What did you want? Watch band rumors or patent cases?
[doublepost=1462400026][/doublepost]
Fees and also Hulu is run by networks. YouTube has a. Huge customer base so they can easily get first priory in anything Internet video related.
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
[doublepost=1462400026][/doublepost]
We need people to stay on cable otherwise the ISPs will make up the lost money by raising Internet prices and setting caps.
Wrong. The delay is most certainly due to Disney. Disney isn't going to give the ABC channels or the Disney channels to any of these services unless they also put ESPN in the lowest tier making everyone pay for it. This then drives up the base price. So Apple is stuck in a rock and a hard place because they need the Disney and ABC channels but don't want to force everyone to pay for ESPN. Disney is also mandating some of the streaming services like Sling TV only offer a maximum of one single stream at a time. This is why Sling TV now has two different plans: one with Disney owned channels (including ESPN) and one without. The one without also allows multiple streams. I think in the end Apple will be forced to do the same thing as Sling TV and offer one plan with the Disney owned channels and one without.
Most likely is a) they don't fear Hulu b) Hulu and youtube aren't demanding to keep access to private customer information.
Look into how shows are actually made and sold.It is not as simple as ABC wants to make a show, so ABC creates a show, funds it from ABC's bank account, and then hopes it succeeds. Indeed, the biggest role ABC plays in this is promoting the show and distributing the show, and selling ad time. The role that ABC, and other channels like, play can be replaced by any other distribution system.
As with all businesses today, the risk is spread out across many companies. It is usually the production company, often not affiliated with any channel, that takes the creative risk. They invest in a script and make a pilot episode. Then the show is shopped around to channels. For example, 30 Rock was originally written to be generic about any tv network and was shopped around to all of them, but NBC was the one that bought it. In terms of funding and the monetary risk, this initial funding to make the pilot and other costs associated with bringing up a new show are put up by investors, also usually not affiliated with a channel. The investors can be individuals, there are private equity firms that specialize in investing in movies and tv shows, or banks. Obviously there are interest rates and/or profit sharing involved.
None of that would be different with any show in the future. The only difference is instead of trying to fit into a certain limited time slot on a certain limited channel, they can be added to Netflix or Hulu or Amazon where there is no vying to desireable time slots and the content is not limited by any artificial limits like channels.
YouTube (Google) and Hulu making an end run around Apple. Apple has been rumored to be working on this since before Job's death. They still haven't been able to make it work but their competitors now seem to be moving closer. It makes the Apple leadership and their salesmanship appear to be deficient, lacking competence or having too much arrogance.
I'm becoming more disillusioned with Apple. I just hate the alternatives more... right now.
I won't be subscribing to THIS or any other bundle. Companies don't seem to understand the fundamental item of importance here. At least for our family, we cut the cord because we don't want to pay for bundles of UNWATCHED channels!
We left DirecTV when the bill hit $95/mo. There were TONS of bundled channel we WEREN'T watching. SlingTV (owned by Dish Network) wanted to shrink the bundle to $20/20, but again with channels we don't want or watch. NO GO!
Now, YouTube is making the EXACT SAME MISTAKE. I'm perfectly willing to pay,
À la carte, for the channels that I WANT! But don't force Disney Channel, Fox, ESPN, etc. on me for $40. I DON'T WANT THEM!
We left DirecTV when the bill hit $95/mo. There were TONS of bundled channel we WEREN'T watching. SlingTV (owned by Dish Network) wanted to shrink the bundle to $20/20, but again with channels we don't want or watch. NO GO!
Now, YouTube is making the EXACT SAME MISTAKE. I'm perfectly willing to pay,
À la carte, for the channels that I WANT! But don't force Disney Channel, Fox, ESPN, etc. on me for $40. I DON'T WANT THEM!
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Oh brother. Disney & Apple are about the best of friends. Do you know who (was) the largest shareholder in Disney and who's wife is now?
Disney- like Apple- wants to maximize their revenues & profits for what they sell. If we can rationalize Apple maximizing their profits, we should not be so quick to fault everyone else for wanting to do the exact same thing.
We have to get over this delusional concept that we'll ever be able to buy just the channels we want- maybe even free of commercials- and get them at some fraction of what we pay now. Nobody in the chain except us dreamers have any interest in that at all. Do you really think even Apple would opt for their 30% of the top on $5 or $15/month vs. the average of about $73/month already in play now? When does any replacement business model fueled by Apple result in Apple getting theirs AND us consumers getting a huge discount over what we used to pay? So why do we think THIS could possibly be any different? And why does any of the other players beyond us want to cut their revenue throats for us... or Apple?
If Apple wants Disney on board, make Disney an offer they can't refuse. This kind of content often comes up for contract renewals at which time whoever brings the most money to the table usually wins the contract. Apple is not exactly pinched for cash such that they can't compete to win such "auctions" if they would want to do so. But, apparently, what Apple wants is the early 2000's music industry deal again, where, as one Video industry executive put it during negotiations with Apple not long ago: Apple wants everything which, in context, meant "leaving us with nothing." What I got out of that was Apple doesn't know how to play the win:win game... or doesn't believe it needs to. Companies should just give their media products to Apple for the privilege of getting to claim a partnership with Apple and watch Apple coffers grow even more.
