Apple never was going into this Channel thing. And it has, will and always been about the App.
I have no idea why the heck this is news.
What I wish though, is that Apple could built their own CDN around the world with ISP and their carriers partners to server this Video Delivery Platform. Instead of forcing each and every App to create their own.
Translation: Apple refused their demands, and will simply wait them out while the content owners subscription base through cable companies continues to dwindle. When the content providers see the losses mount, they'll come come back. Of course, Apple will them move the goal posts back.
CBS is the only network that charges separately for a streaming service. Even if you have a cable subscription, you can't use their app to get time shifted content. Wonder what will happen when Apple offers everything but CBS?
My thoughts exactly.
I think the content providers don't want to allow cherry picking of the most popular shows for a skinny bundle and Apple does not want to offer a traditional fat bundle so that alone stops the deal. The content providers will eventually lose as the cable companies lose revenue with their fat bundles.
Customers need to dump the fat bundles and replace them with the Apple TV platform with all new streaming providers.
Translation: Apple refused their demands, and will simply wait them out while the content owners subscription base through cable companies continues to dwindle. When the content providers see the losses mount, they'll come come back. Of course, Apple will them move the goal posts back.
CBS is the only network that charges separately for a streaming service. Even if you have a cable subscription, you can't use their app to get time shifted content. Wonder what will happen when Apple offers everything but CBS?
CBS is fucking greedy. I have Dish everything and I need to pay for it to get it on ATV. Fck CBS; I deleted it from my ATV.
I don't really see any advantage to skinny bundles until people are able to select channels ala carte and build their own bundle. I can guarantee you some of the channels I watch most frequently would never be part of an Apple skinny bundle. but no doubt ESPN would have to be there whether you're interested in sports or not.
An interesting development from Verizon Fios skinny bundles that Disney balked at over ESPN (the $55 for a base +2 extra packs) that they expected people to buy 3 packs.
They did not, and a surprising amount (to them) of people left out the sports pack - the one containing ESPN.
No wonder Disney balked. No more cash cow.
I'd still like to move past this paradigm of "channels." If a studio creates a good piece of work, I'll watch it. I'd gladly pay $$ to have access to find these without the hassle of having to hunt through some ungodly number of channels just to find it. Especially with the number of channels each broadcasting group owns. How do we have 500 channels when there are only 10-15 companies who own them? It just clutters everything up on our end.
Who wants a bundle? That just makes Apple the cable company.
Ala carte is the way to go. XYZ network isn't just one of a dozen that gets paid the same no matter what they offer. They actually have to offer compelling, interesting, worthwhile content, for the user to decide they are worth subscribing to.
If I decide ABC is worth paying $x/mon for live + ondemand, but CBS is a pile of crap, I want to pay ABC for the effort and say the hell with CBS. etc. etc. etc. etc.
I didn't cut the cord to then start paying Apple!!! I already think SlingTV is over priced at $20 to start, that's all Bundles. No thanks. I have my Antenna and Netflix and Amazon, mostly Netflix and that's really most all I need.
This has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with the networks and content producers. They have dipped their toes into this new market with Hulu, Netflix, etc. Service providers like cable and satellite companies will fight this tooth and nail as long as they have leverage over the networks. Does anyone think for one second that these outfits will give up their revenue streams willingly. Look how long it took the music industry to wake up. First they demanded DRM before they would sell music online. Then they fought streaming, demanding advertising or subscriptions or both.
I don't really see any advantage to skinny bundles until people are able to select channels ala carte and build their own bundle. I can guarantee you some of the channels I watch most frequently would never be part of an Apple skinny bundle. but no doubt ESPN would have to be there whether you're interested in sports or not.
FK ESPN & The NFL. local communities have spent fortunes building stadiums for these teams through extortion, and then the teams/NFL take the games to a private channel that you have to pay for. This system is so corrupt.
I'd still like to move past this paradigm of "channels." If a studio creates a good piece of work, I'll watch it. I'd gladly pay $$ to have access to find these without the hassle of having to hunt through some ungodly number of channels just to find it. Especially with the number of channels each broadcasting group owns. How do we have 500 channels when there are only 10-15 companies who own them? It just clutters everything up on our end.
Sure, but understand that branding and bundling are important means that content owners use to maximize their revenue. They have really no interest in uncluttering or providing a good user experience. They want your money, and if that means making you subscribe, or always see their stuff when you go looking, so be it. HBO doesn't want to sell you Game of Thrones: they want to sell you a subscription to HBO for more $$$.
In a way, we do have much alacarte content on the iTunes store. It just isn't "live" and of course that is the only way sports are valuable. But for "shows" you have many options; including in many cases free options from your local public library.
Deeply interesting business. I do think the comment about Apple making a "channels store" is intriguing.
