I sure hope they aren't adding the actual broadcast networks to their base package and then actually paying for it (and thus increasing the cost to subscribers) since the massive majority of people can get these channels for free using an HDTV antennae. That would be mistake number one, the second would be forcing people to have ESPN and other sports stations on their base package (and thus increasing the price all consumers have to pay for the service).
The way to make this work is not have a base package at all. Only have small content packages with similar grouped content for as low of a price as possible. That is, there is a news bundle with FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, etc...there is a sports bundle with ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, FOX Sports 1 and 2, etc...there is a cable movie channel bundle with AMC, TBS, TNT, etc...
Or go a la carte...which we all know the content providers won't allow.
It is non-debatable like people care of contents on Apple TV rather hardware hardware. But, now a days when typical TVs sold and upgraded are 4K and contents are moving to 4K; it would be better that Apple TV supports such output. Moreover, next gen Apple TV need to make it as living room HUB supporting Homekit as well decent game console. I would not mind to paying $149-$199 if it can be decent living room hub. Most, people are not die hard video gamers but like to play once in a while. Also, people with kids up into middle school don't have need for heavy duty game console as well adults. Most people plays on their phones or tablet so same large numbers of people would love to play same games on large TV using Apple-TV. It's time for Apple to up the game in home entertainment HUB. I am sure Sony or Microsoft can make their game console adding similar to Homekit to control home gadgets turning it into one stop living room HUB. In a world of interconnected devices, living room hub with consolidated functions is becoming a must where you can control gadgets(security camera, check doors, alarm feed back, on/off devices, temp up/down,etc) from your phone from distance through such HUB..
so you can choose whatever channels you want?
How much does cable service cost?
Well we can choose normal channels but not pay TV like HBO or some sports channels. Those are still on packages. We also need to get base channels before we can choose, the base package is around $20 I think. Then we buy "package" of a la carte channels, something lilke $20 for 15 channels or $25 for 30 channels, ...
So you can get the base package and 15 channels of your choice for $40 / month plus taxes
You can already get MLB and the NBA on Apple TV. They already know how to deal with blackout rules.
Would you explain how "they" already know how to deal with blackout rules?
If one subscribes to MLB.TV Premium, you can stream all games live except for those within your local market. Let's say you're a Yankees fan living in Miami. You can watch the Yankees on MLB.TV Premium, but not the Miami Marlins.
Note that the MLB channel on Apple TV is just a scoreboard unless you pony up the MLB.TV Premium subscription ($30 for one month or $120 for the entire season). Add the $20 for the MLB app subscription and you're basically paying MLB $23.33 per month over a six-month regular season, and you still can't watch live TV coverage of your local teams.
In the age of 99 cent apps, freemium, and in-app purchases, will we ever see a-la-carte channels available for $5?
I have a sense, this is the price point of people want to pay. There's a generation of millennials who have grown up watching content on multiple devices and for next to nothing.
Imagine selecting 10 of your favourite channels for $50/month. But I'm not sure this is financially feasible for the networks to survive. And given the $15/mth price for HBO, we've got a long way to go.
None of this will matter to me. I'm a typical, rural customer with only one reasonable choice for Internet - my local cable provider - who has a 250 GB monthly cap. Extra 50 GB chunks are $10. I can "un-bundle" and purchase Internet alone, but the price goes up.
Currently, I pay $125 a month for Internet, cable TV, and two TiVo DVRs (which includes a $20 monthly "promotional" discount that I have to renew each year by threatening to disconnect). Internet alone (without bundled pricing) is $60 per month. Add $30-40 and some overage fees and I'm right back up to what I'm paying now and with far less content (even if most of the channels are "junk" to me).
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see anyone - even Apple - overturning this market - at least not in the long term.
The only thing I watch with commercials is sport and occasionally late night tv / comedy. The rest is off Netflix and iTunes. I am very happy with this solution but the sticking point is the sports. Cable co's know this and have been investing in sports content / rights for a long time.
Like others here I'd be all over a la carte content selection and pay option to avoid advertising.
What was wrong with his statement? I agree with his sentiment. Ads are essentially the reason I can't watch TV content other than sports and movies on HBO, Starz, etc (which are commercial-free anyway). I can't even watch youtube without Adblock.
One step forward and two steps back. We have good news and bad news. The good news is HBO Now. The bad news is Apple is going to sell us the same old concept of packaging channels and charging you for something you will never watch. Last Monday was a good day, this Monday was just the world is the same unimaginative place as always. Maybe I will cut the cord and just stop watching television all together.
I don't think Apple is going to be hugely successful with this. The reason is that Apple lacks original content.
