Will Apple iTV finally break the cable TV business model?

[Deberg_1990]

Lets hope....Ala Carte Tv!!



http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansol...s-vs-channels/


The rumored future Apple TV could disrupt the current television paradigm by putting on demand and web content side-by-side with live television, all in a unified, innovative interface. Yet the path is clear to only two of those three elements.

The current version of the Apple TV already easily streams on demand content from iTunes and the internet. And the simplified user interface could be Siri-powered voice activation. But what about the live television component?

Right now, live programming from cable or satellite channels are the dominant medium for our big screen televisions. But that incumbent method is also extremely costly and inefficient. On top of internet costs, cable customers often pay upwards of $75 or $100 in order to watch more than a few basic channels.

Presumably, Apple wants to disrupt this market the same way the iPod and iTunes made it easier for consumers to buy music, and the way the iPhone is slowly moving the cellular industry to data plans over voice plans (see: iMessage, Facetime). Applying that same logic to television would probably cause Apple to pursue something similar to their magazine and newspaper “Newsstand” app in iOS, an approach laid out well by John Gruber.

But who’s going to control the app experience? This battle is already playing out in the App Store. Most cable providers have apps that allow their subscribers to stream dozens of channels live to their iPad. For example, here are apps for Time Warner Cable, Optimum, and DirecTV. All of these apps provide identical experiences for every channel — a basic live feed.

Some cable channels and content producers have gone their own way. ESPN has its own app that includes special functions for tracking your home team and favorite sport. CNN’s app displays a live feed as well as other news coverage. Major League Baseball provides a great experience for live streaming and tracking games on its app. Bloomberg News recently debuted their own live streaming app that comes with additional content.

As you can see, these single-channel apps are more fully featured than their cable company counterparts. In general, they provide a better experience, as well as a model for breaking up the cable pricing monopoly. If every channel had its own app, users could pay a la carte for content, a few dollars at a time, rather than shelling big bucks for hundreds of stations that they never watch.

However, cable providers won’t go down without a fight. Cablevision and Time Warner each ended up in lawsuits with Viacom over live content on mobile devices. They might consent to separate channel apps as long as each still requires an overall subscription. The ESPN app follows this model.

But would Apple go along in their new device? That would certainly put a crimp in their potential plans to revolutionize television. And if Apple provides incentives for channels to go it alone, the fight could be massive.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Thaks for posting.
There are some interesting discussions on that forum. Can't believe the Director of Digital Communications from Time Warner Cable dropped in to make a comment.

If Bob Dole wasn't in the middle of negotiating the contract for both our new residence hall's CATV, he could probably get a current sheet from the local provider. Doubt he's going to want to show his cards at the moment, though.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

If Bob Dole wasn't in the middle of negotiating the contract for both our new residence hall's CATV, he could probably get a current sheet from the local provider. Doubt he's going to want to show his cards at the moment, though.

Heh. No doubt.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Not saying anything of the sort. There is no basis for comparison as the ala carte system is nothing more than conjecture at this point with no concrete price points for comparison.

I was merely pointing out that often times items purchased ala carte have a higher per-unit price than they did when bundled. It is atypical of merchants to leave money on the table; a fact that certainly holds true when the name "Apple" is involved.

It is absolutely true that the crappy channels don't cost as much as the ones we actually want to watch. Therefore, as you were implying, no you can not just assume that paying for 5 instead of 80 channels will only cost you 5/80 of the price you are used to paying. It will most certainly not work that way.

Those crappy channels are included because cable/sat companies make money off them, and the companies that produce those channels make money off them. That's why they are bundled.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

Here's a March 2010 list of wholesale subscriber fees. http://consumerist.com/2010/03/list-...-you-hate.html

Thanks for the link, it's worth posting:

[loochy]

I'd still save a good bit of coin though....

There aren't many channels on there that I actually watch...even if they charged double for those stations, I'd be good

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by listopencil

It would end the nickel-and-dime bullshit that cable and satellite shoves at you. I recently glanced at the options in my area. They actually have music channels (not video, just music) and shopping networks slapped into every package. Yeah, I'm sure everyone wants to pay money to watch commercials and listen to the radio. If Apple offers true a la carte programming, than that will be the first Apple product I heartily endorse an consume. Of course it's Apple. So it might just be nothing new priced as if it were a tech breakthrough.

I would guess majority of the people would pay more ala carte, then the current method. Lots of channels would cease to exist and others would be way expensive.

I don't see much savings, except for the peoople that just want one or two channels besides basic.