Apple TV Rumor-A La Carte Channels

[HewenttoJared]

This would be fantastic.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-57...arte-channels/

"In a note today to investors, Sterne Agee analyst Shaw Wu asserts that Apple's strength lies less in the hardware innovation it might bring to the TV market than in letting customers subscribe to particular channels or shows of their choosing.
Such a model would run counter to traditional TV packages offered by cable providers that sell channels to subscribers in pre-packaged bundles."

[Just the facts]

Interest in Apple's prospective television boomed in October with the release of Walter Isaacson's authorized biography of late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. Isaacson noted Jobs' work on making an easy-to-use TV set that is integrated with the company's various products and services.

"I'd like to create an integrated television set that is completely easy to use," Jobs was quoted as saying in Isaacson's book. "It would be seamlessly synched with all of your devices and with iCloud. It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine. I finally cracked it."

I was at Best Buy last night and Samsung already did that. Samsung phones, tablets, and TVs are all integrated now. Tablets and cell phone function as remote controls for the TV, you can use your tablet as a second monitor, you can use the camera on your cell phone to run skype on the TV, etc...

[HewenttoJared]

Yea by not pay per channel general programming. This is way past IPTV. If true anyways.

[Just the facts]

I'll be honest, I just don't see a la cart TV working. The content providers are usually the ones that make the cable/satellite companies do the bundles. They try to hit a cross segment of demographics so they can sell advertising. And I doubt ESPN will let you just get ESPN without also getting you to buy ESPN2 and if you only want ESPNU you will probably have to pay more for it than someone who buys ESPN and ESPNU.

The providers use the bundling to roll out experimental programming. On DirecTV we get channels added and removed on a regular basis. Sometime the channel draws an audience and it stay. When they don't the content providers tries again with something else. If someone tries to switch to a la cart pricing that whole R&D model goes away. You would be forever stuck with what you like today unless you want to pay for something you don't know if you will like - and that is what a la cart is trying to prevent (paying for stuff you don't like).

[Snowman]

I'll be honest, I just don't see a la cart TV working. The content providers are usually the ones that make the cable/satellite companies do the bundles. They try to hit a cross segment of demographics so they can sell advertising. And I doubt ESPN will let you just get ESPN without also getting you to buy ESPN2 and if you only want ESPNU you will probably have to pay more for it than someone who buys ESPN and ESPNU.

The providers use the bundling to roll out experimental programming. On DirecTV we get channels added and removed on a regular basis. Sometime the channel draws an audience and it stay. When they don't the content providers tries again with something else. If someone tries to switch to a la cart pricing that whole R&D model goes away. You would be forever stuck with what you like today unless you want to pay for something you don't know if you will like - and that is what a la cart is trying to prevent (paying for stuff you don't like).

Even options for choosing packs by ESPN, NBC Universal or whatever media group would be better than the your choice of three tiers of 100, 200 or 250 channels. It would most likely be more expensive per channel but could save overall if you only want a few, so would be another option but by no means kill tiered packaging.

[Just the facts]

Okay, lets say you currently have 200 channels now but you only watch 25 of them. On an a la cart plan you drop 175 of them and keep your 25. How do you ever add the 26th channel since you will never see it? I guess it is possible the provider could give you a 30 day preview but once again that defeats the purpose of a la cart service. And even getting 25 channels at $2 per channel average would be more expensive than most providers 150 channel plans.

The same goes for buying individual series. After you get tired of all the current series out there then what do you do since you won't have access to any new series that come out? How do you know what you will like in the future?

This article sums it up and the author doesn't even realize it.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/we-...cable-tv/17160

Recently while looking through the existing cable lineup for Comcast, I realized that a lot of non-premium channels were sidelined into a “preferred” lineup and not available on standard digital cable. Channels like BBC America, Current TV and Turner Classic Movies are placed into a separate lineup.

I did discover that Comcast had changed their package lineup, so for the same price I was paying I was able to upgrade my account to include the preferred lineup as well. But it brings up an interesting point; I didn’t really want all of those channels, I just wanted one of them. And herein lies the crux of the problem.

If you look at your existing cable lineup, you will probably see dozens–and in some cases, hundreds–of channels that you not only don’t watch, but would prefer if they weren’t there at all. Some people can configure their cable boxes or DVRs to skip over the channels you don’t watch. But you’re still paying for those cable channels, and that is one of the reasons cable prices are so high.

It’s really time for a change in the cable industry. Cable companies are perfectly capable of providing on-demand service to their customers. So why can’t they provide on-demand cable lineups as well? We need an a la carte system.

...

