Apple's streaming TV talks fell apart on push for 'skinny' channel bundle priced under $30/month

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 51
    Why the ESPN hate people - granted, you don't have to like it - but the reality is, those that want to still watch sports after cutting cable would like streaming ESPN - since it's currently supported (ie. SlingTV). Again, why the hate, this streaming approach is one way to unseat the monopoly that these big cable providers hold with their outlandish costs... SlingTV is $15 an offers quite a bit - it's overall streaming is hit or miss and tends to be very buggy, but not bad for $15 and no contracts! I don't think I'd spend $30 for Apple unless it had more than Sling and was good quality
  • Reply 42 of 51
    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. 
    Exactly, which is why we have nothing from Apple yet. Apple can't get a simple bundle at a cheap price no way is ala carte going to be reasonably priced.
  • Reply 43 of 51

    cali said:

    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.
    The problem is that not everybody likes the same thing. Maybe there's a small core set of 'channels' that 80% would be interested in but beyond that you might like 6-10 other 'channels' and I might like 6-10 completely different ones. And every content company is going to say their 'channels' are must have. Personally I think Apple should just screw this whole "skinny bundle" thing and focus on giving people an easy way to access and search for content. Make voice and universal search the envy of all streaming media boxes. Provide software that knows you, knows what you're interested in and offers you suggestions on content you might be interested in. There's a lot Apple can do that doesn't have to involve selling people a cable like package of channels.
    cali
  • Reply 44 of 51
    Recon said:
    Why the ESPN hate people - granted, you don't have to like it - but the reality is, those that want to still watch sports after cutting cable would like streaming ESPN - since it's currently supported (ie. SlingTV). Again, why the hate, this streaming approach is one way to unseat the monopoly that these big cable providers hold with their outlandish costs... SlingTV is $15 an offers quite a bit - it's overall streaming is hit or miss and tends to be very buggy, but not bad for $15 and no contracts! I don't think I'd spend $30 for Apple unless it had more than Sling and was good quality
    the 'hate for ESPN' comes from the subsidization of major-league sports franchises and their billionaire owners. New stadiums and their skyboxes plus multimillion-dollar player contracts, plus TV coverage contracts for broadcasting games has sucked normal cable-tv-watching consumers into this escalating pricing for home cable service that has nothing to do with the inflation of stick-and-ball (sport) economics.  If you want to seek out live sports..... there is an-app-for-that.
  • Reply 45 of 51
    Nobody's talking about the elephant in the room: ESPN has negotiated billion dollar TV contracts with sports leagues, and they need their stations included in large cable and satellite TV packages to get the revenue to pay these contracts. If TV packages become unbundled so that ESPN is optional and are no longer cross-subsidized by other stations included in large basic packages, the bubble will burst for Disney/ABC/ESPN. So Eddie Cue is probably right about what TV customers want, but he's negotiating with media industry that's caught between a rock and a hard place. As long as those contract obligations are hanging over them, I don't see how the media companies could agree to a slim package.
  • Reply 46 of 51
    booboo said:
    Nobody's talking about the elephant in the room: ESPN has negotiated billion dollar TV contracts with sports leagues, and they need their stations included in large cable and satellite TV packages to get the revenue to pay these contracts. If TV packages become unbundled so that ESPN is optional and are no longer cross-subsidized by other stations included in large basic packages, the bubble will burst for Disney/ABC/ESPN. So Eddie Cue is probably right about what TV customers want, but he's negotiating with media industry that's caught between a rock and a hard place. As long as those contract obligations are hanging over them, I don't see how the media companies could agree to a slim package.
    and if they roll-over and accept 'bundling', then the monopolies will continue to get their subsidies. Apple has it rightly holding fast. the 'slim-bundle' is a good idea and it is encouraging that they still have the 'vision' right.
  • Reply 47 of 51
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    booboo said:
    Nobody's talking about the elephant in the room: ESPN has negotiated billion dollar TV contracts with sports leagues, and they need their stations included in large cable and satellite TV packages to get the revenue to pay these contracts. If TV packages become unbundled so that ESPN is optional and are no longer cross-subsidized by other stations included in large basic packages, the bubble will burst for Disney/ABC/ESPN. So Eddie Cue is probably right about what TV customers want, but he's negotiating with media industry that's caught between a rock and a hard place. As long as those contract obligations are hanging over them, I don't see how the media companies could agree to a slim package.
    and if they roll-over and accept 'bundling', then the monopolies will continue to get their subsidies. Apple has it rightly holding fast. the 'slim-bundle' is a good idea and it is encouraging that they still have the 'vision' right.
    Having the 'vision' means nothing. Implementation of the vision is what matters, and there's plenty of hurdles in Apple's way. 
  • Reply 48 of 51
    If you are a media company you know that Amazon and likely Google will seek to get a similar deal. The reports suggest that Chromecast is the number one device right now.

    I don't see Apple being able to make a lot of $$ in content in the short term.  Amazon can match or undercut anything Apple does - and the street doesn't care if Amazon makes money, yet is obsessed with Apple not making enough. 

    ESPN apparently charges $11+/viewer - Sling costs $20 with additional channels that are probably pretty cheap.  Sling wouldn't exist if Dishnetwork didn't own it.  There is a high probably they are making no profit on sling, unless it gets huge and they are able to sell a high bill.

    The ESPN experience is substandard via Sling as Disney forced them to disable pause and the on demand feature ( pseudo DVR). To get the full ESPN set of channels you need to pay and additional $5.

    Apple helped solved a problem with music. 

    To be clear Comcast bought NBC to make cable more captive. It is not like they didn't see this coming. The media and cable providers and have smart people thinking through the game theory, Apple would had to make it's move early in the game. 

    5 years from now as additional content increases the full package may be available via streaming.

  • Reply 49 of 51
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    cali said:
    "Me me me" is all I hear from people.

    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 understand what you are saying; but, for example, why do I need 3 weather channels? And I doubt even the most die hard golf fanatic needs 5 golf channels. As much as we all may dislike the cable companies, we should recognize that for years they have been fighting this battle with the content providers and seldom had much leverage. They had bandwidth the burn so adding if adding a few extra channels almost nobody will watch in order to secure access to a more popular channel wasn't a big deal. And they didn't really have the option to walk away from the negotiations like Apple has done.

    It will be interesting if/when Apple can beak the ice on because that may also give the cable companies the leverage to start dumping channels from their lineups as well.

    Variety and choice is a good thing, but the hundreds and hundreds of channels offered by cable far and away exceeds that justification.
  • Reply 50 of 51
    noivadnoivad Posts: 186member
    I understand where @cali is coming from, but this is not entirely true. If I have zero interest in sports, I don’t want to have to pay for ESPN to get ABC. Nor would I like if Fox required me to take Fox Sports Network, or if Viacom made me take MTV, Logo & CMT to get Comedy Central. I’m not going to discover new sports or programming when I have zero interest in the majority of content on them. I currently have a provider that offers about 200 channels already, but I almost never tune in outside of about 5-7 channels I do watch regularly. If content providers let people pick and chose special interest channels then they could tailor programming knowing people are paying for that type of content instead of slowly mutating into what Discovery & MTV are now—predominantly reality & teen programming. Trying to cater to what a majority of people want leads channels to develop more mundane programming outside of a few hits that become copied ad nauseam, such as Game of Thrones & Walking Dead clones. If content providers wanted to introduce people to new programs they could easily offer up pilots free every season in hopes some decide to subscribe if they find enough content they like. Currently, I discover some shows on Networks I usually don’t watch on Hulu because most of their other shows do not appeal to me. In reality, they only reason ABC-Disney won’t budge though is because they want to make more money than they would if people could decouple all their bland channels rather than the more benevolent idea that they want to expose you to good programs you might not discover.
Sign In or Register to comment.