Apple never was going into this Channel thing. And it has, will and always been about the App. I have no idea why the heck this is news. What I wish though, is that Apple could built their own CDN around the world with ISP and their carriers partners to server this Video Delivery Platform. Instead of forcing each and every App to create their own.
I don't agree that Apple didn't want to create their own streaming service. I just think they couldn't get the deals they wanted with the various content rights holders. And even after all of that effort, it would have been US only, as content rights tend to be country specific. Trying to create even a "few countries" service of streaming live content would be very challenging (in contrast Netflix first licensed older on-demand content and then went into original content, allowing them a broader country audience, since they "own" the content rights to that original programming).
I think the "TV App Strategy" - as it applies to video content - is a secondary approach that is meant to give a bit of a shake-up to the industry - to lessen their control. It gives the people a reason to purchase an Apple TV, and Apple can make some App Store revenue in the short term. And it lets Apple see what works and what doesn't.
A reason for Apple to go the live TV streaming "bundle" route was to enable those who would choose it to get down to "one box". Apple becomes the "cable company" in a way, but with much better user experience, hardware, and the box is a full app platform.
While some like yourself are content to cobble together your own content sources, it would seem the majority still like to have a fairly simple aggregation service. I personally don't want to download and pay for 20 apps to satisfy the whole family & I do want to watch some live sports. So I think there is still a demand for a bundle or easy "a la carte" - but the content rights are a nightmare to corral.
It's sort of shocking to me that Sling TV was able to get this done but Apple hasn't. If Apple can't move the industry, then how did Sling move them? I say this especially because Sling TV has channels that most people would want in their baseline monthly package. It includes ESPN, TNT, TBS, and AMC. Their only sore point is that it is only allowed one stream. That is why I cancelled it. If I could have had two-three streams for additional TV's in the house then I'd be happy with it forever.
However one of the real issues is still advertising. When you get used to not having it around, it really becomes intrusive when you do have it.
We have a large antenna up and that gives us a fair amount of live television when we want or need it. Aside from that we have Amazon Prime and Netflix. I used to be into sports but the exclusive channels along with subdividing the content across so many additional channels just makes it more trouble than it is worth. I don't want to see if my team is playing on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, TNT, CBS or FOX or if this game is on their exclusive sports channel just for that team. I'm not hardcore enough to care.
To me this is bad news for Apple. Anyone can offer hardware. Apple has always been about hardware and software in a package that is more seemless than anyone else while still giving developers the chance to enhance that offering.
This to me would mean a reasonably priced Apple TV with all major streaming providers available as apps but also an Apple option for managing paid content and a streaming content service by them with exclusive content that Apple funds can provide.
Netflix and Amazon are leading the way here. I've been impressed with both. I was right on the verge of cancelling Netflix even when all their exclusive stuff finally dropped and we got sucked in. I just finished "The Man in the High Castle" on Amazon and it was pretty decent.
There's a good model starting to unfold. You get a back catalog of stuff that is largely older and thus probably heavily devalued for most people. You highlight certain themes that add some value back like "This month we've got all the Halloween (horror movie series) movies for you since it is October." Then you have a few recent movies that would be popular at Redbox or as rentals. Finally some exclusive content that people can only find on your service and you allow them to watch all of it anywhere they have a device and data.
For most folks this seems to be worth $8-10 a month. Apple is missing out on this for now and if we can take Apple Music as an indication, they will be late, behind the curve and offer a substandard solution.
It's sort of shocking to me that Sling TV was able to get this done but Apple hasn't. If Apple can't move the industry, then how did Sling move them? I say this especially because Sling TV has channels that most people would want in their baseline monthly package. It includes ESPN, TNT, TBS, and AMC. Their only sore point is that it is only allowed one stream. That is why I cancelled it. If I could have had two-three streams for additional TV's in the house then I'd be happy with it forever.
However one of the real issues is still advertising. When you get used to not having it around, it really becomes intrusive when you do have it.
We have a large antenna up and that gives us a fair amount of live television when we want or need it. Aside from that we have Amazon Prime and Netflix. I used to be into sports but the exclusive channels along with subdividing the content across so many additional channels just makes it more trouble than it is worth. I don't want to see if my team is playing on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, TNT, CBS or FOX or if this game is on their exclusive sports channel just for that team. I'm not hardcore enough to care.
To me this is bad news for Apple. Anyone can offer hardware. Apple has always been about hardware and software in a package that is more seemless than anyone else while still giving developers the chance to enhance that offering.
This to me would mean a reasonably priced Apple TV with all major streaming providers available as apps but also an Apple option for managing paid content and a streaming content service by them with exclusive content that Apple funds can provide.
