So you are demanding an explanation for why I like to watch news broadcasts? Ha-ha, good one. Lots of people watch programs I couldn't be paid enough to watch, and I'm not expecting an explanation from them.
No, the system is not in place. If a fan can't watch their home team games, then it isn't even close to being in place. As I explained above, the teams have already sold those broadcasting rights to a cable company, locking them up for years, if not decades at a time. Since the cable companies bid for these rights with the expectation that the costs can be passed along to subscribers, they aren't going to be even remotely interested in allowing MLB.com to stream them. Better yet for the cable companies, they get to charge their subscribers for sports teams they never watch. It's a deadlock. I don't see how it gets broken, short of legislation that forces the cable companies to unbundle their channel selections. And that's just not going to happen.
That would be interesting. I don't know how that would work in practice. Maybe they could do something like Pixar. Set up an independent production unit that could provide content to theaters and such but also to Apple for internet access?
The problem with anyone (Apple, Roku, Hulu, ...) setting up an a la carte service is the existing web of contracts and licenses between the various studios and sports channels and cable companies. It makes it very hard for a new distributor to break into the business.
Presumably if Apple (or another outfit) started producing original content they could distribute this internationally. Even that would be difficult. If your movie or program uses anyone else's music or images then you have to license the use for that content country by country. You would really have to have 100% original content. I don't have facts to back this up but I would guess that major stars already have international license deals so that even if you produce an original show with original music if you hire known stars you still have to negotiate the release country by country. This is the problem of a new medium growing in the presence of established practices.
I'm not sure how you felt I was "demanding" something by saying "feel free to explain it." I'm just mildly curious to know what there is in a news broadcast you feel you can't get online. You seem to just want to argue though.
The delivery system is in place. There just needs to be a shift. I did not say it would be immediate, or even likely. We're on the same page here, we're just saying different things.
Lucky you. Some people are surrounded by mountains.
There's always Aereo
We hate Comcast on the East cost too.
Do I live in New York or Boston? No. Do I really want to watch New York or Boston station in Southern California. Not really.
1. In essence itunes already lets us pay ala carte and Im not going to make a purchase every time I have the urge to change the channel. A lot of people will end up paying more as it sounds like Apple is just the middle man getting the content from TWC then reselling it to you.
2. It also annoying to me that others have tried this for a long time and been sued or had industry forces blocking the endeavors from taking off. Remember all the legal battles Slingbox had to put up with for doing basically the same thing?
Sorry there Moe, i was just throwing it out there. Sheesh
I say let some other poor soul pay, I'm on the brink of getting rid of cable all together.
And this post is irrelevant to this article... So why is it on the first page of comments? Why do you have the devices that you own as your signature? Why does anyone care that lives outside of your home? Why are you on an American forum on California based companies website?Absolutely irrelevant news to anyone outside the US, i.e. most of Apple's market. So why is this on page 1?
Okay, I give up. For what purpose?
Demanding, insisting, curious -- what's the actual difference? I get this quiz every time threads on this subject come up. You mean you watch news on TV? Yeah, I do. I watch the NewsHour on PBS every night. Me and about 12 other people. PBS runs segments of the program but mostly the next day, and not through a service I can easily stream to the TV. (My wife and I huddling around the iPad doesn't quite cut it.) Local news broadcasts, same problem. We watch this program because close to 100% of the news online and on TV is total trash, not that many people care or know the difference anymore.
On sports, the delivery system has been in place for some years. The problem isn't the delivery system, it's something far more difficult to solve. Nobody seems to even be trying.
Anyway the point of this discussion is to refute the arguments of those who tell us that cutting the cable is easy. It might be for a certain subset of viewers, but not for everyone. A lot of us would lose programming that we like, and there's no plan in place or even in discussion to make that programming available through streaming.
Forget I even said anything...
Do you have an Apple TV? You can airplay most things from the iPad to the Apple TV, and can mirror an Apple laptop running Mountain Lion if its new enough.
But I do agree that cutting the cable isn't as easy as some people suggest. I can do without home market games, but until NFL and HBO are available without a cable subscription I have no way of cutting the cable.
I am not saying that we shouldn't have to pay, I am saying that we should have the option to buy subscriptions on a per channel basis.Dream on, someone has to pay for that content and they're never going to give it away. Whether you pay a cable company or you pay Apple/Netflix/Hulu you will pay in some way for the content you watch, that aspect will never change.
I am not saying that we shouldn't have to pay, I am saying that we should have the option to buy subscriptions on a per channel basis.
For example, I would want HGTV, History Channel, Food Network and Disney Channel. I don't want to pay for any others, I can get OTA programming for free (and I should be able to stream that for free too). So, say they charged $2 a month for each channel, I would pay $8 a month, instead of the astronomical cable/satellite prices out there now, which I won;t pay for, so they would be making $8/month more than they are now and that just from me.
I also believe that if you pay for a channel, the channel should be commercial free.
I am not saying that we shouldn't have to pay, I am saying that we should have the option to buy subscriptions on a per channel basis.
For example, I would want HGTV, History Channel, Food Network and Disney Channel. I don't want to pay for any others, I can get OTA programming for free (and I should be able to stream that for free too). So, say they charged $2 a month for each channel, I would pay $8 a month, instead of the astronomical cable/satellite prices out there now, which I won;t pay for, so they would be making $8/month more than they are now and that just from me.
I also believe that if you pay for a channel, the channel should be commercial free.
If Apple could pull off getting a live NFL deal without being a Direct TV subscriber, they would sell Apple TVs like hot cakes
Its all very nice when you're into watching blockbusters. If you taste for movie content goes beyond what Hollywood has to offer then you still have a "problem".
That's one of the reason's why I still by blu-rays and dvd's. The movies I watch are not being broadcasted by any of the companies that will be on Apple TV. And quite a lot of them are also not available for download. I still see a good market for companies like Criterion Collection and Masters of Cinema.
But again, if you're into blockbusters and popular movies then this is need.