If you want to see Game of Thrones legally without having to wait months, you need HBO or HBO GO. HULU has its own shows. Netflix of course has great shows. Amazon has shows.
Without unique content, Apple can't really differentiate itself in this space.
iTunes has unique content for music. Not so really for TV.
iPhones benefit from "must have apps" just as Apple TV needs "must have shows available only on Apple TV".
Content, not technology, is King in TV.
One alternative to having original content is getting some movies to release exclusively on iTunes simultaneously as their theater release. That would be compelling, in my opinion, although then there would be nothing to stop other players from trying to make the same deal with movie studios.
Did you ever try going to a McDonalds and saying you want to buy just the hamburger patty and not the bun or condiments? Do you think they will be willing to charge you less just for the hamburger alone?
Some level of packaging is part of the deal. Just be happy that Apple will only be packing 20-30 channels instead of the 200 the cable/sat companies do. This is one step closer to ala carte TV. You can't expect to run before you can crawl. Some people expect things to be PERFECT all of a sudden. It does not work that way. Its a gradual process and each succeding step is important.
I have to respectfully disagree. We can do things anyway we want. I give Bit Torrent as the proof of that. It is only consumers willingness to accept what we are given, rather than demand via our wallets what we want. I promise you they will sell us what ever we want, but first they will try to sell us what they want. It really is our choice. It is not "perfect all of a sudden". Television has been around for 60+ years, cable TV I think at least 40. The Internet is now 20 years old. So what do you mean by all of a sudden. I refuse to settle, the barn door is open.
1) It'll be interesting to see how this works out. Right now, we have a shitload of channels we don't watch because of group rates. If I really like the Speed network how much will that cost on its own?
2) How did I find the Speed network? I was likely flipping through channels and came across some interesting content. How can this happen in a world where you need to actively subscribe for channels before you watch them? At least with Apple's foray into selling music it became easier to hear new music for many listeners. Sure, stores would have full albums available at dirty kiosks, and iTMS was only 30s(?) clips of 128kib/s songs, but you could could quickly test a lot more content.
Hmmm, well, it certainly isn't the point of broadcast TV now, as proven by the proliferation of commercial breaks
It absofuckinglutity is the point. There is only one answer! People watch broadcast television and deal with ads specifically to be entertained (i.e.: content).
If you want to change the argument to say it's no the point of the broadcast companies, well of course it's not their point. Their point is to make money off your eyeballs. With broadcast television that means sponsors flipping the bill based on reported viewership, which they entice you by creating content you (hopefully) want to watch. With payed networks like HBO they still need to earn money but if you're not watching their content then you may cancel your subscription, so the motivation is the same. But you also have most cable channels which you both pay for and that have ads. You pay a lot less than the premium channels like HBO and Showtime.
PS: Don't think for a second when you subscribe to HBO there are no ads. They advertise their shows on their network between scheduled programming, and then within movies there is heavy advertising. Hopefully you get good content out of it, but it's in there.
Not gonna work well if it's just mini-cable. I want to get to pick what channels I pay for.
We all do. But you have to start somewhere.
The entertainment industry is a morass of greed, regulations, and preexisting deals. Detangling that to get to the point that you (and I) want is going to take a long long time. Baby steps are required.
I can imagine alot of stuff. But its the content providers who won't do ala carte right away.
Its a pipe dream to think we can go from 200 channel packages charging $100 a month to ala carte $1 channels directly.
It may go there eventually but it will take progressive steps. That's my point. Expecting Apple to be able to offer $1 ala carte channels RIGHT NOW is a pipe dream.
No one said anything about anything about $1 per channel, so stop hyperbolizing. It weakens your argument. Nonetheless, charging per channel isn't a pipe dream. Music was also sold as a package before Apple came along.
One step forward and two steps back. We have good news and bad news. The good news is HBO Now. The bad news is Apple is going to sell us the same old concept of packaging channels and charging you for something you will never watch. Last Monday was a good day, this Monday was just the world is the same unimaginative place as always. Maybe I will cut the cord and just stop watching television all together.
Do you have a plan in mind that would allow an à la carte setup that is less expensive than cable but offers the same level of content across the networks that the average currently views?
According to the following report by Nielsen, Americans average watching just 17.5 channels. I say just because that's out of about 200 channels available. I know I pay about $35 per month for HD cable with includes no premium channels. Would each of those networks allow me to pay an average of $2 per month which will keep me just under what I pay now? I'm guessing it would be higher. It is à la carte, after all.
So how is this going to work? I expect it might work something like this, at the very least you're going to get "channel" groups based on the content owners. That means, say, for $6 per month you get a NBC, MSNBC, AMC (American Movie Classics), Court TV, Golf, Channel, Lifestyle, Bravo, E!, and Oxygen. (Correct me if I'm wring but I think those are all under the NBC Universal umbrella. I also think they all come with ads).
