Now that would be the ideal solution. I was thinking just a few of the smaller fringe Internet channels added to the atv right now but sky would be a killer for me.
I also agree with your all in one tv solution. I mean go into your apple store and they have it all set up in front of your eyes. It just needs to be in one box with some serious networks like sky on board. I suppose it'll ultimately come down to whether some of these companies see their Market share dwindling away whether companies like Apple can offer a life line.
You do realize that on average people in the US already pay more for that in cable without including any additional purchases they’ve done for DVRs or a monthly DVR rental from their provider.
Yep, I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
That a subscription model that did include all of the shows the day after they came out with a quality higher than cable and with the ability to move from your Macs, to your AppleTV to your iDevices would be make that a steal with nothing else coming close to pricing or options.
Except iTunes only offers a fraction of the shows you'd get from your cable/satellite provider, the quality is most certainly NOT higher (about the same, at best), and you'd still need a cable package if you want live content like news, sports, talk shows, etc. — and considering half (if not more) of the tv shows available on iTunes come from the networks you can get for free over the air, that $30/mo would only be gaining you a handful of shows.
I don't understand this at all. Why would I pay $30 a month for something I can get for free? I can go to Hulu.com and watch hundreds of TV shows for free.
Except iTunes only offers a fraction of the shows you'd get from your cable/satellite provider, the quality is most certainly NOT higher (about the same, at best), and you'd still need a cable package if you want live content like news, sports, talk shows, etc. — and considering half (if not more) of the tv shows available on iTunes come from the networks you can get for free over the air, that $30/mo would only be gaining you a handful of shows.
So because it doesn’t have all the options of another service it shouldn’t exist, even though it gives the consumer several new options these other services don’t? Not fitting your needs doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit others. By your reckoning, the iTS should have never worked for music, movies or TV shows. But it does. Try looking at the whole thing, just the parts you don’t like.
Me, for example, iTS has every show I watch, except some stuff from the UK. I don’t watch cable or sat shows when I have it because I’m constantly on the move. I typically miss them and hate to schedule myself around the TV. I much prefer to have it fit my timeline. I have torrents at this point as the only solution if Hulu doesn’t offer it, or if it’s something that I want with good quality. What part of $30 would not make my TV viewing simplified in your eyes? If this can let me pull a TV show rental from my iPhone while waiting for a plane how would anyone else compete with that? How does that overlap with the cable companies in your eyes?
PS: iTS trumps cable in quality of feeds. Re you really going to argue that 480p MPEG-2 is better than 640p H.264? Are you the one that claims that iTS video is worse than VHS?
Cable TV will eventually die, and they will try to make up that cost through internet fees. Every time these companies lay new fiber optic cable, they are sowing the seeds of their own demise.
They make a lot of money delivering what normally is cable TV or whatever we download. Whether we subscribe to cable TV or whether we pay to get internet access so we can download the movies, the cable company makes money. If they didn't make money, they could be out of business and then how would we download our movies?
Not so fast. Comcast has been aggressive rolling out phone services, buying Plaxo, and now in a deal with NBC-Universal. They realize that they cannot remain just a dumb-pipe. Content is key.
They are not acting defensively, they are on offense.
Conventional cable TV will eventually die and cable TV providers will try to increase internet rates to make up for the income shortfall. That is all I'm saying. They can also try to adapt as you suggest Comcast is doing.
A frightened puppy will bite you. While offensive in appearance, it is truly a defensive maneuver. I don't know a lot about the situation in the US, but here in Canada, cable providers appear to be resisting the change and your statement about Comcast doesn't convince me that it is any different down south.
If they were truly on the offensive, they would be the ones bringing TV over internet to the masses.
If you get it for free, you'll watch what they give you to see.
If you pay for it, you'll watch what you want to see.
At the moment, I'm pretty much watching what I want to see with ad supported Hulu. That may well change, nothing is set in stone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
From a business standpoint, I think subscriptions are the only way to successfully offer TV Show rentals that are ad free. What pricing model would you use for TV Show rentals?
