I'm not so sure the itv will show up now, but I think it changes the model for how these things will run. The only part of my theory that doesnt compute is how apple makes money. A 99$ box cant make them more than 30$...and they make a few bucks on the app, but nothing on the content....so maybe I'm totally wrong
Apple typically gets a cut of in-app purchases and there is also iAd that you are forgetting about - Apple gets a cut of that too.
Cable companies like Comcast remain one of the biggest hurdles for Apple in its attempts to grow its digital distribution business. Earlier this summer, Chief Executive Steve Jobs acknowledged that his company's Apple TV business remains a hobby because it's hard to break in to a market where consumers are used to receiving a cable box for free or $10 per month.
"The only way that's ever going to change," Jobs said, "is if you can really go back to square one, tear up the set top box, redesign it from scratch with a consistent UI across all of these different functions, and get it to consumers in a way they're willing to pay for it. And right now, there's no way to do that."
Guess what quietly showed up in the firmware refresh on my Sony Bly-ray player this weekend? Hulu Plus for $9.99 a month with content from ABC, NBC and Fox -- but no shows from CBS or any of the cable networks.
"Enjoy Hulu on the go on your iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. Support for additional devices coming soon. ... Now you can enjoy Hulu on your TV using the following devices. More Internet-enabled TVs, Blu-ray devices, game consoles and set-top boxes coming soon."
This would be a great cable replacement for about two-thirds of the shows I watch, but the other one-third of the shows (including news and sports) is enough to make me say I will definitely take a pass on this version of Hulu Plus. Still, the bargain is getting more interesting: Would I trade my $90 cable package for a $10 Hulu Plus package that forces me to give up How I Met Your Mother, Mad Men, Top Chef, Project Runway, Flipping Out, MSNBC, college football, and the Academy Awards? No, but I would probably pay $40 or $50 a month to get most of those shows and at least some live streaming programming.
So I guess NBC won't plug GE christmas lights anymore during their holiday broadcasts.
On the flip side, they will plug Comcast. And I am not a fan of this monopoly. Honestly I wish Comcast gets split up like Ma Bell. Having just one choice for cable sucks. You can't stick a dish in some apartments and U-Verse just recently became available with Ridiculous pricing.
Yeah I'm not digging Comcast. I really just want the 50-Mbps Internet Access.
Channels a-la-carte is the future....and a way for studios to know better who buys what and which shows/channels are mamking money. This can give the studio leverage against the cable operators who, lets be honest, are tyranical about getting what they want.
I wish that were true, but it's not. The studios/networks already have the leverage, which is why the carriage fees for ESPN and Disney Channel are astronomical and the cable operators are basically forced to take the package that the networks require.
It's the networks that don't want a la carte pricing; Disney/ABC want to make its 12 cents a month or whatever off of your cable bill for ABC Family whether you watch it or not.
For the networks to get the same revenue from a la carte pricing that they get now from subscription pricing -- which they would have to get to justify changing the pricing model -- the networks with the top shows (or the actual shows, depending on the pricing model) would be very expensive and every thing else would be very inexpensive. You could get the History Channel for pennies, but ESPN would cost you $20 a month and they'd make you subscribe to 4 or 5 ESPN channels to be able to get any of it.
We may see some version of a la carte programming on services like iTunes, Netflix and Hulu, but it's doubtful we'll see anything like that on cable anytime soon.
We all need to stand up against this one. Comcast already has been anticompetitive with versus programming on DirecTV. I would expect NBC being held hostage as well
Here are their coordinates:
Questions or Comments about Antitrust Issues
Contact the FTC's Bureau of Competition, and please include your day-time telephone number.
Phone: (202) 326-3300
Mail: Write to:
Office of Policy and Coordination
Room 383
Bureau of Competition
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580
Email: [email protected] (Note: Email is not secure. Mark confidential information "Confidential" and send it via postal mail.)
This is part of the answer to question "should Apple buy a cable provider?" The answer is no, unless they really want to invite this kind of scrutiny, not just over the purchase, but probably over every move they make forever after. Being both a producer and deliverer of content looks a lot like vertical integration, which isn't illegal per se. But if you're big enough to potentially use the integration for anticompetitive purposes, then the regulators are going to take competitors' complaints seriously.