I’m just saying that it’s time for a change in the way cable TV is presented to us, and it would benefit every subscriber to have more choices in their cable access.

Final note: I did call Comcast today and discovered that due to their new pricing plans I was paying way more than I should have been. Not only that, as a long time customer they gave me a new rate and and additional channel lineup that I didn’t have access to before–and it contained a few channels I was definitely interested in.

If this viewer got his wish and only paid for individual channels he would have never found the new channels he was "definitely interested in".

[HewenttoJared]

Yea but I watch like 6 channels. It won't work for everyone, but for many this combined with some kind of iptv will be could be awesome.

[chuck johnson]

If this viewer got his wish and only paid for individual channels he would have never found the new channels he was "definitely interested in".

You could probably discover new channels through advertising in its various forms. If someone has a new cooking or travel show, they'll just advertise them on relevant media. This is all assuming that shows will remain on traditional media.

I watch most of my tv online for free with commercials. Sports are the main thing I use the TV for and a few other random things. Most of the networks have their shows available online in some capacity. Some free, some on itunes.

If your "cable" and "internet" come on the exact same "pipe", why do you need to pay for both if you can watch what you want via internet? Products like Apple TV will integrate the two.

[Just the facts]

When you pay for internet you are paying for access to billions of web sites, but you only use 1,000 of them. Should internet providers do a la cart pricing?

Personally, I like the tier packages, but maybe that is because I can afford all the tiers so I have no limits on what I can watch. There is probably a big difference in the viewer also. We have 4 people in our home all with different shows we like, and not to mention family that comes over and have shows they watch. Out of 200 channels I'll bet we watch at least part of one show on 100 of them in any given month. Of course we have our 20 channels that we watch most often.

I guess if you guys think there is demand and it is something you might benefit from then maybe someone will try it. Out of curosity, how much would you be willing to pay per channel on an a la cart menu? If you like old shows Windows Media Center has a lot of stuff for free.

[HewenttoJared]

The ISP doesn't pay for the sites. TV providers do.

[Just the facts]

The ISP doesn't pay for the sites. TV providers do.

In some cases, but in other cases the content provider pays to be on the channel lineup. DirecTV is not paying to include QVC and Home Shopping in the line up. The content providers are the ones that usually require the tier pricing. They can't sell advertising if it isn't on a provider list - just ask The Longhorn Network.

[Bunty]

Once again, local terrestrial stations should have the right to offer popular cable channels on their sub channels like ESPN and FOX News.

[chuck johnson]

When you pay for internet you are paying for access to billions of web sites, but you only use 1,000 of them. Should internet providers do a la cart pricing?

Personally, I like the tier packages, but maybe that is because I can afford all the tiers so I have no limits on what I can watch. There is probably a big difference in the viewer also. We have 4 people in our home all with different shows we like, and not to mention family that comes over and have shows they watch. Out of 200 channels I'll bet we watch at least part of one show on 100 of them in any given month. Of course we have our 20 channels that we watch most often.

I guess if you guys think there is demand and it is something you might benefit from then maybe someone will try it. Out of curosity, how much would you be willing to pay per channel on an a la cart menu? If you like old shows Windows Media Center has a lot of stuff for free.

With the exception of sports channels, I would probably not pay anything for a channel. I would rather pay for shows individually, many of which are already free online via Hulu. The History Channel used to show history and with the exception of a couple shows, I would rather not have the channel. The Food network only has a couple worthwhile shows as well. If I could can get those particular shows online for free or at a reasonable cost I would dispense with the rest.

Some corporate entities will obviously not want to break up and will be their own package. ABC/ESPN/Disney is one in particular and they are already making inroads into online programming. I watch a lot of college for free on Espn3. When Espn is not broadcasting sports, it's just repetitive chatter. There's just too much filler and too many re-runs showing across cable.

I went without TV for 5 years and am just now watching again so my habits may be a bit skewed.

[Just the facts]

Have you ever see the series "Backburner" on the Appliance Channel?

[chuck johnson]

Have you ever see the series "Backburner" on the Appliance Channel?

Does that come on after "Spin Cycles"?

[HewenttoJared]

In some cases, but in other cases the content provider pays to be on the channel lineup. DirecTV is not paying to include QVC and Home Shopping in the line up. The content providers are the ones that usually require the tier pricing. They can't sell advertising if it isn't on a provider list - just ask The Longhorn Network.

Good point. I didn't think about those channels because I don't watch them. It's pretty much NASA, C-SPAN and discovery channels(almost all of them) with Netflix substitutes for me.