From what I understand, the networks would net more renting at $0.50 an episode than they would if the same person watched the ad-supported version on TV. It's certainly a lot more than they would get through Hulu. Even if apple takes half rather than 30% because of infrastructure costs and the low price, that's still sitting pretty good against ad-based TV. So really, a $0.99 per episode rental is a realistic business proposition, if they're afraid $0.50 would undervalue their content, even though they generally get less through their primary income. I might even consider that. I'm generally not paying $1.99 just to watch an episode that I probably will never watch again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wattsup
Well, that report just says that some of the content will remain advertising supported (or "free") but that Hulu will be offering more payed-content in the future. No one really knows when this will happen or even what percentage will be payed but you can pretty much be assured that they won't continue to offer "free" content unless they can extract some form of "payment" from the viewers.
They make a lot of money delivering what normally is cable TV or whatever we download. Whether we subscribe to cable TV or whether we pay to get internet access so we can download the movies, the cable company makes money. If they didn't make money, they could be out of business and then how would we download our movies?
Cable TV and internet are supplied through the same cable. Most internet offerings are unlimited, so your internet usage doesn't change how much they get paid (right now).
This is simplest with equations.
Current income = internet fees + cable tv fees
Future income = internet fees
If you want current and future income to remain the same (their costs won't necessarily go down) where is the lost income from not selling cable TV to the masses anymore going to come from? Now there are other potential sources of income, they could provide the internet TV, or they could diversify, but denying a potential increase in internet rates seems short sighted.
From another perspective. There are ISPs that do not provide cable TV, will they still be charging the same fees when everyones bandwidth use increases due to them getting their TV over the internet?
So the Tally in the end would come out about 1/3 to one half the amount we now pay, and we'll get more use out of our entertainment system to boot.
I think this is actually part of the problem. If we're paying less, then some companies are earning less. And they'll fight to the death to stop that happening.
(edit: and now I just read a few people saying the same just above... it pays to get to the END of the thread before responding!!!!)
Which is why we're seeing these older companies who "don't get it"... but what they don't get is how to keep their revenue.
For the change to happen, we probably need to work on everyone paying the same as they do now (with some shuffling of WHERE the money is going)... but getting a much more useful service for them. Perhaps eventually cable & dsl bills will TRIPLE, but the TV services will be much cheaper (ie AppleTV subscriptions cheap, or cheap cableTV, etc)
... and where does that leave Apple? Certainly NOT with a product which lets most people replace their cableTV with something just as good (or better) at 1/3 the overall price. (Unfortunately!).
... my best guess - Apple should start with any content producers that don't own cable delivery networks and give them a better distribution deal (for now) than they currently get. They'll be happy with that, and it'll still be cheaper for us as the cable companies won't respond immediately. As the cable companies start charging more for us using 20 times the bandwidth than we used to, Apple will have to renegotiate with the producers to bring the prices down.
Cable TV and internet are supplied through the same cable. Most internet offerings are unlimited, so your internet usage doesn't change how much they get paid (right now).
This is simplest with equations.
Current income = internet fees + cable tv fees
Future income = internet fees
If you want current and future income to remain the same (their costs won't necessarily go down) where is the lost income from not selling cable TV to the masses anymore going to come from? Now there are other potential sources of income, they could provide the internet TV, or they could diversify, but denying a potential increase in internet rates seems short sighted.
From another perspective. There are ISPs that do not provide cable TV, will they still be charging the same fees when everyones bandwidth use increases due to them getting their TV over the internet?
Well, not so fast. If we the customers aren't paying for the cable TV fees because we don't buy the content, the cable companies wouldn't buy from the content providers, right? Their cost would be reduced substantially. It doesn't seem to make much sense for them to pay for the content if the customers aren't buying. We the customers would just be buying the content directly and paying for it separately.
.... you'd still need a cable package if you want live content like news, sports, talk shows, etc. ? and considering half (if not more) of the tv shows available on iTunes come from the networks you can get for free over the air, that $30/mo would only be gaining you a handful of shows.
News comes up a lot. Perhaps you watch more live news than I do?
