“Apple TV’s big redesign has been rumored for over a year now, but the long wait might pay off big time, for shareholders at least,” Buster Hein reports for Cult of Mac.
“By blowing up the cable industry with its subscription TV streaming service, Apple could add up to $30 billion in global annual revenue to its bottom line, according to projections released by Baird Equity Research,” Hein reports.
“On a global scale, Apple could add $30 billion in revenue,” Hein reports, “if they capture 10% of the approximately 90 million broadband households.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Just give us the subscribe button, Apple!
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dan K.” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
U.S. DOJ could force Comcast to offer NBCUniversal content for Apple’s Internet TV service – March 18, 2015
Apple looks to blow up the cable TV model – March 18, 2015
Hope Apple bests Sling. 💥
Give the customers what they want.
1. FEWER junk channels (or none).
2. A fair price for
3. a reasonable selection
and
4. decent customer service.
5. NO ADVERTISEMENTS!!!
Please include Apple Internet service, too. I would prefer to ditch Comcast completely.
The problem is to be successful, Apple will have to offer a product/service that simplifies. That means reducing options. TV viewers have become so accustomed to endless options that anything less than everything is going to be seen as a take away. Everyone watches just 5 channels but it is a different 5 channels for everyone. Do I think Apple will be successful in this regard: YES. Will people be happy, not most but the subset that Apple will targetL YES.
Revenue and bottom line are not the same thing..
Bottom line referes to earnings..
30 billion in revenue makes sense !
What if Apple gave you 10 channel slots for you to fill up (or not), from a menu of participating providers and for a flat price? What if you could “lock in” your channel selection, and yet be able to modify your selection once every 24 hours. The winners (the channels you picked) would split provider proceeds from your subscription — prorated on a daily basis. There could be more complicated formulas involving time watched and data amount streamed.
The solution is simple à la carte selection. Each choice has its own price. We customers get to *GASP* decide what we buy. Nothing less.
HBO will fallow the same pricing structure as Netflix, a per month rate for its complete line of shows. Cool, but I don’t care for all.
Suggest a very lite subscription to enter the NETWORKS offerings, then per second billing to the shows you choose to watch.
This would be the killer Cord Cutting choice for me.
There have been attempts to do at least bit metering and charging over ISP lines. I expect it will be found less complicated to customers and companies to sell episodes, or seasons of a series.
Not sure.
Really dislike being charged for channels I do not watch, commercials I wish to avoid, and shows of no interest. So a monthly subscription to an entire Network still doesn’t do it for me.
I wish, I could one day, get a sample view to any of the Television Networks, like NBC, FOX, HBO etc. Then just like a cellphone, be billed by the second on what I choose to watch. Like pay-per-view, yet if I stop watching due to lack of interest or lack of time – I am charged only for that I see – at whatever rate the show is set at.
It better not be “TV Streaming”. That would utterly suck and be the same crap in a different wire.
The subscription needs to be watch any show at any time whenever I want, not when the Network is streaming it.
It’s still “streaming.” It’s just streaming “on-demand.” The only way it’s NOT streaming is if you buy an episode from the iTunes Store and download it in advance of viewing.
And “on-demand” streaming is not unique enough to separate a new Apple TV service from what already exists (and is commonly available to most customers). I can already stream TV shows on-demand using my Comcast cable TV service; almost every remotely-popular show seems to available these days. Obviously, live programs (like sports and special one-time events) are usually not available on-demand. The only reasons for using the DVR are to skip commercials (many of the on-demand TV choices have fast-forward disabled) and keep the show saved for later viewing (beyond a few weeks).
To attract new customers (in greater than “hobby” numbers), Apple’s TV service needs a highly desirable benefit that is not available already, while matching what cable customers already have in terms of content. Saving money would be a benefit, but that’s not enough if the cost of Internet service plus Apple’s TV subscription is NOT significantly less than the bundled cost of cable TV plus Internet service. User experience (the interface) would be a benefit (to get rid of that archaic “cable box”), but that’s no enough by itself.
Apple will not become serious about TV, until Apple has an “angle” that guarantees success. Until then, this Apple Internet TV service is just a larger “hobby.”
I do not think viewers are loyal to a Network or a Channel but to the show.
However, at present,
Networks sell their shows to the Broadcaster, who pay a pretty penny for a season to air on their channel. That’s how actors, writers, producers and crew are paid by the Network.
Commercials space is offered during the aired show by the Broadcasters to reimburse the cost of individual episodes.
Cable companies, package these channels in categories, based on popularity and reviews, certain Networks are placed in premium categories. Specialty language channels top off the selection in this pyramid of choices. Meaning in order to get the Disney channel, I must purchase into the basic category first. Then bundle it with the next tier so that I can achieve what I desire. Hence, paying for a lot of what I do not have time for nor wish to see.
Soon, the cutting of cable will be seen exactly what it means. And that is granting power to the Networks, who are the creative house. Cutting out all middle-men. Hence, Apple TV offers direct subscription from the Network… and no need for the Broadcaster or the Cable guys.
The Networks offering meets the clientele directly.
We are not selecting channls anymore. Commercials shouldn’t be seen.
Just all the shows one Network produces for the year.
However, will a monthly subscription to an entire line of shows from one Network satisfy folks? Or do people prefer specific shows?
Sorry I was not clear. What I meant was, I hope it’s ‘watch when I want to’, not ‘live’ (so to speak). These services could be configured to tap into a a live multicast stream, not a VOD.
Yes, $30 billion. But will that be enough to move Apple’s stuck needle, is the question. As far as Wall Street is concerned, anything Apple attempts to do is never good enough to move Apple’s needle.
Fuck wall st.
Apples needle has moved beautifully in the last 3 years.. Dont understand why u are unhappy !?
30 billion revenue is about 15 % of present anual revenue!
Not knowing the margins for this service .. lets just assume 25% net.
That is about 7 billion.. 10% of present earning.
So i would expect a 10% move in pps as a result of the additional l 30 billion revenue..
But all this is speculation anyway !
Because they are deluded, whiny little babies. The stock has gone up something like 1900% in ten years, but every time it stalls for a few days, or God forbid goes down for a month, an evil Wall Street conspiracy against it is identified.
Only $30 billion a year?
This thing is going to be a huge failure like the iPad!
And coming right on the heels the Apple Watch debacle (have you noticed it’s been six months sicne they announced it, and yet they still have zero market share in wearables? Seriously, no revenue booked for Apple Watch!)
I don’t understand why Apple can’t create $100 billion a year businesses every time they announce a new product line. Obviously Apple can’t innovate.
(need I say /s?)
@disposableidentity
For us regulars, of course not 🙂
But it will help new visitors to this site, so thank you.
How is Apple planning to get beyond the dump pipe providers capping data and/or throttling download speeds? Because an online TV service is going to gobble up huge amounts of data.
ISP offer that…
you pick your speed and consumption cap or pay extra for unlimited data.
I can not see Apple doing anything regarding this for consumers or viewers.
Here’s an idea. What can’t you get everything but only pay for what you watch?
beautiful
Yeah, Seriously… Why not?
On todays cellphones’ companies can break down your bill,
detailing, who you called, how long you called for, where you called from, if roaming charges will apply, if your alotted minutes exceeded your plan… detailed.
So, why can we not be offered All the Networks now.
Seeing sample 30 seconds of a show.
If we choose to watch, the timer and rate begins.
If we stop watching. A bill is recorded based on the show and how long I viewed it.
Simple.