Because they're trying to 'reinvent' TV - literally turn the current model on it's head. At the moment we have a broadcast/capture model with minimal downloads which requires you do wade through a load of crap after/during the broadcast. Apple seem to want to switch that to a download to rent/own model which is more personalised and less padded out with 'noise' and ultimately could see access to almost any video content whenever/wherever you want it.
Or something like that.
I'd rather BBC & other broadcasters integrate their content into iTunes than try to stream over the internet. It's really not designed for realtime data apps.
BBC needs to make sure that their shows are only available for 1 week, and then disappear.
... and I'm sure Apple wants better iTunes rental deals in the future so has built the iTunes rental system to allow various show expiry options (ie: 1 week after) and to allow it to be repeated as much as desired in that time.
My main question would be whether Apple would be willing to put BBC shows on their UK rental servers at no cost and not using the p2p system BBC is pushing.
Strategically Apple should get onto this. I reckon the 24 hour rental limit is a studio-imposed rule and the more deals Apple can get outside of that should help them break it by competition. i.e. If they can convince networks to provide rental TV shows (because who wants to keep them - except Lost) and independent film makers/minor studios to provide better rentals terms the majors would have to compete for viewer time and hopefully yield.
Maybe Apple could also provide a subscription/package-type arrangement (like a hybrid season pass) where you can download what you want from a given provider up to a point. I think that may be a while off.
The licence covers all TVs in a household, i.e., it's one licence per household, regardless of the number of people in the household.
There aren't any commercials on the BBC radio or television stations, unless you get to stations they have part-ownership of, like the UKTV stations.
Basically, the fee is quite fair for what you receive.
What if you don't own a TV? Is this really a TV-tax or a residence tax? I'm sure there are plenty people who don't feel the need.
While I have TV around now, watching infrequently, for several years I was an avid (uh, obsessive) "No TV. TV bad" person. And I would have been furious if I was forced to pay for something like that.
What if you don't own a TV? Is this really a TV-tax or a residence tax? I'm sure there are plenty people who don't feel the need.
While I have TV around now, watching infrequently, for several years I was an avid (uh, obsessive) "No TV. TV bad" person. And I would have been furious if I was forced to pay for something like that.
It's a TV fee of some sort, not a residence tax. You can avoid paying it by not having a TV. They have equipment that can sense whether or not a TV is in use to target those trying to avoid the tax but still using the TV. It's a pretty unusual system, I don't think there is anything like it.
It's a TV fee of some sort, not a residence tax. You can avoid paying it by not having a TV. They have equipment that can sense whether or not a TV is in use to target those trying to avoid the tax but still using the TV. It's a pretty unusual system, I don't think there is anything like it.
If you're not using a TV, you have to tell them as such. They assume you're guilty unless you're innocent.
Interestingly, if you don't have a TV, you're still allowed to watch shows on iPlayer. There's a statement from the BBC to that effect. They're not concerned about it, because the number of people with broadband but no TV licence is really small.
Comments
stevo will never add a DVR.
why not?[/QUOTE]
Because they're trying to 'reinvent' TV - literally turn the current model on it's head. At the moment we have a broadcast/capture model with minimal downloads which requires you do wade through a load of crap after/during the broadcast. Apple seem to want to switch that to a download to rent/own model which is more personalised and less padded out with 'noise' and ultimately could see access to almost any video content whenever/wherever you want it.
Or something like that.
I'd rather BBC & other broadcasters integrate their content into iTunes than try to stream over the internet. It's really not designed for realtime data apps.
McD
Very good idea.
BBC needs to make sure that their shows are only available for 1 week, and then disappear.
... and I'm sure Apple wants better iTunes rental deals in the future so has built the iTunes rental system to allow various show expiry options (ie: 1 week after) and to allow it to be repeated as much as desired in that time.
My main question would be whether Apple would be willing to put BBC shows on their UK rental servers at no cost and not using the p2p system BBC is pushing.
Strategically Apple should get onto this. I reckon the 24 hour rental limit is a studio-imposed rule and the more deals Apple can get outside of that should help them break it by competition. i.e. If they can convince networks to provide rental TV shows (because who wants to keep them - except Lost) and independent film makers/minor studios to provide better rentals terms the majors would have to compete for viewer time and hopefully yield.
Maybe Apple could also provide a subscription/package-type arrangement (like a hybrid season pass) where you can download what you want from a given provider up to a point. I think that may be a while off.
McD
The licence covers all TVs in a household, i.e., it's one licence per household, regardless of the number of people in the household.
There aren't any commercials on the BBC radio or television stations, unless you get to stations they have part-ownership of, like the UKTV stations.
Basically, the fee is quite fair for what you receive.
What if you don't own a TV? Is this really a TV-tax or a residence tax? I'm sure there are plenty people who don't feel the need.
While I have TV around now, watching infrequently, for several years I was an avid (uh, obsessive) "No TV. TV bad" person. And I would have been furious if I was forced to pay for something like that.
What if you don't own a TV? Is this really a TV-tax or a residence tax? I'm sure there are plenty people who don't feel the need.
While I have TV around now, watching infrequently, for several years I was an avid (uh, obsessive) "No TV. TV bad" person. And I would have been furious if I was forced to pay for something like that.
It's a TV fee of some sort, not a residence tax. You can avoid paying it by not having a TV. They have equipment that can sense whether or not a TV is in use to target those trying to avoid the tax but still using the TV. It's a pretty unusual system, I don't think there is anything like it.
It's a TV fee of some sort, not a residence tax. You can avoid paying it by not having a TV. They have equipment that can sense whether or not a TV is in use to target those trying to avoid the tax but still using the TV. It's a pretty unusual system, I don't think there is anything like it.
If you're not using a TV, you have to tell them as such. They assume you're guilty unless you're innocent.
Interestingly, if you don't have a TV, you're still allowed to watch shows on iPlayer. There's a statement from the BBC to that effect. They're not concerned about it, because the number of people with broadband but no TV licence is really small.
BBC, Apple, pretty please?
The one application that tv needs is MLB.TV Premium. The current Mac version is Java-based, and even supports the Apple remote. Does tv have Java?
Other than it runs OS X??