I wish I could only pay for Formula One and view it online. Same with Tennis, Golf and well that's about it! Maybe Ironman.
I would gladly do this and watch it via my ATV.
Fingers crossed! It's coming.
P.S. Couldn't Apple buy one of the Sat TV networks and just bypass all the greedy regional cable companies. How many Apple customers would switch to an Apple TV provider? All of them?
Then the set top box could be an AppleTV...All problems solved!
I have suggested Apple buy Dish multiple times to only be laughed at. Glad to see thta there is someone else a little crazy too
I would like to be able to by seasons of specific shows and / or events rather than an entire channel assuming the cost was reasonable.
I'm generally the same way although for sites thing like HBO or Showtime where I watch several shows but don't generally rewatch I would pay for the channel. I just don't what to have to have to pay for basic cable as well.
As the cost of shows needs to come down, quality up to 720p, etc. not to mention complete my season on all titles, no more two year delays and no more splitting features between multiple 'box sets' (or give us credit for the episodes bought via season etc so we can just 'complete' the box set for a small price)
You're not paying the full price though. The subscription amount pays for part, and the commercials pay for the other part.
Would you rather Hulu Plus cost (double? Triple?)
If I could get the full offerings commercial free inside the videos (banners etc on the page I don't care either way) I would happily pay $15/20 a month. If they could get prime titles like HBO and Showtime within the week on the same times Id go $30 easy.
<QUOTE>While commercials pay for programming a cable company has a network of coaxial cable it needs to build and maintain and employees to do that, commercials don't pay for that. It's not as simple as one might think it is.</QUOTE>
If you don't have cable and you use an antenna, you still have to maintain the antenna and cable. It costs me about $10/year to do that. A lot less than a greedy monopolistic cable cabal. I have had an antenna since the early 1970's.
But Netflix is the same amount and no commercials!!!
But in many cases one has to wait almost a year for programming. In many cases Hulu is like VOD. I would watch episodes of Revolution a day after it aired live.
I have suggested Apple buy Dish multiple times to only be laughed at. Glad to see thta there is someone else a little crazy too
It is a tad laughable because they wouldn't get the content deals with the package. So they would have to arrange that and it would be basically the same work to just work better deals for their store. Like getting files upp'd in quality, lowered in price and quicker on release dates.
As I posited in another discussion forum perhaps what they are working on a deal that would allow them to offer streaming only access at the same time as OTA for season passes that add a premium for the privilege. Folks might be willing to add say $5 to a pass if it let them stream the episode on an iPad or Apple TV during that 12-18 hour period before downloading kicks in. Especially if the overall price of passes comes down. They are rather ridiculous in price given that its often the same as disc sets that go in set for as much as 70% off all the freaking time.
Everything is for sale for the right price. But, no, Dish is curently not up for sale. But my point in Apple pursuing Dish is not just for the TV distribution, it would also be for their valuable spectrum and the instant national coverage.
For Dish to go the Cable Box route they have to eeither strike deals with the studios (tried and failed) or go cable company by cable company.
The basic fact is we are being gouged by COMCAST and the companies they buy content from. I thought we lived in a country where we have choice? If we have so much choice why can't I pay to have the commericials removed and pick only those channels I want to watch? The cable conglomerates advertise 200 channel line ups, of course failing to mention that several dozen of these kepp replaying the same tired old re-runs of Die Hard to name one of a long list of tired old movies like they are brand new!. I mean why do I have to pay $100 a month just to watch the same boring old re-runs and be put thru 17mins of commericail every hour. There are oly really perhaps 5 channels I watch to get at interetsing and new content BBC, IFC, ESPN, SCI-FI to name 4 - the rest are pretty much garbage being subsidized by our need to get at these top 10 or so.
It is a tad laughable because they wouldn't get the content deals with the package. So they would have to arrange that and it would be basically the same work to just work better deals for their store. Like getting files upp'd in quality, lowered in price and quicker on release dates.
As I posited in another discussion forum perhaps what they are working on a deal that would allow them to offer streaming only access at the same time as OTA for season passes that add a premium for the privilege. Folks might be willing to add say $5 to a pass if it let them stream the episode on an iPad or Apple TV during that 12-18 hour period before downloading kicks in. Especially if the overall price of passes comes down. They are rather ridiculous in price given that its often the same as disc sets that go in set for as much as 70% off all the freaking time.
