Report: Apple To Suspend Effort To Develop Live TV Service (bloomberg.com)

schwit1 sends word that Apple has reportedly suspended plans to offer a live internet-based television service and will focus on being a platform for media companies to sell directly to customers through its App Store instead. Bloomberg reports: "Apple Inc. has suspended plans to offer a live Internet-based television service and is instead focusing on being a platform for media companies to sell directly to customers through its App Store, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. While Apple isn't giving up entirely on releasing a live-TV service, its plan to sell a package of 14 or so channels for $30 to $40 a month has run into resistance from media companies that want more money for their programming, said the person, who asked not to be named discussing a prospective product."

Comments

Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

This is smart. I also heard that Apple has reportedly suspended plans to offer a live internet-based television service and will focus on being a platform for media companies to sell directly to customers through its App Store.

This is a good move by Apple. What a waste of shareholder value that boondoggle would be.

Canceled TV service

[BitZtream]

I recently canceled my service because I was paying too much for cable ... and now you're telling me that APPLE doesn't want to charge enough?

Shrug, congratulations media companies, you just lost to Netflix ... AGAIN.

What the fuck will it take to get through your thick ass skulls that we are not going to continue paying for your shitty commercial laden bullcrap. From this point on, I will pay for service or I will watch 1 or 2 commercials per hour, and not if they are mixed into the middle of the show. And I'm not going to pay you some ridiculous sum of money for it. Probably less than a dollar per 'channel', no way in hell I'm giving you more than a dime a month per show I watch, you simply aren't worth it.

So go ahead, try to sell people your spammy wares with little to no content at ridiculous prices. The sooner you die and stop bribing and manipulating to get your way, the sooner we can move on.

Re:Canceled TV service

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Shrug, congratulations media companies, you just lost to Netflix ... AGAIN.

What the fuck will it take to get through your thick ass skulls that we are not going to continue paying for your shitty commercial laden bullcrap.

Bingo.

They really seem to be out of touch with reality in terms of the market. Why in the world would the average person pay $40 a month for 14 channels? That's ridiculously overpriced by nearly any measure.

Re: Canceled TV service

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot on! I've never understood how people have been paying hundreds of dollars a month for channels they don't use and 5 commercials per hour. It's absolutely rediculous.

Re:Canceled TV service

[91degrees]

Shrug, congratulations media companies, you just lost to Netflix ... AGAIN.

This is probably why Apple isn't interested. They figure broadcast TV is losing popularity, especially with their current tech-aware customer base. They can afford to say "no" to this.

Re: Canceled TV service

[Anonymous Coward]

only 5 commercials per hour? that sounds great compared to the 5 commercial breaks an hour, each with 6-8 commercials each break. you're luck if you get 35 minutes of show per hour now the way it is. why are we paying for channels if there are commercials anyway? the channel should be free if we're going to be subjected to all these commercials, that's the only way it would seem fair... if it were free. They should make their money through commercials, and giving it out for free would mean more people watching and more people viewing the commercials.

wishful thinking, i know

Re:Canceled TV service

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a little problem. Just like past the future is bound to repeat itself. Take Hulu it started with free streaming moved to paid and now has pad plus ads. What is next more ads and o by the way the price just went up.
Netflix has increased it prices. It is just a matter of time before they start with an ad here and there.

Re:Canceled TV service

[MachineShedFred]

It depends on the content of the channels.

If you're just measuring the dollars-to-channels figure, cable and satellite providers will always win, because they've shoehorned so many channels into the available spectrum that are 24/7 garbage that nobody watches. Who cares how many channels you have that you never watch?

If you gave me 14 channels where I could pick what was on them a la carte, without the compression artifacting (color dithering) we get from cable and satellite, including live sporting events, I'd drop Time Warner like a paper bag of dog shit and sign up today.

Re: Canceled TV service

[Anonymous Coward]

The most popular sport in America is football... and the most important part of this sport... the part people talk about the most... is the -commercials- that play during their championship game.

That should tell you something.

Re: Canceled TV service

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

If you think that's bad, here in Canada we already have one-hour shows that are only 22-minutes long.

Re:Canceled TV service

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck will it take to get through your thick ass skulls that we are not going to continue paying for your shitty commercial laden bullcrap.

