For me it depends on what actually ends up being available. I would assume rights issues will prevent the full iPlayer being available in the US. For example, Ricky Gervais' productions are co-produced by the BBC and HBO, and I assume HBO will hold the exclusive rights to show that stuff in the US - I'm sure there will be a few things like that.
However, I'd be happy to pay $10 per month for Have I Got News For You and Question Time alone.
I know what you mean about the regional accents on BBC News. It's the outcome of 13 years of a Labour government in my opinion. They put pressure on the BBC to cover things other than London more (which in itself is a sensible goal), but the BBC interpreted that to mean they had to have regional accents, which if they are hard to understand, does not make sense.
There are many GREAT UK shows, but they tend to loose their impact when you no longer reside there. Question Time is great for the spectacle(!) but as most of the issues are local its hard to get too excited about it. Ditto HIGNFY.
Re the accents... crazy analysis imo. The accents are part of everyday language in the UK and not at all hard to understand. Brookie might be hard for North Americans but can you imagine it in Queen's English? Or is Brookie not BBC?
How's iTunes for getting live Japan disaster updates?
Not via iTunes... BBC News app streamed from my iPad to my livingroom Apple TV 2 using AirPlay. It's certianly no 2 hour news cycle if that's what you need though.
How's iTunes for getting live Japan disaster updates
There are plenty of options (including live streams) available on the internet. Within iTunes itself there are plenty of news podcasts available (but admittedly, not live). There's nothing special about cable, other than the fact that cable providers (who are also ISPs) and the networks are purposely trying to hold internet distribution back to maintain the profit margins of their inferior service.
Even better news for US iPlayer subscribers: it's likely to incorporate ITV and Channel 4 content too. You'll be able to watch all of the main UK channels for less than Brits pay.
Agreed. I so want to cut the cord but unfortunately I can't find a good (and legit) source for my Forumula 1, Moto GP, WSBK and AMA Supercross/Motocross fix. iTunes could pretty much cover eveything else I really care about which are Discovery & History Channel shows.
I "cut the cord" after the last Formula 1 race...and will start it up later this month for Australia.
Ageed. I'll pay $10 a month to watch movies because I watch them once then move on. But music I listen to over and over (and all over... Car, house, garage, gym, etc.) So I gotta own it!
C'mon, Apple! Give us unlimited movies and tv shows for $10 a month! if Netflix can so it, so can you!
Actually I think netflix might have trouble keeping the price that low in the long run. Just like Apple had trouble keeping music downloads at 99 cents.
How's iTunes for getting live Japan disaster updates?
Comcast doesn't advertise it, but I believe there's a regulatory requirement for them to have a very low-tier of service. That's what I subscribe to. I pay $14/month (including tax) for everything available without a converter box. Basically that's channels 2-29 and gives me local network programming and a few others. Since I'm not a slave to my television the way most Americans are, that plus the iTunes content gives me more than enough and still allows me to receive live broadcasts, such as that of the Japan disaster (which I was, along with most of the world, watching on Friday morning).
This seems to suggest Amazon is having a hard time. How much longer do you think Amazon will hang around? What do they need to change?
Having a hard time with what? Selling stuff? No. Streaming? I don't know if I'd say they're having a hard time, although one could argue that the very fact that they are giving content away to Prime members is an indication that they weren't making much to begin with and now offer it up as a fantastic benefit to an already great program (I'm in my third year of Prime membership and loved it even before they offered up free video content).
Perhaps it is for you. I'd love to have a service like the Zune Pass or Rhapsody-To-Go available on my iPod. I live without it, but I used to have Rhapsody and loved it.
I suppose if my listening tastes were limited to the latest top-ten artists I'd be able to buy everything I want since the record companies only spoon feed the public a handful of albums a month, but since my collection currently consists of thousands of albums I've collected over the years, I'd love to be able to access that level of diversity without spending thousands of dollars per year on music.
Comcast doesn't advertise it, but I believe there's a regulatory requirement for them to have a very low-tier of service. That's what I subscribe to. I pay $14/month (including tax) for everything available without a converter box. Basically that's channels 2-29 and gives me local network programming and a few others.
I have learned that to get the absolute best HD picture quality for local channels you need to use an HD antenna, assuming you are no more than 30 miles away from the broadcast source and have an unobstructed view as well. I plan to do this soon to augment my cable. Unfortunately, although I don't consider myself addicted to TV like some others, I do follow a few professional sports so live broadcasts are important in that regard. Other than that I am sort of a world news and science documentary aficionado so I end up paying for almost the whole cable package since you can't order Ã* la carte.
250GB is merely adequate and should be the bare minimum. I can regularly hit that number, and in months during which I'm at home a lot (December and January) I can easily hit 350-450GB.
If ISPs are going to give us modems and plans that have the theoretical capability of downloading upwards of 1300GB a month, then they should expect customers to want to get full value for their money. There is no such thing as a "bandwidth hog." Arbitrary limits are simply that, arbitrary. There is no basis in logic for choosing that number.
Sure, and let's just have unlimited electricity so I can leave my lights on all the time and unlimited water so I can leave my facuets running all day. How about unlimited gas so I don't have to turn off my car.
Welcome to the real world. If you are using more data, you should be paying more becasue the ISP has to add more bandwidth, more lines, more switches, more routers, etc, to support YOUR habits. Not mine, nor that of most other people. Why should we pay for all those equipment upgrades just to support your usage? You use 20 times more data than I do. Why should I support your addiction?
With 50 billion in the bank, Apple should really use 10 billion of that to buy Netflix.
With a mkt cap of $11.5B, a forward P/E in the mid-to-high 30s -- which, therefore, bakes in a ridiculously high long-run growth rate -- and a premium that will have to be paid on top of that, I don't think it takes much to see that Apple would be wasting its money. And I don't think Apple will.
However, charging by use is only fair if they charge a fair rate. The incremental cost per Gb for a network provider is close to nothing (in the rage of cents, not dollars), so if they were to charge, for example, $5 per extra 100Gb, that would be fair. $50 per 100Gb would not.
the point isn't to make money (well, obviously to an extent of course it is) - but the real point is to discourage abusive download behavior. So $5 is not much of a deterrent, whereas $50 is more likely to be.
Not surprising to read this headline. I got the Apple TV last November, and the only reason why i pulled the trigger was because it had Netflix and YouTube, and a direct link to iTunes. However, it was Netflix that put us over the edge. Otherwise, it would have been Roku for our household. I would say about 90% of our aTV use is Netflix.
On Cox Cable if you go to your on-line account and search around they have a graph of usage, you can set it to daily and monthly. I am running about 30 to 50 GB per month. The graph has a limit of 200 GB per month, but I can see no mentioned of that limit on any of the promotional material, so I do not know if it is enforced or not.
Netflix is just friggin' awesome, and it's everywhere. I have 7 devices capable of playing Netflix on my TV (including being built into the TV itself).
It's an amazing low price...so low that I don't really understand how it can be sustained.
A few things that would make it better, or where someone like Apple could launch a better service:
1) Make it complete. Every movie and tv show should be on it. If it's as much of a resource as it is a service, it becomes far more valuable.
2) Tiered pricing. Instead of not being able to even find something, it should allow you to pay the premium to watch it now, or save it and watch it later when it comes down in price. I wouldn't mind if some brand new movies were premium where you paid $X to add it to your queue or watch it now, and others were for "gold" level subscribers, and the rest were for anyone. Heck, also include some educational videos and documentaries for free (making it a loss leader resource).
3) Bring on the social. I'm not so much a fan of Twitter and the rest, but it would be really great to be able to bookmark movies and share bookmarks with others. Likewise to optionally allow friends to see what you're watching or have recently watched and what you thought of it.
It's amazing how quickly Netflix took the lead on this, but there's still the opportunity to improve upon their business. Certainly Apple could provide something better.
