I cut the cord years ago and am perfectly happy with Netflix, Hulu, iTunes and my antenna. I would pay for HBO and ESPN if offered without a subscription. I think Apple is the gorilla in the room - they have the audience and the money to do just about anything they want - and probably will. This industry is ripe for a shakeup; just like the music industry was when iTunes came along. When I stay at a hotel, watching cable is like listening to a Sony Walkman in 2004.
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.
I have to give my cable company Comsouth props. When I got tired of my DSL line getting ever slower, new neighborhoods being built around me, we got cable internet. I was worried how much extra I was going to get dinged for not wanting cable tv, we have Directv. Once they confirmed I had satellite tv they did not charge any extra fees for not buying the tv service.
Looking at what my wife and I watch I think we could easily switch to an alacart scheme, but I'm not sure how that would be profitable for whoever offers that kind of service. Then again I have found myself using the Amazon Fire stick a lot and that is "free" with the prime membership.
The way I've understood content would tell me that a consequence of this line of thought is, since MTV is the moneymaker (one of the bigger ones), you'll end up watching only that. The expensive, not-watched-by-everyone-and-their-dog, interesting programs that you're interested in (or at least, that I am interested in) are apparently paid for by the revenues of thing like MTV. Even though they're not making as much money, or possibly just breaking even, they're still useful to the content owner to avoid some people just leaving the provider, reducing his bargaining power over advertisers.
At least, that's how I understand the system works ^^
Tell me why I should subsidize your viewing habits?
An interesting question. I would say answer "tell me why I should subsidize your way of life"? You know, the economy is a vastly interconnected mesh of interacting interests. My work subsidizes your way or life. Yours sustains mine. My preferred shows may not be yours, but the fact we both have different tastes enables big companies to actually cater to both of us.
This egoist reaction you have is likely to destroy both our ways of life.
I'm reacting a bit harshly, and I apologize if it hurts your feelings, but I have started seeing this trend all over the place, and I'm utterly convinced that we all lose with this "I'd rather save a few dollars because I really don't care for football'. Well, since football fans are more numerous, we'll only have football from now on.
As I've said Apple has missed the boat on this one. Only if you own the content will you succeed ie Amazon and Netflix. If Apple had produced their own programs there would be no need for this discussion.
An interesting question. I would say answer "tell me why I should subsidize your way of life"? You know, the economy is a vastly interconnected mesh of interacting interests. My work subsidizes your way or life. Yours sustains mine. My preferred shows may not be yours, but the fact we both have different tastes enables big companies to actually cater to both of us.
This egoist reaction you have is likely to destroy both our ways of life.
I'm reacting a bit harshly, and I apologize if it hurts your feelings, but I have started seeing this trend all over the place, and I'm utterly convinced that we all lose with this "I'd rather save a few dollars because I really don't care for football'. Well, since football fans are more numerous, we'll only have football from now on.
Actually, you know very little about me and therefore, whether my "way of life" receives subsidies (net) or subsidizes that of others. Suffice it to say -- but you'll unfortunately have just take my word for it -- it's the latter.
In the case of rob35's post, I was responding specifically to a self-admitted consumption of subsidies for entertainment.
On my philosophical predilection for subsidies, I actually don't mind subsidizing (positive) externalities such as education, health, and national security on behalf of, or for, people who may not be able to afford the full cost of these things, but I find it offensive to be asked to subsidize someone's entertainment. I draw the like well before something like that. Would you, say, like for me to go a step further buy them a TV and pay for their cable subscription as well? Why not?
(Your reaction is not harsh at all; no need to apologize).
Actually, you know very little about me and therefore, whether my "way of life" receives subsidies (net) or subsidizes that of others. Suffice it to say -- but you'll unfortunately have just take my word for it -- it's the latter.
You are right, I might be wrong about my guess.
It is totally possible that no one is subsidizing, in a direct or indirect manner, the way you live.
It is also possible that, even though you may not be aware of it, someone, somewhere, has had to work even a minute more yesterday for you to be able to spend the last few minutes on the Internet. One simple guess: your country is not currently engaged in a civil war caused by another country interested in their oil supply, at the cost of the average inhabitant's security. That's what I mean by "subsidising". It is an unescapable fact that the situation Europe and America benefit from subsidies the way of life of billions of people around the world, at the cost of the safety or simply wealth of people in countries like Turkmenistan, Irak, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ivory Coast, Switzerland (no, not Switzerland... wonder how it found its way in this list?), Lebanon, Morocco, etc, etc. All of us we can afford Apple devices probably worked hard to get there. It's highly unlikely that any of us were able to get there without ever benefiting from a world situation where the poorest subsidise the wealthiest. While we cannot really do anything significant about it (at least, I have no clue what), I feel we can at least acknowledge what I see as a reality.
