Showtime Announces Subscription-Free Streaming Plan

An anonymous reader writes: Following in HBO's footsteps, Showtime has announced that it is launching a stand-alone streaming service in mid-July. Simply called "Showtime," the service will launch through a partnership with Apple and costs $10.99 a month. "Going over-the-top means Showtime will be much more accessible to tens of millions of potential new subscribers," said CBS Corp. President and CEO Leslie Moonves in a statement about the deal. "Across CBS, we are constantly finding new ways to monetize our programming by capitalizing on opportunities presented by technology. This works best when you have outstanding premium content – like we do at Showtime – and when you have a terrific partner like Apple – which continues to innovate and build upon its loyal customer base," he added.

Comments

Subscription-free?

[uberdilligaff]

How exactly is a service that you have to sign up for and costs $10.99 a month "subscription-free"?

Re:Subscription-free?

[ArcadeMan]

Because unlike other stupid "channels" available on AppleTV, this one doesn't require you to already be a cable TV subscriber.

Re:Subscription-free?

[zlives]

i guess they mean no long term contract to subscribe to... but yeah

Re:Subscription-free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because unlike other stupid "channels" available on AppleTV, this one doesn't require you to already be a cable TV subscriber.

You totally missed the point about "subscription-free".

Re:Subscription-free?

[cdrudge]

No, it means you don't have to have a terrestrial or satellite cable TV subscription in order to subscribe to the streaming service.

Re:Subscription-free?

[ArcadeMan]

I was assuming that "subscription-free" was referring to an existing cable or satellite subscription. There's a lot of "channels" on the AppleTV that have this requirement.

Re: Subscription-free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Subscription free means, "no subscription.". It does not mean no cable subscription. Showtime available without cable subscription is more appropriate.

Re:Subscription-free?

[squiggleslash]

To be fair, that's not what "subscription free" ("it") means, it's what the submitter almost intended to mean but used the wrong words to describe...

Everyone calm down. The wording was shitty and wrong, and if there's something we on Slashdot don't like, it's when someone on the Internet is wrong, but we can figure out what the intent of the words were...

Great, but not great

[ArcadeMan]

Finally someone else who understands that limiting yourselves to already existing customers is an extremely dumb idea.

Unfortunately, the price is too high. Netflix has already established that the price for a streaming package is around 8$ per month. Don't mention the cost of any other streaming service because most of them don't exist outside of the U.S.A., something else that Netflix understood very early in the game.

Re:Great, but not great

[unimacs]

Other than their own shows and some kid stuff, there's not much in the way of good movies available on Netflix anymore. An extra $3 a month for decent movies doesn't seem like too much of a premium.

Re:Great, but not great

[organgtool]

Finally someone else who understands that limiting yourselves to already existing customers is an extremely dumb idea.

Did they, though? Now instead of being locked into a cable provider you're locked into a cable provider or the Apple ecosystem. It looks like Apple is pushing everyone who wants to do digital distribution with them into exclusivity deals. Slightly less evil than their previous tactics of price fixing but still pretty evil.

Re:Great, but not great

[Anonymous Coward]

They're going to tie it to another dumb idea though and region lock it. Because GOD FORBID someone with a non US IP dares to want to pay a US company to watch movies. No, you little foreign fucks, we don't want your filthy money. No movies for you. (And then they turn around and bitch about piracy).

Re:Great, but not great

[afidel]

$8-10/month for 8-30+ episodes is too much? That's $1 or less per episode, seems pretty reasonable to me compared to other entertainment options.

Re:Great, but not great

[oh_my_080980980]

RTFA: "While only available on mobile via Apple products at launch, the company says it will announce plans to expand to other platforms and providers soon."

Re:Great, but not great

[ArcadeMan]

You say that because the other entertainment options are over-priced.

These media companies need to understand that they need lower prices to get more subscribers, not higher prices with less subscribers.

A lot of so-called "cord cutters" are doing it either because:
1. they don't think there's anything worth watching
2. they don't think it's worth the price
3. they're trying to save as much money as possible

People in group 1 won't pay since they think it's a waste of time and groups 2 and 3 aren't going to want to pay too much, especially group 3.

If all the streaming services start increasing their price, it quickly becomes a game of calculating which services offers the most for the money. At the moment, both Netflix and CrunchyRoll are staying under 10$ each. HBO and Showtime are putting themselves up on a pedestal, shouting "we're worth more" and they must be prepared to have enough content to prove it.

Re:Great, but not great

[ArcadeMan]

It seems Netflix and CrunchyRoll understood the international game very early on, as well as being wise enough to stay under 10$ per month.

