I suppose it's possible that Steve was the closer Apple doesn't have a closer anymore. Plus this isn't like music back in days of Napster where people were downloading content for nothing. They have no reason to play ball with Apple. Why should they when they can offer their own "skinny bundle" and pay nothing to Apple other than a commission to Apple if they choose IAP.
Apple doesn't have a closer?
So I guess Steve Jobs closed the China Mobile, AppleMusic, and DoCoMo deals from his grave?
They don't have a closer for the really hard things.
WTF are you talking about. The China Mobile deal is WAY WAY WAY WAY bigger than this TV deal.
The China Mobile deal alone will net Apple over a TRILLION dollars in revenue in the next two decades.
I didn't say bigger I said harder. Anyways with fewer and fewer people watching live TV who needs skinny bundles? Just let content providers put apps on AppleTV and provide an easy way to search across all content.
Agree. Let me buy what I want to watch. And I don't want to pay for ESPN. I think they are wise to stand apart from the rush to create platforms based on streaming. What I mean is, bundles of content from various sources as a package.
The problem with an à la carte service is pricing. This has been one of huge issues with trying to usurp or interject into the current cable/sat business model.
What I'd like to see is at least a setup that is a hybrid package. You don't want ESPN, but maybe someone else does. You get the basic network channels, and then you get x-many tier-1 channels, y-many tier-2 channels, etc., depending on your chosen package. This means I can get ESPN, Speed, TV Land, Spike, (and 6 more) and you can get Lifetime, Learning, Discovery, and History (and 6 more) within that same tier, that fit your family's personal needs. I'd think that a setup like that would help balance the adoption rate per channel, without the high-cost of buying separately since the bundle will still likely have you get more channels than you would normally get if having to buy separately... even if the pricing was the same or lower, since by not choosing to fill your tier you're, in a sense, throwing away money.
These quotes are getting ridiculous. Hopefully the forthcoming site update will actually fix the “don’t nest” setting.
I wonder if the background would go completely black if the quotes nest deeply enough.
Or, people can take the trouble to delete all but the quote(r) they're referring to.... doesn't take much effort!
My bigger problem is the Notification Preferences settings: either I get every new post in the thread after mine, or none at all -- i.e., there seems to be no way, or I don't see any way, to just get the responses to my posts.
I gave up cable tv this summer and couldn't be happier with over the air tv plus Netflix and iTunes using Apple TV. Add in that I now watch less junk tv and read more books, go on more hikes, etc. it was a good move.
I think the commenters here have it correct. The content providers don't like the pittance they get as part of a bundle, they would probably prefer having their own app, but they also worry about critical mass distribution and discoverability. Well, those are solvable problems, even in an app-only model. Each content provider offers up select content for free to gain eyeballs, holding back the rest behind their subscription. then consumers can discover and buy, and the audience will size itself to the quality and popularity of the content provided. Economic principals of price discovery will determine the cost of various content. It can all work, and Apple is probably okay with things panning out this way. The content producers will be happy, consumers will be happy, and Apple participates in the middle.
Some of the Roku channels do just that, giving a few shows free but with the rest behind a subscription paywall. I don't remember exactly which, perhaps the History Channel was one, but I do know they are typical cable channels. I imagine those providers would be happy to do so with Apple too so that shouldn't hold anything up.
the whole bundling of TV is already in existence via Comcast, TW, Cox.... its called 'cable'.
the new paradigm that Apple could provide is the selection of only the channels you want to watch (and pay for).
If this was realistically offered by the cable-cabal, they would remain relevant-- instead of losing the grip on the consumer as happened to the big record-labels.
Content providers have a legit reason to not allow the cherry picking of channels. How are consumers to KNOW if they like a channel if it's not included?
thats absurd. its "me me me" because its MY MONEY that im CHOOSING to spend on a content supplier.
Content providers have a legit reason to not allow the cherry picking of channels. How are consumers to KNOW if they like a channel if it's not included? Yes today's generation has an idea of what they want through decades of watching every channel in existence but all your favorite channels were "discovered" at one point. Imagine removing this and what can happen 10 years from now? If you thought the MTV generation was bad, in 10-20 years you'll have something way worse and a ton of good channels will close because there's no exposure to them.
