Hulu could beat Apple to the punch with live TV subscription service

AppleInsider

Hulu -- currently an on-demand platform -- could soon join the ranks of internet-based live TV providers, increasing the challenge for Apple's rumored entry into the same arena.

Hulu's live TV is targeted for launch in the first quarter of 2017, sources told the Wall Street Journal. Co-owners Disney and Fox are reportedly near agreements for licensing many of their channels, including ABC, ESPN, and Disney Channel, plus Fox, Fox News, FX, and Fox's national and regional sports outlets.

Although early talks have begun with other media firms, the service isn't expected to grow into something resembling a regular cable bundle. Another Hulu owner, Comcast's NBCUniversal, has yet to agree to license any channels, the sources noted.

As described so far, people will not need to be an existing Hulu subscriber to get access to live TV. An executive the Journal identified as "close to Hulu" agreed that $40 per month was in the right ballpark for a subscription cost.

That exact figure would make Hulu more expensive than rivals Sling TV and PlayStation Vue, and the Journal's sources said that the new service would come with targeted advertising. It might have cloud-based DVR functions as well as the ability to load recent episodes on-demand.

The state of Apple's live TV plans are unknown, as rumors have been largely dormant for months. The company could conceivably launch a new service including original programming in September, but talks have allegedly stalled. The major area of conflict is believed to be Apple's demand for a Sling-like "skinny" channel bundle costing less than $30 per month, and content providers being unwilling to exclude some of their channels.

rogifan_new

I'm not completely sold on these skinny bundle OTT cable packages but having Hulu beat Apple to the market will just be another blow to the stock. Ugh.

wood1208

rogifan_new said:

I'm not completely sold on these skinny bundle OTT cable packages but having Hulu beat Apple to the market will just be another blow to the stock. Ugh.

Hulu owners are in TV business before Apple. So, they can leverage and has come down to survival against cord cutting epidemic.. It will be another entry in future crowded skinny live TV bundles market like SLING, TWC NYC pilot and Comcast coming soon..

ceek74

Live TV is sooooo, old.  I want future broadcasts hurry up Apple!!

lkrupp

We see the big problem right in this article. Comcast owns NBC and they will be in no hurry to cut their own cable based throats. I’m guessing there will have to be government intervention to separate content producers from content delivery services before any true innovation can take place. And we already see little fiefdoms arising by delivery services who are producing their own content and making them exclusive to their service.

rogifan_new

sog35 said:

rogifan_new said:

I'm not completely sold on these skinny bundle OTT cable packages but having Hulu beat Apple to the market will just be another blow to the stock. Ugh.

Whatever.  

Dish getting live TV really was a blow to the stock.
Sony getting live TV on the PS4 was a blow to the stock.
Google Fiber getting live TV was a blow to the stock.

Right?

Apple knows Services is long term future of the company. They will bring out a live TV package that will kill the others when the time is right.

What's going to kill the others? Apple Music isn't killing the others because it's better it's because of the power of defaults, the power of Apple's music app, which is automatically installed on every iOS device, becoming an Music app.

genovelle

sog35 said:

rogifan_new said:

I'm not completely sold on these skinny bundle OTT cable packages but having Hulu beat Apple to the market will just be another blow to the stock. Ugh.

Whatever.  

Dish getting live TV really was a blow to the stock.
Sony getting live TV on the PS4 was a blow to the stock.
Google Fiber getting live TV was a blow to the stock.

Right?

Apple knows Services is long term future of the company. They will bring out a live TV package that will kill the others when the time is right.

I think people miss their intent. Apple my very well be leaking their plans hoping someone will beat them to the punch, make all the major mistakes and allow them to avoid the pitfalls and focus on what works and what's missing. What a brilliant way to use your competitors as Guinea pigs for market research.

boltsfan17

lkrupp said:

We see the big problem right in this article. Comcast owns NBC and they will be in no hurry to cut their own cable based throats. I’m guessing there will have to be government intervention to separate content producers from content delivery services before any true innovation can take place. And we already see little fiefdoms arising by delivery services who are producing their own content and making them exclusive to their service.

Good point. Even if Apple offered something, I don't see how it will be any different than the other high priced skinny bundles. Content providers are in no rush to make their content a la carte. They don't want to piss off the hand that feeds them (cable/satellite providers). The only way this changes is by a mass exodus of cable/satellite subscribers (which isn't going to happen) or government intervention. 

