Don't you think though that whatever they announce kind of has to cover every need, and every use, if it's going to get any traction?
They've had a great product with Apple TV all this time, but it hasn't taken off like a rocket because it only covers a certain niche in the marketplace. It does what it does well, but it only does certain things. To remake or reinvent the TV market it seems to me that Apple has to offer something very much like a cable feed either on top of what it's giving from iTunes, or as part of the iTunes package.
iOS on iTV, as far as rumour goes, includes apps, so the "cable channels" with the free or ad supported content, might just be the ABC, NBC, CBS apps etc. in the new model. All the content would go out across the Internet and with a built in multimedia interactive advertisement service. If something like that happened, that's as close to 100% cable TV as your going to get, but with an app model instead of a channel model.
Yes, it would have to be appealing to a large percentage to gain traction, which is why I do not think it will gain a lot of traction in its current form.
First is content. Apple would have to be able to offer at least most of the content that cable currently does. However, as much as I like Apple, they are going to have a hard time (and supposedly have had a hard time) convincing studios to line up with this. Besides, how do you think the cable companies are going to react? They are not going to stand by and let Apple "steal" a percentage of their customers.
Second is pricing. Like I said, most people like predictability in their bills so they can have a budget. Every month, I know I spend $x dollars for cable, $X for cell, etc. Pay per view introduces uncertainty into what was a fixed cost, and could lead to nasty surprises. If Apple could put together a subscription plan, then I think it would have a much better chance, but pay per view will not work for "regular" TV.
Lastly, I worry about bandwidth/server issues if this were to really take off. Imagine 100 million customers trying to all sorts of different shows. Heck, my Oceanic/Time Warner Cable has issues delivering PPV movies, and Hawaii only has about 1 million people.
Which is why I think there needs to be an advertiser and paid hybrid going on here.
One of the things with cable is you are effectively paying twice - once through your monthly sub, and a second time by having to watch the commercials.
There's no reason why iAd couldn't become a part of this too. If you only watch a few shows per week, it's probably worth paying the 99c. If you are a family who watch 100s of hours of shows per week, it's probably worth watching adverts.
I agree with you. If you are not a heavy TV watcher (and our family is not), then this would be viable. However, I read somewhere that Americans watch about 150 hours of TV a month. There is no way in the world people are going to pay $150/month for TV.
You nailed it perfectly. This is not initially a cable replacement, as most people would spend way more money and the uncertainty of their monthly TV bill. Most people like to be able to predict regular costs such as cable, which is one reason pay per view won't replace subscription plans.
iTV does look to be designed to let people watch an episode they missed.
If Apple ever manages to get subscriptions going, that might be a different issue depending on the content they line up.
Big Apple fan, but I don't get it. I have Time-Warner cable and two TiVos. I never miss a show because I have season passes to my favs--they record automatically. I watch what I want, when I want. I can keep shows for years before I watch them if I want--not 24 hours. I power over commercials. Plus, my Netflix subscription gives me streaming movies on the TiVo in addition to Blu-rays by mail.
So what is it that iTV is going to give me that I don't already have? I want to like and get this thing, but am having trouble figuring out why. If it has no storage it can't take the place of TiVo. If it doesn't get all my programs (regular, HBO, Showtime, etc.) it can't take the place of cable.
At the very least I hope they'll put a connection for external storage on it.
PS: I have been saying for years that Apple needs to buy TiVo. So have others. TiVo is very Apple-like already in its simplicity and elegance. Graft iOS onto it and you've got a killer product. Existing TiVo hardware could be adapted with a firmware update.
Big Apple fan, but I don't get it. I have Time-Warner cable and two TiVos. I never miss a show because I have season passes to my favs--they record automatically. I watch what I want, when I want. I can keep shows for years before I watch them if I want--not 24 hours. I power over commercials. Plus, my Netflix subscription gives me streaming movies on the TiVo in addition to Blu-rays by mail.
So what is it that iTV is going to give me that I don't already have? I want to like and get this thing, but am having trouble figuring out why. If it has no storage it can't take the place of TiVo. If it doesn't get all my programs (regular, HBO, Showtime, etc.) it can't take the place of cable.
At the very least I hope they'll put a connection for external storage on it.
PS: I have been saying for years that Apple needs to buy TiVo. So have others. TiVo is very Apple-like already in its simplicity and elegance. Graft iOS onto it and you've got a killer product. Existing TiVo hardware could be adapted with a firmware update.
