In pushing for Time Warner merger, Comcast cites Apple's development of new set-top box

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 50
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

    It's ironic.

     

    I get live Time Warner cable on every device that I have except for one, the Apple TV.

     

    I can watch live Time Warner cable tv on iPhones, iPads, iPod Touches and Macs, but not on Apple TV.


    And you can get it on Roku.  So instead of using a cable box- you can just hook one of those up to the TV.  I'd love that accessibility with the Apple TV if they had a compelling search function and attractive UI.

  • Reply 22 of 50
    bobschlobbobschlob Posts: 1,074member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

     

    I am all for this deal. I could care less about cable monopolies, they are already monopolies.

     

    Cable and ISP should be broken up. It is a huge conflict of interest.


     

    And the "Contradiction of the Year Award goes to…"

  • Reply 23 of 50
    isteelersisteelers Posts: 738member
    My concern with al a carte programming would be the networks or studios charging more than what a cable bill now entails. These companies are not going to lose money, so the subscriptions may add up to more than the existing bills if you subscribe to more than a few channels or shows. Not to mention any caps on data from the ISPs.
  • Reply 24 of 50
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,743member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

     

    And you can get it on Roku.  So instead of using a cable box- you can just hook one of those up to the TV.  I'd love that accessibility with the Apple TV if they had a compelling search function and attractive UI.


     

    At the moment though, the quality of the picture on the cable box is much better than the internet live tv signal that they're sending out. 

     

    When I was watching Game of Thrones live the other night, I watched it on my cable box, because it looks much better than when streaming to a device.

     

    They might be limiting the bandwidth intentionally, but they need to match the bandwidth and quality of the cable box picture if they want to make internet streaming on different devices a compelling option.

  • Reply 25 of 50
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

     

    At the moment though, the quality of the picture on the cable box is much better than the internet live tv signal that they're sending out. 

     

    When I was watching Game of Thrones live the other night, I watched it on my cable box, because it looks much better than when streaming to a device.

     

    They might be limiting the bandwidth intentionally, but they need to match the bandwidth and quality of the cable box picture if they want to make internet streaming on different devices a compelling option.


    Just sit further away, then it won't matter <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

  • Reply 26 of 50
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by esummers View Post



    Personally I think local municipalities should provide internet service or at least run the fibre and lease it to ISPs. 

    Essentially the cities do own the fiber in the street even though they didn't install it. The cable company pays a license fee to have an exclusive provider agreement. The contracts are usually really long term to make sure the provider can recoup their investment of running the fiber in the first place. Obviously not every municipality could afford to build a multi-million dollar data center, which is what they would have to do if they wanted to allow multiple carriers to share the same fiber. It is not just the last mile. There is a lot more infrastructure required than just fiber in the street. Sure another company could pull more fiber through the conduit, but the exclusivity agreement prevents that from happening in most cases.

     

    AT&T in many cases already had leases on pole and underground going back to the when they were just POT and DSL so they can compete with the cable providers in the same neighborhoods.

  • Reply 27 of 50
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    Where's the Apple TV 4?
  • Reply 28 of 50
    Self-serving manipulation by Comcast.

    Just like when Microsoft wants to brag about Windows' marketshare, they call the Mac a "rounding error," but when Microsoft needed to defend itself against allegations of abusing monopoly power (back in 1998-2001, when there was serious discussion about breaking up MSFT), it cited the Mac as evidence that there was "competition."
  • Reply 29 of 50
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,499member
    Personally, I'm against any attempts to prevent mergers in this space (same with cell service carriers), but I'm also completely against subsidies and other such anti-competitive protections.
  • Reply 30 of 50
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    The Cable/Sat companies and the content providers have been giving each other reach around's for far to long.
  • Reply 31 of 50
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Nobody's gonna build a new network just for internet. The cost is astronomical, and it would take decades if not centuries to recover the cost.



    http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/?kw=100k_pvs&search=100k_pvs

     

    Didn't the wrestling people just create a network just for the internet?

  • Reply 32 of 50
    tylerk36tylerk36 Posts: 1,037member
    Buy the government. They won't mid. Then Apple can do what ever it likes just like the oil industry. Fracking aye.
  • Reply 33 of 50
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    Didn't the wrestling people just create a network just for the internet?