Comments
For me it depends on what actually ends up being available. I would assume rights issues will prevent the full iPlayer being available in the US. For example, Ricky Gervais' productions are co-produced by the BBC and HBO, and I assume HBO will hold the exclusive rights to show that stuff in the US - I'm sure there will be a few things like that.
However, I'd be happy to pay $10 per month for Have I Got News For You and Question Time alone.
I know what you mean about the regional accents on BBC News. It's the outcome of 13 years of a Labour government in my opinion. They put pressure on the BBC to cover things other than London more (which in itself is a sensible goal), but the BBC interpreted that to mean they had to have regional accents, which if they are hard to understand, does not make sense.
There are many GREAT UK shows, but they tend to loose their impact when you no longer reside there. Question Time is great for the spectacle(!) but as most of the issues are local its hard to get too excited about it. Ditto HIGNFY.
Re the accents... crazy analysis imo. The accents are part of everyday language in the UK and not at all hard to understand. Brookie might be hard for North Americans but can you imagine it in Queen's English? Or is Brookie not BBC?
With 50 billion in the bank, Apple should really use 10 billion of that to buy Netflix.
Or they could spend a fraction of that to ensure that Apple TV becomes the de facto way of watching streamed content - netflix or not.
Haven't seen that since Tom Baker ... didn't it go down hill after that?
Yes, but it retuned in full awsomeness when it was rebooted 5 years ago.
How's iTunes for getting live Japan disaster updates?
Not via iTunes... BBC News app streamed from my iPad to my livingroom Apple TV 2 using AirPlay. It's certianly no 2 hour news cycle if that's what you need though.
How's iTunes for getting live Japan disaster updates
There are plenty of options (including live streams) available on the internet. Within iTunes itself there are plenty of news podcasts available (but admittedly, not live). There's nothing special about cable, other than the fact that cable providers (who are also ISPs) and the networks are purposely trying to hold internet distribution back to maintain the profit margins of their inferior service.
Agreed. I so want to cut the cord but unfortunately I can't find a good (and legit) source for my Forumula 1, Moto GP, WSBK and AMA Supercross/Motocross fix. iTunes could pretty much cover eveything else I really care about which are Discovery & History Channel shows.
I "cut the cord" after the last Formula 1 race...and will start it up later this month for Australia.
Best
I hear you Oh and Black Adder.
Yep. B'Ladder was great!
subscription music = fail.
Subscription video = win.
It's just that simple, people...
a b s o l u t e y
+1
Ageed. I'll pay $10 a month to watch movies because I watch them once then move on. But music I listen to over and over (and all over... Car, house, garage, gym, etc.) So I gotta own it!
C'mon, Apple! Give us unlimited movies and tv shows for $10 a month! if Netflix can so it, so can you!
Actually I think netflix might have trouble keeping the price that low in the long run. Just like Apple had trouble keeping music downloads at 99 cents.
How's iTunes for getting live Japan disaster updates?
Comcast doesn't advertise it, but I believe there's a regulatory requirement for them to have a very low-tier of service. That's what I subscribe to. I pay $14/month (including tax) for everything available without a converter box. Basically that's channels 2-29 and gives me local network programming and a few others. Since I'm not a slave to my television the way most Americans are, that plus the iTunes content gives me more than enough and still allows me to receive live broadcasts, such as that of the Japan disaster (which I was, along with most of the world, watching on Friday morning).
This seems to suggest Amazon is having a hard time. How much longer do you think Amazon will hang around? What do they need to change?
Having a hard time with what? Selling stuff? No. Streaming? I don't know if I'd say they're having a hard time, although one could argue that the very fact that they are giving content away to Prime members is an indication that they weren't making much to begin with and now offer it up as a fantastic benefit to an already great program (I'm in my third year of Prime membership and loved it even before they offered up free video content).
Subscription music = Fail.
Subscription video = Win.
It's just that simple, people...
Perhaps it is for you. I'd love to have a service like the Zune Pass or Rhapsody-To-Go available on my iPod. I live without it, but I used to have Rhapsody and loved it.