I'd like the AppleTV to give me a news program that looks more like a DVD menu of choices (or "iTunes Extras"). While I'm reading a choice of article headings the news presenter might be summarising tonights news. Let me click each time the presenters says something I want to know more about... they could offer twice as much news and I could watch what interests me in less time (while still seeing the broad overview). It's not live but it's VERY convenient. And some stories could link to more in-depth "specials" directly (or mark them to download when available, or with tomorrow's news)
I agree with what you say about Free-to-air. I still think Apple needs to find a way of offering "free-to-download" shows that insert commercials (just like FTA) - probably where the advertisers selectively chose which kinds of viewers they want seeing their ads (and thus we see less ads but they're more appropriate).
Maybe this is what that server farm in NC was all about?
"Earlier this year, Apple selected Maiden, N.C., as the location for its $1 billion server farm. The exact purpose of that data center has not been stated."
Why do people think that a la carte will be cheaper?
Imagine a world where all we had was those all-you-can-eat smorgasbords with 200 different dishes (and some premium content like a seafood bar for those who want it).
If a consumer said "I don't eat 3/4 of the dishes available here... we should be able to go to a restaurant and chose JUST what we want to eat. That'd be 1/4 the cost!", we'd see it pretty clearly that it's not going to happen.
A la carte is usually more expensive unless you're a very small eater. Sure we never ate 3/4 of the smorgasbord, but everyone ate some share, and everyone ignored some others, the specific choices aren't important.
Usually people totally disagree with me when I say this... but none have argued well (to me) why that model doesn't fit.
I think this is actually part of the problem. If we're paying less, then some companies are earning less. And they'll fight to the death to stop that happening.
Don't be so sure you will be paying less. The shows we watch cost money. A show becomes successful, the cast demands more money, the cost for the show goes up. Pro athletes make more money, the cost to the networks cost more, the cost is passed on. Our cable bill goes up. We the customers have one entity to direct our anger at, the cable company. If we buy our content and the delivery (broadband) separately, will we pay less or will we just pay differently (couple of different bills)?
Why do people think that a la carte will be cheaper?
Imagine a world where all we had was those all-you-can-eat smorgasbords with 200 different dishes (and some premium content like a seafood bar for those who want it).
If a consumer said "I don't eat 3/4 of the dishes available here... we should be able to go to a restaurant and chose JUST what we want to eat. That'd be 1/4 the cost!", we'd see it pretty clearly that it's not going to happen.
A la carte is usually more expensive unless you're a very small eater. Sure we never ate 3/4 of the smorgasbord, but everyone ate some share, and everyone ignored some others, the specific choices aren't important.
Usually people totally disagree with me when I say this... but none have argued well (to me) why that model doesn't fit.
I agree with your saying. There are plenty on this forum that don?t like idea simply because they don?t watch enough TV or watch TV in a certain way to suit their needs. For them the subscription model doesn?t work. Likely the iTS model doesn?t work. I can see how this would fill a void that is currently not met by anyone.
Why do people think that a la carte will be cheaper?
Imagine a world where all we had was those all-you-can-eat smorgasbords with 200 different dishes (and some premium content like a seafood bar for those who want it).
...
Usually people totally disagree with me when I say this... but none have argued well (to me) why that model doesn't fit.
The difference that separates it from buffets is that the cable networks (MTV, ESPN, Discovery, etc.) get paid a per-subscriber fee, whether or not a given subscriber actually watches anything on those networks. Don't watch the MTV networks? Too bad, some of your money does go to them even if you don't watch it. With a buffet, if you don't take the eggs, the chicken farmer doesn't get a specific cut from everyone whether or not they took the eggs, they get money for eggs actually sold, not for eggs sold + a specific cut from everyone's checks.
So because it doesn’t have all the options of another service it shouldn’t exist, even though it gives the consumer several new options these other services don’t? Not fitting your needs doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit others. By your reckoning, the iTS should have never worked for music, movies or TV shows. But it does. Try looking at the whole thing, just the parts you don’t like.