I'll ask this again, how do they get people to discover their channels if they are blocked until you subscribe? I doubt I'm personally affected by this but I can see a lot of channels falling away if there is no packaging. Not that I care if that happens but it's surely important to millions of people whose jobs rely on these shows and channels existing.
Why would there be blackouts if the broadcast stations and espn are on board?
The broadcast stations and ESPN aren't the source of the blackouts, the NFL is (as a particular example of a sport). The NFL wants to make sure that their stadiums are filled, and they view a local broadcast as competition for that (rightly so, in many markets, but not in all). They lift the blackouts if the sporting event is sold out X number of days in advance. That's part of the deal that these networks generally make with the NFL to get the programming.
Comments
I'm only interested if it's commercial free. Otherwise, what's the point?
Content is the point.
Hmmm, well, it certainly isn't the point of broadcast TV now, as proven by the proliferation of commercial breaks,
and, worse, the gigantic ads that play onscreen even during the "content" now...
So, if this is just another way to deliver that...well, not as much 'better' as it could be.
The way to make this work is not have a base package at all. Only have small content packages with similar grouped content for as low of a price as possible. That is, there is a news bundle with FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, etc...there is a sports bundle with ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, FOX Sports 1 and 2, etc...there is a cable movie channel bundle with AMC, TBS, TNT, etc...
Or go a la carte...which we all know the content providers won't allow.
Well we can choose normal channels but not pay TV like HBO or some sports channels. Those are still on packages. We also need to get base channels before we can choose, the base package is around $20 I think. Then we buy "package" of a la carte channels, something lilke $20 for 15 channels or $25 for 30 channels, ...
So you can get the base package and 15 channels of your choice for $40 / month plus taxes
You can already get MLB and the NBA on Apple TV. They already know how to deal with blackout rules.
Would you explain how "they" already know how to deal with blackout rules?
If one subscribes to MLB.TV Premium, you can stream all games live except for those within your local market. Let's say you're a Yankees fan living in Miami. You can watch the Yankees on MLB.TV Premium, but not the Miami Marlins.
Note that the MLB channel on Apple TV is just a scoreboard unless you pony up the MLB.TV Premium subscription ($30 for one month or $120 for the entire season). Add the $20 for the MLB app subscription and you're basically paying MLB $23.33 per month over a six-month regular season, and you still can't watch live TV coverage of your local teams.
In the age of 99 cent apps, freemium, and in-app purchases, will we ever see a-la-carte channels available for $5?
I have a sense, this is the price point of people want to pay. There's a generation of millennials who have grown up watching content on multiple devices and for next to nothing.
Imagine selecting 10 of your favourite channels for $50/month. But I'm not sure this is financially feasible for the networks to survive. And given the $15/mth price for HBO, we've got a long way to go.
None of this will matter to me. I'm a typical, rural customer with only one reasonable choice for Internet - my local cable provider - who has a 250 GB monthly cap. Extra 50 GB chunks are $10. I can "un-bundle" and purchase Internet alone, but the price goes up.
Currently, I pay $125 a month for Internet, cable TV, and two TiVo DVRs (which includes a $20 monthly "promotional" discount that I have to renew each year by threatening to disconnect). Internet alone (without bundled pricing) is $60 per month. Add $30-40 and some overage fees and I'm right back up to what I'm paying now and with far less content (even if most of the channels are "junk" to me).
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see anyone - even Apple - overturning this market - at least not in the long term.
Like others here I'd be all over a la carte content selection and pay option to avoid advertising.
Yes, if you get internet and phone lines too
Are you 12 years old? I mean seriously.
What was wrong with his statement? I agree with his sentiment. Ads are essentially the reason I can't watch TV content other than sports and movies on HBO, Starz, etc (which are commercial-free anyway). I can't even watch youtube without Adblock.
I don't think Apple is going to be hugely successful with this. The reason is that Apple lacks original content.
If you want to see Game of Thrones legally without having to wait months, you need HBO or HBO GO. HULU has its own shows. Netflix of course has great shows. Amazon has shows.
Without unique content, Apple can't really differentiate itself in this space.
iTunes has unique content for music. Not so really for TV.
iPhones benefit from "must have apps" just as Apple TV needs "must have shows available only on Apple TV".
Content, not technology, is King in TV.
One alternative to having original content is getting some movies to release exclusively on iTunes simultaneously as their theater release. That would be compelling, in my opinion, although then there would be nothing to stop other players from trying to make the same deal with movie studios.
