An Apple TV subscription plan? The company's Apple TV has done poorly -- would a $30 a month TV subscription model work?
(Jon Vidar/Sipa Press/Newscom)Photos (1 of 1)
Apple’s $30 a month TV subscription service? Not buying it.
Reports of Apple shopping the $30 a month subscription TV service to major networks raise questions – and open a world of possibility.
By Andrew Heining | 11.02.09
OK, it’s a rumor. And it’s based on one report – from a major organization, but citing several anonymous sources.
The prospect of a TV subscription model from Apple has many around the Web pondering what such a move would do to the media landscape.
First speculated on reported by The Wall Street Journal’s Peter Kafka this morning, the service would bring a (presumably unlimited) roster of TV shows to subscribers for $30 a month. And instead of being tied to any current Apple product or an as-yet-unannounced tablet device, the service would run through the company’s 65 million user-strong iTunes software.
Sound fishy? It is.
First of all, there’s content. What’s a content subscription service (cable TV, magazines, or Netflix) without the best content? To be a success, a TV subscription service needs to land the big fish of the industry – the big-three networks, HBO, and the like. No one’s going to pony up for re-runs of Ice Road Truckers.
How, assuming they want to jump aboard, do you convince these industry heavy hitters to risk incurring the wrath of major cable providers by signing up for a service whose whole existence would threaten the stranglehold they have on distribution of said content? Disney’s rumored to be the first to sign up, due to the special place it holds in Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ heart (and pocketbook – he’s the top individual shareholder, because of the sale of Pixar to Disney in 2006) but despite what screaming tweens and their ticket-hungry parents say, you can’t launch a subscription model on Hannah Montana alone.
To be fair, the iTunes store does offer more than 50,000 TV episodes and 7,500 films, but a good number of those are from either backwater cable stations or networks that want you to watch episodes on normal TV – you know, the kind advertisers like and support.
Then there’s the technical side. Most laptops’ screens are 15 inches or smaller. And though Apple just rolled out an iMac desktop with a 27-inch LCD, most folks are still surfing the Web on their desks at something closer to 20 inches. Who wants to watch TV – let alone pay to watch TV – on a small computer screen? Americans like big. Cars, houses, waistlines, TVs.
Either Apple is banking on social change – hey, it worked with the iPod: Jobs at one point said people would never watch videos on such a small screen – or, it’s hoping more people suddenly discover the VGA jack on the back of their new flatscreen (pshaw!). Or, more daringly, it’s planning on giving away a variant of its as-yet woefully received Apple TV device.
Would that work? They could adopt the cell phone model (which is really just the razors and blades model). The pitch could be go something like: “Sign up for two years of on-demand shows from your favorite networks, and we’ll give you this shiny Apple doodad that brings basic Web browsing, a few widgets, and all this great content right to your TV.” It’s a stretch – the current Apple TV packs a pricey hard drive, but a scaled back version could do away with that to save costs – but it’s just enough of a game-changer for Apple to try it.
What’s your take? How will Apple proceed in with its rumored TV subscription service? What would work? Leave a comment or tell us on Twitter – we’re @CSMHorizonsBlog.
<< Twitter readies Lists feature for launch | MainComments
2. Shagghie | 11.02.09
I think it would be interesting to see what cable/internet providers would do, QOS-wise to this service. They could put QOS limitations on bandwidth from itunes servers, for example. It will be ironic, in other words, if cable TV providers, who at some point in their history started offering internet access with the same service, would end up losing their cable tv subscription revenue while charging for Internet access on the same coax lines/service that is putting the proverbial nail in their coffins…
And so the world turns. If there is any one company on earth that can effect that great of a change, it is surely Apple. They could start selling entire big screen HDTV’s with built in iTunes and browsing tomorrow, and nobody would be surprised…
3. John Jones | 11.02.09
For the younger generation, it is not that big a stretch to hook up an internet device to a flat screen tv, whether it be a laptop, apple thingy, whatever the marketing boys want to call it. It is all dependant on the programming choices that become available. The real game changer is watching tv commercial free. I personally do not have cable, download all the network stuff I want to see in high def and maybe will get an OTA high def antenna for local news. I do not miss CNN or Fox as that has just become unbearable to watch, and the constant reruns on tv hold very little interest for me. At one time I had satellite television and ended up watching maybe 7 or 8 channels. Since my finances have changed with the economy, it makes perfect sense for me to cut back on non essential items and to look for other options. Illegal downloading works quite well and so do inexpensive dvd rentals. $30 a month for the same services? Definitely worth considering. Too bad for the big boys. They made money for years by charging too much money in a bloated economy. Let them adjust or go by way of the dinosaur. It really is a matter of time before commercial free tv is the norm. The business model that encourages endless advertising is hideous.
5. driver8 | 11.02.09
I stopped watching TV a few years back.Content is regurgitated dribble. I think the basic concept is there to sell to the more media orientated computer youth than the rest of us.Still sounds like it needs a little more end product with less cash,one already pays for the ISP then $30 a month to watch TV from your computer or what ever Apple is trying to sell. Maybe If the Hardware is free and it is pay as you go up to $30 and not a dollar more not even taxes or surcharges etc.The money is in the service not the device,I say good luck to them and remember to smile it will make your day seem better the more you smile.