VisualSeed

"The state of Apple's live TV plans are unknown, as rumors have been largely dormant for months. The company could conceivably launch a new service including original programming in September, but talks have allegedly stalled. The major area of conflict is believed to be Apple's demand for a Sling-like "skinny" channel bundle costing less than $30 per month, and content providers being unwilling to exclude some of their channels."

Time always sorts these things out. The bloated, mandatory, parasite, channel packages are quietly dropping like flies. When HBO went straight to the end user with a standalone subscription services it pretty much signed the death warrant for the niche channels that only existed because they had to be carried by cable companies in order to carry their much more popular sister channels. Because they continued to insist on this, cord cutting accelerated and now the only way to stay in the game is to offer skinny and a la carte programming. Apple will eventually get their deal. Hell, they may even let Hulu do all the leg work, then buy them. 

rogifan_new

sog35 said:

rogifan_new said:

What's going to kill the others? Apple Music isn't killing the others because it's better it's because of the power of defaults, the power of Apple's music app, which is automatically installed on every iOS device, becoming an Music app.

Come on dude.  Were you expecting Apple to have 100 million Apple music subscribers in 6 months?

Apple has 13 million paid subscribers in about 6 months. It took Spotify/Pandora FOUR OR FIVE YEARS to reach 13 million.

Plus streaming music paid subscriptions is still a very small but growing industry.  Even the market leader has less than 20 million paid subscribers. The total market is less than 100 million subscribers. So Apple grabbing about 20% of the market in 6 months is amazing.

Again power of defaults, not because Apple is doing something in this space that nobody else is doing. Harder to do with TV. 

boltsfan17

VisualSeed said:

"The state of Apple's live TV plans are unknown, as rumors have been largely dormant for months. The company could conceivably launch a new service including original programming in September, but talks have allegedly stalled. The major area of conflict is believed to be Apple's demand for a Sling-like "skinny" channel bundle costing less than $30 per month, and content providers being unwilling to exclude some of their channels."

Time always sorts these things out. The bloated, mandatory, parasite, channel packages are quietly dropping like flies. When HBO went straight to the end user with a standalone subscription services it pretty much signed the death warrant for the niche channels that only existed because they had to be carried by cable companies in order to carry their much more popular sister channels. Because they continued to insist on this, cord cutting accelerated and now the only way to stay in the game is to offer skinny and a la carte programming. Apple will eventually get their deal. Hell, they may even let Hulu do all the leg work, then buy them. 

HBO going standalone did nothing. HBO was already a standalone price for cable/satellite customers unless you buy the most expensive package that includes all channels. Cord cutters still make up an extremely small number. There still really isn't a la carte programming. 

mike1

Curious if cord cutters - who actually watch a lot of TV and sports - are really saving money?

All these services add up and it's a lot of accounts to maintain and no device has made it easy to switch channels like a satellite or cable box.

VisualSeed

boltsfan17 said:

VisualSeed said:

"The state of Apple's live TV plans are unknown, as rumors have been largely dormant for months. The company could conceivably launch a new service including original programming in September, but talks have allegedly stalled. The major area of conflict is believed to be Apple's demand for a Sling-like "skinny" channel bundle costing less than $30 per month, and content providers being unwilling to exclude some of their channels."

Time always sorts these things out. The bloated, mandatory, parasite, channel packages are quietly dropping like flies. When HBO went straight to the end user with a standalone subscription services it pretty much signed the death warrant for the niche channels that only existed because they had to be carried by cable companies in order to carry their much more popular sister channels. Because they continued to insist on this, cord cutting accelerated and now the only way to stay in the game is to offer skinny and a la carte programming. Apple will eventually get their deal. Hell, they may even let Hulu do all the leg work, then buy them. 

HBO going standalone did nothing. HBO was already a standalone price for cable/satellite customers unless you buy the most expensive package that includes all channels. Cord cutters still make up an extremely small number. There still really isn't a la carte programming. 

