They can just raise the rates for Internet and potentially screw with your streaming packets when they know it is video from iTunes.
Raise rates: true, but I suspect that furious competition amongst various internet providers would ensue and the prices would return to what we see now. So may happen but will be short-lived.
Screw with internet packets: highly illegal due to net-neutrality laws, and very easy to detect. Busted and busted hard. Won't happen.
JC, Carl Icahn throws a tweet about Apple right on the middle of a Nasdaq system crash. Volume is going be huge when trade resumes and we may crash again.
I would not be suprise if they halt Apple for the rest of the day
Once they get the best programming, HBO & AMC, you're damn right the cable companies won't have a choice but to follow. I hope this works for Apple. I'll sign up for HBO & AMC on Apple TV to do my part.
SCREW the cable and satellite companies. Kill them all.
Bell FIBE offers me unlimited downloads for 10$ with TV packages but its $30 without TV. So +$20 on internet but -$70 for the TV package. but apple wont offer there channels for free.
Maybe Apple can do both, offer something over the net like netflix and make deals with some cable companies so they can add there own app to handle there feed.
remember guys streaming TV over the net is going to take huge amounts of bandwith, especialy if youre a family. I am not so sure the end result will be cheaper than cable.
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 content providers would absolutely HATE this. Put them in the background like this and there goes their strength as a "brand". Not too long after that, the content owners look at them all as equal pipes, and there goes their power and differentiation completely. In the end, the "networks" and "cable providers" are the middlemen that get locked out. That is the ultimate end game of all of this, but it will probably take decades to shake out that way.
They can just raise the rates for Internet and potentially screw with your streaming packets when they know it is video from iTunes.
Raise rates: true, but I suspect that furious competition amongst various internet providers would ensue and the prices would return to what we see now. So may happen but will be short-lived.
Screw with internet packets: highly illegal due to net-neutrality laws, and very easy to detect. Busted and busted hard. Won't happen.
Thompson
My point was that in a very large segment of the US, there is only one choice for broadband, your one and only cable company. DSL, sure but that is slow even where available.
Bell FIBE offers me unlimited downloads for 10$ with TV packages but its $30 without TV. So +$20 on internet but -$70 for the TV package.
That always upsets me, but there's not much that can be done about it. ISPs are in it, right alongside everyone else.
Originally Posted by allmypeople
Also, iTunes has not been the solution... Most shows are way too expensive to buy.
Same price as buying the disc copies of whatever you're doing, yeah? And you get to own them (owned, no watermarks, no commercials to skip through) two days after air date rather than the month before the next season comes out. Anywhere the price is higher, I figure that benefit is worth the cost.
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.
Is DPI allowed in The States? It certainly isn't here in Holland The Netherlands, and our telco KPN who had done it was slapped in the face for doing so. It is a violation of many privacy rights and Internet freedom.
I honestly don't care who "wins" this between Intel, Sony, Google or Apple, etc. It doesn't matter, once there is a tiny crack in the dam, it's over for the monopoly the cable companies have become.
As for me, I'm going Aereo, Hulu + and Netflix this fall, goodby DirecTV. But I'll keep my Apple TV handy, ready for iTV or whatever it'll be called.
Monopolistic gateways. The're the structures that deliver the content from the production companies or publishers (aka "content providers") to the consumer public.
And APPLE getting together with the production companies sure looks like when APPLE allegedly got together with the publishers..... given the DoJ's taste of blood there might be some careful treading necessary was my point.
Note that Cable Companies like Comcast are also content providers. Comcast owns the NBC network, NBC-Universal studios. Thus, Apple has to directly negotiate with then as well. But Comcast is willing to bring its own app for content unlike other cable companies who aren't themselves content providers.
The cable companies are NOT f*cked. An Apple TV screen would only be bought by affluent people who are willing to pay a large premium for it.
I wouldn't buy an Apple TV unless it is a console since it isn't otherwise upgradable without having to buy a new television screen frequently. And because current LCD screens are just no good enough compared to a high-end Plasma screen. I would hate to be forced to watch TV on an LCD screen - people look cartoonish rather than realistic compared to Plasma.
Live sports will be the last stand for the cable companies. That said, as a MLB.tv subscriber I have access to far more baseball games than my cable company provides, and can do just fine without them. College football and basketball are more troublesome, since I can only get live streaming of those events through ESPN3 with the consent of my cable company.
So what really sucks is that I have to have my cable provider, even though I don't need them to actually view the content, since that can be streamed through my Apple TV.
It's like I am a victim in an old fashioned mob protection plan, where I am forced to pay the high cable fee to allow me to watch non-cable feeds on my devices.
No, that's not a good name for a TV. Just as iPhone is the perfect name for Apple's phone, iPad their digital pad, iTV is the best and only name they must choose for their TV. Even if they have to pay iTV UK $1B for the rights to use the name they should do it; it's that important.
Comments
Noticeably absent: Comcast owned NBC
As a side note I really hate cable companies being able to own content providers
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
They can just raise the rates for Internet and potentially screw with your streaming packets when they know it is video from iTunes.
Raise rates: true, but I suspect that furious competition amongst various internet providers would ensue and the prices would return to what we see now. So may happen but will be short-lived.