The answer is yes (assuming you mean studio and not cable provider...they already ARE a content provider like Comcast so it wouldn't be vertical integration) if they get lock out of significant content from everyone but ABC...and that only because Jobs is sitting on their board.
You can't lock Sony out of movie content for the PS3 even if you wanted to...why? Because they own Sony Pictures. Why did they beat Toshiba and HD-DVD with BR? In part because of the PS3 and in part because they also are a studio and could make sure that certain content was on BR.
You could make the case for them buying a cable provider to be able to provide all the set-top boxes for them. Eh. Hardly anyone advocates that but it makes them ISP and cable infrastructure stakeholders when those standards are negotiated.
They really shouldn't allow Comcast to buy NBC. I would think that keeping the content off the internet or restricting it from other cable companies would be a reason for this deal.
I am not so concerned about this deal. Comcast will kill NBC because the talent will flee in droves.
A bunch of (self-styled) artistes being owned by a cable company!? No way.
Contact the FTC's Bureau of Competition, and please include your day-time telephone number.
Phone: (202) 326-3300
Mail: Write to:
Office of Policy and Coordination
Room 383
Bureau of Competition
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580
Email: [email protected] (Note: Email is not secure. Mark confidential information "Confidential" and send it via postal mail.)
Thank you. Just emailed them a personal appeal. No evidence, just my reasoning on the matter. Probably won't do any good, but made me feel better. Maybe if enough others . . .
Wow! That's a huge stretch. The language used to describe business issues and the government itself have been co-opted by Republicans (not necessarily conservatives) to support corporate interests above all else. So any changes you may perceive are merely window dressing at this point. This deal will likely go through without much trouble. If not, I will be pleasantly surprised.
It's not a stretch at all. Granted the DoJ and FTC were neutered under previous administrations, and we may have grown used to their complete ineffectuality, but we've seen some signs that the current administration does take an interest in the enforcement of competition laws. So their interest here might be significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
I'd love you to be right, but I've not seen one assessment indicating that there's the slightest chance of disapproval, and there's only 1 senator leading the charge against it.... Go Al!
I didn't make a claim that the acquisition would be disapproved, which rarely happens. What I did say is that the fact that the DoJ is looking into competition issues in this matter suggests that it's got their attention and is perhaps more likely to take related complaints seriously in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
The answer is yes (assuming you mean studio and not cable provider...they already ARE a content provider like Comcast so it wouldn't be vertical integration) if they get lock out of significant content from everyone but ABC...and that only because Jobs is sitting on their board.
You can't lock Sony out of movie content for the PS3 even if you wanted to...why? Because they own Sony Pictures. Why did they beat Toshiba and HD-DVD with BR? In part because of the PS3 and in part because they also are a studio and could make sure that certain content was on BR.
You could make the case for them buying a cable provider to be able to provide all the set-top boxes for them. Eh. Hardly anyone advocates that but it makes them ISP and cable infrastructure stakeholders when those standards are negotiated.
Apple is already a content provider? Maybe that's not what you meant. They are only a retailer at this point. My point on Apple becoming a cable provider (or an entertainment company owner) is that it creates vertical integration that can not only invite government scrutiny but also alienate potential partners who don't like to work with a company which is also a competitor.
Thank you. Just emailed them a personal appeal. No evidence, just my reasoning on the matter. Probably won't do any good, but made me feel better. Maybe if enough others . . .
Actually, they are required to take it seriously.
Indeed, more of us should express our opinions in such public comment settings: usually, only the lobbyists and lawyers do.
Once the studios figure out that they can skip paying cable companies and sell directly to customers who want it, when they want it, CableTV is going to be on serious straights.
Indeed, more of us should express our opinions in such public comment settings: usually, only the lobbyists and lawyers do.
Thanks very much for your posts on this. You're absolutely right, more of us should express our opinions in the official channels rather than just on forums such as this. It's easy to be cynical and just complain that there is nothing we can do, but if enough of us start to do something, things will change.
Once the studios figure out that they can skip paying cable companies and sell directly to customers who want it, when they want it, CableTV is going to be on serious straights.
Wrong.
First, the cable/satellite companies pay the studios. The studios do not pay to have their shows distributed.
Second, the studios charge the cable/satellite companies for every system subscriber not just the subscribers who want their channels. Your al la carte system would mean fewer subscribers, thus less money.
