Then you're an idiot. Do you think ITV or even Sky would produce anything near the (already sub-par) programmes they do currently, if they didn't have to compete with the BBC. The BBC is highly repsected around the world... only a self-righteous fastidious little cretin from a small island would make a comment like you just did and mean it. The BBC is one of the few things Britain can still be proud of... so lets kill it off!
You have no idea how bad television can get, believe me. You probably hate the National Health service too, but you really wouldn't want to know what it would be like not to have it.
What about us who already have an apple tv. Are they upgradeable or must we buy new?
I think they'll support one more software update for existing AppleTV owners (they need the installed base!)... Then after that it's all iTV iOS all the way.
BTW what happened to the "real" ITV (UK company) that wasn't happy about its name being used? I assume Apple has iTV for everywhere but the UK where it will still be called TV? What are ITV UK's rights in this regard?
Great. Now if these studios make $ after the first 6 months we will see even more join in. If I remember correctly Hulu is only three networks ( I think Comedy central was the fourth, but they pulled out). Two of the three big ones are on board though ABC and FOX, only Comcast-NBC is out. For now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook
The BBC is one of the few things Britain can still be proud of... so lets kill it off!
Haha, so true. I talked to a few Brits while I was in Cali, and I found out that there is a BBC tax to keep it going so that it would not depend on advertising too much. Other then BCC though they have nothing left. Mini cooper is now German, Land Rover and Jaguar is Indian, I heard an Egyptian owns the historic company that supplies the jewels to the Queen.
I want a solution to the problem of cable and Satellite. That is - it's BS we have to endure paying an access fee and on top of that we still get commercials. It should be one or the other.
These rentals are .99. Fine, but I'd like an option of free with commercials or iADs.
People want cable ala carte. That is, just pay for the networks they're interested in.
So, renting just individual shows, especially ones that are free anyway, is a very limited step towards solving the cable stranglehold - if a step at all. Rent The Office? Really? The convenience of taking it mobile is fine, but most people most of the time have no interest in doing this. So where's the value?
I want to subscribe to whole networks, subsidized in part at least with ads - but it has to save me money over cable - or there's no point.
Your points are being repeated across the country. ala carte is EXACTLY what we need. Pay a $1.00 per month, per channel, for the 10 to 40 channels I WANT versus $40 or more for three channels I watch and 37 I don't is exactly why we don't have cable or dish at my house. But this is WHY the content providers are fighting Apple, Google (haven't heard much about that lately, have we?), Hulu (which they OWN!!) and will probably fight Amazon. Streaming subscription services are just about the same in their eyes as ala carte.
I'll stick with Netflix, even if I have to wait a bit, there are some GREAT shows available. Tudors, Rescue Me, to name just a couple.
Your points are being repeated across the country. ala carte is EXACTLY what we need. Pay a $1.00 per month, per channel, for the 10 to 40 channels I WANT versus $40 or more for three channels I watch and 37 I don't is exactly why we don't have cable or dish at my house. But this is WHY the content providers are fighting Apple, Google (haven't heard much about that lately, have we?), Hulu (which they OWN!!) and will probably fight Amazon. Streaming subscription services are just about the same in their eyes as ala carte.
I'll stick with Netflix, even if I have to wait a bit, there are some GREAT shows available. Tudors, Rescue Me, to name just a couple.
A big problem with the ala carte model, and what could be a big advantage for the producers as well, is that a large number of channels could not be profitable under this model. How many people would pay for the shopping TV channels? What about the numerous religious channels? I think you would see a drop in the available channels of about 50% or more.
The big advantage to the producers and networks is that they would not need to produce as much content. Think about it, a good portion of the content that is created is not much more than space filler. In an on-demand ala carte model you don't need to fill 24 hours of air time and could probably get away with 4-6 hours a day of new content with access to older content.
Why would copying what the others are doing be better for Apple than using their strengths to offer services that the others can not?
I don't think video is a strength Apple can leverage, it doesn't have a great reputation. Apple TV was a joke (and a bad one at that). I bought one... I couldn't even use external storage via the USB cable without hacking the thing, which meant you either had to choke your internal WiFi bandwidth streaming 4,000kbps or have a Mac connected to it, in which case you might as well use the Mac as your Video player. I eventually gave up on it and stuck a Mac Mini under the TV.
Sorry, I digressed... I happen to like iTunes video, but alsmost everyone who bought the last Apple TV regretted it.
Bottom line is, what makes the Mac Mini perfect, and the iPad near damn perfect, is Netflix and Hulu Plus as well as the ability to buy and watch from iTunes. Renting a $1.99 show (in SD lets remember) for 99 cents, won't work for me. My wife and I have different schedules, she often falls asleep during shows so has to catch up later in the week (not within 24 hours), so that's a no-no. Almost everyone I know has an iPhone or Mac, but no one rents movies on iTunes... $3.99, seriously - I've done it three times, ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wfrank
What about us who already have an apple tv. Are they upgradeable or must we buy new?
