The gadget war among the largest U.S. tech companies started on computers, shifted to phones and tablets, and is moving, slowly but certainly, back toward that original home screen: the television. Some tech evangelists pray that a swashbuckling disrupter might radically transform how (and how much) we pay for TV—the way the Internet made newspapers effectively free, or the way Napster and Apple forced music labels to sell their songs à la carte for 99 cents a pop.
But more bad news awaits these hopefuls. The tech giants now eyeing television—Apple, Google, Microsoft—don’t care about à la carte programming as some philosophical ideal. They see the television as the next logical battleground in the fight for your attention and your money, and their plans do not intuitively lead to an anti-bundling strategy.
Take Apple, for example. The company already produces Apple TV, a device resembling a hockey puck that streams content from the Internet to your television. But some observers predict that the company is on the verge of offering something much bigger—a sleek screen that does to the TV market what the iPhone did to the cellphone market. The most fully imagined vision of this so-called iTV comes from a mammoth report issued in February by Jefferies, a global investment bank. In its most expansive form, iTV might offer live programming, a gaming platform, full Internet access, and apps like Netflix and a Skype “on steroids”—all combined with a voice-and-gesture interface that replaces our hideous remotes, and all deliverable to any Apple device.
A full-blown iTV would complete a hat trick of screen domination for Apple—phone, computer/tablet, and TV—and the ability to move video between devices might create a kind of “halo effect” that would make each product more alluring. But Apple is primarily a hardware company, and its profits lie primarily in selling you devices. To change the economics of television programming, Apple would need to take on the cable providers by striking deals with media companies, starting with the Big Seven. That’s just not happening. Instead, as The Wall Street Journal reported in August, Apple is working with cable providers to bring content to Apple TV and its potential successors, having long ago ditched the idea that it wanted to be in the business of haggling with Viacom over the right cost of the giant media company’s channels. Apple has realized that it doesn’t have to beat Comcast and Verizon to own your living room. It only has to join them.
With Apple’s TV project looking less than Alexandrian, some tech evangelists have transferred their excitement to Google, which announced in August that its new Fiber network will soon begin delivering ultra-fast Internet and TV to the residents of Kansas City. But Kansas City is just a pilot site, and as James McQuivey, an analyst at Forrester Research, explains, “In a strange way, what they’re promising isn’t disruptive at all.” Google isn’t changing the TV game. It’s simply building a super-fast Internet network—in one medium-size market—and adding a traditional cable bundle to make its offer competitive for residents who already get their Internet and TV from Time Warner Cable. Even if this project proves a spectacular success, taking it nationwide could cost between $100 billion and $200 billion.
Finally, there is Microsoft, whose ambitions to build a cable competitor (by using the Xbox to sling video streamed through the Internet to your TV) hit a wall in January when, like Apple, it concluded that after dealing with the media companies, signing up customers, and streaming the content, it would have no advantage over Big Cable in price or service. Instead, Microsoft is simply working with the cable companies: Xbox Live, Microsoft’s Internet-enabled gaming console, offers a kaleidoscope of content that includes TV-on-demand from Comcast, plus HBO GO, Hulu, live baseball from MLB.tv, and an array of apps and video games. This all-aboard strategy may in fact pose dangers to cable in the long run: one of Big Cable’s challenges will be keeping audiences’ attention from flitting to other forms of video entertainment, and Xbox Live lets you very easily toggle from one form of entertainment to another, all on the big screen in your den. But you get the option of first-run, premium TV only if you buy a cable bundle.
Other challengers may emerge. Netflix, for instance, is now producing original content—like the David Fincher and Kevin Spacey project House of Cards and a new season of Arrested Development—and will be providing it directly to subscribers of the streaming service. But Netflix plans just five such shows—and it won’t be selling them à la carte. What’s more, it has found these shows very expensive to underwrite. House of Cards alone reportedly sold for $100 million, nearly half of what Netflix paid to secure the rights to dozens of older CBS shows such as Cheers and Frasier; Netflix’s profit margins, meanwhile, have been declining. Ultimately, if many deep-pocketed companies were willing to bankroll a large number of good shows and sell them individually, the oligopoly of existing media companies would be threatened, and the bundle might be broken. But there’s little sign that this day is coming anytime soon.