Third, it is the studios that mandate the system bundles and at what tiers that their different channels will be provided in. By selling directly to the final consumer, as opposed to dealing with the cable/satellite middleman, they will more likely be told to take a hike when they try to impose their bundling crap on us who actually pay the bill. Again less money.
It is in the studios interest to keep the cable/satellite/broadcaster middlemen in place. They not only will keep the gravy train in place but it is the middlemen who take the big risks. They not only have to pay the studios for their content but have to find and keep the subscribers who actually pay the bills.
Comcast giving preferential treatment to NBC content over their pipes? Yeah, and that whole net neutrality law thing isn't needed.
The less government is involved, the better. Let competition sort it out instead. If collusion becomes widespread, then government should step in and establish new competitive rules.
Apple is already a content provider? Maybe that's not what you meant. They are only a retailer at this point. My point on Apple becoming a cable provider (or an entertainment company owner) is that it creates vertical integration that can not only invite government scrutiny but also alienate potential partners who don't like to work with a company which is also a competitor.
Sorry...content distributer vs content producer is what I meant. Comcast also retails content as well as PPV and paid VOD.
Government scrutiny is far better than getting shut out of the market. So is alienating partners that are not cooperating anyway by withholding content. As I stated, it hasn't hurt Sony all that much tactically and they have used it to significant strategic advantage. Comcast will likely buy NBC and use it to its competitive advantage vs companies that do not produce content.
Google owning lots of dark fiber and building out a trial 1GB internet service hasn't put it in any worse position with Verizon as a partner.
Would you prefer to control as much of your own destiny as possible or leave it to government regulators to keep the field level for you? Especially if you're a company executing as well as Apple.
It is in the studios interest to keep the cable/satellite/broadcaster middlemen in place. They not only will keep the gravy train in place but it is the middlemen who take the big risks. They not only have to pay the studios for their content but have to find and keep the subscribers who actually pay the bills.
Until, of course, the cable middle man buys the studio. The folks really screwed are the local NBC affiliates and probably consumers of other services like Dish, AppleTV, FiOS TV, etc...
Comments
I'm not so sure the itv will show up now, but I think it changes the model for how these things will run. The only part of my theory that doesnt compute is how apple makes money. A 99$ box cant make them more than 30$...and they make a few bucks on the app, but nothing on the content....so maybe I'm totally wrong
Apple typically gets a cut of in-app purchases and there is also iAd that you are forgetting about - Apple gets a cut of that too.
I doubt the itv will make an appearance this week. And I'm still not sold on the name "ITV" I rekon it's another decoy.
I agree
Cable companies like Comcast remain one of the biggest hurdles for Apple in its attempts to grow its digital distribution business. Earlier this summer, Chief Executive Steve Jobs acknowledged that his company's Apple TV business remains a hobby because it's hard to break in to a market where consumers are used to receiving a cable box for free or $10 per month.
"The only way that's ever going to change," Jobs said, "is if you can really go back to square one, tear up the set top box, redesign it from scratch with a consistent UI across all of these different functions, and get it to consumers in a way they're willing to pay for it. And right now, there's no way to do that."
Guess what quietly showed up in the firmware refresh on my Sony Bly-ray player this weekend? Hulu Plus for $9.99 a month with content from ABC, NBC and Fox -- but no shows from CBS or any of the cable networks.
"Enjoy Hulu on the go on your iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. Support for additional devices coming soon. ... Now you can enjoy Hulu on your TV using the following devices. More Internet-enabled TVs, Blu-ray devices, game consoles and set-top boxes coming soon."
This would be a great cable replacement for about two-thirds of the shows I watch, but the other one-third of the shows (including news and sports) is enough to make me say I will definitely take a pass on this version of Hulu Plus. Still, the bargain is getting more interesting: Would I trade my $90 cable package for a $10 Hulu Plus package that forces me to give up How I Met Your Mother, Mad Men, Top Chef, Project Runway, Flipping Out, MSNBC, college football, and the Academy Awards? No, but I would probably pay $40 or $50 a month to get most of those shows and at least some live streaming programming.
So I guess NBC won't plug GE christmas lights anymore during their holiday broadcasts.
On the flip side, they will plug Comcast. And I am not a fan of this monopoly. Honestly I wish Comcast gets split up like Ma Bell. Having just one choice for cable sucks. You can't stick a dish in some apartments and U-Verse just recently became available with Ridiculous pricing.
Yeah I'm not digging Comcast. I really just want the 50-Mbps Internet Access.
Channels a-la-carte is the future....and a way for studios to know better who buys what and which shows/channels are mamking money. This can give the studio leverage against the cable operators who, lets be honest, are tyranical about getting what they want.
I wish that were true, but it's not. The studios/networks already have the leverage, which is why the carriage fees for ESPN and Disney Channel are astronomical and the cable operators are basically forced to take the package that the networks require.
It's the networks that don't want a la carte pricing; Disney/ABC want to make its 12 cents a month or whatever off of your cable bill for ABC Family whether you watch it or not.
For the networks to get the same revenue from a la carte pricing that they get now from subscription pricing -- which they would have to get to justify changing the pricing model -- the networks with the top shows (or the actual shows, depending on the pricing model) would be very expensive and every thing else would be very inexpensive. You could get the History Channel for pennies, but ESPN would cost you $20 a month and they'd make you subscribe to 4 or 5 ESPN channels to be able to get any of it.
We may see some version of a la carte programming on services like iTunes, Netflix and Hulu, but it's doubtful we'll see anything like that on cable anytime soon.
We all need to stand up against this one. Comcast already has been anticompetitive with versus programming on DirecTV. I would expect NBC being held hostage as well
Here are their coordinates:
Questions or Comments about Antitrust Issues
Contact the FTC's Bureau of Competition, and please include your day-time telephone number.
Phone: (202) 326-3300
Mail: Write to:
Office of Policy and Coordination
Room 383
Bureau of Competition
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580
Email: [email protected] (Note: Email is not secure. Mark confidential information "Confidential" and send it via postal mail.)
This is part of the answer to question "should Apple buy a cable provider?" The answer is no, unless they really want to invite this kind of scrutiny, not just over the purchase, but probably over every move they make forever after. Being both a producer and deliverer of content looks a lot like vertical integration, which isn't illegal per se. But if you're big enough to potentially use the integration for anticompetitive purposes, then the regulators are going to take competitors' complaints seriously.
The answer is yes (assuming you mean studio and not cable provider...they already ARE a content provider like Comcast so it wouldn't be vertical integration) if they get lock out of significant content from everyone but ABC...and that only because Jobs is sitting on their board.
You can't lock Sony out of movie content for the PS3 even if you wanted to...why? Because they own Sony Pictures. Why did they beat Toshiba and HD-DVD with BR? In part because of the PS3 and in part because they also are a studio and could make sure that certain content was on BR.
You could make the case for them buying a cable provider to be able to provide all the set-top boxes for them. Eh. Hardly anyone advocates that but it makes them ISP and cable infrastructure stakeholders when those standards are negotiated.
They really shouldn't allow Comcast to buy NBC. I would think that keeping the content off the internet or restricting it from other cable companies would be a reason for this deal.
I am not so concerned about this deal. Comcast will kill NBC because the talent will flee in droves.
A bunch of (self-styled) artistes being owned by a cable company!? No way.
Here are their coordinates:
Questions or Comments about Antitrust Issues
Contact the FTC's Bureau of Competition, and please include your day-time telephone number.
Phone: (202) 326-3300
Mail: Write to:
Office of Policy and Coordination
Room 383
Bureau of Competition
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580
Email: [email protected] (Note: Email is not secure. Mark confidential information "Confidential" and send it via postal mail.)
Thank you. Just emailed them a personal appeal. No evidence, just my reasoning on the matter. Probably won't do any good, but made me feel better. Maybe if enough others . . .
Affect - verb
Effect - noun
Wow! That's a huge stretch. The language used to describe business issues and the government itself have been co-opted by Republicans (not necessarily conservatives) to support corporate interests above all else. So any changes you may perceive are merely window dressing at this point. This deal will likely go through without much trouble. If not, I will be pleasantly surprised.
It's not a stretch at all. Granted the DoJ and FTC were neutered under previous administrations, and we may have grown used to their complete ineffectuality, but we've seen some signs that the current administration does take an interest in the enforcement of competition laws. So their interest here might be significant.
I'd love you to be right, but I've not seen one assessment indicating that there's the slightest chance of disapproval, and there's only 1 senator leading the charge against it.... Go Al!
I didn't make a claim that the acquisition would be disapproved, which rarely happens. What I did say is that the fact that the DoJ is looking into competition issues in this matter suggests that it's got their attention and is perhaps more likely to take related complaints seriously in the future.
The answer is yes (assuming you mean studio and not cable provider...they already ARE a content provider like Comcast so it wouldn't be vertical integration) if they get lock out of significant content from everyone but ABC...and that only because Jobs is sitting on their board.
You can't lock Sony out of movie content for the PS3 even if you wanted to...why? Because they own Sony Pictures. Why did they beat Toshiba and HD-DVD with BR? In part because of the PS3 and in part because they also are a studio and could make sure that certain content was on BR.
You could make the case for them buying a cable provider to be able to provide all the set-top boxes for them. Eh. Hardly anyone advocates that but it makes them ISP and cable infrastructure stakeholders when those standards are negotiated.
Apple is already a content provider? Maybe that's not what you meant. They are only a retailer at this point. My point on Apple becoming a cable provider (or an entertainment company owner) is that it creates vertical integration that can not only invite government scrutiny but also alienate potential partners who don't like to work with a company which is also a competitor.
Thank you. Just emailed them a personal appeal. No evidence, just my reasoning on the matter. Probably won't do any good, but made me feel better. Maybe if enough others . . .
Actually, they are required to take it seriously.
Indeed, more of us should express our opinions in such public comment settings: usually, only the lobbyists and lawyers do.
The word is affect, not effect.
Affect - verb
Effect - noun
Wrong. Effect is used correctly in the title.
Also, for what it's worth, affect and effect can both be used as a verb and as a noun.
Actually, they are required to take it seriously.
Indeed, more of us should express our opinions in such public comment settings: usually, only the lobbyists and lawyers do.
Thanks very much for your posts on this. You're absolutely right, more of us should express our opinions in the official channels rather than just on forums such as this. It's easy to be cynical and just complain that there is nothing we can do, but if enough of us start to do something, things will change.
I will be writing to them in the morning.
Once the studios figure out that they can skip paying cable companies and sell directly to customers who want it, when they want it, CableTV is going to be on serious straights.
Wrong.
First, the cable/satellite companies pay the studios. The studios do not pay to have their shows distributed.
Second, the studios charge the cable/satellite companies for every system subscriber not just the subscribers who want their channels. Your al la carte system would mean fewer subscribers, thus less money.
Third, it is the studios that mandate the system bundles and at what tiers that their different channels will be provided in. By selling directly to the final consumer, as opposed to dealing with the cable/satellite middleman, they will more likely be told to take a hike when they try to impose their bundling crap on us who actually pay the bill. Again less money.
It is in the studios interest to keep the cable/satellite/broadcaster middlemen in place. They not only will keep the gravy train in place but it is the middlemen who take the big risks. They not only have to pay the studios for their content but have to find and keep the subscribers who actually pay the bills.
Comcast giving preferential treatment to NBC content over their pipes? Yeah, and that whole net neutrality law thing isn't needed.
The less government is involved, the better. Let competition sort it out instead. If collusion becomes widespread, then government should step in and establish new competitive rules.
Apple is already a content provider? Maybe that's not what you meant. They are only a retailer at this point. My point on Apple becoming a cable provider (or an entertainment company owner) is that it creates vertical integration that can not only invite government scrutiny but also alienate potential partners who don't like to work with a company which is also a competitor.
Sorry...content distributer vs content producer is what I meant. Comcast also retails content as well as PPV and paid VOD.
Government scrutiny is far better than getting shut out of the market. So is alienating partners that are not cooperating anyway by withholding content. As I stated, it hasn't hurt Sony all that much tactically and they have used it to significant strategic advantage. Comcast will likely buy NBC and use it to its competitive advantage vs companies that do not produce content.
Google owning lots of dark fiber and building out a trial 1GB internet service hasn't put it in any worse position with Verizon as a partner.
Would you prefer to control as much of your own destiny as possible or leave it to government regulators to keep the field level for you? Especially if you're a company executing as well as Apple.
It is in the studios interest to keep the cable/satellite/broadcaster middlemen in place. They not only will keep the gravy train in place but it is the middlemen who take the big risks. They not only have to pay the studios for their content but have to find and keep the subscribers who actually pay the bills.
Until, of course, the cable middle man buys the studio. The folks really screwed are the local NBC affiliates and probably consumers of other services like Dish, AppleTV, FiOS TV, etc...