I just recently trimmed my cable plan down to basic and am thinking about going Apple TV soon, waiting for the new updated box. If I like it I may just go cable free or the very cheapest cable plan my cable co. offers. I'm looking to cut the cord, gotta wean the wife off slowly lol.
Unlike many posters her, I do not think that an app centric model is the way to go for Apple TV. If they do end up traveling down that path, then nothing's changed from the old cable provider model where one subscribe's to channels.
For instance, if you are a "Game of Thrones" fan, then you need to subscribe to HBO. Whether watch Bill Maher's show or not or whether you like boxing or not, you're still financing it since you are paying for the HBO package.
Same thing with Discovery. You may only want to watch "Myth Busters" and may not care about "Moonshiners" or the "Deadliest Catch".
In essence, the content you like may be spread over 15 different stations. Why pay a subscription to them if all you ever watch is one show from each? How is that different from today's cable packages?
If on the other hand Apple negotiates a deal where an account can pay for say 50 hours a month of original programming, no matter where is comes from,
then all you may have to do is search "Game of Thrones" and then Play. The Apple servers then will start streaming the episode directly to your TV, Mac, iPad or iPhone and your account's counters starts counting down the seconds from 50 hours. Now let's assume you want to watch that same episode again on your big screen TV at home. Then Apple knows that you already streamed that show and won't reduce it from your allocated hours.
At the same time Apple will send the necessary amount of $ back to HBO for that episode that was streamed.
In the end the customer pays just for the number of hours watched and not an entire package where maybe only 5% of it, interests him.
Never going to happen.
Making quality TV costs money, and is based on paying for things you don't need. If you pay for only what you need, you can expect prices to rise accordingly.
If you want truly a la carte, what Apple could negotiate is an expansion to iTunes Season Pass, where you buy a season of a TV show (for, say $50) and then get a access to a live stream of the show when it airs, in addition to On Demand of the entire released season in your Purchased shows.
So if you watch only 4-5 shows a year, you could pay $250-300 per year for access and purchase.
Making quality TV costs money, and is based on paying for things you don't need. If you pay for only what you need, you can expect prices to rise accordingly.
If you want truly a la carte, what Apple could negotiate is an expansion to iTunes Season Pass, where you buy a season of a TV show (for, say $50) and then get a access to a live stream of the show when it airs, in addition to On Demand of the entire released season in your Purchased shows.
So if you watch only 4-5 shows a year, you could pay $250-300 per year for access and purchase.
maybe not that much, but I'm figuring for a 'channel' you'll be paying
$9.99 a month for most 'expanded basic sort of stuff (think ESPN… where you want to watch the feed 4-6 hours a week)
and 4.99 per original content show/PPV event (Think Monday Night Football… outside of that $9.99).
Don't forget that most live feeds will still have network commercials as well.
Again, using ESPN as a model, they have at least 3, if not 4 pricing bands (think in-app purchases). Basic, HD, (ESPNNews, ESPNU, Classic) and ESPN3
and Audio/Radio, as well as the Magazine, and Deportes.
If I were them, I would be opting for a $19.99 a month for full content, $9.99 for the basic news feeds and crap content, and $2.99-4.99 for live PPV
Me… I don't watch MNF unless it's a team that I enjoy… I'd pay $5 to watch GreenBay/Chicago in my own living room if it had playoff implications.
But that does put it on the $250/year trajectory, at least for full content.
But to have it on my 1080P TV, my iPhone, and my iPad Mini… that's convenient.
My guess is you don't like it precisely because it doesn't put a slant on things the way you'd prefer. That is a reflection of the viewer not the source.
Or, perhaps, you like it precisely because it DOES put a slant on things the way YOU'D prefer. A reflection of all viewers.
Making quality TV costs money, and is based on paying for things you don't need. If you pay for only what you need, you can expect prices to rise accordingly.
If you want truly a la carte, what Apple could negotiate is an expansion to iTunes Season Pass, where you buy a season of a TV show (for, say $50) and then get a access to a live stream of the show when it airs, in addition to On Demand of the entire released season in your Purchased shows.
So if you watch only 4-5 shows a year, you could pay $250-300 per year for access and purchase.
If what you say is true, then nothing's changed from the old cable model.
An app for AMC, another for HBO another for Discovery another for ABC etc... is exactly the same as having a cable box and subscribing to them or getting some sort of package deal from your provider.