They might have to work new deals but Direct TV has changed hands several times and I don't think anyone lost any service during any sale transaction. It is not the same as starting from scratch with the networks.
I always thought that the "season pass" was a terrible model. Far to overpriced for a show. The value just isn't there if you like several series, plus you lose the discovery capability with it. Im not going to pay for a episode or a season pass of "Duck Dynasty" becasue a friend said it is wacky.
Whatever Apple does with TV flipping through channels and being able to discover things, because it is a buffett, will be vital.
You're not paying the full price though. The subscription amount pays for part, and the commercials pay for the other part.
Would you rather Hulu Plus cost (double? Triple?)
The trouble with that argument though is that no one ever gives up the numbers and the numbers can easily be fudged. We actually have nothing but the word of those in charge as to what things actually cost.
Given that Netflix can create original content of the same level of quality as HBO and still only charge people $8.00 a month flat fee, there is a strong argument that cable TV has been gouging us for years and years.
The trouble with that argument though is that no one ever gives up the numbers and the numbers can easily be fudged. We actually have nothing but the word of those in charge as to what things actually cost.
Given that Netflix can create original content of the same level of quality as HBO and still only charge people $8.00 a month flat fee, there is a strong argument that cable TV has been gouging us for years and years.
Netflix didn't go out and put cables up on poles nor did they send a technician to your house to wire it up, nor do they have live support. How many more employees does a cable company have over Netflix?
The way I see it, television is somewhat analogous to music albums pre-iTunes. The individual channels (tracks) are lumped together in packages (albums). Some channels are more popular (singles) while others are essentially filler.
Packages are currently as overpriced as $16 albums back in '99.
It would be awesome if you could subscribe to individual channels for anywhere between $0.99 to $4.99 per month (based on popularity), or "Complete my Package" for, say $10-30 a month (cheaper than subscribing to all individually).
Packages could be grouped by subject matter (Sports, Political, Science, Culture, Comedy, Movies, etc). So you could mix and match, or subscribe to whole packages.
Of course, the music industry caved because of Napster and piracy. Are torrents widespread enough to provide motivation, or are DVRs cutting into ad revenue enough? We'll see.
You're not paying the full price though. The subscription amount pays for part, and the commercials pay for the other part.
Would you rather Hulu Plus cost (double? Triple?)
Instead I would rather pay the real cost for the amount of TV that I watch, so maybe not a set amount each month but rather I pay for every commercial I skip. Granted I only watch maybe 4-5 hours a month on a big movie month.
The way I see it, television is somewhat analogous to music albums pre-iTunes. The individual channels (tracks) are lumped together in packages (albums). Some channels are more popular (singles) while others are essentially filler.
Packages are currently as overpriced as $16 albums back in '99.
It would be awesome if you could subscribe to individual channels for anywhere between $0.99 to $4.99 per month (based on popularity), or "Complete my Package" for, say $10-30 a month (cheaper than subscribing to all individually).
Packages could be grouped by subject matter (Sports, Political, Science, Culture, Comedy, Movies, etc). So you could mix and match, or subscribe to whole packages.
Of course, the music industry caved because of Napster and piracy. Are torrents widespread enough to provide motivation, or are DVRs cutting into ad revenue enough? We'll see.
So you'd want the TV industry to wait 13 years before they make more when they're making plenty right now. They're not in dire straits like the music industry was plus there are plenty of alternate choices other than Apple.
Comments
I wish I could only pay for Formula One and view it online. Same with Tennis, Golf and well that's about it! Maybe Ironman.
I would gladly do this and watch it via my ATV.
Fingers crossed! It's coming.
P.S. Couldn't Apple buy one of the Sat TV networks and just bypass all the greedy regional cable companies. How many Apple customers would switch to an Apple TV provider? All of them?
Then the set top box could be an AppleTV...All problems solved!
I have suggested Apple buy Dish multiple times to only be laughed at. Glad to see thta there is someone else a little crazy tooI'm generally the same way although for sites thing like HBO or Showtime where I watch several shows but don't generally rewatch I would pay for the channel. I just don't what to have to have to pay for basic cable as well.
