You might wanna check with your cable company to see what packages they have.
I would actually be shocked if "hundreds of channels" was to only package they offered. Most cable companies have 20 channel packages, 75 channels, 200 channels and so on.
But if you're so worried about paying for stuff you don't want... channels will never be the cure.
Channels broadcast 24 hours a day... including the 8 hours you're asleep and the 8 hours you're at work.
Even if you could choose the channels you want... you're still paying for content you simply cannot watch. That's the whole problem, right?
I say... skip the channels altogether and just buy the shows you want. That way you'll get exactly what you want... and none of the extra fluff.
I concur with our conclusion. For me (YMMV) the tiers offered by my provider (comcrap) are totally illusory. I have a very basic TV service at about $20/mo (plus a fee for that absurd box.) It is claimed to have "hundreds of channels" when in reality it has about a dozen HD channels. Now...this is just me, but I can't watch SD TV. It's like looking through someone else's glasses. But Comcrap tosses in about 100 of SD that I can't watch - they make me ill. To get the next up tier is 3x the price or more.
I do like my cable modem service. It is fast and reliable at about $50/mo. I worry that if I dumped the TV package (and I have not asked) that they'd raise the cable price. So...I get the 12 channel package essentially for free. Sort of.
There is a rumor I'll be able to get Century Link internet service soon. They say "up to 20MPS!" Great, but my DOCSIS 3.0 modem shows generally 60MPS via speedtest.net. And it isn't clear the Century link service is any cheaper. Options are good, and everyone has unique, personal needs.
edit: I can get OTA HD local channels, but it occasionally has digital artifacts that I never get on the cable feed. I do need a better OTA antenna, but interestingly, finding an installer for this isn't exactly easy. And no, I'm not crawling up on my roof.
You might wanna check with your cable company to see what packages they have.
I would actually be shocked if "hundreds of channels" was to only package they offered. Most cable companies have 20 channel packages, 75 channels, 200 channels and so on.
But if you're so worried about paying for stuff you don't want... channels will never be the cure.
Channels broadcast 24 hours a day... including the 8 hours you're asleep and the 8 hours you're at work.
Even if you could choose the channels you want... you're still paying for content you simply cannot watch. That's the whole problem, right?
I say... skip the channels altogether and just buy the shows you want. That way you'll get exactly what you want... and none of the extra fluff.
All good points and agree. It is the same whether it is 20 or 200 I am paying for stuff I do not want or need. I am not 100% comfortable with cutting the cord so to speak and hope Apple will be able to show me the way .
My hope is that Apple just does away with the legacy of TV as a time-based medium, except for live TV (basically sports and a few other things). I just want to watch whatever I choose whenever I want. I'd also be happy to pay for a commercial-free tier.
I don't understand how "CBS, Fox, and NBC" could be an issue when these networks are already available free, OTA.
I think with this bundle, you are supposed to have all-you-can-eat privileges at the every-show-ever-aired buffet (for those networks). Big difference between that and OTA advertiser supported TV.
Siri, meh! I never use the voice control on my Samsung 4K because its laser pointing remote is so user friendly...
Sure, but what about an interface that isn't tied to just what's visible on the screen? What if you just want to view the latest episode of Game of Thrones without having to work your way through menus from wherever you are at the moment (such as playing a game from the ? TV App Store)? Can you make your laser pointing remote do that?
You're not thinking of all of the huge possibilities here.
I disagree. The iPhone/iPod Touch put a giant dent in the handheld gaming market by (1) resetting the value proposition of gaming titles via the App Store, and (2) providing the customer with an equivalent gaming experience integrated into a higher functional product.
I cannot understand why $40/month is out of the question. I work at a retirement home and we provide cable service to our ~350 units; I deal with Channel Content wholesale all the time.
Lets say Apple wanted to make at least $10 per month per customer margin. That leaves $30/month in programming costs.
