I've never subscribed to any of these Apple TV channels like HBO now or this new Showtime, but if somebody is looking to save money on the monthly fee, then can't they just pay via their Apple account, and use an iTunes card that they got for a 25-30% discount?
That would bring the monthly fee for HBO Now down to around $10 from $15.
This decoupling is just going to lead to people paying more in the end.
I don't know.. For instance I only watch like three channels... but pay $60 a month. I don't have a HBO but for $16 I can get it through my cable provider, same as Showtime. I doubt regular channels would cost more than HBO so if I could have lets say FX for $10, ESPN for $15, HBO for $15 then I come out winning. You can even throw Netflix in there so you can 'channel surf' that, but I think most people don't actually watch something on most channels, they channel surf and land on something (that can probably be found on Hulu or Netflix)
Me too. I have always said that chord cutting will not save money for the average user, but I am also interested in some sort f comparison.
People keep saying "cord cutting." What percentage of American households can get their broadband service from any provider other than the cable companies? Every place I've lived since high speed internet became available to residences has been exclusively provided by a single cable company.
People keep saying "cord cutting." What percentage of American households can get their broadband service from any provider other than the cable companies? Every place I've lived since the internet became available to residences has been exclusively provided by a single cable company.
I have options. I have three competing cable companies as well as independents. These rent bandwidth from the cable companies but under government regulation so they rent at competitive rates and they have package design autonomy. Personally I think broadband should be a service like roads, 'free' to all covered by taxes. We'd still be held to ransom by the content owners but I prefer that to cable middle-men.
This is not just a matter of cost. When I cancelled HBO with Comcast to switch to HBO Now, Comcast only reduced my bill by $5/mo. It sure did not cost me $5 when I signed up. Actually that is hard to tell with the convoluted packaging they do with channels and services. I looked at my Comcast bill this month and they say they are charging me $19/mo. for Showtime, a long ways from the $15/mo for HBO and Showtime package when I signed up. It will be interesting what they say when I cancel Showtime. So to the point it will never be a straight forward communication on your cable bill. With HBO Now and Showtime I know the costs and subscribing or canceling is as easy as logging into iTunes and flipping a switch. You don't have to explain to anyone why your are doing what you are doing. Also with no questions asked, you can sign up for a month and binge watch and cancel until such time as it makes sense to sign up again. The other benefit is with streaming you do not need the DVR, which you also pay too much for, to enable one to watch what you want when you want. There is not enough content on any single channel to warrant having access to it 365 days a year. That is why they have always resisted ala-carte. At least for me there is value in not having to do business with Comcast.
Cable provides bundles of content distributors like Viacom, Fox, HBO, etc.
Those content distributors are now selling smaller bundles of their shows. It's still a bundle, and if you only want to watch one show that each has it can add up quickly. In that case it's probably better to cherry pick through Netflix or Hulu or iTunes I would think.
This decoupling is just going to lead to people paying more in the end.
I think this is why Apple is trying to come up with a bundle. Where I lived the basic bundle is $33, then you can add 15 channels of you're choice for $18 or 30 channels of you're choice for $25.
Its about paying for what you actually intend to consume, instead of being forced to pay for things that you will never consume.
A person like me is more than happy to pay $8 for Netflix and $10 for HBO (I know its $15 right now), have my needs met.
If you're a person who feels the need to subscribe to every single service that becomes available...well you're not a cord cutter at all, are you? You are better served by paying $60/month for 500 channels of bullshit.
I don't subscribe to cable or any of these services, except $10 a month for The Blaze. But I think people will quickly pick the channels they want and then realize it was more expensive in the end.
I think this is why Apple is trying to come up with a bundle. Where I lived the basic bundle is $33, then you can add 15 channels of you're choice for $18 or 30 channels of you're choice for $25.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon
I don't subscribe to cable or any of these services, except $10 a month for The Blaze. But I think people will quickly pick the channels they want and then realize it was more expensive in the end.