I agree with you. I have a feeling that Apple tried to get the studios and channels to allow them to sell a subscription plan, but Apple could not do it. As a result, Apple is forced to have the rental plan if they want to release some new version of Apple TV.
Like I said in a different post, cable is not going to sit idly by and let this happen.
OK ... speaking from a european perspective... but sure it has parallels in the US
what happens if your internet access is provided by a cable company?
Here in Belgium I pay 100 euros a month for a package that gives me
1) 30Mb internet access
2) landline telephone with low cost phone calls in europe
3) and a whole bunch of tv channels - i pay a premium to get some channels i want and a whoe lot i dont
if iTv offered me access to my set of TV channels through the internet wouldn't my provider get a bit narked when i cancel my TV subscriptions
not sure how you resolve this conundrum
It is similar here, except that, at least in Hawaii, the internet is not capped. So I pay for cable, internet, and a phone line, and I get a discount on the package. If I drop cable, the cost goes up for internet and phone.
I agree with you. I have a feeling that Apple tried to get the studios and channels to allow them to sell a subscription plan, but Apple could not do it. As a result, Apple is forced to have the rental plan if they want to release some new version of Apple TV.
Like I said in a different post, cable is not going to sit idly by and let this happen.
Maybe that's where all that cash needs to go: Apple buys a cable company. But cable has gotten so big and so influential maybe even Steve doesn't have enough gold. People care more about their TV than they do national security or human rights! All cable companies have to do is threaten to cut people off, and soon after the nuts of everyone in congress get twisted by constituents and lobbyists. Bread and circuses . . . .
By the way, here we are going on three pages of spirited debate, discussion, and exchange of ideas, and no one has insulted anyone else, or done a troll drive-by. Why can't it be like this more often?
There is no doubt a market for a la cart 99 cent content. iTunes has proven that well enough. But, is Apple going to do the un-Apple-thinkable and sell an iTV box as a loss-leader? What kind of a box can you put together to sell for 99 bucks? At Apple margins, that's a 50 buck Bill Of Materials. If you took an iPod Touch, ripped off the screen, spread out the pieces parts on a cheap motherboard, threw in a power supply, plug, and a bunch of hdmi / audio connectors, can you imagine it costing less than a Ben Franklin? If, as has been speculated in the press, the "preferred" remote is an iPad, just what kind of processing power has to be in the box:
1) Audio DAC
2) Video decoder
3) HDCP / HDMI decoder
4) Wifi / Bluetooth communications
5) CPU/memory to run iOS or OSX with Backrow equivalent
6) Cache storage (platter or ssd)
7) Power supply
It's pretty minimal if all the apps smarts is in the "remote".
b
Except for #4 and #6, you can pretty much get all that in a $30 DVD player. Yes, Apple will need and use slightly higher end components. But take away the miniaturization requirement for the other iDevices, and $99 is achievable.
currently [we] get the following package from sky:
-Phone package (with free evening and weekend calls to UK landlines)
-Sky+ TV service (analagous to cable)
-20mb broadband
For £20 ($30/?24) a month and from what I've read thats around half the cost of what you Americans are paying.
Also,
if I were to watch an average of 1 tv show a day that would bring me to $30/month, and all I would get is those 30 shows as a rental- I would not get the phone package or 20mb broadband and I would not have the option to burn the shows to DVD to keep them indefinitely as they would be rental copies.
As much as there is often criticism of the current cable/satellite model which offers a lot of stations, many of them useless to particular indidivduals, for a fixed monthly fee, you do get a lot of bang for the buck.
I have to say that right now, with a PVR, you have a lot of control over you're programming and can leave an episode of whatever on your HD for as long as you like. All you have to do is buy an extender for many hours of storage space.
We have a multicultural household so it's not just English-laguage programming that is accessed via cable. Sports is huge and only accessible in some cases via that package. Movies by the boatload and not just recent releases. TCM is a big part of this equation since going HD.
If you're an occasional TV viewer and have a rather narrow focus, I could easily imagine 99-cent rentals holding a lot of appeal. But many households do not fit into that model.
I'd much rather that Apple found a way to help networks deliver free content (generating revenue via adverts) through a means other than cable. That content, though, would need to be in HD, otherwise why bother. TV networks are already delivering lower quality versions via the internet. I want decent HD content free and independent of a cable provider (though obviously a provider needs to help me connect in the first place).
