25 Channel Apple TV Service Coming This Fall Tuesday Mar 17 2015 08:02 EDT Each year, for much of the last decade now, reports have bubbled forth that Apple is in talk with broadcasters or cable operators about offering their own television service. Except every few years reports also emerge that note Apple is having a hard time getting the broadcast and cable industry to budge when it comes to more progressive channel lineups, pricing models or using Apple devices as set top boxes. Apparently it's that time of year again. The Wall Street Journal notes (and surely they mean it this time) that Apple is preparing to launch a subscription TV service sometime this fall that will offer a collection of roughly twenty-five channels. The report claims Apple's service won't be including NBC content after the company had a "falling out" with Comcast/NBC Universal: quote: Apple and Comcast were in talks as recently as last year about working together on a streaming television platform that would combine Apple’s expertise in user interfaces with Comcast’s strength in broadband delivery. Apple came to believe that Comcast was stringing it along while the cable giant focused on its own X1 Web-enabled set-top box, the people said. One media executive said it may be difficult for Apple to launch a service without NBCUniversal channels.
According to the Journal, Apple's service should cost around $30 to $40. It's expected to be announced in June and will launch sometime in September. While we've heard these kinds of promises before, 2015 really does seem to be the year that standalone streaming TV services finally begin to take root as (most) broadcasters finally loosen their grip on streaming licensing. |
1 recommendation |
shrugsEveryone hoping for this kind of technology is going to end up paying more money, for less channels. Bring on the saturated peering points baby !
lol | |
| |
-2 recommendations |
KennyWest
Anon
2015-Mar-17 9:17 am
Re: shrugsThen Comcast and VZ will be blamed for that too. | |
| | | |
MacAir
Anon
2015-Mar-17 11:55 am
Re: shrugsRather than trying to jam Tbps of traffic down the cheapest/unprepared transit providers (and blame/rank ISPs for ones own decisions), Apple appears to be trying to work towards a long term solution by connecting to many ISPs and working out fair business deals (vs demanding "free or else!") » bgp.he.net/AS714#_peersDownvoters know this is true | |
|
| |
to ITALIAN926
Why would "everyone" pay more money. Most will simply ignore it, until someone comes up with a well priced alternative like Netflix did, it may take a coupe of years but the market is there and they are not paying these early stupid prices. | |
|
|
sure..."Comcasts strength in broadband delivery" | |
| Ghoul join:2001-02-04 Mastic Beach, NY |
Ghoul
Member
2015-Mar-17 10:44 am
What's a "progressive" channel line up??MSNBC, Al Jazeera, and a reboot of Al Gore's Current TV? | |
| n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2015-Mar-17 10:55 am
Just Wait...Even if Apple should pull this off, how many years do you think it will be before those 25 channels turn into 75 channels and $100+ a month. I can see the same BS happening with streaming service as has happened with regular cable. The content companies will start demanding channels be bundled and everyone pay for them whether they want them or not. This will not be the case initially but once streaming takes over the world, the bloodsuckers will be out in full force to extort more money from the end-user. I don't think even Apple has the power to decline a "pay up or else" demand from the likes Viacom, CBS, Disney, Fox, etc. | |
| | |
baddeal
Anon
2015-Mar-17 11:06 am
Re: Just Wait...said by n2jtx:Even if Apple should pull this off, how many years do you think it will be before those 25 channels turn into 75 channels and $100+ a month. That's why we need pay per channel. Then you only pay for what ever channels you watch. At most 16 channels average. Bill could look like $30. Rather pay that then support worthless networks. | |
| | | |
Re: Just Wait...Here is where your logic breaks. Let say ESPN is paid $7 / subscriber today. Since only 1/3 of people watch it that means the price needs to be $21 / subscriber for the channel to break even in a-la-cart. Now how many people will cancel ESPN if it is $21? Then what will the price be? As each channel is going on-line, they appear to be $10-$20 per.
Now most here could care less about ESPN, but each channel operates similarly.
Also on top of that, there is a delivery cost to carry the channel to your devices. Today that is covered in your video package and delivered through a relatively efficient broadcast system. If that changed to every channel unicast delivered (because we all love on-demand). Those deliver costs need to be accounted for.