Besides if "The Walking Dead" is all you watch from AMC you will not be tuning in to the brand new Season of "Mad Men", therefore AMC gets exactly $0 advertising, from you, since you did not tune in to the latter. That's what today's TV ratings are all about.
<span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">unbiased???? The BBC is terribly biased. They just hide it well. It's not what they say, so much as what they don't say. IMO it's the scummiest news org after AlJazeera and Russia Today.</span>
How do you feel about the Christian Science Monitor? About Fox? Some context would help evaluate your opinion.
I find it tiresome when elitists rail on about "Faux News", as though their somehow any different than any of the other news sources available in the USA. This isn't a right vs left sort of thing as far as I'm concerned. The state of news reporting in the USA is awful. ALL the channels bias the news in order to put forth a particular message either overtly or as an earlier poster said by what they don't say. All the news sources mentioned above, like Fox News, are run by advertising and they all exhibit a bias. To imply otherwise is at best disingenuous.
To be fair it is the only news organization I know of to go to court to defend its right to lie on a news broadcast knowingly. It of course won that case and therefore one has to question the validity of anything they say. In truth it is an entertainment service. If you know of other news organizations that have done likewise tell me, I'd like to know. I am not anti-Fox in general for a moment, I think many of Fox's TV shows are very good and their 'entertainment news' is very successful. But it is taken far too seriously by many.
Everyone thinks the news agency they refer to is the best because "they're unbiased." Its almost like a religion anymore. Let me clue you in on a little something, each news organization has an agenda in what they cover and how they cover it. If you can't see that then you need to wake up. It is our responsibility to take the various reports and put them together to get the complete story. To discredit one news source over another because "it's cool" in your circle of friends doesn't make you smarter, it makes you dumber.
I very much doubt that any commercial American news TV station has guidelines like the BBC's. Output quality does vary between news organizations. Some news sources are worth more than others.
Or, perhaps, you like it precisely because it DOES put a slant on things the way YOU'D prefer. A reflection of all viewers.
Just sayin'.
I wasn't the one making the initial comment about the BBC being as far left (I won't repeat the diatribe again) as was asserted. My comment stands in the context of that post and one cannot take a small part of what I said, without with the context and make sense of it.
My views were not part of that conversation, only his, and that is what was referred to. Of course I prefer the BBC as it is centrist, non religious and pro science and not extreme (IMHO) and of course I see it and the world at large through my own tinted lenses as we all do.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right_said_fred
Wish they would add the BBC news App, common on many web enabled TV. Is a very good app, and a great way to see 'unbiased' news in just a few minutes
exclusivity in the contract with SkyNews, maybe?
Mike Wizowski!!!
Huh! A little.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDBA
Unlike many posters her, I do not think that an app centric model is the way to go for Apple TV. If they do end up traveling down that path, then nothing's changed from the old cable provider model where one subscribe's to channels.
For instance, if you are a "Game of Thrones" fan, then you need to subscribe to HBO. Whether watch Bill Maher's show or not or whether you like boxing or not, you're still financing it since you are paying for the HBO package.
Same thing with Discovery. You may only want to watch "Myth Busters" and may not care about "Moonshiners" or the "Deadliest Catch".
In essence, the content you like may be spread over 15 different stations. Why pay a subscription to them if all you ever watch is one show from each? How is that different from today's cable packages?
If on the other hand Apple negotiates a deal where an account can pay for say 50 hours a month of original programming, no matter where is comes from,
then all you may have to do is search "Game of Thrones" and then Play. The Apple servers then will start streaming the episode directly to your TV, Mac, iPad or iPhone and your account's counters starts counting down the seconds from 50 hours. Now let's assume you want to watch that same episode again on your big screen TV at home. Then Apple knows that you already streamed that show and won't reduce it from your allocated hours.
At the same time Apple will send the necessary amount of $ back to HBO for that episode that was streamed.
In the end the customer pays just for the number of hours watched and not an entire package where maybe only 5% of it, interests him.
Never going to happen.
Making quality TV costs money, and is based on paying for things you don't need. If you pay for only what you need, you can expect prices to rise accordingly.
If you want truly a la carte, what Apple could negotiate is an expansion to iTunes Season Pass, where you buy a season of a TV show (for, say $50) and then get a access to a live stream of the show when it airs, in addition to On Demand of the entire released season in your Purchased shows.