6. Mike | 11.02.09
Netflix’s on-demand service is already doing exactly this. Movies and TV shows that can be streamed directly to your PC or TV (through the Microsoft Xbox 360 and Roku Player now, and Playstation3 later this year). Their selection is a mixture of 1000s of older movies, some recent titles, and a large number of TV shows (including some current runs such as the latest season of Heroes and recent series such as The Office).
It is bundled as part of their $8.99 per-month DVD rental service.
If Apple is looking at a $30 price point then they need to be looking at this as a replacement for premium cable TV with compelling content.
7. Ed | 11.03.09
First, I already have a mac mini attached to my HDTV. I watch various streaming TV (Hulu, Netflix, etc.) and some shows via iTunes on my HDTV via my Mini. With an extra dongle it also serves as a DVR for broadcast TV.
I’m also paying on the order of $65 for a “cable” TV package (actually over the phone line) and I feel that this is overpriced considering how little we use it - we probably watch on average 15 hours of video a week, and it’s on the order of 30% DVDs, 30% Broadcast (usually DVRed), 30% streaming internet/iTunes, and 10% Cable. Put another way, I’m paying about $10 per hour for the shows I watch on Cable. This rumored service would be more like $5 an hour. Most of these cable shows are available on iTunes shortly after broadcast for $3 in “HD” or $2 for SD. So, either way, it would be more economical for me to BUY the shows rather than pay a monthly subscription fee.
I’d cancel my current cable subscription in a second, except for the catch: AT&T won’t sell me the internet connection I have without a TV package. I’m paying about $65 for my internet & phone (VOIP) as part of their bundle package, but my old, slower DSL connection & phone service was running about $100 a month. Thus, the extra cost for the TV package really only come to $30 to me. If I could get fast internet and unlimited phone service for $65, I might subscribe to something like this rumored service. From what I’ve read, one can get fast internet at reasonable prices in many European and Asian countries (A quick internet search shows a person living in the UK could get service more than twice as fast as what I have for about 15 pounds or about $25). In the good old USA, the Cable and Telecom companies have lobbied successfully to legally engage in monopolistic practices. So, to get the internet service I want, I’m forced to buy an expensive TV package of dubious value to me and, to add insult to injury, pay more for the internet connection than folks living in other industrialized countries would pay.
8. Jelly | 11.03.09
I’m happy very happy, this is the end of the cable era. I dont have cable and I still rely on ( LoggTV.com ) for good movies and music. Sorry, I wont pay for TV or Downloads. FTA Satellite is a good option too.
9. shirley Boyer | 11.03.09
As far as I am concerned - anything Apple does is great. I love the company, their products and all the wonderful people that bring their ideas and products to all of us. I stopped TV because it is just a waste land. If Apple can cut out the advertizing and trashy programs, I would be happy to buy their TV subscription service.
10. Richard | 11.04.09
Apple has succeeded in many things. Their business strategies are always of the highest standards. Who is to say that they won’t succeed here?They’ll make mony and like the iphone, they’ll make people suscribe.We shouln’t hate. Ithink Apple deserves the thumbs up and they should go ahead with their business.
11. your stupid | 11.04.09
This guy is a complete idiot. He obviously has no idea what kind of products apple has out. I currently have an apple tv and think this would be the greatest thing I could spend $30.00 a month on. You would not have to watch it on your laptop just drop the $150.00 to but an apple tv.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Twitter Trackbacks for Apple’s $30 a month TV supscription service? Not buying it. | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 11.02.09
2. Apple’s $30 a month TV supscription service? Not buying it. (The Christian Science Monitor) at Twitter Blog | 11.02.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. DavidW | 11.02.09
The cable companies aren’t going to drop shows available on other mediums. That would be cutting off their own head. I’m not sure how you or they would figure that dropping HBO because its available elsewhere is going to help their subscriber numbers. If they drop it, the remaining people that aren’t getting it online will certainly have to switch to getting it online, where they’ll discover all the other content that they can get on demand rather than on someone elses schedule.
Besides, pretty much everything I watch is already on iTunes for sale with no commercials, or Hulu for free with 1 15 or 30 second commercial in the slot the networks put 6 to 10 commercials in.
I’m personally very close to stopping my cable TV service anyway since the won’t provide a way for me to access extended basic content using my own media center PC, and since I can get pretty much everything online (legally) already, cable companies are rapidly becoming nothing more than ISPs.
For $30/month, with things like SciFi, and the commercial knowledge based channels (History, Animal Planet, Discovery, ect) without waiting an extra day like I have to do now for online content, then I’d jump ship in a heartbeat.
The fact that television consists of at least 25% commercials, with them running the same commercial multiple times during the same show, sometimes back to back during the same commercial break, its really wasting my time, which is far more valuable than what they have to offer.
In short, the only chance they have is to move away from their current model. Newspapers are already learning this.