Not as simple as it sounds | |
| | | | |
Corehhi
Member
2015-Mar-17 11:50 am
Re: Just Wait...said by FactChecker:Here is where your logic breaks. Let say ESPN is paid $7 / subscriber today. Since only 1/3 of people watch it that means the price needs to be $21 / subscriber for the channel to break even in a-la-cart. Now how many people will cancel ESPN if it is $21? Then what will the price be? As each channel is going on-line, they appear to be $10-$20 per. Disney makes a killing off of ESPN and the related channels. They don't need to charge $21 to break even.......TV is Disney's most money making division. I love when people defend a price policy that is totally out of line. Disney by policy knows cable companies can't get rid of them so they charge as much as they can get away with. | |
| | | | | JPL Premium Member join:2007-04-04 Downingtown, PA |
JPL
Premium Member
2015-Mar-17 12:04 pm
Re: Just Wait...No... it would probably be higher than that. ESPN is the most expensive channel on the dial, and they get paid per subscriber that has access to the channel. How many pay TV subscriptions are in the US? Probably close to 100 million. How many of those include the most basic channel package (beyond just locals)? Probably most of those. Let's call it 90 million. ESPN is just about in all the lowest tier packages. Let's call it 85 million. Now, how much does ESPN charge per subscriber? Let's use that $7/subscriber figure (it really varies, but again ESPN is a very expensive channel and it wouldn't surprise me if that number was higher). So... do the math: $7/subscriber * 85,000,000 = $595,000,000. That means that ESPN is making over 1/2 Billion dollars PER MONTH on traditional cable subscription.
How many subscribers would ESPN realistically get in a ala carte scheme? A hell of a lot fewer than they have now. In reality, to break even with what they make now ESPN would probably have to charge in the neighborhood of $30/month.
People are also being skewed by the fact that streaming services to date seem to reflect pricing via cable. For example, HBO Now will be in line with subscribing to the package outright. But that's because HBO isn't trying to move to an all-streaming service. They are trying to grab younger consumers who aren't cable customers. They're not looking to replace their existing distribution with HBO Now. They're looking to supplement it. But move everything to true ala carte... and you're looking at a heck of a lot more than $15/month for HBO. | |
| | | | | |
to Corehhi
I'm not defending a price policy... I am telling you how these economics work today. You are just saying "they should make less profits." There is room for disruption here, but I doubt any content owner wants to follow what happened with music. They don't see that as a successful strategy. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: Just Wait...said by FactChecker:I'm not defending a price policy... I am telling you how these economics work today. You are just saying "they should make less profits." There is room for disruption here, but I doubt any content owner wants to follow what happened with music. They don't see that as a successful strategy. Chicken and the egg going on with sports programing. Teams make more money off of TV deals, players want their share, program providers then want more money and so the spiral goes. ESPN is as bundled with Disney's other channels and if you have kids you know the Disney Channel, Disney XD etc. etc. Disney tells the cable companies it's all or nothing so Disney has the cable companies by the balls. | |
|
| | | chuch join:2001-04-11 Tampa, FL |
to FactChecker
said by FactChecker:Now how many people will cancel ESPN if it is $21? And maybe that would actually force channels, like ESPN for example, to streamline their costs and cut a lot of excessive fat that comes with these price tags. This type of service would be the true "free market" model that content providers and service providers keep screaming about in light of the new Title II ruling. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Just Wait...Sports are a bit harder to "streamline" given every increasing player salaries, owner profit expectations, NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. Even TV stations are jockeying for more content, exclusive series, etc.
If anything a company like Netflix will probably have more market power to negotiate content than any other channel. Who else has 50 million subs?
Perhaps the more we talk about a-la-cart, the more what actually will happen is exclusive content gets re-bundled under a select few closed content OTT distribution systems | |
| | | | | | chuch join:2001-04-11 Tampa, FL |
chuch
Member
2015-Mar-17 3:40 pm
Re: Just Wait...said by FactChecker:Sports are a bit harder to "streamline" given every increasing player salaries, owner profit expectations, NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. Even TV stations are jockeying for more content, exclusive series, etc. That's where I was pointing to when I said "streamline" - The "profit" generator for sports has gotten way out of hand and needs to be reigned in. If these "non-profits" started feeling a squeeze from the lack of cable subscribers, maybe they will rethink contracts with outrageous payouts and signing bonuses. | |
| | | | | | | JPL Premium Member join:2007-04-04 Downingtown, PA |
JPL
Premium Member
2015-Mar-17 3:58 pm
Re: Just Wait...said by chuch:said by FactChecker:Sports are a bit harder to "streamline" given every increasing player salaries, owner profit expectations, NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. Even TV stations are jockeying for more content, exclusive series, etc. That's where I was pointing to when I said "streamline" - The "profit" generator for sports has gotten way out of hand and needs to be reigned in. If these "non-profits" started feeling a squeeze from the lack of cable subscribers, maybe they will rethink contracts with outrageous payouts and signing bonuses. But what's the incentive for ESPN to do something like this? That's the whole point. You're saying that they need to cannibalize their own business, and figure out how to make due with less revenue, out of their own volition. No, they don't. Nor will they. Any organization will work to maximize its own profits. Individuals do that too. Now if the model changes on them and they're forced to adapt, that's one thing. But you're assuming that they're going to do so willingly? Why would/should they? | |