If it needs iOS, there is no way the hardware can support that - the single core Pentium M and the 7xxx nVidia GPU are too ancient. I'd love to be wrong.
If it needs iOS, there is no way the hardware can support that - the single core Pentium M and the 7xxx nVidia GPU are too ancient. I'd love to be wrong.
I'm not sure about that, the iOS is based on OS X (as is the AppleTV OS) and should be fairly portable. For the AppleTV it won't need to be a full blown iOS either. They may not even need to run the iOS to add the new content streams to the new system, the rentals would be done through iTunes and the Netflix app could be ported, after all it is running on the Nintendo Wii and I believe even some of the new DVD players can use the service so I doubt that it takes much processing power to run it.
A big problem with the ala carte model, and what could be a big advantage for the producers as well, is that a large number of channels could not be profitable under this model. How many people would pay for the shopping TV channels? What about the numerous religious channels? I think you would see a drop in the available channels of about 50% or more.
The big advantage to the producers and networks is that they would not need to produce as much content. Think about it, a good portion of the content that is created is not much more than space filler. In an on-demand ala carte model you don't need to fill 24 hours of air time and could probably get away with 4-6 hours a day of new content with access to older content.
But which makes you wonder, how much TV are people still watching in the age of the Internet? I mean, take the top 500 shows made in the last 20 years and all their episodes. I'm sure even with zero new content, minus live content like sports and news, that content I mention must take 10 years for any single person to watch.
The whole problem is "broad"casting. That is, just keep on shoving up all sorts of junk so there's always something on, even though there's always almost nothing to watch.
The Internet was meant to be a shift to "narrow"casting of some sorts, though the interactivity and bandwidth element kinda messed with that vision a little.
I don't understand this strategy... ABC already gives away its stuff for free on the ABC player, and virtually everything on FOX (for the last 20 years) is available on Hulu Plus, which is $9.95 a month - 10 rentals in a month, and you're losing out.
TV rentals is the worst idea Apple has come up with since the Pippin.
So Hulu exists at the whim of the networks, and the service it provides has degraded as they try to leverage some monetization out of it - because they want to figure out how to squeeze as much money out of their content as possible. Advertisers are the crack that provides the profitability for the networks. Sadly the networks traditionally pay writers, artists and producers the poorer share of that profitability, just like the recording industry. With that much overhead on the profit model, they are going to be very careful to entrench their profits - and digital sourcing threatens that, both due to piracy [8corewhore] and to deliverers who are trying to justify spending the bucks needed to build necessary infrastructure to support a more flexible approach to use of that content [Apple, Amazon, Netflix]. It was easier back in the day when the networks ran everything, produced everything and could control the delivery. They also only had a few sources of competition as well. Now competition comes from all quarters - including indies willing to stream or go direct to digital instead of flogging their concepts to the networks and risking rejection. And with competition, come profitability compression.
So Hulu exists at the whim of the networks, and the service it provides has degraded as they try to leverage some monetization out of it - because they want to figure out how to squeeze as much money out of their content as possible. Advertisers are the crack that provides the profitability for the networks. Sadly the networks traditionally pay writers, artists and producers the poorer share of that profitability, just like the recording industry. With that much overhead on the profit model, they are going to be very careful to entrench their profits - and digital sourcing threatens that, both due to piracy [8corewhore] and to deliverers who are trying to justify spending the bucks needed to build necessary infrastructure to support a more flexible approach to use of that content [Apple, Amazon, Netflix]. It was easier back in the day when the networks ran everything, produced everything and could control the delivery. They also only had a few sources of competition as well. Now competition comes from all quarters - including indies willing to stream or go direct to digital instead of flogging their concepts to the networks and risking rejection. And with competition, come profitability compression.
Good points, but indies going direct to digital is really peanuts in terms of competing with the big boys, though there are some like the one I posted a few posts up.
I can't think of a real decent independent TV series that can stand up to the beasts like CSI, NCIS, Mad Men, Family Guy, and reality garbage such as American Idol, Biggest Loser, and Top CrackWho... I mean Top Model.
Family guy, Simpsons, Fringe, modern family... I'm really not thinking of anything else worthwhile from these networks (oh and screw ABC for the Lost ending lol.)
Why would pay for this service? Already exist have netflix which gives virtually everything, for ten dollars a month. We actually canceled our $40/month cable TV because it's a ripoff and we don't use it as much as netflix.
Why would pay for this service? Already exist have netflix which gives virtually everything, for ten dollars a month. We actually canceled our $40/month cable TV because it's a ripoff and we don't use it as much as netflix.
