5 ms·

If the streaming service comes with a typical Comcastic price of $80/month like their cable service, then this thing will be DOA. People don't want to pay a to

If the streaming service comes with a typical Comcastic price of $80/month like their cable service, then this thing will be DOA. People don't want to pay a ton of money to watch 5% of the 500 channels you're forcing them to buy - they want to pay a reasonable price for only the content they care about. If this Comcast/Apple thing offered channels a la carte, the TV holy grail on my opinion, then it could be great. But, call me a pessimist to think that a cable company is forward thinking in any way, and not simply locked into their current and dying cash cow business model.

ams6110 13y ago
Live sports is another one. If I could buy ESPN, NBC Universal, and the Big Ten Network a-la carte, I wouldn't need any other cable stations. Netflix-style access for sitcoms and movies would be fine for the rest; currency is much less critical for those.
- bluedevil2k 13y ago
  Along those lines, I found it was far cheaper to go to a sports bar and eat and drink beers every Sunday instead of getting Sunday Ticket.
  - skyebook 13y ago
    Hockey fan here. Good luck getting a bar to turn on the game when football is still on or baseball season is underway. Beyond that, some people just really don't like bar environments. (Or show me a sports bar where people are hanging out and watching a game + doing hackathons during the intermissions.. that would be unbelievably cool)
  - kodablah 13y ago
    Went on a bit of a tangent here...sorry. I hear this argument frequently. This is not a practical solution for those watching their favorite NHL/NBA teams 82+ games a year or MLB 162+ games a year. IIRC ESPN gets $6+ per subscriber-month and would greatly fear reprisal from cable providers if they offered a way to watch without a subscription. Due to the leagues' stranglehold over dissemination of their live events and major sports channels large budgets to pay them, there really is no end in sight for wannabe cord-cutters that want to watch their teams. There are three outcomes I foresee: 1. the status quo, 2. a company w/ deep pockets (Apple, Google, Netflix, etc) convinces a major sport to take their money, or 3. piracy of live sports streams becomes more reliable and easier to consume. #2 is possible but would still be a big gamble. I fervently believe the rise of bittorrent escalated alternative viewing options for non-live events, so I secretly am hoping for #3. All of the live pirated streams I have seen are horribly unreliable and seem to get shutdown with ease. I'm a software engineer, maybe I should make a live P2P streaming protocol! Can't put what I want on it due to living in the US and fear of prosecution, but maybe just the simplicity will help the industry.
    - selectodude 13y ago
      Can't speak for any other sport, but the pirated stream options for the NHL are absolutely impeccable.
- rikf 13y ago
  In the UK at least I think its only a matter of time before either google or apple but in a huge bid for the premier league TV rights. It would give them huge penetration for there TV offerings almost over night.
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  Sports is perhaps the most critical issue in cable pricing. A large percentage of cable subscription costs are due to the exorbitant cost of licensing sports networks like ESPN, who, in turn, pay a fortune to license leagues and teams. Basically, a lot of non-sports fans have to pay a fortune for sports, whether they watch sports or not. Sports fans have to pay more and more for sports, as local teams (and regional sports networks) demand billions for their broadcasting rights. On the whole, live sports is probably the one category keeping cable in business. But it's getting so expensive as to threaten the whole model. Shameless plug, but I wrote about this topic recently for Slate. My prediction is that certain providers (cable or otherwise) will try to unbundle sports from non-sports in order to offer extremely low-priced service to non-sports fans. Meanwhile, cable networks and providers will cater more and more of their business to sports fans. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bet/2014/03/local_sports_without_cable_how_standoffs_between_cable_companies_and_sports.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bet/2014/03/local... Some other good write-ups on this topic: https://medium.com/off-the-field/1d7043ed024b https://medium.com/off-the-field/1d7043ed024b http://priceonomics.com/the-couch-potato-subsidy/ http://priceonomics.com/the-couch-potato-subsidy/