Flip this concept around. Imagine if Disney decided to get in the computing device retailing business. Imagine the MacRumors thread where Disney is wanting everything leaving Apple- the company that makes the products that Disney wants to sell- with nothing. Would we be so quick to fault "greedy Apple" for not wanting to do such a deal? No, we'd be ripping Disney to no end. So apparently Disney would be judged wrong & "greedy" either way.
Al carte service is a stupid, crappy idea and would ONLY benefit people who don't watch much TV anyway.
And for a good portion of the US population, that's not possible. There's usually one high speed internet provider in many locations across the US. Where I live, it's either Charter cable internet (60 Mbps down) or AT&T DSL (6 Mbps down). And Charter knows this... they charge me $68 with tax for my internet only package.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Actually, it kind of works for some now because so (relatively) few actually play the full cord cutting game. If the masses moved on it, it would be killed with pricing shifts to preserve the existing revenue & profit streams and then some. The only way it could really happen as often dreamed about around here is if the average household was ready to lay out quite a bit more than they do now... for less channels (but the ones they want). Kill the commercials and each household needs to chip in at least $54/month just to make up that revenue (which currently is not coming out of our pockets but is instead paid for by other people). Cut Apple in and add 30% to the top for Apple.
We on the other hand, look at Netflix and Hulu and think that maybe we can get everything for nearly nothing on a mass scale. Yet we ignore that Apple already has an al-a-carte, commercial free service available... for years now. The shows & movies are priced for exactly that kind of consumption. The problem. The masses don't want to pay that much for THAT version of al-a-carte. Instead, some of think we will somehow get to go from paying about $73/month on average to maybe $10 or $20/month but get everything we want to watch and cut Apple in for their 30%... maybe killing the commercial subsidy... and have the very players that would have to eat the bulk of that revenue & profit loss also have 100% control of the pipes on which Apple's replacement would entirely depend... and yet they would just roll over and let Apple have it anyway.
For a generally smart group on most topics around here, we can seem about dumb as rocks on this particular topic. I suspect it's that we just don't understand the many variables in play that work both for and against us consumers... but especially the "for" part.
Last edited:
Well now we are discussing something different. I only see an exception in the case that the only companies that can afford to do this are ones already established who made revenue elsewhere. It's not a viable option now as there are too few companies able to take on the chore of buying/funding a pilot and committing it to series. Not to mention television follows an extremely antiquated business model. My company still delivers to Dish Network on beta-cams. BETA-CAMS! This future is not right around the corner. Broadcast networks are still needed until there are multiple viable options in terms of producing and distributing shows. Not to mention infrastructure and service caps.
TLDR: My point is, channels are very necessary to distribute content and won't be going away anytime soon.
I wish it was that easy, unfortanatly in my location we only have 3 choices
[doublepost=1462414083][/doublepost]
Understood, but what about other providers? Also, I am thinking about the future, has this all shakes out when the content providers jump on board.
[doublepost=1462414232][/doublepost]
Yeah, but at what cost? What about other providers? Not everyone is serviced by Comcast. What about throttling?
I guess our difference is this: when I say channels I mean literally the channels and the numbers on a cable box, and you seem to mean the backbone company that owns various channels. Is that right?
I don't think there is a point to the many literal channels on a cable box. For example, with HBO channels on cable, there is HBO, HBO2, HBO Comedy, HBO Family, HBO Latino, HBO Signature, and HBO Zone. None of those distinctions matter - it's all owned by HBO and all available on HBONow. That is what I mean by channels are pointless.
I agree that in terms of content distribution, we need companies like Comcast/NBCUniversal, News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS. Though I would prefer there were more than those 6 that now control over 90% of the media. That said, whether I watch those companies' content on channels such as Comedy Central or TBS, Discovery or History, Travel or Food, does not matter. Those are just brands, categories, or whatever ways to divide up demographics. They aren't needed anymore.
Well we have just dumped SkyTV (NZ$50 a month) for Netflix NZ$12 a month
Anything worth watching on Sky costs extra $$
If you want PVR ability it costs extra $$
It still has adverts, and worse, its full of whats coming up next, next week,different channels spamvertising.
It costs a LOT more
Its full of rubbish channels.
Its full of rubbish editing where by 1/2 the program is simply repeating what was said earlier. WTF do audiences really have the attention span of a goldfish ?
So, yeah, I am happy to pay for Netflix
Oh and I have unlimited broadband with no traffic shaping etc.
With Comcast, if you only buy Internet, without TV, it costs about $80 with fees. My double-play costs about $120 with fees. So if I want to replace cable TV with YouTube's service, I'd pay about the same price for a thinner package. I think this is why Apple's deal didn't go through. If you can't offer better service or lower price, then there's really no point to enter a market.
At present cost remain the same. Not experienced any throttling other then Netflix some years ago. If Comcast, the largest moves to more data, the rest will have more of an incentive to follow, the good news part.
