I only watch TV on a TV set, so I don't need TV or movies on a tiny screen. Besides, CBS is free on antenna in HD. I get all the shows and movies I want on internet, antenna and the library. I just use my old mac mini as a set top box. I cut the cable cord many years ago, and cut netflix not long ago. l know many others that are doing basically the same. Why pay?
I only watch TV on a TV set, so I don't need TV or movies on a tiny screen. Besides, CBS is free on antenna in HD. I get all the shows and movies I want on internet, antenna and the library. I just use my old mac mini as a set top box. I cut the cable cord many years ago, and cut netflix not long ago. l know many others that are doing basically the same. Why pay?
CBS should be paying us to watch their ad-supported content.
Let's revisit your opinion after Apple's announcement.
If they say it's available only on iDevices I'll change my opinion, but the truth is that there's a plethora of streaming devices that will get this including desktop computers. CBS is doing this because people are changing their viewing habits, not because Apple negotiated it.
If they say it's available only on iDevices I'll change my opinion, but the truth is that there's a plethora of streaming devices that will get this including desktop computers. CBS is doing this because people are changing their viewing habits, not because Apple negotiated it.
If the networks don't wise up fast all of their entertainment programs will soon disappear and be replaced with full time ads for ambulance chasing legal firms, catheter suppliers and various remedies for embarassing medical conditions.
I only watch TV on a TV set, so I don't need TV or movies on a tiny screen. Besides, CBS is free on antenna in HD. I get all the shows and movies I want on internet, antenna and the library. I just use my old mac mini as a set top box. I cut the cable cord many years ago, and cut netflix not long ago. l know many others that are doing basically the same. Why pay?
This isn't only for mobile devices. You can get this on your streamer of choice connected to a big screen TV. You'd be paying for options not available to you as a OTA TV watcher.
If the networks don't wise up fast all of their entertainment programs will soon disappear and be replaced with full time ads for ambulance chasing legal firms, catheter suppliers and various remedies for embarassing medical conditions.
You gotta stop watching daytime, and late night TV.
They are being bypassed by the very content providers they depend upon for revenue. As more and more content providers make their content available outside of the cable/satellite industry more and more subscriber will not see the need to pay for 200 channels when they get the channels they do want al carte.
Not at these prices. It only works if you want to watch only one or two networks. Let's say all the networks do this and charge the same $6 a month. You subscribe to CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and let's say just four basic cable channels: take your pick, but one example might be AMC, FX, Comedy and SciFi. Now you're up to $48 a month. Add just one sports and one news channel and you're up to $60 a month and you still have to pay someone for access to the web. If your access to the web is via your cable company, if their cable revenue goes down, they'll simply raise their ISP prices. So in the end you'll be paying more than you're paying for those 200 channels today. And that's aside from the fact that each channel is going to be a separate URL or app.
But "cutting the cord" is such a mantra and the hip thing to do, that they'll probably get some math-impaired people to go for it.
I've always maintained that the current cable model, with ever increasing prices because of the demands of the cable networks is unsustainable and that the industry needs to go to al-a-carte pricing. The big sports stations, for example, charge hefty fees per subscriber, even if any given subscriber never watches the channel. This is why cable is so expensive. But the reality is that if they did, anyone taking more than just a handful of stations would probably wind up paying far more than they pay today.
So I don't think anyone has found a model that works for the content providers, the distributors (like the MSOs) and consumers, and they probably won't because everyone is greedy. If someone like Apple is eventually able to do it, it will only be because they'll be willing to lose money at it.
call me a sucker, but I love my Verizon FIOS, I get the full package, premium channels and all, and pay out the the nose, but there is so much quality stuff on TV these days, I am constantly deleting unwatched content from my DVR. I can watch every English Premier League game live, something folks in the UK can't do. There are at least 2-3 new premium movies per week, plus all the great series. but the best part is CHANNEL SURFING, its such a pleasure. Sorry netflix, Apple TV, etc. will never replace channel surfing.
I do not see this as good news, if anything once the dust settles most of us will be paying more than what we currently are paying. Since most of the cable providers are also our broadband providers and in most cases also have a monopoly, they will just jack up the price of broadband to make up the difference. This tells me we can say goodbye to net neutrality. The cable/broadband providers will soon adopt the wireless model of tiered plan which will greatly slowdown all this streaming adoption, or at very least make it a very expensive venture for those of us who wishes to go that route. What we are currently witnessing is that every network wants to charge for access, if you add all those things up, our bill will just as expensive as our current cable bill or more. Our dream/hope of lowering our cable bills just go squashed.
This might turn out like the hard liquor change in Washington state. Voters approved a law that would take the liquor stores away from the state and allow stores to sell hard alcohol. Sure, you can get alcohol now in more locations than before, but the price of alcohol went up as the state still wanted even more taxes on booze.
