Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 1, 2013, 11:54 PM   #101
Michael Scrip
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantan View Post

A la carte sounds great in theory until people start having to make actual purchase decisions. Love Breaking Bad - sure. Love Breaking Bad enough to pay $39.99 to get it on demand - not so sure.
It all depends on how much of a TV watcher you are.

If TV isn't your primary hobby... and you have other things to occupy your time... but you do like Breaking Bad... just buy a season of Breaking Bad once and be done with it.

However... most people love TV and lots of different shows. To them, paying $100 every month is worth it.

The good thing is... the cable subscription isn't going away anytime soon. Nobody will be forced to start paying for individual shows.
Michael Scrip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:00 AM   #102
tekstud
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
I don't want a rental that expires in 24 hours.
tekstud is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:08 AM   #103
paul4339
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
...
A range of content. Not channels, as we really do not need those anymore. It's out of date and pointless.
...
Agreed... and,

Quote:
Originally Posted by handsome pete View Post
A la carte programming is much more complicated than people make it out to be. Advertising drives programming and content supports other content. If you moved to an a la carte system you will likely see even less choice, with chances being that the stuff you like will never even make it to production. Production campaniles will take even less risk. There's a reason why there's a deluge of crappy cheap reality programming out there.
Also agreed, but, why can't there be both options. (regardless if it's ad supported or not) Some people want bundles (or channels), some people want specific programs. I'm guessing it's just a pricing issue, but if I could (eventually) rent Breaking Bad on DVD anyway, why not offer it as ala carte?

.

Last edited by paul4339; Jan 2, 2013 at 12:28 AM.
paul4339 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:42 AM   #104
a0me
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilTanny View Post
We just bought a 30 inch flatscreen TV for $200. Works great as a second screen for the laptop too.

Used laptop and 30 inch TV/monitor, total price $600.
It's great if you're OK with watching movies on a 30" TV sitting on your desk, but that's not for everybody.

When you're on your couch 10 feet away from your TV -maybe with a couple of friends- to watch the latest action flick or play some video game, you'll be really glad you have a 50" TV.

And like I said in my comment, "I haven't seen a lot of 50"+ consumer monitors around." Apple only have 27" displays, same thing for HP, Asus, Samsung or LG (Dell has a 30"). I read the other day that the average (TV) screen size sold in 2012 was 42". Unless manufacturers start making similar sized monitors, I don't see anyone ditching their TV for smaller screens.
__________________
iMac 24"; MacBook Pro 15"; iPhone 4; iPhone 5s; iPod touch; tv
a0me is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:05 AM   #105
cfs112
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
My old 50" TV is about 8 years old now, I'm definitely in the market for a new TV and I have a feeling that Apple will revolutionize the TV market like they did with smart phones. I'm waiting for the end of this year to buy my TV
__________________
2012 non-retina MBP (16GB RAM, SSD + HDD combo), iPhone 5, iPad Mini, 2007 24" iMac
cfs112 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 06:16 AM   #106
Dagless
macrumors Core
 
Dagless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by baryon View Post
I think the problem of TV is that 99.9999999% of content is complete crap, and most people just watch TV to turn their brain off and don't care about what is actually happening. People can watch celebrities arguing, people who can't sing sining, or people talking about politics for hours.
To me that's rather telling of how you watch TV.

I love TV, but I only watch original content made on BBC, or a Channel 4 comedy, plus the annual Idiot Abroad on Sky One. Most of the time my TV is used for gaming or watching blurays, and rarely as an extension of my computer.

Quote:
I don't think TV can be saved at all, or that there is a need for it in today's world. You can do everything on a computer that a TV could do, and much more, so why do you need a TV? Is it just for the big screen? Then why not just get a bigger computer monitor?
Price of a 27" monitor=price of a 55" TV.


I find that TV's (and the devices attached) are all about convenience. A computer must be booted up and have their media centre app launched (why did Apple remove theirs?). TV's are easy to sit back with content playing, remote control in hand. I can't do that with my iMac, even though it's 27" I have to go up to the computer, find my media, press play and then sit back.
__________________
Maybe if everyone who'd ever been close to you had died, you'd be sarcastic, too.
Macrumors Steam Group
Dagless is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 07:02 AM   #107
mw360
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul4339 View Post
Agreed... and,



Also agreed, but, why can't there be both options. (regardless if it's ad supported or not) Some people want bundles (or channels), some people want specific programs. I'm guessing it's just a pricing issue, but if I could (eventually) rent Breaking Bad on DVD anyway, why not offer it as ala carte?