Most of us spend a small fortune on TV content these says. I grew up in an era when you put up a antenna on a tower and you got what you got. No monthly charges, thanks. Movies were even free then because the major networks showed a lot of them back then. Granted you had to live with commercials and you had to wait for a movie to finish it's theatrical run. But if you loved movies, what a bargain.
if iTv offered me access to my set of TV channels through the internet wouldn't my provider get a bit narked when i cancel my TV subscriptions not sure how you resolve this conundrum
Yep... in most of the US we often get our broadband and phone services from our cable provider tho we are free to subscribe to any of the services ... perhaps at a more expensive price if we only subscribe to broadband for example.. Usually the cost bump is anywhere from 10-20 (or more depending how close you live to a major city.
As for iTV replacing your cable service... that (unfortunately) isn't likely to happen.
Apple can't even get reasonable agreements from the 'free over the air' TV networks BUT even if they did then they'd need to wine and dine the individual cable channels to get them on board.. However, many/all of the most popular are conveniently owned by... One of the major over the air networks __OR__ one of the handful of cable companies. Also a new game they all seem to play these days is .... If you want to offer your subscribers ESPN then you gotta also carry (and pay for) 3 or 4 disney channels and or some other crappy channels that the cable franchise might not really be interested in.
For example... ABC also owns the various Disney channels (other way around actually) as well as ESPN (I think) and maybe a few others... I known my cable provider (Cablevision) owns a few popular cable channels and I'm sure Comcast and Time Warner do too. It's a big circle jerk and the people left paying for it all is us, the subscribers. When it comes to channel owners they do have certain regulations in place that say they can't refuse to sell its programming to any provider. So for example Cablevision might not want to sell whatever channels they own to FiOS but so long as they sell them to OTHER cable franchises they must also sell to FIOS (even if they are very close competitors).
Cablevision COULD stop selling a channel __entirely__ but that would open up a can of worms that they wouldn't be able to close back up.! Suddenly TW would stop selling the channels it owns and so would Comcast and the entire industry would be a mess.
In short cable is a seriously screwed up business... However the cable companies are all starting to indicate that they will allow its subscribers to view the channels you are paying for on mobile devices... and it seems to be at no additional cost (yet).
So, while far from the cable industry destruction that I was not so quietly hoping for... The idea that I'll be able to access the channels I'm paying for on whatever device I want isn't such a bad outcome (I guess)...
For me there is no iTV OR Cable. I already called TWC once just to ask how much for internet only, and the price was like $40. I watch mostly live broadcasts and local channels so I still need cable although OTA HD is pretty sweet - except no guide.
I like to watch sports especially MLB, but in order to watch live in the At Bat app you have to pay another $99 a year minimum in addition to the $14 per year for the app. I haven't checked recently but the NBA doesn't seem to have anything like MLB at bat. Bottom line, I can't see myself ditching cable TV and especially not the internet portion since that is the only way to get high bandwidth around here.
40/mo - internet
2/mo MLB app
8/mo Live MLB
20 /mo- iTunes shows
4/mo iTV
10/mo HD antenna
20/mo Netflix/Hulu
That is $102 dollars a month which is slightly less than I'm paying for cable but I'm still missing a lot of channels. It is also a lot of jumping through hoops and switching signals.
(Note: I took some liberties amortizing and extrapolating some of those line items) So don't call me out on that. I know - it is just an estimate.
Most of us spend a small fortune on TV content these says. I grew up in an era when you put up a antenna on a tower and you got what you got. No monthly charges, thanks. Movies were even free then because the major networks showed a lot of them back then. Granted you had to live with commercials and you had to wait for a movie to finish it's theatrical run. But if you loved movies, what a bargain.
How did we get from there to here?
Yea I'm from that world too I remember back when channels went off the air and then resumed programming with the pledge of allegiance (iirc)... but then there was HBO ... nudity and cussing in the privacy of your own home... and then I Want My MTV and then Skinamax ... err Cinemax and the 24 hour news channel ... That was a joke for quite some time... but then the 24 hour weather channel came out and the jokes about 24 hr news largely went away. From there the ball kept rolling down hill picking up channel after channel after channel... MTV stopped being MTV and 24 hour weather channels seem completely natural. Yea... I'm with you brotha...
