Would you pay $30 a month to watch TV via iTunes?
That’s the pitch Apple has been making to TV networks in recent weeks. The company is trying to round up support for a monthly subscription service that would deliver TV programs via its multimedia software, multiple sources tell me.
Apple (AAPL) isn’t tying the proposed service to a specific piece of hardware, like its underwhelming Apple TV box, or its long-rumored tablet/slate device. Instead, it is presenting the offer as an extension of its iTunes software, which already has a huge installed base: A year ago, Apple said it had 65 million iTunes customer accounts.
The big snag here (besides not so little things like, “hey, there aren’t any new episodes of The Big Bang Theory!”) is, as Kafka notes, the potential threat to cable networks carriage fees from cable and satellite companies. For now, carriage fees are, if not the proverbial golden goose, at least a few golden eggs. Either way, I can’t see cable or broadcast networks (who are now trying to get their fare share of carriage fees) doing anything to compromise carriage fees any time soon.
On the surface, $30 a month sounds not unreasonable. The unreasonable part comes in the form of iTunes. If I were to pay $30 a month, I’d expect to be able to use my own choice of software to download and view it, not be tied to Apple’s crappy software.
Of course, the chances of Apple (or broadcasters) allowing that to happen are about the same as the Earth suddenly flying through the sun.
I would as long as the network content is there.
not as long as Hulu is around.
If you want to view an iTunes video on your computer, you easily can whatever software you wish. It’s only if you want to watch it on an external player that it becomes more difficult.
This is certainly cheaper than cable, but I’m not sure if it’s cheap enough that it would be worth it to me, considering how few cable shows I actually watch that show up on iTunes in a timely fashion. Showtime and HBO shows only seem to show up when the DVD is released.
No.
One can safely assume that Apple’s products and services are all grossly overpriced. However, the company has a huge number of deep-pocketed cult followers, whose only goal in life is to keep the evil enterprise viable.
I wouldn’t since I have cable and the capability to record. It would be easier for those who don’t watch traditional TV but download shows. Would that be unlimited downloads for $30 a month? Would it be time specific? As in you have three days to watch a download? Would it be times watched specific? As in watch it once through and it would go away and you can’t watch it again? System requirements?
There seem to be a lot more questions than just cable involvement if you are going to commit 30 bucks.
No.
There are situations where one is not near a TV nor PC w/internet and would like entertainment. Personally, I like catching up on TV shows at the gym, waiting at the airport, or on long flights. Apple has touched on a niche that may appeal to some.
If you could ditch your cable and not have to deal with ITunes software which I am not a big fan of I would consider it.
One big consideration would be bandwidth and that fact that the High Speed providers in Canada are starting to talk about putting caps on bandwidth usage each month and then charging over those caps.
Take me who has a News Network running about 12 hours a day on TV before prime time, what is that going to do to my monthly quota?
Then there is the question of local programming which I guess you would have get over the air.
The quality of the TV stuff I currently stream off of the internet is not that great so this would have to be improved.
Still it has some potential merits that could be considered.
No way. I can watch everything I like on regular TV!
@Julia
You still need iTunes to download the videos, and manage them, and for me that’s a deal breaker.
$30 a month? With all those Apple & iBloat restrictions?
I’ll stick to my free, HD torrents…thanks.
Apple is a corporation. Comcast is evil. You have other choices if you don’t want to buy from Apple. You do NOT have a choice if you want (or need because of geography) cable. People bitch about Apple – but the cable companies have monopolies and are abusive; with the lack of service (lack? I mean “no” service), and high no-option pricing.
Come on – the smallest package is $65 just to get the first 50 channels – and over half of those are public access, or foreign language channels. There are no “premium” channels – unless you count CNN (they list it as a premium). So if Apple offers anything close (I bet it will offer more of what I want to see) – why wouldn’t I save the money?
I see someone said “torrents.” It would be interesting to see how many people on this site know what torrents and p2p are – and if they use it ….
Kay, on this site, the use, or at least knowledge, of torrents or other forms of downloading is almost certainly much higher than average.
I wouldn’t. $30 is no cheaper than cable TV, and may actually be very expensive if all you get is broadcast TV.
iTune, the software, is a piece of #$%#@. iTune is Apple’s testament that they don’t value cloud computing. Aside from that, I doubt that Apple will get much cooperation from the broadcast networks, the subscription TV companies. And Apple is heavily tied to Disney, which owns ABC.
iTunes is really the tail for the dog, iPhone. The wedge product that can get the mobile internet TV viewing into the big time is sports programs. That’s one type of program that needs to be viewed live. Since Apple is very chummy with Disney, they should work on getting the ESPN shows onto the iPhone.
