Theoretically, unbundling would be great, but as a recent New York Times article pointed out with reference to the airlines and hotels, unbundling of fees has increased the total amount people must spend, not decreased it. And it's really annoying getting nickel and dimed to death.
So if your cable provider (or Apple or anyone) charges $5 per channel per month, while that sounds reasonable, you could easily wind up paying the same amount or more for many fewer channels.
I've always said that I was "stuck" with cable because if I drop my cable sub, my cable modem service fees go up because I lose the bundle price, but my cable bill came today with a $24 monthly increase. They didn't even have the courtesy to explain the increase. If they don't reduce the increase, I'm going to drop cable tomorrow. These people are nuts.
Yeah I get it. It's just so damn frustrating. But this is why I don't think there's anything Apple can solve. The best they can do right now is just improve the current Apple TV hardware and interface.
You said what I said before I could reply to you. The problem with a la carte programming is the good channels I want to watch, History, Science, Discovery, etc., would cost a fortune each because of the lower viewer audience. These channels are paid for, along with the garbage shopping network channels and other trash TV, by the highly watched channel income. I'd still like to see if Apple could pull this off by charging for each channel and see if there's enough volume to get the lower watched channels to bite.
Tell me why I should subsidize your viewing habits?
I think he's suggesting that you may not even be happy trying to subsidize your own.
I have no idea... I was merely addressing this common complaint:
"I'm paying for 200 channels that I don't want"
It sounds like a value for money situation. So naturally... people think a la carte channels are the solution.
But even if you could choose certain channels a la carte... you'd still be paying for those channels even when you're asleep and at work. That might be a little better... but you're still paying for stuff you cannot possibly watch... which goes back to the original problem.
So I suggested... stop paying for "channels" that you cannot possibly watch 24/7... and just pay for the "shows" you want.
If people don't want to pay for channels they don't want... why would they pay for an entire channel that contains shows they don't want?
You can't like EVERY show on Discovery Channel... can ya?
And even if you did... there aren't enough hours in the day to watch them all.
Rogifan said he doesn't want to pay for MTV or VH1. That's understandable. But even his favorite channels have stuff that he won't watch... yet he will still be paying for.
Which... again... goes back to the original problem of paying for stuff you don't want.
.
Like I posted earlier, how would people know what they want? 10 years from now almost all current shows will be over. Without cable/standard TV we won't know what's good.
YouTube clips?
Billboard ads?
But that could make things more expensive and could get good shows with a small budget discontinued.
Paying for channels would be cheaper because Pepsi, Sammy, Doritos, Wal Mart are all helping you pay the bill.
Bundling 200 channels makes things even cheaper.
I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm just saying just cause the consumer has a certain wish doesn't mean it's practical for the content providers.
If we had it our way we would be paying $200+ a month. ????
also I THINK Rogifan is a girl. Not sure though.
****EDIT:
I think I figured out a way advertisers can show commercials and consumers discover new content.
Apple could have a channel that streams single episodes of various shows. This channel/s would have ads and be free to view.
This free channel/s could let the content creators showcase their best, even leaving cliffhangers at the end of the episode leaving the viewer hungry for more. Just like most shows do today.
Yeah I get it. It's just so damn frustrating. But this is why I don't think there's anything Apple can solve. The best they can do right now is just improve the current Apple TV hardware and interface.
Wasn't the outdated AppleTV like the best selling video streamer in 2013?
It makes me think Apple is sitting on a gold mine and don't care.
OR
What I truly believe is they have a huge secret plan and are waiting to finalize it before unveiling a completely new device, new OS and new experience.
Edit Again!!!
I'm thinking... What about shows such as The Price is Right and Let's Make a Deal?
They have a huge viewer base but who's actually willing to pay to watch them?
Would we just let all these shows die and build a different TV future?
Yeah I get it. It's just so damn frustrating. But this is why I don't think there's anything Apple can solve. The best they can do right now is just improve the current Apple TV hardware and interface.
If Apple decided to become an MSO (a cable company equivalent), I think they could solve it because they wouldn't necessarily be burdened with the contractual structures of the past. With the cable companies, the cable networks make them take channels they don't really want in order to get the channels they do want. Apple could put a stop to that. And while I wrote in a previous post that unbundling probably wouldn't work, there is a scheme where they could assign points to each channel and you buy packages of the points. Sports channels might be a "5" because the sports networks charge a fortune (and they also charge per subscriber regardless of whether those subscribers actually watch the channel). AMC, TNT, FXM and channels of that ilk might be a "3". Channels which are satisfied just with advertising revenue or that want to sell you something like HSN would be a "0". The more points you buy, the cheaper it is per point. This way you could create your own package of channels.
The other way to go is that Apple doesn't try to be a cable company with scheduled programming (with the possible exceptions of live news and sports). For all other programming, they just put up individual shows to stream as they're sort of doing now, but more comprehensively. So they'd get all the shows from any given cable network.