It is however just my point of view. You are free to think I'm a fool
On my philosophical predilection for subsidies, I actually don't mind subsidizing (positive) externalities such as education, health, and national security on behalf of, or for, people who may not be able to afford the full cost of these things, but I find it offensive to be asked to subsidize someone's entertainment. I draw the like well before something like that. Would you, say, like for me to go a step further buy them a TV and pay for their cable subscription as well? Why not?
I understand your point. It is an interesting question, but I feel that, overall, you'll just end up paying a higher price for each element you consume instead of a bulk price for a package where you don't consume everything. Companies will have to stay profitable.
Whether or not, as a person, you end up spending less or more will probably depend more on the price points and the competition in the market than on your own buying habits. Wouldn't it work out the same way as iTunes currently does? I'm pretty sure I spend more now than before I started using iTunes, but it might be related to my higher spending power as a professional than as a student, therefore I don't think I really can use myself as a reference point
a la carte would cause a major transformation and consolidation in the TV entertainment industry. Many networks will fold up shop due to lack of interest, and the useful pieces will be scooped up by the larger fish. Instead of 200 channels, we would end up with possibly a dozen or less large studios who would give us all our entertainment. It's almost like we would head back towards when we had only over the air TV, in terms of the number of companies.
With this, one way it could easily go is that these dozen would then charge you some amount to access all their programming (whether it be live or on demand) but most people most likely would end up paying for nearly all of them as people don't just watch one major network now.
Actually, we've already seen a good bit of this consolidation behind the scenes. NBC and others owns scores of channels already. With this new system, they wouldn't have to scatter themselves across the guide-- it would all be in one location that you could browse and find the show you want to see.
Of course, the kicker is cost - would this be more expensive than now? I'm guessing probably yes.
Netflix and Amazon are starting to undo the cable industry. This won't help us all in the near-term, but in the long-term, we shall see more decentralization of television.
It's good that there are more streaming options out there - devices and services. There are cheap video services (TV/movies) out there in the rest of the world that seem to do just fine.
The AppleTV is still a closed device, unfortunately. For many of us, it's a glorified Netflix player that we barely tolerate, because we can't add other TV apps. Yes, you can stream from another device to ATV, but it's the principle of the matter. If it's so easy to have Amazon streaming on my phone, why not ATV? And so on.
Apple is a slug in this business. A slow slug. I don't hold out any hope for anything revolutionary. If Steve Jobs figured out TV, then he must have not shared what he figured out with anyone. Sadly, if we want any real change in the streaming space, it's probably not going to be Apple, but a smaller company that does an end run around the company. And change is starting to bubble up. In time...
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.
Isn't that the point though? The way the system is set up right now subscribers are subsidizing an industry that churns out massive amounts of garbage and endlessly reruns the same material. Without the forced subsidization quite a few channels would go away. I think it would expecting too much for channels to actually show relevant material but it would be nice to have less "Lady Hoggers" style material.
Netflix and Amazon are starting to undo the cable industry. This won't help us all in the near-term, but in the long-term, we shall see more decentralization of television.
It's good that there are more streaming options out there - devices and services. There are cheap video services (TV/movies) out there in the rest of the world that seem to do just fine.
The AppleTV is still a closed device, unfortunately. For many of us, it's a glorified Netflix player that we barely tolerate, because we can't add other TV apps. Yes, you can stream from another device to ATV, but it's the principle of the matter. If it's so easy to have Amazon streaming on my phone, why not ATV? And so on.
Apple is a slug in this business. A slow slug. I don't hold out any hope for anything revolutionary. If Steve Jobs figured out TV, then he must have not shared what he figured out with anyone. Sadly, if we want any real change in the streaming space, it's probably not going to be Apple, but a smaller company that does an end run around the company. And change is starting to bubble up. In time...
We have to accept the fact that Apple thinks it belongs on your wrist as a big bauble and not on your living room wall.
I was a little surprised to find that the WatchESPN app would not accept my SlingTV credentials. SlingTV's app works fine on iOS devices and the Mac; but there is no acceptable way to put it on AppleTV. Yes, you can airplay it from the Mac (but not iOS) but the video quality suffers with lag and skips.
I think the only solution for now is a Roku device. Not digging that.
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.
Apple and content owners are keenly aware of that issue and are probably trying to answer that question right now. Perhaps they would not only advertise the heck out of their shows, but they would also offer pilot and some other episodes for free to get you hooked. Kind of like a crack dealer.
We have to accept the fact that Apple thinks it belongs on your wrist as a big bauble and not on your living room wall.