| | | | | | | | chuch join:2001-04-11 Tampa, FL |
chuch
Member
2015-Mar-17 5:52 pm
Re: Just Wait...You're right, they don't have to do anything until the floor eventually drops out with their existing model. | |
|
| | JPL Premium Member join:2007-04-04 Downingtown, PA |
JPL to baddeal
Premium Member
2015-Mar-17 11:44 am
to baddeal
said by baddeal :At most 16 channels average. Bill could look like $30 That's the problem, though. Ala carte is expensive relative to the pricing model that they have now. No way you could get 16 channels, much less highly-viewed channels, for $30/month in an ala carte set-up. Those 16 channels would probably cost you as much, if not more, than getting 100+ cable channels today. Take a look at some of the channels that do offer ala carte pricing. This one is a couple years old, but look at WealthTV (or whatever the channel is called these days). You have a little-watched channel that you COULD get ala carte... for $5/month. That's the reality with ala carte. I'm not saying that the model is totally unworkable, but people are deluding themselves if they just do a straight extrapolation from what they pay today. I really think that's how most folks compute this- let's see I pay $100/month now, for 200 channels... that's 50 cents/channel... so I could get 10 channels for $5/month instead... where do I sign up?! It doesn't work that way. Yes, there's subsidizing of low-viewed channels (in some case very heavy subsidizing), but the model that has evolved to date has come about because of consumer demand. It's easy to blame these cable companies, or the content companies, and yes, some content companies push crap channels as part of a bundling thing, but American consumers want big cable channel offerings. That's why you see channel list comparison charts between providers. For example, AVSForum maintains a list of HD channels across a number of providers. Most people who frequent that list do so not to comparison shop but to see how their provider stacks up, for bragging rights. | |
|
| |
to n2jtx
said by n2jtx:I don't think even Apple has the power to decline a "pay up or else" demand from the likes Viacom, CBS, Disney, Fox, etc. Apple is nearly a trillion dollar company. If a content company makes a unfavorable request, Apple could/will simply buy them out. | |
| | maartenaElmo Premium Member join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA |
to n2jtx
said by n2jtx:Even if Apple should pull this off, how many years do you think it will be before those 25 channels turn into 75 channels and $100+ a month. I can see the same BS happening with streaming service as has happened with regular cable. The content companies will start demanding channels be bundled and everyone pay for them whether they want them or not. This will not be the case initially but once streaming takes over the world, the bloodsuckers will be out in full force to extort more money from the end-user. I don't think even Apple has the power to decline a "pay up or else" demand from the likes Viacom, CBS, Disney, Fox, etc. Yep, this is most certainly true. Internet is nothing more then the medium, it will still be the media companies calling the shots. This said however, there are some advantages: - No equipment rental. No equipment returns. - No "professional" install required. - Works anywhere (geographically restricted to the USA I presume) And with the above, you can cancel it for the summer when there is nothing on TV anyways but reruns and baseball, and sign up again when the winter comes. Or sign up for Dish's Sling TV service to get ESPN for the football season and dump that after the season is over. It allows people to be more selective and more flexible. Over the course of a year it is pretty easy to change services, try different ones, cancel them when you are on vacation or have a very busy work schedule, etc.... all without having to return equipment or install equipment, assuming you did the one-time investment of a media server of some sorts. | |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2015-Mar-17 10:57 am
The Fanboi NetworkLet the hand-wringing commence... | |
| |
Dweebster
Anon
2015-Mar-17 11:37 am
Cmon, this is Apple...The price will be about $80.00 for 25 channels. | |
| | |
cralt
Member
2015-Mar-17 4:17 pm
Re: Cmon, this is Apple...said by Dweebster :The price will be about $80.00 for 25 channels. Maybe. But there will be other streaming services to pick from so who cares. Its not like traditional CATV where they get a monopoly on an area. Apple had the power to take on the music industry and got them to change. Hopefully they can do the same with the TV networks. | |
| | | |
Re: Cmon, this is Apple...Well sort of. The record industry isn't exactly thriving these days. More likely floundering.... It would been worse without itunes (as prior to itunes if you wanted digital versions it was piracy or rip your own cd's).
Still the record industry has way less revenues than it did before the digital revolution. I think itunes stayed it's execution, but I don't think it saved it. | |
|
|
Steve 4Ever
Anon
2015-Mar-17 2:05 pm
Must Have ChannelFor me and all my Apple friends, we would subscribe if Logo is there. | |
| |
yuckThe last thing i'm interested in is Apple AND the cable industry united.
Yikes. | |
| IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
I'm on boardI'm on board if it has Weather Channel and Fox News.
I'll just have to install a roof antenna for the local channels. | |
| |
| |
|
|