Clearly, some rando shithead on Slashdot cursing them out will do the trick, and show them how their business model that's kept them in hookers and blow for the last 50 years is just NEVER going to work.

From this point on, I will pay for service or I will watch 1 or 2 commercials per hour, and not if they are mixed into the middle of the show. And I'm not going to pay you some ridiculous sum of money for it. Probably less than a dollar per 'channel', no way in hell I'm giving you more than a dime a month per show I watch, you simply aren't worth it.

If you won't watch commercials, the cost of the service goes up. Commercials help the media companies offer their service cheaper. What backwards-ass fucktard hole in the universe do you live in that you think "charging less, and eliminating commercials" will result in any result other than "shitty tv, with terrible actors, and bad production"? Go watch a few "web series" on Youtube, chum. The bulk of them are turds with zero redeeming value - but they sure are "free."

You get what you pay for. Stop being a fucking cheapskate.

Re:Canceled TV service

[Ayanami_R]

They are saying it's about what they want to charge, but I don't believe it. They can't say what I think is going on because NDA. What is that? Apple wants some kind of exclusivity, and isn't budging. The TV guys, already having some apps of their own, and selling stuff to hulu and netflix, aren't really desperate to be on the platform the way Apple wanted, they are already there! So they told them to stuff it with any form of exclusive anything.

Re: Canceled TV service

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

All it should tell you is: "People want to see the best of the best." Any more than that and you're just making stuff up.

Re: Canceled TV service

[Anonymous Coward]

well that abomination of a game you call 'football' deos actually suit commerical brekas in the middle of the game stop, start ,stop , start change the entire team what else is there to do but show commercials?

Re:Canceled TV service

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

If you gave me 14 channels where I could pick what was on them a la carte, without the compression artifacting (color dithering) we get from cable and satellite, including live sporting events, I'd drop Time Warner like a paper bag of dog shit and sign up today.

We simply have differing values in regards to TV...I wouldn't pay $40 a month for 14 channels no matter which ones I got to pick.

Re:Canceled TV service

[MachineShedFred]

Bear in mind that I'm not just talking about channels, I'm talking about discrete programming blocks on each channel. Example, on my 'channel 1' I want this show from CBS, next would be this show from NBC, and then after that, a show from Comedy Central. 'Channel 2' can be a different family member's, etc.

If Apple could deliver that for $40/month, that would be a industry-busting service. Unfortunately, it will never happen, because it doesn't reward the content producers' love of shoveling drek onto the air to surround their one hit show.

Hollywood vs 21st Century

[Applehu Akbar]

TV networks have no idea what to make of streaming technology. Some of them get the idea that they can use the Internet to extend their TV audience to people on the Internet, but are so divided on how to go about it no delivery model has emerged that is consistent enough to be usable by a make-it-simple company like Apple.

Even the simplest case, over-the-air network recent episodes, is a rickety hash. Sometimes you can stream the latest several episodes of a given show. Sometimes you have to wait a week, and sometimes your favorite show is just not available for streaming at all. Sometimes you have to "verify your cable provider" for an over-the-air show! Streaming could have been the OTA networks' natural way of extending their working commercial-sponsored business model to the huge audience of people who are semi-regular TV watchers who occasionally miss an episode.

Cable networks could capture the cord-cutter market by offering their content to existing subscription services. Some do, each with its own idiosyncratic interface, while most operate with the comforting assumption taht most people will pay a separate subscription fee for each cable channel they stream. And what about streaming by those who still subscribe to cable? You have to hope that the skimpy pulldown in the "Verify Your Provider" list will eventually include your own cable company.

Small wonder that today's busy young people just shrug and get into the habit of torrenting everything. And once you have gotten used to that model and its more consistent interface, they won't be back.

Re:Hollywood vs 21st Century

[AmiMoJo]

TV companies have seen what happened to music companies and want to avoid the same fate. Streaming music platforms like Spotify are extremely popular, but they also pay next to nothing to creators and even the labels are not getting nearly as much as they wanted. So TV companies are just holding out and hoping that they can find some way to make people pay premium prices for their mostly worthless content.

