“CBS plans to bring its $5.99/month All Access subscription service, which offers a mix of on-demand TV shows and live streaming from local stations, to Apple TV and other platforms in the near future,” Jordan Kahn reports for 9to5Mac, citing “a source with knowledge of the matter.”
“Word that Apple TV is still in the company’s sights for the All Access service comes as it officially announces support for Google’s Android TV platform today and ahead of an official launch of Apple’s revamped Apple TV platform arriving in October,” Kahn reports. “We reported recently that Apple plans to release an Apple TV streaming service as soon as next year that bundles multiple television channels in a monthly subscription, but apps in the new Apple TV’s App Store will still require logins to cable networks to unlock content at first.”
Kahn reports, “Subscribers to CBS’ All Access service, on the other hand, get live streaming from local CBS TV stations, 6,500 TV episodes on-demand, new episodes the next day, and other exclusive content beyond what CBS offers for free in its various apps for $5.99/month.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Seems likely that it’ll debut with the launch of the new Apple TV “at the end of October” or soon thereafter.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dan K.” and “Bill” for the heads up.]
After all, I’m sure we’re not going to have a commercial-free existence on their channel programming…
Oooooooooo!!!!! Sign me up for six bucks worth of crap from CBS (big eye roll).
Ads do pay for it, but that stream for them is dwindling due to the competition of multiple other sources. So now they want to access a different stream to make up for their losses, and that is the stream of direct pay.
Funny thing is, ads worked then and they work now. Open up your content and keep the ads. Offer an ad-free for money, you want to, but people only have so much money for their entertainment budgets. Cable’s charges are excessive, people want to leave them, yet short-sighted Corps don’t want to take the risk and truly compete with lower prices.
In the end, while they bleed viewers, they still have their revenue streams.
And cable? IF – and that’s a big IF – they lose too many customers to competitive online providers, they will simply charge more and more and more for the bandwidth.
People need to give up on this pipe-dream of low costs. It ain’t going to happen….
I don’t get the logic… Why not just offer up regular broadcasting for free with ads, like we can already get over the air!?
Because executives don’t get paid big money to offer simple solutions.
You mean PAY YOU to deliver their – advertisements.
If every free channel starts charging us to watch their ad-soaked offerings this movement will be stopped dead in it’s tracks. There’ll be no savings, only an improved interface with games.
I have a hard time seeing people paying for ad-soaked TV. I wouldn’t watch that if it was free. (I cut my cable 9 years ago.)
My guess is people will get used to having fewer but higher quality channels. After all, Apple is morphing the TV into a wall computer.
Passive TV viewing will go down as active wall screen computing goes up.
That’s true it could simply be re-conditioning the masses. Probably will take a while.
$6 here, $15 there, $10 this, $25 that.
This could add up.
My concern exactly… $5 each for the big 4, $15 each for premiums, then $10 for ESPN?, $2-3 for History, A&E, etc, plus $1-3 for each news channel… Next thing you know you’re in for $100 real quick. Apple has to push the networks for lower monthly prices and point out that consumers are paying the bill for distribution (internet) and the device.
Here’s an idea, make the shit free. You already have ads. What the hell, nobody is going to pay $72 a year for a channel nobody watches except for the off chance that Tim Cook will appear on late night TV once a year. Most of these content providers don’t realize nobody watches their shit and don’t care about their crap programming. We’re just forced to pay for all or nothing. CBS has nothing, $10 for HBO is barely acceptable. I’d rather just outright buy the 2 seasons of HBO shows for $80 a year than $120 a year for a subscription I would barely use. And that’s HBO! These inferior channels are going to have to revolutionize their content pricing and availability strategies to keep subscribers. Otherwise better content providers will come up with better methods of their own and these guys will just go out of business.
Yes. Now a series can be an app, which could potentially have more viewers and make more money for the producers compared to cable or broadcast. It will be interesting to see what these new media apps will cost. Will they charge a flat fee like some traditional iOS apps, or will there be iAds inserted into the show? Another question is how will this media be discovered? Will Siri be able to search for content? For example, maybe a user wants a new aerobic routine. Would they ask Siri for recommendations?
I do believe it’s heading that way, and if Siri is going to provide recommendations it will likely be based on popularity and good reviews, so content will need to be awesome to succeed. This truly will usher in a golden age of great content by forcing people to come up with great content rather than garbage they pass off to viewers forced to pay for all or nothing packages.
Actually they should pay the cable networks to deliver their advertising.
CBS is getting a good deal here. They probably only get 50 cents or a dollar from the cable networks and now they $5.99
WAY overpriced, especially for a service with advertising. Hulu finally got a clue and came out with an ad-free version (except a few ABC shows). I wish nobody would buy this and maybe CBS would give up and roll their content to other providers. Think about it, if you had to pay $6 for each of the network channels, that would be $30-36. Ouch. If CBS is successful the other networks will end up doing their own pay services and then we’re screwed.