In my case, I also average now just above 250 GB each month. I primary work from home (remote connection into my work PC). We then use different services such as Skype as needed for conferences, etc. And I've tuned this to eat up minimal possible bandwidth (e.g. only connecting to my work PC at 1280x1024 resolution and thousands of colors).
Beyond that, our family has been enjoying Hulu Plus for a few months now.
Of course I'm then a developer on the side so download multi-gigabyte downloads on occassion (e.g. iOS SDKs).
It all adds up.
IMO, companies such as Comcast will benefit no matter what. They not only supply content, but the "pipes" to your house. In order to stream anything from a different service (e.g. Hulu), we're still using bandwidth of their service. And frankly, if they find themselves with lower sales for content, I'm sure they'll increase prices for bandwidth.
We've been hearing about ala carte channels at decent price points (3.99 - 14.99)...but this has been apparently taking forever to get off the ground.
Now its, a single subscription for around $30? And this is what's coming soon?
The former option makes more money for content providers assuming the user signs up. The latter option is just like cable: ALL involved are getting a little piece from EVERY user, even if the person never turns on said channel.
Why does it not surprise me that the old terrible model won out in the end? (assuming any of this is even true)
I can get ESPN with sling for $20 but its only 1 user.
Thats the whole deal. I don't need 200 channels. I only need 20 or less.
Bob Iger has said Disney has a priority to preserve the cable bundle. By making it 1 user, he increases the value he gets out of ESPN. Keeping the family viewer subscribing to cable while also getting the light viewers to subscribe too.
This has been solved years ago. Universal remote. I have one Harmony remote that controls my TV, Cablebox, AppleTV, Audio Receiver, and even my light switch.
I like my setup...All I use is the Vizio remote that came with my TV. It controls my TV, the Apple TV, and Vizio Sound bar that I have...all required no programming.
It is really going add up for most people. If you trim down your cable down to basics only just to get your local stations, and increase your broadband bits to accommodate more streaming, then buy HBO and Netflix, finally Apple TV streaming service, you are still going to be paying well over $100 a month in most parts of the US. Lets hope you don't want some other channel like golf or auto racing that you lost when you trimmed down you regular cable subscription.
How is a bundle of 30 channels the same as a bundle of 200?
I'm not comparing just the prices.
I don't want to pay anything per month for anything that I'm not using. That's why I have an Apple TV, and no cable at all, right now.
If so desire to watch content on ABC, I want to pay for just ABC...not a bundle of other channels. That's why I don't have cable now. This isn't a proposed solution to cable. Its just cheaper cable.
This has been solved years ago. Universal remote. I have one Harmony remote that controls my TV, Cablebox, AppleTV, Audio Receiver, and even my light switch.
Universal remotes are a hack, not a solution. Especially if a remote smart enough do handle everything costs more than your Apple TV!
Apple TV will never have DVR capability. Ever. From Apple's point of view why would you ever want to mess around with recording schedules and culling repeats and all kinds of other hassles when you can just on-demand watch the episode that you want from the cloud? Other than possibly pausing live-tv it's unnecessary.
You have a point, but for many, broadband is still slow and some areas with data caps/limits.
For these situations, you can agree that downloading the content first is more practical and efficient.
Also, realize that some HD content is data intensive... versus the Netflix level of [low] quality.
So you don't want HBO, Netflix or any local stations?
You can get the local content OTA, but that is just another expense for antenna, coax, installation, rewiring, etc. I did it and very happy with the HD quality.
Paying so much? The average cable plan with HD-DVR boxes is close to $100.
How is paying $30 the same hell as paying $100?
Apple will figure out something with DVR. Its not rocket science. DVR has been around for ages.
I pay around $120 for cable, land line, and internet. Standard Triple Play discount. If I cancel cable part, then internet alone jumps up to $60 or more. Add that to your $30 AppleTV bill….
My cable company (Comcast) -- cable + internet + land line -- bill is ~$220/mo (plus taxes). Of this, I am getting totally ripped off for three cable boxes ($30/mo), one DVR ($10/mo), and one telephone modem ($10/mo). That's $50 just for five pieces of crappy hardware.
I am guessing that $50 is for high-speed internet (which is very high-quality, I might add), and an additional $10 is for the landline. So I am paying $110 for my programming. That includes $20 for one foreign channel and for a few premium channels (e.g., HBO). So my basic programming cost is $90.
