Apple pitching $30 a month TV service for iTunes to the networks?
By Paul Miller 
posted Nov 2nd 2009 1:32PM
posted Nov 2nd 2009 1:32PM
According to Peter Kafka over at AllThingsD, he's had "multiple sources" tell him that Apple is shopping around a subscription service to TV networks that would give iTunes users a catch-all subscription for $30 a month. As far as he's heard, nobody's jumped on board just yet, and of course networks have to work out their typical fears of such a service cutting into ratings and biting into cable revenue. However, at least one unnamed executive briefed on the plan says "I think they might get it right this time," and with Disney's cozy relationship with Apple there's reason believe they'd be the first to sign up. Unfortunately, for people scrounging for a new evidence of an Apple tablet or something useful for their oft-dormant Apple TV to do, there's no word on what role devices have to play in this deal, but we have to believe that Apple would be working to push the content to the rest of its iTunes-based ecosystem, whatever that might encompass if and when the service launches early next year as Apple has proposed.
$30 a month? -__-
for tv shows that you can keep.
You ever heard of HDTV torrents?
Ever heard of illegal?
Sure, that about equals my cable bill and my netflix subscription.
If they let me playback 1080/720p and give a full back catalog, then I will 100% stop torrenting and pay a monthly fee indefinitely for VOD. All the while I will applaud Apple for finally shifting the pay for TV medium to full on instant digital.
I pay more than $30 a month for my cable TV service. I probably wouldn't get this service, since I can't tolerate Apple's software design, but the price isn't off base. The caveat there is that live sports have to be included, because it won't be able to replace a cable subscription without that.
You ever heard of I pay over $150+ a month for Internet and cable so I'm going to do whatever I want.
@kyle:
"for tv shows that you can keep."
It'd be heavily DRM-ed, bro. You can only keep them as long as you're within the iTunes ecosystem, presumably.
"Ever heard of illegal?"
Ever heard of don't get caught? People traffic torrents more than prostitution. TPB is still sitting right where it used to be, and with Mininova in tow.
So while it is morally wrong, It's extremely hard to get caught.
That's $30 a month with NO commercials. Pretty freakin sweet.
What about Apple opening up iTunes and allowing advertising on it? Then we wouldnt have to pay $30/month per network.
At $30 a month PER NETWORK that will get expensive really fast, how many networks does it take to replicate a typical cable service?
$30/month is less than half of what I pay for cable (Comcast). The real question on my mind is what would you get for that $30/month. Apple's current selection of shows is hardly universal. If they could get a lineup of programming that truly rivals cable programming though, this could be a definite winner.
download Hulu Desktop. done and done.
nobody will pay $30 per network. hulu is free and offers far more content than any single network subscription would provide. what i was kind of hoping for was a system where you pay like $30 and you can choose up to five networks. and beyond that you can pay extra for each channel/network you want. totally configurable tv service. i'm actually not sure why the networks don't just provide this type of service from their own websites, since they already have a lot of shows there for free anyway. i mean streaming video is not so high-tech that you need someone else to provide the infrastructure.
This is the future. I think the commercials would have to be included though to make the $30 price point feasible.
According to the article this is to include broadcast shows? I'll keep my antenna and OTA tuner/HTPC DVR thank you very much.
this is the end. say hello to metered bandwidth. comcast will find a way to punish us for leaving cable tv.
HD Dual Tuner Card = $100
Decent HTPC Build = $300
Monthly cost to record everything that is OTA = $0.
You get your content in HD, DRM free, can output onto any platform or device.
@bjsguess
Which is great for those who live in an area that the signal comes in clear (problem with digital is it flat out stops playing when the signal isn't clear) and the know how to install the card. It's admittedly not a hard thing to do. However, even in the heart of a big city, the big networks don't always give me a great signal, and I know plenty of people who don't live in big cities that wouldn't be able to make due with that.
Now if it was 14.99!
and have it included music, it would be revolutionary. Call the the iPass but then everybody would bitch when Microsoft copied it.... oh wait...
... i still wouldn't bite
Price point would have to be twice as much as anyone else's subscription service, be tied into Apple TV, a niche player in a niche market and then you'd have a heavily DRM'd, limited content, limited resolution offering worthy of an Apple move. There is a large enough base for them to make a ton of money.
