Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Apple is going to launch a TV service this fall that could kill cable
Business Insider ^ | 03/17/2015 | Bryan Logan

Posted on 03/17/2015 7:02:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Apple is reportedly working on a plan to launch its own TV service.

A Wall Street Journal report suggests Apple, which already lets users watch television and Netflix shows through its Apple TV device, is working with programmers "to offer a slimmed-down bundle of TV networks this fall."

The Journal cites sources familiar with the talks who say Apple's subscription service may provide "about 25 channels, anchored by broadcasters such as ABC, CBS, and Fox, and would be available on Apple devices such as the Apple TV."

The as-yet-unannounced service would cost $30 to $40 per month, according to The Journal.

Various rumors and speculation suggesting Apple intends to disrupt television have been circulating for a while, but the tech company's plans have so far been vague and somewhat noncommittal.

There has been talk in recent years that Apple might develop its own television hardware, and when that simmered down, the conversation returned to the possibility that Apple might offer precisely the type of streaming service that is apparently being negotiated now.

What is clear, however, is that Apple wants to cater to customers who are giving up on expensive traditional cable subscriptions. That industry has been ripe for disruption for some time, especially as other platforms like Netflix and Amazon build ever-stronger programming that is finally nipping at the heels of legacy media.

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet; Music/Entertainment; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: apple; appleyv; cable; cabletv; tv
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: SeekAndFind

Will it cost 100 times more than Cable ?


21 posted on 03/17/2015 8:08:04 AM PDT by molson209 (Blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Well, for most of us it the wives and kids that make it difficult to pull the plug.
I have Direct TV, ditched Comcast almost two years ago, but only watch 4 shows regularly.


22 posted on 03/17/2015 8:08:55 AM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
a slimmed-down bundle

There was another recent thread about another company doing similar. Trouble is the same as with satellite and cable: bundles/tiers.

If/When a service offers complete ala carte, where subscribers can select ONLY those channels they want, such a service might be successful.

==

One problem with streaming/internet is finding a workable, profitable method. Networks need to make money to produce new materials, series, movies, etc. Netflix and Amazon have become profitable enough that they are developing a limited number of their own programs that run 6 to 13 episodes per year. CBS and HBO are experimenting with internet subscriptions that bypass cable/satellite providers. Hulu and Crackle offer movies/series but they embed commercials [I have yet to watch one of their programs that did not jam in one of the commercial breaks, thus having to restart and having to watch several commercials again to reach the point of the previous jam.]


23 posted on 03/17/2015 8:11:15 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moehoward

Very true. Due to other family members, many of us still have cable bundle packages, as different people have different favorite channels.

Fast forward a few years, and I could see dropping satellite TV, as I personally watch so little TV anymore.


24 posted on 03/17/2015 8:12:55 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: molson209

RE: Will it cost 100 times more than Cable ?

If so, Apple will LOSE MONEY. They’re not stupid.


25 posted on 03/17/2015 8:13:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cry if I Wanna
Anything would be better than Hulu. But it needs to be free.

They are not free. Hulu embeds commercials, just like networks do.

Networks/program developers need to make money to develop new stuff. None have actually found a good model for Internet/streaming, yet.

I prefer the Netflix model -- no commercials but a reasonable subscription fee.
26 posted on 03/17/2015 8:19:37 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
It's version 1. Version 1 from Apple is almost always a large-scale proof-of-concept demonstration.

Agreed. Therefore, it is exaggerated to call it a potential "cable-killer". Maybe version 2 will be, but most people already know what version 2 is going to need in order to kill cable.
27 posted on 03/17/2015 8:24:52 AM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Personally, I think the content providers are missing out if they don't offer a two-tier subscription model:
  1. Basic (free/low price) - This is ad-supported either through non-skippable ads or on-screen overlays
  2. Premium - Ad-free streams
That is, let the market decide if they want ads or not, but make sure you cash in either way.
28 posted on 03/17/2015 8:28:50 AM PDT by kevkrom (I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“about 25 channels, anchored by broadcasters such as ABC, CBS, and Fox .... service would cost $30 to $40 per month”

Yeah, right. That’s some MIGHTY expensive lies! Especially when you can get all the lies you want on broadcast TV and the Internet for free.


