Apple Hopes To Charge $40 For TV Subscription Service

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
That sounds like a fair price for 25 to 30 channels, right? The problem is that cable providers want to charge more. Reportedly, Apple’s ideal price was $30, but media companies keep pushing the price up. Let’s hope that Apple’s clout keeps the monthly fee attractive and sane.

While we’re not exactly sure which content providers in particular are demanding a bigger cut, some of the cable channels already on board reportedly include ESPN and FX. Though it’s possible that the dynamics have changed, a report from this past March relayed that Apple was running into trouble trying to secure content deals with NBCUniversal, a Comcast subsidiary that owns quite a few popular cable channels, including USA, E!, and Bravo.
 
This is an entire waste at that price point. The media companies are pushing for the same rate that cable already charges. I know Cox in my area offers 50 channels for $38 a month w/no contract/special promotions.
 
Yea 40$ but what channels to do get for that 40$ is the question. just cause its "cheaper" then cable if the channels all suck it won't matter.
 
If this had most shows (more than Hulu), full DVR functionality, and no commercials, I would be down for $40.

If this is just for live shows then F that!
 
Also should make the providers (Comcast) sign deals that make it so the bandwidth used for the shows won't count against data caps. Comcast is in a no lose situation if they can just start cranking down on data caps and make on demand digital TV services too cost prohibitive for the consumer with limited bandwidth to use.
 
Imagine if ESPN and the others lost their subsidies from all cable subscribers. Their profits would plummet.
 
SlingTV + HBO for $35/month has been working pretty well since I cut the cord four months ago. If Apple offers something comparable, I'll probably go for it. Also depends on what's available when Google Fiber finally goes live in my building.
 
This just shifts the payments from cable to Apple's coffers. Is this for commercial free TV shows you can watch when you want like netflix or a la cart buying of select "channels"? If it's not either then why bother? $40 for a fixed selection of "channels", we'll just be back to where we are now with cable in 3 years, but your provider will be Apple instead of some cable company.
 
Do they not get it?
Make it affordable enough that more people can buy it and you will make more money!
Its not a difficult concept.
 
30 and I'd consider it, but it'd really depend on the mix of channels. I don't need many, but I'd want the news channels, Paladia, USA, SciFi (assuming there's anything decent on there), AMC and FX. I suspect what I want is worth less than 20 bucks. Honestly, I think they should charge less for streaming. Odds are you can't skip commercials, unlike with cable/sat where you can DVR it and skip them.
 
Doesn't sound very exciting to me. Especially if you have a ap on you Internet plan. Combine this with Netflix and say goodbye to your ap and hello to nice fat overage costs on your bill... Ths needs to be $15-$20/month to grab my attention considering it seems like you can get similar programming on cable for a similar price...

We'll see when it officially launches I guess. It does sound like it's in direct competition with sling.
 
Apple is really pissing in the wind here.


People are cancelling cable because of the stupid ass bundles you are forced to buy... so what is apples response, A BUNDLE !!!!


Steve Jobs would have shit all over this idea.
 
Canon said:
Doesn't sound very exciting to me. Especially if you have a ap on you Internet plan. Combine this with Netflix and say goodbye to your ap and hello to nice fat overage costs on your bill... Ths needs to be $15-$20/month to grab my attention considering it seems like you can get similar programming on cable for a similar price...

We'll see when it officially launches I guess. It does sound like it's in direct competition with sling.
Click to expand...

You're not going to get 25 channels for that price, especially not if it includes ESPN, which is 10 or 15 bucks by itself. It's not that most channels are expensive, but I believe that NBC/Universal, Viacom and others sell the stations in bundles. The less channels you pick up, the more you pay for each channel.

Verge said:
Apple is really pissing in the wind here.
People are cancelling cable because of the stupid ass bundles you are forced to buy... so what is apples response, A BUNDLE !!!!
Steve Jobs would have shit all over this idea.
Click to expand...

