
Apple Looking To Slice Up Cable 99 Cents At A Time - ssclafani
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/24/apple-cable/
======
mrshoe
This sounds wonderful, but I think it's unrealistic to expect this model to go
mainstream. The pricing logic here completely ignores the costs involved. It's
like saying that some people are sick of paying $20k for their cars and
predicting that Apple is going to design a better car (tangent: wouldn't that
be nice?) and sell it for just $1k. Sounds great, but it's just not possible.

Contrary to popular belief, not _all_ of that $150 you give to Comcast each
month (ouch) goes to buying yachts for Comcast's CEO. Some of it goes to
building and maintaining a network. Some of it even goes to pay for the
production of those movies and television shows you're watching. The costs of
producing entertainment and running large-scale networks is probably not going
to drop by 90% any time soon.

The more likely scenario is this:

Comcast: May I help you?

Me: Yes, I'd like to cancel my $150/month TV+internet package and just get an
internet-only package because I can get all the content I want over the
internet now much more affordably.

Comcast: OK, no problem. Our internet-only packages run $145/month.

I still think this is a huge improvement, mind you. Having everything on
demand is much better than worrying about TV networks' schedules. And those
who watch less can now pay less (i.e. those who watch more can pay more...). I
just don't see everyone's bill going from $1,500 a year to $100 a year, like
the article suggests.

~~~
illumin8
The pricing models are ridiculous. I cut the cable cord over a year ago,
cancelled my $150 a month plan, and now enjoy $30 a month Internet only with
$10 a month streaming Hulu plus, $9 a month streaming Netflix, and save a ton
of money every year.

The cable business model is dead. I'm sorry, but it does not cost $billions to
produce these TV shows. I only watch about 3 TV shows regularly and spend
maybe 2.5 hours a week doing that, so I'm not going to pay more than a few
bucks a month. Also, I'm sorry, but if I pay for content, I am not going to
let you get paid to show me unskippable ads. Not going to do it. The market
has spoken. Technology is catching up to the cable companies and they are
going to be relegated to bandwidth provider status.

~~~
schultzor
How/where did you get $30/month internet? As soon as I ditched the TV part of
the package from Comcast (and lost the BS 'bundle' discount), internet-only
service went up to $60/month.

~~~
kzsystems
I (very happily) pay about 40 euros/month for unlimited internet (fiber
nonetheless) plus free VOIP to Europe and the USA/Canada (and relatively cheap
rates elsewhere). I believe I could get VOD as well plus TV but I have no
interest in the latter and get my video from iTunes rentals.

Poor Americans are so isolated in their MSM cocoon they have no idea how they
are ripped off! One would think that since they spend 40+ hours a week or
whatever it is watching telly they would at least understand the true costs
(i.e. how much they are being exploited).

------
cellshade
It looks as though Apple TV is going to do what the Roku Player has been doing
for well over a year now.

I got my Roku box for $99 (it's even cheaper now), and at the time it only did
SD streaming from Netflix, but they have done several software updates since
then, and it not only does HD from Netflix (and works beautifully), but it
also streams from Amazon's VoD service, which is where I get most of my
content when I can't get it through Netflix.

They've also added "channels" which allows any streaming video provider to
hook into their API and stream to the Roku box, including the handling of paid
subscriptions. Every day it seems like there's more. You can even get live
baseball games and UFC fights.

I dropped my cable after the Roku. And to the above poster that said internet
would barely be cheaper without TV, I have ATT U-verse, and it's $65 a month
for internet-only 24mbps, but if you want an inexpensive option, I believe it
goes all the way down to something like $25 a month.

I used to use torrents for some TV, but now that it's so easy to just stream
stuff from Netflix, Amazon, etc, and watch it on my TV the same way I'd watch
something on a Tivo, it's just not worth the hassle anymore.

The cable company's days are numbered here if they don't adapt to this new
business model. I could never imagine paying $100+ a month for TV ever again.

------
jsz0
I still think the pay-per-episode model just isn't going to work in the US. We
just watch too much TV. If you're an average American who sits down and
watches 4-5 hours of TV a day that's going to be at least $150 per month in
rentals. That's just for one individual too. A household of people watching
different shows at a 99 cent per show fee could rack up a $500/month bill
pretty quickly. Rental prices would have to be much closer to 5-10 cents per
episode to be economical for most people to replace cable/satellite.

