[deadrock]

'Anchored by' the same old lies and lying.

[Celtic Conservative]

Swordmaker, is that you?

CC

[TheZMan]

Ripe for disruption, sure. But they start off wrong by bundling channels into the service.

And for that reason, I won’t be using them, either.

[InterceptPoint]

I think we have all seen this coming for a long time. Personally I'm tired of waiting. But ...

There is no way that the "Providers" like CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX , ESPN, TNN etc. are going to sign exclusive agreements with Apple. They are in the drivers seat here and it is the cable companies, DirecTV and Dish who need to be worried.

In any case, this move is long overdue and Apple has the financial clout to make it happen.

But I'm looking forward to watching a stream from Fox News being available on my Roku for $2.99/month. Looking, waiting, looking, waiting ...

[donozark]

Personally in favor of anything that lowers the obscene cable rates!

[Star Traveler]

Don’t forget to ping Swordmaker ... :-) ...

[Yaelle]

Sports, sports, it’s all about the ability to watch all our teams....

[PistolPaknMama]

I don’t want bundled anything. I want to say, “give me this channel, this one, this one. How much does that cost?”

[mmichaels1970]

The as-yet-unannounced service would cost $30 to $40 per month, according to The Journal.

That's still too high if they're talking about "slimmed down". I can slim my TV down to $0 if I want the major networks and a few other channels, simply by buying an antenna.

If they truly want to "kill cable", they will need to offer a comparable number of channels to cable/satellite. Or give you a base package for dirt cheap and allow you to add channels a la carte at a buck a piece. The day that happens, we will see the death of cable.

With all of the legal negotiations involved between broadcast companies and providers, I just don't see that happening any time soon.

Like many things with Apple, I think these initial reports about them killing cable are a bit over-hyped.

[null and void]

Comcast or Apple?

No brainer.

[Cry if I Wanna]

Anything would be better than Hulu. But it needs to be free.

[molson209]

Will it cost 100 times more than Cable ?

[TomGuy]

a slimmed-down bundle

There was another recent thread about another company doing similar. Trouble is the same as with satellite and cable: bundles/tiers.

If/When a service offers complete ala carte, where subscribers can select ONLY those channels they want, such a service might be successful.

==

One problem with streaming/internet is finding a workable, profitable method. Networks need to make money to produce new materials, series, movies, etc. Netflix and Amazon have become profitable enough that they are developing a limited number of their own programs that run 6 to 13 episodes per year. CBS and HBO are experimenting with internet subscriptions that bypass cable/satellite providers. Hulu and Crackle offer movies/series but they embed commercials [I have yet to watch one of their programs that did not jam in one of the commercial breaks, thus having to restart and having to watch several commercials again to reach the point of the previous jam.]

[catnipman]

“about 25 channels, anchored by broadcasters such as ABC, CBS, and Fox .... service would cost $30 to $40 per month”

Yeah, right. That’s some MIGHTY expensive lies! Especially when you can get all the lies you want on broadcast TV and the Internet for free.

[truth_seeker]

I watch an occasional sports event on television, but otherwise 99% of my time is Netflix, Amazon, online steaming.

We keep the cable until m wife and daughter get comfortable with streaming.

An option in principle like this article describes for Apple is just the ticket.

[vpintheak]

Why is Apple, the most profitable business ever, not evil? Democrats? Leftists?

[kevkrom]

I suppose it’s time to revisit this again...

If Apple is able to bring their overseas profits back to the US without excessive taxes (or, if they dodge that by using those assets as collateral to borrow against, which they’ve one at least once before), they would easily have enough liquid cash to buy a greater than 50% share of Disney and possibly enough to buy out Disney completely.

That would give them a lot of assets (Disney owns ABC, ESPN, full or partial ownership of several other channels, Touchstone Pictures, music and print labels, etc., in addition to all of Disney’s IP and parks), the most important (for this discussion) of which would be the ABC/ESPN/et. al. channels. Apple could then make this happen simply by starting with those channels and inviting everyone else along for the ride.

[bikerman]

I get CBS NBC FOX news now with just an antenna called free tv. and about 20 other stations with movies and MeTv

[1Old Pro]

What if you cannot get cable or FIOS, how can you stream without killing your wireless data plan?

[AustinBill]

The issue with cable TV is twofold:

1. The linear programming model where programming is organized into “channels” that show specific content at predetermined times. This model is dead and cannot be resurrected. Consumers want content that is accessed and consumed on demand whenever and however they want, not according to someone else’s idea of when and where it should be viewed.

2. The business model (broadcast advertizing) that has evolved over the past 90 years to support linear programming to a mass audience. This model is also dead. Subscriptions are the only viable model going forward, and that has profound effect on who will survive and thrive in this new world.

The latter is the bigger issue for current providers. I doubt many will make the transition to the subscription-based demand-driven alternative.