Disney reportedly pressuring Apple to accept more channels for rumored Internet TV service

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited April 2015
A report on Wednesday claims negotiations over a rumored Apple-branded over-the-top TV service recently escalated, with Disney now pushing for that a bulk of its channels be offered as part of the deal.




According to sources with knowledge of the ongoing talks, Disney is angling for a larger presence on Apple's upcoming Internet TV service, including spin-offs to ESPN and the Disney Channel, reports The Street.

"Disney has made it clear that it wants to drive the strongest deal it can get," the unnamed source said.

With channels like ABC Family and those tailored to younger viewers who are perhaps most likely to invest in over-the-top services, Disney brings substantial bargaining power to the table. Apple agrees and considers these channels indispensable in wooing cord cutters away from cable and satellite options, one source said.

Another key element, however, is pricing. Apple is reportedly looking to offer subscribers a competitive content package at a reasonable price, but accepting every channel Disney is proposing could result in unnecessary price tag bloat. According to rumors, Apple wants to sell a "skinny" bundle of core channels from providers Disney, CBS, 21st Century Fox and others.

Previous reports said Apple is planning to launch its branded Internet TV offering later this year with subscriptions coming in at between $30 to $40 per month. Rumored to debut alongside the subscription service is a new Apple TV set-top streamer. Not much is known about the hardware, but recent rumors suggest the device will forego 4K video playback.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    if Apple wants to disrupt then the pricing will need to be disruptive as well - as was the case with music on iTunes.

    all the pricing and bundling talk in these articles is, I hope, wrong. As that is just more of the old.

    single channels priced in tiers- $1 $2 $5 would change everything.

    $40 for a bunch of crap you don't want. not so much.

    I might be in the rare few but HBO for $15.. Erm I'll still just buy GoT on iTunes- of course I live in AU so we don't get the choice. nor are we likely to for years or until Murdoch goes broke
  • Reply 2 of 23
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post



    if Apple wants to disrupt then the pricing will need to be disruptive as well - as was the case with music on iTunes.



    all the pricing and bundling talk in these articles is, I hope, wrong. As that is just more of the old.



    single channels priced in tiers- $1 $2 $5 would change everything.



    $40 for a bunch of crap you don't want. not so much.



    I might be in the rare few but HBO for $15.. Erm I'll still just buy GoT on iTunes- of course I live in AU so we don't get the choice. nor are we likely to for years or until Murdoch goes broke



    I agree. They can't just repackage cable as is and expect anyone to care. I don't want to buy 15 channels to get the one I want. That's what's wrong with cable.

  • Reply 3 of 23
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,401member

    Apple certainly wouldn't need to be "pressured" to carry more Disney content. They'd love to take anything and everything Disney gives them.

     

    Design-your-own bundles would be the ideal here.

  • Reply 4 of 23
    ABC "Family"...lol
  • Reply 5 of 23
    john12345john12345 Posts: 152member
    I'll still take the Apple service over the local cable provider even if the price is the same.....because you know, these cable providers SUCK....especially Comcast. I can also watch live TV on my iPhone from anywhere. This is actually the biggest reason I'll switch.
  • Reply 6 of 23
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post




    single channels priced in tiers- $1 $2 $5 would change everything.

     

    Not even reasonable to expect. This whole cord cutting concept is flawed. The content providers are not going give away their profits like that. HBO Now is charging the same price as they do for cable and satellite subscriptions, $15/mo. A very large number of people simply do not have the ability to receive local channels OTA, especially urban areas. Cord cutting for most is impractical.

  • Reply 7 of 23
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

     

     

    Not even reasonable to expect. This whole cord cutting concept is flawed. The content providers are not going give away their profits like that. HBO Now is charging the same price as they do for cable and satellite subscriptions, $15/mo. A very large number of people simply do not have the ability to receive local channels OTA, especially urban areas. Cord cutting for most is impractical.




    Of course. They aren't going to give up a high-paying revenue stream for a lower-paying one unless they have no alternative. What they will be facing over the next several decades anyway is a declining population, which means fewer potential subscribers.

  • Reply 8 of 23
    aderutteraderutter Posts: 225member
    They have to compete with NetFlix surely?
    There must be lots of folk like me who almost solely use NetFlix.
    £30 a month? That's not disruptive that's just as costly as satellite TV - and that's setting aside the bandwidth costs.
    However they'd likely get some money from me if I could pick and pay for what you want. Ideally a cost per channel, with maybe three different tiered channel prices?
  • Reply 9 of 23
    lkrupp wrote: »
    Not even reasonable to expect. This whole cord cutting concept is flawed. The content providers are not going give away their profits like that. HBO Now is charging the same price as they do for cable and satellite subscriptions, $15/mo. A very large number of people simply do not have the ability to receive local channels OTA, especially urban areas. Cord cutting for most is impractical.

    I respectfully disagree. I looked up Foxtel's website to see what they charge and get renowned for being a rip off.