Re:Hollywood vs 21st Century

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're basically admitting that the music companies that you're slagging in the first sentence are still living off the remains of old music in the second sentence and that it's the artists who are the ones who are the losers here? I don't understand how you seem to understand the dynamics in play but still insist that that TV is doing it wrong. The time of investment is pretty much up and they're still raking in the cash and in the end those who actually produced the content are going to be the ones who'll get the hooks when it comes down to the profits of the long tail of this format. I'd love to be on the right's holder end at this point in the game. They know what their product is worth and it's profitable. Yes, they may like to make more from it but who wouldn't like to squeeze every penny they can from what they got? It's basically a free ride that is more secure than a blue chip stock.
 
So while you're trying to bring them down they're really the ones who are making the best from the situation. I consider that a massive success. They are making people pay premium prices for what you see as worthless content. This simply is the best possible outcome for a product that is basically in their pocket with zero overhead. It may not be a motherload but any fool would still like to wake up to some goldflakes in their pocket each morning for doing no more than waiting for them to roll in.
 
It floors me how much Slashdotters can't see this for what it is. Meh. Once again Slashdot have proven itself to be the wrong place to look for business insight.

Re:Hollywood vs 21st Century

[drinkypoo]

The problem is, the TV companies are just sitting around doing nothing with most of their old content, when they could be doing almost anything else with it and still coming out ahead. They could license it to amazon and/or netflix, for example, on a limited-time basis with yearly renewal. It's like printing money.

Re:Hollywood vs 21st Century

[Applehu Akbar]

What would be wrong with having viewers pay the regular price they are already used to, in the form of watching commercials? Any revenue a network can get by putting its ads in front of a viewer who missed the episode is found money.

Re:Hollywood vs 21st Century

[AmiMoJo]

You are right, but they don't see it that way. To them old content is still valuable, because they can still sell DVD box sets with huge profit margins. Their model seems to be sell a few box sets to hard core fans at very high prices, rather than selling the content at a reasonably low price to streaming sites.

Fans really get screwed by this. A friend of mine is into Nash Bridges. They released seasons 1 to 6 on DVD individually, but then instead of releasing the final season as a stand alone box set they released the complete series box set. That's their mindset - their content is worth $$$, and ha ha fuck you if you were dumb enough to actually enjoy it enough to pay for it!

Re:Hollywood vs 21st Century

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the same, though. People have cable TV for live sports. That's the killer "app" as far as live TV is concerned. They also hook you in with bundled pricing. Cancel your TV service, and yo'll find you ISP costs pretty much double immediately. They will take that money from you one way or another.

It's a shame, as we now have the technology to do individual channel selections and price them accordingly. Don't want sports? Fine, save 10 euro-dollar-pounds/month. Want kids crap? No problem, that'll be a fiver. Cooking shows? Here's a buck from the service provider. If the content creators are limiting this, then the cable companies need to man up and tell them to fuck off. People will simply watch OTA equivalents while mega-corps have their pissing contests.

Don't forget, you are not the customer, you are the product. They sell your viewing ability to the advertisers (and make money from you too). Music streaming is not about the ads, it's about recurring monthly subs problem forget about. The business models couldn't be more different.

Re:Hollywood vs 21st Century

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing the part where high prices create incentives for people to develop alternative models.

Spotify wouldn't exist if content costs were reasonable.

Netflix wouldn't exist if content costs were reasonable.

Netflix has shown that reasonable content costs reduce pirating. Proof that people don't want to steal, they just want to pay what they think is a fair price.

The tighter companies squeeze, the more "business insight" these people use in the short run to make money, will harm them in the long run. They are going with a plan that destroys the whole current business model in order to get what they can *today*. They either don't see how short sighted this is, or don't care.

Saudi Arabia gets scared when the oil price is too high, even though they profit wildly from it, because they know it creates incentives to develop alternatives. So they actually work to hurt themselves in the short run by overproducing in order to lower prices.

Re:Hollywood vs 21st Century

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix has shown that reasonable content costs reduce pirating. Proof that people don't want to steal, they just want to pay what they think is a fair price.
 
Cite please? As a Netflix subscriber I do it simply because it's easier to pay a few bucks a month and have a service I can tap from multiple locations for the content that I want instead of keeping up with the
 
Ever changing landscape of bittorent clients...
And BT sites...
And home servers...
And opening my network up to the outside world.
 
In the hopes that:
 
The content I want is available on one of them...
And don't turn out to be pr0n-in-disguise...
Or some really bad quality copy from some's 1988 VHS tape...
From just about every device that I own.
 
