[opendtv] Re: Apple TV: Eddy Cue on streaming video and TV channels - Nov. 6, 2015

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 08:24:28 -0500

On Nov 11, 2015, at 7:55 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Craig Birkmaier wrote:

"While Moonves declined to provide the total number of subscribers, he
revealed that All Access posted its largest subscriber growth yet in
September and recently debuted on Apple TV."

That's the closest you'll come to an answer. Sure sounds like subscriptions
are increasing, and not languishing. You have nothing but vapor to contradict
this.

Yup. Nobody's talk'n because they have nothing helpful to say. Could be they
added 100,000 subscribers or just 1,000. When something is successful and you
want to make it grow, you talk...

Not at all. You do not need to subscribe to either. It's NOT your old MVPD
addiction, Craig. You can easily opt out and use other sources of TV content.
There is no single gatekeeper here.

Correct, it is a partial replacement for MVPD service. An improved way to
access library content, as opposed to making appointments to watch reruns.

There is no single gatekeeper for MVPD bundles either. And now there are some
"less expensive" and "less filling" options like Sling TV. What is still in
tact however, is the desire and ability of the content oligopoly to require
subscription to a MVPD bundle to access some of their most valuable content.

As you clearly demonstrate, there is no requirement to subscribe to a MVPD
bundle. But more than 80 million U.S. homes choose to do so.

It's patently obvious what Moonves is doing. He is going it alone, direct to
consumer, and doing so in a way that competes against others who have done
likewise.

Really?

He is not going direct to consumer with The CBS network, as All Access only
offers affiliates in selected markets to offer portions of the CBS live linear
programming. What he is doing is "competing" with his industry friends,
offering yet another bundle of CBS library content, including many shows he is
also licensing to his friends. And like Netflix, he is adding some exclusive
content to attract subscribers to his bundle. This is a niche business model;
any profits add the the bottom line, yet the service does not threaten the
other business models that CBS uses to reach viewers.

Whether he'll continue to use Netflix for older CBS content, or not, is tbd.

Of course he will. From the Hollywood Reporter article:

Moonves told analysts, stressing that CBS will remain both a content supplier
of second-window fare for Netflix as well as a competitor.

That is the Business that CBS Television Distribution is in. Most library
content is syndicated to as many distributors as possible. Only a handful of
popular shows have enough cache' to support exclusive syndication deals like
the shows HBO licensed to Amazon.

But other than that, Moonves is looking to the future. He already has brand
new, even "live" CBS content on All Access, as well as library content. Now
he is adding *more* brand new content, known to be very popular, and doing so
exclusively on his new "go it alone" platform.

From the article:

The series will premiere in January 2017 on the network with subsequent
episodes produced exclusively for its digital subscription VOD platform, CBS
All Access.

Apparently the Hollywood Reporter has a different view of CBS All Access than
yours. They are calling it a "digital subscription VOD platform." Not once but
throughout this article. This is nothing more than opening up another store to
attract a few cord cutters and folks who want to binge on old CBS shows. Adding
some exclusive content adds to the cache' and minimizes the risk.

And that risk is considerable. Star Trek is an ancient franchise in "TV years."
Several of the old cast members are dead. This new series borrows on the
concept, but will need to develop a new cast of characters. If it succeeds
great, if it bombs, that's the risk of being in the content business.

Did you notice the part about international syndication covering half the costs
already? Going after "Trekies" who will pay to watch the new series makes good
sense - it should easily cover the other half of the cost of the show. Putting
it on CBS network would be far more risky, as it would need to attract a large
generic audience...no slam dunk!

If we was not interested in this go it alone platform, competing directly
against other congloms instead of colluding with them, you can be sure,
Craig, he wouldn't be putting Star Trek on All Access.

Just the opposite is true. He is still colluding with the other congloms with
the CBS network and other CBS networks that are only sold via the MVPD bundles.
Nothing has changed.

All Access is a niche VOD play, not the main event for CBS, and demonstrates
how it is possible for many competing services to attract subscribers to SVOD
bundles.

And these new bundles are ADDITIVE to the linear TV bundles that are
slimming down to get rid of the bloat and rerun channels that the SVOD
bundles are replacing.

Get real. That's marketing tripe.

That's reality Bert.

CBS All Access is a bundle that doesn't need dual revenue streams.

All Access is a bundle WITH dual revenue streams Bert.

You pay a much larger subscriber fee than the buck a month it costs to watch
CBS via a MVPD, and the shows are filled with ads.

