DBSTalk Forum banner
241 - 260 of 282 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,493 Posts
It is kind of weird that AT&T would be giving it away to so many subscribers and yet claim massive losses.
They are not claiming massive losses. Last year there was a comment that they lost "tens of millions" of dollars on their $1.5 billion investment but overall most of the claims of huge losses come from outside observers. And (as noted) overall DIRECTV performed well so any recent losses were more than covered by money given by NFL ST subscribers for their other programming. Hopefully the $1.5 billion in lower expenses won't be matched by more than $1.5 billion in lost revenue after NFL ST leaves next year.

And if Apple does not have a commercial option they are just leaving money on the table. It is just money sitting there for the taking.
Only if commercial service is profitable.

A viable commercial service requires businesses willing to invest in paying for the subscriptions. The first year those businesses will also need to pay to upgrade their systems to whatever Apple provides (if commercial service is offered). Delivered via DIRECTV satellite like ESPN+ would be the least expensive for existing commercial subscribers and would be the most likely path to maintaining those subscribers. Requiring new equipment and modifications to their distribution systems may convince businesses to leave. I believe a lot of places will be focusing on the locally aired games and NFL Red Zone more than "every game" if Apple makes it too difficult or expensive to display the games.

I expect Apple will do well in the residential market.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,493 Posts
And to be fair it's also a dangerous slope that if Netflix gets away with this then what will stop all the others from charging extra for account sharing?
Yeah, it is really bad when stores hire people to watch the doors to scare off shoplifters. If security gets too tight those stores may scare off legitimate customers who don't want to be assumed guilty every time they enter the store. My father stopped shopping at the local hardware store when their "helpful" staff refused to let him browse alone. Don't need an escort and the big box hardware down the street doesn't have that level of interference.

Netflix is in a strange position since they encouraged account sharing a few years ago (friends and family beyond the household). They were more worried about raising their viewer count than staying profitable. With the downturn in paid subscribers and looming debt they need to make sure people are paying for the service. And so do the competing services.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,614 Posts
They are not claiming massive losses. Last year there was a comment that they lost "tens of millions" of dollars on their $1.5 billion investment but overall most of the claims of huge losses come from outside observers. And (as noted) overall DIRECTV performed well so any recent losses were more than covered by money given by NFL ST subscribers for their other programming. Hopefully the $1.5 billion in lower expenses won't be matched by more than $1.5 billion in lost revenue after NFL ST leaves next year.
Tens of millions isn't massive? Either way...why give it away to so many subscribers if you are losing tens of millions? It is probably just the way corporate America cooks their books. They wanted hundreds of millions in profit but they only got 90 million in profit so they lost tens of millions.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
1,953 Posts
It is kind of weird that AT&T would be giving it away to so many subscribers and yet claim massive losses. It seems like they might want it to lose money. They have gave it me for free several times without me even asking for it so it can’t be because people were threatening to leave if they didn’t give it away. It will be interesting to see if they give it away to so many people this year as they did last year.

And right…Apple is most likely losing money on Apple TV+ without ST. ST would definitely boost their subscription numbers but not enough to cover the price of ST. That is why I don’t believe they are going to be throwing in ST just for the $4.99 fee.

And if Apple does not have a commercial option they are just leaving money on the table. It is just money sitting there for the taking.
Apple's motivation on "services" has always been to use services as a way to sell devices, at least that was how it was under Jobs and early on under Cook. iTunes for example was a method to feed the iPod supply chain (and later, iPads and iPhones). Their profits were much higher on devices and indeed they sold millions of iPods and iPhones to folks who previously had nothing to do with Apple products.

I've heard that this MIGHT be changing. But assuming that is their motivation for ST, I can see ST as a loss leader if it means people buy more ATVs (which are probably highly profitable). Thinking about this some more, perhaps it's ONLY going to be available on ATVs and it COULD be a stand alone app, and not part of ATV+ (or if it's part of ATV+, it's an add on that's only available on the ATV). In that way, they sell LOTS of ATVs. It's hard to fathom (and we've seen that DirecTV has had had this issue for years) anyone making a profit on ST unless they charge a LOT of money for it.

The interesting part of how what the NFL is doing, is that there are fewer games available now on ST than there was in the past. A few Monday double headers, Thursday games, a few extra Saturday games later in the season and talk of more streaming games going forward. it amazes me that the NFL can continue to ask higher and higher rates while offering less and less product. As long as people are willing to pony up, they can continue to do it.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
1,953 Posts
Except most comments I've seen on this has basically been people seeing this as a cash grab. Plus people already feel like they are paying "too much" for Netflix just to pay more to share their account. In their minds they are already paying for the service so they are entitled to share it with their family member/friend/etc as they see fit. I get it. And to be fair it's also a dangerous slope that if Netflix gets away with this then what will stop all the others from charging extra for account sharing?
I don't think it's really an issue sharing within your house or even allowing a couple of external streams when traveling. The problem is, that people have taken advantage of the situation and share it with LOTS of friends and cousins and whoever. It's like Napster back in the say. If you buy music, does that entitle you to put it up on a server somewhere and share with anyone you know?

