It is my wife's iPad. She likes to spend my $$$ on QVC and the stream is HD on the TWC app but not on cable. Yes it is sad but in reality it is the principle of it 😉 Oddly enough the standalone QVC app does do airplay but the stream is not very good quality.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Time Warner Cable and Viacom Settle Lawsuit Over iPad Television Streaming
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is my wife's iPad. She likes to spend my $$$ on QVC and the stream is HD on the TWC app but not on cable. Yes it is sad but in reality it is the principle of it 😉 Oddly enough the standalone QVC app does do airplay but the stream is not very good quality.
morespce54
macrumors 65816
Isn't that like... streamed TV over the Internet with an Apple device?
OMG, quick, someone tell the TWC CEO about it or he will miss it... again! 😉
OMG, quick, someone tell the TWC CEO about it or he will miss it... again! 😉
Greed
Will I ever live long enough to see a time in our lives when GREED is no longer the dominate motivation for corporations?
Will there ever be a lawsuit or ruling that a company files against another company because they want to offer their services to everyone rather than complaining that they aren't getting their own 'piece of the pie'??
Another reason why I no longer subscribe to cable television or watch television. Media companies in general are ALL greedy bastards who care nothing for the consumer.
Will I ever live long enough to see a time in our lives when GREED is no longer the dominate motivation for corporations?
Will there ever be a lawsuit or ruling that a company files against another company because they want to offer their services to everyone rather than complaining that they aren't getting their own 'piece of the pie'??
Another reason why I no longer subscribe to cable television or watch television. Media companies in general are ALL greedy bastards who care nothing for the consumer.
d21mike
macrumors 68040
Is what legal? You ask "why would you want to stream to your TV when you TV is connected to your Cable?". My answer was to get rid of the Cable STB's. I did not say do it illegally. Verizon FIOS Labs are working on a new DVR that has about 6 turners and they will connect to that with ATV "size" boxes over the in house network or via an App in your XBOX or in your TV. This would eliminate the STB for each TV. Now that 6 turner DVR may be expensive but maybe not the same price as 6 STB's and also the energy needed to power them. Also, would make for a nicer setup in the home.
See the video explaining it here:
http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2011-12/verizon-preps-fios-tv-media-server/
Mr. F
macrumors newbie
It's just plain old greed. They still show the commercials, they were just trying to squeeze more money out of the consumer. What difference could it possibly make to them what device we see the commercials on?
It would be nice if they redirected that energy to improving their product instead.
It would be nice if they redirected that energy to improving their product instead.
Ciclismo
macrumors 6502a
Corporations are greedy because their stockholders are greedy. And stockholders are people like you and me. So the real problem is that greed will continue to be the core motivation for most businesses as long as Joe Average is only looking out for número uno.
GenesisST
macrumors 68000
Typically in the city at least, they do charge you differently. If you use over a certain amount of water you pay higher tier prices because like water, bandwidth is a finite resourse and must be conserved. Likewise, if you get the second line for the lawn. You can get that water at a lower rate, and are not charged for wastewater (it going into the sewer). You are billed for what you use, and for how you use it. Additionally you are charged a fee for having a meter as well.
This is a very good analogy because most people want to tether because they purchased a cheap water line intended for lawns only (unlimited data for the device only) and they want to use that water hooked up into their house and avoid paying the wastewater charge (jailbroken/untethered). Thanks for making this extremely clear to me... and the reason they charge so much for wastewater is because they have to reprocess it. The reason they have to charge so much for data is because it is different from voice and requires more resources. You can sacrifice voice quality up to a point; however, your higher bandwidth requires better quality ie. more expensive hardware and they have to pay the government for the bandwidth used (licensing fees). Competition keeps licensing fees high which goes back into your cost as consumer. Had the TMobile/ATT merger happened it would have been great for both sets of customers, but hurt their competition.
Last edited:
Geckotek
macrumors G3
Have it, never use it. Seems useless. Of course I don't have to share my TV with anyone so perhaps that's why??
That's all well and good about water. But the whole "2nd line" deal does not apply to this discussion. It's all the same data, it isn't voice vs data that is being discussed. When you already have a limit on the data plan of 2GB or whatever, the carrier dictating how you use it is pointless. Note VZW noticed this and allows tethering on more plans, now.
Well, this whole conversation has gotten a bit off-topic, but I'll chime in anyway. 😉
Back when AT&T (and others) were doing "unlimited" plans I strongly felt that they had full rights to charge for Tethering. After all, it was unlimited only because there was only so much you could do on your cell phone. If you tethered it, you could theoretically have unlimited data for a whole house.
After they went to a $10 a gigabyte model, my opinion changed. I felt they should allow you to use that finite bucket of bytes for anything you desired. After all, the more you use, the more they charge you.
Most mobile operators seem to have a lot of legacy pricing from "the days of olde".
I still get charged 25 cents a text message -- as though that 140 characters is a huge data package. Pretty ridiculous pricing.
I'm hoping that this "settlement" between the studios and Time Warner Cable is a sign that pricing is becoming more rational.
Back when AT&T (and others) were doing "unlimited" plans I strongly felt that they had full rights to charge for Tethering. After all, it was unlimited only because there was only so much you could do on your cell phone. If you tethered it, you could theoretically have unlimited data for a whole house.
After they went to a $10 a gigabyte model, my opinion changed. I felt they should allow you to use that finite bucket of bytes for anything you desired. After all, the more you use, the more they charge you.
Most mobile operators seem to have a lot of legacy pricing from "the days of olde".
I still get charged 25 cents a text message -- as though that 140 characters is a huge data package. Pretty ridiculous pricing.
I'm hoping that this "settlement" between the studios and Time Warner Cable is a sign that pricing is becoming more rational.