.
You wouldn't want the ala carte price. It would have to be high enough to compensate everyone involved for all the potential lost subscription fees, ad revenue, DVD sales and DVD rental income. TV content loses value over time. People who REALLY want to see it NOW pay more, either in money or ad viewing time. People who don't care so much pay a few cents via Netflix. But the important thing is that people who really want the show are subsidising the cost for everyone else. Without them paying big at the start, either the cost has to go up for everyone else, or the content just doesn't get made at all.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by tekstud View Post
I don't want a rental that expires in 24 hours.
Then you want to pay a little bit more for a rental you can watch any time, as many times as you like. Also known as a purchase.
mw360 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 07:18 AM   #108
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertoCohen View Post
Apple just needs to hurry and release their on TV so they can kick Samsungs ass. They really annoy me by releasing a new model of their 'Smart TV's' like every month. My sammy tv is probably already out of date.
Did your Samsung suddenly stop working? If content is "king" then as long as your TV plays content - who cares if there's something newer released by Samsung.

And I doubt your TV is out of date. But please - continue the hyperbole.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 07:26 AM   #109
mantan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: By Grabthar's Hammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post
It all depends on how much of a TV watcher you are.

If TV isn't your primary hobby... and you have other things to occupy your time... but you do like Breaking Bad... just buy a season of Breaking Bad once and be done with it.

However... most people love TV and lots of different shows. To them, paying $100 every month is worth it.

The good thing is... the cable subscription isn't going away anytime soon. Nobody will be forced to start paying for individual shows.
Exactly....paying $100 a month for an avid TV viewer is worth it. But a la carte pricing would likely be several hundred dollars for all the shows they enjoy....is that going to be worth it?

For 99.9% of TV viewers...probably not. As consumers, more and more people expect things for free/cheap. There is a constant buzz of complaints from viewers about the increasing costs of cable/satellite since the first systems were installed 30 years ago. I think the percentage of people suddenly willing to pay more for things they get for free/relatively cheap (like network shows) is going to be VERY small.
mantan is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 07:26 AM   #110
mw360
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcraig View Post
Did your Samsung suddenly stop working? If content is "king" then as long as your TV plays content - who cares if there's something newer released by Samsung.

And I doubt your TV is out of date. But please - continue the hyperbole.
Actually when companies do continue to rapidly release new models it gives the impression they're not concerned with supporting the older ones. This wasn't a problem with mechanical objects, but now with so many software features, many with glitches or bugs, the consumers would be better served with stability and a supply of software updates. I've had DVD players and TVs that needed new firmware that never came because the new models arrived and 'nobody' cared anymore.

These 'smart' TVs with all the imitation App Store garbage are going to go obsolete faster than an iPad1.

Upadte: And I expect, with consumers hanging on to TVs for an average of 10 years, the above is exactly the plan.
mw360 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 07:28 AM   #111
GoCubsGo
macrumors Nehalem
 
GoCubsGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
I can't speak for all, but this completely applies to me. I don't care if my TV recognizes me, I would like a seamless way to access content.
__________________
Because I'm a smartass.
GoCubsGo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 07:28 AM   #112
mantan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: By Grabthar's Hammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfs112 View Post
My old 50" TV is about 8 years old now, I'm definitely in the market for a new TV and I have a feeling that Apple will revolutionize the TV market like they did with smart phones. I'm waiting for the end of this year to buy my TV
I'll be interested to see how this works out when the rubber hits the road and you're looking at a $999 Samsung vs. a $2,499 Apple TV and the privilege of paying more for content than you do today.
mantan is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 07:36 AM   #113
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
I've never had a problem with updates on my Samsung TV which I bought 2 years ago. And quite frankly - I don't need all the extra doo-dads of the smart tv hub even if they didn't. Of course everyone is different. But as long as I can hook up my Apple TV, Cable and PS3 to watch blu-rays - the TV is perfect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mw360 View Post
Actually when companies do continue to rapidly release new models it gives the impression they're not concerned with supporting the older ones. This wasn't a problem with mechanical objects, but now with so many software features, many with glitches or bugs, the consumers would be better served with stability and a supply of software updates. I've had DVD players and TVs that needed new firmware that never came because the new models arrived and 'nobody' cared anymore.