    I don't mean a TV network, I mean a cable network. Putting up new cables to deliver content, TV, phone, and internet.
  • Reply 34 of 50
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,416member
    These guys are simply using Apple as DoJ bait.

    Once (or if) the DoJ approves the deal, they'll dump the Apple 'set-top box' idea like a hot potato.
  • Reply 35 of 50
    phone-ui-guyphone-ui-guy Posts: 1,018member
    andysol wrote: »
     

    Apple shouldn't have to partner with U-verse. They should be able to compete with them and kick their ass. It would be great to hand pick my channel lineup, but right now I want to be able to pick my provider. Choosing between U-verse, Time Warner, Dish, and DirecTV is not what I have in mind. 
    Please expand.  If picking between U-verse, time warner, fios, dish, directtv, cox, etc. isnt what you have in mind- then what did you mean by you want to be able to pick your provider?

    I want to be able to get a tv package from some internet based service of my choosing. If Apple offered a service I liked I would go with them and time warner would just get my data business like they do now. I don't have tv service. We stream stuff when we want it, but I would prefer to stream a service instead of dozens of sites and Apple TV. They best example is voice service. I use a cable modem and have vonage. No need to get voice service from the last mile losers. I get good rates, compelling services, and even took my service to Europe for a couple years. This is what I want for tv content. If it were not for these content agreements, the last mile guys would be in trouble as innovators would eat their lunch. Even the disorganized mess I have is in a sense competing as it is good enough to keep me off of cable/sat/fiber providers content.
  • Reply 36 of 50
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

     

    When I was watching Game of Thrones live the other night,

     


     

    Game of Thrones is live? Does this officially make it the first snuff serial?

  • Reply 37 of 50
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    pmz wrote: »
    We should be able to buy content from the content creators. The best scenario is to have a retailer middle man, like Apple, for the entire thing.

    Works for iTunes.

    Wonder how successful it would be if you could watch a show LIVE when it Airs, but still had to pay per episode (you then own the episode thereafter as well). I think very.

    I think $0.99 for a 30 min segment with ads, and $1.99 for a 60 min segment with ads, to Watch LIVE and own the content Ad-free on demand afterward would be great. Certainly not cheap if you watch too much TV...but for my limited habits of consuming live TV it would be great.

    Let's say I watch a weekly series with 60 min episodes, that runs 24 episodes over the course of 6 months.

    I pay $1.99 per week to watch each episode with Ads, and then own it as part of my iTunes account for on demand streaming.

    At the end of 6 months, I've paid roughly $48 to watch Live and Own a full season. Over 6 months, not bad if you ask me. Not bad at all. More expensive than a current Season Pass on iTunes, but with added value.
    That's how the iTunes TV and movies currently work, and they show ad-free. Only difference is they upload the day after. Big deal I say. Screw Ads, I get enough of them on hulu+. And now the paid deal is no better than live TV ads-wise. Wasn't like that 12 mos. ago.
  • Reply 38 of 50
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    Once again this brings up the thought of an Apple branded cable stb. Ugh I really hope that's not the case. I am one of the small but slowing growing minority groups that use an Apple TV as my only source of TV content. iTunes, Hulu and netflix. We have antenna but have yet to use it. We don't watch sports or local news and our bill ( yes we still rely on cable company for data only) is about $100 less every month. We will not go back to the subscription cable model again. It's a rip-off and I really wish more people took the plunge too.
  • Reply 39 of 50
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    I want to be able to get a tv package from some internet based service of my choosing. If Apple offered a service I liked I would go with them and time warner would just get my data business like they do now. I don't have tv service. We stream stuff when we want it, but I would prefer to stream a service instead of dozens of sites and Apple TV. They best example is voice service. I use a cable modem and have vonage. No need to get voice service from the last mile losers. I get good rates, compelling services, and even took my service to Europe for a couple years. This is what I want for tv content. If it were not for these content agreements, the last mile guys would be in trouble as innovators would eat their lunch. Even the disorganized mess I have is in a sense competing as it is good enough to keep me off of cable/sat/fiber providers content.

    That's called biting the hand that feeds you. The last mile guys getting in trouble would mean you're in trouble as well, because you're service would eventually decline.
  • Reply 40 of 50
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    Game of Thrones is live? Does this officially make it the first snuff serial?

    I'm pretty sure Apple ][ is the guy Arya killed at the end. :lol:
Sign In or Register to comment.