Just not having to deal with bittorrent sites in the first place makes it worth my money let alone the rest.
 
I agree that no price beats free but my time comes with a price too and NetFlix is a service that is less expensive then piracy.
 
That being said you think it may have proven your point but it really doesn't because there is still a slew of people out there who still want things to go a step further and are willing to pay triple digits for a service where they don't need to watch content on a small screen or have to deal with multiple TV inputs or multiple remotes. My senior (but not elderly) mother is one of those people. She has a bluray player that came with her TV but she doesn't use it because for some reason it's a bother to switch from HDMI 1 to HDMI 2 but she'll use the DVR that is built into the cable box like a pro. Godforbid she had NetFlix on her cable box, she'd never leave the house! I would get her an Apple TV or FireTV but I know she'd never use it. So she pays a massive premium for not wanting to use two remotes and understanding what HDMI port does what. She's fully aware of this and is happy with what she has.
 
No skin off my nose but the premise you put out at the reason that people are willing to pay for what services they have isn't true. Maybe for some but not for as many as you'd like to think.

Re:Hollywood vs 21st Century

[Solandri]

Streaming music platforms like Spotify are extremely popular, but they also pay next to nothing to creators and even the labels are not getting nearly as much as they wanted.

As best as I can tell, it's the other way around. The base royalty rate for purchased music is 9.1 cents per song. Spotify pays 0.6 to 0.84 cents per play. In other words, if a Spotify user hears a song more than 11-15 times (irrespective of time period), the creators have gotten more royalties from Spotify than if the listener had purchased the song directly.

Re:Hollywood vs 21st Century

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure WTF you are rambling about but I think you proved the overall point I was making.

1. At some content price certain people will steal (Lower income / younger) and certain people won't (Your Mother). There is a continuum, not a sharp cutoff.
2. Media Executives try to maximize revenue / profit today by setting the price high because people like your mother keep paying, no matter the price.
3. This drove people who were not willing to pay the high price, but were still willing to pay some price to steal because there was no middle ground.
4. Netflix was introduced and allowed those who were willing to pay some price to pay it. An added benefit is convenience over torrents.

You are assuming that convenience is what caused every Netflix subscriber to subscribe i.e. everyone would continue to pirate if Netflix were less convenient. Also known as the "everyone is evil" argument. I don't buy it. While impossible to measure, I think many would choose to pay for Netflix even if stealing content were made to work as easily as Netflix.

"Proof that people don't want to steal, they just want to pay what they think is a fair price"
I don't think you really realized what I meant from the above. I said "what they think is a fair price". For your mother and Bill Gates, clearly absolute price is not the only objective and the perceived "fair price" is higher than for other people. For people like me some price is OK but not a hundred dollars a month. I can afford 10x Netflix cost but I won't pay it for the same reason I can afford $100 for a haircut but won't pay for that either. For others, the price needs to be lower. There is a spectrum and Netflix proved that within the spectrum there are people willing to pay lower prices who were not willing to pay higher prices.

We can argue about anecdotes for specific people but the reality is this: The stealing (pirating) was not out of a inherent want to get the content for free, it was out of a want to get content for a "reasonable price", which is different for each person but for many, the only price available was "not reasonable".

Re:Hollywood vs 21st Century

[DarkOx]

they also pay next to nothing to creators and even the labels are not getting nearly as much as they wanted

The labels don't get what they want because they don't provide any real value. The labels were advertisers and distributors at a time when doing so required large amounts of capital resources. The internet has changed there is no good reason to pay that rent anymore. How much can BMG do for you that Patreon or Kickstarter can't? Even if they do still have more to offer now, the gap is shrinking not growing.

At the same time small artists can also get all the recording equipment they need to compete with the big label backed guys on production value. Its all about talent, and there is frankly a lot of talent out there. Its basic supply and demand. There is tons of supply so even in the presence of strong demand, recorded music (in aggregate) isn't worth a lot in terms of pennies per play or dollars for a licensed album copy.

The same market forces are starting to touch the broadcast TV / Cable / Satellite industry both on the production and distribution side. Ultimately the industry will have to change. They can only lawsuit and hide under the skirts of regulation so long. It might take another couple decades but change is coming.