  - valleyer 13y ago
    ESPN costs ~$5/subscriber/mo. per that article, and it's, as you mention, a huge outlier. Cable bundles often cost in the $80 to $100 range. I'm no fan of bundles, but I think the cable companies themselves (and specifically their lack of competition) are bigger factors in their prices than channels' subscriber fees. P.S.: The medium article says, "Hockey, NASCAR, and soccer are the only major sports that ESPN doesn’t own". ESPN doesn't "own" the NFL (most of which is on CBS and Fox) or Major League Baseball (most of which is on regional sports channels, the majority of those in turn owned [I think] by Comcast and Fox). A small point maybe, but it hurts overall credibility.
    - jonnathanson 13y ago
      The Medium article is fairly accurate on the whole, with maybe a few minor inaccuracies here and there. Its word choice in "own" is unfortunate in that circumstance, but I don't believe the author actually intended to suggest that ESPN "owns" the NFL, the MLB, etc. Reading the rest of the article, I get the general impression that he knows what he's talking about. At least on a high level, if not necessarily 100% of the minutiae. In my article (the Slate one), I state that ESPN was an outlier -- but that everyone else sort of recognized as much, then wanted in on the action. Nowadays, RSNs (regional sports networks) have fees as high as, and in some cases higher than, ESPN and its sister networks. "I think the cable companies themselves (and specifically their lack of competition) are bigger factors in their prices than channels' subscriber fees." It's a very significant factor. So is the lack of competition among the networks licensing to the cable companies. So is the lack of competition within the major sports leagues. So is the lack of competition within any given city for any given sports franchise. In general, you've got an agglomeration of oligopolistic markets -- resulting in a sort of "powers-of-ten" [1] increase, at every step of the value chain, in programming costs. The consumer is left footing most of these bills. [1] I use "powers of ten" here in the metaphorical sense of that old science video, and not in the literal sense.
mikeryan 13y ago
People don't want to pay a ton of money to watch 5% of the 500 channels you're forcing them to buy - they want to pay a reasonable price for only the content they care about Considering 85 million households in the US do this exact thing every month I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're incorrect in this assumption. If Apple can provide a better user experience for the same price I'm pretty sure you'll make a case for folks to switch.
Touche 13y ago
I don't understand why getting channels a la carte is "the TV holy grail". Just because you like one program doesn't mean you like the rest of what a channel shows. To me it's the same problem as paying for channels you don't like, just at a different scale. I want to pay for the programs I want. Which you can currently do, sort of. I just want to be able to do it for all programs. And I want discounts for paying in bulk (full season) and for paying in advance.
- bluedevil2k 13y ago
  With Netflix, you're paying for the shows you don't watch. At some level, you're going to pay for things you don't want.
tzs 13y ago
A la carte might not actually save much money. There was quite a bit of discussion about this last year when Senator McCain tried to push for it legislatively. Some articles that discussed this and other issues related to bundling: http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/02/technology/cable-a-la-carte/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/02/technology/cable-a-la-carte/ http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/mccain_s_la_carte_cable_bill_is_bad_deal_for_consumers.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/mcca... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/30/why-a-la-carte-cable-wont-save-you-as-much-as-you-think/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/30/w... http://priceonomics.com/the-couch-potato-subsidy/ http://priceonomics.com/the-couch-potato-subsidy/