It will probably come to pass that if you want all of the channels provided by cable and got them a la carte, it would probably cost $300-$500 a month all added up.
Of course, no one is going to want that.
We got rid of cable years ago because of the $100+ bill (internet included). I think we only watched about 10 channels at the most out of the 100 offered. Sure this would be the case for a lot of people. 5-10 channels max which might come out to $100, but with a better interface and less gunk.
We also got rid of cable because the channels went up to 999 and it was a mess to navigate. Crazy stuff. Didn't want that complexity and the oversimplicity of AppleTV and Netflix and other channels was perfectly fine. And still is.
Sounds pretty exciting about this dam breaking on the cable industry. I'm sure Comcast will find a way to get some money out of this deal (like the Washington state government on liquor), and it would be a shock if Comcast was muscled out of any deal.
This is interesting. I have no desire to ever get a traditional cable/satellite subscription (I pay $9.95 a month for TheBlazeTV, that's it) but would be interested in pay for a few networks on an AppleTV. And my Roku is getting old (and wasn't that great anyway, I just bought it because ATV didn't have the option for a channel app store).
I'd pay for TVLand, Food Network, maybe one or two others.
1. I would pay this much for Big Bang Theory alone. One of my favorite shows. I usually buy the season on Apple TV, hopefully it comes to Apple TV soon.
2. Not one but TWO announcements like this within 24 hours of an Apple announcement? Has me wonder. I would SO love to see a new Apple TV with more 'channels' and Siri control. I cut the cable cord and Apple TV is my primary TV watching now.
3. I agree with what others have said - with two content providers going cable-free now, the tsunami is coming. Cable better improve its 1980s model or get swept away.
This is the same BS line the cable companies always spew. You will pay MORE for less channels. BS.
This is like the lie about CD music. The music companies said you need to buy the whole album on a CD. They said if they only sold a single song it would cost $5. BS. Total and utter BS. Its the same thing here.
Cutting the middle man (cable company) will be more profitable for content providers who have GREAT CONTENT. Its the loser content providers that only make crap that will be hurt.
The digital revolution for tv is happening. There is nothing the content providers can do except get on the band wagon. Those who are late will lose out.
I predict HBO will make huge $$$ with there new service and this will make others follow.
I'm jumping on the bandwagon that "It’s been way too long" refers to how long Apple has considered the Apple TV a "hobby." Unlike the other scenarios, that's actually be a long time by any measure.
This is interesting. I have no desire to ever get a traditional cable/satellite subscription (I pay $9.95 a month for TheBlazeTV, that's it) but would be interested in pay for a few networks on an AppleTV. And my Roku is getting old (and wasn't that great anyway, I just bought it because ATV didn't have the option for a channel app store).
I'd pay for TVLand, Food Network, maybe one or two others.
I pay for Netflix and after I finish watching the last season of The Walking Dead I'm thinking of canceling. Too few current options and life is too short to watch crappy movies.
Comments
This is not Apple's doing.
Let's revisit your opinion after Apple's announcement.
CBS should be paying us to watch their ad-supported content.
If they say it's available only on iDevices I'll change my opinion, but the truth is that there's a plethora of streaming devices that will get this including desktop computers. CBS is doing this because people are changing their viewing habits, not because Apple negotiated it.
I wish it had a built-in over-the-air digital tuner also so I could hook it up to my iPad and watch over-the-air live TV that way.
That would be awesome.
If the networks don't wise up fast all of their entertainment programs will soon disappear and be replaced with full time ads for ambulance chasing legal firms, catheter suppliers and various remedies for embarassing medical conditions.
This isn't only for mobile devices. You can get this on your streamer of choice connected to a big screen TV. You'd be paying for options not available to you as a OTA TV watcher.
You gotta stop watching daytime, and late night TV.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11624442/nfl-extends-sunday-ticket-deal-directv
They are being bypassed by the very content providers they depend upon for revenue. As more and more content providers make their content available outside of the cable/satellite industry more and more subscriber will not see the need to pay for 200 channels when they get the channels they do want al carte.
Not at these prices. It only works if you want to watch only one or two networks. Let's say all the networks do this and charge the same $6 a month. You subscribe to CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and let's say just four basic cable channels: take your pick, but one example might be AMC, FX, Comedy and SciFi. Now you're up to $48 a month. Add just one sports and one news channel and you're up to $60 a month and you still have to pay someone for access to the web. If your access to the web is via your cable company, if their cable revenue goes down, they'll simply raise their ISP prices. So in the end you'll be paying more than you're paying for those 200 channels today. And that's aside from the fact that each channel is going to be a separate URL or app.
