5 ms·
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 li
by mrshoe 16y ago
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.
- emmett 16y agoWe know what it costs to buy internet-only: you can buy internet from AT&T for $30/month if you get DSL. So it's unlikely that many people will opt into $145/month internet-only cable. Will the pricing go from $150/month to $10/month? Almost certainly not. Will pricing go from $150/month to $70/month? It seems quite possible - because internet access is a commodity, unlike cable tv.
- mrshoe 16y agoRight you are. The $145/month was a bit of hyperbole. I think expecting this market to allow 50% of its revenues to dry up is pretty optimistic. 93% (as the article suggested) is just very naive. They'll find a way to extract our money.
- binarysoul 16y agoIt really depends where you live. I'm in South Florida... $42 AT&T DSL doesn't even stay connect all the time and maxes out at 400kb/s. Whereas $62.50 comcast internet stays connected a little more reliably and maxes out between 200kb/s and 1mb/s depending on their whims. Its ridiculous that aside from moving or paying multiple hundreds of dollars per month I can't get quality internet service
- jrockway 16y agoExcept, I already did this. "Hi Speakeasy, I don't want TV." "That's great, because we don't sell TV service." I have never had cable or satellite TV in my adult life. And I've never had to pay extra for Internet access. If people actually want Internet-only TV subscriptions, the market will force Comcast to lower their prices. But I think most people want an endless stream of crap so even when they're bored, they can do something that requires minimal energy expenditure. So Comcast should be fine. But anyway, I'm pretty sure that paying 99 cents an episode for shows that are already broadcast into your house for free (courtesy of "the networks") is a good deal for Apple and not such a good deal for you.
- donaldc 16y agoIf people actually want Internet-only TV subscriptions, the market will force Comcast to lower their prices. Perhaps yes, eventually, but it could be years. The market for high-speed internet connections in most locations is, at best, a duopoly, due to the high fixed cost of installing infrastructure. By analogy, think of what unreasonableness the electrical company could get away with if they weren't regulated. The market for high-speed internet connectivity isn't that bad, but it's certainly not a free market in the same sense that pizza delivery is.
- Avshalom 16y agoAlternatively the market will force Internet-only TV subscriptions to raise their prices. 10 dollars a month to Hulu isn't going to pay ESPN's bills.
- illumin8 16y agoThe 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.
- samratjp 16y agoWait, you have Hulu plus already? I thought it was still in preview invite only? Do tell us if you are a preview invitee.
- Timothee 16y agoHulu Plus is still in preview but I got an invite recently. (though I haven't used it yet) I suggest you sign up here for the waiting list: http://www.hulu.com/plus http://www.hulu.com/plus I received mine 3 weeks ago and had signed up a couple of weeks after the announcement.
- tedkimble 16y agoI received my invite about two weeks ago and signed up immediately. I do not have cable (or a tv), but I'm not sure if I will keep subscribing. I don't spend enough time watching it on my iPad, and there's far too many shows that are still restricted to the last x (5 normally) episodes. If you're caught up on the shows you watch, there's no need to subscribe unless you want it on other devices as well. But if you want to watch the whole series of a show, $10 is much cheaper than buying or renting elsewhere.
- jmtulloss 16y agoI've got an invite, and I was not impressed. A lot of the recent content is still only available through the web site, and the recent content is the only reason to get hulu in my opinion. If you want old shows, netflix is the way to go. This will probably improve over time, but I don't anticipate keeping it much longer.
- lliiffee 16y agoIncidentally, Time Warner just informed me that they were raising the price of my internet-only plan to $54.95, and pointed out that internet + cable plans start at $56.95.
- rbritton 16y agoWe have Comcast at our business location and they do something similar. Internet is something like $63/mo and Internet + cable is $68. We switched over to them after Qwest notified us that their DSL rate was going up 20%: $65 for 1.5 Mbps from Qwest or $63 for 12 Mbps from Comcast.
- jsz0 16y agoContrary to popular belief, not all of that $150 you give to Comcast each month (ouch) goes to buying yachts for Comcast's CEO Programming costs alone are going up about 10% per year while the average provider rate increase is only about 5% per year. Over the next 2-3 years we're going to hit the point where selling linear video service is unprofitable for cable providers. The ESPN 360 model of IP services being bundled with access is probably the future. I could see Hulu, Netflix, etc partnering with providers on this. Apple is probably at a disadvantage because you know they won't be interested in offering iTunes Store access on some cruddy Motorola or Cisco set top box. This makes me wonder if the new iTV could perhaps be something Apple sells through partnerships with cable / telco video providers. They got into bed with AT&T so it's not unthinkable they would do the same with Comcast or TWC.
- mkr-hn 16y agoI would be all over a basic cable/basic internet/hulu/netflix bundle.
- sandGorgon 16y agoabout-the-better-car: ever heard of the Tata Nano ? 2000$ 56 miles a gallon