I believe Apple needs to find a way to give ALL channels exposure in order to reach a deal. I'm thinking a free TV app that shows various content (for free)from different channels would work.
Imagine scrolling through tons of free limited-time content that is updated daily by providers. you click on an interesting real-life crime scene investigation show. At the end of the show it says "Watch more Deadly Women on ID". They can even show the first part of two part shows or cliffhangers to urge consumers to purchase the channel.
The problem with this is the notion of "channels". People don't watch channels anymore like they use to. When I was a kid in the 70s, I remember my parents turning on CBS in the evenings and leaving it on all throughout primetime and into the 11 o'clock news. In the 90s it was NBC.
Nowadays people watch shows.....on a variety of networks. Myself, I watch 2 shows on FX, 2 shows on AMC, 3 shows on FoodNetwork, 1 show on Showtime and 1 show on Netflix. And all are recorded on DVR for when I want to watch them. But I would never want to have to pay for an entire network's catalog of shows when I only watch 1 or 2 of them.
Or, people can take the trouble to delete all but the quote(r) they're referring to.... doesn't take much effort!
actually it does -- for example look at this message, where i deleted the quote above yours, and it plopped your reply into that-quote's bubble. and sometimes i cant input text after deleting the quotes, my cursor focus vanishes.
i shouldnt have to play graphic designer just to quote 1-level.
bundles are too normal though. not just in television. cars are bundled (trim levels) computers often are. companies want to make the most amount of money- they believe they have fine tuned to what they need. it works and has worked for so many years. things are changing now, but it typically takes companies a while to understand how and what change is happening around them. good luck apple- i hope you succeed and make all channels available for all worldwide.
the whole bundling of TV is already in existence via Comcast, TW, Cox.... its called 'cable'.
the new paradigm that Apple could provide is the selection of only the channels you want to watch (and pay for).
If this was realistically offered by the cable-cabal, they would remain relevant-- instead of losing the grip on the consumer as happened to the big record-labels.
Everyone blames the cable companies but it's not their fault. It's the fault of the huge media conglomerates that own multiple networks/channels. They're the ones that insist on the bundles. Getting them to play ball is going to be difficult.
I would be happy if Apple could ink a deal with the NFL to get Sunday Ticket on the Apple TV without needing DirecTV. I don't know when their current contract expires but if Apple could offer it at reasonable subscription price, I would be set. The rest of cable sucks. Reality shows cover the channels and everything is show about the dregs of the earth with three teeth in their head trying to win some stupid competition or some other manufactured drama.
I would be happy if Apple could ink a deal with the NFL to get Sunday Ticket on the Apple TV without needing DirecTV. I don't know when their current contract expires but if Apple could offer it at reasonable subscription price, I would be set. The rest of cable sucks. Reality shows cover the channels and everything is show about the dregs of the earth with three teeth in their head trying to win some stupid competition or some other manufactured drama.
That package costs billions. Would Apple get enough subscribers to even cover the cost?
How are consumers to KNOW if they like a channel if it's not included? Yes today's generation has an idea of what they want through decades of watching every channel in existence but all your favorite channels were "discovered" at one point. Imagine removing this and what can happen 10 years from now? If you thought the MTV generation was bad, in 10-20 years you'll have something way worse and a ton of good channels will close because there's no exposure to them.
I think you, and content providers, are missing the entire point. I don't watch channels. I watch shows.
No one watches "channels." We watch and want to buy content. And we what to watch the content whenever and wherever we are. Not on the schedule that is laid out by the big media houses and cable company.
All we really want is live news and sports and a catalog of things to watch on demand. it is like Hulu, combined with Netflix, combined with a few live event streams. Will I watch some commercials to help pay for it? Probably. I do with Hulu. Will I pay a monthly fee? Yes, I do with Hulu, Netflix and Cable.