Summary:
People here won't be happy about an Apple TV product until:
1. Ala Carte. Only pay for channels you want.
2. Pricing. $1 per channel. LOL.
3. No commericals. Even on live TV.
Some people are just living in a dream world.
One could argue that you're simply unimaginative. Reminds me of the same staunch resistance against a phone with a large touchscreen and no keyboard.
Did you ever try going to a McDonalds and saying you want to buy just the hamburger patty and not the bun or condiments? Do you think they will be willing to charge you less just for the hamburger alone?
Some level of packaging is part of the deal. Just be happy that Apple will only be packing 20-30 channels instead of the 200 the cable/sat companies do. This is one step closer to ala carte TV. You can't expect to run before you can crawl. Some people expect things to be PERFECT all of a sudden. It does not work that way. Its a gradual process and each succeding step is important.
I have to respectfully disagree. We can do things anyway we want. I give Bit Torrent as the proof of that. It is only consumers willingness to accept what we are given, rather than demand via our wallets what we want. I promise you they will sell us what ever we want, but first they will try to sell us what they want. It really is our choice. It is not "perfect all of a sudden". Television has been around for 60+ years, cable TV I think at least 40. The Internet is now 20 years old. So what do you mean by all of a sudden. I refuse to settle, the barn door is open.
2) How did I find the Speed network? I was likely flipping through channels and came across some interesting content. How can this happen in a world where you need to actively subscribe for channels before you watch them? At least with Apple's foray into selling music it became easier to hear new music for many listeners. Sure, stores would have full albums available at dirty kiosks, and iTMS was only 30s(?) clips of 128kib/s songs, but you could could quickly test a lot more content.
It absofuckinglutity is the point. There is only one answer! People watch broadcast television and deal with ads specifically to be entertained (i.e.: content).
If you want to change the argument to say it's no the point of the broadcast companies, well of course it's not their point. Their point is to make money off your eyeballs. With broadcast television that means sponsors flipping the bill based on reported viewership, which they entice you by creating content you (hopefully) want to watch. With payed networks like HBO they still need to earn money but if you're not watching their content then you may cancel your subscription, so the motivation is the same. But you also have most cable channels which you both pay for and that have ads. You pay a lot less than the premium channels like HBO and Showtime.
PS: Don't think for a second when you subscribe to HBO there are no ads. They advertise their shows on their network between scheduled programming, and then within movies there is heavy advertising. Hopefully you get good content out of it, but it's in there.
Not gonna work well if it's just mini-cable. I want to get to pick what channels I pay for.
We all do. But you have to start somewhere.
The entertainment industry is a morass of greed, regulations, and preexisting deals. Detangling that to get to the point that you (and I) want is going to take a long long time. Baby steps are required.
I can imagine alot of stuff. But its the content providers who won't do ala carte right away.
Its a pipe dream to think we can go from 200 channel packages charging $100 a month to ala carte $1 channels directly.
It may go there eventually but it will take progressive steps. That's my point. Expecting Apple to be able to offer $1 ala carte channels RIGHT NOW is a pipe dream.
No one said anything about anything about $1 per channel, so stop hyperbolizing. It weakens your argument. Nonetheless, charging per channel isn't a pipe dream. Music was also sold as a package before Apple came along.
Do you have a plan in mind that would allow an à la carte setup that is less expensive than cable but offers the same level of content across the networks that the average currently views?
According to the following report by Nielsen, Americans average watching just 17.5 channels. I say just because that's out of about 200 channels available. I know I pay about $35 per month for HD cable with includes no premium channels. Would each of those networks allow me to pay an average of $2 per month which will keep me just under what I pay now? I'm guessing it would be higher. It is à la carte, after all.
So how is this going to work? I expect it might work something like this, at the very least you're going to get "channel" groups based on the content owners. That means, say, for $6 per month you get a NBC, MSNBC, AMC (American Movie Classics), Court TV, Golf, Channel, Lifestyle, Bravo, E!, and Oxygen. (Correct me if I'm wring but I think those are all under the NBC Universal umbrella. I also think they all come with ads).
I'll ask this again, how do they get people to discover their channels if they are blocked until you subscribe? I doubt I'm personally affected by this but I can see a lot of channels falling away if there is no packaging. Not that I care if that happens but it's surely important to millions of people whose jobs rely on these shows and channels existing.
Why would there be blackouts if the broadcast stations and espn are on board?
The broadcast stations and ESPN aren't the source of the blackouts, the NFL is (as a particular example of a sport). The NFL wants to make sure that their stadiums are filled, and they view a local broadcast as competition for that (rightly so, in many markets, but not in all). They lift the blackouts if the sporting event is sold out X number of days in advance. That's part of the deal that these networks generally make with the NFL to get the programming.