The "problem" with Netflix blaming their loss of subscribers on this, is that they are not recognizing what is happening in their own industry, and industry that THEY essentially started, and that is there is a LOT of competition out there, some of which are much cheaper than they are (and don't charge extra for higher quality content). So they are blaming this on sharing when the real reason is that they are expensive and people are looking at other cheaper alternatives. I think they might have been more spot on by offering an ad supported tier, but if that add supported tier is still more expensive than other ad supported tiers, that's not going to help either. They need to figure this out or they will continue to bleed subscribers. There's only so many hours in a day and so much people can spend before it gets to be just like cable or satellite. Netflix used to be THE streaming service, but now is just one of many.
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,461 Posts
So what have they down when “dealing with commercial entities”?
Apple tried for years to offer servers, printers and networking products to businesses. It has never really been much of success in terms of functionality or ROI.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
1,953 Posts
Apple tried for years to offer servers, printers and networking products to businesses. It has never really been much of success in terms of functionality or ROI.
They are well established in certain industries, but overall their enterprise offerings are much smaller than companies like Microsoft.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,614 Posts
Apple tried for years to offer servers, printers and networking products to businesses. It has never really been much of success in terms of functionality or ROI.
I worked in the graphic arts trade for a long time and we had Mac servers and printers in the past and they worked fine. The reason they got out of the server game was that Apple has always priced their products at a premium price and when OS X came along and supported standard networking protocols such as SMB and Apple deprecated their own Appletalk and AFP protocols they didn't try to compete with cheap PC servers running Microsoft Windows Server. Before that if you had mac workstations it made sense to have Mac servers and printers. For the past 20 - 25 years we still had Mac workstations but all servers were Windows servers because it was cheaper and developers that wrote server software didn't want to have to support both Windows and Mac servers so they quit making it for Mac servers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,614 Posts
Apple's motivation on "services" has always been to use services as a way to sell devices, at least that was how it was under Jobs and early on under Cook. iTunes for example was a method to feed the iPod supply chain (and later, iPads and iPhones). Their profits were much higher on devices and indeed they sold millions of iPods and iPhones to folks who previously had nothing to do with Apple products.

I've heard that this MIGHT be changing. But assuming that is their motivation for ST, I can see ST as a loss leader if it means people buy more ATVs (which are probably highly profitable). Thinking about this some more, perhaps it's ONLY going to be available on ATVs and it COULD be a stand alone app, and not part of ATV+ (or if it's part of ATV+, it's an add on that's only available on the ATV). In that way, they sell LOTS of ATVs. It's hard to fathom (and we've seen that DirecTV has had had this issue for years) anyone making a profit on ST unless they charge a LOT of money for it.

The interesting part of how what the NFL is doing, is that there are fewer games available now on ST than there was in the past. A few Monday double headers, Thursday games, a few extra Saturday games later in the season and talk of more streaming games going forward. it amazes me that the NFL can continue to ask higher and higher rates while offering less and less product. As long as people are willing to pony up, they can continue to do it.
Maybe they should only make it available on iPhones (over $1,000). They would make a lot more money on iPhone sales then they will on ATV sales (under $200). :LOL:
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
1,953 Posts
Maybe they should only make it available on iPhones (over $1,000). They would make a lot more money on iPhone sales then they will on ATV sales (under $200). :LOL:
Maybe they will!!

Realistically, they will see what works best for them. I know you are probably being sarcastic, but they sold MILLIONS of iPods because people were "married" to iTunes a source of music. In the early days of smartphones, the "app store" was developed as a way to serve iPhones. This is how they've done business. Without those services, you could buy anything and watch. The reason I say it's changing is they seem much more willing to put services on other devices as well as their own. ATV+ is on most streaming platforms (though not on my Google TV), like Roku. Maybe that's a necessity, much like they were pretty much forced into developing iTunes for Windows because it cut out half their potential user base. But maybe for something like ST, they will require an Apple TV (and with that a tidy profit). I have no idea what they make per unit on ATV, but I bet it's pretty good profit margin and people need a reason spend $200 on a device that can give them essentially the same content that a $30 Firestick or Roku could give them (yes, I know there are definitely more advanced video and audio available on ATV). Maybe ST gives users that incentive, and increase Apple's market share significantly in streaming hardware.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,493 Posts
Tens of millions isn't massive?
Nope. DIRECTV made well over $2 billion in profit each year overall. Consider Sunday Ticket a "loss leader" that brought in more billions than it cost because subscribers also bought other content.
 