[Jon27]

If this has been answered, I apologize. I personally think combining the internet and TV is a fantastic idea! Think of all the competition this could bring which would ultimately mean more customer choices with lower prices. Does the internet have enough capacity to handle all of this traffic? I know there was concern at one time on how much Netflix used.

[Snowman]

If this has been answered, I apologize. I personally think combining the internet and TV is a fantastic idea! Think of all the competition this could bring which would ultimately mean more customer choices with lower prices. Does the internet have enough capacity to handle all of this traffic? I know there was concern at one time on how much Netflix used.

The issue is really some of the ISP's wanting another revenue stream by forcing netflix (and other content providers) to pay them, but the model for payment is typically your costumers pay for what they access and you then either pay for access to other networks or be big enough to get peer access free, which most urban & suburban consumers are getting their connection from are. The fee they wanted was like several dollars payed to them per penny of equipment use it cost them, which should be more than covered by what the customer is being charged.

The Internet backbone can handle it in spades, and the ISPs have been upgrading the connections to local nodes which allows ATT/Version to reach speeds cable use be limited at and cable is being upgraded and should can eventually reach near fiber optic speeds, the last mile of connection to every consumers house is the expensive part that most companies are balking at upgrading.

Fiber optic last mile connections can crazy amounts of channels at a time (note, no company sells anything like the peak throughput it is capable of, if it is even available near you), cable last mile connections can already handle at least a dozen simultaneous streams with most recently deployed technology (theoretically could do up to at least as many cable channels you have now simultaneously with some optimization and allow more since only channels you are watching/taping currently would need to be sent, again no one sells the max speed the current technology is capable of though), DSL last mile connections are near their max theoretical throughput now unless AT&T and Verizon come up with another communications breakthrough (they are increasingly going to be the value play and AT&T hates this but does not want to pay to upgrade it's lines to be competitive, Verizon selective has upgraded some of it's lines where it had a real competitor).

[metro]

I was at Best Buy last night and Samsung already did that. Samsung phones, tablets, and TVs are all integrated now. Tablets and cell phone function as remote controls for the TV, you can use your tablet as a second monitor, you can use the camera on your cell phone to run skype on the TV, etc...

You can do that with iOS (aka Apple) products too, that has nothing to do with TV subscription models changing like the article talks about.

[Just the facts]

Does that come on after "Spin Cycles"?

No - the network doesn't even exist and I made up the show but someday when the network and show does exist how are the a la cart viewers going to know about it?

[Snowman]

No - the network doesn't even exist and I made up the show but someday when the network and show does exist how are the a la cart viewers going to know about it?

Advertising is probably still going to exist in the future along with word of mouth and TV critics. How many cable channels are only/mostly repackaging of old content, as more of that becomes available on demand they need to update their model.

[chuck johnson]

No - the network doesn't even exist and I made up the show but someday when the network and show does exist how are the a la cart viewers going to know about it?

I made that show up too.

My guess is that they would advertise their show on HGTV, home magazines, and various blogs websites.

[Just the facts]

I made that show up too.

My guess is that they would advertise their show on HGTV, home magazines, and various blogs websites.

Maybe. I guess if people want it (a la cart tv) in enough numbers someone will provide it. I do see a new marketing blitz aimed at getting the a la cart viewers to buy more channels. Just when you get hooked on "Daytona Nights" they will switch it to one of their less purchased networks thus making everyone buy that network as well. I can see the same thing happening with ESPN. If you want to watch OU you will have to buy ESPN5 but if you want to watch OSU you will have to buy ESPN8. The providers will create a million channels and move the shows between them.

[Snowman]

Maybe. I guess if people want it (a la cart tv) in enough numbers someone will provide it. I do see a new marketing blitz aimed at getting the a la cart viewers to buy more channels. Just when you get hooked on "Daytona Nights" they will switch it to one of their less purchased networks thus making everyone buy that network as well. I can see the same thing happening with ESPN. If you want to watch OU you will have to buy ESPN5 but if you want to watch OSU you will have to buy ESPN8. The providers will create a million channels and move the shows between them.

ESPN already is trending to a regional model, so it would probably be more of an ESPN Oklahoma for what they present of OU, OSU, other schools, the Thunder, some local news and other events.

[Just the facts]

ESPN already is trending to a regional model, so it would probably be more of an ESPN Oklahoma for what they present of OU, OSU, the Thunder, some local news and other events.

Fox Sports is aready regional. They include your local region in your standard tier package but if you want all the other channels you can buy a single Fox Sports package. I have not noticed ESPN going to a regional model. I could see the Discovery Channel going to their own internal tier system where Ice Road Truckers, Deadliest Catch, Gold Rush, and Myth Busters would all be on 4 different channels.