I just find it incredible that people watch as much TV as they do. I cancelled my cable TV three years ago because I wasn't watching it. I get TV signals over the air with an antenna, but I think the last time I watched something over the air was about a year ago. TV is dead to me. Shows that I love on DVD killed it. Videogames killed it. The internet killed it. Netflix renting and streaming killed it. There are so many options available that I find it incredible how many people still rely on broadcast and cable TV for entertainment. Most of what is on is drek.
I'd much prefer to pay for an individual show I want to see and avoid the annoying bugs, scrolling banners and advertisements. I agree however that $0.99 for a rental is too much. It should be $0.99 to buy an episode and $0.50 to rent. They need to make the service highly attractive with low prices and make up any loss of revenue with the high volume the low price point is sure to bring.
What you failed to realize is that this is perfect for those that already have cable and miss a show every once in a while. I'll gladly pay 99cents to watch a show I missed. It's worth it to not have to find someone who recorded it or even wait and find it on a torrent.
I'm not out to replace cable with an AppleTV. Why would I? You can't discover new shows with AppleTV or any other download on request service where you have to make a purchase decision for each show you want to watch.
Don't most people have a DVR if they have cable, satellite, U-Verse or FIOS?
I am sick of paying for a bunch of garbage channels. Yeah! 200 channels. 50 of them are the only ones worth watching if that. I probably only watch about 20 different ones.
I just find it incredible that people watch as much TV as they do. I cancelled my cable TV three years ago because I wasn't watching it. I get TV signals over the air with an antenna, but I think the last time I watched something over the air was about a year ago. TV is dead to me. Shows that I love on DVD killed it. Videogames killed it. The internet killed it. Netflix renting and streaming killed it. There are so many options available that I find it incredible how many people still rely on broadcast and cable TV for entertainment. Most of what is on is drek.
I'd much prefer to pay for an individual show I want to see and avoid the annoying bugs, scrolling banners and advertisements. I agree however that $0.99 for a rental is too much. It should be $0.99 to buy an episode and $0.50 to rent. They need to make the service highly attractive with low prices and make up any loss of revenue with the high volume the low price point is sure to bring.
I'm from Canada, from the Toronto area to be more precise, and a huge NHL fan. My team, i.e. the Leafs, show some of their games exclusively on the team's own channel which is not available over the air. That channel alone and what if offers me in particular makes receiving broadcasts over the air not an attractive option. Also, we're not in an ideal location to receive quality signals consistently and so cable does offer much more reliable quality.
The price we pay, though, is rather steep. It's just that low-cost alternatives are simply not an option for everyone in terms of delivering what we want. Don't take your individual situation and decide that everyone else should do exactly what you do. In your case, because of what you want out of television and your lifestyle, you've found a way. Good for you.
The rest of us are not, though, necessarily the fools you are suggesting we are because we haven't followed your lead.
We can agree on one thing, though. Schemes that wind up costing us consumers a ton of money over the long haul are rather irksome. Change the details and wind up charging roughly the same money for more or less the same content. Frankly, who cares? If this is all Apple is really up to, I can't say that it seems like a good thing. A more convenient way to pay too much for too little. Just what we've all been waiting for. Right?
iOS on iTV, as far as rumour goes, includes apps, so the "cable channels" with the free or ad supported content, might just be the ABC, NBC, CBS apps etc. in the new model. All the content would go out across the Internet and with a built in multimedia interactive advertisement service. If something like that happened, that's as close to 100% cable TV as your going to get, but with an app model instead of a channel model.
I suppose it would be possible to geo-locate the IP address but the local affiliates are not going to want to give up their local ad revenue and the app would have to do a lot of advertising management to accommodate them. If what you are suggesting does take place it might spell the end of local programming like the news and that would be disappointing.
I'm from Canada, from the Toronto area to be more precise, and a huge NHL fan. My team, i.e. the Leafs, show some of their games exclusively on the team's own channel which is not available over the air. That channel alone and what if offers me in particular makes receiving broadcasts over the air not an attractive option. Also, we're not in an ideal location to receive quality signals consistently and so cable does offer much more reliable quality.
The price we pay, though, is rather steep. It's just that low-cost alternatives are simply not an option for everyone in terms of delivering what we want. Don't take your individual situation and decide that everyone else should do exactly what you do. In your case, because of what you want out of television and your lifestyle, you've found a way. Good for you.