One of the key reasons for Comcast wanting to buy NBC Universal is NBC’s terrific sports division. That’s a segment of NBC that is regularly fattened with staff and equipments from their Olympics broadcasting. Comcast should work on getting the NBC sports program for viewing by cellphones. How many guys would kill for that.
I agree with some of the others here. The issue isn’t a $30 monthly fee, it’s iTunes itself. The software is a clunky, invasive mess.
No since I record shows I’m dedicated to via WIN-TV to my computer and then burn my own DVDs and archive them for my own use (cutting out all commercials). I then play them on the TV set using a DVD Player. If I want to watch the episode again I just play the DVD. If I don’t make my own, then I either buy the DVDs when they are released or rent them from Netflix. I seriously doubt that all of the TV shows that I may watch (not necessarily archive) are ever going to be available on iTunes. I currently am not a member of iTunes. I have a PC not a Mac and I have no intentions of getting a Mac. I also don’t care about watching any sports programs.
No
No, $30 is too high, especially if they are not streaming the content, making me download it and the increased cost of HD capacity to do so.
When I went away from cable and satellite TV to IP based, I initially used ITunes, and now have over 3TB of music/video, with the associated costs of Hard drive, redundancy and backups to keep the content I bought.
As thing progressed with streaming technology however I no longer need to and my cost is roughly $8.00/mo, and more and more I am seeing streaming HD.
I think within 10 years all content will be available online streamed and there will be no need for local storage of music and video. Now to get Hulu, megavideo, or heck even apple to start building vast data centers to bring us what we want, when we want, at a cheap cost, which sound probably sit around 10/Month with advertisements, as these company’s do not have the running costs associated with cable or satellite.
I’d happily pay $30 a month if I could get the network shows, USA, and SyFy at my convenience but then ONLY if the HD content is available AND I can watch on the TV or computer. I’d love to catch up on the first season of a new show with my sister but it’s ONLY available on abc.com (or, perhaps, torrents). My TiVo will do me no good if I can’t connect it (or at least my TV) into the new service.
Nope. Unless of course you take away my TV or my DVR…(or Hulu)…
Absolutely
I will never use Brighthouse (the only cable option where I live, as the their sales personal called me stupid to my face with witnesses when challenging 16 months of inaccurate billing), and my landlord would rather I not put up a dish (and they never charge me late fees on rent, so I respect their wishes).
So right now my only real options for quality content is paid online services. If I look at the shows I download (legally or illegally if they are available) I would easily spend more then 30 a month on DVD sets, or season sets online.
Oh and the qulaity of Hulu isn’t very good, and I hate commercials (why I love DVD’s or purchased on line material), and this way I still contribute to the studios and don’t steal their products.
Yes. As long as there were no commercials, even for other shows. Show would have to be available to WATCH (not just download) same evening as network broadcast.
For those complaining about iTunes, you’re probably running it on a PC I take it? On a Mac, iTunes is very responsive… Anyway, I would pay $30 to Apple to ditch cable if the service is pretty good.
Exactly what — besides the adjectives thrown around here nilly willy — is the problem with iTunes software?
No. I’m not adverse to a subscription service for online content, but why would I pay $30 when I can get most of the same content free through the network sites or for a lower price through Netflix streaming?
@DS9Sisko: Nothing other than iTunes does perform a little slower under Windows. Some people just have an irrational hatred of product done by Apple. Some people hate that it has become a repository of more media types other than music (they tend to use the word “bloated” to describe it).
Apple has gotten enough of my money already. I’m fairly done with them, as I don’t enjoy companies that “sell” you something and then try to track and control what you do with that product…that you paid for and were supposed to “own”.
Lol. You don’t really own a home when you “buy” it either, if you catch my drift…
Well for that same argument you really don’t own any tape, cd, dvd, bluray, ect you have purchased either. The copyright holder for media has always maintain legal rights after you have “purchased” it. Why you would think the digital medium would be any different is frankly baffling.
Holly
You don’t get them for free. Most every single service (at least the ones I have seen) have commercials, which are about to ballon on you.
As for Streaming, well I have netflix and the quality is pretty shockingly bad.