As for region lock, look up the stupidity that are Shomi and CraveTV. These idiots require a subscription with their cable/satellite services in order to get these streaming services at an extra cost. That's proof enough that the media dinosaurs need to die before any real change happens.

Re:Great, but not great

[afidel]

I'm not just comparing it to other streaming services, I'm comparing it to the whole world of entertainment options like movies, video games, a round of golf, etc. A buck an hour to be entertained is pretty damn cheap.

Re:Great, but not great

[organgtool]

FTFA:

While only available on mobile via Apple products at launch, the company says it will announce plans to expand to other platforms and providers soon. That also mirrors the path that HBO took with its streaming service

That path that HBO took was a three-month exclusive deal with Apple, so I'm deducing that Showtime has a similar deal based on the phrase "mirrors the path" in the article. I guess, if true, that isn't that bad, especially compared to the rumors of Apple trying to get content providers to avoid using other distribution channels entirely once the Apple music streaming service goes live.

Re:Great, but not great

[pushing-robot]

Sheesh, every time there's an Apple thread some troll has to come and post facts.

Re:Great, but not great

[amRadioHed]

When I visited Canada I wasn't able to use my Netflix subscription since I was out of the country. Still seems pretty stupid to me.

Re:Great, but not great

[Dunbal]

I dunno, I have to use a VPN for Netflix from Panama. But Netflix doesn't seem to be picky about the VPN and lets it slide. Amazon Prime used to work, except now they've tied it to a "us based credit card" only. Hulu detects the VPN and won't stream, because everyone knows that only terrorists want to watch movies. Tell me again how region locking - which essentially turns away customers - is supposed to increase sales?

Re:Great, but not great

[PopeRatzo]

Other than their own shows and some kid stuff, there's not much in the way of good movies available on Netflix anymore.

Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Chan Wook-Park, Jim Jarmusch, Francis Ford Coppola, Richard Linklater and the Coen Brothers are all directors whose catalogs are nearly 100% available on Netflix Streaming. When you look at the back catalog, there's Orson Welles, Billy Wilder, John Ford, Howard Hawkes, King Vidor, etc etc etc.

So when you say, "not much in the way of good movies", I assume you're talking about Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2.

Re:Great, but not great

[afidel]

He said 2-3 shows, if they're weekly that's a 8 shows a month for 2 shows, if they're daily then it's up to 60. The nice thing about the OTT options is if you only want access to one or two shows just subscribe for a few months a year.

Re:Great, but not great

[HornWumpus]

Which service offers the most for the least money? The pirate bay. Duh.

Re: Great, but not great

[AvitarX]

Interesting, when I visited Canada, I simply received different content.

Re:Great, but not great

[Darinbob]

Not really Netflix's fault, they have to negotiate with Hollywood which is very relectant to give out rights to movies, even old ones no longer in the theaters for decades. I doubt Showtime is going to have all those old movies either, probably just the latest releases for a limited time only, same as the cable version of Showtime (which is overpriced).

Re:Great, but not great

[Darinbob]

$1 an episode is too much. That's what you pay for full overpriced undervalue cable. But what's on HBO or Showtime anyway? Even if they have great shows, if you're not an existing customer then you're not hooked on what they have.

Re:Great, but not great

[TheoMurpse]

Netflix has already established that the price for a streaming package is around 8$ per month.

Ah, but as of a couple days ago, Netflix is actually planning to roll out commercials . Showtime does not have commercials, so they could charge more.

Re:Great, but not great

[unimacs]

Other than their own shows and some kid stuff, there's not much in the way of good movies available on Netflix anymore.

Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Chan Wook-Park, Jim Jarmusch, Francis Ford Coppola, Richard Linklater and the Coen Brothers are all directors whose catalogs are nearly 100% available on Netflix Streaming. When you look at the back catalog, there's Orson Welles, Billy Wilder, John Ford, Howard Hawkes, King Vidor, etc etc etc.

So when you say, "not much in the way of good movies", I assume you're talking about Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2.

Didn't check all the directors you mentioned but for the Coen Brothers at least, the first three movies I searched for weren't available for streaming on Netflix (you could get them on DVD). Yet "Inside Llewyn Davis" (2013) is available on Showtime.

I will concede that if you're content to watch old movies then Netflix might be just fine. You might even prefer it. I'd still be worried about their shrinking catalog however. Anyone can see that they have very few quality movies that are at all recent. And again, it's getting worse, not better.

So for me at least you can't say that because Netflix only charges $8.00, then Showtime's offering is too expensive. It's apples and oranges. They have very different content.

