Kafka reports, “Apple isn’t tying the proposed service to a specific piece of hardware, like its underwhelming Apple TV box, or its long-rumored tablet/slate device. Instead, it is presenting the offer as an extension of its iTunes software, which already has a huge installed base.
“A so-called ‘over the top’ service could theoretically rival the ones most consumers already buy from cable TV operators — if Apple is able to get enough buy-in from broadcast and cable TV programmers,” Kafka reports. “Network executives I’ve talked to are intrigued with the idea — they are eager to find new revenue streams — but are also wary, for multiple reasons.”
More details in the full article here.
Please yes!
Someday, hopefully soon, Apple will have a total solution for TV and media, games, music, etc. I will gladly pay for that rather than fragmented Comcast etc.
No, I wouldn’t pay $30 a month for TV service on my iphone, but that’s just me.
I want two subscription models. Premium with no commercials and budget with commercials. I think that would make everyone happy. Let’s all sing kum-by-ya
I’d be interested but not until I have access to broadband at my home. Yep that’s right no broadband where I live! 🙁
I don’t see how such a service could replace cable/satellite, at least not as an ad-free solution. There’s simply not enough revenue to make up for a lack of ads. There would have to be a premium (no ads) and a budget (ads).
The other big question is how is the FCC going to view this plan. If it’s a bid to replace satellite/cable providers, will they see it as more competition (a good thing) or a new provider and require Apple to share its service with cable/satellite providers, offer all channels, etc. (a bad thing)?
Apple isn’t interested in essentially becoming a Cable provider. That model makes no sense for anyone. The content providers will lose control of timing and miss out on ad revenue. As the consumer, I’d have to pay a monthly fee for a lot of stuff I don’t want, so there’s little advantage over cable for the consumer. Apple would have a whole new service to manage even if it is though an existing tool.
What I want, and what I think would be a great value to everyone, is rental subscriptions per show: at half the price of buying the Season Pass, you subscribe and automatically get each episode as it comes out. Just like Season Pass but under the same expiration terms as movie rentals.
In order to avoid cannibalization, individual episodes would not be for rent, except in the season bundle, which might also include bonus material. Perhaps there could be a rental option for just the first episode of each season, to get consumers in the door.
It would work entirely by connecting & mixing individual pieces that Apple already has, so it’s easy for them.
Studios get still decent revenue from a market that’s broadened by a lower buy-in cost. They may even get to double dip as people get into renting shows that they like enough to buy later.
I get to watch shows when I want them without ads, and I can afford to watch more. I’ll also be more likely to hit a $20 subscription button on impulse than I am to hit a $40 or $50 one.
@neverfade:
Are you an idiot or a troll?
Until a widespread, high speed, broadband ISP delivery infrastructure (without caps or limits) is in place to support this, this is wishful thinking.
I’d be on board in a NY minute!
This is a great idea. However, in order to entice users into canceling their cable box subscription in favor of this service they would need to get a lot more content from a lot more channels. It may also cause some serious innovation on the part of the Cable providers that Apple would then need to keep pace with.
If I could get all the content provided by my cable provider at or below the current cost of the cable provider then it’s a no brainer. If they can’t meet that criteria then I say don’t bother. I like the idea of a subscription service but it needs to be a complete service not 1/2 of what the cable systems currently offer.
The cable companies would throw a fit.
If I were to pay $30 a month, I would want every show my current basic cable already has for me. But if it is $30 for limited runs from just the major networks, then no, $30 is too much.
Now this is interesting….this could be a game changer.
This could be a nice option to cable. I get an Apple TV and I can watch shows and especially SPORTS.
This type of service and hopefully a la carte option would be AMAZING. If I could get the 4 major networks, ESPN, Histroy Channel, and ABC Family (kids) I would so drop my cable TV service!!! Goodbye 100 other channels I never watch but have to pay for.
US-only deal right? No thanks.
I would only be interested if I could mix and match shows from different networks.
I would probably have to keep my cable because of live sports on odd ball channels like Versus. I can get a lot of live sports over the air. I can get most of my shows off of torrents. But I do like those goofy “discovery” type shows on cable too.
It appears that Apple feels very good about its digital music and iPhone/iPod touch app efforts, and is finally putting more effort into expanding its TV/video presence.
I need more information before making a judgment on its potential value to me. Since the marketing effort would involve iTunes, it stands to reason that, if successful, it would also increase sales of the AppleTV since it provides the simplest conduit to stream iTunes content to a television.
This is what I’ve been waiting for. I have already severed myself from DirectTV and Cable. I did this back in February.
It hasn’t been perfect, but between Plex, Boxee and just plain web browser streaming, I haven’t missed a single show I like. If apple can pull this off (or more to the point, if the content providers) I will gladly pay $30 a month for this.
I definitely wouldn’t pay more than $30, but I like the idea behind a tiered type of plan that some of you mentioned, i.e. they should have a “budget” and “premium” package… ads, limited ads, or no ads. And I would walk away in a heart beat if they try to push “crap” content on me. I only want to watch things I like, not the garbage channels that the cable/satellite operators through at you.
This would be awesome.
I’d pay $60.
@tomintulsa
totally agree. However, I would need to also get NESN for the Red Sox. I assume other regions would want similar access to their local ilteams if they’re not “broadcasted” either. Then I won’t need anything else.
And to all those that think $20 is too much for a show compared to a monthly cable bill, I would rather pay that full season cost for 2-3 shows I watch, than $35-100 EVERY month to cable.
I’d love to get a discount on cable and local shows by ELIMINATING sports and Fox news. TV and internet video on the same box?- my butt would grow.
I’d do it. Work nights, not all shows are available for viewing, even from Networks’ websites.
But it’d have to be the Big 4. CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX. And the CW, oh yeah.
And how about another $30 for the Cable Big 2!!! HBO/Show?!?
Oh yeah, babe.
If the content providers/creators would release new episodes in a timely fashion (not more than 2 wks after air date) of all the new shows, then yes. That won’t happen, though: in principle this is not much different than on-demand services and those are mostly frustrating experiences right now with only some episodes available at a given time.
If the content providers/creators want to use the current system (they will) where some shows are available immediately and some are available only a year later, then this would be useless. The reason the current system is terrible right now is the same reason the $30 a month thing is not going to work is that the ad supported mode was/is so entrenched that moving away from it will be glacially slow. It will be another ten years before any major studio is willing to distribute EVERYTHING in a totally new manner such as this.
Also, I’d still need cable to get NFL and NBA games. I imagine that many other people would be in a similar situation with one sport or another.
I’d do it in a second. Already spending at least that much a month or TV subscriptions.
The networks are so scared of Apple, no way they fall for this trap. iTunes would be the final nail in the coffin for the TV industry.
What makes it even harder for Apple is that the content owners have their own service in Hulu which they’ll make sure gets all of the benefits before anything else. How can Apple fairly compete over content with a service that’s owned by the content providers?