Meanwhile, apple users will go through a "conversion" process, rapidly seeing the light of subscription service, instead of their current whinging, just because it's not an apple sponsored option.
Right, because you know Apples content always costs more then everyone else. Like their song pricing $9.99 an album (usually) $9.99-15.99 a movie, 99 cents on average for a song. Wait, maybe that's pretty much what everyone else charges content wise.
Let's see ... .79 on up at Amazon for DRM free music. Subscription music to go ... not just for the computer, but for your mp3 devices ... $15/mo. On most of the subscription music, do you have a choice of players to download on? Yes. Netflix ... with physical media and/or unlimited streaming content beginning at $9 per month. Then there's that inexpensive Apple TV ... uh huh. Yup. Sounds about right.
Okay, first, iTunes prices go as low as $.69 cents a track. Second, the DRM free point is moot, as iTunes music has been DRM free for almost a year now. Besides, t's the record companies that set pricing in the iTunes store (and the Amazon store), not Apple. And you are more then welcome to put any of that music on any device you want.
Next, comparing a streaming rental/subscription service to a purchasing service like you have with iTunes and Netflix (or the Zune Pass, as I think you were implying by the $15 a month thing) is like comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended). In one case, you're paying to borrow or view a copy. When you're purchasing a movie or TV show through iTunes or Amazon Unbox, you own the media. Yes, you are locked in to devices that support the DRM, but again, that's a studio thing. Unless the studios are willing to realize that most people will legitimately purchase movies if they are made available without DRM, digital movies are going to be locked. That's how it worked with music.
Perhaps more importantly then the own/rent model argument, is the matter of release dates. I can get my TV shows the day they air from iTunes. If I want to watch the same episodes on Netflix, I need to wait till the whole series has already aired and the season box set is released on DVD. Then I have to hope that 1) I reserved it soon enough that I'm towards the top of their list/queue of people who reserved it 2) I'm the only person who watches the show so nobody else requested it, or 3) that it's one of the handful of recent shows they offer in the instant streaming category. Same goes for movies. iTunes gets them (most often) day and date with the big box retailers. Netflix may get them the same month for instant streaming, or I get to play the waiting game with ordering. Now, I'm a big proponent of Netflix. I think it's great for series that I hear about mid-season and don't really want to play the catch up game with, or movies that I'm uncertain about buying. It's a great, cheap way to screen lots of content for a low price, but for shows I regularly follow, I don't want to wait till the whole seasons aired to see it. I can avoid spoilers for 24 hours. I don't feeling like doing so for 9 months.
You can argue that Apple's pricing is to high, but you can't do so in comparing it to similar services.
Sorry, I meant to say "the day after they air" not "the day they air". Also, I left out an "o" on that first two in the last sentence. I'm sure there are other mistakes, but those stood out to me as glaring when I went to make sure it posted in the right place.
Chris Dunning: Apple's *music* has been DRM-free for some time. Not so their movie rental service (which is how they and Sony differentiate between renting and buying).
Hmm. I didn't think I implied anything differently then that. If so, I didn't mean to. I pointed out that the iTunes music is DRM free, but the movies aren't. Sounds similar to what your saying. Am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say?
@ Chris Dunning: well, you're right about comparing apples to oranges. We're both at a disadvantage here, because you're talking about something that doesn't exist yet and I'm talking about something that doesn't (as of now) include some of the theoretical possibilities of a theoretical Apple offering. I do bring up the subscription model because that was the whole point of this post- "... Apple is shopping around a subscription service to TV networks that would give iTunes users a catch-all subscription for $30 a month." It goes on to say "nobody's jumped on board just yet," which is true. It's why I can't argue and say Netflix or Rhapsody or the Zune Marketplace will offer a combined, just in time music + movies, streaming phenomenon. Nobody is offering it, nobody has it. It's all conjecture without any substantiation. I'll feel free to speculate and say the infrastructure costs for a company which already offers subscription music will be less than one which has never run such a service. Again, conjecture. As you clearly point out, release dates matter, but in what arena? If it's PPV, you're damn right I want them today. If it's not, I have a little more patience. Regardless ... what's the total selection?