Re:Great, but not great

[unimacs]

But if you want to watch good movies that are at all recent, Netflix is going to leave you disappointed. Showtime is far more likely to have them. For that reason I think they can justify charging more than Netflix does.

Re:Great, but not great

[Darinbob]

True, but there's pay per view options about for various movies. I've got roku so I can just head to one of those channels. I've never done it though...

In the past when I subscribed to a "premium" channel on cable or satellite I would unsub again after a month or two and regret it. One or two new movies and you watch them the first week, then you have 3 more weeks of nothing new at all. Whereas if I wait a year they'd show up on some of the normal channels anyway.

Re:Great, but not great

[SuperDre]

uhh, not much in the way of good movies on Netflix?
So a lot of the disney movies or fox movies aren't good movies? So movies like avengers or Godfather are crap? Hmmm.. then I wonder what you call 'good movies' (ok avengers isn't the best, but it's a big blockbuster)..

Re:Great, but not great

[i.r.id10t]

Price is tolerable. That is actually what showtime costs me on top of my DishTV subscription. If I could get HBO, Starz, etc. in the same manner, I could in theory drop the Dish stuff and just consume the same content I normally get via the streaming service.

Re:Great, but not great

[unimacs]

The only "Avengers" movies I see on Netflix are the cartoon versions. So yeah, as I said before, Netflix has lots of kid centered content.

The Godfather came out in 1972. I've seen it already.

Re:Great, but not great

[Totenglocke]

Wait until the latest season is done (thankfully HBO / Showtime seasons are only 10 episodes), then subscribe for a month and binge the shit out of a few shows and cancel it. Repeat every few months. You get easy and legal access to the shows you want and you don't pay much money.

Re:Great, but not great

[oldmac31310]

? Really?

Re:Great, but not great

[oldmac31310]

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Re:Great, but not great

[Rakarra]

If you just browse through Netflix, you can find a lot of good movies.

If you ever go there wanting to find something specific, you will be greatly disappointed.
Of the 19 items currently in my Netflix DVD queue, only three are available for streaming: two foreign films and an obscure documentary. In addition, I've recently been streaming Ken Burns's fantastic Civil War series. But...

Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Chan Wook-Park, Jim Jarmusch, Francis Ford Coppola, Richard Linklater and the Coen Brothers are all directors whose catalogs are nearly 100% available on Netflix Streaming

Quentin Tarantino

Tarantino's five major films are streamable. His studio must still have a deal with Netflix, because this is pretty unusual.

Martin Scorsese

Available: Hugo, Taxi Driver, The Aviator, The Wolf of Wall Street.
Missing: GoodFellas, The Departed, The Last Temptation of Christ, Shutter Island, Raging Bull, Casino, Cape Fear, Mean Streets, Gangs of New York.

Chan Wook-Park

Available: The Vengeance Trilogy
Missing: JSA, Stoker, Three... Extremes.
Foreign films might be easier to get. We're not talking about WB's AAA titles here.

Francis For Coppola

Available: The Conversation, Apocalypse Now.
Missing: The Godfather I, II, and III, Tucker, Bram Stoker's Dracula, The Outsiders, The Cotton Club, Peggy Sue Got Married, Jack.

Richard Linklater

Available: Bernie, The Newton Boys, School of Rock
Missing: Boyhood, Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, Before Midnight, Dazed and Confused, A Scanner Darkly, Waking Life

Coen Brothers

Available: Fargo, The Big Lebowski,
Missing: True Grit, No Country for Old Men, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Miller's Crossing, Raising Arizona, Blood Simple, Inside Llewyn Davis, Barton Fink, Burn After Reading.

It's not enough to have a few good movies. Netflix's catalog sucks. It used to be higher, but major studios pulled out, and with that came a major shrinking of Netflix's catalog. The movie studios HATE Netflix's all-you-can-eat-for-$8 format. They want pay-per-view, and they want it to be expensive. They want the return of the $5 rental. No fucking way will they ever stand for prices as low as Netflix's, and the studios can dictate every term because they own most of the content.

The only streaming package that Netflix has established for $8/month is the streaming of their own admittedly-delightful content.

Re:Great, but not great

[PopeRatzo]

Richard Linklater

Available: Bernie, The Newton Boys, School of Rock
Missing: Boyhood, Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, Before Midnight, Dazed and Confused, A Scanner Darkly, Waking Life

I'm certain I've streamed Dazed and Confused and A Scanner Darkly.

I think movies come and go on Netflix. There one minute, gone the next and then back again months later.

For example, there's Bunraku, a chop socky flick. I watched it, recommended it to some friends who found that it was gone. The Aviator and Fargo were DVD only and then they were both on streaming.