I suppose if my listening tastes were limited to the latest top-ten artists I'd be able to buy everything I want since the record companies only spoon feed the public a handful of albums a month, but since my collection currently consists of thousands of albums I've collected over the years, I'd love to be able to access that level of diversity without spending thousands of dollars per year on music.
Comcast doesn't advertise it, but I believe there's a regulatory requirement for them to have a very low-tier of service. That's what I subscribe to. I pay $14/month (including tax) for everything available without a converter box. Basically that's channels 2-29 and gives me local network programming and a few others.
I have learned that to get the absolute best HD picture quality for local channels you need to use an HD antenna, assuming you are no more than 30 miles away from the broadcast source and have an unobstructed view as well. I plan to do this soon to augment my cable. Unfortunately, although I don't consider myself addicted to TV like some others, I do follow a few professional sports so live broadcasts are important in that regard. Other than that I am sort of a world news and science documentary aficionado so I end up paying for almost the whole cable package since you can't order Ã* la carte.
250GB is merely adequate and should be the bare minimum. I can regularly hit that number, and in months during which I'm at home a lot (December and January) I can easily hit 350-450GB.
If ISPs are going to give us modems and plans that have the theoretical capability of downloading upwards of 1300GB a month, then they should expect customers to want to get full value for their money. There is no such thing as a "bandwidth hog." Arbitrary limits are simply that, arbitrary. There is no basis in logic for choosing that number.
Sure, and let's just have unlimited electricity so I can leave my lights on all the time and unlimited water so I can leave my facuets running all day. How about unlimited gas so I don't have to turn off my car.
Welcome to the real world. If you are using more data, you should be paying more becasue the ISP has to add more bandwidth, more lines, more switches, more routers, etc, to support YOUR habits. Not mine, nor that of most other people. Why should we pay for all those equipment upgrades just to support your usage? You use 20 times more data than I do. Why should I support your addiction?
With 50 billion in the bank, Apple should really use 10 billion of that to buy Netflix.
With a mkt cap of $11.5B, a forward P/E in the mid-to-high 30s -- which, therefore, bakes in a ridiculously high long-run growth rate -- and a premium that will have to be paid on top of that, I don't think it takes much to see that Apple would be wasting its money. And I don't think Apple will.
However, charging by use is only fair if they charge a fair rate. The incremental cost per Gb for a network provider is close to nothing (in the rage of cents, not dollars), so if they were to charge, for example, $5 per extra 100Gb, that would be fair. $50 per 100Gb would not.
the point isn't to make money (well, obviously to an extent of course it is) - but the real point is to discourage abusive download behavior. So $5 is not much of a deterrent, whereas $50 is more likely to be.
How do you measure monthly bandwidth usage?
On Cox Cable if you go to your on-line account and search around they have a graph of usage, you can set it to daily and monthly. I am running about 30 to 50 GB per month. The graph has a limit of 200 GB per month, but I can see no mentioned of that limit on any of the promotional material, so I do not know if it is enforced or not.
It's an amazing low price...so low that I don't really understand how it can be sustained.
A few things that would make it better, or where someone like Apple could launch a better service:
1) Make it complete. Every movie and tv show should be on it. If it's as much of a resource as it is a service, it becomes far more valuable.
2) Tiered pricing. Instead of not being able to even find something, it should allow you to pay the premium to watch it now, or save it and watch it later when it comes down in price. I wouldn't mind if some brand new movies were premium where you paid $X to add it to your queue or watch it now, and others were for "gold" level subscribers, and the rest were for anyone. Heck, also include some educational videos and documentaries for free (making it a loss leader resource).
3) Bring on the social. I'm not so much a fan of Twitter and the rest, but it would be really great to be able to bookmark movies and share bookmarks with others. Likewise to optionally allow friends to see what you're watching or have recently watched and what you thought of it.
It's amazing how quickly Netflix took the lead on this, but there's still the opportunity to improve upon their business. Certainly Apple could provide something better.