I think the cable networks (and I work with many of them) have finally seen the light and understand that the future is in internet delivery, not cable delivery. The current MSOs are getting killed by the programming charges and then they have to pay for the physical infrastructure as well. So the charges have become ridiculous. It makes me wonder why Comcast wants Time-Warner Cable so badly, although they might want it more for the cable modem customers than for the cable TV services.
I have no idea... I was merely addressing this common complaint:
"I'm paying for 200 channels that I don't want"
It sounds like a value for money situation. So naturally... people think a la carte channels are the solution.
But even if you could choose certain channels a la carte... you'd still be paying for those channels even when you're asleep and at work. That might be a little better... but you're still paying for stuff you cannot possibly watch... which goes back to the original problem.
So I suggested... stop paying for "channels" that you cannot possibly watch 24/7... and just pay for the "shows" you want.
If people don't want to pay for channels they don't want... why would they pay for an entire channel that contains shows they don't want?
You can't like EVERY show on Discovery Channel... can ya?
And even if you did... there aren't enough hours in the day to watch them all.
Rogifan said he doesn't want to pay for MTV or VH1. That's understandable. But even his favorite channels have stuff that he won't watch... yet he will still be paying for.
Which... again... goes back to the original problem of paying for stuff you don't want.
.
But how do you find what you want if it's inaccessible? Many shows I watched are no longer on which meant I had to find new ones. I can't do if I limit myself to what I'm exposed to.
But how do you find what you want if it's inaccessible? Many shows I watched are no longer on which meant I had to find new ones. I can't do if I limit myself to what I'm exposed to.
Again... I don't know.
You might want to ask a cord-cutter. Somehow they find new stuff to watch!
I was simply addressing the common complaint of people paying for stuff they don't want.
Your question is also valid. Search is more important in an on-demand world than when we used to just turn on the TV to "see what's on"
Here's something I'm trying to wrap my head around...
If I turn on the History Channel on my TV right now... I'm seeing American Pickers which started at 9pm
At 10PM it's Mississippi Men... and at 11pm it's Appalachian Outlaws... and so on.
I think we're all familiar with the way that works.
But when you click on the History Channel icon on AppleTV... you get a list of dozens of shows that you can choose from on-demand.
So when people say they want a la carte channels... do they mean the "live" channels in which master control in New York City is broadcasting a single show every hour to every cable TV subscriber in the country?
Or do they want channel "apps" where [B]you[/B] can choose the show you want to watch?
The 2nd option actually seems much more appealing...
Here's something I'm trying to wrap my head around...
If I turn on the History Channel on my TV right now... I'm seeing American Pickers which started at 9pm
At 10PM it's Mississippi Men... and at 11pm it's Appalachian Outlaws... and so on.
I think we're all familiar with the way that works.
But when you click on the History Channel icon on AppleTV... you get a list of dozens of shows that you can choose from on-demand.
So when people say they want a la carte channels... do they mean the "live" channels in which master control in New York City is broadcasting a single show every hour to every cable TV subscriber in the country?
Or do they want channel "apps" where you can choose the show you want to watch?
The 2nd option actually seems much more appealing...
Why not both? Many shows aren't available on VOD for a day or more after they air.
Why not both? Many shows aren't available on VOD for a day or more after they air.
Oh sure... but then you'd be paying for a cable TV subscription and some other service that could give you all the on-demand back-catalog stuff.
People are doing that already... cable and a supplemental Netflix/Hulu subscription. But some people want to get rid of cable altogether for the reasons I outlined earlier (paying for channels they don't watch... etc)
I'm guessing this new Apple service will have a monthly fee... so add that to the list of extra pay services.
OK but how about creating something where I can pay for the channels I want rather than having to take these bundles? I don't know all the channels Viacom owns but I never watch MTV or VH1 so don't make me pay for them. I know that's a pipe dream but boy would that be awesome.
That is how the Apple TV works now. Maybe Apple also will allow customers to buy bundled channels.
Oh sure... but then you'd be paying for a cable TV subscription and some other service that could give you all the on-demand back-catalog stuff.
People are doing that already... cable and a supplemental Netflix/Hulu subscription. But some people want to get rid of cable altogether for the reasons I outlined earlier (paying for channels they don't watch... etc)
I'm guessing this new Apple service will have a monthly fee... so add that to the list of extra pay services.
Not necessarily. HBO Go has its content available as it's airing. Once a show starts it is immediately available on the app.
Comments
Yeah I get it. It's just so damn frustrating. But this is why I don't think there's anything Apple can solve. The best they can do right now is just improve the current Apple TV hardware and interface.
You said what I said before I could reply to you. The problem with a la carte programming is the good channels I want to watch, History, Science, Discovery, etc., would cost a fortune each because of the lower viewer audience. These channels are paid for, along with the garbage shopping network channels and other trash TV, by the highly watched channel income. I'd still like to see if Apple could pull this off by charging for each channel and see if there's enough volume to get the lower watched channels to bite.
Tell me why I should subsidize your viewing habits?
I think he's suggesting that you may not even be happy trying to subsidize your own.
Like I posted earlier, how would people know what they want? 10 years from now almost all current shows will be over. Without cable/standard TV we won't know what's good.