The problem is I am restricted from some content if it isn't on my cable package or on-line yet (Outlander on Scifi for example - I can't even buy the newest season), and the cost is ridiculous ($150+ per month).
How are consumers to KNOW if they like a channel if it's not included? Yes today's generation has an idea of what they want through decades of watching every channel in existence but all your favorite channels were "discovered" at one point. Imagine removing this and what can happen 10 years from now? If you thought the MTV generation was bad, in 10-20 years you'll have something way worse and a ton of good channels will close because there's no exposure to them.
I think you, and content providers, are missing the entire point. I don't watch channels. I watch shows.
No one watches "channels." We watch and want to buy content. And we what to watch the content whenever and wherever we are. Not on the schedule that is laid out by the big media houses and cable company.
All we really want is live news and sports and a catalog of things to watch on demand. it is like Hulu, combined with Netflix, combined with a few live event streams. Will I watch some commercials to help pay for it? Probably. I do with Hulu. Will I pay a monthly fee? Yes, I do with Hulu, Netflix and Cable.
The problem is I am restricted from some content if it isn't on my cable package or on-line yet (Outlander on Scifi for example - I can't even buy the newest season), and the cost is ridiculous ($150+ per month).
Content providers have a legit reason to not allow the cherry picking of channels. How are consumers to KNOW if they like a channel if it's not included?
The answer to your question is: Apple TV Store Apps. Apps can offer free previews of their content, including segments from shows, and a few completely free (and commercial free) episodes, or allow watching shows with ads inserted. This is in fact what many Apple TV (3rd-gen) channels do. Give you enough information to tell you whether you'll want the channel's content or not. One way or the other, you have to provide access to free content. Lower the price to zero, and people will try it, because the cost of being disappointed is zero (except time wasted).
My position is: Consumers know what they want, and they don't want these channels nor will they pay for these channels. It follows that they should have the option to pay for only the channels they want.
Your argument is: If content providers force consumers to pay for bundles including channels they don't want, they might consequently change their minds and decide they want these channels. Maybe. Or maybe not. But that's beside the point.
No, sorry, the possibility that they might later want the thing they are forced to buy isn't a legitimate reason to force them to buy it.
Wow... I nailed this one!
Here is a quote from what I wrote 2 days ago Post# 21 in the over-the-top TV article.
" 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."
I am glad Apple decided against FAT bundles.
The problem now is that the cable providers are ruining the AppleTV experience with having to authenticate against their various directories all the time.
Agree. Let me buy what I want to watch. And I don't want to pay for ESPN. I think they are wise to stand apart from the rush to create platforms based on streaming. What I mean is, bundles of content from various sources as a package.
Exactly.
I think Hulu is already a fairly good bundle of US TV shows at a reasonable price. Some may wish to add Netflix and perhaps HBO Now and call it a day. Others may wish to add some sports channels.
I hope Apple allows more international content providers leading to more variety of live content. There is already some good Free content like SkyNews and YouTube.
As much as everyone wants to buy a few limited channels, the business math doesn't work given the way things are currently structured.
It is what it is... no one likes it but the money has been flowing for years, it is going to take a long time before someone is willing to fire half their employees and have their company file for bankruptcy so the " I want it my way" gets their wish.
The only way it happens is if people like the Pluto tv network or there is a lot of good new content on other new channels.
As an example Netflix has 40 US million subscribers - and generates about $6B in sales and 165 M/yr in profit.
Disney (with ESPN) has 90-100 million subscribers- and generates about $25B in sales (without theme parks,etc).. and about $4B/yr in profit from that.
Netflix makes 2.5% of Disney's TV profit.
In what world are the Disney's of the world going to give up their real revenue for streamers that don't want to pay for TV.
The number of Cable subscribers has to really decrease before it make sense.
HBO at $15 a month - that is a big number for for just one channel. ESPN knows that people won't pay that number a la cart.
Yes there are cord cutters - and if you thing you everyone is going to drop cable - go bet against them on the Wall Street roulette wheel.
The big time live sports aren't available online for free. That will keep cable around for a while.