Who knows what Steve would have done. Apple has to continue to grow and this is one way to add to the bottom line. Bottom line is if you could buy 1 station at a time, you'd pay 5 bucks for CNN, even though it's probably a buck (or less) in your cable bundle. You will get ala carte some day, but you won't save any money, unless you only watch really unpopular stations. Fox is the most expensive news channel on cable at 2 bucks (maybe more). Ala Carte, I bet it costs at least 2x that. Stations that currently cost 25 cents will be at least 2 or 3 bucks. Why? Because the potential for eyeballs drops and gets shifted to the subscriber fee.

I think I'll benefit, but I have no need for ESPN or Fox. CNN and CNBC work for me (and cost less....though maybe not in an ala carte world ;))
 
Where I am even Comcast generally about $40 for an "expanded basic" type that has a lot more than 25-30 channels.

Big question, is Apple TV's newest iteration going to work as a fully wireless 4G with lots of free, but dedicated, bandwidth steamer or will it require a copper/ fiber connection? How many ISP that have local service monopolies (or near monopolies) charge a $10-$30 monthly premium for internet without also getting a TV package?

The no TV surcharge makes Apple TV more like $50-70 monthly for quite a few people. Once you add in the cost of an ala carte HBO go subscription and you might as well go back on cord with a internet / TV / HBO bundle pack... seems like that's been the plan all along.
 
Verge said:
Apple is really pissing in the wind here.


People are cancelling cable because of the stupid ass bundles you are forced to buy... so what is apples response, A BUNDLE !!!!


Steve Jobs would have shit all over this idea.
Click to expand...

What I want is on TV with a better Hulu like setup where I can go and watch all the shows I want and previous seasons of those shows. I'm fine paying for it, but I don't want to just have the ability to DVR shows if I plan in advance.

Also Apple Music sucks a fat one in a few areas, I hope low expectations for them to bring TV to the masses.
 
With people already dropping cable in droves I doubt that cable companies are going to make it easy for Apple to get any type of package together that would super appealing.

Where the hell do these companies think people are getting all this money anyways. It's insane what what everything costs now on top of they give you less and less and charge more and more and every few weeks there is more of it.
 
I couldn't stand even $50/month for 150+ channels of crap from a cable company. Why would I pay almost the same for significantly less from Apple? Blow me.
 
nilepez said:
You're not going to get 25 channels for that price, especially not if it includes ESPN, which is 10 or 15 bucks by itself. It's not that most channels are expensive, but I believe that NBC/Universal, Viacom and others sell the stations in bundles. The less channels you pick up, the more you pay for each channel.



Who knows what Steve would have done. Apple has to continue to grow and this is one way to add to the bottom line. Bottom line is if you could buy 1 station at a time, you'd pay 5 bucks for CNN, even though it's probably a buck (or less) in your cable bundle. You will get ala carte some day, but you won't save any money, unless you only watch really unpopular stations. Fox is the most expensive news channel on cable at 2 bucks (maybe more). Ala Carte, I bet it costs at least 2x that. Stations that currently cost 25 cents will be at least 2 or 3 bucks. Why? Because the potential for eyeballs drops and gets shifted to the subscriber fee.

I think I'll benefit, but I have no need for ESPN or Fox. CNN and CNBC work for me (and cost less....though maybe not in an ala carte world ;))
Click to expand...

Actually, I think this is one of the few cases where "what would Steve have done" is a really interesting question. He gets far too much credit for the work that huge teams of designers and engineers did, and not enough for his brilliant business savvy.

He encountered a similar situation, albeit not quite so convoluted, when dealing with the 5 major record labels... Somehow he got them all on board with pricing almost the entirety of their catalogs the same way, $0.99 per song regardless of whether you're Britney Spears, Aerosmith, or the newest one hit wonder.