If Moonves decides to offer the ad free version, there will be ONE larger
revenue stream to make up for the lost ad revenues.

**Although**, if CBS wants, they can create their own two streams in CBS All
Access, all without having to depend on collusion with other congloms. Ain't
that amazing?

See above.

Plus, people who shave or cut the cord, Craig, are replacing their legacy
bundles, not adding to them. Moonves figured this out too.

You do not know what they are doing Bert. Some are subscribing to Sling or Play
Station Vue. Some are borrowing authentication credentials. Some are too busy
to watch TV. Some cut the cord because they can't find a job and cannot afford
it.

And we still don't have a viable Virtual MVPD service.

When Moonves starts telling us how many cord cutters he has signed up I'll pay
attention to your analysis.

Perhaps Apple is building a platform where friends can sell
their content in more that one way.

Apple is trying to become the new (now quite unnecessary) middleman, where
people like Moonves seem okay with going it alone. Apple is trying to compete
against the likes of Sling TV. Because it's Apple, and because you also like
the walled garden model, you're okay with this.

Apple is trying to develop a new hybrid TV viewing experience that pulls
together content sales, rentals, subscriptions and FOTI content, into a unified
platform with an improved user experience. Clearly they plan to compete with
Sling, Play Station Vue, and anyone else who is able to license the content
that is now sold through MVPD bundles.

I have no problem with bundles if they contain stuff I want and are priced
fairly. Netflix keeps getting $8.62 each month from me because it offers good
value. The Cox MVPD bundle is NOT a good value, but no viable alternative
exists today. Hopefully Apple will provide my family with a better alternative.

Is this another example of something you don't understand, so you think I've
changed anything? Or are you still puzzled by the fact that super cheap ATSC
receivers were not designed to be upgradable, even though the ATSC standards
do support upgradeability? One point I'm positive you forgot, Craig. When I
dedicated a PC to my TV, the not very old but older PC we had at the time
could not manage H.264. So in spite of your continued mantra about
upgradeability, H.264 required a new PC. Imagine that.

What I understand is that you claimed you started streaming shows from CBS in
2005, then admitted that you did not dedicate a PC to this task until 2010,
which is when OTT streaming actually started to take off.

The admission that your old PC could not handle h.264 is very revealing. Funny
how our Macs had no problem with it way back in 2005...

You are really slow at picking up these new models, Craig. Dell, HP, Lenovo,
etc., do not need to collude with content owners.

Because they are not in the business of delivering TV content Bert. Yes, you
can use a browser on a PC to stream TV content. Big Deal!

Dell is now a client/server PC company. They are not trying to sell PCs to hook
up to a TV. They tried that and there was no there...there.

Companies that want to provide hardware to bring content to a TV are developing
far less expensive options with far better human interfaces for the task. And
yes, they must "collude" with the content owners, because a huge portion of the
content people watch on their TVs IS NOT available through a web browser.

And content owners, like HBO, like ShowTime, like CBS, or content middlemen
like Sling TV, **DO** provide content to these boxes. Now do you get it? Even
Discovery, even HGTV, WIHOUT COLLUDING with the PC makers! Imagine that,
Craig. The mountain is moving to Mohammed, Craig.

Of course they do. That's their business. Every company will be free to create
Apps to access their content. Most already do as part of the TV Everywhere
initiative. And most that are currently in a MVPD bundle have no intention of
making their content available outside a bundle. You can call in collusion, or
business as usual, but it's really just evolution enabled by new technology.

And what content are they using to greenmail the MVPDs? Mostly
sports,

Not necessarily. Cable addicts bitch loudly about missing lots of their
favorite network content, not just sports. It's all high value content.

Thank You.

High value content you choose not to pay for.

Now look who's changing the subject. We were talking about the limited-use
boxes like AppleTV. So Craig, have you connected your Mac to the TV, or are
you flummoxed about how to use the mouse remotely?

You were promoting the advantages of using a PC with a TV to view the content
available in a web browser. I was merely pointing out that I can, and have done
this, with a Mac. When I started downloading movies from iTunes in 2005, I
hooked my laptop to the TV via a DVI cable to watch them. I've never bothered
with the limited stuff available with a browser, as I'm already getting this
stuff via my cable STB. And now that I have an Apple TV, I do use AirPlay to
watch stuff I find on my iPad on the big screen.

I consider this to be very positive evolution. Not some kind of collusion.


Regards
Craig

----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2015