So if you watch only 4-5 shows a year, you could pay $250-300 per year for access and purchase.
Hope quicker than that....
I thought there was already a streaming radio app in AppleTV...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Never going to happen.
Making quality TV costs money, and is based on paying for things you don't need. If you pay for only what you need, you can expect prices to rise accordingly.
If you want truly a la carte, what Apple could negotiate is an expansion to iTunes Season Pass, where you buy a season of a TV show (for, say $50) and then get a access to a live stream of the show when it airs, in addition to On Demand of the entire released season in your Purchased shows.
So if you watch only 4-5 shows a year, you could pay $250-300 per year for access and purchase.
maybe not that much, but I'm figuring for a 'channel' you'll be paying
$9.99 a month for most 'expanded basic sort of stuff (think ESPN… where you want to watch the feed 4-6 hours a week)
and 4.99 per original content show/PPV event (Think Monday Night Football… outside of that $9.99).
Don't forget that most live feeds will still have network commercials as well.
Again, using ESPN as a model, they have at least 3, if not 4 pricing bands (think in-app purchases). Basic, HD, (ESPNNews, ESPNU, Classic) and ESPN3
and Audio/Radio, as well as the Magazine, and Deportes.
If I were them, I would be opting for a $19.99 a month for full content, $9.99 for the basic news feeds and crap content, and $2.99-4.99 for live PPV
Me… I don't watch MNF unless it's a team that I enjoy… I'd pay $5 to watch GreenBay/Chicago in my own living room if it had playoff implications.
But that does put it on the $250/year trajectory, at least for full content.
But to have it on my 1080P TV, my iPhone, and my iPad Mini… that's convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
My guess is you don't like it precisely because it doesn't put a slant on things the way you'd prefer. That is a reflection of the viewer not the source.
Or, perhaps, you like it precisely because it DOES put a slant on things the way YOU'D prefer. A reflection of all viewers.
Just sayin'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Never going to happen.
Making quality TV costs money, and is based on paying for things you don't need. If you pay for only what you need, you can expect prices to rise accordingly.
If you want truly a la carte, what Apple could negotiate is an expansion to iTunes Season Pass, where you buy a season of a TV show (for, say $50) and then get a access to a live stream of the show when it airs, in addition to On Demand of the entire released season in your Purchased shows.
So if you watch only 4-5 shows a year, you could pay $250-300 per year for access and purchase.
If what you say is true, then nothing's changed from the old cable model.
An app for AMC, another for HBO another for Discovery another for ABC etc... is exactly the same as having a cable box and subscribing to them or getting some sort of package deal from your provider.
Besides if "The Walking Dead" is all you watch from AMC you will not be tuning in to the brand new Season of "Mad Men", therefore AMC gets exactly $0 advertising, from you, since you did not tune in to the latter. That's what today's TV ratings are all about.
To be fair it is the only news organization I know of to go to court to defend its right to lie on a news broadcast knowingly. It of course won that case and therefore one has to question the validity of anything they say. In truth it is an entertainment service. If you know of other news organizations that have done likewise tell me, I'd like to know. I am not anti-Fox in general for a moment, I think many of Fox's TV shows are very good and their 'entertainment news' is very successful. But it is taken far too seriously by many.
I didn't even know it existed till today! I've been glued to it all morning!
Quote:
Originally Posted by razorpit
Everyone thinks the news agency they refer to is the best because "they're unbiased." Its almost like a religion anymore. Let me clue you in on a little something, each news organization has an agenda in what they cover and how they cover it. If you can't see that then you need to wake up. It is our responsibility to take the various reports and put them together to get the complete story. To discredit one news source over another because "it's cool" in your circle of friends doesn't make you smarter, it makes you dumber.
I very much doubt that any commercial American news TV station has guidelines like the BBC's. Output quality does vary between news organizations. Some news sources are worth more than others.
I wasn't the one making the initial comment about the BBC being as far left (I won't repeat the diatribe again) as was asserted. My comment stands in the context of that post and one cannot take a small part of what I said, without with the context and make sense of it.
My views were not part of that conversation, only his, and that is what was referred to. Of course I prefer the BBC as it is centrist, non religious and pro science and not extreme (IMHO) and of course I see it and the world at large through my own tinted lenses as we all do.
In his case the slant he doesn't agree with.