Reports regarding an Apple web-based TV service began to circulate in February of this year, with more details emerging last month. A new report from The Street now claims that Apple and Disney are currently in talks over what specific Disney-owned channels will be available on the service. It’s worth noting that Disney CEO Bob Iger is also on Apple’s Board.
The report claims that Apple does not want to offer all of Disney’s channels on its service in an effort to keep the subscription price down for customers. Disney, however, is pushing Apple to offer the majority of its channels. For reference, Disney is the owner of channels such as ESPN, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney X D, ESPN, ESPN2, and ABC Family.
Apple reportedly views some Disney-owned channels, such as ABC Family, as “essential for the young families” who may subscribe to the service. Disney is insisting that Apple pay full freight for all of its channels, which in turn would make the service more expensive for the user. Apple is reportedly aiming to offer its web TV service at $30-$40 a month.
Apple currently offers Disney Channel and Disney Channel X D apps on the Apple TV, although they both require cable provider authentication.
A report last month claimed that Apple’s web TV service would feature headlining support from ABC, CBS, and Fox, with negotiations between NBC and Apple at a standstill. A separate report stated that Apple is also in talks with Discovery and Viacom regarding its TV service. The service is expected to be announced in June (which is also when the Beats overhaul will debut) and fully launch in September of this year.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Not surprised. Repeat after me. A la carte that we all want will not save us money.
It will for those of us that only watch a handful of channels. I haven’t had cable in over 10 years. I’ll gladly pay $5 per channel for AMC, and a few other channels instead of $60 – 100+ a month for a ton of crap I don’t watch. Honestly, I would just want Sky Sports so I can watch F1 and MotoGP.
Nope, you don’t represent everyone. I don’t watch a lot of TV and the majority of my content consumption is satisfied by my on-demand subscriptions which in total I pay about $20/month for (I don’t count Amazon Prime because I’ve been subscribing to Prime for the shipping since before there was content streaming and continue to subscribe to Prime primarily for the shipping).
I can think of about 3 TV channels I’d care to pay for. In order for an a la carte model to not save me money compared to what I was paying for cable service to get a comparable amount of content that I now get by streaming, they’d have to cost at least roughly $25 per channel.
If you can tell me every channel will cost at least that much then I will agree with you regarding myself.
I don’t know if America has a regulatory board like Canada. We have the CRTC which can enforce pricing maximums. They recently said that a basic cable package cannot cost more than $25/month. They also regulate fees, and quality minimums – such as including news channels in their basic package. So, here in Canada when a la carte takes off, they could limit basic channels to $1/month, mid-premiums to $3-5 like AMC and $7-10 for movie channels like HBO.
No to mention, I’m sure a la carte will have some channels offered in bundles, like the app store does. One app for a $1.29 or a 5 app bundle for $3.99. After all, like to store points out – lots of channels are often owned by one company.
Chose A or B: Some or all. Well I chose C: None. Let subscribers pick and chose what channels they want. I don’t care for any of those. I rather pay $20 for 1 channel I watch than $90 for 400 channels I do not.
No doubt they want megabucks for ESPN and want to include crazy channels like EPSN History Southeast FL #27
I call BS. Why would Disney want Apple to have to take more channels than they ask Sling to take?