Just cancel, you'd not be missing much if you're a Leafs fan.........
Apologies, cheap shot, but couldn't resist.
Ron Wilson left the Sharks in good shape when he left and I hope he makes a difference to you guys too.
Comments
Don't you think though that whatever they announce kind of has to cover every need, and every use, if it's going to get any traction?
They've had a great product with Apple TV all this time, but it hasn't taken off like a rocket because it only covers a certain niche in the marketplace. It does what it does well, but it only does certain things. To remake or reinvent the TV market it seems to me that Apple has to offer something very much like a cable feed either on top of what it's giving from iTunes, or as part of the iTunes package.
iOS on iTV, as far as rumour goes, includes apps, so the "cable channels" with the free or ad supported content, might just be the ABC, NBC, CBS apps etc. in the new model. All the content would go out across the Internet and with a built in multimedia interactive advertisement service. If something like that happened, that's as close to 100% cable TV as your going to get, but with an app model instead of a channel model.
Yes, it would have to be appealing to a large percentage to gain traction, which is why I do not think it will gain a lot of traction in its current form.
First is content. Apple would have to be able to offer at least most of the content that cable currently does. However, as much as I like Apple, they are going to have a hard time (and supposedly have had a hard time) convincing studios to line up with this. Besides, how do you think the cable companies are going to react? They are not going to stand by and let Apple "steal" a percentage of their customers.
Second is pricing. Like I said, most people like predictability in their bills so they can have a budget. Every month, I know I spend $x dollars for cable, $X for cell, etc. Pay per view introduces uncertainty into what was a fixed cost, and could lead to nasty surprises. If Apple could put together a subscription plan, then I think it would have a much better chance, but pay per view will not work for "regular" TV.
Lastly, I worry about bandwidth/server issues if this were to really take off. Imagine 100 million customers trying to all sorts of different shows. Heck, my Oceanic/Time Warner Cable has issues delivering PPV movies, and Hawaii only has about 1 million people.
Which is why I think there needs to be an advertiser and paid hybrid going on here.
One of the things with cable is you are effectively paying twice - once through your monthly sub, and a second time by having to watch the commercials.
There's no reason why iAd couldn't become a part of this too. If you only watch a few shows per week, it's probably worth paying the 99c. If you are a family who watch 100s of hours of shows per week, it's probably worth watching adverts.
I agree with you. If you are not a heavy TV watcher (and our family is not), then this would be viable. However, I read somewhere that Americans watch about 150 hours of TV a month. There is no way in the world people are going to pay $150/month for TV.
You nailed it perfectly. This is not initially a cable replacement, as most people would spend way more money and the uncertainty of their monthly TV bill. Most people like to be able to predict regular costs such as cable, which is one reason pay per view won't replace subscription plans.
iTV does look to be designed to let people watch an episode they missed.
If Apple ever manages to get subscriptions going, that might be a different issue depending on the content they line up.
Big Apple fan, but I don't get it. I have Time-Warner cable and two TiVos. I never miss a show because I have season passes to my favs--they record automatically. I watch what I want, when I want. I can keep shows for years before I watch them if I want--not 24 hours. I power over commercials. Plus, my Netflix subscription gives me streaming movies on the TiVo in addition to Blu-rays by mail.
So what is it that iTV is going to give me that I don't already have? I want to like and get this thing, but am having trouble figuring out why. If it has no storage it can't take the place of TiVo. If it doesn't get all my programs (regular, HBO, Showtime, etc.) it can't take the place of cable.
At the very least I hope they'll put a connection for external storage on it.
PS: I have been saying for years that Apple needs to buy TiVo. So have others. TiVo is very Apple-like already in its simplicity and elegance. Graft iOS onto it and you've got a killer product. Existing TiVo hardware could be adapted with a firmware update.
what happens if your internet access is provided by a cable company?
Here in Belgium I pay 100 euros a month for a package that gives me
1) 30Mb internet access
2) landline telephone with low cost phone calls in europe
3) and a whole bunch of tv channels - i pay a premium to get some channels i want and a whoe lot i dont
if iTv offered me access to my set of TV channels through the internet wouldn't my provider get a bit narked when i cancel my TV subscriptions
not sure how you resolve this conundrum
Big Apple fan, but I don't get it. I have Time-Warner cable and two TiVos. I never miss a show because I have season passes to my favs--they record automatically. I watch what I want, when I want. I can keep shows for years before I watch them if I want--not 24 hours. I power over commercials. Plus, my Netflix subscription gives me streaming movies on the TiVo in addition to Blu-rays by mail.
