WarnerMedia prepares to take on Netflix, Apple & others with new streaming TV service

AppleInsider

AT&T-owned WarnerMedia is preparing to jump into the fray with its own streaming TV service, one which could pose a threat not just to the likes of Amazon and Netflix but Apple's burgeoning video efforts.

The Warner service will launch in the fourth quarter of 2019, according to announcement. An internal memo seen by CNN elaborated that the service will include content from HBO, Turner, and Warner Bros., all of which sit under the WarnerMedia umbrella. Currently HBO Now, which offers on-demand programming, costs $14.99 per month on its own.

Pricing and even a name for the new service have yet to be announced.

It may face an uphill battle, even though WarnerMedia is an international giant and AT&T -- coupled with absent net neutrality protections -- provides an ideal vehicle for reaching the U.S. market. Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Video are firmly entrenched, and still more competitors are entering the market, such as Disney.

Apple is spending $1 billion or more on its own slate of TV shows which could premiere as soon as March 2019. Some of the titles on tap include an adaptation of Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" novels, a morning show drama starring Jennifer Anniston and Reese Witherspoon, and a series version of Terry Gilliam's "Time Bandits."

Still a secret is how Apple plans to actually air its content. In June a report indicated that Apple was considering a subscription bundle that could include the shows, Apple Music, and premium Apple News content.

supremedesigner

Too many streaming services going on right now. However, it's a healthy competition which is fine. I know Disney and maybe Apple will have their own streaming service ready in 2019. That will be interesting.

ireland

Rape your watch history and flog it to the highest bidder. Next Bloomberg will have a streaming service.

edited October 2018

wonkothesane

The more streaming services exist, the more value I can see in the Apple TV concept where you do t really have to care which service hosts what and it’s all “hidden” behind ONE UI. 
Flipside: struggle for exclusive content will drive number of required subscriptions up if you want to see “all”. Lots of services. Lots of subscriptions. 

rogifan_new

wonkothesane said:

The more streaming services exist, the more value I can see in the Apple TV concept where you do t really have to care which service hosts what and it’s all “hidden” behind ONE UI. 
Flipside: struggle for exclusive content will drive number of required subscriptions up if you want to see “all”. Lots of services. Lots of subscriptions. 

So basically cable with a prettier UI. Except instead of one bill you have many. What’s good about this?

retrogusto

So they already own HBO Go/Now, the TCM streaming service, FilmStruck (my personal favorite by far), and now they’ve decided that they want to “jump into the fray?”

gatorguy

So Apple will answer with giving much of theirs away for free. 

supp0rtlinux

Considering the AT&T ownership factor and the HBO discounts for AT&T's Directv NOW... I somehow envision this being free (or severely discounted) for existing and new Directv NOW customers in an attempt to grab market share.

boltsfan17

I'm curious to see how this pans out. Will HBO Now be axed and incorporated into this new WarnerMedia streaming service? I know there are a lot of cord cutters out there, but with all these streaming services, it's almost a no brainer to continue to have a cable/satellite subscription. For the programming I watch, it would be more expensive paying for monthly streaming services compared to what I pay for DirecTV. 

thrang

This field is becoming too crowded - competition is one thing, but with each streamer seeking to have exclusive content, consumers will begin to tune out of too many multiple monthly costs.

It will become ripe for consolidation in the next year or two if this splintering continues

thrang

gatorguy said:

So Apple will answer with giving much of theirs away for free. 

Apple has proven very successful with a subscription model for numerous services, so there's no way they give their content away for free. For what? To sell Apple TV's? Initial promo period, three months, yes... but not as a permanent paradigm.

I'd more see them giving away an Apple TV in return for a subscription (though that won't happen either).

mark fearing

boltsfan17 said:

I'm curious to see how this pans out. Will HBO Now be axed and incorporated into this new WarnerMedia streaming service? I know there are a lot of cord cutters out there, but with all these streaming services, it's almost a no brainer to continue to have a cable/satellite subscription. For the programming I watch, it would be more expensive paying for monthly streaming services compared to what I pay for DirecTV. 

It's an interesting issue. We cut the cord years ago. But we are not a huge live TV viewing household (don't follow sports which seems to be the big money maker for live TV). In facts none of us were watching anything weekly. With Hulu and Netflix and Amazon Prime we've been fine for years. If every studio thinks they can launch a service and get 10 or 20 bucks a month from everyone I think there will be a lot of failed services. I don't know what will happen, but I suspect over saturation of both content and services will reveal a flaw in many companies plans. A company like Amazon or Apple can basically write off content as a marketing expense and make their profits from their devices or in Amazon's case everything else they sell. But I would guess Netflix will have a hard time not burning through far more money then they can make and studios are giving up easy licensing money in order to build out complicated, expensive technology systems. It's a mad rush of fear right now, but no one knows what will happen so they are all spending shareholder money to at least be in the conversation. But it will end.

gatorguy

thrang said:

gatorguy said:

So Apple will answer with giving much of theirs away for free. 

Apple has proven very successful with a subscription model for numerous services, so there's no way they give their content away for free. For what? To sell Apple TV's? Initial promo period, three months, yes... but not as a permanent paradigm.

I'd more see them giving away an Apple TV in return for a subscription (though that won't happen either).