At my wholesale prices $21.23/month would get:
all local stations, 165 National Channels in HD (where available, about 80 HD) These include Encore, ESPN, MLB, NHL, NFL Networks, Fox Sports, Discovery, TLC, TBS, TNT, etc..
AND this is at my pricing with only 350 units, not MILLIONS of units that Apple would have. They would likely get a much better deal than I can.
It's kinda gross when you look at the markup cable companies charge. For what we offer to our residents here (which costs us ~$16/month) the cable company wants over $100
I don't understand the incessant need to destroy markets.
I don't think anybody is saying that the gaming market needs destroying. Some people seem to be saying that it is ripe for destruction and that the ? TV should be viewed as a threat. I'm in that camp. Others disagree.
I still see arcades, and some of those game makers have made a lot money on the console market.
All of those game makers are going to have to make their games available for a much lower price in order to compete when a bazillion developers come out of the woodwork and make their own games available on the ? TV App Store. I don't see how it's possible to avoid the forthcoming dent.
Though new Apple TV hardware is expected to appear at an upcoming Sept. 9 event, Apple's long-awaited subscription television service is reaffirmed to remain on hold, thanks to ongoing negotiations with content owners.
Echoing earlier reports, Jessica Lessin of The Information said in a letter to subscribers on Friday that she has been told by sources that the "economics" of a subscription TV service remain the main sticking point between Apple and its potential partners. Specifically, the price Apple wants to charge consumers is said to be too low for content makers, preventing the service from debuting next month.
"There's still a big gap between the price media companies want for their TV channels and the roughly $40 a month Apple wants to charge consumers," Lessin wrote. "Something has to give."
Apple will HAVE to give in. It is the right thing to do.
Content costs a lot of money to make. There are a lot of actors and skilled workers to pay.
Why would media companies sell content at a lower cost to Apple when competing companies pay them a higher rate? Selling their product at a lower cost to Apple will stab them in the back when it comes to negotiating with competing companies - such as Comcast. Apple's competitors will simply want the lower price that Apple got.
If Apple wants to sell a $40 a month product then it will have to sell a limited product. Simple as that.
Perhaps Apple can negotiate an Ala-Carte selection. For example, 4 shows for $40 a month out of a selection of 50 shows.
the problem is that cable providers like Comecast will eliminate the stand alone internet services or price it very high or bundled with TV services. You need internet for everything so you can't get away with cable services. Sucks!
Selected channel/show viewing becoming main stream irrespective of how many channels come in bundle So, Apple creating bundle of most watched channels in home at $40 is an excellent deal. Also, if possible local ABC,NBC,CBS, PBS,FOX like national channels as base and than allow to select any 5 or 10 channels of your choice be part of Ala-Carte package.. Remember, for streaming on internet, there is a cost of internet access at home to be paid to Comcast,time-warner,AT&T or whoever is your internet service provide..
Contents provider have to co-operate with streaming service like Apple-TV in order to keep cord cutters engaged in their revenue stream. Apple will get their.....
BASE + channels selection = Ala-Carte package = success
Apple will HAVE to give in. It is the right thing to do.
Content costs a lot of money to make. There are a lot of actors and skilled workers to pay.
Why would media companies sell content at a lower cost to Apple when competing companies pay them a higher rate? Selling their product at a lower cost to Apple will stab them in the back when it comes to negotiating with competing companies - such as Comcast. Apple's competitors will simply want the lower price that Apple got.
If Apple wants to sell a $40 a month product then it will have to sell a limited product. Simple as that.
Perhaps Apple can negotiate an Ala-Carte selection. For example, 4 shows for $40 a month out of a selection of 50 shows.
