Are you actually serious? It may differ depending on who you use but very simple to go into menu settings and edit your favorite channels and choose your channel list and choose not to display certain channels in your guide. I removed all the channels I don't subscribe to as well as about 100 more I can watch but never will.
Yeah, that really solves the problem, doesn't it? Yeah, uh huh. I can certainly use said content now, by hiding it, instead of actually being able to use it.
You need to stop replying to me. Your vendetta blinds you to everything.
Go Apple go! I don't care if they update the AppleTV or if they make a full-fledged television set. I just want to get away from DirecTV (and I love them compared to Dish and Comcast) and get to a la carte pricing. Willing to sacrifice however many chickens is necessary to make this happen.
Yeah, that really solves the problem, doesn't it? Yeah, uh huh. I can certainly use said content now, by hiding it, instead of actually being able to use it.
You need to stop replying to me. Your vendetta blinds you to everything.
Yeah it really does solve your problem since you would never again see a channel you don't subscribe to and have to look at that message again. The only other solution would be to subscribe to the channels so you don't see that error message. Do you expect to be able to watch HBO or other channels where you see this message without paying for them? I gave you a solution you obviously were unaware existed. You are welcome.
Fine except I still want local programming. As for ESPN they don't have all the games for all the sports either.
And, if you get your Internet from the cable companies they still have you by the balls. They can just raise the rates for Internet and potentially screw with your streaming packets when they know it is video from iTunes.
Ahh...but Apple has more than enough $$$ laying around to either buy one of the larger cable and/or internet providers to enter the TV market on their terms. I wish that would actually happen.
Although surely not a popular idea around here, there could be some benefit to negotiate with Google. Apple content delivered over Google Fiber, if even on a small scale at first, could persuade the cable companies in the right direction.
Go Apple go! I don't care if they update the AppleTV or if they make a full-fledged television set. I just want to get away from DirecTV (and I love them compared to Dish and Comcast) and get to a la carte pricing. Willing to sacrifice however many chickens is necessary to make this happen.
Like you I also would love a la carte channel selection if (and a very big if) it were priced lower than what I currently pay. But the reality is that a la carte channel selection would result in higher monthly bills not cheaper. We would paying the same amount for the 10 channels we really want as we pay now for the 150 we may not watch.
Reportedly, an Apple television set would follow the company's iOS paradigm of organizing content around apps, moving away from the traditional channel model. Apple might also offer cross-app search functionality, further abstracting the content from the specific providers.
This, IMO is the wrong way to go. What would be the difference with the current model where if you want to watch say "Game of Thrones" you need HBO. If you want "The Waking Dead" you need AMC. If you want "House of Cards" then it's Netflix. "Myth Busters"? You need a subscription to Discovery.
The ideal model would be to choose your programs, let's call it "My favorites" and when new episodes come in, a notification can appear on your Apple TV screen and/or Mac and/or iPad and/or iPhone. If you happen to click one of the "My favorites" list then the info page appears with all previously released episodes, plus info that the next new episode is due on YYYY-MM-DD @ HH:MI.
They can keep the current iTunes model for brand new Releases and make them available for rent or sale.
I still can't figure out what they're going to do about live events. NFL, Premier League, MLB, WTA, PGA, UCI, UEFA, FIFA, Cricket, CNN, the Pope's visit etc.
The challenges that they face are already enormous in the US. Add to that other countries with unique laws that are in place to protect culture and local content and the difficulty rises exponentially.
I love the idea of shows as apps rather than as lineups on channels. The natural mental process is to browse for shows rather than browse by channel. The content providers should love this. It's really foolish to spend advertising dollars and waste viewer mindshare promoting your three letters (HBO, USA, CNN, etc.). The only reason they have to promote their call letters so much is because the way TV is set up, you have to go search for their channel first and then their shows. Nobody really watches a content provider, we all watch a content provider's show. Do you like Suits because it's on USA or are you on USA because you like Suits?