We have to accept the fact that getting the user experience right is the main goal, and to do that requires access to a critical mass of content. Making cool hardware will be the easy part for Apple... it's probably already done. A killer user-friendly interface is probably already solved too.
But you aren't going to see an AppleTV on your wall until all of the other things fall into place. Content is the hurdle now, has been for a long time, and likely will remain so for the foreseeable future.
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.
You just need to ask someone in you household to subscribe as new customer when you cancel yours to continue with 24 months discount. Comcast doesn't tell you but after 6 months, you can become NEW customer again.
Comments
Ipredator $36/6 months
Popcorn Time free
Or just stop wasting time watching tv.
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.
I have to give my cable company Comsouth props. When I got tired of my DSL line getting ever slower, new neighborhoods being built around me, we got cable internet. I was worried how much extra I was going to get dinged for not wanting cable tv, we have Directv. Once they confirmed I had satellite tv they did not charge any extra fees for not buying the tv service.
Looking at what my wife and I watch I think we could easily switch to an alacart scheme, but I'm not sure how that would be profitable for whoever offers that kind of service. Then again I have found myself using the Amazon Fire stick a lot and that is "free" with the prime membership.
@Rogifan
The way I've understood content would tell me that a consequence of this line of thought is, since MTV is the moneymaker (one of the bigger ones), you'll end up watching only that. The expensive, not-watched-by-everyone-and-their-dog, interesting programs that you're interested in (or at least, that I am interested in) are apparently paid for by the revenues of thing like MTV. Even though they're not making as much money, or possibly just breaking even, they're still useful to the content owner to avoid some people just leaving the provider, reducing his bargaining power over advertisers.
At least, that's how I understand the system works ^^
Tell me why I should subsidize your viewing habits?
An interesting question. I would say answer "tell me why I should subsidize your way of life"? You know, the economy is a vastly interconnected mesh of interacting interests. My work subsidizes your way or life. Yours sustains mine. My preferred shows may not be yours, but the fact we both have different tastes enables big companies to actually cater to both of us.
This egoist reaction you have is likely to destroy both our ways of life.
I'm reacting a bit harshly, and I apologize if it hurts your feelings, but I have started seeing this trend all over the place, and I'm utterly convinced that we all lose with this "I'd rather save a few dollars because I really don't care for football'. Well, since football fans are more numerous, we'll only have football from now on.
Except most channels/apps on ?TV require a cable subscription.
An interesting question. I would say answer "tell me why I should subsidize your way of life"? You know, the economy is a vastly interconnected mesh of interacting interests. My work subsidizes your way or life. Yours sustains mine. My preferred shows may not be yours, but the fact we both have different tastes enables big companies to actually cater to both of us.
This egoist reaction you have is likely to destroy both our ways of life.
I'm reacting a bit harshly, and I apologize if it hurts your feelings, but I have started seeing this trend all over the place, and I'm utterly convinced that we all lose with this "I'd rather save a few dollars because I really don't care for football'. Well, since football fans are more numerous, we'll only have football from now on.
Actually, you know very little about me and therefore, whether my "way of life" receives subsidies (net) or subsidizes that of others. Suffice it to say -- but you'll unfortunately have just take my word for it -- it's the latter.
In the case of rob35's post, I was responding specifically to a self-admitted consumption of subsidies for entertainment.
On my philosophical predilection for subsidies, I actually don't mind subsidizing (positive) externalities such as education, health, and national security on behalf of, or for, people who may not be able to afford the full cost of these things, but I find it offensive to be asked to subsidize someone's entertainment. I draw the like well before something like that. Would you, say, like for me to go a step further buy them a TV and pay for their cable subscription as well? Why not?
(Your reaction is not harsh at all; no need to apologize).
Actually, you know very little about me and therefore, whether my "way of life" receives subsidies (net) or subsidizes that of others. Suffice it to say -- but you'll unfortunately have just take my word for it -- it's the latter.
You are right, I might be wrong about my guess.
It is totally possible that no one is subsidizing, in a direct or indirect manner, the way you live.
It is also possible that, even though you may not be aware of it, someone, somewhere, has had to work even a minute more yesterday for you to be able to spend the last few minutes on the Internet. One simple guess: your country is not currently engaged in a civil war caused by another country interested in their oil supply, at the cost of the average inhabitant's security. That's what I mean by "subsidising". It is an unescapable fact that the situation Europe and America benefit from subsidies the way of life of billions of people around the world, at the cost of the safety or simply wealth of people in countries like Turkmenistan, Irak, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ivory Coast, Switzerland (no, not Switzerland... wonder how it found its way in this list?), Lebanon, Morocco, etc, etc. All of us we can afford Apple devices probably worked hard to get there. It's highly unlikely that any of us were able to get there without ever benefiting from a world situation where the poorest subsidise the wealthiest. While we cannot really do anything significant about it (at least, I have no clue what), I feel we can at least acknowledge what I see as a reality.