Well, the ultimate model is if you make the content available to a much larger population, then you can drive the price really low and still make the same amount you are making now (where there are high prices but much fewer people paying them). You know, the same model whereby inexpensive apps became the norm for smartphone users, resulting in hundreds of millions of downloads (for good apps) and made billionaires out of some "content owners". If Apple can price both the device and the content just right, the content owners may find themselves with a bigger bonanza than they ever thought possible. A few hundred million subscribers at $40 per month is nothing to sneeze at. Do I think a few hundred million is possible? Heck yes, worldwide, if it's attractively priced.
The current stakeholders need to stop thinking so "linearly" with their business model and think more about exponential reach in the digital age. Number of subscribers will most likely scale as some power of the inverse of the subscription price, and the sweet spot is probably lower than they think.
the problem is that cable providers like Comecast will eliminate the stand alone internet services or price it very high or bundled with TV services. You need internet for everything so you can't get away with cable services. Sucks!
If you cannot select a "no-TV" package... I guess you'll have to take it.
Remember when your cellphone plan was all about minutes? And then a certain number of texts?
Now both of those have become devalued and are essentially "free"... and you're actually paying for data.
Technically I'm paying for "unlimited voice and text" even if I never make a phone call or send a text. They're just included and there's not much I can do about it.
Perhaps we'll all be getting TV channels the same way someday. You'll pay for your home internet and get TV as an included service.
Well, the ultimate model is if you make the content available to a much larger population, then you can drive the price really low and still make the same amount you are making now (where there are high prices but much fewer people paying them). You know, the same model whereby inexpensive apps became the norm for smartphone users, resulting in hundreds of millions of downloads (for good apps) and made billionaires out of some "content owners". If Apple can price both the device and the content just right, the content owners may find themselves with a bigger bonanza than they ever thought possible. A few hundred million subscribers at $40 per month is nothing to sneeze at. Do I think a few hundred million is possible? Heck yes, worldwide, if it's attractively priced.
The current stakeholders need to stop thinking so "linearly" with their business model and think more about exponential reach in the digital age. Number of subscribers will most likely scale as some power of the inverse of the subscription price, and the sweet spot is probably lower than they think.
Apple doesn't typically reduce pricing simply because they sell another several million of whatever over what they did last year. If the media companies follow Apple's lead, which would be smart IMO, they won't either. Why should they? Right now they have the upper hand.
I don't understand the incessant need to destroy markets.
I don't think anybody is saying that the gaming market needs destroying. Some people seem to be saying that it is ripe for destruction and that the ? TV should be viewed as a threat. I'm in that camp. Others disagree.
Thompson
In other words any market that Apple isn't in is ripe for destruction.
Comments
You might wanna check with your cable company to see what packages they have.
I would actually be shocked if "hundreds of channels" was to only package they offered. Most cable companies have 20 channel packages, 75 channels, 200 channels and so on.
But if you're so worried about paying for stuff you don't want... channels will never be the cure.
Channels broadcast 24 hours a day... including the 8 hours you're asleep and the 8 hours you're at work.
Even if you could choose the channels you want... you're still paying for content you simply cannot watch. That's the whole problem, right?
I say... skip the channels altogether and just buy the shows you want. That way you'll get exactly what you want... and none of the extra fluff.
I concur with our conclusion. For me (YMMV) the tiers offered by my provider (comcrap) are totally illusory. I have a very basic TV service at about $20/mo (plus a fee for that absurd box.) It is claimed to have "hundreds of channels" when in reality it has about a dozen HD channels. Now...this is just me, but I can't watch SD TV. It's like looking through someone else's glasses. But Comcrap tosses in about 100 of SD that I can't watch - they make me ill. To get the next up tier is 3x the price or more.
I do like my cable modem service. It is fast and reliable at about $50/mo. I worry that if I dumped the TV package (and I have not asked) that they'd raise the cable price. So...I get the 12 channel package essentially for free. Sort of.
