Because your equation is supposed to compare cable providers' value vs what the consumer would pay if Apple stepped in and killed the bundle. Netflix and Hulu are third party services that are not offered by cable providers. If you're gonna factor them in on the Apple side of the equation, you factor them in on the cable side of the equation too and they cancel out.
It's all related though. If cable un-bundles somewhat or goes totally a la carte or channels start selling direct to the public you don't think consumers will inevitably look at the new price structure and compare it to subscription video services that already exist such as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon? I mean, if HBOGo becomes a subscription service charging $20/mo of course people will go, "WTF, Hulu+ and Netflix are only $8 a month!" Not to mention the people that will say, "Why do I have to pay for all of HBOGo when all I want to watch is Game of Thrones?"
How = route the data through the net instead of through a cable box or antenna. The when and why are contingent upon the TV business model changing. And a few OTA TV stations are already self-distributing over the internet. Check out CBS.com
I'm talking about local TV stations/affiliates and local programming, not national broadcast networks. So this stage of the plan is still in the "1.Webcast everything, 2. ???, 3. profit" phase.
That article is Paul Tassi's vision of TV and doesn't even mention Apple. Talking about the issue in the context of this thread - Apple revolutionizing TV, Apple would become the distributor. They would work out contracts with the content creators.
How is Apple becoming the middleman, as opposed to Comast or Verizon, revolutionary and what is the upside to content providers? The shifts in technology that are eroding the power of middlemen are eroding the power of all middleman, including Apple.
What if Apple isn't willing to pay as much up front as the cable/satellitve providers do? What if the content creators don't want to work with Apple? What about content creators that do not want to be tied to any specific distributor and they just release a multi-platform app and sell directly to the public. It's very easy now to stream Interent content to a TV. Many TVs have that feature built in and if they don't a variety of devices from cheap Blu-ray players to video game consoles to an assortment of set-top boxes (including
TV) make it breeze to do.
If a content creator is willing to risk leaving a traditional cable TV provider why team up with Apple, which limits you to just Apple products, as opposed to taking a total cross-platform approach like Netflix or HBOGo? I mean, Apple's MO seems to be splitting sales revenue not paying for content up front.
But cable companies are resistant to it because it allows them to squeeze more money out of us by charging us to rent a cable box and pay a service fee for a guy to staple coax under the carpet and flip a switch outside. Instead of investing in infrastructure to phase out coax, they're holding onto the old business model. This is their weakness - they don't appreciate how disruptive internet technology can be and are deadset on maintaining an obsolete standard. This is why companies like Apple and Google have an opening.
I'm still lost. You need an ISP in order to get Internet. Landline internet requires coax, telephone lines or fiber. Satellite internet requires instillation of a dish and the running of wires from the dish to the modem inside the building. Whether you want just TV service, just Internet service or both it still requires an equal amount of labor on the part of your provider. Internet via cell access requires towers and even with LTE there isn't enough bandwidth available to have everyone drop their landline internet access (at least not yet).
Apple and Google are in the same boat as existing providers. How is Google running lines any less labor intensive than Comcast or Verizon running their own lines? Hell, it's more intensive for Google because the established players already have lines in place.
Maybe a la carte. Maybe just more fragmented. It's really up to the contracts. Far as Viacom getting what they want, it all depends on how much leverage they have. The industry is bigger than any one company. Back when the music industry's transition to digital, Sony Music didn't want to give iTunes the rights to their IP but eventually caved.
What's happening now is way different that what happend with music and even what's happening with apps/games. There are more players involved working in concert to create TV distribution as we know it today and these change impact all of them. Some players are fighting for their lives while others don't care about the delivery method as long as they get paid but they are all in positions to make transitioning to a new model a pain in the butt.
I'm not trying to be argumentative but I see a lot of people talking in broad-strokes but I'm more interested in the nitty gritty.