ams6110 13y ago

Live sports is another one. If I could buy ESPN, NBC Universal, and the Big Ten Network a-la carte, I wouldn't need any other cable stations. Netflix-style access for sitcoms and movies would be fine for the rest; currency is much less critical for those.

bluedevil2k 13y ago
Along those lines, I found it was far cheaper to go to a sports bar and eat and drink beers every Sunday instead of getting Sunday Ticket.
- skyebook 13y ago
  Hockey fan here. Good luck getting a bar to turn on the game when football is still on or baseball season is underway. Beyond that, some people just really don't like bar environments. (Or show me a sports bar where people are hanging out and watching a game + doing hackathons during the intermissions.. that would be unbelievably cool)
- kodablah 13y ago
  Went on a bit of a tangent here...sorry. I hear this argument frequently. This is not a practical solution for those watching their favorite NHL/NBA teams 82+ games a year or MLB 162+ games a year. IIRC ESPN gets $6+ per subscriber-month and would greatly fear reprisal from cable providers if they offered a way to watch without a subscription. Due to the leagues' stranglehold over dissemination of their live events and major sports channels large budgets to pay them, there really is no end in sight for wannabe cord-cutters that want to watch their teams. There are three outcomes I foresee: 1. the status quo, 2. a company w/ deep pockets (Apple, Google, Netflix, etc) convinces a major sport to take their money, or 3. piracy of live sports streams becomes more reliable and easier to consume. #2 is possible but would still be a big gamble. I fervently believe the rise of bittorrent escalated alternative viewing options for non-live events, so I secretly am hoping for #3. All of the live pirated streams I have seen are horribly unreliable and seem to get shutdown with ease. I'm a software engineer, maybe I should make a live P2P streaming protocol! Can't put what I want on it due to living in the US and fear of prosecution, but maybe just the simplicity will help the industry.
  - selectodude 13y ago
    Can't speak for any other sport, but the pirated stream options for the NHL are absolutely impeccable.
rikf 13y ago
In the UK at least I think its only a matter of time before either google or apple but in a huge bid for the premier league TV rights. It would give them huge penetration for there TV offerings almost over night.
jonnathanson 13y ago
Sports is perhaps the most critical issue in cable pricing. A large percentage of cable subscription costs are due to the exorbitant cost of licensing sports networks like ESPN, who, in turn, pay a fortune to license leagues and teams. Basically, a lot of non-sports fans have to pay a fortune for sports, whether they watch sports or not. Sports fans have to pay more and more for sports, as local teams (and regional sports networks) demand billions for their broadcasting rights. On the whole, live sports is probably the one category keeping cable in business. But it's getting so expensive as to threaten the whole model. Shameless plug, but I wrote about this topic recently for Slate. My prediction is that certain providers (cable or otherwise) will try to unbundle sports from non-sports in order to offer extremely low-priced service to non-sports fans. Meanwhile, cable networks and providers will cater more and more of their business to sports fans. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bet/2014/03/local_sports_without_cable_how_standoffs_between_cable_companies_and_sports.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bet/2014/03/local... Some other good write-ups on this topic: https://medium.com/off-the-field/1d7043ed024b https://medium.com/off-the-field/1d7043ed024b http://priceonomics.com/the-couch-potato-subsidy/ http://priceonomics.com/the-couch-potato-subsidy/
- valleyer 13y ago
  ESPN costs ~$5/subscriber/mo. per that article, and it's, as you mention, a huge outlier. Cable bundles often cost in the $80 to $100 range. I'm no fan of bundles, but I think the cable companies themselves (and specifically their lack of competition) are bigger factors in their prices than channels' subscriber fees. P.S.: The medium article says, "Hockey, NASCAR, and soccer are the only major sports that ESPN doesn’t own". ESPN doesn't "own" the NFL (most of which is on CBS and Fox) or Major League Baseball (most of which is on regional sports channels, the majority of those in turn owned [I think] by Comcast and Fox). A small point maybe, but it hurts overall credibility.
  - jonnathanson 13y ago
    The Medium article is fairly accurate on the whole, with maybe a few minor inaccuracies here and there. Its word choice in "own" is unfortunate in that circumstance, but I don't believe the author actually intended to suggest that ESPN "owns" the NFL, the MLB, etc. Reading the rest of the article, I get the general impression that he knows what he's talking about. At least on a high level, if not necessarily 100% of the minutiae. In my article (the Slate one), I state that ESPN was an outlier -- but that everyone else sort of recognized as much, then wanted in on the action. Nowadays, RSNs (regional sports networks) have fees as high as, and in some cases higher than, ESPN and its sister networks. "I think the cable companies themselves (and specifically their lack of competition) are bigger factors in their prices than channels' subscriber fees." It's a very significant factor. So is the lack of competition among the networks licensing to the cable companies. So is the lack of competition within the major sports leagues. So is the lack of competition within any given city for any given sports franchise. In general, you've got an agglomeration of oligopolistic markets -- resulting in a sort of "powers-of-ten" [1] increase, at every step of the value chain, in programming costs. The consumer is left footing most of these bills. [1] I use "powers of ten" here in the metaphorical sense of that old science video, and not in the literal sense.

mikeryan 13y ago

People don't want to pay a ton of money to watch 5% of the 500 channels you're forcing them to buy - they want to pay a reasonable price for only the content they care about Considering 85 million households in the US do this exact thing every month I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're incorrect in this assumption. If Apple can provide a better user experience for the same price I'm pretty sure you'll make a case for folks to switch.

Touche 13y ago

I don't understand why getting channels a la carte is "the TV holy grail". Just because you like one program doesn't mean you like the rest of what a channel shows. To me it's the same problem as paying for channels you don't like, just at a different scale. I want to pay for the programs I want. Which you can currently do, sort of. I just want to be able to do it for all programs. And I want discounts for paying in bulk (full season) and for paying in advance.

bluedevil2k 13y ago
With Netflix, you're paying for the shows you don't watch. At some level, you're going to pay for things you don't want.

tzs 13y ago

A la carte might not actually save much money. There was quite a bit of discussion about this last year when Senator McCain tried to push for it legislatively. Some articles that discussed this and other issues related to bundling: http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/02/technology/cable-a-la-carte/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/02/technology/cable-a-la-carte/ http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/mccain_s_la_carte_cable_bill_is_bad_deal_for_consumers.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/mcca... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/30/why-a-la-carte-cable-wont-save-you-as-much-as-you-think/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/30/w... http://priceonomics.com/the-couch-potato-subsidy/ http://priceonomics.com/the-couch-potato-subsidy/