Obvious that Apple was asking for too much from the networks when two other companies can get it done.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
YouTube Working on 'Unplugged' TV Subscription Service for 2017 as Hulu Confirms Live TV Plans
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i THINK you mean youtube RED. Redtube is something COMPLETELY different lol!!
This is ridiculous. More outlets that offer a small amount of channels and programming at a high price.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
With Hulu, the owners of the content face the decision of giving Apple their 30% right off the top or keeping it for themselves (at least those who own Hulu).
With YouTube, it's probably dedicated focus + maybe a lower, "off the top" profit demand.
Apple struggles in this kind of thing because they seem to play a win:lose game instead of a win:win. And potential partners have seen how such engagements work when they just give Apple what Apple wants per the whole music industry deal.
Cue 5 guys pitching how Apple saved the music industry. If we actually believe that, apparently the video industry doesn't need Apple as savior.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
My guess (which is pretty similar to yours): profit margin... like "thinner"... is paramount.
Sour grapes it's not Apple? If this comes to pass it will undoubtedly be available to AppleTV users.
I'm kinda pessimistic on the "all four networks bit". CBS seems staunchly opposed to not being a standalone service (with an exorbitant price for a single network).
Internet providers are already prepairing for the inevitable. Comcast just announced their data cap is moving to a 1,000 gb from 250 gb. A bit of good news.
Last edited:
Too late. I already learned I do just fine with cable TV and would not go back at any price. OTA and Netflix/Amazon is all the TV I could ever need.
It is unfortunate that while many channels have 1 or 2 shows worth watching, no channel has $15 a month worth of shows to watch. Certainly not for 12 monthly payments. For myself, HBO is worth the fee when Game of Thrones or The Leftovers is on, but at no other time. I don't know what the answer is, I just hope there is still enough money around to make shows like Game of Thrones when all these channels die.
Boom! A lot of talk on here about 'greedy' cable/satellite companies and networks who are trying to turn a profit. And very little about Apple wanting to cut themselves in on a big piece of the pie as a distributor. No way Apple gets in this game and it ends up cheaper for the end consumer. Very little chance that true a la carte distribution would be cheaper than bundled TV either.
There is a solution out there for a better distribution model...but people need to be realistic about what it can be and what it will cost.
Hulu is owned by a collection of entertainment industry channels (Disney/ABC, Fox, and NBC). They don't lose any profit by using Hulu for this service, but they would if they had Apple taking a 30% cut.
Youtube will probably make the price point be financially viable with the providers. Google wouldn't make a profit off the service, but instead would make their profit off the ads they can cater towards you.
No, they're not. Sports are a particularly lucrative business, hence availability on streaming has been not as good so far, but really live sports are content just like any other content. Channels are just an old and out of date way to categorize and distribute content. Today, we have better ways to accomplish both categories and distribution.
For example, I'm a Red Sox fan. I don't care whether the game is on my local sports channel NESN, or if it's a national broadcast game on Fox or ESPN, or if it's a playoff game on TBS or whoever else happens to show those games. Really, it doesn't matter. The product I care about is the baseball game, not who gets to sell commercials. Indeed, I buy mlb.tv and short-circuit all that nonsense anyway. On there, it really doesn't matter as there aren't even any commercials.
It appears that "they" can't get over the bundled concept. Ala Carte cheaper than cable may be a ways off.
only one particular channel has legal rights to show whatever particular game you want to watch, so the channel is relevant
I agree that it sucks and should be changed. not all sports offer mlb.tv style bulk purchase, baseball fans are lucky there
I know everybody hates soccer in the US, but I want Premier League (nbcsn) + Champions League (Fox Sports). There is no mlb.tv style package available. Fox soccer 2 go has no premier league and nbcsn is cable sub only I believe. Cant cut the cord if I want to stay legal
Last edited:
Good point - every time I sit down and do the math I find cord cutting to not save me much money/month and more complexity with numerous apps, etc.
The funny thing? Shows like GoT probably don't get made in an a la carte world. GoT, and shows like it, costs a boatload to make. Currently, studios can gamble because of the pooled revenue. In an a la carte world, they'd be less likely to tie up cash unless it's a sure thing. Consequently, you'll end up with a bunch of low brow, cheap to produce reality TV.
Serious question. What do you do if the content you personally like isn't very popular regionally/nationally? In that "content world" the only content that will be made consistently is content that will generate revenue. Content creators won't be taking many chances since a high dollar production like GoT could turn out to be Marco Polo.
Regardless of content packaging, the elephant in the room remains the tight hold of the bandwidth suppliers on streaming.
My opinion is that they are not going to secede their grasp of their home markets easily and morphed into pipe providers, as there is no value add to them.
[Thus we already see bandwidth caps being placed (eg. Comcast > 300GB-month caps for "foreign" content).]
Unless there is a new wireless technology that bypasses these land-locked monopolies, multimedia streaming onto the home remains a pie dream.
Unless, of course, it is delivered heavily compressed (eg. 480p30) -- an unacceptable outcome to those that watch on mega-sized panels.
My opinion is that they are not going to secede their grasp of their home markets easily and morphed into pipe providers, as there is no value add to them.
[Thus we already see bandwidth caps being placed (eg. Comcast > 300GB-month caps for "foreign" content).]
Unless there is a new wireless technology that bypasses these land-locked monopolies, multimedia streaming onto the home remains a pie dream.
Unless, of course, it is delivered heavily compressed (eg. 480p30) -- an unacceptable outcome to those that watch on mega-sized panels.
Meh.... The real problem is, the content creators/resellers (the TV networks) think their content has more value than the typical consumer feels it's worth. That leads to these issues of everyone else having to beg/plead for permission to rebroadcast their content digitally over other services, and getting stuck paying too high of royalties to do so.
$35 a month for Google's collection of network stations and a few other misc. channels? Why would I pay that, when my Internet broadband already comes from my cable company and they always do bundle deals making it pointless NOT to bundle Internet and a TV package with them instead?
What I think traditional cable providers will eventually do is simply morph into broadband providers who just stream all of the TV content you pay for to set-top boxes that are little computers getting IP addresses on the cable network, just like any other Internet connected device in your home. (This is exactly how AT&T U-Verse has worked for years.) Then they'll make it attractive to keep paying for the streams from them vs. anyone else by saying their content doesn't count against the data caps they apply.
Any *real* change benefiting the consumer will only come about when alternatives create enough of their OWN original content so you're just as happy (or happier) watching what they sell than what all the traditional, established networks offer.
$35 a month for Google's collection of network stations and a few other misc. channels? Why would I pay that, when my Internet broadband already comes from my cable company and they always do bundle deals making it pointless NOT to bundle Internet and a TV package with them instead?
What I think traditional cable providers will eventually do is simply morph into broadband providers who just stream all of the TV content you pay for to set-top boxes that are little computers getting IP addresses on the cable network, just like any other Internet connected device in your home. (This is exactly how AT&T U-Verse has worked for years.) Then they'll make it attractive to keep paying for the streams from them vs. anyone else by saying their content doesn't count against the data caps they apply.
Any *real* change benefiting the consumer will only come about when alternatives create enough of their OWN original content so you're just as happy (or happier) watching what they sell than what all the traditional, established networks offer.