29 posted on 03/17/2015 8:29:43 AM PDT by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
Sports, sports, it’s all about the ability to watch all our teams....

Have at it.
I couldn't care less about "professional" sports. Haven't, since the 1980's.

But I was still paying for it indirectly.
The time for any alternative is long overdue.

30 posted on 03/17/2015 8:30:15 AM PDT by publius911 (If you like Obamacare, You'll LOVE ObamaWeb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I watch an occasional sports event on television, but otherwise 99% of my time is Netflix, Amazon, online steaming.

We keep the cable until m wife and daughter get comfortable with streaming.

An option in principle like this article describes for Apple is just the ticket.


31 posted on 03/17/2015 8:35:00 AM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Why is Apple, the most profitable business ever, not evil? Democrats? Leftists?


32 posted on 03/17/2015 8:36:48 AM PDT by vpintheak (Call the left what they are - regressive control-freaks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I suppose it’s time to revisit this again...

If Apple is able to bring their overseas profits back to the US without excessive taxes (or, if they dodge that by using those assets as collateral to borrow against, which they’ve one at least once before), they would easily have enough liquid cash to buy a greater than 50% share of Disney and possibly enough to buy out Disney completely.

That would give them a lot of assets (Disney owns ABC, ESPN, full or partial ownership of several other channels, Touchstone Pictures, music and print labels, etc., in addition to all of Disney’s IP and parks), the most important (for this discussion) of which would be the ABC/ESPN/et. al. channels. Apple could then make this happen simply by starting with those channels and inviting everyone else along for the ride.


33 posted on 03/17/2015 8:38:00 AM PDT by kevkrom (I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I get CBS NBC FOX news now with just an antenna called free tv. and about 20 other stations with movies and MeTv


34 posted on 03/17/2015 8:43:22 AM PDT by bikerman (2015 new motto--- slugs for thugs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PistolPaknMama

EXACTLY. I could list maybe under 10 channels, for sure under 20 that I would subscribe.


35 posted on 03/17/2015 8:49:57 AM PDT by outinyellowdogcountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bikerman

I don’t have cable and have not missed. Have been able to find UK basketball and women’s nude wrestling. I am not missing anything.


36 posted on 03/17/2015 8:55:01 AM PDT by Foundahardheadedwoman (God don't have a statute of limitations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What if you cannot get cable or FIOS, how can you stream without killing your wireless data plan?


37 posted on 03/17/2015 8:58:35 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The issue with cable TV is twofold:

1. The linear programming model where programming is organized into “channels” that show specific content at predetermined times. This model is dead and cannot be resurrected. Consumers want content that is accessed and consumed on demand whenever and however they want, not according to someone else’s idea of when and where it should be viewed.

2. The business model (broadcast advertizing) that has evolved over the past 90 years to support linear programming to a mass audience. This model is also dead. Subscriptions are the only viable model going forward, and that has profound effect on who will survive and thrive in this new world.

The latter is the bigger issue for current providers. I doubt many will make the transition to the subscription-based demand-driven alternative.


38 posted on 03/17/2015 9:05:18 AM PDT by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

I agree that the 2 options would be good.

Several years ago I followed some ‘forum’ discussions/complaint sessions regarding Hulu+Plus. Many wondered why Plus would not offer a commercial-free subscription service. Plus officials would just respond that the current (subscription with ads) was what they offered.

At the time, I came across an article interviewing one of the Hulu Plus officials. He said that they eventually foresaw Hulu Plus offering as many commercials as regular TV.


39 posted on 03/17/2015 9:05:39 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
That's because for traditional broadcasters (and Hulu is just a front-organization for traditional broadcasters--look at their owners) the ad buyer is the customer and all businesses try to best serve their customers.

Changing mindset and business model so that the viewer is the customer and their interests come first is completely alien to those who've been so successful with the former mindset. That's why it's unlikely that they will successfully navigate the transition and instead will be disrupted by new players who put the viewer first from the outset.

40 posted on 03/17/2015 9:26:55 AM PDT by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson