Internet is becoming more of a utility than a luxury in today's world. I've considered ditching cable and installing a broadcast antenna to cover the larger half of my television viewing habits, but the monopoly the cable companies have - particularly in smaller markets like mine - makes it very unattractive to "un-bundle". I pay roughly $40 for 15 Mbps Internet and $90 for HD digital cable with two TiVos (no premium movie channels). If I replaced cable with an antenna, my streaming would increase which would push me over my monthly bandwidth cap so I'd have to upgrade to a faster Internet package in order to get a larger cap. This upgrade along with the loss of bundling "discounts" would put me paying as much or more per month than I currently do with cable. It's a no-win situation. It doesn't seem right that Internet and television costs me more than electricity and water.
Yea, go figure, puts things into perspective of priorities at least. I think the cable companies do try to push back but the 'content creators' have mini-conglomerates of there own. Example is Discovery Communications etc. So they just can't say no Discovery, its no to everything.
What is the point of having a cable TV provider when you have Roku or Apple TV? It makes no sense. Why should you have to provide a cable provider login in order to watch content from these channels? Basically, then, the AppleTV and Roku are redundant if you still need your antiquated cable subscription.
What is the point of having a cable TV provider when you have Roku or Apple TV? It makes no sense. Why should you have to provide a cable provider login in order to watch content from these channels? Basically, then, the AppleTV and Roku are redundant if you still need your antiquated cable subscription.
Stupid.
Many shows or past shows are not available in VOD.
You need to log in with your cable ID and password? It's starting to sound a lot like Apple's in bed with the cable providers. Which is very, very bad news for consumers.
Instead, Apple should offer an a-la-carte live streaming option, where the base price of $10/month gives you access to the OTA networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB and PBS east or west coast feeds), and cable channels are $1 (HGTV, A&E, Discovery etc.), $2 (sports), or $3 (HBO, Cinemax) per month per channel extra. No recording, but for an additional $$ (maybe 50% of the channel price) per month per channel you can watch shows on demand.
It would finally bring some real competition without having to get channels you're never going to watch. My channels? HGTV, Discovery, TNT, History and ESPN. My bill: $17/month, let's say $25.50 with on demand.
To watch most shows on AETV & History, you need to have one of three cable providers, none of which is mine, Time Warner.
TV stations and cable companies have no regard for their customers and whenever someone comes along who tries to give customers something approaching a useful service (Aereo), they're sued to oblivion.
Three new channels on the AppleTV? Not for me and many others. As soon as I post this message I'm gonna hide the icons and won't be back. This experience takes me one step closer to canceling cable.
one example, the HBO GO app allows you to watch entire seasons of shows. So I can watch all 6 seasons of sex and the city using that app, where as the VOD for HBO with DirecTV right now only allows me to watch season 1. These aren't cable channels streaming live TV. They're video on demand channels.
The VOD model that offers full seasons of all shows is clearly the better model. All the more reason to replace the cable/sat model. Let me pay for only what
I watch. That model might also get people to watch less TV, since no one will pay for 80% of what is offered. That being crap. Free has it's costs to.
NJ Comcast user, only 3 providers are listed under More Providers when choosing Apple TV - DirectTV, Optimum, and Verizon - the same 3 listed in the boxes at the top. If I choose Roku or XBox there are dozens of providers listed. This is either a bug or Comcast flexing their muscle.
Full access to A&E, History Channel, and Lifetime are available only to DirecTV, Optimum, and Verizon FiOS subscribers. Hopefully they'll add more soon. But "there are still plenty of episodes and clips to enjoy" according to the activation screen.
After months of trying, I was finally able to activate Disney, DisneyXD, and Disney Junior, but still no luck with ABC. Same as always, it shows "Accessing Watch ABC" with an endless spinner.
Full access to A&E, History Channel, and Lifetime are available only to DirecTV, Optimum, and Verizon FiOS subscribers. Hopefully they'll add more soon. But "there are still plenty of episodes and clips to enjoy" according to the activation screen.
After months of trying, I was finally able to activate Disney, DisneyXD, and Disney Junior, but still no luck with ABC. Same as always, it shows "Accessing Watch ABC" with an endless spinner.
It’s psychosis. Utter psychosis. This MUST end. Yes, it will mean individual subscriptions to each Channel, but those can be handled effortlessly through Apple itself. And when these morons see that no one is subscribing to them, they’ll either lower prices, change content, or hopefully both.
More and more I keep thinking that the 2nd and 3rd gen Apple TVs won’t be getting a software update to whatever Apple will be using to handle their a la carte TV service. Something just tells me they won’t…
You need to log in with your cable ID and password? It's starting to sound a lot like Apple's in bed with the cable providers. Which is very, very bad news for consumers.
Instead, Apple should offer an a-la-carte live streaming option, where the base price of $10/month gives you access to the OTA networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB and PBS east or west coast feeds), and cable channels are $1 (HGTV, A&E, Discovery etc.), $2 (sports), or $3 (HBO, Cinemax) per month per channel extra. No recording, but for an additional $$ (maybe 50% of the channel price) per month per channel you can watch shows on demand.
It would finally bring some real competition without having to get channels you're never going to watch. My channels? HGTV, Discovery, TNT, History and ESPN. My bill: $17/month, let's say $25.50 with on demand.
Where do I sign up?
Apple has so much weight (money + people with their credit cards hooked up to iTunes) that it could have spent the past few years wooing content providers (those not owned by the cable companies already). Even if it just started with a few shows (perhaps shows that other networks passed on and Apple bankrolled the way Netflix has), it would start to drive a wedge in the cable industry. I usually hate saying "Steve Jobs would have done it," but I think he would have. The cable industry is even more prime for a shakeup than the music industry was, and it's going to fall apart sooner or later.
It’s psychosis. Utter psychosis. This MUST end. Yes, it will mean individual subscriptions to each Channel, but those can be handled effortlessly through Apple itself. And when these morons see that no one is subscribing to them, they’ll either lower prices, change content, or hopefully both.
More and more I keep thinking that the 2nd and 3rd gen Apple TVs won’t be getting a software update to whatever Apple will be using to handle their a la carte TV service. Something just tells me they won’t…
Unfortunately even with all the pirating going on TV is making money, and as long as they're still profitable there won't be a incentive to change their ways.
The cable industry is even more prime for a shakeup than the music industry was, and it's going to fall apart sooner or later.
The music industry was losing money big time whereas cable companies are not. There's no need for them to change what they're doing. Even though the final product is some type of media, the two businesses are very different. You can make a hit song in a basement studio, but a hit TV takes so much more.
The music industry was losing money big time whereas cable companies are not. There's no need for them to change what they're doing. Even though the final product is some type of media, the two businesses are very different. You can make a hit song in a basement studio, but a hit TV takes so much more.
Actually, most TV shows lose money, and many channels lose money. That's why cable packages them together into 300 channels you hate to get the 5 you want. The hit shows/channels subsidize the crap. And now cable subscriptions are going down quarter after quarter as more people cut the cord, and I think that will only accelerate. The business model makes as much sense in the Internet age as brick-and-mortar Blockbuster stores. It's just a matter of time.
Actually, most TV shows lose money, and many channels lose money. That's why cable packages them together into 300 channels you hate to get the 5 you want. The hit shows/channels subsidize the crap. And now cable subscriptions are going down quarter after quarter as more people cut the cord, and I think that will only accelerate. The business model makes as much sense in the Internet age as brick-and-mortar Blockbuster stores. It's just a matter of time.
I agree but it's not going to happen as fast as we'd like it to.
I agree but it's not going to happen as fast as we'd like it to.
That's what I'm saying - it is/was a golden opportunity for a major player like Apple to not only speed up that death, but to emerge as the Next Big Thing in the TV experience. Partnering with cable is just riding the slow boat down the drain with them.
Anyone remember when the History channel was a history channel? MTV a music channel? Discovery a decent channel?
History and Discovery are a joke. Pawn stars, ghost hunters and stories of the bible aren't my idea of educational television.
For quality nature/science/history content, PBS has everything you need.
?It's disappointing that the few cable channels that have decent programming (AMC, Comedy Central, etc.) are still missing from the list. Everything else seems to cater to the same audience that watches WWF.
Comments
Anyone remember when the History channel was a history channel? MTV a music channel? Discovery a decent channel?
Ha! Are you kidding? I actually remember when Bravo was actually a really cool art-house film channel.
Crap like this is why I cut the cable.
Internet is becoming more of a utility than a luxury in today's world. I've considered ditching cable and installing a broadcast antenna to cover the larger half of my television viewing habits, but the monopoly the cable companies have - particularly in smaller markets like mine - makes it very unattractive to "un-bundle". I pay roughly $40 for 15 Mbps Internet and $90 for HD digital cable with two TiVos (no premium movie channels). If I replaced cable with an antenna, my streaming would increase which would push me over my monthly bandwidth cap so I'd have to upgrade to a faster Internet package in order to get a larger cap. This upgrade along with the loss of bundling "discounts" would put me paying as much or more per month than I currently do with cable. It's a no-win situation. It doesn't seem right that Internet and television costs me more than electricity and water.
Yea, go figure, puts things into perspective of priorities at least. I think the cable companies do try to push back but the 'content creators' have mini-conglomerates of there own. Example is Discovery Communications etc. So they just can't say no Discovery, its no to everything.
http://corporate.discovery.com/
IMO- everyone of these should be a separate entity the way it use to be.
Well, we still have the fall back of the public library and books for entertainment/knowledge. Thanks Ben Franklin!
Stupid.
Many shows or past shows are not available in VOD.
Instead, Apple should offer an a-la-carte live streaming option, where the base price of $10/month gives you access to the OTA networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB and PBS east or west coast feeds), and cable channels are $1 (HGTV, A&E, Discovery etc.), $2 (sports), or $3 (HBO, Cinemax) per month per channel extra. No recording, but for an additional $$ (maybe 50% of the channel price) per month per channel you can watch shows on demand.
It would finally bring some real competition without having to get channels you're never going to watch. My channels? HGTV, Discovery, TNT, History and ESPN. My bill: $17/month, let's say $25.50 with on demand.
Where do I sign up?
To watch most shows on AETV & History, you need to have one of three cable providers, none of which is mine, Time Warner.
TV stations and cable companies have no regard for their customers and whenever someone comes along who tries to give customers something approaching a useful service (Aereo), they're sued to oblivion.
Three new channels on the AppleTV? Not for me and many others. As soon as I post this message I'm gonna hide the icons and won't be back. This experience takes me one step closer to canceling cable.
The VOD model that offers full seasons of all shows is clearly the better model. All the more reason to replace the cable/sat model. Let me pay for only what
I watch. That model might also get people to watch less TV, since no one will pay for 80% of what is offered. That being crap. Free has it's costs to.
Full access to A&E, History Channel, and Lifetime are available only to DirecTV, Optimum, and Verizon FiOS subscribers. Hopefully they'll add more soon. But "there are still plenty of episodes and clips to enjoy" according to the activation screen.
After months of trying, I was finally able to activate Disney, DisneyXD, and Disney Junior, but still no luck with ABC. Same as always, it shows "Accessing Watch ABC" with an endless spinner.
After months of trying, I was finally able to activate Disney, DisneyXD, and Disney Junior, but still no luck with ABC. Same as always, it shows "Accessing Watch ABC" with an endless spinner.
It’s psychosis. Utter psychosis. This MUST end. Yes, it will mean individual subscriptions to each Channel, but those can be handled effortlessly through Apple itself. And when these morons see that no one is subscribing to them, they’ll either lower prices, change content, or hopefully both.
More and more I keep thinking that the 2nd and 3rd gen Apple TVs won’t be getting a software update to whatever Apple will be using to handle their a la carte TV service. Something just tells me they won’t…
You need to log in with your cable ID and password? It's starting to sound a lot like Apple's in bed with the cable providers. Which is very, very bad news for consumers.
Instead, Apple should offer an a-la-carte live streaming option, where the base price of $10/month gives you access to the OTA networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB and PBS east or west coast feeds), and cable channels are $1 (HGTV, A&E, Discovery etc.), $2 (sports), or $3 (HBO, Cinemax) per month per channel extra. No recording, but for an additional $$ (maybe 50% of the channel price) per month per channel you can watch shows on demand.
It would finally bring some real competition without having to get channels you're never going to watch. My channels? HGTV, Discovery, TNT, History and ESPN. My bill: $17/month, let's say $25.50 with on demand.
Where do I sign up?
Apple has so much weight (money + people with their credit cards hooked up to iTunes) that it could have spent the past few years wooing content providers (those not owned by the cable companies already). Even if it just started with a few shows (perhaps shows that other networks passed on and Apple bankrolled the way Netflix has), it would start to drive a wedge in the cable industry. I usually hate saying "Steve Jobs would have done it," but I think he would have. The cable industry is even more prime for a shakeup than the music industry was, and it's going to fall apart sooner or later.
Unfortunately even with all the pirating going on TV is making money, and as long as they're still profitable there won't be a incentive to change their ways.
The music industry was losing money big time whereas cable companies are not. There's no need for them to change what they're doing. Even though the final product is some type of media, the two businesses are very different. You can make a hit song in a basement studio, but a hit TV takes so much more.
The music industry was losing money big time whereas cable companies are not. There's no need for them to change what they're doing. Even though the final product is some type of media, the two businesses are very different. You can make a hit song in a basement studio, but a hit TV takes so much more.
Actually, most TV shows lose money, and many channels lose money. That's why cable packages them together into 300 channels you hate to get the 5 you want. The hit shows/channels subsidize the crap. And now cable subscriptions are going down quarter after quarter as more people cut the cord, and I think that will only accelerate. The business model makes as much sense in the Internet age as brick-and-mortar Blockbuster stores. It's just a matter of time.
I agree but it's not going to happen as fast as we'd like it to.
I agree but it's not going to happen as fast as we'd like it to.
That's what I'm saying - it is/was a golden opportunity for a major player like Apple to not only speed up that death, but to emerge as the Next Big Thing in the TV experience. Partnering with cable is just riding the slow boat down the drain with them.
I have FIOS. Is it just me?
Anyone remember when the History channel was a history channel? MTV a music channel? Discovery a decent channel?
History and Discovery are a joke. Pawn stars, ghost hunters and stories of the bible aren't my idea of educational television.
For quality nature/science/history content, PBS has everything you need.
?It's disappointing that the few cable channels that have decent programming (AMC, Comedy Central, etc.) are still missing from the list. Everything else seems to cater to the same audience that watches WWF.