As far as costs go ... from iTunes top 5 singles today: they're all $1.29. On Amazon, here's the breakdown:
Fireflies: .99 and the album is $5
Replay: .99
Party in the USA: .99
I listen to a lot of music. A hell of a lot of music. And at least half of it I've never heard before, which makes subscription based music work for me. If I really want to keep it ... I'll pay per track prices. I'd love to see streaming HD with a comprehensive catalog. I just think Apple will try to keep it in it's own, exclusive hardware/software environment- which is perfectly understandable. But the consumer pays a premium for it, simply because it's from Apple, just like it pays a premium for music.
Empire State of Mind: .99
3: $1.29
This might make the AppleTV less of a "Hobby". I doubt I would sign up for this, personally, but it could evolve into an on demand service that could replace Cable altogether for people (they would have to somehow include On Demand Live Sports for me to sign on, though)
you can watch live sports games online for free. i think boxee on aTV would take care of that.
You can't watch most live sports online for free. ESPN360 is restricted for a lot of cable broadband users, because the cable companies know that the minute they let live sports through the broadband connection, everyone will cancel their TV subscriptions.
If there's somewhere else I can watch live sports online for free, please let me know... :)
@ ryne: I take it you don't watch much in the way of sports. You can't watch much for free. With something like this you'd have to sign up for the MLB package (except you'd get blackouts for games in your own region since they are already on TV), something for NBA, and something for the NFL (maybe local feeds are available online). I don't see what you get for free on Boxee, which I have on my HTPC.
MLB is like $150/season (YES offers Yankee games online to specific cable companies like Cablevision and Time Warner for a fee), Setanta Sports (soccer and rugby) is $150/yr, NFL online from directv is about $450/season (NBC streams Sunday Night Football for free), and you have ESPN360 if your internet provider offers it. That would be pretty pricey if you ask me to watch streaming sports online.
Well it depends on if you're talking legally or not. I've heard that justin.tv streams a lot of games. Most that I'm interested in come in over the air just fine.
@CtrlBurn I watched last Monday's Live ESPN football game at www.channelsurfing.net/. It was maybe a couple seconds behind. Check it out :)
@Matt
I have tried to watch soccer games on justin.tv because I don't get goltv and even HQ feeds are unwatchable unless you keep it at the standard size and on a PC monitor and not your TV.
wait? why would I do this when I have the networks and Hulu doing this paid with advertisements? You know, like how TV works? I don't mind Ad, unlike some people I understand that it allows my content to be "free" Hell sometimes I even buy worth-wild products that support the shows that I enjoy. Isn't that some sort of economic system there?
and before Someone give the "well you can download and keep them" bit;
1. I don't need to watch the same episode over and over (too much to see in life to get caught up on singularities)
2. I would like to have TV on the go, with out data network enable, but i would be just as happy to have a DLed TV show with embedded "unskippable" commercials, in order to keep it free.
Sure, that sounds all fine and dandy, EXCEPT that that is NOT how cable TV currently works. Right now, you pay $100+/month, and EVERYTHING (except HBO, etc.) has commercials. On demand content is never immediately available, either.
If they come out with a $30/month HD service which includes live sports, I will be all over it. ALL over it.
This has the potential to kill cable TV as we know it. RIP, you bastards.
I don't know were you live, but i pay 35-40 a month for premium cable, with free VOD, free 1080i HD, and all new york sports live. and then only 35 more for consistent 10-20Mbit high speed Internets.
I don't really mind commercials, give me a break to grab another beer/go pee
ummm i kinda just assumed. it makes a lot of sense really. but a guy can wish right?
Hulu is going paid next year. Why does everyone keep referring to hulu as a viable free alternative? OK so it is...for the next few months. Then what?
Nah, hulu execs said they weren't going to now.
I'd probably pay even more if it included unlimited movies too....that said, $30 seems a bit high for something I can mostly get via my DVR.
These damn companies must think we all have expendable cash. They are going to convert "Free" into "Nickel and Dime"
While expendable might be nice....its far from the truth.
Max I would pay is $15.....so sorry.... no vote here.
There's always hulu for folks like us... :)
anyone have the details of hulu's pay system? this may not be all that bad...on the other hand, torrents.
nope, not going to a pay system.
http://www.macworld.com/article/143606/2009/11/hulu_nopay.html?lsrc=rss_main