Screw with internet packets: highly illegal due to net-neutrality laws, and very easy to detect. Busted and busted hard. Won't happen.
Thompson
JC, Carl Icahn throws a tweet about Apple right on the middle of a Nasdaq system crash. Volume is going be huge when trade resumes and we may crash again.
I would not be suprise if they halt Apple for the rest of the day
Tim Cook is showing he has the balls of........of..........hmmmm..........Steve Jobs!!!
Once they get the best programming, HBO & AMC, you're damn right the cable companies won't have a choice but to follow. I hope this works for Apple. I'll sign up for HBO & AMC on Apple TV to do my part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
THANK YOU THANK YOU EXACTLY.
SCREW the cable and satellite companies. Kill them all.
Bell FIBE offers me unlimited downloads for 10$ with TV packages but its $30 without TV. So +$20 on internet but -$70 for the TV package. but apple wont offer there channels for free.
Maybe Apple can do both, offer something over the net like netflix and make deals with some cable companies so they can add there own app to handle there feed.
remember guys streaming TV over the net is going to take huge amounts of bandwith, especialy if youre a family. I am not so sure the end result will be cheaper than cable.
edit: Google, FWIW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
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 content providers would absolutely HATE this. Put them in the background like this and there goes their strength as a "brand". Not too long after that, the content owners look at them all as equal pipes, and there goes their power and differentiation completely. In the end, the "networks" and "cable providers" are the middlemen that get locked out. That is the ultimate end game of all of this, but it will probably take decades to shake out that way.
Thompson
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
They can just raise the rates for Internet and potentially screw with your streaming packets when they know it is video from iTunes.
Raise rates: true, but I suspect that furious competition amongst various internet providers would ensue and the prices would return to what we see now. So may happen but will be short-lived.
Screw with internet packets: highly illegal due to net-neutrality laws, and very easy to detect. Busted and busted hard. Won't happen.
Thompson
My point was that in a very large segment of the US, there is only one choice for broadband, your one and only cable company. DSL, sure but that is slow even where available.
I was not aware of any net neutrality laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
THANK YOU THANK YOU EXACTLY.
SCREW the cable and satellite companies. Kill them all.
Hey TS, agreed. It may be tough to do so though. Check this out: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/prisoners-of-cable/309109/
Originally Posted by herbapou
Bell FIBE offers me unlimited downloads for 10$ with TV packages but its $30 without TV. So +$20 on internet but -$70 for the TV package.
That always upsets me, but there's not much that can be done about it. ISPs are in it, right alongside everyone else.
Originally Posted by allmypeople
Also, iTunes has not been the solution... Most shows are way too expensive to buy.
Same price as buying the disc copies of whatever you're doing, yeah? And you get to own them (owned, no watermarks, no commercials to skip through) two days after air date rather than the month before the next season comes out. Anywhere the price is higher, I figure that benefit is worth the cost.
Is DPI allowed in The States? It certainly isn't here in
HollandThe Netherlands, and our telco KPN who had done it was slapped in the face for doing so. It is a violation of many privacy rights and Internet freedom.I honestly don't care who "wins" this between Intel, Sony, Google or Apple, etc. It doesn't matter, once there is a tiny crack in the dam, it's over for the monopoly the cable companies have become.
As for me, I'm going Aereo, Hulu + and Netflix this fall, goodby DirecTV. But I'll keep my Apple TV handy, ready for iTV or whatever it'll be called.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Rumor being called "a report."
Well, seems to be a "solid rumor" at least - http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/itv-finally-inside-apples-crazy-plan-to-change-the-way-you-watch-television/278949/
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
How do cable companies look like Amazon?
Monopolistic gateways. The're the structures that deliver the content from the production companies or publishers (aka "content providers") to the consumer public.
And APPLE getting together with the production companies sure looks like when APPLE allegedly got together with the publishers..... given the DoJ's taste of blood there might be some careful treading necessary was my point.
The cable companies are NOT f*cked. An Apple TV screen would only be bought by affluent people who are willing to pay a large premium for it.
I wouldn't buy an Apple TV unless it is a console since it isn't otherwise upgradable without having to buy a new television screen frequently. And because current LCD screens are just no good enough compared to a high-end Plasma screen. I would hate to be forced to watch TV on an LCD screen - people look cartoonish rather than realistic compared to Plasma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allmypeople
Also, iTunes has not been the solution... Most shows are way too expensive to buy.
This is true a la carte, pay only for the shows you want.
So what really sucks is that I have to have my cable provider, even though I don't need them to actually view the content, since that can be streamed through my Apple TV.
It's like I am a victim in an old fashioned mob protection plan, where I am forced to pay the high cable fee to allow me to watch non-cable feeds on my devices.
No, that's not a good name for a TV. Just as iPhone is the perfect name for Apple's phone, iPad their digital pad, iTV is the best and only name they must choose for their TV. Even if they have to pay iTV UK $1B for the rights to use the name they should do it; it's that important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2
Tim Cook is showing he has the balls of........of..........hmmmm..........Steve Jobs!!!
Hmmm, where? In a jar on his desk? In his briefcase? Did Laureen approve this?
Tim Cook... ABC