It is however just my point of view. You are free to think I'm a fool
On my philosophical predilection for subsidies, I actually don't mind subsidizing (positive) externalities such as education, health, and national security on behalf of, or for, people who may not be able to afford the full cost of these things, but I find it offensive to be asked to subsidize someone's entertainment. I draw the like well before something like that. Would you, say, like for me to go a step further buy them a TV and pay for their cable subscription as well? Why not?
I understand your point. It is an interesting question, but I feel that, overall, you'll just end up paying a higher price for each element you consume instead of a bulk price for a package where you don't consume everything. Companies will have to stay profitable.
Whether or not, as a person, you end up spending less or more will probably depend more on the price points and the competition in the market than on your own buying habits. Wouldn't it work out the same way as iTunes currently does? I'm pretty sure I spend more now than before I started using iTunes, but it might be related to my higher spending power as a professional than as a student, therefore I don't think I really can use myself as a reference point
a la carte would cause a major transformation and consolidation in the TV entertainment industry. Many networks will fold up shop due to lack of interest, and the useful pieces will be scooped up by the larger fish. Instead of 200 channels, we would end up with possibly a dozen or less large studios who would give us all our entertainment. It's almost like we would head back towards when we had only over the air TV, in terms of the number of companies.
With this, one way it could easily go is that these dozen would then charge you some amount to access all their programming (whether it be live or on demand) but most people most likely would end up paying for nearly all of them as people don't just watch one major network now.
Actually, we've already seen a good bit of this consolidation behind the scenes. NBC and others owns scores of channels already. With this new system, they wouldn't have to scatter themselves across the guide-- it would all be in one location that you could browse and find the show you want to see.
Of course, the kicker is cost - would this be more expensive than now? I'm guessing probably yes.
Netflix and Amazon are starting to undo the cable industry. This won't help us all in the near-term, but in the long-term, we shall see more decentralization of television.
It's good that there are more streaming options out there - devices and services. There are cheap video services (TV/movies) out there in the rest of the world that seem to do just fine.
The AppleTV is still a closed device, unfortunately. For many of us, it's a glorified Netflix player that we barely tolerate, because we can't add other TV apps. Yes, you can stream from another device to ATV, but it's the principle of the matter. If it's so easy to have Amazon streaming on my phone, why not ATV? And so on.
Apple is a slug in this business. A slow slug. I don't hold out any hope for anything revolutionary. If Steve Jobs figured out TV, then he must have not shared what he figured out with anyone. Sadly, if we want any real change in the streaming space, it's probably not going to be Apple, but a smaller company that does an end run around the company. And change is starting to bubble up. In time...
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.
Isn't that the point though? The way the system is set up right now subscribers are subsidizing an industry that churns out massive amounts of garbage and endlessly reruns the same material. Without the forced subsidization quite a few channels would go away. I think it would expecting too much for channels to actually show relevant material but it would be nice to have less "Lady Hoggers" style material.
We have to accept the fact that Apple thinks it belongs on your wrist as a big bauble and not on your living room wall.
Companies will have to stay profitable.
This. And the ones that don't will -- and can, for all I care -- go bust. Subsidies only keep the marginal ones limping along.
?As long there is competition for entertainment, I am fairly confident that prices will be kept in check.
I was a little surprised to find that the WatchESPN app would not accept my SlingTV credentials. SlingTV's app works fine on iOS devices and the Mac; but there is no acceptable way to put it on AppleTV. Yes, you can airplay it from the Mac (but not iOS) but the video quality suffers with lag and skips.
I think the only solution for now is a Roku device. Not digging that.
This. And the ones that don't will -- and can, for all I care -- go bust. Subsidies only keep the marginal ones limping along.
?As long there is competition for entertainment, I am fairly confident that prices will be kept in check.
I can only agree with this, it is after all the fundamental rule of our regulated capitalist world ^^
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.
Apple and content owners are keenly aware of that issue and are probably trying to answer that question right now. Perhaps they would not only advertise the heck out of their shows, but they would also offer pilot and some other episodes for free to get you hooked. Kind of like a crack dealer.
We have to accept the fact that Apple thinks it belongs on your wrist as a big bauble and not on your living room wall.
We have to accept the fact that getting the user experience right is the main goal, and to do that requires access to a critical mass of content. Making cool hardware will be the easy part for Apple... it's probably already done. A killer user-friendly interface is probably already solved too.
But you aren't going to see an AppleTV on your wall until all of the other things fall into place. Content is the hurdle now, has been for a long time, and likely will remain so for the foreseeable future.