If the $30/mo turns out to be true, with the monthly charge on boxes + the cost of programming and keeping HBO, I could be saving something like $110/mo (of course, that means giving up on the foreign channel). That's enough to buy a new MacBook every year....
This could be huge. That is without considering the savings on a second home (which many people have).
Could they set up personal user accounts for DVR functions? They have all those data centers and they already do iTunes Match and cloud based movies and TV shows.
Apple TV will never have DVR capability. Ever. From Apple's point of view why would you ever want to mess around with recording schedules and culling repeats and all kinds of other hassles when you can just on-demand watch the episode that you want from the cloud? Other than possibly pausing live-tv it's unnecessary.
How is it unnecessary? Not everyone has access to unlimited data.
Yeah like I said, a hundred, maybe more, in nearly every language on the planet.
to people actually watch that crap? do you?
Yes and Yes. LA has several top quality HD over the air channels. Telemundo, Univision, 3 PBS stations, CW just to name a few.
However you want to configure your home set up is fine, but don't expect that everyone else would make the same choices you make. For example I have a 19" full 1080 HD TV in the kitchen. It fits right under the upper cabinets and it is hooked up to cable without a box. You can't get the premium channels but nearly everything else comes through. Perfect for watching the news in the morning.
Paying so much? The average cable plan with HD-DVR boxes is close to $100.
How is paying $30 the same hell as paying $100?
There are a lot of suckers in the world! " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I have a TiVo Roamio DVR and pay no monthly fees. OTA is free. Even basic cable service can be found in many markets for $20/month. Why pay more than that if at least DVR-level functionality isn't part of the equation?
There are a lot of suckers in the world!
I have a TiVo Roamio DVR and pay no monthly fees. OTA is free. Even basic cable service can be found in many markets for $20/month. Why pay more than that if at least DVR-level functionality isn't part of the equation?
Don't count on that. You may be able to get the prime time shows, but I doubt you will be able to get the actual live stream of the channel, local programming, or any of the sports carried on those channels. You will have to use an OTA antenna and your TV tuner, or another DVR like a TIVO to get that I bet.
Comments
300GB a month is a ton.
What are you doing with all that data?
In my case, I also average now just above 250 GB each month. I primary work from home (remote connection into my work PC). We then use different services such as Skype as needed for conferences, etc. And I've tuned this to eat up minimal possible bandwidth (e.g. only connecting to my work PC at 1280x1024 resolution and thousands of colors).
Beyond that, our family has been enjoying Hulu Plus for a few months now.
Of course I'm then a developer on the side so download multi-gigabyte downloads on occassion (e.g. iOS SDKs).
It all adds up.
IMO, companies such as Comcast will benefit no matter what. They not only supply content, but the "pipes" to your house. In order to stream anything from a different service (e.g. Hulu), we're still using bandwidth of their service. And frankly, if they find themselves with lower sales for content, I'm sure they'll increase prices for bandwidth.
I just don't get it...
We've been hearing about ala carte channels at decent price points (3.99 - 14.99)...but this has been apparently taking forever to get off the ground.
Now its, a single subscription for around $30? And this is what's coming soon?
The former option makes more money for content providers assuming the user signs up. The latter option is just like cable: ALL involved are getting a little piece from EVERY user, even if the person never turns on said channel.
Why does it not surprise me that the old terrible model won out in the end? (assuming any of this is even true)
Problem is the cheapest package with ESPN is $90
I can get ESPN with sling for $20 but its only 1 user.
Thats the whole deal. I don't need 200 channels. I only need 20 or less.
Bob Iger has said Disney has a priority to preserve the cable bundle. By making it 1 user, he increases the value he gets out of ESPN. Keeping the family viewer subscribing to cable while also getting the light viewers to subscribe too.
This has been solved years ago. Universal remote. I have one Harmony remote that controls my TV, Cablebox, AppleTV, Audio Receiver, and even my light switch.
I like my setup...All I use is the Vizio remote that came with my TV. It controls my TV, the Apple TV, and Vizio Sound bar that I have...all required no programming.
It is really going add up for most people. If you trim down your cable down to basics only just to get your local stations, and increase your broadband bits to accommodate more streaming, then buy HBO and Netflix, finally Apple TV streaming service, you are still going to be paying well over $100 a month in most parts of the US. Lets hope you don't want some other channel like golf or auto racing that you lost when you trimmed down you regular cable subscription.
How is $30 the same as $90?
How is a bundle of 30 channels the same as a bundle of 200?
I'm not comparing just the prices.