I just hope Netflix doesn't completely blow up their back catalog stuff. As a film buff, it's one of the main reasons I keep the subscription. Of course, I have the DVD package as well, so I can get most stuff. I love streaming, but it's not the end of the world to have to wait for a DVD of a Jodorowsky film, considering there was a time I'd have to order it on 16mm from Criterion in order to see it.

[update: I just noticed that Netflix has taken down all the Jodorowsky movies. Those fuckers. I hope someone realizes there's room in the market for a streaming service that's modeled on the old fashioned independent video rental store.]

Re:Great, but not great

[Rakarra]

I think movies come and go on Netflix. There one minute, gone the next and then back again months later.

Exactly, because they need to sign agreements with the movie companies, and the movie companies get to demand terms. On the other hand, Netflix doesn't need any agreement to rent out whatever DVD they want. That's why the DVD catalog is fantastic, but the streaming library is horrid.

Long ago, Disney signed an agreement with Netflix and Netflix streamed a decent amount of their movies. Well, that agreement expired, and Disney demanded far more money than Netflix could cover -- enough so that Netflix would have had to raise their subscriber rates. Netflix refused, and blammo, hundreds of Disney titles that used to be available for Netflix streaming are no longer there.

This is a common refrain and I've heard of it happening to Netflix several times -- a studio requires large fees from Netflix, and Netflix refused when it would raise rates, because of course Netflix will pass on the costs to the customers. This shouldn't be a surprise, the media companies have no love for Netflix. They want to be in charge of the customer experience, not a third party. Even HBO got into that act, which is why I could get The Wire on DVD from Netflix, but of course there was no streaming option. Why bother, when HBO can charge more per month for only their own offerings than Netflix does for their entire catalog?

[update: I just noticed that Netflix has taken down all the Jodorowsky movies. Those fuckers. I hope someone realizes there's room in the market for a streaming service that's modeled on the old fashioned independent video rental store.]

I love the model, but again, don't blame Netflix. When the media companies distributed a physical product, they had little say over such a product. Rule of first sale and all. However, now that they're dealing with an electronic product, they have the entire power of copyright on their side, which allows them strictly control how things are streamed. It's worth noting that the movie studios have always felt that they got a "bad deal" in the VHS and DVD eras, despite those markets being wildly successful for them. They're looking to push online streaming as a way of increasing revenue. In other words, according to them, you and I do not pay NEARLY enough for the media we watch.

Re:fruity

[ArcadeMan]

If it's anything like the HBO Now deal, it's just a temporary exclusivity and should be available via other means in a few weeks/months.

Subscription?

[pretzel87]

"millions of potential new subscribers" to the subscription-free service?

Re:Subscription?

[bobbied]

"millions of potential new subscribers" to the subscription-free service?

Marketing, Marketing.... Just don't think about it and pay up..

It's just like the "unlimited data plan" that gets you throttled if you use too much on AT&T... What's old is new again.

Re:Subscription?

[geekmux]

You won't need a *cable* subscription. A lot of streaming services are only available if you have a cable subscription.

Ah, so all I'll need to pay now is a *streaming* subscription...at the going rate of about $10 per fucking channel.

What a bargain.

Re:Subscription?

[mr_mischief]

That's actually about what it costs to add HBO or Showtime to a cable subscription if you add a "premium channel package" rather than upgrading to X number of channels. That's probably the market they want right now. Why get two or three Showtime channels at $10 a month on top of a cable bill when you can get Showtime on demand without the cable bill?

It should be noted that some cable companies have on-demand options for the channels to which you subscribe.

Also, streaming apps allow you to use your cable subscription information to stream. I've got an HBO Go account at no charge because I'm a Comcast subscriber. So I use that app and cast to my Chromecast rather than actually paying Comcast for HBO because I only care about a couple of their shows.

Good.

[Phlogiston 4 Lyfe]

Now I won't have to get a cable subscription to watch Twin Peaks, and I'll be able to give Lynch money without tracking him down and handing him an envelope full of cash to make up for piracy.

Re:Good.

[Gibgezr]

Netflix Canada has had Twin Peaks for ages...not sure about Netflix U.S.

Re:Good.

[Totenglocke]

Netflix US has it now, too.

Re:Sounds Good Until

[oh_my_080980980]

*sigh* "While only available on mobile via Apple products at launch, the company says it will announce plans to expand to other platforms and providers soon. That also mirrors the path that HBO took with its streaming service – it first arrived on Apple devices, but then quickly rolled out over-the-top options via streaming service Sling TV, through cable providers like Cablevision, and most recently on the Android platform."