Comments
I wonder if the background would go completely black if the quotes nest deeply enough.
What I'd like to see is at least a setup that is a hybrid package. You don't want ESPN, but maybe someone else does. You get the basic network channels, and then you get x-many tier-1 channels, y-many tier-2 channels, etc., depending on your chosen package. This means I can get ESPN, Speed, TV Land, Spike, (and 6 more) and you can get Lifetime, Learning, Discovery, and History (and 6 more) within that same tier, that fit your family's personal needs. I'd think that a setup like that would help balance the adoption rate per channel, without the high-cost of buying separately since the bundle will still likely have you get more channels than you would normally get if having to buy separately... even if the pricing was the same or lower, since by not choosing to fill your tier you're, in a sense, throwing away money.
My bigger problem is the Notification Preferences settings: either I get every new post in the thread after mine, or none at all -- i.e., there seems to be no way, or I don't see any way, to just get the responses to my posts.
Nowadays people watch shows.....on a variety of networks. Myself, I watch 2 shows on FX, 2 shows on AMC, 3 shows on FoodNetwork, 1 show on Showtime and 1 show on Netflix. And all are recorded on DVR for when I want to watch them. But I would never want to have to pay for an entire network's catalog of shows when I only watch 1 or 2 of them.
i shouldnt have to play graphic designer just to quote 1-level.
companies want to make the most amount of money- they believe they have fine tuned to what they need. it works and has worked for so many years.
things are changing now, but it typically takes companies a while to understand how and what change is happening around them.
good luck apple- i hope you succeed and make all channels available for all worldwide.
No one watches "channels." We watch and want to buy content. And we what to watch the content whenever and wherever we are. Not on the schedule that is laid out by the big media houses and cable company.
All we really want is live news and sports and a catalog of things to watch on demand. it is like Hulu, combined with Netflix, combined with a few live event streams. Will I watch some commercials to help pay for it? Probably. I do with Hulu. Will I pay a monthly fee? Yes, I do with Hulu, Netflix and Cable.
The problem is I am restricted from some content if it isn't on my cable package or on-line yet (Outlander on Scifi for example - I can't even buy the newest season), and the cost is ridiculous ($150+ per month).
This isn't that hard.
Apps can offer free previews of their content, including segments from shows, and a few completely free (and commercial free) episodes, or allow watching shows with ads inserted. This is in fact what many Apple TV (3rd-gen) channels do. Give you enough information to tell you whether you'll want the channel's content or not. One way or the other, you have to provide access to free content. Lower the price to zero, and people will try it, because the cost of being disappointed is zero (except time wasted).
My position is: Consumers know what they want, and they don't want these channels nor will they pay for these channels. It follows that they should have the option to pay for only the channels they want.
Your argument is: If content providers force consumers to pay for bundles including channels they don't want, they might consequently change their minds and decide they want these channels. Maybe. Or maybe not. But that's beside the point.
No, sorry, the possibility that they might later want the thing they are forced to buy isn't a legitimate reason to force them to buy it.
It is what it is... no one likes it but the money has been flowing for years, it is going to take a long time before someone is willing to fire half their employees and have their company file for bankruptcy so the " I want it my way" gets their wish.
The only way it happens is if people like the Pluto tv network or there is a lot of good new content on other new channels.
As an example Netflix has 40 US million subscribers - and generates about $6B in sales and 165 M/yr in profit.
Disney (with ESPN) has 90-100 million subscribers- and generates about $25B in sales (without theme parks,etc).. and about $4B/yr in profit from that.
Netflix makes 2.5% of Disney's TV profit.
In what world are the Disney's of the world going to give up their real revenue for streamers that don't want to pay for TV.
The number of Cable subscribers has to really decrease before it make sense.
HBO at $15 a month - that is a big number for for just one channel. ESPN knows that people won't pay that number a la cart.
Yes there are cord cutters - and if you thing you everyone is going to drop cable - go bet against them on the Wall Street roulette wheel.
The big time live sports aren't available online for free. That will keep cable around for a while.