Re:Hollywood vs 21st Century

[drinkypoo]

Fans really get screwed by this. A friend of mine is into Nash Bridges. They released seasons 1 to 6 on DVD individually, but then instead of releasing the final season as a stand alone box set they released the complete series box set.

Yeah, as I recall they fiddled with the South Park box numbering too. I have the first six of the original retail discs. But for anything they haven't released on disc yet, this is actually an opportunity! They can rent it and/or sell it to streaming customers for a year, then they can put it on Blu-Ray and sell it all over again to people who will pay again for higher quality.

Re:Hollywood vs 21st Century

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming that convenience is what caused every Netflix subscriber to subscribe i.e. everyone would continue to pirate if Netflix were less convenient. Also known as the "everyone is evil" argument. I don't buy it. While impossible to measure, I think many would choose to pay for Netflix even if stealing content were made to work as easily as Netflix.
 
And thus proving my point. So who the fuck is rambling on now? You can't cite and you admit that people are willing to still steal even tho Netflix is damn near free. If 10 bucks a month isn't reasonable then you probably shouldn't own a TV at all let alone an internet connection.

More what for what?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"its plan to sell a package of 14 or so channels for $30 to $40 a month has run into resistance from media companies that want more money for their programming" ...its plan to sell a package of 14 or so channels for $30 to $40 a month has run into resistance from potential subscribers that want more programming for their money,

Fixed that for ya.

Sorry, but for $40 a month I'd sure as hell want more than 14 channels. Talk about being clueless in the marketplace. Hulu, Netfilx, etc all offer much more bang for the buck. Admittedly TV in general has less value to me than it does for a lot of people, but $40 a month for 14 channels just seems ridiculously overpriced to me.

Re:More what for what?

[gtall]

For me it depends upon whether I get to pick the 14 channels. I think I probably surf about 14 channels looking for something, anything worthy of my time. However, I doubt Apple can get the agreements to allow me to pick the 14 channels. If the 14 channels, maybe 5 have consistently something I'd care about, and most of time they do not. So what happens if that gets close to 0....Verizon can then stop counting my TV money.

Re:More what for what?

[N1AK]

Sorry, but for $40 a month I'd sure as hell want more than 14 channels.

Why? From my experience the more TV channels a country has the less decent TV there is and the harder it is to find. 14 Channels of decent quality material would be incredibly good value at $40.

Re:More what for what?

[MachineShedFred]

You're making a huge assumption that those 14 channels are 1980's style cable channels, where you get no say in the programming. What if they added a tab to iTunes where you can drag and drop shows out of a pick list onto a "TV Guide" style grid of your 14 channels, including live sport events?

That would sure as shit be worth $40/month for me, as long as the content I'm looking for is there.

Re:More what for what?

[MachineShedFred]

Exactly.

For decades, channels have been added, but quality content adds haven't kept up. The overall signal-to-noise ratio is very VERY low on your average cable TV system, where 'signal' = content you actually give a shit about.

Re:More what for what?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a 'sweet spot'. Up to that point, adding channels adds room for more *quality* content. Past that point, you have to fill the newly available space with content, and there just isn't enough of the quality stuff, so you have to use lower-quality filler, and overall quality starts to suffer. As you continue past the 'sweet spot', the 'filler' gets progressively lower and lower quality.

Re:More what for what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you got modded up for hating on Apple but the fact of the matter is that most TV viewers today could probably easily rope in their viewing habits to 14 channels of premium content and maybe a HDTV antenna for local stations. Heck, I could live on about 10 channels. If the channels were offered ala carte this would be a no brainer for me and at 1/3 of the price I'm paying for about 400 (literally) channels that I don't even bother to see what they have on.

Re:More what for what?

[UnknowingFool]

Also the channels are changing from their original intent. Remember when the History Channel was really about history? Or Bravo wasn't the Real Housewives channel? There have been some positive changes like AMC's Mad Men but they are fewer.

Re:More what for what?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Sorry, but for $40 a month I'd sure as hell want more than 14 channels.

Why? From my experience the more TV channels a country has the less decent TV there is and the harder it is to find. 14 Channels of decent quality material would be incredibly good value at $40.

For you perhaps, but not for me. No way, no how.

Basically we just place different values on this. No way I'd pay $40/month for 14 channels (even if I got to pick them).