There is a rumor I'll be able to get Century Link internet service soon. They say "up to 20MPS!" Great, but my DOCSIS 3.0 modem shows generally 60MPS via speedtest.net. And it isn't clear the Century link service is any cheaper. Options are good, and everyone has unique, personal needs.
edit: I can get OTA HD local channels, but it occasionally has digital artifacts that I never get on the cable feed. I do need a better OTA antenna, but interestingly, finding an installer for this isn't exactly easy. And no, I'm not crawling up on my roof.
You might wanna check with your cable company to see what packages they have.
I would actually be shocked if "hundreds of channels" was to only package they offered. Most cable companies have 20 channel packages, 75 channels, 200 channels and so on.
But if you're so worried about paying for stuff you don't want... channels will never be the cure.
Channels broadcast 24 hours a day... including the 8 hours you're asleep and the 8 hours you're at work.
Even if you could choose the channels you want... you're still paying for content you simply cannot watch. That's the whole problem, right?
I say... skip the channels altogether and just buy the shows you want. That way you'll get exactly what you want... and none of the extra fluff.
All good points and agree. It is the same whether it is 20 or 200 I am paying for stuff I do not want or need. I am not 100% comfortable with cutting the cord so to speak and hope Apple will be able to show me the way
It would be ironic if the new Apple TV was a pair of thin, light glasses with extremely high resolution displays...
I still see arcades, and some of those game makers have made a lot money on the console market.
I don't understand how "CBS, Fox, and NBC" could be an issue when these networks are already available free, OTA.
I think with this bundle, you are supposed to have all-you-can-eat privileges at the every-show-ever-aired buffet (for those networks). Big difference between that and OTA advertiser supported TV.
Siri, meh! I never use the voice control on my Samsung 4K because its laser pointing remote is so user friendly...
Sure, but what about an interface that isn't tied to just what's visible on the screen? What if you just want to view the latest episode of Game of Thrones without having to work your way through menus from wherever you are at the moment (such as playing a game from the ? TV App Store)? Can you make your laser pointing remote do that?
You're not thinking of all of the huge possibilities here.
The Apple TV won't dent the console market.
I disagree. The iPhone/iPod Touch put a giant dent in the handheld gaming market by (1) resetting the value proposition of gaming titles via the App Store, and (2) providing the customer with an equivalent gaming experience integrated into a higher functional product.
Why can't the ? TV do the same thing?
I cannot understand why $40/month is out of the question. I work at a retirement home and we provide cable service to our ~350 units; I deal with Channel Content wholesale all the time.
Lets say Apple wanted to make at least $10 per month per customer margin. That leaves $30/month in programming costs.
At my wholesale prices $21.23/month would get:
all local stations, 165 National Channels in HD (where available, about 80 HD) These include Encore, ESPN, MLB, NHL, NFL Networks, Fox Sports, Discovery, TLC, TBS, TNT, etc..
PLUS Premium Channels:
HBO, HBO West, HBO 2 East, HBO 2 West, HBO Comedy, HBO Family East, HBO Family West, HBO Latino, HBO Signature East,HBO Zone East, 5 Star Max, Action Max, Cinemax West, Thilller Max, Cinemax, MoreMAX, MovieMAX, Sundance Channel, FLIX, Showtime East, Showtime West, Showtime 2, Showcase, Showtime Extreme, Showtime Beyond, Showtime Next, Showtime Women, The Movie Channel East, The Movie Channel West, TMC Xtra, Sundance Channel, Starz, Starz (West), Starz Edge, Starz InBlack, Starz Comedy, Starz Kids & Family, Sundance Channel, Comcast Sportsnet Regional
AND this is at my pricing with only 350 units, not MILLIONS of units that Apple would have. They would likely get a much better deal than I can.
It's kinda gross when you look at the markup cable companies charge. For what we offer to our residents here (which costs us ~$16/month) the cable company wants over $100
I don't understand the incessant need to destroy markets.
I don't think anybody is saying that the gaming market needs destroying. Some people seem to be saying that it is ripe for destruction and that the ? TV should be viewed as a threat. I'm in that camp. Others disagree.