As the cost of shows needs to come down, quality up to 720p, etc. not to mention complete my season on all titles, no more two year delays and no more splitting features between multiple 'box sets' (or give us credit for the episodes bought via season etc so we can just 'complete' the box set for a small price)
If I could get the full offerings commercial free inside the videos (banners etc on the page I don't care either way) I would happily pay $15/20 a month. If they could get prime titles like HBO and Showtime within the week on the same times Id go $30 easy.
Is it for sale?
<QUOTE>While commercials pay for programming a cable company has a network of coaxial cable it needs to build and maintain and employees to do that, commercials don't pay for that. It's not as simple as one might think it is.</QUOTE>
If you don't have cable and you use an antenna, you still have to maintain the antenna and cable. It costs me about $10/year to do that. A lot less than a greedy monopolistic cable cabal. I have had an antenna since the early 1970's.
But Netflix is the same amount and no commercials!!!
And I also use Hulu Plus on a Roku
But in many cases one has to wait almost a year for programming. In many cases Hulu is like VOD. I would watch episodes of Revolution a day after it aired live.
It is a tad laughable because they wouldn't get the content deals with the package. So they would have to arrange that and it would be basically the same work to just work better deals for their store. Like getting files upp'd in quality, lowered in price and quicker on release dates.
As I posited in another discussion forum perhaps what they are working on a deal that would allow them to offer streaming only access at the same time as OTA for season passes that add a premium for the privilege. Folks might be willing to add say $5 to a pass if it let them stream the episode on an iPad or Apple TV during that 12-18 hour period before downloading kicks in. Especially if the overall price of passes comes down. They are rather ridiculous in price given that its often the same as disc sets that go in set for as much as 70% off all the freaking time.
But remember that it's the retailer that puts them on sale.
Is it for sale?
Everything is for sale for the right price. But, no, Dish is curently not up for sale. But my point in Apple pursuing Dish is not just for the TV distribution, it would also be for their valuable spectrum and the instant national coverage.For Dish to go the Cable Box route they have to eeither strike deals with the studios (tried and failed) or go cable company by cable company.
It is a tad laughable because they wouldn't get the content deals with the package. So they would have to arrange that and it would be basically the same work to just work better deals for their store. Like getting files upp'd in quality, lowered in price and quicker on release dates.
As I posited in another discussion forum perhaps what they are working on a deal that would allow them to offer streaming only access at the same time as OTA for season passes that add a premium for the privilege. Folks might be willing to add say $5 to a pass if it let them stream the episode on an iPad or Apple TV during that 12-18 hour period before downloading kicks in. Especially if the overall price of passes comes down. They are rather ridiculous in price given that its often the same as disc sets that go in set for as much as 70% off all the freaking time.
They might have to work new deals but Direct TV has changed hands several times and I don't think anyone lost any service during any sale transaction. It is not the same as starting from scratch with the networks.I always thought that the "season pass" was a terrible model. Far to overpriced for a show. The value just isn't there if you like several series, plus you lose the discovery capability with it. Im not going to pay for a episode or a season pass of "Duck Dynasty" becasue a friend said it is wacky.
Whatever Apple does with TV flipping through channels and being able to discover things, because it is a buffett, will be vital.
I can haz no ad TV? Want!
One with ads, one without ads.
Given that Netflix can create original content of the same level of quality as HBO and still only charge people $8.00 a month flat fee, there is a strong argument that cable TV has been gouging us for years and years.
Netflix didn't go out and put cables up on poles nor did they send a technician to your house to wire it up, nor do they have live support. How many more employees does a cable company have over Netflix?
Netflix is mostly back catalog stuff.
Packages are currently as overpriced as $16 albums back in '99.
It would be awesome if you could subscribe to individual channels for anywhere between $0.99 to $4.99 per month (based on popularity), or "Complete my Package" for, say $10-30 a month (cheaper than subscribing to all individually).
Packages could be grouped by subject matter (Sports, Political, Science, Culture, Comedy, Movies, etc). So you could mix and match, or subscribe to whole packages.
Of course, the music industry caved because of Napster and piracy. Are torrents widespread enough to provide motivation, or are DVRs cutting into ad revenue enough? We'll see.
Instead I would rather pay the real cost for the amount of TV that I watch, so maybe not a set amount each month but rather I pay for every commercial I skip. Granted I only watch maybe 4-5 hours a month on a big movie month.
So you'd want the TV industry to wait 13 years before they make more when they're making plenty right now. They're not in dire straits like the music industry was plus there are plenty of alternate choices other than Apple.