It should certainly exist, just at a more realistic price given iTunes' limited selection comprised mostly of shows available over the air for free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Me, for example, iTS has every show I watch, except some stuff from the UK. I don’t watch cable or sat shows when I have it because I’m constantly on the move. I typically miss them and hate to schedule myself around the TV. I much prefer to have it fit my timeline. I have torrents at this point as the only solution if Hulu doesn’t offer it, or if it’s something that I want with good quality. What part of $30 would not make my TV viewing simplified in your eyes? If this can let me pull a TV show rental from my iPhone while waiting for a plane how would anyone else compete with that? How does that overlap with the cable companies in your eyes?
You're right. This would be a great service for people who only watch the hundred or so shows available on iTunes (many of which are lingering episodes of shows that have been cancelled), don't mind waiting an hour for their download before they can begin watching, never want to see a show when it airs, don't want the freedom of channel surfing, and never want to watch sports, news or talk shows. Because realistically, to justify the price, most people would have to ditch their cable/dish altogether and make this their only source of television.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
PS: iTS trumps cable in quality of feeds. Re you really going to argue that 480p MPEG-2 is better than 640p H.264? Are you the one that claims that iTS video is worse than VHS?
I thought we were talking about HD content. What the hell is 640p? Regardless, The Daily Show on iTunes doesn't look any better than it does on cable.
It should certainly exist, just at a more realistic price given iTunes' limited selection comprised mostly of shows available over the air for free.
You?re looking at from what you would want, not the business model itself. I think $30 is low balling what Apple could charge for a service that allows for TV shows to easily DLed and viewed on Macs, AppleTVs and iDevices. No cable company can compare to me being able to grab unlimited shows away from the living room. The best solution for that is TiVo which I can copy the MOEG-2 to my Mac and then convert to MPEG-4. That is a PITA that people aren?t willing to go through. I know how to do it and I still don?t want that rigamarole.
Quote:
You're right. This would be a great service for people who only watch the hundred or so shows available on iTunes (many of which are lingering episodes of shows that have been cancelled), don't mind waiting an hour for their download before they can begin watching, never want to see a show when it airs, don't want the freedom of channel surfing, and never want to watch sports, news or talk shows. Because realistically, to justify the price, most people would have to ditch their cable/dish altogether and make this their only source of television.
There are 200 shows on iTS. Netflix has a lot more, but they have nothing current so they can?t compete with that until the optical disc is printed after the season ends. Cable and Sat can only play when the networks air it, but then you have the issue of watching it on the go again. This would fill a void that isn?t currently addressed by anyone? accept maybe the torrent and newsgroup users, but even that requires VisualHub/iSquint to convert to MPEG-4 for iDevice use. Plus, it?s not legal and just messy all around. Like most people, I will pay for convenience.
The bottom line is, if you don?t need you don?t get it. Just like with all products. There is no one else that can fill this void besides Apple. If you can tell me who else can do and how they can do it you be able to make yourself wealthy. I just spent $50 for a couple seasons of a show I watched in a couple weeks last month because I couldn?t find it on torrents or Hulu, and Netflix and cable/sat are not options.. I could have saved $20 with such a subscription, even though I would probably still wouldn?t have opted for it.
Well, not so fast. If we the customers aren't paying for the cable TV fees because we don't buy the content, the cable companies wouldn't buy from the content providers, right? Their cost would be reduced substantially. It doesn't seem to make much sense for them to pay for the content if the customers aren't buying. We the customers would just be buying the content directly and paying for it separately.
Yes you have a point. My claims may be somewhat exaggerated. My major point is that as we increase our bandwidth use collectively, the ISPs will likely charge more. Internet TV will likely be a major source of increased bandwidth use. Also taking away a major bread bringer like cable TV would be far from painless, even if it didn't result in losses.... there would definitely be a reduction in profits. Sorry for sensationalizing how bad it would be for ISPs/Cable providers, I think I just wants certain ones here in Canada to fail.
Comments
That's who I see Apple going after: Sky.
Now that would be the ideal solution. I was thinking just a few of the smaller fringe Internet channels added to the atv right now but sky would be a killer for me.
