available through the service, although certain types of stories—particularly general news, politics and lifestyles news—will be showcased, while business and finance news won’t be displayed as prominently, according to people familiar with the situation. The deal will result in the Journal hiring more reporters focused on general news to help feed Apple’s product, one of the people said.”

What? Business and finance is the backbone of the WSJ. I hope the Journal is smarter than this. If they focus their resources covering the same general, political, and lifestyle stories every other clickbait driven media company does then they will quickly lose what makes them unique and valuable. It is the classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

Even worse will be if much of the business and financial news remains behind the individual subscription paywall. That will feel like a bait-and-switch.

Also from WSJ article. Price is $9.99 each for the premium video channels and they quote anonymous Apple staff who are working on the project using the term “Netflix killer”.

 

[sir1963nz]

Services. Services. Services.

Eddy Cue is now the most important and influential person at Apple and a cert to be the next CEO.

Not for me
I bought Apple products because the hardware and the software were significantly better.
I have never paid Apple anything for a subscription service, not for iCloud, not for iTunes , I have never rented/bought a movie from Apple. Sure I have some songs, but 99% of them were the weekly free track promotion they use to have, and I have grabbed some free books too, but I have about $70 sitting there for about 3 years doing nothing.

The iPhones are too big, so I will stick with my SE until it dies. The wife dropped the 5S I have her, broke the screen, but we got a new screen fitted rather than buy anything new.

The ATV4 does not support Siri in NZ even though all the other products do.

As a customer, I just see Apple moving further and further from what I want, so I am voting with my Wallet.

Services, no thanks, I want to own my files, my data. I don't want it searched or mined, I don't want my information sold and traded.

 

[small_CAPS]

Even if it was $10 for all 3 I still wouldn’t subscribe. Sho and Starz have next to nothig compelling for original content and HBO really only has Game of Thrones and Westworld.

Your opinion is null and void.

 

[newdeal]

Just wait, by the time you subscribe to all the stuff you watched before on cable you are going to be spending the same money and instead of one place you will have to be forced into using 10 separate apps written by people who have no idea how to make an interface

 

[lsutigerfan1976]

Every time I’ve switched cable/satellite service in the past and got three free months of HBO, Showtime, and Starz, I noticed two things: One, all three recycled about the same old movies over and over again, though they tended not to show them during the same month as the other two channels. Two, all three showed very little new material each month. I found that I rarely watched much on any of them and always wound up cancelling them long before the free trial was up.

Like a lot of channels these days, they do offer so good original programming, but none of the channels were worth $10/mo for a decent original show/special/concert or two. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t waste $10/mo even if I could stream all three! Once upon a time HBO and Showtime got exclusive rights to show movies soon after they had made their run in the cinema theaters, then the DVDs were released, then regular TV finally got the movies. That is no longer the case. Today you can rent or by a digital copy of yesterday’s recently released movie. Since very few new movies interest me, it is cheaper to rent or buy the ones I like than to pay for a service like HBO, Showtime, or Starz.

For HBO. I only really care about it during GOT. Otherwise, I wouldn’t subscribe to it. The other major networks don’t have anything I would watch.

 

[Rob_2811]

Looks set to be the dullest Apple keynote of all time.

 

[azentropy]

Is there any chance that Apple will just offer the main channel for HBO, Showtime, Etc. without all the extras like HBO Family, HBO 2 and others? Just one channel of each for the $10.

I had DirectTV Now and had HBO for $5 a month, but it only came with 3 HBO channels, not the 9 or so I had with cable TV.

Sure but how many of those 6 did you ever watch? Was there ever anything in the 6 other channels that wasn’t available on HBO Go already? Anything “live” was always available in the main (and shows were available usually relight after or even simultaneously).

 

[Cosmosent]

RE: "These meetings are said to include "monitoring of apps that benefit and threaten Apple"

I've said it before, I'll say it again ... AAPL makes their App Recommendations based-upon "Politics," NOT which Apps are best for their Users.