Would someone else have achieved that eventually? Tough to say, it eroded eventually into $0.79/0.99/1.29 and then came streaming (which Apple wasn't the forerunner on), but still. I think his leverage and savvy would've been interesting here.

Personally I do care about ESPN so cable cutting isn't very appealing and all these different attempts around it still seem to fall short. I think to succeed they should've just offloaded ESPN tho which AFAIK is the single most expensive channel.

It'd open up much more room to negotiate with everyone else. Otherwise you're just doing the same thing wireless carriers have been doing for five years, shuffling costs around to try and pull one over on people.
 
Do these cheap cable packages include HD for every room in the house, or do they charge extra for HD and for additional TVs?

If this Apple package is anything like SlingTv (but hopefully a lot better), you can watch it in HD on any device that supports it. Cable and satellite companies like to promote a cheap rate, but once all the fees are added up, it isn't cheap at all.
 
snowcat said:
Do these cheap cable packages include HD for every room in the house, or do they charge extra for HD and for additional TVs?

If this Apple package is anything like SlingTv (but hopefully a lot better), you can watch it in HD on any device that supports it. Cable and satellite companies like to promote a cheap rate, but once all the fees are added up, it isn't cheap at all.
Click to expand...

Of course you could get in on every tv in the house, as long as you buy a separate $99 apple box for each of them and then pay $9.99 for each family apple box share plan...
 
nilepez said:
You're not going to get 25 channels for that price, especially not if it includes ESPN, which is 10 or 15 bucks by itself. It's not that most channels are expensive, but I believe that NBC/Universal, Viacom and others sell the stations in bundles. The less channels you pick up, the more you pay for each channel.



Who knows what Steve would have done. Apple has to continue to grow and this is one way to add to the bottom line. Bottom line is if you could buy 1 station at a time, you'd pay 5 bucks for CNN, even though it's probably a buck (or less) in your cable bundle. You will get ala carte some day, but you won't save any money, unless you only watch really unpopular stations. Fox is the most expensive news channel on cable at 2 bucks (maybe more). Ala Carte, I bet it costs at least 2x that. Stations that currently cost 25 cents will be at least 2 or 3 bucks. Why? Because the potential for eyeballs drops and gets shifted to the subscriber fee.

I think I'll benefit, but I have no need for ESPN or Fox. CNN and CNBC work for me (and cost less....though maybe not in an ala carte world ;))
Click to expand...


Bundle is cracking right now, when it finally breaks these massive al-la-cart prices they are tossing around will get shredded.

The first time netflix experiments with a live sporting event, doo-doo will hit the fan. It already has a few times, investors are starting to see the cracks as well. How do you get change? Start messing with people's stocks.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh Apple, you amuse me in the same way my retarded dog. Dumb as a post, shits on the carpet, but you can't help laughing at him.
 
Megalith said:
That sounds like a fair price for 25 to 30 channels, right? The problem is that cable providers want to charge more. Reportedly, Apple’s ideal price was $30, but media companies keep pushing the price up. Let’s hope that Apple’s clout keeps the monthly fee attractive and sane.

While we’re not exactly sure which content providers in particular are demanding a bigger cut, some of the cable channels already on board reportedly include ESPN and FX. Though it’s possible that the dynamics have changed, a report from this past March relayed that Apple was running into trouble trying to secure content deals with NBCUniversal, a Comcast subsidiary that owns quite a few popular cable channels, including USA, E!, and Bravo.
Click to expand...

I pay $50/mo for a cable box, 200+ HD channels, Epix Movie Channel and all the commercials I could ever ask for. :D

Gotta love Time Warners bundles. $110 for 50/5 internet, the cable package and home phone (which isn't even hooked up).
 
Everybody knows that Fox on Apple TV is just going to "work better" than Fox anywhere else.
 
Teenyman45 said:
Where I am even Comcast generally about $40 for an "expanded basic" type that has a lot more than 25-30 channels.

