Comments on: Why Subscription TV From Apple Could Shake Cable's Tree

By: Pay Per Views?

Pay Per Views? — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:47:03 +0000

[...] on a much greater scale. If Apply can convince its 65 million iTunes account holders to shell out $30 per month, it may mark a dark day for cable TV. If Apple and networks confirm these talks and lay out a [...]

By: AndiT

AndiT — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:47:06 +0000

Some additional thoughts occurred to me. NetFlix instant watch includes quite a number of TV shows (Dexter, Lost, 30Rock, Heroes, The Tudors, Jericho to name a few). An all you can eat subscription is available for as little as $8.99, which also gets you unlimited DVD rentals (1 at a time).

I think this is what Apple needs to compete with, and the only advantage I can see Apple providing over this setup is (perhaps) breadth of content. You can make a device argument since you can’t play NetFlix on an iPod/iPhone, but then there are far more devices to connect NetFlix to a TV.

Apple may also have the global market in mind, which I don’t think NetFlix is considering.

What is clear to me now, is that I need to forget my dream of Apple ever supporting NetFlix on the Apple TV.

By: andrew

andrew — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:44:04 +0000

Thanks for the correction on Netflix. I will consider that once the PS3 option becomes more clear to me.

My TV viewing habits have morphed the past 5 years. Now I only watch 1-2 programs as they are broadcast. Everything else I watch on DVD when I can watch as much as I want when I want. A subscription model for that may work for me, but I don’t see MPAA allowing that as an option at $30-$40/month for everything. If anything, I’d think they would want something more akin to Season Pass.

By: AndiT

AndiT — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:21:06 +0000

NetFlix is all you can eat. A single subscription lets you watch unlimited movies online. Granted the selection is more limited than their media delivery selection, but its still an all you can eat package.

But there is a difference between offering movies and offering TV shows. If Hulu starts to charge for content, I think they will see their viewing numbers decline rapidly. The biggest differential to the studios with an Apple subscription model will be the loss of advertising revenue, but I don’t see how Apple can offer a subscription service that includes advertising.

As an Apple TV owner and a frequent NetFlix instant watch user, the idea of on-demand TV shows is compelling to me, but I don’t see how a $30-40 subscription for a limited set of TV shows is financially attractive to me when I don’t see what it would be replacing that I could chop out of my current monthly bill. Since Cable is not a la carte, and I currently have basic cable, I could only chop out TV all together – which would include a bunch of channels that I do want to keep that are not available on iTunes.

By: andrew

andrew — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:38:49 +0000

I’m not seeing it. MPAA will not allow Apple the same level of freedom the RIAA did when iTunes store started selling music. Christian pointed out the economics and no amount of detailed viewing info will overcome the bottom line.

When a single show subscription runs $20 I don’t see how $30-$40 will ever be allowed. Maybe $30-$40/month for a ‘channel’ such as HBO content if the user can prove she is a HBO subscriber similar to Comcast’s play, but there is simply no way Hollywood would allow a month’s worth of content for the retail price of two DVDs. I can’t even see this price for such classic TV fare as “A Man Called Sloan” or “The Fantastic Voyage” which nobody is clamoring for.

From Apple’s standpoint how would they be able to recoup their bandwidth costs at that rate? A few years ago there was talk about making AppleTV/iTunes a bit torrent tool for distributing content more efficiently, but I see nothing that would point in that direction, especially if the ISPs are blocking/limiting torrent traffic. TimB says this better than I can.

Finally, while other providers are beginning to allow digital distribution (PS3 store, Netflix, Epix) they are all ala carte, not all-you-care-to-eat models.

I see this as wishful thinking on Munster’s part and Munster doesn’t have a great track record of Apple predictions to begin with.

By: Vladimir Vlach

Vladimir Vlach — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:47:40 +0000

I’d love to see this option. Don’t forget the international markets as well. They can sell their content to many more countries then US. And in long terms the deals with local companies would come. I hate my cable, doesn’t give me flexibility I want.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:26:38 +0000

Kafka? Munster?? Quite the metamorphosis. This will not be your Grandpa’s TV!

By: Danno

Danno — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:31:30 +0000

Well, if the business model pans out, it would actually give the AppleTV a reason to exist. :)

I’d love to see it actually happen…

By: Mark Sigal

Mark Sigal — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:36:11 +0000

If the goal was to pick off the dollars that customers currently allocated towards pay-channels; namely, HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc. it might work if for no other reason than when Tablet comes out you could have a TV anywhere offering to view same content on iPhone, Tablet, Desktop and Apple TV for one price.

I do agree with what others in the blogosphere have noted; namely, that it sets up somewhat of an ALL-or-NONE as to whether same price includes Movies/TV and Music.

Some fodder on this one in my post:

Apple, TV and the Smart, Connected Living Room
http://bit.ly/k4rOf

Check it out, if interested.

Mark

By: Sebastian Rupley

Sebastian Rupley — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:17:24 +0000

@Tim–you’re right, I think Net Neutrality issues could come into play in several ways as video content delivery gets competitive over Internet pipes. I could easily see broadband providers striking non-transparent deals to throttle service, and much more.

Sebastian