Apple TV Updated with CNBC and FOX NOW Channels

StyxMaker said:

Freedom is not free.

Click to expand...

Most things especially worthwhile things are not totally free

You still have to be an subscriber to use the apps! Worthless!

alent1234 said:

comcast supports most of these channels

Click to expand...

They do. Luckily, I had to cancel my directv sub due to the trees in the backyard blocking the signal. Switched to cable with HBO added and I'm not regretting it. I only added HBO to get HBOGO on my ATV.

There is a middle ground between a la carte and cable subscriptions. In Belgium, all broadcasting channels joined up to create an iOS and android app that streams all channels. As added features you can watch one week back and record everything. And they have a pop up channel with reruns. They charge 9,99 euro a month. It also supports airplay for Apple TV.

So they cut out the middle man, the cable companies, by offering a great app themselves. Stievie now has 30.000 customers.

That, combined with the arrival of netflix this fall, will hopefully drive more people away from cable. Without having to kill broadcasting channels in the process.

I think the price is a bit too high, and you can only watch live on one iOS device at the time, but it shows promise. A Stievie app on Apple TV would be great as well, but as Apple is not focusing on smaller markets, I don't see this happening.

Tried watching Cosmos only to be bombarded with frequent, repetitious and non-skippable ads. I refuse to pay for advertising. Channel deleted.

slimjimtx said:

You want to pay more to watch NFL games? Geez... They will wring every dollar they can out of you. They're the worst.

By the way, the NFL is classed as a non-profit by the IRS. Look it up. Sickening.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately they do charge a premium but would hope apple could get that reduced. As for there tax status, ALL professional sports except MLB is classed as non profit, which is a bunch of crap. But thats beyond my control.

HobeSoundDarryl said:

Yes, again it's possible to "cut the cord" and make it work. Lots of people do it and have been doing it for years. It all comes down to individual or individual household wants. I was commenting about the typical (not everyone) and in the typical, "we" want a selection of our favorite 10-20 channels. Nothing wrong with that. Where "we" go wrong is thinking there could be some scenario where "we" could legally get them for a fraction of what we pay now.

Per your example, in the typical (not universal), "we" want that HBO deal at $90/yr (that would be great HERE) times 15 channels. 15 times $90 = $1350. $1350/12 = $112.50/month. "We" currently pay about $100 per month for the 15 channels we want plus the 185 channels we don't want. So our net view would be 15 channels for $112/month or 200 channels (that include the 15) for $100/month.

----------



It's not about the shows (that's only important to us viewers). It's about the commercials. There aren't 180 channels of "crap nobody watches". If nobody actually watches, there's no eyeball counts. No eyeball counts means the companies don't want to buy commercials on channels where there really is no chance of being seen. No commercial sales means no channel (unless it's a premium channel that is commanding a fairly big piece of the subscription revenue… like HBO, etc).

The fact is that one man's crap show is another man's favorite. Some of the most watched cable shows are shows I (personally) would consider some of the crappiest television ever made.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying there are channels no one watches. I'm saying that there are multiple channels from the same company that are showing a few good shows, and about 18 hours a day of filler.

rather than have infomercials, the next 1 season reality show, 5 versions of CSI, etc, they'd have to make each show a quality show, not an almost as good knockoff that people tune into because it's the smallest **** sandwich in the time slot.


Edit: as for the commercials, you'd still have product placement, even if there are no scheduled breaks, and since the money would be going directly to that particular channel, they could easily track which shows are getting watched, which are not, and plan their schedule accordingly. As is, I have tivo, I haven't watched a commercial in 15 years, outside of Superbowl or something.

If channel A is getting your entire $20 a month for that channel, plus a revenue stream of people who are subscribing to individual shows, they'd have a much tighter control over predicting demand for a show. Likewise, they could allow you to "preorder" a new season of a sitcom on a kickstarter type model, where if there is not a certain return, they don't make the season.

There don't need to be 8 ESPNs that follow obscure sports, make it a pay per view if you want to see tractor pulls outside of regular coverage or something. As it is, most sports and new channels recycle the same content all day long, it's a waste of airtime.

----------

alent1234 said:

no, the cable companies have been billing for PPV. ABC, Fox and the rest of the content owners don't have any consumer contact.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you mean outside of the accounts you sign up for on their site to follow news of shows?