Re:More what for what?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

You're making a huge assumption that those 14 channels are 1980's style cable channels, where you get no say in the programming.

And you're making a huge assumption as what I think TV is worth. Even if I got to pick my 14 channels, I still wouldn't pay $40 a month for them.

What if they added a tab to iTunes where you can drag and drop shows.......

Even if they added a tab that said "Free Blowjobs On Demand", it still wouldn't be worth $40 a month to me. (I get all I need and want already.)

That would sure as shit be worth $40/month for me, as long as the content I'm looking for is there.

We simply place a different value on the worth of TV programming. If you think it's worth it, I say go for it.

Re:More what for what?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

For me it depends upon whether I get to pick the 14 channels.

Not me, but that's just a reflection of what TV is (or isn't) worth to me personally. But I understand a lot of people would jump at that kind of deal and if they feel it's worth it, I'm fine with that.

Re: More what for what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck are you spamming us on this topic? You're not a TV person, you're not willing to pay for it, and you're not a targeted consumer by any of these companies. Just GTFO.

Re:More what for what?

[N1AK]

Basically we just place different values on this.

Yes. Apparently you value quantity of channels over quality of channels and total amount of quality programming. I value availability of quality content over the number of channels is is split over. I think what's actually happening is you're fixated on the concept of getting 14 channels from the current selection, or similar, rather than getting 14 quality TV channels. Given that 14 channels is 2,352 hours of programming a week, even if only 3% of what was shown was of interest to you then that's 70 hours of TV a week.

Re:More what for what?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Apparently you value quantity of channels over quality of channels and total amount of quality programming.

No, you have misinterpreted what I said, or perhaps your lack of attention caused you to miss this part of what I wrote:

"No way I'd pay $40/month for 14 channels (even if I got to pick them)"

It should be clear from that statement that I do not consider all channels to be equally valuable, and that I want to pick specific channels. And why would I want to pick the channels I got? Obviously because I have some preference as to what I would watch, and I am looking to maximize the content I consider to be of higher quality or worth to me.

In other words, I am indeed more interested in quality over quantity.

Please try to pay closer attention next time.

I just want

[Anonymous Coward]

(Legal) live sports via internet

Re:mod 0p

[Anonymous Coward]

first organization can no longer be world wiil have of playing your They're gone Mac Lost its earlier survive at aal The public eye:

Do you even know how to speak English? From the complete nonsense you wrote i would think not.

Value for money

[sjbe]

Sorry, but for $40 a month I'd sure as hell want more than 14 channels.

That depends heavily on the content of the 14 channels. I think most people don't really watch many more than that now. I know I do not. If there is good value in the 14 channels and I get to customize them to my particular tastes then it might be worth it. Your mileage may vary. If it is just the same swill I get from the cable companies now then I'm not interested.

Right now I pay about $30ish/month for some basic cable channels and about $90/month for 100 megabit internet. Guess which one I care about more? So yeah, I'd consider paying $30-40/month for a group of channels I'd watch a lot and which could replace my cable subscription but I'm not about to pay more than I am now. Currently I get about 150 channels, 90% of which I never, ever watch because they are shit and the things I do watch get recorded on my DVR. I pretty much never watch live TV, and frankly why would I? So I can get bombarded with ads? No thanks. I value my time more than that. I have no interest in the latest Kardashian family hijinks so don't waste the bandwidth sending it to me.

So there's the deal I want on the table. 15-30 channels of content (movies and other programming) *I* want to watch and that *I* get to pick with no ads that is easily searchable and which I can watch at a time and place that is convenient to me. And I'm not willing to pay more than $40/month for that. That's the deal, take it or leave it.

Re:Value for money

[AmiMoJo]

You are what I'd call a legacy customer, who hasn't cut the TV cord yet. A lot of people are going to basic free channels and one or two streaming services instead of paying for channels or bundles now.

On-demand services like Netflix mean that you are never stuck with 50 channels and nothing you want to watch, so suddenly you don't need 50 channels any more. You just need one or two on-demand services. Those services only charge ~$10/month so $30 for a bunch of channels isn't very attractive, especially when they have horrendous advertising interrupting the programmes.

Re:Value for money

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

That depends heavily on the content of the 14 channels.