So what is it that iTV is going to give me that I don't already have? I want to like and get this thing, but am having trouble figuring out why. If it has no storage it can't take the place of TiVo. If it doesn't get all my programs (regular, HBO, Showtime, etc.) it can't take the place of cable.
At the very least I hope they'll put a connection for external storage on it.
PS: I have been saying for years that Apple needs to buy TiVo. So have others. TiVo is very Apple-like already in its simplicity and elegance. Graft iOS onto it and you've got a killer product. Existing TiVo hardware could be adapted with a firmware update.
I agree with you. I have a feeling that Apple tried to get the studios and channels to allow them to sell a subscription plan, but Apple could not do it. As a result, Apple is forced to have the rental plan if they want to release some new version of Apple TV.
Like I said in a different post, cable is not going to sit idly by and let this happen.
OK ... speaking from a european perspective... but sure it has parallels in the US
what happens if your internet access is provided by a cable company?
Here in Belgium I pay 100 euros a month for a package that gives me
1) 30Mb internet access
2) landline telephone with low cost phone calls in europe
3) and a whole bunch of tv channels - i pay a premium to get some channels i want and a whoe lot i dont
if iTv offered me access to my set of TV channels through the internet wouldn't my provider get a bit narked when i cancel my TV subscriptions
not sure how you resolve this conundrum
It is similar here, except that, at least in Hawaii, the internet is not capped. So I pay for cable, internet, and a phone line, and I get a discount on the package. If I drop cable, the cost goes up for internet and phone.
I agree with you. I have a feeling that Apple tried to get the studios and channels to allow them to sell a subscription plan, but Apple could not do it. As a result, Apple is forced to have the rental plan if they want to release some new version of Apple TV.
Like I said in a different post, cable is not going to sit idly by and let this happen.
Maybe that's where all that cash needs to go: Apple buys a cable company. But cable has gotten so big and so influential maybe even Steve doesn't have enough gold. People care more about their TV than they do national security or human rights! All cable companies have to do is threaten to cut people off, and soon after the nuts of everyone in congress get twisted by constituents and lobbyists. Bread and circuses . . . .
There is no doubt a market for a la cart 99 cent content. iTunes has proven that well enough. But, is Apple going to do the un-Apple-thinkable and sell an iTV box as a loss-leader? What kind of a box can you put together to sell for 99 bucks? At Apple margins, that's a 50 buck Bill Of Materials. If you took an iPod Touch, ripped off the screen, spread out the pieces parts on a cheap motherboard, threw in a power supply, plug, and a bunch of hdmi / audio connectors, can you imagine it costing less than a Ben Franklin? If, as has been speculated in the press, the "preferred" remote is an iPad, just what kind of processing power has to be in the box:
1) Audio DAC
2) Video decoder
3) HDCP / HDMI decoder
4) Wifi / Bluetooth communications
5) CPU/memory to run iOS or OSX with Backrow equivalent
6) Cache storage (platter or ssd)
7) Power supply
It's pretty minimal if all the apps smarts is in the "remote".
b
Except for #4 and #6, you can pretty much get all that in a $30 DVD player. Yes, Apple will need and use slightly higher end components. But take away the miniaturization requirement for the other iDevices, and $99 is achievable.
-Phone package (with free evening and weekend calls to UK landlines)
-Sky+ TV service (analagous to cable)
-20mb broadband
For £20 ($30/?24) a month and from what I've read thats around half the cost of what you Americans are paying.
Also,
if I were to watch an average of 1 tv show a day that would bring me to $30/month, and all I would get is those 30 shows as a rental- I would not get the phone package or 20mb broadband and I would not have the option to burn the shows to DVD to keep them indefinitely as they would be rental copies.
I have to say that right now, with a PVR, you have a lot of control over you're programming and can leave an episode of whatever on your HD for as long as you like. All you have to do is buy an extender for many hours of storage space.
We have a multicultural household so it's not just English-laguage programming that is accessed via cable. Sports is huge and only accessible in some cases via that package. Movies by the boatload and not just recent releases. TCM is a big part of this equation since going HD.