How much do you think it costs to set up a billing system you'd get 20 years of use from?

----------

alent1234 said:

no, the cable companies have been billing for PPV. ABC, Fox and the rest of the content owners don't have any consumer contact.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you mean outside of the accounts you sign up for on their site to follow news of shows?

How much do you think it costs to set up a billing system you'd get 20 years of use from?

----------

HobeSoundDarryl said:

Have that already (for years now). iTunes store rentals. Just rent the shows you want to rent and they are commercial free. Biggest problem? "We" don't want to pay that much for them. If we wanted al-a-carte to work and we wanted Apple to be the new middleman (cable company replacement), they already gave it a great cut at that. It's still available now. It's not even the only option like that.

However, in all such options, either we pay up for what we think we want (like that) or we don't pay up and accept the tradeoffs of commercials, lower quality, bundles of channels "we" don't want to get the ones we do, etc. What's lacking is the masses picking the way they want to go and voting with their wallets. Instead, the bulk of the masses just go with the "as is" but gripe about it every chance they get talk about the al-a-carte dream.

Click to expand...

Does itunes still do rentals on shows? I haven't seen a rental price, but I'd pay the same price to rent it as buy it, but as it is, I go to itunes last after hulu, amazon, VOD, and netflix because I don't want 10000 single episodes junking up my tv shows menu.

This device is certainly interesting, I may have to purchase one soon. Yet, it requires some drastic make-over from Apple.

Dilster3k said:

This device is certainly interesting, I may have to purchase one soon. Yet, it requires some drastic make-over from Apple.

Click to expand...

If you use itunes for movies/tv at all, it's worth the $100. All the other features are nice bonuses, but it's nice to have 200+ movies to watch without having to hunt down the disc and sit through the annoying startup warnings on them.

midwestfisherma said:

Maybe you should contact Apple and let them know they should consult Direct TV subscribers before they schedule channel additions in the future. I'm sure they hop right on what you all want!

Click to expand...

What's the point of your sarcasm? Am I not allowed to be disappointed that I can't use these features with a DirecTV subscription?

Sorry your day is going so poorly, hope your post helped.

Why is it taking so long to get apps

I don't care about these silly incremental additions. Open Apple TV to apps and it will be filled with every channel under the sky and Internet channels.

Apple you are falling behind. I will buy one as soon as you get this basic feature. Open it up!

HobeSoundDarryl said:

Wow, every one of these threads are the same.

What holds the model up now is not just ads. It's not the studios getting ad money and "greedy" cable taking the subscription. It's ads + subscription that makes it all go now.

We already have Apple's cut at al-a-carte. Had it for years. Subscribe to just the shows you want via the iTunes store. They even come with the benefit of commercial-free.

..........

Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ x 1000

Everybody should read this post before commenting about cutting the cord and going a la carté. The studios and cable providers are not going to change. It would take 1 of 2 things to happen. 1) As mentioned, it would have to allow them to make MORE money or 2) The landscape would have to drastically change to the point of they were LOSING money. This is what happened to the music industry. They were bleeding money and sales were down. They had to change. Until something comes along that causes the studios & providers to HAVE to change, the system will stay status quo.

So it's pointless if you already have a cable subscription that includes this channel already... and it's useless if you do?

Apple needs to stop allowing this kind of spamware on Apple TV and make something useful out of it.

With each "update," my favorite little set top box fast became the most irritating reminder of DRM and corporate stupidity in my house. I'm finding myself using the PS3 for my Netflix and Hulu fix lately.

HobeSoundDarryl said:

Have that already (for years now). iTunes store rentals. Just rent the shows you want to rent and they are commercial free. Biggest problem? "We" don't want to pay that much for them.

Click to expand...

Not True. At least in the US. You can not RENT TV Shows. You can only BUY them. However, you can RENT Movies. They did offer TV Rentals for about $1 less per episode then to buy them but the cancelled that years ago. They claimed their customers preferred to buy instead of rent.

I heard Apple was trying to get the networks on board with subscription but could not make it happen.

Like someone else said we want Premium TV Service at a fair price. Netflix charges $7.99 per month (now $1 more) for several excellent original series and a ton of good content. They are highly successful with this model.

I cancelled Hulu because of the commercials. I mainly use a DVR for most shows I watch but that is not free. I would sign back up with Hulu if they offered a premium service without commercials. Of course they need to add CBS and a couple others as well.