·
Cool Member/Supporter
Joined
·
265 Posts
We likely will never know, but it will be interesting to see the impact on subscriber numbers if DirecTV does lose Sunday Ticket. I would assume that is baked into their business case for why it is better for their business to drop it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,614 Posts
I never tried on Sunday Ticket to watch a game that was on Sunday afternoon on Sunday Ticket later in the week. Was that possible (like a recording)? I asked because I've been wondering about the NFL games that may be on Apple TV+ in 2023 and the games that are now on Apple TV+ (Friday night baseball), Peacock (Sunday morning basball) and Amazon Prime (Thursday night football this cominng season). There is no way to record those streaming games so if you miss them live you can never go back and watch them later?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,493 Posts
Per the article (based on a survey of subscribers):
23% pay for Sunday Ticket
16% subscribe but don't pay
7% don't know if they get Sunday Ticket or not
Per the article (no specific source given):
DIRECTV had 14.6 million subscribers at the end of 2021 (satellite and streaming)
"Doing the basic math, if 23% of AT&T's base (around 3.35 million customers) pay $300, DirecTV is just about breaking even each season on its Sunday Ticket licensing."

(The article is using a $1 billion per year payment for Sunday Ticket while other sources state DIRECTV is paying $1.5 billion per year. 14.6 million subscribers would be a 3 million subscriber drop from the end of 2020.)

Noting that streaming subscribers cannot get Sunday Ticket, having 39% (or more) of DIRECTV's subscribers receiving Sunday Ticket is fairly good. The "don't pay" would include first year subscribers (and I assume some of those "don't know" are first year subscribers who got free Sunday Ticket but never watched).

With the NFL wanting more money and DIRECTV losing subscribers the math isn't good for DIRECTV to pay for an exclusive. The only hope for DIRECTV subscribers is if NFL Sunday Ticket is offered on a non-exclusive basis ... or they can subscribe to whomever gets the content.
 

·
Mentor
Joined
·
482 Posts
I never tried on Sunday Ticket to watch a game that was on Sunday afternoon on Sunday Ticket later in the week. Was that possible (like a recording)? I asked because I've been wondering about the NFL games that may be on Apple TV+ in 2023 and the games that are now on Apple TV+ (Friday night baseball), Peacock (Sunday morning basball) and Amazon Prime (Thursday night football this cominng season). There is no way to record those streaming games so if you miss them live you can never go back and watch them later?
On the Sunday Ticket streaming app, Short Cuts and full broadcasts are available a few hours later. Full game replays are also available on the Game Pass subscription (You can go back to select games as far back as 2008, I think.) Whether those services are made available under a new provider remains unanswered. But this is what's available in the current streaming product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: b4pjoe

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,461 Posts
Nope. DIRECTV made well over $2 billion in profit each year overall. Consider Sunday Ticket a "loss leader" that brought in more billions than it cost because subscribers also bought other content.
As long as the ARPU remains above, $120 give or take, there's lots of money to spread around. That's where the AppleTV+ bundle theory breaks down where the ARPU before NFLST is $4.99.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
Netflix is in a strange position since they encouraged account sharing a few years ago (friends and family beyond the household). They were more worried about raising their viewer count than staying profitable. With the downturn in paid subscribers and looming debt they need to make sure people are paying for the service. And so do the competing services.
What would make sense and seem the fairest to me is for the SVODs to do more or less what the vMVPDs have done and tie most of your viewing to your home network. Maybe your subscription lets you watch on, say, 5 screens of any type simultaneously on your home network, plus an additional 2 screens off-network (i.e. via cellular or a different wifi network), but those 2 additional screens would be limited to computers and mobile devices (i.e. no smart TVs or TV-connected devices like Roku, Apple TV, Xbox, etc.). This would basically make the service appealing only to a single household/family. For those instances when a household member is traveling, or for a kid away at college, viewing on a mobile/laptop would be available. If you need more than 2 off-network screens at the same time, you could pay a little extra for more.

I think something like this is where it will eventually have to end up as the MVPD cash cow dries up and DTC SVODs shoulder more of the profit-making burden for these companies.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
1,953 Posts
What would make sense and seem the fairest to me is for the SVODs to do more or less what the vMVPDs have done and tie most of your viewing to your home network. Maybe your subscription lets you watch on, say, 5 screens of any type simultaneously on your home network, plus an additional 2 screens off-network (i.e. via cellular or a different wifi network), but those 2 additional screens would be limited to computers and mobile devices (i.e. no smart TVs or TV-connected devices like Roku, Apple TV, Xbox, etc.). This would basically make the service appealing only to a single household/family. For those instances when a household member is traveling, or for a kid away at college, viewing on a mobile/laptop would be available. If you need more than 2 off-network screens at the same time, you could pay a little extra for more.

I think something like this is where it will eventually have to end up as the MVPD cash cow dries up and DTC SVODs shoulder more of the profit-making burden for these companies.
The other way they can do it is to tie it to a device for outside the house streaming. So perhaps you can tie it to only 2 cell phones at a time or a cell phone and a streaming device. I'm sure people who want to will figure out ways to get around that, but the casual user who wants to let their family and friends use their account won't bother.
 
241 - 260 of 282 Posts
Top