Big question, is Apple TV's newest iteration going to work as a fully wireless 4G with lots of free, but dedicated, bandwidth steamer or will it require a copper/ fiber connection? How many ISP that have local service monopolies (or near monopolies) charge a $10-$30 monthly premium for internet without also getting a TV package?

The no TV surcharge makes Apple TV more like $50-70 monthly for quite a few people. Once you add in the cost of an ala carte HBO go subscription and you might as well go back on cord with a internet / TV / HBO bundle pack... seems like that's been the plan all along.
Click to expand...

You save 10 bucks on TWC if you bundle 20+ channels with a 30 Mbps connection.
Once you eliminate Locals (I assume we all know how to use an Antenna) religious stations, shopping channels and access channels, you get CPANx3, Galavision, Univision, Telemundo, Music Choice (if you lease a set top box), TBS, TWC News and WGN America. So 10 stations, including 3 cspans and 3 spanish language stations. I suspect it's not HD, but don't know.

My guess is you'll get a better package than that from Apple (assuming they skip locals, CSPAN and religious channels (which makes sense, given that millennials aren't very religious).


Impulse said:
Actually, I think this is one of the few cases where "what would Steve have done" is a really interesting question. He gets far too much credit for the work that huge teams of designers and engineers did, and not enough for his brilliant business savvy.

He encountered a similar situation, albeit not quite so convoluted, when dealing with the 5 major record labels... Somehow he got them all on board with pricing almost the entirety of their catalogs the same way, $0.99 per song regardless of whether you're Britney Spears, Aerosmith, or the newest one hit wonder.

Would someone else have achieved that eventually? Tough to say, it eroded eventually into $0.79/0.99/1.29 and then came streaming (which Apple wasn't the forerunner on), but still. I think his leverage and savvy would've been interesting here.

Personally I do care about ESPN so cable cutting isn't very appealing and all these different attempts around it still seem to fall short. I think to succeed they should've just offloaded ESPN tho which AFAIK is the single most expensive channel.
Click to expand...

Steve was able to do that, because the market for music was imploding. Most were just downloading it for free. TV is not suffering nearly as much. The ability to get them for less is limited, especially since any deal they give to apple, they'll have to give to Cable and Sat. You are correct about ESPN. It probably costs the providers as much as HBO (maybe more).

Verge said:
Bundle is cracking right now, when it finally breaks these massive al-la-cart prices they are tossing around will get shredded.

The first time netflix experiments with a live sporting event, doo-doo will hit the fan. It already has a few times, investors are starting to see the cracks as well. How do you get change? Start messing with people's stocks.
Click to expand...

They're not tossing them around, I am. I'm telling you, when you unbundle, you'll pay significantly more. My guess is you might be able to come close if you buy all of Fox's stations or all of NBC/Universal's station, but if you think you'll get MSNBC for 20 cents or even 50 cents, keep dreaming. The price will go up, because if potential eyeballs drop, then potential ad revenue goes down and the only way to make it up is to charge more per sub.

If you think you'll save money by eliminating Cspan, HSN, QVC, NBC Shopping, and so on, you're fooling yourself. CNBC has fixed costs and if the subscriber base goes down, then you'll pay more for the station if you want it. The same goes for every other station.

You may save money, because you want very few stations. You'll definitely have a shot if you pass on FNC and ESPN (the 2 most expensive basic channels), but it won't be as much as you think. I just looked on TWC's website and HBO's streaming package is more than it costs 50% more than TWC charges (15 vs 10), though $10 is only for the first year, but I suspect you could talk TWC into extending it.
 
I only care about a few stations. History international, hbo, showtime. Other than that, I don't care.
 
I'm just going to assume Comcast is probably jacking prices on their networks to get the AppleTV price higher so it's less appealing to their miserable subscribers.

That'd be right up their alley.
 