I only watch 10 to 15 channels. If I am willing to wait for the content to get to Netflix I really only need maybe 6. I don't need to watch all of them at the same time. So this month I will subscribe to 5 and watch all there is of interest, then switch the following month and so on. I cannot imagine 5 channels costing me more than I now pay Comcast for my 10 to 15 plus the other 400+ added on, that just waste my time scrolling past.
great deal for Homeland subscription that I can easily turn on during the season and off afterwards. $11 seems like a good price point. hope HBO follows suit.
Sure "basic" cable can be cheap - it gets you basic channels and in digital format - meaning no HD & a few basic (local) channels
The HD basic thru Comcast has a large channel selection of crap that I don't need or watch - A & E, BET, MTV, etc. - not what it used to be- on a 2 year contract bundled with broadband costs me 89.00 per month for the 1st year + taxes & equipment fees = around $140.00 per month - I do not have or want or need Showtime or HBO.
At the end of my contract I will cancel cable.
I would be happy to pay Apple $10 pm for the TCM channel or a news package bundle - US & BBC, etc.
Me too. I have always said that chord cutting will not save money for the average user, but I am also interested in some sort f comparison. I am thinking it might even cost more in the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon
This decoupling is just going to lead to people paying more in the end.
This may be true if you are someone with varied interests and want to maintain all or most of that content. It is likely better to stick with the cable/satellite/Telco TV options, as they are willing to subsidize the PayTV services to lock you into their broadband. Despite what many think, broadband access is where cable & telco companies make the majority of their "margin".
For those with discipline to weed out what isn't important to them, and make some choices (HBO Now or Showtime), then it will be cheaper.
As also mentioned, streaming with these services provides the back catalogues, so reduces any need for DVR's, which in general are an additional cost on the cable/satellite bundle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
At the moment I get a lot of stuff from Netflix and anything I have a need to watch 'immediately' I'll buy from iTunes (or rent in the case of movies).
Purchasing the TV shows/series from iTunes is really a huge option that goes unreported in the media, and the economics are not understood by many I suspect. Too many see that $30-40 to buy the series and think it too expensive, not realizing they only watch 1 or 2 shows on Showtime that cost $132/year. Hunting for discount iTunes cards makes the economics much better. The content is then available on all Apple devices, for offline viewing, anytime.
I just hope Apple continues to provide this after they launch a streaming service.
This may be true if you are someone with varied interests and want to maintain all or most of that content. It is likely better to stick with the cable/satellite/Telco TV options, as they are willing to subsidize the PayTV services to lock you into their broadband. Despite what many think, broadband access is where cable & telco companies make the majority of their "margin".
For those with discipline to weed out what isn't important to them, and make some choices (HBO Now or Showtime), then it will be cheaper.
I don't watch tv all that much but I don't want to have to choose between HBO or Showtime or whatever. That is why I'll never signup.
As also mentioned, streaming with these services provides the back catalogues, so reduces any need for DVR's, which in general are an additional cost on the cable/satellite bundle.
Purchasing the TV shows/series from iTunes is really a huge option that goes unreported in the media, and the economics are not understood by many I suspect. Too many see that $30-40 to buy the series and think it too expensive, not realizing they only watch 1 or 2 shows on Showtime that cost $132/year. Hunting for discount iTunes cards makes the economics much better. The content is then available on all Apple devices, for offline viewing, anytime.
I just hope Apple continues to provide this after they launch a streaming service.
I agree. Purchasing from iTunes is not hat expensive and the best part is that is advertising free. A streaming service would be fantastic though I am not sure how they will sell it. New content comes at a premium price so some kind of differentiation would be required. Apple would be going head to toe with Netflix and were Apple to introduce a premium streaming service Netflix would not be far behind. I am not sure how many subscribers Netflix has but imagine it would be difficult to break Netflix. You wouldn't want to subscribe to both.
does this subscription include old seasons of Homeland?
i have no reason to doubt it operates like HBO's similar offering -- access to their entire back catalog. my dad has HBO GO, and thats whats awesome about it. its better than DVRing.
I don't subscribe to cable or any of these services, except $10 a month for The Blaze. But I think people will quickly pick the channels they want and then realize it was more expensive in the end.
I actually don't care about cost, thats not my driving motivator. I am not going to subsidize networks that I despise in order to secure access to a few.
