Apple looks to launch TV subscriptions by Christmas

New York Post:

Apple is pitching the idea of offering channels as apps for its devices, including its Apple TV set-top box. It’s unclear whether it would group the apps together and charge a fee — similar to a cable-TV subscription — or offer the channels on an a la carte basis.

I would definitely buy these channel apps.



  • http://twitter.com/hypothesard Hypothesard

    There are Two Problems for me at least : 1 – I don’t want Channel Apps, I wan Shows apps (think of the Podcast section in Apple TV) 2 – If Apple Provide Channel Apps, Those will most certainly retain the 30% Ads interruption per 1h of show-slot… And who can still suffer ads? … not me*

    Ads are mostly invasive (Forks in my eyes and ears) time wasters (more than 18 minute of ads per Hour !!!) and worse of It an Insult to most people intelligence (If you need a drawing you’re not included in *most) …

    • lucascott

      No what you want are cheaper season passes. Pay only for the shows you want and no ads. 

      • http://twitter.com/hypothesard Hypothesard

        Of course this is what I’d love :P

        What I’d wish for would be a mix of Netflix* Pricing with Podcast Freshness…

        If I remember correctly Netflix = no ads AND $8/mo but with outdated shows…

        I’d go as far as $30/mo for all actual show I can eat…

        with over 60 shows followed per year…

  • kirkmc

    I doubt this would work with commercials. There’s no upside to Apple providing it like that. Apple would get their cut from the subscription fees.

  • lucascott

    I’m a tad dismayed that anyone is really paying attention to this. It’s the New York Post, their track record with such rumors, especially this far out, is basically negative nil. 

    And do they really want us to believe that Apple is so ignorant of copyright etc that they would go ahead with this whole service without the approval of the media groups (who own the copyright and could shut it down before it starts with a major law suit). No they are not ignorant and they are not Google and Amazon. 

  • http://twitter.com/11thIndian Marcus Moore

    The comments here and that I’ve read elsewhere get to the heart of the problem, that there is no ONE solution that everyone will like.  I ultimate see 3 possible tiers of TV:

    1. STATUS QUO: “Buffet” style television, you pay a lump sum and get a lot of content so you don’t have to choose.  If you watch A LOT of TV, I’m not sure the internet is gong to provide you a better solution in the near term.  Stick with Cable or Satellite.

    2. CHANNEL SUBSCRIPTIONS: a la carte live TV channels.  Only what you want.  If you watch a lot of HBO, then it’s probably cheaper for you to just subscribe- but there may be ads!

    3. SHOW SUBSCRIPTIONS: Apple’s current iTunes methodology.  If you only watch a couple shows a year, this is gong to work out way cheaper for you in the long run.

    Apple doesn’t need to satisfy the needs of all 3 of these types of customers, but they are in a position to meet 2 of them.

    If Apple can provide you access to a la carte shows OR channels (or a mixture of both), then I think they’re going to nab a lot of people who are sick of paying a huge monthly fee for a lot of content they never watch, just so they can see the few shows they do.

  • RudyGr

    Regarding the troubles dealing with the cable companies, Apple should just buy controlling interest in one of them (e.g., Comcast). 

    • http://twitter.com/hypothesard Hypothesard

      Problem is : Apple’s way of thinking isn’t Americano-centric… if they do a product, that product must work the same way in the US AND in Europe And in Asia, even in Canada, mind you…

      And buying Control Interest in One US Cable company wouldn’t help Apple Achieve that…