Apple in Talks with Comcast About Streaming-TV Service
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
Wow, I can't believe how quickly and with such little fuss Net Neutrality was killed. Shouldn't it be highly controversial for Apple to be exploiting this situation?
I guess this was inevitable. If a business model is viable, someone is going to try and use it to their advantage. Whether it be Beats Music and AT&T Wireless' "toll-free data", or, well, Apple and Comcast.
With this precedent set, Youtube, Netflix, and Amazon Prime could all end up paying a Comcast Tax to remain competitive with Apple. If that happens, all of a sudden there will be way fewer video or other high bandwidth startups, unless they're lucky enough to get sufficient VC to pay off the cable companies. No new Dropboxes or Vimeos.
Also, I think this situation is fairly different than, say, Motorola manufacturing set-top boxes for cable companies.
The Apple boxes will be sold in retail stores directly to the consumer, and are an attempt by Apple to create a Netflix/Roku killer. Apple paying a Comcast tax to gain competitive advantage seems to be a pretty clear violation of what Net Neutrality was all about.
I think there are a few things -- like video -- that are sensitive to latency and need consistent bandwidth. Most things aren't like that. Dropbox specifically was built to sync over slower connections.
I'm not sure how I feel about what Apple's doing here, but I know I feel differently than you do about the implications.
In fact, it probably helps prove it by demonstrating the lengths U.S. startups have to go to to work around the bandwidth congestion created by the cable monopolies.
It also shows that the end of Net Neutrality will hurt innovation. Online file storage didn't really take off until Dropbox came up with a way to work around shitty bandwidth (as well as device interoperability). You claim that only a handful of video startups would be affected, but I bet the real number is probably in the hundreds or thousands, and many of those haven't yet had the opportunity to build a userbase big enough to pay a bandwidth tax. There could be countless other applications in VR, gaming, video, and who knows what other sectors, that are held back because of the bandwidth situation in the U.S, and an end to Net Neutrality would almost certainly make it worse.
Before too long, we'll be seeing paid packages along the likes of; Priority Youtube Speed Pack $5.95 per month, Unlimited Google Searches $1.95 per month amongst others. I think this is the beginning of the end of net neutrality people buckle up, it's going to be a rough ride.
I could only imagine these international deals would only happen quicker now that Apple has a much larger reach than before.
Beyond that, some people just really don't like bar environments. (Or show me a sports bar where people are hanging out and watching a game + doing hackathons during the intermissions.. that would be unbelievably cool)
I hear this argument frequently. This is not a practical solution for those watching their favorite NHL/NBA teams 82+ games a year or MLB 162+ games a year. IIRC ESPN gets $6+ per subscriber-month and would greatly fear reprisal from cable providers if they offered a way to watch without a subscription.
Due to the leagues' stranglehold over dissemination of their live events and major sports channels large budgets to pay them, there really is no end in sight for wannabe cord-cutters that want to watch their teams. There are three outcomes I foresee: 1. the status quo, 2. a company w/ deep pockets (Apple, Google, Netflix, etc) convinces a major sport to take their money, or 3. piracy of live sports streams becomes more reliable and easier to consume. #2 is possible but would still be a big gamble. I fervently believe the rise of bittorrent escalated alternative viewing options for non-live events, so I secretly am hoping for #3.
All of the live pirated streams I have seen are horribly unreliable and seem to get shutdown with ease. I'm a software engineer, maybe I should make a live P2P streaming protocol! Can't put what I want on it due to living in the US and fear of prosecution, but maybe just the simplicity will help the industry.
Basically, a lot of non-sports fans have to pay a fortune for sports, whether they watch sports or not. Sports fans have to pay more and more for sports, as local teams (and regional sports networks) demand billions for their broadcasting rights. On the whole, live sports is probably the one category keeping cable in business. But it's getting so expensive as to threaten the whole model.
Shameless plug, but I wrote about this topic recently for Slate. My prediction is that certain providers (cable or otherwise) will try to unbundle sports from non-sports in order to offer extremely low-priced service to non-sports fans. Meanwhile, cable networks and providers will cater more and more of their business to sports fans.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bet/2014/03/local...
Some other good write-ups on this topic:
P.S.: The medium article says, "Hockey, NASCAR, and soccer are the only major sports that ESPN doesn’t own". ESPN doesn't "own" the NFL (most of which is on CBS and Fox) or Major League Baseball (most of which is on regional sports channels, the majority of those in turn owned [I think] by Comcast and Fox). A small point maybe, but it hurts overall credibility.
In my article (the Slate one), I state that ESPN was an outlier -- but that everyone else sort of recognized as much, then wanted in on the action. Nowadays, RSNs (regional sports networks) have fees as high as, and in some cases higher than, ESPN and its sister networks.
"I think the cable companies themselves (and specifically their lack of competition) are bigger factors in their prices than channels' subscriber fees."
It's a very significant factor. So is the lack of competition among the networks licensing to the cable companies. So is the lack of competition within the major sports leagues. So is the lack of competition within any given city for any given sports franchise. In general, you've got an agglomeration of oligopolistic markets -- resulting in a sort of "powers-of-ten" [1] increase, at every step of the value chain, in programming costs. The consumer is left footing most of these bills.
[1] I use "powers of ten" here in the metaphorical sense of that old science video, and not in the literal sense.
Considering 85 million households in the US do this exact thing every month I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're incorrect in this assumption. If Apple can provide a better user experience for the same price I'm pretty sure you'll make a case for folks to switch.
I want to pay for the programs I want. Which you can currently do, sort of. I just want to be able to do it for all programs. And I want discounts for paying in bulk (full season) and for paying in advance.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/02/technology/cable-a-la-carte/
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/mcca...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/30/w...
Of note: here is a similar article not requiring the WSJ sign in: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-talking-to-comcast-for-...
Second note: you can load the google cached version of the story for free: just search the story title.
Why must I as a non US based customer of theirs help fund the poor state of competition in the US broadband market ???.