If you're an occasional TV viewer and have a rather narrow focus, I could easily imagine 99-cent rentals holding a lot of appeal. But many households do not fit into that model.
I'd much rather that Apple found a way to help networks deliver free content (generating revenue via adverts) through a means other than cable. That content, though, would need to be in HD, otherwise why bother. TV networks are already delivering lower quality versions via the internet. I want decent HD content free and independent of a cable provider (though obviously a provider needs to help me connect in the first place).
Most of us spend a small fortune on TV content these says. I grew up in an era when you put up a antenna on a tower and you got what you got. No monthly charges, thanks. Movies were even free then because the major networks showed a lot of them back then. Granted you had to live with commercials and you had to wait for a movie to finish it's theatrical run. But if you loved movies, what a bargain.
How did we get from there to here?
if iTv offered me access to my set of TV channels through the internet wouldn't my provider get a bit narked when i cancel my TV subscriptions not sure how you resolve this conundrum
Yep... in most of the US we often get our broadband and phone services from our cable provider tho we are free to subscribe to any of the services ... perhaps at a more expensive price if we only subscribe to broadband for example.. Usually the cost bump is anywhere from 10-20 (or more depending how close you live to a major city.
As for iTV replacing your cable service... that (unfortunately) isn't likely to happen.
Apple can't even get reasonable agreements from the 'free over the air' TV networks BUT even if they did then they'd need to wine and dine the individual cable channels to get them on board.. However, many/all of the most popular are conveniently owned by... One of the major over the air networks __OR__ one of the handful of cable companies. Also a new game they all seem to play these days is .... If you want to offer your subscribers ESPN then you gotta also carry (and pay for) 3 or 4 disney channels and or some other crappy channels that the cable franchise might not really be interested in.
For example... ABC also owns the various Disney channels (other way around actually) as well as ESPN (I think) and maybe a few others... I known my cable provider (Cablevision) owns a few popular cable channels and I'm sure Comcast and Time Warner do too. It's a big circle jerk and the people left paying for it all is us, the subscribers. When it comes to channel owners they do have certain regulations in place that say they can't refuse to sell its programming to any provider. So for example Cablevision might not want to sell whatever channels they own to FiOS but so long as they sell them to OTHER cable franchises they must also sell to FIOS (even if they are very close competitors).
Cablevision COULD stop selling a channel __entirely__ but that would open up a can of worms that they wouldn't be able to close back up.! Suddenly TW would stop selling the channels it owns and so would Comcast and the entire industry would be a mess.
In short cable is a seriously screwed up business... However the cable companies are all starting to indicate that they will allow its subscribers to view the channels you are paying for on mobile devices... and it seems to be at no additional cost (yet).
So, while far from the cable industry destruction that I was not so quietly hoping for... The idea that I'll be able to access the channels I'm paying for on whatever device I want isn't such a bad outcome (I guess)...
I like to watch sports especially MLB, but in order to watch live in the At Bat app you have to pay another $99 a year minimum in addition to the $14 per year for the app. I haven't checked recently but the NBA doesn't seem to have anything like MLB at bat. Bottom line, I can't see myself ditching cable TV and especially not the internet portion since that is the only way to get high bandwidth around here.
40/mo - internet
2/mo MLB app
8/mo Live MLB
20 /mo- iTunes shows
4/mo iTV
10/mo HD antenna
20/mo Netflix/Hulu
That is $102 dollars a month which is slightly less than I'm paying for cable but I'm still missing a lot of channels. It is also a lot of jumping through hoops and switching signals.
(Note: I took some liberties amortizing and extrapolating some of those line items) So don't call me out on that. I know - it is just an estimate.
Most of us spend a small fortune on TV content these says. I grew up in an era when you put up a antenna on a tower and you got what you got. No monthly charges, thanks. Movies were even free then because the major networks showed a lot of them back then. Granted you had to live with commercials and you had to wait for a movie to finish it's theatrical run. But if you loved movies, what a bargain.
How did we get from there to here?
Yea I'm from that world too I remember back when channels went off the air and then resumed programming with the pledge of allegiance (iirc)... but then there was HBO ... nudity and cussing in the privacy of your own home... and then I Want My MTV and then Skinamax ... err Cinemax and the 24 hour news channel ... That was a joke for quite some time... but then the 24 hour weather channel came out and the jokes about 24 hr news largely went away. From there the ball kept rolling down hill picking up channel after channel after channel... MTV stopped being MTV and 24 hour weather channels seem completely natural. Yea... I'm with you brotha...