I also agree with your all in one tv solution. I mean go into your apple store and they have it all set up in front of your eyes. It just needs to be in one box with some serious networks like sky on board. I suppose it'll ultimately come down to whether some of these companies see their Market share dwindling away whether companies like Apple can offer a life line.
You do realize that on average people in the US already pay more for that in cable without including any additional purchases they’ve done for DVRs or a monthly DVR rental from their provider.
Yep, I do.
That a subscription model that did include all of the shows the day after they came out with a quality higher than cable and with the ability to move from your Macs, to your AppleTV to your iDevices would be make that a steal with nothing else coming close to pricing or options.
Except iTunes only offers a fraction of the shows you'd get from your cable/satellite provider, the quality is most certainly NOT higher (about the same, at best), and you'd still need a cable package if you want live content like news, sports, talk shows, etc. — and considering half (if not more) of the tv shows available on iTunes come from the networks you can get for free over the air, that $30/mo would only be gaining you a handful of shows.
I don't understand this at all. Why would I pay $30 a month for something I can get for free? I can go to Hulu.com and watch hundreds of TV shows for free.
Hulu will begin to charge soon for shows as well.
Except iTunes only offers a fraction of the shows you'd get from your cable/satellite provider, the quality is most certainly NOT higher (about the same, at best), and you'd still need a cable package if you want live content like news, sports, talk shows, etc. — and considering half (if not more) of the tv shows available on iTunes come from the networks you can get for free over the air, that $30/mo would only be gaining you a handful of shows.
So because it doesn’t have all the options of another service it shouldn’t exist, even though it gives the consumer several new options these other services don’t? Not fitting your needs doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit others. By your reckoning, the iTS should have never worked for music, movies or TV shows. But it does. Try looking at the whole thing, just the parts you don’t like.
Me, for example, iTS has every show I watch, except some stuff from the UK. I don’t watch cable or sat shows when I have it because I’m constantly on the move. I typically miss them and hate to schedule myself around the TV. I much prefer to have it fit my timeline. I have torrents at this point as the only solution if Hulu doesn’t offer it, or if it’s something that I want with good quality. What part of $30 would not make my TV viewing simplified in your eyes? If this can let me pull a TV show rental from my iPhone while waiting for a plane how would anyone else compete with that? How does that overlap with the cable companies in your eyes?
PS: iTS trumps cable in quality of feeds. Re you really going to argue that 480p MPEG-2 is better than 640p H.264? Are you the one that claims that iTS video is worse than VHS?
Cable TV will eventually die, and they will try to make up that cost through internet fees. Every time these companies lay new fiber optic cable, they are sowing the seeds of their own demise.
They make a lot of money delivering what normally is cable TV or whatever we download. Whether we subscribe to cable TV or whether we pay to get internet access so we can download the movies, the cable company makes money. If they didn't make money, they could be out of business and then how would we download our movies?
Not so fast. Comcast has been aggressive rolling out phone services, buying Plaxo, and now in a deal with NBC-Universal. They realize that they cannot remain just a dumb-pipe. Content is key.
They are not acting defensively, they are on offense.
Conventional cable TV will eventually die and cable TV providers will try to increase internet rates to make up for the income shortfall. That is all I'm saying. They can also try to adapt as you suggest Comcast is doing.
A frightened puppy will bite you. While offensive in appearance, it is truly a defensive maneuver. I don't know a lot about the situation in the US, but here in Canada, cable providers appear to be resisting the change and your statement about Comcast doesn't convince me that it is any different down south.
If they were truly on the offensive, they would be the ones bringing TV over internet to the masses.
If you get it for free, you'll watch what they give you to see.
If you pay for it, you'll watch what you want to see.
At the moment, I'm pretty much watching what I want to see with ad supported Hulu. That may well change, nothing is set in stone.
From a business standpoint, I think subscriptions are the only way to successfully offer TV Show rentals that are ad free. What pricing model would you use for TV Show rentals?