Not to me. Even if I got to pick the channels, it's just not worth that much to me.

forget the channels

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no reason to use channels any more. Let shows stand by themselves. Also, it's the Internet. No reason to time delay shit anymore. If it's food people will watch it.

Re:mod 0p

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL @ the english. Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Greatly prefer Netflix model anyway

[SuperKendall]

Why would I want to wait for a show to be dripped out a week at a time? I Greatly prefer having a whole season released at a time.

Re:Greatly prefer Netflix model anyway

[MachineShedFred]

Exactly.

The only reason I still have a cable TV subscription at all is for live sports. If ESPN went direct-to-Internet streaming without the cable company's paywall in the way, I'd tell Time Warner to go pound sand. I don't even care about "seeing the latest episode when it airs" because watching it via DVR is a monumentally better watching experience.

Cable and Satellite companies need to stop living in the 1980s already. The smartest thing the distribution networks (cable, satellite, etc.) could do is side with the consumers and break bundling agreements. Then they could offer what we really want - a la carte channel service. They'd save shitloads of bandwidth they could use on services we want (faster data, higher quality video), and we could get services from them we actually want.

As I posted above, I'd happily pay for ~20 channel service if I could pick what channels they are, and they are delivered without color dithering and compression artifacts. That would be far superior to 1500+ channels, where 1450 of them are complete shit, and the other 50 are 50% shit, and 100% of them are compressed to hell and back.

Re:Greatly prefer Netflix model anyway

[psycho12345]

What you speak of when it comes to siding with the consumers and breaking bundling is great in theory, but this is an example of prisoners dilemma. Any one cable company knows they can't take on Disney/Turner/etc in forcing unbundling because Disney can just smile, drop ESPN, and watch the cable/satTV customers go racing to one of the satellite TV providers or back to cable, and leaving the cable/satTV company screwed. Disney is the worst of the bundlers because they have ESPN, so they force all the other shit down the cable/sat companies throats.

Until the FCC rules such bundling to be illegal, the content companies can continue to play the various cable companies and sat TV companies against each other. This is the main idea behind the various mergers in providers, to reduce the number of entities that can played against each other. In terms of customer choice, it is awful, and is bullshit. But from a content negotiation point of view, the bigger you are, the bigger the club you can wield, and the content providers are effectively a cartel, so the transport providers are bulking up as well.

For this reason, Netflix and other streamers, once they overtake cable/satTV in terms of viewers, will get the harsh end of this same stick. Mind you, they know this, hence both Netflix and Amazon are becoming content creators themselves, to avoid the same fate of being held over the barrel. Disney could easily play Netflix against Amazon, and force bundling on both of them.

negotiation ploy

[mike00dot]

This could simply be a negotiation step by Apple to get the price more in line with value.

ha

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll keep my Google Player boxes with Netflix, Hulu, and Kodi. $20 a month and all I will ever need.

channels? live? what is his? 1970???

[citizenr]

I watch what I want when I want it, not what/when live feed tells me to.

Re:channels? live? what is his? 1970???

[mjwx]

I watch what I want when I want it, not what/when live feed tells me to.

Clearly you're not familiar with Apple, when you buy an Apple product, they tell you what to do and when.

Protecting revenue streams

[areusche]

Hollywood's insistence on bundled programming is nothing more than a subsidy for three quarters of the channels out there. Sure we have variety, but the quality of most programming out there is abysmal. If TV subscriptions went a la carte, we would see Hollywood's TV sector immediately shrink overnight. A lot of those BS programs that get bundled into packages wouldn't survive simply because there isn't any revenue for it.

Re:Protecting revenue streams

[tlhIngan]

Hollywood's insistence on bundled programming is nothing more than a subsidy for three quarters of the channels out there. Sure we have variety, but the quality of most programming out there is abysmal. If TV subscriptions went a la carte, we would see Hollywood's TV sector immediately shrink overnight. A lot of those BS programs that get bundled into packages wouldn't survive simply because there isn't any revenue for it.

And a lot of good programming goes down the drain.

Right now, a cable channel has two sources of funding - subscribers and ads. Take away subscribers and they move to ads. Guess what? Ads require eyeballs, and eyeballs require lowest-common-denominator - this is QUANTITY of eyeballs, not quality.

So your favorite programming will start having more crap added for "drama" and "suspense" purely because that crap is what eyeballs care about.