NickS said:
I pay $50/mo for a cable box, 200+ HD channels, Epix Movie Channel and all the commercials I could ever ask for. :D

Gotta love Time Warners bundles. $110 for 50/5 internet, the cable package and home phone (which isn't even hooked up).
Click to expand...

You must have some local competition for them to be offering that low of a price.

COX recently tried to raise my price to $165/month. That's for 150 channels, no cable box (just a $2 cable card), no movie or extra channels, similar internet speeds, and the most basic phone service. That price was with the "bundle discount".

I ended up dropping the phone service and threatened to drop the TV service too, so they lowered the price to $130/month for a year. They keep calling me asking me to add the phone service, but it's too late, I'll never have phone service with them again, even if they offered it to me for free. I'll also have to call them again next year and threaten to drop the service and hope they give me a better price.

Overcharging your customers so much they threaten to leave, and forcing them to call in every year to get a small discount is no way to run a company.
 
nutzo said:
You must have some local competition for them to be offering that low of a price.

COX recently tried to raise my price to $165/month. That's for 150 channels, no cable box (just a $2 cable card), no movie or extra channels, similar internet speeds, and the most basic phone service. That price was with the "bundle discount".

I ended up dropping the phone service and threatened to drop the TV service too, so they lowered the price to $130/month for a year. They keep calling me asking me to add the phone service, but it's too late, I'll never have phone service with them again, even if they offered it to me for free. I'll also have to call them again next year and threaten to drop the service and hope they give me a better price.

Overcharging your customers so much they threaten to leave, and forcing them to call in every year to get a small discount is no way to run a company.
Click to expand...

That's high for Cox. I've looked at a few states in the past, and they were always fairly reasonable. I picked Macon GA just now and 99 bucks gets you 230 channels with HBO, internet and a phone. The price goes up after a year, but from what I understand, if you threaten to bail, most cable companies will put you back on the intro plan.
 
nilepez said:
You save 10 bucks on TWC if you bundle 20+ channels with a 30 Mbps connection.
Once you eliminate Locals (I assume we all know how to use an Antenna) religious stations, shopping channels and access channels, you get CPANx3, Galavision, Univision, Telemundo, Music Choice (if you lease a set top box), TBS, TWC News and WGN America. So 10 stations, including 3 cspans and 3 spanish language stations. I suspect it's not HD, but don't know.

My guess is you'll get a better package than that from Apple (assuming they skip locals, CSPAN and religious channels (which makes sense, given that millennials aren't very religious).




Steve was able to do that, because the market for music was imploding. Most were just downloading it for free. TV is not suffering nearly as much. The ability to get them for less is limited, especially since any deal they give to apple, they'll have to give to Cable and Sat. You are correct about ESPN. It probably costs the providers as much as HBO (maybe more).



They're not tossing them around, I am. I'm telling you, when you unbundle, you'll pay significantly more. My guess is you might be able to come close if you buy all of Fox's stations or all of NBC/Universal's station, but if you think you'll get MSNBC for 20 cents or even 50 cents, keep dreaming. The price will go up, because if potential eyeballs drop, then potential ad revenue goes down and the only way to make it up is to charge more per sub.

If you think you'll save money by eliminating Cspan, HSN, QVC, NBC Shopping, and so on, you're fooling yourself. CNBC has fixed costs and if the subscriber base goes down, then you'll pay more for the station if you want it. The same goes for every other station.

You may save money, because you want very few stations. You'll definitely have a shot if you pass on FNC and ESPN (the 2 most expensive basic channels), but it won't be as much as you think. I just looked on TWC's website and HBO's streaming package is more than it costs 50% more than TWC charges (15 vs 10), though $10 is only for the first year, but I suspect you could talk TWC into extending it.
Click to expand...

Eyeballs are already dropping, look at Facebook. Ad revenue is sinking like the titanic
 
nutzo said:
You must have some local competition for them to be offering that low of a price.