I will not be counted among those paying for smut like CNN or FOX to exist.
I don't subscribe to cable or any of these services, except $10 a month for The Blaze. But I think people will quickly pick the channels they want and then realize it was more expensive in the end.
I actually don't care about cost, thats not my driving motivator. I am not going to subsidize networks that I despise in order to secure access to a few.
I will not be counted among those paying for smut like CNN or FOX to exist.
Comments
I've never subscribed to any of these Apple TV channels like HBO now or this new Showtime, but if somebody is looking to save money on the monthly fee, then can't they just pay via their Apple account, and use an iTunes card that they got for a 25-30% discount?
That would bring the monthly fee for HBO Now down to around $10 from $15.
This decoupling is just going to lead to people paying more in the end.
I don't know.. For instance I only watch like three channels... but pay $60 a month. I don't have a HBO but for $16 I can get it through my cable provider, same as Showtime. I doubt regular channels would cost more than HBO so if I could have lets say FX for $10, ESPN for $15, HBO for $15 then I come out winning. You can even throw Netflix in there so you can 'channel surf' that, but I think most people don't actually watch something on most channels, they channel surf and land on something (that can probably be found on Hulu or Netflix)
Me too. I have always said that chord cutting will not save money for the average user, but I am also interested in some sort f comparison.
People keep saying "cord cutting." What percentage of American households can get their broadband service from any provider other than the cable companies? Every place I've lived since high speed internet became available to residences has been exclusively provided by a single cable company.
This is not just a matter of cost. When I cancelled HBO with Comcast to switch to HBO Now, Comcast only reduced my bill by $5/mo. It sure did not cost me $5 when I signed up. Actually that is hard to tell with the convoluted packaging they do with channels and services. I looked at my Comcast bill this month and they say they are charging me $19/mo. for Showtime, a long ways from the $15/mo for HBO and Showtime package when I signed up. It will be interesting what they say when I cancel Showtime. So to the point it will never be a straight forward communication on your cable bill. With HBO Now and Showtime I know the costs and subscribing or canceling is as easy as logging into iTunes and flipping a switch. You don't have to explain to anyone why your are doing what you are doing. Also with no questions asked, you can sign up for a month and binge watch and cancel until such time as it makes sense to sign up again. The other benefit is with streaming you do not need the DVR, which you also pay too much for, to enable one to watch what you want when you want. There is not enough content on any single channel to warrant having access to it 365 days a year. That is why they have always resisted ala-carte. At least for me there is value in not having to do business with Comcast.
Cable provides bundles of content distributors like Viacom, Fox, HBO, etc.
Those content distributors are now selling smaller bundles of their shows. It's still a bundle, and if you only want to watch one show that each has it can add up quickly. In that case it's probably better to cherry pick through Netflix or Hulu or iTunes I would think.
This decoupling is just going to lead to people paying more in the end.
I think this is why Apple is trying to come up with a bundle. Where I lived the basic bundle is $33, then you can add 15 channels of you're choice for $18 or 30 channels of you're choice for $25.
Its about paying for what you actually intend to consume, instead of being forced to pay for things that you will never consume.
A person like me is more than happy to pay $8 for Netflix and $10 for HBO (I know its $15 right now), have my needs met.
If you're a person who feels the need to subscribe to every single service that becomes available...well you're not a cord cutter at all, are you? You are better served by paying $60/month for 500 channels of bullshit.
I don't subscribe to cable or any of these services, except $10 a month for The Blaze. But I think people will quickly pick the channels they want and then realize it was more expensive in the end.
I think this is why Apple is trying to come up with a bundle. Where I lived the basic bundle is $33, then you can add 15 channels of you're choice for $18 or 30 channels of you're choice for $25.
I don't subscribe to cable or any of these services, except $10 a month for The Blaze. But I think people will quickly pick the channels they want and then realize it was more expensive in the end.
I only watch 10 to 15 channels. If I am willing to wait for the content to get to Netflix I really only need maybe 6. I don't need to watch all of them at the same time. So this month I will subscribe to 5 and watch all there is of interest, then switch the following month and so on. I cannot imagine 5 channels costing me more than I now pay Comcast for my 10 to 15 plus the other 400+ added on, that just waste my time scrolling past.
This decoupling is just going to lead to people paying more in the end.
Agree. But I'd gladly pay (a little) more than I'm currently paying DirecTV for a better *experience.*
The screen-of-apps interface can be much easier to navigate than typing 2-, 3-, and 4-digit channel numbers.
A screen of apps is 2-dimensional. Punching number buttons on a remote is 1-dimensional - a string of digits.
And it took 2 minutes to find the Womens' World Cup post-game recap because I had no idea what its number was.
But the Apple TV interface is exactly what Apple is doing to the web. They're app-ifying web-based data.
They app-ified music years ago. And now they're app-ifying video.
Just add Siri voice and/or gesture control and boom: 21st century TV in a nutshell.
Sure "basic" cable can be cheap - it gets you basic channels and in digital format - meaning no HD & a few basic (local) channels
The HD basic thru Comcast has a large channel selection of crap that I don't need or watch - A & E, BET, MTV, etc. - not what it used to be- on a 2 year contract bundled with broadband costs me 89.00 per month for the 1st year + taxes & equipment fees = around $140.00 per month - I do not have or want or need Showtime or HBO.
At the end of my contract I will cancel cable.
I would be happy to pay Apple $10 pm for the TCM channel or a news package bundle - US & BBC, etc.
Me too. I have always said that chord cutting will not save money for the average user, but I am also interested in some sort f comparison. I am thinking it might even cost more in the end.
Quote:
This decoupling is just going to lead to people paying more in the end.
This may be true if you are someone with varied interests and want to maintain all or most of that content. It is likely better to stick with the cable/satellite/Telco TV options, as they are willing to subsidize the PayTV services to lock you into their broadband. Despite what many think, broadband access is where cable & telco companies make the majority of their "margin".
For those with discipline to weed out what isn't important to them, and make some choices (HBO Now or Showtime), then it will be cheaper.
As also mentioned, streaming with these services provides the back catalogues, so reduces any need for DVR's, which in general are an additional cost on the cable/satellite bundle.
At the moment I get a lot of stuff from Netflix and anything I have a need to watch 'immediately' I'll buy from iTunes (or rent in the case of movies).
Purchasing the TV shows/series from iTunes is really a huge option that goes unreported in the media, and the economics are not understood by many I suspect. Too many see that $30-40 to buy the series and think it too expensive, not realizing they only watch 1 or 2 shows on Showtime that cost $132/year. Hunting for discount iTunes cards makes the economics much better. The content is then available on all Apple devices, for offline viewing, anytime.
I just hope Apple continues to provide this after they launch a streaming service.
Not worth it.
Showtime sucks. Not much to watch at all
Agreed. I don't remember any show on ShowTime.
You have to watch some first before you can remember them. Homeland is one of the best shows on TV, and Claire Danes is a phenomenal actress.
It would make sense to do so. Who's going to start watching a show starting its third or fourth season without having the opportunity to catch up?
I don't watch tv all that much but I don't want to have to choose between HBO or Showtime or whatever. That is why I'll never signup.
I agree. Purchasing from iTunes is not hat expensive and the best part is that is advertising free. A streaming service would be fantastic though I am not sure how they will sell it. New content comes at a premium price so some kind of differentiation would be required. Apple would be going head to toe with Netflix and were Apple to introduce a premium streaming service Netflix would not be far behind. I am not sure how many subscribers Netflix has but imagine it would be difficult to break Netflix. You wouldn't want to subscribe to both.
i have no reason to doubt it operates like HBO's similar offering -- access to their entire back catalog. my dad has HBO GO, and thats whats awesome about it. its better than DVRing.
I don't subscribe to cable or any of these services, except $10 a month for The Blaze. But I think people will quickly pick the channels they want and then realize it was more expensive in the end.
I actually don't care about cost, thats not my driving motivator. I am not going to subsidize networks that I despise in order to secure access to a few.
I will not be counted among those paying for smut like CNN or FOX to exist.
How do you lump CNN in with FOX?