HBO going standalong meant nobody had to buy any cable package or even have cable TV to get HBO programming. That is the game changer. When suddenly the premium option is available direct and can be had without having to add it to basic cable, that suddenly diminishes the value of every basic cable channel that were previously only subscribed to by people that wanted to watch Game of Thrones and were too lazy to use bit torrent. It will only take a handful of other networks to do the same and suddenly cable TV has real competition. Cord cutters may still be a minority, but they are growing and the much larger group that scares cable providers the most are the hybrids. The ones that still subscribe to cable tv programming but get most of their programing on demand from a set top box or mobile device. 

redstater

We are going to quickly reach the point where people are going to simply lose track of where to find TV shows and movies. You already have to juggle network TV, basic cable, premium cable, Netflix, Amazon and Hulu. Now the various networks and studios are pulling their content off Netflix, Amazon and Hulu to create their own streaming channels (such as Sony's Crackle, plus CW and BBC are planning on starting theirs) in addition to Hulu, which is primarily owned by Fox, Comcast (who owns NBC) and Disney. There is also a ton of specialty streaming services catering to a niche audience out there. Sony even has two: Crackle and their Playstation network.

If Apple creates their own, expect the dominos to fall. Sony will probably merge (ad-supported) Crackle with their premium Playstation network. Microsoft would expand their XBox network to people who do not own an XBox. Google, which already tried and failed with subscription YouTube channels and is said to be already looking into ways to license content, would likely merge Google Play Movies/TV with YouTube.

And a wildcard: the FCC ruling forcing cable companies to support third-party cable boxes. Being a third-party cable box with app support was the original intent of Google TV, but it was blocked by a combination of the cable companies and the networks (the same which blocked Apple's original plans for an Apple TV refresh). You can imagine that Sony, Samsung, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and possibly Roku will all follow suit with their own cable boxes. We know that Roku, Google and Microsoft would introduce multi-platform devices. Would Apple, Sony, Amazon and Samsung? Even if Apple, Sony, Amazon and Samsung release multi-platform devices, would they release their apps and content to devices to other manufacturers?

The advantage would be to whoever is able to make "one device to rule them all": the company that is able to have apps and content from all suppliers, or at least all but one. That tends to favor Roku, the one company that is not in competition with anyone else in hardware or software, as they do not make phones, tablets, PCs, operating systems etc. Of course, Roku is the one competitor that has the shallowest pockets too ...

Eh. This may actually be one area where FCC regulation would actually benefit the customer. The free market will thin some of the herd - as Yahoo is no longer in the original TV content business - but there are more than enough big "software and services companies" to lead to a spider's web of channels and content.

boltsfan17

VisualSeed said:

boltsfan17 said:

HBO going standalone did nothing. HBO was already a standalone price for cable/satellite customers unless you buy the most expensive package that includes all channels. Cord cutters still make up an extremely small number. There still really isn't a la carte programming. 

HBO going standalong meant nobody had to buy any cable package or even have cable TV to get HBO programming. That is the game changer. When suddenly the premium option is available direct and can be had without having to add it to basic cable, that suddenly diminishes the value of every basic cable channel that were previously only subscribed to by people that wanted to watch Game of Thrones and were too lazy to use bit torrent. It will only take a handful of other networks to do the same and suddenly cable TV has real competition. Cord cutters may still be a minority, but they are growing and the much larger group that scares cable providers the most are the hybrids. The ones that still subscribe to cable tv programming but get most of their programing on demand from a set top box or mobile device. 

I agree it was a game changer, but looking ahead now, it really hasn't done much for the crowd who wants a la carte programming. Yes, I think HBO paved the way for more providers offering a paid standalone option. The issue with that is if you purchase all the standalone options that are out there, you are paying more than a cable/satellite subscription. The whole point is to buy what you watch so its cheaper than being forced to buy all these channels you don't watch. For people who watch a lot of sports like me, cord cutting is impossible. I watch a lot of soccer and there are no viable streaming options. DirecTV has a ton of free stuff that I watch like all the Champions League games and Europa League games. 

gatorguy

lkrupp said:

We see the big problem right in this article. Comcast owns NBC and they will be in no hurry to cut their own cable based throats. I’m guessing there will have to be government intervention to separate content producers from content delivery services before any true innovation can take place. And we already see little fiefdoms arising by delivery services who are producing their own content and making them exclusive to their service.

Personally I'd rather not see government intervention. When content producers are barred from controlling content delivery it might be a short skip and a jump to Apple and their walled garden becoming another excuse for intervention. 

ireland

Why would you need DVR in an Internet age? It makes no sense. Who are these idiots?

gatorguy

mike1 said:

Curious if cord cutters - who actually watch a lot of TV and sports - are really saving money?