COX recently tried to raise my price to $165/month. That's for 150 channels, no cable box (just a $2 cable card), no movie or extra channels, similar internet speeds, and the most basic phone service. That price was with the "bundle discount".

I ended up dropping the phone service and threatened to drop the TV service too, so they lowered the price to $130/month for a year. They keep calling me asking me to add the phone service, but it's too late, I'll never have phone service with them again, even if they offered it to me for free. I'll also have to call them again next year and threaten to drop the service and hope they give me a better price.

Overcharging your customers so much they threaten to leave, and forcing them to call in every year to get a small discount is no way to run a company.
Click to expand...

Kinda dumb to keep trying to push the telephone service so hard with more and more people dropping landlines...

Here in PR the two biggest cable companies (which serviced different areas) consolidated a couple years ago, under the most recent plans the phone service is basically free...

You can take it, not take it, internet/cable combo costs the same either way.
 
According to Variety Apple is considering starting to produce their own content as well ... with 200 billion in the bank they could be quite a strong contender (if they pick the right projects) ... we could be close to the tipping point where the TV networks become more about news and variety shows while the streaming companies take over the role of adapted and original content production ... could be an interesting second half of the decade :D

http://variety.com/2015/digital/new...clusive-1201582020/?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003
 
nilepez said:
You save 10 bucks on TWC if you bundle 20+ channels with a 30 Mbps connection.
Once you eliminate Locals (I assume we all know how to use an Antenna) religious stations, shopping channels and access channels, you get CPANx3, Galavision, Univision, Telemundo, Music Choice (if you lease a set top box), TBS, TWC News and WGN America. So 10 stations, including 3 cspans and 3 spanish language stations. I suspect it's not HD, but don't know.

My guess is you'll get a better package than that from Apple (assuming they skip locals, CSPAN and religious channels (which makes sense, given that millennials aren't very religious).




Steve was able to do that, because the market for music was imploding. Most were just downloading it for free. TV is not suffering nearly as much. The ability to get them for less is limited, especially since any deal they give to apple, they'll have to give to Cable and Sat. You are correct about ESPN. It probably costs the providers as much as HBO (maybe more).



They're not tossing them around, I am. I'm telling you, when you unbundle, you'll pay significantly more. My guess is you might be able to come close if you buy all of Fox's stations or all of NBC/Universal's station, but if you think you'll get MSNBC for 20 cents or even 50 cents, keep dreaming. The price will go up, because if potential eyeballs drop, then potential ad revenue goes down and the only way to make it up is to charge more per sub.

If you think you'll save money by eliminating Cspan, HSN, QVC, NBC Shopping, and so on, you're fooling yourself. CNBC has fixed costs and if the subscriber base goes down, then you'll pay more for the station if you want it. The same goes for every other station.

You may save money, because you want very few stations. You'll definitely have a shot if you pass on FNC and ESPN (the 2 most expensive basic channels), but it won't be as much as you think. I just looked on TWC's website and HBO's streaming package is more than it costs 50% more than TWC charges (15 vs 10), though $10 is only for the first year, but I suspect you could talk TWC into extending it.
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever calculated it out to determine how much the average consumer would have to pay for the same content if cable/satellite TV were completely ad-free?
 
Probably impossible to do on a large scale... Might be a fairly simple exercise with something like the Superbowl tho.
 
Megalith said:
running into trouble trying to secure content deals with NBCUniversal, a Comcast subsidiary that owns quite a few popular cable channels, including USA, E!, and Bravo.
Click to expand...

the joy of having a vertical monopoly... from production to delivery (both internet and cable) and everythign in between
 
Verge said:
Eyeballs are already dropping, look at Facebook. Ad revenue is sinking like the titanic
Click to expand...

NM...I see what you were responding to. FB has lots of eyes. They don't know how to monetize it yet, but they have 1 billion people every day. They will figure it out.

Right now, advertisers aren't sure if it's worth it. I remember when they said that about web advertising, but it seems they got over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top