As a household with an Apple TV and that also recently cut cable to save money each month, we're really intrigued with all this talk about a monthly subscription service that would deliver TV programs via iTunes...
Peter Kafka of MediaMemo and All Things Digital reports Apple has been courting TV networks in recent weeks to break the cable service paradigm and shift some of their resources to where many viewers are now watching content: on their computers. It is unclear whether the proposed subscription service Apple is pitching is an a la carte plan or prepackaged; it's quite clear more customers would want to pick and choose their subscription lineup, but we're uncertain if broadcasters would bend to this system.
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, the company is presenting the offer as an extension of its iTunes software and store, which already has 100 million customers.
A so-called “over the top” service could theoretically rival the ones most consumers already buy from cable TV operators – if Apple is able to get enough buy-in from broadcast and cable TV programmers.
That’s a big if: Apple has told industry executives it wants to launch the service early next year, but I have yet to hear of a single programmer that has made a firm commitment to the company, which has tasked iTunes boss Eddy Cue with promoting the idea.
Personally, a $30/monthly plan sounds like a fair price if viewers were afforded greater control of content compared to what cable/DSS providers offer, with additional fees for premium channels or packages. Streaming video to our television from our computer isn't much of a worry, but common sense dictates any future of iTunes would offer streaming video to an external source in the same manner iTunes works with external audio speakers. Even then, will people shift from a passive technology like standard cable television to something more (inter)active as an iTunes-based system? We can only say we're ready here to join that next step when the networks stop holding hands with cable providers...
Shoe Storage Solutions: Under $100
Marisa and Peter's Playfully Eclectic Home
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Z2 iPod Dock and Wi...
10 Low-Budget Pantry Items Everyone Should Have
Summer Recipe: Gluten-Free & Vegan Strawberry Shortcake
I am really not clear on how this would work. Would it essentially work as an "all-you-can-eat" iTunes pass that deletes the programs once you view them (like the iTunes movie rentals) so as not to conflict with the a la carte sales business model?
I still think the best direction would be for iTunes to offer free, sponsored downloads of shows. Ads could be inserted into the pre-existing commercial breaks and the commercials could be rotated and refreshed every time you connect to iTunes. Just add code that disables fast forward during commercial breaks and you have a great model that allows Apple to generate an ongoing stream of revenue and provides programming for free. If you wanted to avoid the ads, you could simply download the $1.99 version of the show. Everyone is happy.
If I was Apple, my pitch to the networks would simply be this:
"My first offer is to split the revenue 50/50. If you want to bet against me and turn down this offer, then the revenue share will be 80/20 when I cram it down your throat in 6-12 months from now. Do you really want to bet against Apple? If we don't do this together now, Google will do it and their rev share will be 100/0. Your choice. If you don't believe me, ask the CEO of TeleNav."
The beauty of this is that you only pay for what you want. With cable you pay for a package of channels, many of which you may never watch. However, a flat fee that allows me to download just the shows I want would be great. Especially if that $30 is the maximum, all-you-can-eat price as implied here. I'd be more than willing to spend, say $10/mo for the 4 shows that I can't get over the air now that I enjoy watching.
That's why I don't pay for cable anymore. It's pointless to pay $80 or so a month when I only use a quarter of the 'package'. I would much rather pay $30-40 for a dozen or so channels I choose.
Cheers,
M
With the downside of this being, Itunes, and $30 a month I don't see any reason why I'd want it over Hulu, torrents, and ota tv.
Stuff can come and go from Hulu. Just because something is there today doesn't mean it'll be there tomorrow. If Apple's deal is, say, $30 for 30 hours of whatever you want, and you get to keep it, plus maybe basic cable throws in some of their current shows for free (stuff like HGTV) I could see where a lot of folks might go for that.
I'm already spending $12 a month for Mad Men via iTunes, which is a steal compared to the $40 a month or whatever basic cable would cost. But $30 for Mad Men plus a whole bunch of other stuff on-demand, that could work around my schedule . . . I'd certainly consider another $18 a month for access to 30 hours of pretty much anything, anytime.
I could not agree more with the idea of al a carte. i am so tired of having $80/mo being my only real options just to watch the 6 or so channels i actually watch. and then even on those channels i only watch a few shows. i would love for apple to offer a service where you essentially subscribe to the shows (as opposed to entire channels) you watch and they queue up on your computer for you to watch when you like. i would also then love to be able to send those shows wirelessly throughout my house. do it, do it...
ps- comcast is the worst company on the planet.
I love the "a la carte" concept... I have specific shows on specific channels that I watch, yet I pay for hundreds that I don't need... Simply because there isn't that option to select all of my favorite networks/shows. We don't live on the tv, but like to keep up with a handful of shows that you can't get for free on the internets.
I've given up cable a few times over the past few years, but somehow, when I forget how much it screws you over, I always go crawling back... It's a never ending cycle.
this would be perfect... I was paying 80 bucks a month to watch 3 channels (i couldn't get the shows i wanted without going to the top tier) and the service was just awful. One day i just said screw it, started looking for shows i could download in hd and the rest (by rest i mean my 80 dollar cable bill) is history.
Not having to watch 40 minutes of ads for every 10 minutes of tv makes tv a much more enjoyable experience. i no longer zone out on tv. if i want to see something that somebody is talking about i just download it, check it out, and download more if i like it. If the networks offered me an option to pay a reasonable price to watch the shows i want to watch on my own schedule i would pay for it in a minute.
Tv is simpler now.
I hope Apple succeeds. I am tired of cable and there are no other viable options right now. Yeah, there's hulu and all the other nonsense, but it doesn't fulfill my needs. Netflix is great, but they just don't have current television shows online. Something's got to give.
Comcast doesn't deserve anyone's money for the service they give. Their packaging is absolutely atrocious. If anyone offered a la carte services, it would be a step in the right direction.
The only reason I am tied to cable is sports. When I can watch grand slam tennis, the Olympics, X-Games, etc. on the internet, it will be "bye-bye cable" forever. Love Hulu, etc. The Apple deal sounds so-so.