Cable’s proposition to consumers is simple: if you want the new, good TV shows, you need the bundle. Straight-to-Web television, like YouTube’s Premium Channels, is free, but the vast majority of it isn’t very good. Netflix and Hulu have deep reservoirs of great content, but the vast majority of it is old—traditional media companies would never give a cable competitor a sweetheart deal on new TV shows, for fear of killing their cash cow.
The problem, of course, is that TV entertainment is getting more expensive every year. Asked to name his most pressing business concern, Marcien Jenckes, the senior vice president of video services at Comcast Cable, didn’t hesitate: “The rising cost of programming.” Consider that in 2011, ESPN agreed to pay the NFL almost $2 billion a year for the rights to Monday Night Football—a 73 percent increase over their previous deal, reached in 2006. To make back the money, ESPN’s parent company, Disney, will demand higher fees from Comcast, which will turn around and ask some 22 million subscribers to pay more each month.
At some point, consumers may decide, en masse, that they won’t be force-fed anymore. But that hasn’t happened yet. The HBO Go campaign was just the latest revolutionary yelp of the “cord cutters”—those who’ve canceled their cable subscriptions to rely on video streamed over the Internet via Hulu or Netflix. One report estimated that more than 2.5 million people canceled their cable subscriptions between 2008 and 2011. But despite hard times, total pay-TV subscriptions held steady at about 104 million.
In the past few years, a Cambrian explosion of video and gaming content has created a new world of distraction for audiences on their computers, phones, and tablets. But plenty of families apparently like what they’re getting for $80 a month, compared with the alternatives. In fact, when Time Warner Cable offered a cheaper package of channels called “TV Essentials,” the company reported that most new customers opted for a more expensive package in order to get desired channels like ESPN.
Maybe these families are just being economical. Compared with onetime mass-entertainment purchases, $80 is a lot of money. But in a four-person household where each member watches three to four hours of TV a day—the national average—that comes out to only about 20 cents per hour of entertainment. That value is six times better than a magazine you buy off a stand and read for four hours. It’s 20 times better than a two-and-a-half-hour movie watched in a theater. If you bought the Xbox game Madden NFL 2013 in September, you would have to play it for two hours every day until the Super Bowl to get the same per-hour value. As a monthly fee, cable feels like a rip-off. But as hourly entertainment, it’s not.
The knottiness of the cable bundle is discouraging news for many consumers, who are surely thinking, If music was so easy to disrupt, why is video so hard? Well, for many reasons—downloading a single song is much easier than live-streaming an event to your computer; the demise of the music industry has taught every content owner to cling ferociously to rights. But ultimately, one reason trumps all others. Television is good entertainment because it is produced in painstaking, costly fashion—and as much as we hate our cable bills, someone has to pay for that. Indeed, it’s no accident that as pay-TV has proliferated, and costs have risen, we’ve also entered a golden age of television. Twenty years ago, who could have even imagined something as lush as Game of Thrones, as stylish as Mad Men, or as morally fraught as Breaking Bad?
As for the cord cutters, they should be thanking those families whose monthly cable bills enable the production of the shows they love to watch on Netflix or Hulu. Today’s pay-TV subscribers are in effect subsidizing the cord-cutter experience by paying top dollar for first-run programming, while the Cordless soak up the offerings more cheaply in later windows. Without cable, there wouldn’t be HBO Go. There might not even be HBO. Great TV only seems cheap to the Internet’s enfants terribles because media companies insist on charging for it elsewhere—and more than 100 million households still think the price is worth paying.