Simple answer: Because it offers things that Netflix and other services do not?
Comments
Good I hope he wins. I hate the BBC.
Then you're an idiot. Do you think ITV or even Sky would produce anything near the (already sub-par) programmes they do currently, if they didn't have to compete with the BBC. The BBC is highly repsected around the world... only a self-righteous fastidious little cretin from a small island would make a comment like you just did and mean it. The BBC is one of the few things Britain can still be proud of... so lets kill it off!
You have no idea how bad television can get, believe me. You probably hate the National Health service too, but you really wouldn't want to know what it would be like not to have it.
What about us who already have an apple tv. Are they upgradeable or must we buy new?
I think they'll support one more software update for existing AppleTV owners (they need the installed base!)... Then after that it's all iTV iOS all the way.
BTW what happened to the "real" ITV (UK company) that wasn't happy about its name being used? I assume Apple has iTV for everywhere but the UK where it will still be called TV?
The BBC is one of the few things Britain can still be proud of... so lets kill it off!
Haha, so true. I talked to a few Brits while I was in Cali, and I found out that there is a BBC tax to keep it going so that it would not depend on advertising too much. Other then BCC though they have nothing left. Mini cooper is now German, Land Rover and Jaguar is Indian, I heard an Egyptian owns the historic company that supplies the jewels to the Queen.
I want a solution to the problem of cable and Satellite. That is - it's BS we have to endure paying an access fee and on top of that we still get commercials. It should be one or the other.
These rentals are .99. Fine, but I'd like an option of free with commercials or iADs.
People want cable ala carte. That is, just pay for the networks they're interested in.
So, renting just individual shows, especially ones that are free anyway, is a very limited step towards solving the cable stranglehold - if a step at all. Rent The Office? Really? The convenience of taking it mobile is fine, but most people most of the time have no interest in doing this. So where's the value?
I want to subscribe to whole networks, subsidized in part at least with ads - but it has to save me money over cable - or there's no point.
Your points are being repeated across the country. ala carte is EXACTLY what we need. Pay a $1.00 per month, per channel, for the 10 to 40 channels I WANT versus $40 or more for three channels I watch and 37 I don't is exactly why we don't have cable or dish at my house. But this is WHY the content providers are fighting Apple, Google (haven't heard much about that lately, have we?), Hulu (which they OWN!!) and will probably fight Amazon. Streaming subscription services are just about the same in their eyes as ala carte.
I'll stick with Netflix, even if I have to wait a bit, there are some GREAT shows available. Tudors, Rescue Me, to name just a couple.
I have yet to see an OTA Disney broadcast.
So, you don't understand how the term "network television" is used in this context?
What about us who already have an apple tv. Are they upgradeable or must we buy new?
You'll find out at one. But if it's new hardware, there will be no upgrade discount. Apple have never offered this.
Your points are being repeated across the country. ala carte is EXACTLY what we need. Pay a $1.00 per month, per channel, for the 10 to 40 channels I WANT versus $40 or more for three channels I watch and 37 I don't is exactly why we don't have cable or dish at my house. But this is WHY the content providers are fighting Apple, Google (haven't heard much about that lately, have we?), Hulu (which they OWN!!) and will probably fight Amazon. Streaming subscription services are just about the same in their eyes as ala carte.
I'll stick with Netflix, even if I have to wait a bit, there are some GREAT shows available. Tudors, Rescue Me, to name just a couple.
A big problem with the ala carte model, and what could be a big advantage for the producers as well, is that a large number of channels could not be profitable under this model. How many people would pay for the shopping TV channels? What about the numerous religious channels? I think you would see a drop in the available channels of about 50% or more.
The big advantage to the producers and networks is that they would not need to produce as much content. Think about it, a good portion of the content that is created is not much more than space filler. In an on-demand ala carte model you don't need to fill 24 hours of air time and could probably get away with 4-6 hours a day of new content with access to older content.
Why would copying what the others are doing be better for Apple than using their strengths to offer services that the others can not?
I don't think video is a strength Apple can leverage, it doesn't have a great reputation. Apple TV was a joke (and a bad one at that). I bought one... I couldn't even use external storage via the USB cable without hacking the thing, which meant you either had to choke your internal WiFi bandwidth streaming 4,000kbps or have a Mac connected to it, in which case you might as well use the Mac as your Video player. I eventually gave up on it and stuck a Mac Mini under the TV.
Sorry, I digressed... I happen to like iTunes video, but alsmost everyone who bought the last Apple TV regretted it.
Bottom line is, what makes the Mac Mini perfect, and the iPad near damn perfect, is Netflix and Hulu Plus as well as the ability to buy and watch from iTunes. Renting a $1.99 show (in SD lets remember) for 99 cents, won't work for me. My wife and I have different schedules, she often falls asleep during shows so has to catch up later in the week (not within 24 hours), so that's a no-no. Almost everyone I know has an iPhone or Mac, but no one rents movies on iTunes... $3.99, seriously - I've done it three times, ever.