~~~
sprout
>that's going to be at least $150 per month in __rentals. __

That's the kicker right there. At $1/episode they're practically charging the
cost of buying a DVD, except for all you're getting is streaming or crippled
DRM'd 640x480 video - really just a rental.

$15/season ain't happening, and the formats they're offering aren't a
reasonable value proposition for the buyers.

------
thought_alarm
As I was preparing for the new Mad Men season, I noticed that AMC was selling
old Mad Men episodes for 99¢. At that price, it's about as cheap as renting
the DVDs, and I thought Finally a network is coming to its senses.

That was short lived, however. They jacked up the prices when the new season
started.

At 99¢ per episode or, say, $20 for a season I would jump right in and
probably cancel my cable.

------
bbuffone
I stopped using my iPod and went to a zune because I was tired of getting 99c
to death. It was the best move, I would rather just pay my music "tax" and
have access to all the music I want. Currently, there is about $1000 dollars
of music on the device, when I had my iPod I never spent more than $100
dollars a year.

I am one of the few that actually want to pay for the things I like, as it
will ensure that more of those things will be available.

~~~
kzsystems
out of (genuine) interest what happens to the $1000 of music if (gasp!) you
ever decide to move to a non-zune device? Can you export it in an open format
to move to the new one?

~~~
bbuffone
I'm sure they don't travel with me, but at $13 a month it is worth it. they
will still cost $1000 and I have only to pay $140 (year). So if I need to move
and want all the music which I won't not at $1000. I would have paid a 14%
premium. the subtract all the music that I am either done with or didn't
really like, I am sure that I will come out a head.

Hey, maybe that is a good business model, get a two month subscription service
where you can access all the music and train the system to understand what you
like so you can pay as little as possible for DRM free music. Best of both
world.

Or we can all just enjoy Justin Beiber and the Youtube way of picking music.

------
tomjen3
I doubt this will do much - people have found out that you can download
whatever tv show you want online, why should they pay for it on iTunes?

It might have a very, very small chance of working in the US, but outside its
borders it faces an even bigger problem: most tv shows that can be seen here
are several seasons behind, how can Apple compete with that handicap against
free downloads for anything other than the "I am too scared of computers to
even go near them crowd?"

~~~
jon_hendry
"I doubt this will do much - people have found out that you can download
whatever tv show you want online, why should they pay for it on iTunes?"

Simplicity. No need to deal with format issues, or un-seeded torrents, or
corrupt files, or varying quality.

~~~
alextgordon
Are you sure? I never have any of the problems you state.

~~~
stcredzero
I have had those problems. If someone only watches a few shows, this could be
a good deal. Also, I could never see my dad using bittorrent. It would be way
too complicated for him.

------
Groxx
$1/show/2days?

No thanks. It'd mean I'd end up paying $0. Quite frankly, no show is worth $1
for a single watch. Except maybe Nova (and PBS is OTA). If their non-prime-
time dropped to $0.10, possibly all the way up to $0.10, then I might go
through upwards of $50-$100 per year.

Which is $50-$100 more than they're getting from me now. You'd think they'd be
interested in a market they've previously had totally untapped, but they don't
seem to be.

~~~
wmf
If tapping the Groxx market would require them to lose money in a larger
market, they aren't going to do it. Econ 101.

~~~
Groxx
Or so the theory goes, if adhered to the current hypothetical parameters which
seem to be making the media industries perform very slow seppuku. If people
were _happier_ with what they watched, wouldn't it stand to reason they'd
watch _more_? Doesn't Econ 101 also cover why demand is good for your income?

Not that I think you're wrong :) I'm definitely in the minority in this. But I
_do_ doubt these sentiments / desires / tendencies are in the minority.

------
samratjp
Hmm, this is in a way Apple's entry into the home console wars with iPod
Touches, iPhones and iPads as controllers.

------
marcinw
Seriously, when am I going to be able to pick and choose what channels I want
to subscribe to?

~~~
dagw
As soon as people, when faced with a choice between Everything and Nothing,
start choosing Nothing.

~~~
marcinw
I chose Nothing, and currently only get HD over the air with an antenna.

------
res0nat0r
Apparently pay is the new free.