Thompson
I still see arcades, and some of those game makers have made a lot money on the console market.
All of those game makers are going to have to make their games available for a much lower price in order to compete when a bazillion developers come out of the woodwork and make their own games available on the ? TV App Store. I don't see how it's possible to avoid the forthcoming dent.
Thompson
Though new Apple TV hardware is expected to appear at an upcoming Sept. 9 event, Apple's long-awaited subscription television service is reaffirmed to remain on hold, thanks to ongoing negotiations with content owners.
"There's still a big gap between the price media companies want for their TV channels and the roughly $40 a month Apple wants to charge consumers," Lessin wrote. "Something has to give."
Apple will HAVE to give in. It is the right thing to do.
Content costs a lot of money to make. There are a lot of actors and skilled workers to pay.
Why would media companies sell content at a lower cost to Apple when competing companies pay them a higher rate? Selling their product at a lower cost to Apple will stab them in the back when it comes to negotiating with competing companies - such as Comcast. Apple's competitors will simply want the lower price that Apple got.
If Apple wants to sell a $40 a month product then it will have to sell a limited product. Simple as that.
Perhaps Apple can negotiate an Ala-Carte selection. For example, 4 shows for $40 a month out of a selection of 50 shows.
Good.
$50 games are the ripoff of the century.
Hard to beleive when I bought the Legend of Zelda in 1990 for $50 that is actually $90 in today's money. Yikes.
I know.
Dasanman69 doesn't think that an app store enabled ? TV could make a dent in the console market. I don't see how it possibly couldn't.
Contents provider have to co-operate with streaming service like Apple-TV in order to keep cord cutters engaged in their revenue stream. Apple will get their.....
BASE + channels selection = Ala-Carte package = success
Apple will HAVE to give in. It is the right thing to do.
Content costs a lot of money to make. There are a lot of actors and skilled workers to pay.
Why would media companies sell content at a lower cost to Apple when competing companies pay them a higher rate? Selling their product at a lower cost to Apple will stab them in the back when it comes to negotiating with competing companies - such as Comcast. Apple's competitors will simply want the lower price that Apple got.
If Apple wants to sell a $40 a month product then it will have to sell a limited product. Simple as that.
Perhaps Apple can negotiate an Ala-Carte selection. For example, 4 shows for $40 a month out of a selection of 50 shows.
Well, the ultimate model is if you make the content available to a much larger population, then you can drive the price really low and still make the same amount you are making now (where there are high prices but much fewer people paying them). You know, the same model whereby inexpensive apps became the norm for smartphone users, resulting in hundreds of millions of downloads (for good apps) and made billionaires out of some "content owners". If Apple can price both the device and the content just right, the content owners may find themselves with a bigger bonanza than they ever thought possible. A few hundred million subscribers at $40 per month is nothing to sneeze at. Do I think a few hundred million is possible? Heck yes, worldwide, if it's attractively priced.
The current stakeholders need to stop thinking so "linearly" with their business model and think more about exponential reach in the digital age. Number of subscribers will most likely scale as some power of the inverse of the subscription price, and the sweet spot is probably lower than they think.
If you cannot select a "no-TV" package... I guess you'll have to take it.
Remember when your cellphone plan was all about minutes? And then a certain number of texts?
Now both of those have become devalued and are essentially "free"... and you're actually paying for data.
Technically I'm paying for "unlimited voice and text" even if I never make a phone call or send a text. They're just included and there's not much I can do about it.
Perhaps we'll all be getting TV channels the same way someday. You'll pay for your home internet and get TV as an included service.
In other words any market that Apple isn't in is ripe for destruction.
Good.
$50 games are the ripoff of the century.
Hard to beleive when I bought the Legend of Zelda in 1990 for $50 that is actually $90 in today's money. Yikes.
I bought Chrono Trigger in the 90s for $99.99!