But "cutting the cord" is such a mantra and the hip thing to do, that they'll probably get some math-impaired people to go for it.
I've always maintained that the current cable model, with ever increasing prices because of the demands of the cable networks is unsustainable and that the industry needs to go to al-a-carte pricing. The big sports stations, for example, charge hefty fees per subscriber, even if any given subscriber never watches the channel. This is why cable is so expensive. But the reality is that if they did, anyone taking more than just a handful of stations would probably wind up paying far more than they pay today.
So I don't think anyone has found a model that works for the content providers, the distributors (like the MSOs) and consumers, and they probably won't because everyone is greedy. If someone like Apple is eventually able to do it, it will only be because they'll be willing to lose money at it.
call me a sucker, but I love my Verizon FIOS, I get the full package, premium channels and all, and pay out the the nose, but there is so much quality stuff on TV these days, I am constantly deleting unwatched content from my DVR. I can watch every English Premier League game live, something folks in the UK can't do. There are at least 2-3 new premium movies per week, plus all the great series. but the best part is CHANNEL SURFING, its such a pleasure. Sorry netflix, Apple TV, etc. will never replace channel surfing.
I do not see this as good news, if anything once the dust settles most of us will be paying more than what we currently are paying. Since most of the cable providers are also our broadband providers and in most cases also have a monopoly, they will just jack up the price of broadband to make up the difference. This tells me we can say goodbye to net neutrality. The cable/broadband providers will soon adopt the wireless model of tiered plan which will greatly slowdown all this streaming adoption, or at very least make it a very expensive venture for those of us who wishes to go that route. What we are currently witnessing is that every network wants to charge for access, if you add all those things up, our bill will just as expensive as our current cable bill or more. Our dream/hope of lowering our cable bills just go squashed.
This might turn out like the hard liquor change in Washington state. Voters approved a law that would take the liquor stores away from the state and allow stores to sell hard alcohol. Sure, you can get alcohol now in more locations than before, but the price of alcohol went up as the state still wanted even more taxes on booze.
It will probably come to pass that if you want all of the channels provided by cable and got them a la carte, it would probably cost $300-$500 a month all added up.
Of course, no one is going to want that.
We got rid of cable years ago because of the $100+ bill (internet included). I think we only watched about 10 channels at the most out of the 100 offered. Sure this would be the case for a lot of people. 5-10 channels max which might come out to $100, but with a better interface and less gunk.
We also got rid of cable because the channels went up to 999 and it was a mess to navigate. Crazy stuff. Didn't want that complexity and the oversimplicity of AppleTV and Netflix and other channels was perfectly fine. And still is.
Sounds pretty exciting about this dam breaking on the cable industry. I'm sure Comcast will find a way to get some money out of this deal (like the Washington state government on liquor), and it would be a shock if Comcast was muscled out of any deal.
This is interesting. I have no desire to ever get a traditional cable/satellite subscription (I pay $9.95 a month for TheBlazeTV, that's it) but would be interested in pay for a few networks on an AppleTV. And my Roku is getting old (and wasn't that great anyway, I just bought it because ATV didn't have the option for a channel app store).
I'd pay for TVLand, Food Network, maybe one or two others.
Hell yes.
"its been too long......"
It must be new TV hardware. has to be.
But the logo seems to be a finger hovering over something to touch...
2. Not one but TWO announcements like this within 24 hours of an Apple announcement? Has me wonder. I would SO love to see a new Apple TV with more 'channels' and Siri control. I cut the cable cord and Apple TV is my primary TV watching now.
3. I agree with what others have said - with two content providers going cable-free now, the tsunami is coming. Cable better improve its 1980s model or get swept away.
Simply not true.
This is the same BS line the cable companies always spew. You will pay MORE for less channels. BS.
This is like the lie about CD music. The music companies said you need to buy the whole album on a CD. They said if they only sold a single song it would cost $5. BS. Total and utter BS. Its the same thing here.
Cutting the middle man (cable company) will be more profitable for content providers who have GREAT CONTENT. Its the loser content providers that only make crap that will be hurt.
The digital revolution for tv is happening. There is nothing the content providers can do except get on the band wagon. Those who are late will lose out.
I predict HBO will make huge $$$ with there new service and this will make others follow.
This
I'm jumping on the bandwagon that "It’s been way too long" refers to how long Apple has considered the Apple TV a "hobby." Unlike the other scenarios, that's actually be a long time by any measure.
I pay for Netflix and after I finish watching the last season of The Walking Dead I'm thinking of canceling. Too few current options and life is too short to watch crappy movies.
Let's revisit your opinion after Apple's announcement.
Yes, let's do. This is all cross platform.