What about us who already have an apple tv. Are they upgradeable or must we buy new?
If it needs iOS, there is no way the hardware can support that - the single core Pentium M and the 7xxx nVidia GPU are too ancient. I'd love to be wrong.
If it needs iOS, there is no way the hardware can support that - the single core Pentium M and the 7xxx nVidia GPU are too ancient. I'd love to be wrong.
I'm not sure about that, the iOS is based on OS X (as is the AppleTV OS) and should be fairly portable. For the AppleTV it won't need to be a full blown iOS either. They may not even need to run the iOS to add the new content streams to the new system, the rentals would be done through iTunes and the Netflix app could be ported, after all it is running on the Nintendo Wii and I believe even some of the new DVD players can use the service so I doubt that it takes much processing power to run it.
Countdown to another blind, irrational Rupert Murdoch hate-fest in 5?4?3?2?
I hate Rupert Murdoch!
A big problem with the ala carte model, and what could be a big advantage for the producers as well, is that a large number of channels could not be profitable under this model. How many people would pay for the shopping TV channels? What about the numerous religious channels? I think you would see a drop in the available channels of about 50% or more.
The big advantage to the producers and networks is that they would not need to produce as much content. Think about it, a good portion of the content that is created is not much more than space filler. In an on-demand ala carte model you don't need to fill 24 hours of air time and could probably get away with 4-6 hours a day of new content with access to older content.
But which makes you wonder, how much TV are people still watching in the age of the Internet? I mean, take the top 500 shows made in the last 20 years and all their episodes. I'm sure even with zero new content, minus live content like sports and news, that content I mention must take 10 years for any single person to watch.
The whole problem is "broad"casting. That is, just keep on shoving up all sorts of junk so there's always something on, even though there's always almost nothing to watch.
The Internet was meant to be a shift to "narrow"casting of some sorts, though the interactivity and bandwidth element kinda messed with that vision a little.
I don't understand this strategy... ABC already gives away its stuff for free on the ABC player, and virtually everything on FOX (for the last 20 years) is available on Hulu Plus, which is $9.95 a month - 10 rentals in a month, and you're losing out.
TV rentals is the worst idea Apple has come up with since the Pippin.
So Hulu exists at the whim of the networks, and the service it provides has degraded as they try to leverage some monetization out of it - because they want to figure out how to squeeze as much money out of their content as possible. Advertisers are the crack that provides the profitability for the networks. Sadly the networks traditionally pay writers, artists and producers the poorer share of that profitability, just like the recording industry. With that much overhead on the profit model, they are going to be very careful to entrench their profits - and digital sourcing threatens that, both due to piracy [8corewhore] and to deliverers who are trying to justify spending the bucks needed to build necessary infrastructure to support a more flexible approach to use of that content [Apple, Amazon, Netflix]. It was easier back in the day when the networks ran everything, produced everything and could control the delivery. They also only had a few sources of competition as well. Now competition comes from all quarters - including indies willing to stream or go direct to digital instead of flogging their concepts to the networks and risking rejection. And with competition, come profitability compression.
Find out more and support it here:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...-from-keyboard
So Hulu exists at the whim of the networks, and the service it provides has degraded as they try to leverage some monetization out of it - because they want to figure out how to squeeze as much money out of their content as possible. Advertisers are the crack that provides the profitability for the networks. Sadly the networks traditionally pay writers, artists and producers the poorer share of that profitability, just like the recording industry. With that much overhead on the profit model, they are going to be very careful to entrench their profits - and digital sourcing threatens that, both due to piracy [8corewhore] and to deliverers who are trying to justify spending the bucks needed to build necessary infrastructure to support a more flexible approach to use of that content [Apple, Amazon, Netflix]. It was easier back in the day when the networks ran everything, produced everything and could control the delivery. They also only had a few sources of competition as well. Now competition comes from all quarters - including indies willing to stream or go direct to digital instead of flogging their concepts to the networks and risking rejection. And with competition, come profitability compression.
Good points, but indies going direct to digital is really peanuts in terms of competing with the big boys, though there are some like the one I posted a few posts up.
I can't think of a real decent independent TV series that can stand up to the beasts like CSI, NCIS, Mad Men, Family Guy, and reality garbage such as American Idol, Biggest Loser, and Top CrackWho... I mean Top Model.
Why would pay for this service? Already exist have netflix which gives virtually everything, for ten dollars a month. We actually canceled our $40/month cable TV because it's a ripoff and we don't use it as much as netflix.
Simple answer: Because it offers things that Netflix and other services do not?