I would assume that Apple wouldn’t add commercials (though it is possible), but currently Apple’s quality (and of course that could change for this “deal”) is higher then any thing like Hulu or netflix or the network’s sites that I have visited.
I love the basic idea (though almost no details of what they are proposing are out) and I would feel the same way if it was someone other then apple.
Now for many they use their computer moniter for online viewing, but my computer (for the last year) has been tied directly to my 42 inch HD tv, and video from itunes looks pretty damn good. Not as good as an HD broadcast, or Bluray, but better then my DVD copies of same material. Hulu and Netflix don’t.
Of course before one could really judge we would need details. Is it just a handful of programs (huge deal breaker) is the quality the same as current or a downgrade (another possible deal breaker), do we get saddled with commercials (if so the quality better be excellent or thats a deal breaker), ect.
As for Apple, I doubt the studios would go for it. As they were happy as can be when apple started their tv business, but after realizing the market were pissed that they weren’t the ones doing it. So I doubt they will let Apple take the lead.
I wouldn’t pay $30 for the service. I’m not surprised that most people wouldn’t pay for the service. I’m curious about what you would pay. What’s your number?
I’m just not willing to give up cable. Most of the time that I’m watching TV, unless it’s primetime and I’m watching a specific program, it’s on for background noise and I like glancing up at it. I could get another monitor I guess, but that ends up being more than $30. Even spread out over a year, the additional cost would make it more expensive for me to make the switch.
Making the switch also wouldn’t work in my social life. I’m watching the world series now, pro football, college football, superbowl when it comes on, tennis, and a number of other things I like to invite friends over to watch with me. It would be pretty difficult to host anything without cable.
I wouldn’t make the switch completely because I still believe there’s value added from cable for me. However, if the price was lower, I would pay a little more to have TV on my laptop. I don’t have a TV in my room, but I use Hulu, download torrents, etc. I do whatever I have to do to make sure I see all the episodes from shows that I follow. Most of the time I’m able to watch shows when they air, but damnit I have the worst kind of roommates. The kind who watch Gossip Girl while Big Bang Theory is on! I’d surely pay $10 a month to be able to watch Big Bang Theory when it airs along with a number of other shows from the comfort of my bed. Sometimes, I just feel like watching TV, but I don’t want to do it on a couch. Even though you can queue with Hulu, I don’t always feel like watching everything in my queue. I’d just like some prescheduled programming sometimes.
So I’d say my number is between $5 and $10. My cable is about $40 a month after tax, so I wouldn’t add on $30 to it.
I also have to add that I wouldn’t do it if they had any 2 minute latisse commercials. I’m so sick of it, I want to write Hulu about it but I feel it would be in vein.
Once they get a sense that a few people are willing to pay something at all, there will be no end to it. You start paying $5, they’ll soon limit content at that price, introduce a “extra” service for $10, premium at “20″, “platinum” at $30. After that, ‘pay per view’. At first commercial-free, then slowly introducing some ads, then more ads. You can opt out, of course, but you’re now addicted and have no other options because everybody who provided free content has jumped on the bandwagon. So you can’t live without the service? The $5 service level soon becomes $40 and the other service levels become ever higher. Deja vu? I don’t see a point in getting them started.
Absolutely. And I would pay more than that. The international restrictions have to be removed, we have high speed internet and no borders anymore. I’m still not “100%” after the cancellation of TSCC, and international iTunes package would save my series.
mark wood, if I buy music from anyplace other than itunes, such as Amazon or Best Buy or the neighborhood recird store, I DO own it. Those companies don’t track my usage and send me ominous messages when I burn more than three copies of a CD because my CD burner isn’t working properly and I keep trying to get just ONE good copy.
itunes also makes it EXTREMELY difficult to transfer music purchased from them, off of an ipod purchased from them, onto a new computer when my old computer with the broken CD burner goes belly up.
I also don’t appreciate the way they “update” their terms of service approximately once every month or two…presumably hoping that customers will accept over and over without reading them. Apple seems to get shadier and more Big Brother-esque every day.
I’m price sensitive. I wouldn’t become hooked and start paying more than $5 or $10. Yes, they would probably attempt to introduce other services, but if people are willing to pay for it why shouldn’t they? They are running a business. I would hate to see the price increase, but I think they would only be able to increase it to a certain level before it stops working for them. I don’t think they’d be able to sustain charging anywhere in the $40 range and I don’t think we’d lose free content completely. Everyone won’t jump the bandwagon.