Well the rumor out today is Apple giving away their original content for free to anyone with an AppleTV, iPhone or iPad. 
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/10/apple-plans-to-give-away-original-content-for-free-to-device-owners.html

edited October 2018

lkrupp

Eventually there will have to be one service to rule them all. Those $10/mo services add up really quickly and before you know it your at or near your former cable bill. Netflix, Hulu, CBS ALL Access, HBO Now, Showtime, Prime... there’s almost $80/mo right there, plus your Internet access charges. Then add something like Sling, Direct TV, for broadcast TV and you’re almost there. Nope, this will all have to boil down to a single package at some point. The slugfest is just beginning.

edited October 2018

gatorguy

lkrupp said:

Eventually there will have to be one service to rule them all. Those $10/mo services add up really quickly and before you know it your at or near your former cable bill. Netflix, Hulu, CBS ALL Access, HBO Now, Showtime, Prime... there’s almost $80/mo right there, plus your Internet access charges. Then add something like Sling, Direct TV, for broadcast TV and you’re almost there. Nope, this will all have to boil down to a single package at some point. The slugfest is just beginning.

I agree. I was optimistic that streaming services like Sling were going to be the way of breaking the big media stranglehold on high-dollar 200 station cable packages as the only way to get anything other than local stations. No more paying for stuff you don't want to watch anyway, sounds great....

...until all the subscriptions for what you DO want to watch begin adding up, and the internet providers know they have you by the cajones and jack up their rates too, and you suddenly find yourself back in cable TV price territory.   

rogifan_new

gatorguy said:

thrang said:

gatorguy said:

So Apple will answer with giving much of theirs away for free. 

Apple has proven very successful with a subscription model for numerous services, so there's no way they give their content away for free. For what? To sell Apple TV's? Initial promo period, three months, yes... but not as a permanent paradigm.

I'd more see them giving away an Apple TV in return for a subscription (though that won't happen either).

Well the rumor out today is Apple giving away their original content for free to anyone with an AppleTV, iPhone or iPad. 
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/10/apple-plans-to-give-away-original-content-for-free-to-device-owners.html

All that tells me is Apple execs aren’t very confident about their initial offerings. But once they offer something for “free” how do they move to a subscription model?

strangedays

rogifan_new said:

wonkothesane said:

The more streaming services exist, the more value I can see in the Apple TV concept where you do t really have to care which service hosts what and it’s all “hidden” behind ONE UI. 
Flipside: struggle for exclusive content will drive number of required subscriptions up if you want to see “all”. Lots of services. Lots of subscriptions. 

So basically cable with a prettier UI. Except instead of one bill you have many. What’s good about this?

Because most people won’t subscribe to all of them, dur. I subscribe to Amazon Prime, and Netflix. Sometimes, I subscribe to HBO, and also sometimes Showtime. Sometimes I watch free content from cable apps. Using the TV app for these is great (only netflix is a stick in the mud). 

At no point do I spend what people spend on cable television. Nor do I have multiple bills to deal with as they all go thru my iTunes. 

edited October 2018

mac_dog

Knowing AT&T is in bed with the NSA discourages me from doing anything with them or any of their subsidiaries. 

rogifan_new

StrangeDays said:

rogifan_new said:

wonkothesane said:

The more streaming services exist, the more value I can see in the Apple TV concept where you do t really have to care which service hosts what and it’s all “hidden” behind ONE UI. 
Flipside: struggle for exclusive content will drive number of required subscriptions up if you want to see “all”. Lots of services. Lots of subscriptions. 

So basically cable with a prettier UI. Except instead of one bill you have many. What’s good about this?

Because most people won’t subscribe to all of them, dur. I subscribe to Amazon Prime, and Netflix. Sometimes, I subscribe to HBO, and also sometimes Showtime. Sometimes I watch free content from cable apps. Using the TV app for these is great (only netflix is a stick in the mud). 

At no point do I spend what people spend on cable television. Nor do I have multiple bills to deal with as they all go thru my iTunes. 

meh I think we’ll be back to bundling soon enough. 

kingofsomewherehot

rogifan_new said:

All that tells me is Apple execs aren’t very confident about their initial offerings. But once they offer something for “free” how do they move to a subscription model?

Easy:

"Ok... for the past year, you've seen the quality of shows we can/will produce... they cost money to make, so continuing forward the "Apple Music" subscription will increase by $5 per month, the name will change to "Apple Media", and for that fee you will get access all the Music, Books, Audiobooks, and Video in our library."
...and because they are Apple, they can/will get away with it.

(Or maybe not even a price change, but just roll it into the subscription service they already have.)

edited October 2018

claire1

rogifan_new said:

gatorguy said:

thrang said:

gatorguy said:

So Apple will answer with giving much of theirs away for free. 

Apple has proven very successful with a subscription model for numerous services, so there's no way they give their content away for free. For what? To sell Apple TV's? Initial promo period, three months, yes... but not as a permanent paradigm.

I'd more see them giving away an Apple TV in return for a subscription (though that won't happen either).

Well the rumor out today is Apple giving away their original content for free to anyone with an AppleTV, iPhone or iPad. 
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/10/apple-plans-to-give-away-original-content-for-free-to-device-owners.html

All that tells me is Apple execs aren’t very confident about their initial offerings. But once they offer something for “free” how do they move to a subscription model?

All they need is a hit show and people will be buying Apple TVs like crazy. That will pay off.

kingofsomewherehot said:

rogifan_new said:

All that tells me is Apple execs aren’t very confident about their initial offerings. But once they offer something for “free” how do they move to a subscription model?

Easy:

"Ok... for the past year, you've seen the quality of shows we can/will produce... they cost money to make, so continuing forward the "Apple Music" subscription will increase by $5 per month, the name will change to "Apple Media", and for that fee you will get access all the Music, Books, Audiobooks, and Video in our library."
...and because they are Apple, they can/will get away with it.

(Or maybe not even a price change, but just roll it into the subscription service they already have.)

Apple Media is a terrible name and sounds too corporate-like. I agree Apple Music with shows and movies is a strange move. I believe they'll separate the 2 services. Who knows?