I don't want to pay anything per month for anything that I'm not using. That's why I have an Apple TV, and no cable at all, right now.
If so desire to watch content on ABC, I want to pay for just ABC...not a bundle of other channels. That's why I don't have cable now. This isn't a proposed solution to cable. Its just cheaper cable.
This has been solved years ago. Universal remote. I have one Harmony remote that controls my TV, Cablebox, AppleTV, Audio Receiver, and even my light switch.
Universal remotes are a hack, not a solution. Especially if a remote smart enough do handle everything costs more than your Apple TV!
Apple TV will never have DVR capability. Ever. From Apple's point of view why would you ever want to mess around with recording schedules and culling repeats and all kinds of other hassles when you can just on-demand watch the episode that you want from the cloud? Other than possibly pausing live-tv it's unnecessary.
You have a point, but for many, broadband is still slow and some areas with data caps/limits.
For these situations, you can agree that downloading the content first is more practical and efficient.
Also, realize that some HD content is data intensive... versus the Netflix level of [low] quality.
I agree it's up to argument.
50Mbs Internet $35
AppleTV $35
Total - $70
So you don't want HBO, Netflix or any local stations?
You can get the local content OTA, but that is just another expense for antenna, coax, installation, rewiring, etc. I did it and very happy with the HD quality.
I didn't know that. All of them? We have like a hundred in LA.
Paying so much? The average cable plan with HD-DVR boxes is close to $100.
How is paying $30 the same hell as paying $100?
Apple will figure out something with DVR. Its not rocket science. DVR has been around for ages.
I pay around $120 for cable, land line, and internet. Standard Triple Play discount. If I cancel cable part, then internet alone jumps up to $60 or more. Add that to your $30 AppleTV bill….
My cable company (Comcast) -- cable + internet + land line -- bill is ~$220/mo (plus taxes). Of this, I am getting totally ripped off for three cable boxes ($30/mo), one DVR ($10/mo), and one telephone modem ($10/mo). That's $50 just for five pieces of crappy hardware.
I am guessing that $50 is for high-speed internet (which is very high-quality, I might add), and an additional $10 is for the landline. So I am paying $110 for my programming. That includes $20 for one foreign channel and for a few premium channels (e.g., HBO). So my basic programming cost is $90.
If the $30/mo turns out to be true, with the monthly charge on boxes + the cost of programming and keeping HBO, I could be saving something like $110/mo (of course, that means giving up on the foreign channel). That's enough to buy a new MacBook every year....
This could be huge. That is without considering the savings on a second home (which many people have).
I didn't know that. All of them? We have like a hundred in LA.
I mean broadcast TV like FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS.
Austin has zero local TV stations I care about.
Yeah like I said, a hundred, maybe more, in nearly every language on the planet.
Could they set up personal user accounts for DVR functions? They have all those data centers and they already do iTunes Match and cloud based movies and TV shows.
How is it unnecessary? Not everyone has access to unlimited data.
Yeah like I said, a hundred, maybe more, in nearly every language on the planet.
to people actually watch that crap? do you?
Yes and Yes. LA has several top quality HD over the air channels. Telemundo, Univision, 3 PBS stations, CW just to name a few.
However you want to configure your home set up is fine, but don't expect that everyone else would make the same choices you make. For example I have a 19" full 1080 HD TV in the kitchen. It fits right under the upper cabinets and it is hooked up to cable without a box. You can't get the premium channels but nearly everything else comes through. Perfect for watching the news in the morning.
Paying so much? The average cable plan with HD-DVR boxes is close to $100.
How is paying $30 the same hell as paying $100?
There are a lot of suckers in the world!
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I have a TiVo Roamio DVR and pay no monthly fees. OTA is free. Even basic cable service can be found in many markets for $20/month. Why pay more than that if at least DVR-level functionality isn't part of the equation?
The boxes Verizon has for its new FiOS quantum TV service are quite svelte.
http://zatznotfunny.com/2011-12/verizon-preps-fios-tv-media-server/
The video is old. They're already using the smaller boxes now. It's about 2x the size of an Apple TV.
So your broadcast channels don't have local news in the morning (FOX,CBS,ABC,NBC)?
I could wire it up either way, cable or antenna, but there is only one coax outlet in that location.
local stations will be on AppleTV service
Don't count on that. You may be able to get the prime time shows, but I doubt you will be able to get the actual live stream of the channel, local programming, or any of the sports carried on those channels. You will have to use an OTA antenna and your TV tuner, or another DVR like a TIVO to get that I bet.