 

[bluecoast]

Nothing, but I think thats kinda his point. Is anyone clamouring for yet another subscription service to sign up to? The guy you quoted obviously isn't it seems he, like me, are generally interested in apple for their high quality integrated hardware and software offerings. The market is pretty flooded with streaming services at the moment; I have Netflix, Amazon Prime, Spotify probably others that I've forgotten about. I'd quite like to only have to subscribe to one, but given the number of Netflix originals and prime originals that aren't going to be on the apple service, and the HBO shows that are never going to be on Netflix or Amazon it seems this isn't gonna happen.

I guess there are a fair few of us who'd like apple to focus on continuing to deliver quality hardware and accompanying software rather than launching another subscription service for media services that are already available elsewhere.

Agree. There’s already so many streaming services out there it’s hard to keep up with the amount of programming on offer.

I don’t live in the USA, but from the sound of it, the Apple new programming will be very much like what your major networks such as ABC and NBC already offer.

What’s the point of that?

Maybe just maybe the news service will be interesting. But it sounds very overpriced for something that is presumably aimed at the mass market.

 

[Rob_2811]

"monitoring of apps that benefit and threaten Apple"

Or as its otherwise know, rejecting Spotifys latest app update

 

[CarlJ]

I guess the question should rather be: What does tomorrow's event have to do with a company that used to be known for building professional computer equipment?

In other words, "I wanna open an article that I know is about one specific topic, and complain about something that is NOT that topic."

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

Cringe imminent.

 

[Geronimo]

If I could get Showtime, HBO and Starz combined for $10/mo, I'd sign up and never drop it. What a deal! I'd probably even fork over $120 up-front for a one-year combo subscription to all three if that was required. But I'll eat my hat if Apple offers such a deal because I have to think that they'd be losing money on it. The wholesale rate that Apple is going to have to give to those three companies (CBS, AT&T, and Lionsgate, respectively) per subscriber is going to total more than $10.

So we should instead expect that the correct interpretation of the rumor is that Apple will offer each service at $10/mo individually. Which would still be a good deal for HBO ($5 than via HBO Now) and Showtime ($1 less than via the Showtime app) but not Starz (at $1 more than via the Starz app).

Now, about Apple charging for their original video content -- that's a little hard to believe, at least in 2019. I've long argued (as other recent rumors have stated) that the content, at least in the early days, will be free for owners of iPhones, iPads and Apple TVs and will help draw folks to the TV app, where they can add other subscriptions on which Apple gets a cut. If Apple only releases, let's say, a total of two new original series/docs/movies per month -- with zero library of older non-original content -- who's going to pay for that as a standalone service? How much could Apple even charge? It's hard to see anyone paying more than $5 and it's hard to imagine Apple pricing it any lower (as a sub-$5 price would look insulting/embarrassing to their own product). Even at $5, I don't see too many takers. Maybe Apple charges if you subscribe via other platforms (e.g. Roku) but keeps it free on Apple devices? I still think it makes more sense that it's free and exclusive to Apple devices for the first year or two until it scales up and then it becomes its own SVOD that Apple charges for and distributes to non-Apple devices too (like Apple Music).

 

[PickUrPoison]

In other words, "I wanna open an article that I know is about one specific topic, and complain about something that is NOT that topic."

I’m definitely interested to see what Apple has up their sleeve for the subscription services.

I’m definitely NOT interested in seeing the same boring list of troll or astroturfed complaints posted from the latest script. Unfortunately, mods rarely delete off-topic posts, sometimes not even when it includes PRSI content—unless the thread becomes a total cesspool of a 4chan-type buzzword hatefest.

 

[Bin Cook]

Services. Services. Services.

Eddy Cue is now the most important and influential person at Apple and a cert to be the next CEO.

Suppose it would carry on the sliding negative scale of CEO appointments, though there is not much left to go until the village idiot after Eddy.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I’m hoping they announce a live TV service with HBO, Stars, and Showtime as a $10 add on.

But the service will be $89 month.

 

[TrenttonY]

Why can’t Apple just have some of the iTunes Movies to be in a Apple-branded. Keep streaming service? And have some original content, free of charge for Apple users. Win Win, and could actually take on Netflix.