The networks are already prepared for this - they've been preparing for years - if you haven't seen cross-network promotion (where a show is advertised on other channels), that's what's going on - they're getting viewers to move to those lesser watched channels.

And good shows are finding funding squeezed - they're forced to integrate lame "drama" style scenes because people don't care about the content of the show.

Hell, Mythbusters suffered from it - because eyeballs don't care about the build, or the science, they just want the explosions and all that.

Ever wonder why PBS content is always so highly rated? Because they don't care for eyeballs. So they're freed up from having to appeal for eyeballs and can produce programming that's informative without having to inject an explosion every 5 minutes, or some whiny person asking for attention or other crap.

Sure, most of the crap programming goes away, but a lot of the good ones do too. And a lot of the bottom of the barrel crap won't go away. Because that stuff brings in eyeballs.

Reality TV is the same - it brings in the eyeballs.

Subscription services like Netflix will prosper, as they don't have to worry about eyeballs - they only need subscribers. And all Netflix does is make sure they target those who would subscribe. But that also means their programming is subject to the whims of who pays for the service...

Let me save you some money

[Anonymous Coward]

instead of subscribing to ESPN... just print up a picture of some fat guys standing around doing nothing.

Sit & stare at that for three hours every sunday.

Betcha cant tell the difference.

Re:Let me save you some money

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, there's a massive difference between what you just described, and College Football, which is one of the things you can basically only find on cable sports networks. Sure, some games make it to over-the-air broadcast, but it's largely based on contract. I don't want to watch SEC schools on CBS, and I don't want to watch Notre Dame on NBC. What's left is whatever ESPN puts on ABC, and what's on the ESPN and Fox Sports channels on Cable.

So whatever you would have bet, just hand it over now.

Cord cutting

[sjbe]

You are what I'd call a legacy customer, who hasn't cut the TV cord yet.

Not actually true. I did cut the cord for about 3 years but there are a few things on cable I find worthwhile enough to pay for so I got a reasonable bundled deal with my internet. I wouldn't pay more than I do and I'd drop it in a heartbeat if they change the value proposition. I would be very happy to cut the cord again if I could find a service that fits my needs better.

On-demand services like Netflix mean that you are never stuck with 50 channels and nothing you want to watch, so suddenly you don't need 50 channels any more.

I've had a Netflix subscription twice in the not-too-distant past and I routinely couldn't find anything I was interested in watching. Trying to find a good movie on Netflix (or Amazon or Hulu or...) is irritating to put it mildly and I don't care at all about their original programming. I realize that is my particular taste but mine is the only one I really care about in this case.

You just need one or two on-demand services.

There is not yet any on-demand service that offers the mix of programming I'm interested in. I'd be happy to use one that did (if the price was right) but none exists. Believe me, I've looked.

They've already proved they can't do it

[dhaen]

Apple event live streaming...

Re:good idea

[macs4all]

Considering Apple cannot design ANYTHING lately that doesn't piss off their customers, it's probably a good idea they don't try to start a TV service.

No, of course not. All they make is failure after failure; particularly in the Set-Top-Box market.

Ala carte

[sjbe]

Not to me. Even if I got to pick the channels, it's just not worth that much to me.

That's fine too. There is a range of what people want and what they are willing to pay and yours is probably different than mine. One of the guys I work with is a huge football fan so he's willing to pay quite a lot to get all the football related programming. Nothing wrong with that. Me? I could not care less about football so I it is worth nothing to me. What I have a problem with is the fact that the programming is bundled. So if I want the Food Network and SyFy but don't want ESPN, I shouldn't have to pay for ESPN. Even better would be the ability to pay for particular shows I'm a fan of rather than a channel since most of what is on any channel is typically uninteresting drivel. (your drivel may be different from mine of course) Of course if I'm paying to watch the show I have less than zero interest in watching advertisements so there's that...

Re:Ala carte

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

There is a range of what people want and what they are willing to pay and yours is probably different than mine.

Exactly. If someone feels that it's a fair deal for the money, who am I to say no?

If they offered something like $10/month of 10 channels of my choice, that would appeal to me.

I just place a lower value on TV than a lot of other people do, it doesn't mean they're "wrong", we simply have different price points in terms of what we think something is worth.