The cable companies will get to keep exclusive rights to channels like HBO but no one wants channels any more they want content. NetFlix and Amazon already have access to some of the content such as Breaking Bsd and now Apple will as well. In the end the cable companies will become ISPs and the obsolete concepts of channels, scheduled programming and inserted ads will vanish into history.
I wish Apple could figure out how to get quick channel flipping, which is unavailable through streaming. That's one advantage of cable.
I just wish we could just simply select on a monthly basis which channels we want and don't want.
I wouldn't mind paying $.50 a month for access to a regular cable channel and then $1.50 a month for a premium channel. There are only so many channels that I'm interested in and I'm sure that I would probably pay less than $50 a month for only what i wanted rather than having to pay $100 for a lot of crap I have no need for.
It would be interesting to find out based on a pay per channel, which channels people would actually pay for. I'm sure some of these channels would go out of business if they realized how many we DON'T want. Which would free up bandwidth.
And, if you get your Internet from the cable companies they still have you by the balls. They can just raise the rates for Internet and potentially screw with your streaming packets when they know it is video from iTunes.
Tempered somewhat because most markets have more than one Internet service available.
I wish Apple could figure out how to get quick channel flipping, which is unavailable through streaming. That's one advantage of cable.
I just wish we could just simply select on a monthly basis which channels we want and don't want.
I wouldn't mind paying $.50 a month for access to a regular cable channel and then $1.50 a month for a premium channel. There are only so many channels that I'm interested in and I'm sure that I would probably pay less than $50 a month for only what i wanted rather than having to pay $100 for a lot of crap I have no need for.
It would be interesting to find out based on a pay per channel, which channels people would actually pay for. I'm sure some of these channels would go out of business if they realized how many we DON'T want. Which would free up bandwidth.
Assume you like watching pro golf and everything associated with it. Golf channels may not be one of the popular choices and probably aren't. If only 5% of Apple TV viewers are willing to pay for the Golf Channel then it would probably disappear would it not? Some of these "fringe" channels with a small but committed following may only exist because they're included and paid for in a package of channels. In ala carte programming it may not be financially supportable. So you don't get to watch a golf channel.
Comments
Originally Posted by gwmac
Are you actually serious? It may differ depending on who you use but very simple to go into menu settings and edit your favorite channels and choose your channel list and choose not to display certain channels in your guide. I removed all the channels I don't subscribe to as well as about 100 more I can watch but never will.
Yeah, that really solves the problem, doesn't it? Yeah, uh huh. I can certainly use said content now, by hiding it, instead of actually being able to use it.
You need to stop replying to me. Your vendetta blinds you to everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, that really solves the problem, doesn't it? Yeah, uh huh. I can certainly use said content now, by hiding it, instead of actually being able to use it.
You need to stop replying to me. Your vendetta blinds you to everything.
Yeah it really does solve your problem since you would never again see a channel you don't subscribe to and have to look at that message again. The only other solution would be to subscribe to the channels so you don't see that error message. Do you expect to be able to watch HBO or other channels where you see this message without paying for them? I gave you a solution you obviously were unaware existed. You are welcome.
Originally Posted by gwmac
Yeah it really does solve your problem since you would never again see a channel you don't subscribe to…
Not the point being made. Try reading the post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Fine except I still want local programming. As for ESPN they don't have all the games for all the sports either.
And, if you get your Internet from the cable companies they still have you by the balls. They can just raise the rates for Internet and potentially screw with your streaming packets when they know it is video from iTunes.
Ahh...but Apple has more than enough $$$ laying around to either buy one of the larger cable and/or internet providers to enter the TV market on their terms. I wish that would actually happen.
And what, just sell iTV in Mountain View? :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138
Hope APPLE has learned it's lesson from the books mess. "Content providers" sure looks a lot like publishers and cable companies a lot like Amazon.
And we know how that's been going....