All these services add up and it's a lot of accounts to maintain and no device has made it easy to switch channels like a satellite or cable box.

For me there's Sling, $20, Hulu $8. and Netflix another $8, so totaling $36/mo. Just added HBO for $15 but had I been smart I'd wait until Game of Thrones (my reason for subscribing) was over for the season and binge watch it in a single month, dropping it afterwards.  In any event I'll drop HBO seasonally. My Tivo service was a one-time "lifetime subscription", so spread over the 5 years I'd expect the refurb equipment to last it's added maybe another $4/mo

Don't forget too about internet access, adding another $60/mo for 50GB speeds in my case. So now I'm up to $100-$115 month roughly compared to well over $200 when I cut the cable out. Between OTA channels and my paid content I've got everything covered that I'm interested in including regional sports. 

For me I see a good savings. 

VisualSeed

boltsfan17 said:

VisualSeed said:

HBO going standalong meant nobody had to buy any cable package or even have cable TV to get HBO programming. That is the game changer. When suddenly the premium option is available direct and can be had without having to add it to basic cable, that suddenly diminishes the value of every basic cable channel that were previously only subscribed to by people that wanted to watch Game of Thrones and were too lazy to use bit torrent. It will only take a handful of other networks to do the same and suddenly cable TV has real competition. Cord cutters may still be a minority, but they are growing and the much larger group that scares cable providers the most are the hybrids. The ones that still subscribe to cable tv programming but get most of their programing on demand from a set top box or mobile device. 

I agree it was a game changer, but looking ahead now, it really hasn't done much for the crowd who wants a la carte programming. Yes, I think HBO paved the way for more providers offering a paid standalone option. The issue with that is if you purchase all the standalone options that are out there, you are paying more than a cable/satellite subscription. The whole point is to buy what you watch so its cheaper than being forced to buy all these channels you don't watch. For people who watch a lot of sports like me, cord cutting is impossible. I watch a lot of soccer and there are no viable streaming options. DirecTV has a ton of free stuff that I watch like all the Champions League games and Europa League games. 

The first step will be for more standalone network programming. I agree sports networks are big hold outs because of how they license their broadcast rights from the various leagues. But once you have standalone network programming the real battle of the marketplace comes into play. Crap channels with no followers will simply not be able to charge premiums. Others will only charge premiums if the content is not crap but is for a very small but dedicated audience. People will settle on some average monthly entertainment budget of $100 (or something) and networks will have to compete for a slice of that pie. Right now I don't mind paying $11 for Hulu and $6 for CBS and $20 for HBO because it is nowhere near what I was paying for Comcast. That covers about all I'd want to watch at home and if I want to watch European football I can always go to the bar. Eventually the advantages of networks begin to wane and studios will sell programming directly. But right now we are a long ways away from that. Currently networks are trying to be studios to stay relevant. 

cpsro

ireland said:

Why would you need DVR in an Internet age? It makes no sense. Who are these idiots?

"DVR-like" is not DVR. Some of Tivo's time warping patents expire next year. Service providers like Hulu will then be able to offer pause, reverse and skip functionality with "live" streaming program material, without having to pay a licensing fee.

I use a DVR to record free OTA broadcasts for later viewing--mostly "news".

cpsro

mike1 said:

Curious if cord cutters - who actually watch a lot of TV and sports - are really saving money?

All these services add up and it's a lot of accounts to maintain and no device has made it easy to switch channels like a satellite or cable box.

Many ISPs (e.g., Comcast and Charter) include ESPN access with their Internet service. Via the espn3.com website, their Internet-only customers can watch anything on ESPN/ESPN2 live and limited-time replays. Except this isn't allowed on iOS!!! To watch on iOS, people have to pay for separate service, such as a TV bundle or Sling. Totally pathetic. (Just as pathetic are MLB.tv's blackout rules.)

I watch a considerable amount of sports on the Internet legally, but I rarely pay extra. As mentioned above, much is free on a computer. Plus services like Sling and Netflix often give out free passes to entice customers to return, if you've the patience to wait to watch the trash. So much garbage exists, and there are so many more productive uses of my time, it's very difficult to justify paying for TV.