How err WHY did we get from there to here?
I'd much prefer to pay for an individual show I want to see and avoid the annoying bugs, scrolling banners and advertisements. I agree however that $0.99 for a rental is too much. It should be $0.99 to buy an episode and $0.50 to rent. They need to make the service highly attractive with low prices and make up any loss of revenue with the high volume the low price point is sure to bring.
What you failed to realize is that this is perfect for those that already have cable and miss a show every once in a while. I'll gladly pay 99cents to watch a show I missed. It's worth it to not have to find someone who recorded it or even wait and find it on a torrent.
I'm not out to replace cable with an AppleTV. Why would I? You can't discover new shows with AppleTV or any other download on request service where you have to make a purchase decision for each show you want to watch.
Don't most people have a DVR if they have cable, satellite, U-Verse or FIOS?
I am sick of paying for a bunch of garbage channels. Yeah! 200 channels. 50 of them are the only ones worth watching if that. I probably only watch about 20 different ones.
I have OTA, Netflix, and Hulu+.
I pay $18.98/mo.
I just find it incredible that people watch as much TV as they do. I cancelled my cable TV three years ago because I wasn't watching it. I get TV signals over the air with an antenna, but I think the last time I watched something over the air was about a year ago. TV is dead to me. Shows that I love on DVD killed it. Videogames killed it. The internet killed it. Netflix renting and streaming killed it. There are so many options available that I find it incredible how many people still rely on broadcast and cable TV for entertainment. Most of what is on is drek.
I'd much prefer to pay for an individual show I want to see and avoid the annoying bugs, scrolling banners and advertisements. I agree however that $0.99 for a rental is too much. It should be $0.99 to buy an episode and $0.50 to rent. They need to make the service highly attractive with low prices and make up any loss of revenue with the high volume the low price point is sure to bring.
I'm from Canada, from the Toronto area to be more precise, and a huge NHL fan. My team, i.e. the Leafs, show some of their games exclusively on the team's own channel which is not available over the air. That channel alone and what if offers me in particular makes receiving broadcasts over the air not an attractive option. Also, we're not in an ideal location to receive quality signals consistently and so cable does offer much more reliable quality.
The price we pay, though, is rather steep. It's just that low-cost alternatives are simply not an option for everyone in terms of delivering what we want. Don't take your individual situation and decide that everyone else should do exactly what you do. In your case, because of what you want out of television and your lifestyle, you've found a way. Good for you.
The rest of us are not, though, necessarily the fools you are suggesting we are because we haven't followed your lead.
We can agree on one thing, though. Schemes that wind up costing us consumers a ton of money over the long haul are rather irksome. Change the details and wind up charging roughly the same money for more or less the same content. Frankly, who cares? If this is all Apple is really up to, I can't say that it seems like a good thing. A more convenient way to pay too much for too little. Just what we've all been waiting for. Right?
iOS on iTV, as far as rumour goes, includes apps, so the "cable channels" with the free or ad supported content, might just be the ABC, NBC, CBS apps etc. in the new model. All the content would go out across the Internet and with a built in multimedia interactive advertisement service. If something like that happened, that's as close to 100% cable TV as your going to get, but with an app model instead of a channel model.
I suppose it would be possible to geo-locate the IP address but the local affiliates are not going to want to give up their local ad revenue and the app would have to do a lot of advertising management to accommodate them. If what you are suggesting does take place it might spell the end of local programming like the news and that would be disappointing.
I'm from Canada, from the Toronto area to be more precise, and a huge NHL fan. My team, i.e. the Leafs, show some of their games exclusively on the team's own channel which is not available over the air. That channel alone and what if offers me in particular makes receiving broadcasts over the air not an attractive option. Also, we're not in an ideal location to receive quality signals consistently and so cable does offer much more reliable quality.
The price we pay, though, is rather steep. It's just that low-cost alternatives are simply not an option for everyone in terms of delivering what we want. Don't take your individual situation and decide that everyone else should do exactly what you do. In your case, because of what you want out of television and your lifestyle, you've found a way. Good for you.
Just cancel, you'd not be missing much if you're a Leafs fan.........
Apologies, cheap shot, but couldn't resist.
Ron Wilson left the Sharks in good shape when he left and I hope he makes a difference to you guys too.