How do cable companies look like Amazon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshmaker
Go Apple go! I don't care if they update the AppleTV or if they make a full-fledged television set. I just want to get away from DirecTV (and I love them compared to Dish and Comcast) and get to a la carte pricing. Willing to sacrifice however many chickens is necessary to make this happen.
Like you I also would love a la carte channel selection if (and a very big if) it were priced lower than what I currently pay. But the reality is that a la carte channel selection would result in higher monthly bills not cheaper. We would paying the same amount for the 10 channels we really want as we pay now for the 150 we may not watch.
This short video explains why
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/why-cable-la-carte-pricing-will-never-happen-RRn3sCquSfOrQmCsDG7XEQ.html
These also explain why we won't be seeing it anytime soon.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/a-la-carte-channels-cable-tv-viewing/
http://go.bloomberg.com/tech-blog/2013-01-31-your-cable-bills-going-up-again-but-forget-a-la-carte-pricing/
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
How do cable companies look like Amazon?
Illegal collusion and monopolization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Reportedly, an Apple television set would follow the company's iOS paradigm of organizing content around apps, moving away from the traditional channel model. Apple might also offer cross-app search functionality, further abstracting the content from the specific providers.
This, IMO is the wrong way to go. What would be the difference with the current model where if you want to watch say "Game of Thrones" you need HBO. If you want "The Waking Dead" you need AMC. If you want "House of Cards" then it's Netflix. "Myth Busters"? You need a subscription to Discovery.
The ideal model would be to choose your programs, let's call it "My favorites" and when new episodes come in, a notification can appear on your Apple TV screen and/or Mac and/or iPad and/or iPhone. If you happen to click one of the "My favorites" list then the info page appears with all previously released episodes, plus info that the next new episode is due on YYYY-MM-DD @ HH:MI.
They can keep the current iTunes model for brand new Releases and make them available for rent or sale.
I still can't figure out what they're going to do about live events. NFL, Premier League, MLB, WTA, PGA, UCI, UEFA, FIFA, Cricket, CNN, the Pope's visit etc.
The challenges that they face are already enormous in the US. Add to that other countries with unique laws that are in place to protect culture and local content and the difficulty rises exponentially.
You don´t reinvent an industry by coping other players. You reinvent it by doing something completely different. That is the Apple way.
Actually more Kansas and Missouri (and a little Texas) and less Mountain View.
I love the idea of shows as apps rather than as lineups on channels. The natural mental process is to browse for shows rather than browse by channel. The content providers should love this. It's really foolish to spend advertising dollars and waste viewer mindshare promoting your three letters (HBO, USA, CNN, etc.). The only reason they have to promote their call letters so much is because the way TV is set up, you have to go search for their channel first and then their shows. Nobody really watches a content provider, we all watch a content provider's show. Do you like Suits because it's on USA or are you on USA because you like Suits?
I wish Apple could figure out how to get quick channel flipping, which is unavailable through streaming. That's one advantage of cable.
I just wish we could just simply select on a monthly basis which channels we want and don't want.
I wouldn't mind paying $.50 a month for access to a regular cable channel and then $1.50 a month for a premium channel. There are only so many channels that I'm interested in and I'm sure that I would probably pay less than $50 a month for only what i wanted rather than having to pay $100 for a lot of crap I have no need for.
It would be interesting to find out based on a pay per channel, which channels people would actually pay for. I'm sure some of these channels would go out of business if they realized how many we DON'T want. Which would free up bandwidth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
And, if you get your Internet from the cable companies they still have you by the balls. They can just raise the rates for Internet and potentially screw with your streaming packets when they know it is video from iTunes.
Tempered somewhat because most markets have more than one Internet service available.
Assume you like watching pro golf and everything associated with it. Golf channels may not be one of the popular choices and probably aren't. If only 5% of Apple TV viewers are willing to pay for the Golf Channel then it would probably disappear would it not? Some of these "fringe" channels with a small but committed following may only exist because they're included and paid for in a package of channels. In ala carte programming it may not be financially supportable. So you don't get to watch a golf channel.