Netflix and Amazon are leading the way here. I've been impressed with both. I was right on the verge of cancelling Netflix even when all their exclusive stuff finally dropped and we got sucked in. I just finished "The Man in the High Castle" on Amazon and it was pretty decent.
There's a good model starting to unfold. You get a back catalog of stuff that is largely older and thus probably heavily devalued for most people. You highlight certain themes that add some value back like "This month we've got all the Halloween (horror movie series) movies for you since it is October." Then you have a few recent movies that would be popular at Redbox or as rentals. Finally some exclusive content that people can only find on your service and you allow them to watch all of it anywhere they have a device and data.
For most folks this seems to be worth $8-10 a month. Apple is missing out on this for now and if we can take Apple Music as an indication, they will be late, behind the curve and offer a substandard solution.
How well is Sling doing? Last I read is subscriptions were decelerating. Mark Gurman from 9to5Mac was on CNBC this morning and said Apple shouldn't waste their time on a skinny bundle right now but instead focus on apps. I agree. Let Apple focus on building out Apple TV as a platform with a superior user interface and really good universal and voice search. And let people subscribe to the content of their choice. Clearly Apple couldn't get a good package at a competitive price so focus their energies elsewhere right now.
Comments
I have no idea why the heck this is news.
What I wish though, is that Apple could built their own CDN around the world with ISP and their carriers partners to server this Video Delivery Platform. Instead of forcing each and every App to create their own.
I think the content providers don't want to allow cherry picking of the most popular shows for a skinny bundle and Apple does not want to offer a traditional fat bundle so that alone stops the deal. The content providers will eventually lose as the cable companies lose revenue with their fat bundles.
Customers need to dump the fat bundles and replace them with the Apple TV platform with all new streaming providers.
They did not, and a surprising amount (to them) of people left out the sports pack - the one containing ESPN.
No wonder Disney balked. No more cash cow.
I'd still like to move past this paradigm of "channels." If a studio creates a good piece of work, I'll watch it. I'd gladly pay $$ to have access to find these without the hassle of having to hunt through some ungodly number of channels just to find it. Especially with the number of channels each broadcasting group owns. How do we have 500 channels when there are only 10-15 companies who own them? It just clutters everything up on our end.
In a way, we do have much alacarte content on the iTunes store. It just isn't "live" and of course that is the only way sports are valuable. But for "shows" you have many options; including in many cases free options from your local public library.
Deeply interesting business. I do think the comment about Apple making a "channels store" is intriguing.
I think the "TV App Strategy" - as it applies to video content - is a secondary approach that is meant to give a bit of a shake-up to the industry - to lessen their control. It gives the people a reason to purchase an Apple TV, and Apple can make some App Store revenue in the short term. And it lets Apple see what works and what doesn't.
A reason for Apple to go the live TV streaming "bundle" route was to enable those who would choose it to get down to "one box". Apple becomes the "cable company" in a way, but with much better user experience, hardware, and the box is a full app platform.
While some like yourself are content to cobble together your own content sources, it would seem the majority still like to have a fairly simple aggregation service. I personally don't want to download and pay for 20 apps to satisfy the whole family & I do want to watch some live sports. So I think there is still a demand for a bundle or easy "a la carte" - but the content rights are a nightmare to corral.
However one of the real issues is still advertising. When you get used to not having it around, it really becomes intrusive when you do have it.
We have a large antenna up and that gives us a fair amount of live television when we want or need it. Aside from that we have Amazon Prime and Netflix. I used to be into sports but the exclusive channels along with subdividing the content across so many additional channels just makes it more trouble than it is worth. I don't want to see if my team is playing on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, TNT, CBS or FOX or if this game is on their exclusive sports channel just for that team. I'm not hardcore enough to care.
To me this is bad news for Apple. Anyone can offer hardware. Apple has always been about hardware and software in a package that is more seemless than anyone else while still giving developers the chance to enhance that offering.
This to me would mean a reasonably priced Apple TV with all major streaming providers available as apps but also an Apple option for managing paid content and a streaming content service by them with exclusive content that Apple funds can provide.
Netflix and Amazon are leading the way here. I've been impressed with both. I was right on the verge of cancelling Netflix even when all their exclusive stuff finally dropped and we got sucked in. I just finished "The Man in the High Castle" on Amazon and it was pretty decent.
There's a good model starting to unfold. You get a back catalog of stuff that is largely older and thus probably heavily devalued for most people. You highlight certain themes that add some value back like "This month we've got all the Halloween (horror movie series) movies for you since it is October." Then you have a few recent movies that would be popular at Redbox or as rentals. Finally some exclusive content that people can only find on your service and you allow them to watch all of it anywhere they have a device and data.
For most folks this seems to be worth $8-10 a month. Apple is missing out on this for now and if we can take Apple Music as an indication, they will be late, behind the curve and offer a substandard solution.