These 'smart' TVs with all the imitation App Store garbage are going to go obsolete faster than an iPad1.

Upadte: And I expect, with consumers hanging on to TVs for an average of 10 years, the above is exactly the plan.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 07:44 AM   #114
mw360
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantan View Post
I'll be interested to see how this works out when the rubber hits the road and you're looking at a $999 Samsung vs. a $2,499 Apple TV and the privilege of paying more for content than you do today.
Yep, Apple doesn't have any magic dust, they just have (or had) an eye for spotting a stagnant marketplace. Right now all the existing manufacturers are scrambling so hard to beat Apple to it, they may just have covered all the bases already. Albeit with cheap plasticky things.

As for content, what can they really do? All iTunes really did for music was make it legally available online, track by track instead of singles/albums. They didn't try to cut the content creators revenue out from under them, they didn't set out to 'disrupt' anything. If anything they wanted to make more money for the record labels.

TV is different. Its ad driven, its episodic, its vastly more expensive to make, it dates rapidly, and most of all there are plenty of different consumption options already. The only new models any observers advocate are the ones that 'destroy the old dinosaurs'. The old dinosaurs being of course the companies that produce all the good stuff. Apple aren't going to do that. They have more sense. You only need to look at the iBooks court case. Apple got in trouble with the courts because Steve Jobs tried to help the publishers make more money, not less.
mw360 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 07:52 AM   #115
chrf097
macrumors 68030
 
chrf097's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Earth
People are starting to get ridiculous. Our living room Vizio has some App Suite, and for the time we've owned it, we've used the apps ONCE, by accident. TVs don't need apps. TVs need content. I want a TV with a DVR and Netflix, not a TV with Facebook and Twitter that tweets and posts everything I watch.

The same goes for a lot of things to! No Samsung, I don't want twitter on my fridge, I don't buy home appliances to update twitter!

"Dude I just got a new fridge to update twitter!"
"Awesome!"
"Yeah and as an extra bonus it can even store food!"

__________________
13" Macbook Pro | Mac OS 10.9.4 | Windows 8.1 Pro | 2.4GHz Core i5 | 8 GB RAM | 500 GB
Samsung GS4 | Black | 32GB | Android 4.4.2 |
iPad mini 2 | Grey | 16 GB WiFi | iOS 8b2

chrf097 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 07:54 AM   #116
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Also - if Apple makes an actual TV - you have to keep in mind that people have different needs in regards to real estate on their wall/entertainment centers, etc. The market has a LOT of different sizes. Sure Apple can come in with some sizes that target the "biggest" money makers - but they most likely will not be able to "own" the market like they did with MP3 players. But that's ok too. They don't need to OWN the market. As a company - they just have to release something that is profitable and worthwhile. They don't OWN the computer market yet they do just fine.

Some people think that Apple can do a lot of revolutionizing content. I don't see it. Look at their own model. 1.99 or so for a TV show. Yet some people want to pay a couple of bucks per channel. It's not going to happen. Especially since content producers aren't going to invest millions into a show without significant buy in (advertising/etc).

I don't think Cable is perfect by any means. But the model is working because for every channel people love, there are others that are able to exist because of the block/bulk cable subscription. If the model some people suggest existed (at least now) - you're going to look at more of a YouTube scenario than network produced tv shows. Because the content will need to come from those willing to fork over their own money/low budget/etc.

Also - $2 here and there will add up quickly (for those thinking of that model) to the point where you'd still be paying the same rate because ultimately - you still need internet. And the cable companies aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot. If people "cut" their cable - then bandwidth is going to get more expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mw360 View Post
Yep, Apple doesn't have any magic dust, they just have (or had) an eye for spotting a stagnant marketplace. Right now all the existing manufacturers are scrambling so hard to beat Apple to it, they may just have covered all the bases already. Albeit with cheap plasticky things.

