Apple pitches $30 a month iTunes TV subscriptions - report - Page 5

Yes you have a point. My claims may be somewhat exaggerated. My major point is that as we increase our bandwidth use collectively, the ISPs will likely charge more. Internet TV will likely be a major source of increased bandwidth use. Also taking away a major bread bringer like cable TV would be far from painless, even if it didn't result in losses.... there would definitely be a reduction in profits. Sorry for sensationalizing how bad it would be for ISPs/Cable providers, I think I just wants certain ones here in Canada to fail.

Surely the content providers do not care - it's the cable networks who put the advertising in isn't it - not the people who make the programme?

My background is in theatre production, and I've thought for quite a while that the whole area of film/tv production needs a major revamp - at the moment the content we see is too beholden to the distributor/cable-network and hence the advertiser.

If a TV programme costs US$500K an episode (eg: ITV's "wire in the blood" was reported as GBP750K for a 1.5 hour 'episode') then a veiwership of 5M people wont attract enough advertisers to cover the cost for the network - but if 1/20th that number are willing to pay $2 you can still make it - the production company makes the same money either way, but with the latter there is content on offer that cable networks and advertisers would censor - oh I mean 'not find profitable'. The hurdle to overcome is the investment - it takes a lot of $$$'s to get good programming started, and cable networks offer that guarantee for 18-20 episodes a season.

With a real revolution in content distribution and a living room device to access it globally (not just domestic USA) then people looking for scripted entertainment/drama and independent content producers (not just myspace amateurs) could flock to it.

I don't see how any of this helps those looking for F1, Football, Basketball, BigBrother or any other live action entertainment - which let's face it - is where cable really makes its money - I know in Australia they only provide any non-sport programming because of government regulation (and the patronising but obligatory 'but honest honey I didn't just get it for me - you and the kids can watch it too').

I think they do care. The less advertising revenue the network gets, the less money the network is going to want to offer the production company when the next season comes up. If the owner of the show isn't the network, they'll have to finance the shortfall until they make up for it with Internet revenue.


I think it's a very interesting idea, but I wonder if there are psychological roadblocks. What you're describing isn't that far from the direct to video idea, where content is supported directly by the end user, the theatrical and network channels are bypassed, but that has a stigma attached to it. Not only that, you have to somehow build up to an act or reputation that gets such a following. Joss Whedon was able to do just that with Dr. Horrible, but he's had a long TV and movie writing career behind him that gets him enough recognition to do that.

No that was my point. The costs should end up around the same, just a shuffling of how it's worked out.

By "going after" I didn't mean what you thought I meant. I meant Apple want to be the one who sells people the box, to the kind of person who would have otherwise bought a Sky box. And taking some Sky box users away from Sky too.

Ultimately it comes down to around three things: Can Apple convince all the channels to use them? Can Apple provide an attractive option for consumers? Can Apple do all this at a price that is at least equal to what Sky and others can? Doing all three of these things is not easy, especially the first one.

The content deals are obviously the most important factor here, without them Apple can dream themselves up the wall. They will get nowhere. Unlike the phone space, something like this is one you either win or lose. There isn't much room for 'not bad' here. You either have what people want at a price they can afford, or you lose and eventually quit.

Probably the best response I've ever had to the buffet analogy, so I may have to come up with a new one, or change my mind

As to your argument, let's simplify a cable network down to 2 channels (with 2 subscribers!) to make it clear - say a cable network with Syfy and Discovery that costs $5/mth.

I watch Syfy, you watch Discovery . We never change channels. I pay $5, half goes to each channel. You do likewise. So each channel gets $5 for the 2 subscribers.

Yet I never watch Discovery, so I think "I should only pay $2.50". And you are paying $5 for your cable but you never watch Syfy, and you think "I should only pay $2.50".

Both channels KNOW that not everyone watches them. They factor that in to their price per subscriber. So yes half my money is going to your channel which seems unfair to me, but then half your money is going to my channel. When it all boils down.... really I AM paying $5 just for Syfy and you ARE paying $5 just for Discovery.... so if our cable company decided to make it "A La Carte", they still have to make sure that in the end they're making the same amount of money... so we'd each still pay $5 but just get our channel.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=103859

so all this is now for the iphone ipod viewing
we still have to pay for broad band
and we still have to pay for cable tv
and all the network channels offer all the back shows free
as does hulu
as does time warner
and what about current east /west coast news feeds and sports ??



when apple build's out 3 large doubled server farms
and offers up mega doses of cheap phone/wifi/broadband data/voice services
replacing all the verizons of the world
they also could replace the tv networks also
and on a 50mps stream send s us all the data media voice we want
on all our apple devices including the future nano phones /tablet
that is why apple has a patent on M V N O SW
and this is the future

as we all have seen the great successes in every pool apple swims in >>
apple can do wireless data faster cheaper and better than anyone else

whew

peace 9

AMEN!

I would love to pay a lower subscription rate of $30.00 that allows me access to a variety of current and past shows that would enable me to set-up my own "line-up" of tv programming that I enjoy!

I would dump my Cox Cable in a heartbeat and tell Verizon's FIOS and the satelite Direct tv and Dish Network to take a hike! I would love to stop paying for the idiotic shows I have to contend with and the "empty" channels that have nothing on them that I have to click past with the remote just to be able to get to a channel that airs a program I like watching.

I think advertisers are looking at this in a bad way... There has got to be a way for advertisers to be added to the mix to pay to have their products targeted and shown to a receptive audience while helping to keep subscription costs down. I think if done well, this is a win, win, win, win for the companies that own the content, for the advertisers that can still advertise to their target markets, for the consumer paying a lower monthly rate and viewing what they enjoy and of course for Apple!

It's not that they "could easily put caps/limits". They are already doing it now. I felt like I was being taken advantage of when I found out that canceling my TV service meant losing internet speed.

Comcast internet with TV service: $45/mo for 20mbps
Comcast internet w/o TV service: $55/mo for 4mbps (but they never tell you they bump you down)

What is wrong with this picture?

I too would love to pay less to get the same shows & movies I do now PLUS access to past episodes.

'twould be brilliant.

Pity

This TV subscription model has been in the works for quite some time, and this is not the first iteration of this model. What we see as $30 per month, is only the final cost to the consumer. Quite obviously, it will be tough for Apple to replace a cable TV bill costing $85 per month, with a $30 per month offering.

The reason Apple is able to do this, is because of the way this is going to be implemented. This is part of a very big push by both Apple and Google, where Google is looking to extend its reach in advertising into the biggest advertising market - television. The edge that Google has, is that it can serve TARGETED ADS at viewers - so instead of a one ad fits all approach that you have currently, Google can give each viewer ads that suit his/her interests. This would give much better mileage to the advertiser as well, because the conversion rate from targeted ads is much higher.

The only way Apple can win against established Cable Networks, is if Apple can offer a better deal for the Content producers and for the Advertisers. Under this partnership with Google, Apple will be able to pay MORE to the content producers, while charging LESS to the consumers, and still offer much better value to the advertiser - without increasing advertising costs too much.

When people keep saying "No way this will work", etc., they dont see the big picture. Or when people think that $30 per month will get them only the TV shows, and not other parts of TV, like sports, news, etc., they are mistaken -- $30 per month will get you EVERYTHING you get now!

Yeah but look at it this way. As of now you can watch all of ABC Lost seAsons -1-4 some of five. Most networks offer Showa online for free with one 15 to 30'sec. commercial about 5 times so in essence downloading the whole season from a torrent is in some ways, legal. You are just not paying to see commercials. This is why there is no flash in iPhone and no dvr on apple tv. Now if they are going to offer every network ala abc, CBS, NBC, sci-fi et-cetera and all the seaons, that's a different story not to mention the networks really honing in on what shows are popular ala numb3rs vs some silly reality show.

Plus cut you bill in half provided it was all HD and 24:7 with special sneak previews for like Abc Lost viewers.

Just my .02cents.

I agree totally that much is possible with targeted ads, partnerships with google, a dramatic restructure of content distribution agreements, etc etc.

I'm just not at all convinced they can pull all those things together (yet). In particular these days is Google a partner or competitor to Apple?

That will never happen as the BBC in the UK is funded by the tax payer and so heavily restricted internationally. The BBC offer *all* of their content online for free through the BBC iPlayer site, but it's locked to UK IPs.

As for Top Gear, it's huge in the UK but I must admit I find it's international success surprising. It's incredibly UK centric and the humour is British throughout, and yet it's big in the US, Canada, Australia etc.

the $85 a month cable bill includes the cost of the cable box or DVR as well paying for the very expensive infrastructure that cable companies have set up to push TV signals over their cable lines as well as pay the interest on the debt they took out years ago to upgrade their networks to the latest tech.

i don't know if there is anything the cable companies can do to stop from becoming dumb pipes

Hulu is only one of a dozens of free Internet TV sites do I don't follow this logic. Also the statement was "It's time to start getting paid for ''broadcast content'' online" not that you have to pay for all content; big difference there.

Furthermore there are rumors of a tier system where extra services are behind the paywall.

When you can get Netflix for under $10 streaming unlimited and get a dvd in the mail this seems a bit absurd. More and more, people are hooking their computers, like a mac mini, to a tv and watching hulu and iTunes and more full screen in their living room. This really is the best way to go. No need for tivo or cable or anything else. But the main reason people ARE doing this is because it's CHEAP and not $30 a month. But I have a hard time paying over $50 for a season of HDTV and keep when I'm only going to watch each episode once. Apple does need to find a way to compete or Netflix and others will certainly take over. Right now Netflix doesn't have quite enough streaming content but it's getting better. Hulu certainly doesn't have everything either but the selection is pretty good and quality is usually good but 480p and no HD for either. Apple is going in the right direction, they're just too greedy.

if it is via itunes they might. it's only latching onto something like Hulu or Netflix that is unlikely. but itunes would allow for folks to get lured into their world and hopefully stick around to buy movies and such.

if it is all of the tv library with no ads, even at only SD, I'd probably go for that price. especially if they continue to expand. I pay more than that for cable tv and barely watch half the stations I get. cut my costs, get just what i want and avoid the ads on hulu. it's a win in my book.

and if you could use it with the Apple TV I might actually buy one of those guys.


some of us work nights. some of us don't have 5 tv's lined up to watch all the shows that come on at the same time. so we pay $60 a month to cable, another $20 to tivo etc so we can catch everything. or we hulu and have annoying ads in the middle of the video that we can't get around.

so paying $30 a month to ditch the cable and the dumb ads is about right


that is due to the networks not Apple. although if Apple gives a cut to the networks, as they likely do with the purchases, more networks might join in. and many folks aren't too peeved by having to wait until midnight or so to watch a new ep (so as to not conflict with the OTA and the precious Nielsen system)


drop the royal WE. cause not everyone gives a crap about sports. and even some that do would rather go to the local bar where there's also beer on the tap, know it alls to bet again and pool tables for the boring times.

And get it to devices when youre on the move, something cable cant compete with. Hulu and Netflix can compete with that on notebooks if you have an active internet connection, but if you are going to be without internet access or being using a handheld device then iTS subscriptions would have an avenue there.

Id have to see pricing, content and other restrictions before i can determine if it fits my needs, but my interest is certainly peaked.

if that is true it should be reported. cause I'll bet anything that there's a law being broken in there somewhere. check and see if the state gov't has a consumer protection department. they love this kind of stuff.


the no goes back to you.

because all the 'the rumors are incorrect' articles are not saying that Hulu isn't going to go paid. they are against that hulu will only be pay. which is not what was ever said. Hulu has clarified that some level of ad supported 'free' service will still be there but this pay program will be a compliment to that free service. either adding on something (like more episodes and/or longer view periods) or as an alternative (no ads same offerings)


you bring up something that a lot of folks aren't putting in the equation. the networks. the networks are why the international folks aren't getting same day on videos of shows, the networks are why we don't get same night availability. and so on

right now the networks have one model for budget recovery (which is what keeps a show alive). ad money. until the networks are willing to embrace a tiered system of recovery, a lot of these paid programs and subscriptions will be cobble or nothing at all. and even then, for the moment, you'll probably still have to wait a few hours before you can get an episode nonOTA to protect the ad money. but i suppose 3-4 hours for midnight to hit is better than a few days


Exactly. sometimes that 'less' is to the point that the show hasn't even paid the bills on the current season. a show that can't recover a solid 85-90% of it's budget won't be on the air for long.

what we need is for the nets to stop looking at the ad money as THE only way to make back that money. we need for them to embrace things like Hulu, itunes etc. as part of the equation. then perhaps some of these decent and getting better scripted shows won't die and leave us with all reality tv all the time.


shouldn't there be a cable cost in there also.

so more like
Internet with TV: $105/mo for 20 mbps
Internet without TV: $55/mo for 4mbps

that said, I still feel like it's not cricket for them to be able to hide that they are dropping the cap and question if they advertise an 'up to' speed which they violate with that drop (since you only get up to 4mbps now). and if not being open about that drop by itself breaks any laws. and repeat that you should try to file a claim of some kind and get them investigated if possible.

yeah - there's your "bag of hurt". I'm hopeful though. It will piss me off however if it is some small subset of the content on itunes. I want to be able to watch all the old seasons of shows, etc. for one price. $30 may not cut it.

He's not upset. It's just one of the two ways he knows how to express himself, either with caustic sarcasm or ceaseless needling.

Quit bringing perspective into this forum, damn you!

Come on guys! The holiday season is upon us. Lets give Teckstud a break. Maybe were should all chip in and get him a new pair of blinders for Christmas. His old pair must be wearing out as I think he almost made an objective post yesterday.

I think what he meant was that as long as the production company is getting the same amount of money in the end, why would they care if it came from advertising or subscription?

Dollhouse is a good example. It didn't make enough advertising money to survive on the network, and the network decided to dump it. However, the producers had already received good sales figures (eg: iTunes sales) and know that Joss Whedon has good sales for years to come - so they offered to reduce the cost of the show for the network. The network agreed, and the show continues.


He's got quite a following eh? And I agree totally that we NEED free episodes to get interested before we spend money on it, though as long as we're subscribing (not renting) those episodes can be watched "free" anyway.

The more I think about this $30 subscription, the more I think that Apple MUST have a plan to use advertising somewhere - perhaps just 2 ads in the entire show??. If so, these would be very high price ads - worth it to the advertisers as they're the only ads on the show, Apple can probably force viewers to watch those ads (no skipping!), the ads can be targeted to the viewer, and link directly to "tell me more" features (websites, request for brochures, etc). Apple could reinvent advertising.

edit: Looks like I'm starting to agree with macarena.

Exactly - the $85 covers the cost of the content, plus the cost of delivering it. Apple will sell you the content for $30, and you can use your existing internet pipes for delivery.

This model is similar to the model used by Vonage to undercut Verizon. Of course there are other reasons as to why Vonage is cheaper, but the single biggest reason is because Vonage does not have to lay cables to your door.

At the end of the day, bandwidth is a commodity - whether it is Verizon fighting to retain control over content, or the Cable Networks doing the same, it is a losing battle - just a question of time before someone comes up with a model that can bypass the current bottlenecks put in place by the likes of Verizon, Comcast, etc.

Careful... you're giving him an opening to comment.

If only it took a reason for him to put the whine and cheese. Unfortunately, hell do it anyway. Plus, I felt the dig was worth it.