CBS Chairman Les Moonves, who has been a
frequent source of information about an attempt by Apple
earlier this year to marshall together a "skinny bundle" of popular content providers into a package that could be offered with Apple TV for a modest monthly sum, now says
the proposal is "on hold," and may not appear for some time to come. Apple was rumored to have wanted to use its large storage and bandwidth capacity to offer a package of premium channels or curated collections of top-quality content to Apple TV buyers in a direct offer that did not require a cable subscription, but allegedly ran into too much resistance.
Moonves further hinted that the package -- aimed specifically at "cord cutters" who have largely abandoned cable -- could have been a user-customizable set of channels or new services from a list of partners, giving viewers the long-dreamed-of
a la carte concept of just paying for content that users actually want, rather than subsidizing many services they have no interest in. He mentioned that the "skinny bundle" concept will still -- eventually -- happen within the industry, though not necessarily from Apple first.
Describing what he saw as the proposal that was on the table, Moonves -- who has previously expressed strong interest in having CBS be a part of such a service -- said that the theoretical "skinny bundle" would have "four major networks and 10 cable networks, let's say, and the price point [that] will be in the $30s, $30 to $35, $40 maybe. People will not be spending money on channels they don't want to watch." It's unclear if buyers would have to choose some but not all of the 14 items on offer, or would have to take the "mini package" that Apple had already picked out in exchange for the up-to-$40 monthly deal.
Either way, assuming the mix of offerings was of great appeal to Apple TV buyers, the savings on (for example) 10 desired HD channels would be significant compared to the current 200 or so claimed unique channels in $70-$150 monthly cable packages, particularly if some "premium" first-tier content providers were involved. Conceivably Apple could offer "skinny bundles" oriented to specific markets, like children's channels or sports channels or movie-lover's bundles, or let consumers choose a mix of these and other offerings, provided it signed up enough partners.
"They've had conversations on it, and I think they pressed the hold button," Moonves said. "They were looking for a service."
The news may disappoint some recent Apple TV buyers who had been hoping for a consumer-friendly package from Apple so that a full cable subscription might not be necessary, particularly in these days of dwindling -- and more selective -- TV watching by consumers. Apple has said previously that it believes that "apps" from traditional channels (like CBS) or content providers (like HBO or the BBC) are the future of television, a philosophy that has taken hold as mobile viewing of TV content increases, and services such as Netflix steal audiences from traditional broadcasters by offering on-demand watching.
Rumors of Apple offering its own TV service of some kind date back years, and centered around the concept of filling in with apps some of the current TV content missing from the lives of "cord cutters" -- such as live sports or local content -- alongside some partners willing to buck the big cable conglomerates (as HBO and Showtime, among others, have already done in offering independent subscription services). As expected, there has been a lot of resistance from the cable companies and smaller channels, seeing themselves as akin to traditional "landline" phone service providers and noting what happened when cellular came into the mainstream.
Still, Moonves is convinced either Apple or some other service will pave the way forward with "skinny bundles" to recapture consumers who cut their cable due to a high ratio of junk to content, and the high monthly cost. When that day might arrive, however, looks farther away than it did in recent months.
Top