YouTube clips?
Billboard ads?
But that could make things more expensive and could get good shows with a small budget discontinued.
Paying for channels would be cheaper because Pepsi, Sammy, Doritos, Wal Mart are all helping you pay the bill.
Bundling 200 channels makes things even cheaper.
I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm just saying just cause the consumer has a certain wish doesn't mean it's practical for the content providers.
If we had it our way we would be paying $200+ a month. ????
also I THINK Rogifan is a girl. Not sure though.
****EDIT:
I think I figured out a way advertisers can show commercials and consumers discover new content.
Apple could have a channel that streams single episodes of various shows. This channel/s would have ads and be free to view.
This free channel/s could let the content creators showcase their best, even leaving cliffhangers at the end of the episode leaving the viewer hungry for more. Just like most shows do today.
That might work.
Wasn't the outdated AppleTV like the best selling video streamer in 2013?
It makes me think Apple is sitting on a gold mine and don't care.
OR
What I truly believe is they have a huge secret plan and are waiting to finalize it before unveiling a completely new device, new OS and new experience.
Edit Again!!!
I'm thinking... What about shows such as The Price is Right and Let's Make a Deal?
They have a huge viewer base but who's actually willing to pay to watch them?
Would we just let all these shows die and build a different TV future?
In what way?
What a moronic post....
Yeah I get it. It's just so damn frustrating. But this is why I don't think there's anything Apple can solve. The best they can do right now is just improve the current Apple TV hardware and interface.
If Apple decided to become an MSO (a cable company equivalent), I think they could solve it because they wouldn't necessarily be burdened with the contractual structures of the past. With the cable companies, the cable networks make them take channels they don't really want in order to get the channels they do want. Apple could put a stop to that. And while I wrote in a previous post that unbundling probably wouldn't work, there is a scheme where they could assign points to each channel and you buy packages of the points. Sports channels might be a "5" because the sports networks charge a fortune (and they also charge per subscriber regardless of whether those subscribers actually watch the channel). AMC, TNT, FXM and channels of that ilk might be a "3". Channels which are satisfied just with advertising revenue or that want to sell you something like HSN would be a "0". The more points you buy, the cheaper it is per point. This way you could create your own package of channels.
The other way to go is that Apple doesn't try to be a cable company with scheduled programming (with the possible exceptions of live news and sports). For all other programming, they just put up individual shows to stream as they're sort of doing now, but more comprehensively. So they'd get all the shows from any given cable network.
I think the cable networks (and I work with many of them) have finally seen the light and understand that the future is in internet delivery, not cable delivery. The current MSOs are getting killed by the programming charges and then they have to pay for the physical infrastructure as well. So the charges have become ridiculous. It makes me wonder why Comcast wants Time-Warner Cable so badly, although they might want it more for the cable modem customers than for the cable TV services.
Actually, I take back what what I said about Cali's post.
Yours wins.
But how do you find what you want if it's inaccessible? Many shows I watched are no longer on which meant I had to find new ones. I can't do if I limit myself to what I'm exposed to.
I don’t know which channel I want, which is the reason I was channel surfing.
Again... I don't know.
You might want to ask a cord-cutter. Somehow they find new stuff to watch!
I was simply addressing the common complaint of people paying for stuff they don't want.
Your question is also valid. Search is more important in an on-demand world than when we used to just turn on the TV to "see what's on"
If I turn on the History Channel on my TV right now... I'm seeing American Pickers which started at 9pm
At 10PM it's Mississippi Men... and at 11pm it's Appalachian Outlaws... and so on.
I think we're all familiar with the way that works.
But when you click on the History Channel icon on AppleTV... you get a list of dozens of shows that you can choose from on-demand.
So when people say they want a la carte channels... do they mean the "live" channels in which master control in New York City is broadcasting a single show every hour to every cable TV subscriber in the country?
Or do they want channel "apps" where [B]you[/B] can choose the show you want to watch?
The 2nd option actually seems much more appealing...
Why not both? Many shows aren't available on VOD for a day or more after they air.
Oh sure... but then you'd be paying for a cable TV subscription and some other service that could give you all the on-demand back-catalog stuff.
People are doing that already... cable and a supplemental Netflix/Hulu subscription. But some people want to get rid of cable altogether for the reasons I outlined earlier (paying for channels they don't watch... etc)
I'm guessing this new Apple service will have a monthly fee... so add that to the list of extra pay services.
Apple should hire Bob Iger after he leaves Disney to head up entertainment development for iTunes and Apple TV.
For Apple TV, I agree. For the music side, Apple already has Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre.
OK but how about creating something where I can pay for the channels I want rather than having to take these bundles? I don't know all the channels Viacom owns but I never watch MTV or VH1 so don't make me pay for them. I know that's a pipe dream but boy would that be awesome.
That is how the Apple TV works now. Maybe Apple also will allow customers to buy bundled channels.
Not necessarily. HBO Go has its content available as it's airing. Once a show starts it is immediately available on the app.
I was referring to original video and filmed content.
www.jobs700.com