The moment you tie it to another service

[Ice Station Zebra]

Be it cable tv, itunes, ads (hulu) etc. I'm NEVER going to subscribe. Let me pay you money, and access content with no ads and I'm in. You can even put appropriate limits such as with netflixs and its # of streams limit.

Re:The moment you tie it to another service

[countSudoku()]

Good point!

Also, can I get those shows for download, please? THAT'S what I want; d/l shows, pay the price, no ads, no bullshit, efficient use of bandwidth, all devices covered. It's my media content dream, and I'm sticking to it!

Of course, they better have some good new shit for me. I already have my near-line "netflix" in the form of 1.5TB of shows and movies already, mostly from my DVD collection and paid-for TV services with huge, gaping, goatse-like analog holes for me to poop on! Sorry, I'm a bit mental. Where was I? Oh yeah; gimmie, gimme, gimme d/l treatment!

commercials ....

[Vorl]

How much do you want to bet they will add commercials on top of their very over priced service?

THIS is our answer to cord cutting?

[geekmux]

OK, forget the whole "subscription-free" label that costs $11/month for a minute...how the hell did we go from bitching for years about forced bundled offerings from our cable providers, only to have the "win" result in this pricing model?

At this rate, the dozen or so channels that people watch today will "only" cost them 120% of their current cable bill to obtain them in the future via streaming. Oh, and don't forget those broadband caps and additional speed you'll need to stream everything.

That kind of math makes a class-action payout look like a fucking lottery win.

Boy am I glad I cut the cord years ago. Have fun with that bullshit.

Re:THIS is our answer to cord cutting?

[blueshift_1]

I disagree for items like HBO & Showtime. They are both non-standard channel groups that you have to buy to view. They tend to be between $10-15 extra to get with you normal cable/satelite service. So the external subscription isn't really significantly more than getting it anyway.

However, for standard programming you really have to see if the cost is justified. For me, an Antenna + netflix is more than enough. I think the traditional model will always appeal to some, but it's nice to see that a la carte options are available if that is all you need/want.

Re:THIS is our answer to cord cutting?

[amRadioHed]

HBO and Showtime have always been premium channels that cost $10-15 a month extra. If basic cable channels like AMC or Comedy Central wanted $10 a month, now that would be crazy.

Not subscription free, nor a bargain

[WillAffleckUW]

Just because you can pay more for a service like HBO or Showtime by buying them in parts (even if only a month), does not make them cheaper.

Now, if we were a First World nation, we'd pay $20 a month for 10 Gbps internet plus TV.

That would be a bargain.

But this is still highway robbery.

Anybody know how they are doing this?

[wyattstorch516]

Are they building out their own network or outsourcing it the way HBO did?

Re:fruity

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

what about the rest... could this be considered collusion for monopoly?

It would be considered 'exclusive'. Sorry, you'll have to put your torch and pitchfork away.

Tip

[mattwarden]

Great service. I would tip Showtime but as it turns out I only have $100 bills. I'll get you next time.

Two Walled Gardens

[ThatsNotPudding]

When one walled garden just isn't enough!

Re:Sounds Good Until

[Totenglocke]

Translation: "Apple is paying us a lot of money in hopes of selling more iJunk devices as the only way to access our new services for a month or two during our most popular show's new season".

Exclusive to Apple?

[ganiman]

This isn't an Android vs Apple post... but seriously? Again? HBO did it like a fool. This shows how out of touch the executives are. The people a streaming services most benefits are the cord-cutters. They seem to get that much at least. But do the math of how many cord-cutters are Apple device users. People cut the cord because they don't want to pay for overpriced garbage - they are probably not users of Apple devices, because they know they can get the same or better for less by using Android. The simple fact is, most of the mobile devices on the planet run Android. So by partnering with Apple (at least at first) you are limiting your audience by a very large margin. I haven't done any research, but I would also wager that there are more non-Apple devices in home living rooms than there are Apple devices (Roku, Chromecast, Xbox, PS3/PS4 etc combined must be more than Apple TV). If you are going to "copy" the Netflix model, then do it right - release apps to access your streaming service on every platform. Netflix still supports the Wii app, and Hulu and Amazon do too. This idea of releasing to Apple devices only (at first) is just falling flat right out the gate. HBO could have made a lot of bank if they released HBO Now for Android prior to this season of Game of Thrones and Silicon Valley. They won't see a spike in subscriptions for another ~42 weeks.

I guess another way of putting it is..... there are hordes of people just ready to put money directly in to the pockets of HBO and Showtime, and they are like.... nope, nope.. we ain't gonna take your money because Apple.