    $25 gets you 40 channels, with MTV, discovery, Nat Geo, Disney, nick and heaps of branded news, sports, movie, music, drama, and entertainment channels.

    that is approx 60c a channel.

    add a pack like entertainment or doco pack which gives approx 10 channels for $10.

    they are $1 / channel

    or a premium drama pack with HBO, BBC, FX (walking dead) which is 5-6 channels for $20

    they are $4 / channel

    they are all only 1 stream in the house and HD is a spotty mix.
    -

    Disney channels ranged from 60c to $1 each

    so these content companies already accept $1 for one screen

    why would they suddenly want to charge $10 a channel or even $5 a channel.

    and why bundle? that is the old way. just as albums were the old way.

    ( edit: even their every channel plan with as much as they can stream in HD and with mobile device streaming is $134 for 92 channels at only $1.45 average per channel)

    ( edit2: even their no lock in month to month option has a base price of $2 real channel, $1 blah channel. with a drama/movie channels add on that looks like @$20/mth $1 per genre channel and $3 per premium channel)
  • Reply 10 of 23
    bobschlobbobschlob Posts: 1,074member

    This is (yes, all of it) total BS.

    I don't believe this will happen. It would be a complete failure if it did. And Apple don't do failure.  :D 

  • Reply 11 of 23
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,170member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mark Fearing View Post

     



    I agree. They can't just repackage cable as is and expect anyone to care. I don't want to buy 15 channels to get the one I want. That's what's wrong with cable.


     

    This is going to be what Happens!!! Just look at SLINGS service for example.  It starts at $20, but if you want the Syfy, that's in another bundle.  This is how they get you. The More popular ones people want are in the highest costing bundle and most of the other channels you don't give a crap about.  I didn't cut the cord from Comcast to then start paying Apple $30-$40 a month to start.  you might as well get cable and get more channels for your money.   More Disney Channels just means more cost!!!!  Disney isn't the only one that's going to force this crap either.  I can just do with NONE OF IT!!!    You going to keep forcing all this crap on me I don't want, there's ways to get anything I want for free commercial free and automatically getting it and ready to play in a matter of a few hours of it being on LIVE without lifting a finger!!!!  A few pieces of software and some setup time and it's all automatic after.  No torrenting needed, but is a option.   As they say, a 100  channels and nothing but crap.

  • Reply 12 of 23
    jbdragon wrote: »
    This is going to be what Happens!!! Just look at SLINGS service for example.  It starts at $20, but if you want the Syfy, that's in another bundle.  This is how they get you. The More popular ones people want are in the highest costing bundle and most of the other channels you don't give a crap about.

    they aren't going to disrupt anything with this are they, I know inside you are right. I just wish it were different.
  • Reply 13 of 23
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,178member
    Where's my AppleTV App for my iPhone/Pad which allows in-app subscriptions for all AppleTV "channels" and allows me an AirPlayable, seamlessly integrated UX for the lot?
  • Reply 14 of 23
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,106member
    aderutter wrote: »
    They have to compete with NetFlix surely?
    There must be lots of folk like me who almost solely use NetFlix.
    £30 a month? That's not disruptive that's just as costly as satellite TV - and that's setting aside the bandwidth costs.
    However they'd likely get some money from me if I could pick and pay for what you want. Ideally a cost per channel, with maybe three different tiered channel prices?
    Well, you can get Popcorn Time on iOS now, and no jailbreak required. That'll be cheap enough. Does Apple approve? Probably not.
  • Reply 15 of 23
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,488member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    Well, you can get Popcorn Time on iOS now, and no jailbreak required. That'll be cheap enough. Does Apple approve? Probably not.

    The studios don't approve of PT either; and hence the ISPs don't approve.

  • Reply 16 of 23
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,488member

    No rug rats in my house. I have no need for any form of Disney Channel and do not wish to subsidize those channels. The promise of the Internet is to avoid this kind of thuggery.

  • Reply 17 of 23
    harry wildharry wild Posts: 581member
    I would pay for single channel add in for things like Fox News Channel, Tennis Channel, FX channel. But that it!
  • Reply 18 of 23
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,491member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     



    Of course. They aren't going to give up a high-paying revenue stream for a lower-paying one unless they have no alternative. What they will be facing over the next several decades anyway is a declining population, which means fewer potential subscribers.




    Say what? U.S. population growth is declining but the population overall is still increasing and will for decades.

  • Reply 19 of 23
    pmcdpmcd Posts: 394member
    The birth rate in the U.S. has taken a real dive down to around 1.8. This means a very skewed to higher ages population and eventual extinction ( at a fairly rapid rate if you measure in generations). Given that it is extremely rare to reverse a low birth rate the long term consequences for gadgets, Disney, etc ... would seem bleak. You are correct in that the population is still increasing. However, it doesn't take long for a generation to disappear. There are major problems due to a low birth rate in Europe, Russia, etc ... I guess you might partially offset a declining population by massive immigration assuming the immigrants don't acquire the birth trends of the native population.

    In any case the rumours around this new approach to the Apple TV do not inspire. Quite the contrary in fact. At least there might be a chance of an App Store. The TV offerings rumored sound no better than cable and do nothing to get rid of TV's addiction to ads which have contributed to ruining network viewing.
  • Reply 20 of 23
    jensonbjensonb Posts: 529member

    A reasonable compromise would be to make the extra channels available as add-ons at attractively low prices. The price difference can be higher than if they were bundled in, but seem cheaper because the core price is the headline consideration.

Sign In or Register to comment.