From what I understand, the networks would net more renting at $0.50 an episode than they would if the same person watched the ad-supported version on TV. It's certainly a lot more than they would get through Hulu. Even if apple takes half rather than 30% because of infrastructure costs and the low price, that's still sitting pretty good against ad-based TV. So really, a $0.99 per episode rental is a realistic business proposition, if they're afraid $0.50 would undervalue their content, even though they generally get less through their primary income. I might even consider that. I'm generally not paying $1.99 just to watch an episode that I probably will never watch again.
Well, that report just says that some of the content will remain advertising supported (or "free") but that Hulu will be offering more payed-content in the future. No one really knows when this will happen or even what percentage will be payed but you can pretty much be assured that they won't continue to offer "free" content unless they can extract some form of "payment" from the viewers.
Maybe, there isn't any proof of that.
They make a lot of money delivering what normally is cable TV or whatever we download. Whether we subscribe to cable TV or whether we pay to get internet access so we can download the movies, the cable company makes money. If they didn't make money, they could be out of business and then how would we download our movies?
Cable TV and internet are supplied through the same cable. Most internet offerings are unlimited, so your internet usage doesn't change how much they get paid (right now).
This is simplest with equations.
Current income = internet fees + cable tv fees
Future income = internet fees
If you want current and future income to remain the same (their costs won't necessarily go down) where is the lost income from not selling cable TV to the masses anymore going to come from? Now there are other potential sources of income, they could provide the internet TV, or they could diversify, but denying a potential increase in internet rates seems short sighted.
From another perspective. There are ISPs that do not provide cable TV, will they still be charging the same fees when everyones bandwidth use increases due to them getting their TV over the internet?
i have 76 channels watch only about 10
too bad congress doesn't let us do ala cart
the key is content and when you drop cable they up the price of the broadband
they are looking close to netflix, apple, hulu etc
but i got to have dvr, backup and storage etc
So the Tally in the end would come out about 1/3 to one half the amount we now pay, and we'll get more use out of our entertainment system to boot.
I think this is actually part of the problem. If we're paying less, then some companies are earning less. And they'll fight to the death to stop that happening.
(edit: and now I just read a few people saying the same just above... it pays to get to the END of the thread before responding!!!!)
Which is why we're seeing these older companies who "don't get it"... but what they don't get is how to keep their revenue.
For the change to happen, we probably need to work on everyone paying the same as they do now (with some shuffling of WHERE the money is going)... but getting a much more useful service for them. Perhaps eventually cable & dsl bills will TRIPLE, but the TV services will be much cheaper (ie AppleTV subscriptions cheap, or cheap cableTV, etc)
... and where does that leave Apple? Certainly NOT with a product which lets most people replace their cableTV with something just as good (or better) at 1/3 the overall price. (Unfortunately!).
... my best guess - Apple should start with any content producers that don't own cable delivery networks and give them a better distribution deal (for now) than they currently get. They'll be happy with that, and it'll still be cheaper for us as the cable companies won't respond immediately. As the cable companies start charging more for us using 20 times the bandwidth than we used to, Apple will have to renegotiate with the producers to bring the prices down.
Cable TV and internet are supplied through the same cable. Most internet offerings are unlimited, so your internet usage doesn't change how much they get paid (right now).
This is simplest with equations.
Current income = internet fees + cable tv fees
Future income = internet fees
If you want current and future income to remain the same (their costs won't necessarily go down) where is the lost income from not selling cable TV to the masses anymore going to come from? Now there are other potential sources of income, they could provide the internet TV, or they could diversify, but denying a potential increase in internet rates seems short sighted.
From another perspective. There are ISPs that do not provide cable TV, will they still be charging the same fees when everyones bandwidth use increases due to them getting their TV over the internet?
Well, not so fast. If we the customers aren't paying for the cable TV fees because we don't buy the content, the cable companies wouldn't buy from the content providers, right? Their cost would be reduced substantially. It doesn't seem to make much sense for them to pay for the content if the customers aren't buying. We the customers would just be buying the content directly and paying for it separately.
.... you'd still need a cable package if you want live content like news, sports, talk shows, etc. ? and considering half (if not more) of the tv shows available on iTunes come from the networks you can get for free over the air, that $30/mo would only be gaining you a handful of shows.
News comes up a lot. Perhaps you watch more live news than I do?
I'd like the AppleTV to give me a news program that looks more like a DVD menu of choices (or "iTunes Extras"). While I'm reading a choice of article headings the news presenter might be summarising tonights news. Let me click each time the presenters says something I want to know more about... they could offer twice as much news and I could watch what interests me in less time (while still seeing the broad overview). It's not live but it's VERY convenient. And some stories could link to more in-depth "specials" directly (or mark them to download when available, or with tomorrow's news)
I agree with what you say about Free-to-air. I still think Apple needs to find a way of offering "free-to-download" shows that insert commercials (just like FTA) - probably where the advertisers selectively chose which kinds of viewers they want seeing their ads (and thus we see less ads but they're more appropriate).
"Earlier this year, Apple selected Maiden, N.C., as the location for its $1 billion server farm. The exact purpose of that data center has not been stated."
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...m_project.html
Imagine a world where all we had was those all-you-can-eat smorgasbords with 200 different dishes (and some premium content like a seafood bar for those who want it).
If a consumer said "I don't eat 3/4 of the dishes available here... we should be able to go to a restaurant and chose JUST what we want to eat. That'd be 1/4 the cost!", we'd see it pretty clearly that it's not going to happen.
A la carte is usually more expensive unless you're a very small eater. Sure we never ate 3/4 of the smorgasbord, but everyone ate some share, and everyone ignored some others, the specific choices aren't important.
Usually people totally disagree with me when I say this... but none have argued well (to me) why that model doesn't fit.
I think this is actually part of the problem. If we're paying less, then some companies are earning less. And they'll fight to the death to stop that happening.
Don't be so sure you will be paying less. The shows we watch cost money. A show becomes successful, the cast demands more money, the cost for the show goes up. Pro athletes make more money, the cost to the networks cost more, the cost is passed on. Our cable bill goes up. We the customers have one entity to direct our anger at, the cable company. If we buy our content and the delivery (broadband) separately, will we pay less or will we just pay differently (couple of different bills)?
Why do people think that a la carte will be cheaper?
Imagine a world where all we had was those all-you-can-eat smorgasbords with 200 different dishes (and some premium content like a seafood bar for those who want it).
If a consumer said "I don't eat 3/4 of the dishes available here... we should be able to go to a restaurant and chose JUST what we want to eat. That'd be 1/4 the cost!", we'd see it pretty clearly that it's not going to happen.
A la carte is usually more expensive unless you're a very small eater. Sure we never ate 3/4 of the smorgasbord, but everyone ate some share, and everyone ignored some others, the specific choices aren't important.
Usually people totally disagree with me when I say this... but none have argued well (to me) why that model doesn't fit.
I agree with your saying. There are plenty on this forum that don?t like idea simply because they don?t watch enough TV or watch TV in a certain way to suit their needs. For them the subscription model doesn?t work. Likely the iTS model doesn?t work. I can see how this would fill a void that is currently not met by anyone.
Why do people think that a la carte will be cheaper?
Imagine a world where all we had was those all-you-can-eat smorgasbords with 200 different dishes (and some premium content like a seafood bar for those who want it).
...
Usually people totally disagree with me when I say this... but none have argued well (to me) why that model doesn't fit.
The difference that separates it from buffets is that the cable networks (MTV, ESPN, Discovery, etc.) get paid a per-subscriber fee, whether or not a given subscriber actually watches anything on those networks. Don't watch the MTV networks? Too bad, some of your money does go to them even if you don't watch it. With a buffet, if you don't take the eggs, the chicken farmer doesn't get a specific cut from everyone whether or not they took the eggs, they get money for eggs actually sold, not for eggs sold + a specific cut from everyone's checks.
So because it doesn’t have all the options of another service it shouldn’t exist, even though it gives the consumer several new options these other services don’t? Not fitting your needs doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit others. By your reckoning, the iTS should have never worked for music, movies or TV shows. But it does. Try looking at the whole thing, just the parts you don’t like.
It should certainly exist, just at a more realistic price given iTunes' limited selection comprised mostly of shows available over the air for free.
Me, for example, iTS has every show I watch, except some stuff from the UK. I don’t watch cable or sat shows when I have it because I’m constantly on the move. I typically miss them and hate to schedule myself around the TV. I much prefer to have it fit my timeline. I have torrents at this point as the only solution if Hulu doesn’t offer it, or if it’s something that I want with good quality. What part of $30 would not make my TV viewing simplified in your eyes? If this can let me pull a TV show rental from my iPhone while waiting for a plane how would anyone else compete with that? How does that overlap with the cable companies in your eyes?
You're right. This would be a great service for people who only watch the hundred or so shows available on iTunes (many of which are lingering episodes of shows that have been cancelled), don't mind waiting an hour for their download before they can begin watching, never want to see a show when it airs, don't want the freedom of channel surfing, and never want to watch sports, news or talk shows. Because realistically, to justify the price, most people would have to ditch their cable/dish altogether and make this their only source of television.
PS: iTS trumps cable in quality of feeds. Re you really going to argue that 480p MPEG-2 is better than 640p H.264? Are you the one that claims that iTS video is worse than VHS?
I thought we were talking about HD content. What the hell is 640p? Regardless, The Daily Show on iTunes doesn't look any better than it does on cable.
It should certainly exist, just at a more realistic price given iTunes' limited selection comprised mostly of shows available over the air for free.
You?re looking at from what you would want, not the business model itself. I think $30 is low balling what Apple could charge for a service that allows for TV shows to easily DLed and viewed on Macs, AppleTVs and iDevices. No cable company can compare to me being able to grab unlimited shows away from the living room. The best solution for that is TiVo which I can copy the MOEG-2 to my Mac and then convert to MPEG-4. That is a PITA that people aren?t willing to go through. I know how to do it and I still don?t want that rigamarole.
You're right. This would be a great service for people who only watch the hundred or so shows available on iTunes (many of which are lingering episodes of shows that have been cancelled), don't mind waiting an hour for their download before they can begin watching, never want to see a show when it airs, don't want the freedom of channel surfing, and never want to watch sports, news or talk shows. Because realistically, to justify the price, most people would have to ditch their cable/dish altogether and make this their only source of television.
There are 200 shows on iTS. Netflix has a lot more, but they have nothing current so they can?t compete with that until the optical disc is printed after the season ends. Cable and Sat can only play when the networks air it, but then you have the issue of watching it on the go again. This would fill a void that isn?t currently addressed by anyone? accept maybe the torrent and newsgroup users, but even that requires VisualHub/iSquint to convert to MPEG-4 for iDevice use. Plus, it?s not legal and just messy all around. Like most people, I will pay for convenience.
The bottom line is, if you don?t need you don?t get it. Just like with all products. There is no one else that can fill this void besides Apple. If you can tell me who else can do and how they can do it you be able to make yourself wealthy. I just spent $50 for a couple seasons of a show I watched in a couple weeks last month because I couldn?t find it on torrents or Hulu, and Netflix and cable/sat are not options.. I could have saved $20 with such a subscription, even though I would probably still wouldn?t have opted for it.
Well, not so fast. If we the customers aren't paying for the cable TV fees because we don't buy the content, the cable companies wouldn't buy from the content providers, right? Their cost would be reduced substantially. It doesn't seem to make much sense for them to pay for the content if the customers aren't buying. We the customers would just be buying the content directly and paying for it separately.
Yes you have a point. My claims may be somewhat exaggerated. My major point is that as we increase our bandwidth use collectively, the ISPs will likely charge more. Internet TV will likely be a major source of increased bandwidth use. Also taking away a major bread bringer like cable TV would be far from painless, even if it didn't result in losses.... there would definitely be a reduction in profits. Sorry for sensationalizing how bad it would be for ISPs/Cable providers, I think I just wants certain ones here in Canada to fail.