As for content, what can they really do? All iTunes really did for music was make it legally available online, track by track instead of singles/albums. They didn't try to cut the content creators revenue out from under them, they didn't set out to 'disrupt' anything. If anything they wanted to make more money for the record labels.

TV is different. Its ad driven, its episodic, its vastly more expensive to make, it dates rapidly, and most of all there are plenty of different consumption options already. The only new models any observers advocate are the ones that 'destroy the old dinosaurs'. The old dinosaurs being of course the companies that produce all the good stuff. Apple aren't going to do that. They have more sense. You only need to look at the iBooks court case. Apple got in trouble with the courts because Steve Jobs tried to help the publishers make more money, not less.
samcraig is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 08:15 AM   #117
Kaibelf
macrumors 6502a
 
Kaibelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Quote:
Originally Posted by CReimer View Post
If you're going to reinvent the boob tube, keep it simple for stupid people.
Yes, keep it simple for stupid people, and leave out the features like Twitter and Facebook that are CLEARLY dominated by the intellectual elite...
Kaibelf is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 08:26 AM   #118
powers74
macrumors 68000
 
powers74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: At the bend in the river
Send a message via AIM to powers74
Good luck Intel

'Cause you're going to need it.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook."
powers74 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 08:35 AM   #119
DinÝ
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Senna

This documentary was amazing!
DinÝ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 08:43 AM   #120
jimbobb24
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Too many choices leading to confusion?

When will this ridiculous statement ever fall out of use? One poorly conducted study that has not been repeated (was it jam they used?) and has been contradicted multiple times and it still has entered the permanent psych. People almost universally do better with more choices and don't become overwhelmed.

I do agree with the smart stuff on TVs. It does not seem that useful to me and recently I went looking for a TV and found out some of the smart ones take 30 seconds to boot up. Clearly, that is a first world problem, but it is a step backward when me current TV starts up in 2 seconds.
jimbobb24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 08:54 AM   #121
powers74
macrumors 68000
 
powers74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: At the bend in the river
Send a message via AIM to powers74
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbobb24 View Post
I do agree with the smart stuff on TVs. It does not seem that useful to me and recently I went looking for a TV and found out some of the smart ones take 30 seconds to boot up. Clearly, that is a first world problem, but it is a step backward when me current TV starts up in 2 seconds.
You're supposed to leave it on 24/7
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook."
powers74 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 09:04 AM   #122
a0me
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbobb24 View Post
I do agree with the smart stuff on TVs. It does not seem that useful to me and recently I went looking for a TV and found out some of the smart ones take 30 seconds to boot up.
If the TV takes that long to boot up, a PC with a 30" screen almost sounds like a good alternative.
__________________
iMac 24"; MacBook Pro 15"; iPhone 4; iPhone 5s; iPod touch; tv
a0me is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 09:35 AM   #123
newdeal
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by haruhiko View Post
then Google will release a free Smart TV OS that is suddenly much easier to use than its current Google TV OS......
The problem with google anything is the "open" eco system. Apples locked down approach makes it much harder to steal content than googles and the providers will like that.
newdeal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 09:35 AM   #124
headfuzz
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brighton, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRumors View Post
The Daily Mail is reporting
and there goes the credibility of this article.
__________________
iHacks / rMBP / iPad 2 and various other stuff...
headfuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 09:36 AM   #125
newdeal
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by a0me View Post
If the TV takes that long to boot up, a PC with a 30" screen almost sounds like a good alternative.
My HD DVD player from a few years ago takes like a minute to boot up, it is a horrible pain in the ass
newdeal is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is it possible that we will see Full Ultra HD TVs and Content in the near future mrmarts Apple TV and Home Theater 5 Sep 27, 2013 03:20 AM
two apple TVs on two separate TVs question maria122285 Apple TV and Home Theater 4 Aug 24, 2013 02:42 PM
Consumers Less Willing to Pay for Content as Free Apps Surge MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 136 Jul 23, 2013 02:47 PM
YouTube App Updated with 'Send to TV' Feature, Now Pairs with Smart TVs and Consoles MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 27 Mar 27, 2013 01:10 AM
Content on Mac Mini, XBMC/Plex streaming to Apple TVs/Roku? jshbckr Apple TV and Home Theater 1 Nov 13, 2012 01:19 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:18 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC