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 Nov 15, 2012, 02:56 PM   #51
BeauPaul
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Windsor Locks, Connecticut
Now we know why they made the new iMac so thin - it will be built in to that plus bigger size too! Maybe that's why the iMac delay.
BeauPaul is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 02:57 PM   #52
zedsdead
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Considering they have updated almost all of their product lines recently, so what are they going to release in the first half of 2013?

The TV seems like a logical choice.
__________________
iMac 27: 3.4 Core i7 Quad, 768gb SSD, 24gb of RAM, 2gb NVIDIA 680mx
rMBP 13: 2.6 Core i5, Iris 5100, 8gb RAM, 512 SSD
iPad Air, iPhone 5s, Apple TV, Final Cut X, Logic X, Drobo 5D
zedsdead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 02:58 PM   #53
lilo777
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggyonice View Post
I want time shifting.

I want to be able to watch any show I want. At anytime. Anywhere.

I don't want to have to subscribe to cable for this very reason television companies hate time shifting. They want you to watch TV on their schedule.

I want to subscribe to channels on an a la carte basis. I want to pay a couple bucks per month for an ESPN "app" and a couple others, through my Apple ID. I then want to watch the content live or on-demand, my choice. None of those "package deals" crap. I don't need to pay for 300+ channels I don't watch.

This is the future. Hopefully Apple brings it.

Google DVR and SlingBox. As far as pricing is concerned... did you notice what happened with e-book pricing when Apple got their way? Prices jumped up.

In general, iTunes is the most expensive place to get content. Why do you expect anything different from their TV?
lilo777 is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:01 PM   #54
TXCherokee
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
I want to buy just the channels/shows I want for a fraction of what I pay now.

I want them commercial-free and on-demand.

By design, I want to thrust Apple in as a new middleman so that Apple can make their big cut.

And I want the broadband providers (who is probably my cable company who likes making whatever they make from the system "as is") to just roll over and let Apple take that revenue while Apple's solution will be entirely dependent on the cable company's broadband pipes.

And I don't want my broadband bill to rise to make up for the decline of the cable TV subscription revenues as we all switch over to this new model.

And I want the production companies that make the shows to somehow be able to keep making the shows at the same high quality I like even though the revenue stream would likely be cut by 85% or more.

And I want brand new shows that I can't tell if I like or not to be piloted anyway- even when there would be no source of revenue for them until people like me could decide to buy them- so that all television production doesn't end with this new al-a-carte, commercial-free model. I want the entrepreneurs who take the big risks associated with piloting brand new shows to just go for it anyway... even though this amps up the risks far greater than they've ever been before.

Oh yeah. I also want local news and live events like sports included (but I won't think about how the sports get funded in this commercial-free new model where we consumers pay less than about 15% of what we pay now).

Every thread on this topic is the same. We all want a LOT for a fraction of the cost. We want Apple to handsomely benefit with us. And we want the Cable/Satt and Production companies to take the huge hit and have it all somehow work. Think!

Did you know that last year, about $650 per U.S. household in OPM (other people's money) flowed through the system "as is" from commercial revenue, the vast majority of that from commercials none of us ever saw... most running on those hundreds of channels we never watch? That's $54/month for EVERY HOUSEHOLD that someone else (the companies paying for those commercials) is subsidizing for us... money that motivates the creation of new shows and contributes to the quality of the shows that "I" would like to retain in this new model. Kill that off and it either gets made up for by who- Apple or us- in this new model OR the quality of all production must come way down to meet the new revenue flows we think we collectively covet. Again, think!
This....is wrong. Those shows get made because we are forced to pay for those numerous channels we don't watch (ESPN get $9 a month from the provider, History get $1.25, etc, etc.). WE are subsudizing the rest of the crap. If they weren't bundled with other channels we do watch, they would go away. That would be welcome in my book.
As for production quality going down, I for one don't care about special effects that drive up the costs. Good, well-written, shows can be cheaply made. Case in point, JourneyQuest on Youtube.
TXCherokee is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:08 PM   #55
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddehr026 View Post
I would pay a hefty premium for a device that accomplished this. Period.
That's the only way the "new model" we want happens. For the "new model" to replace the existing one, the production companies and the existing middlemen who also pretty much own the broadband pipes through which a new Apple solution would have to flow must be shown how THEY are going to make MORE money... not less.

Currently, you could think of things as 3 players: production companies that make the shows, cable/satt that distribute the shows to us and us consumers. In the new model, there are still production companies that make the shows, Apple replaces the distributors and us consumers. However, Apple's solution depends on broadband pipes probably owned by existing distributors. Why will those distributors just roll over and let Apple have all of that revenue?

But beyond that, if the quality of the productions are to remain as high as they are now (which I know is subjective in and of itself), it's still a problem of showing the production companies how they are going to make MORE money than they make now. If the "new model" is just those production companies + Apple + us, who is going to cough up the money to make up the difference of what's lost in the transition? It would only be Apple and us in the new model?

Is Apple going to spend it's war chest to subsidize the costs of productions so that the Studios make more money while we pay only a "few dollars per month"? I think not. Who's left then? Either we will have to pay a handsome premium over what we pay now OR the production companies have to take the hit so we can pay our desired "few dollars a month". So either the quality and diversity of programming gets cut in a big way or we have to cough up the difference.

Many of us dreamers think the "new model" might yield a new bill of something like $10 or $20/month "for just the channels or shows that I want to watch". But if you refer back to my previous post, just the commercials subsidy alone is $54/month per household. If the "new model" kills off the commercials (including all those we don't see and all those that run on those "hundreds of channels I never watch"), someone has to make up for that revenue or the quality of production it pays for must come down.

Yes, there's plenty of junk on television that "I" never watch. By my "junk" is someone else's favorite show. And the junk that the vast majority of us never watch on those hundreds of channels we never watch is still generating subsidies via the commercials that run on those channels that goes into a pool that helps pay for the great(?) stuff that "I" do like to watch.

In short, a "new model" and us paying "about 10% of what I pay now" are incompatible concepts. Either we consumers pay up big or something more like the existing model wins. Thinking Apple can somehow pull it off is- IMO- extraordinarily wishful thinking.
HobeSoundDarryl is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:09 PM   #56
Diode
macrumors 68020
 
Diode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington DC
Send a message via AIM to Diode
Meh,

Until Apple can break the local sports monopoly Verizcast will have me by the balls. I hate paying $90+ a month to watch baseball, but there is no legal alternative.
__________________
16GB iPhone 4; 2.4 GHZ C2D iMac 4GB Ram; 32GB iPad2; AppleTV2
Diode is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:10 PM   #57
SteveAbootman
macrumors 6502a
 
SteveAbootman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggyonice View Post
I want to subscribe to channels on an a la carte basis. I want to pay a couple bucks per month for an ESPN "app" and a couple others, through my Apple ID. I then want to watch the content live or on-demand, my choice. None of those "package deals" crap. I don't need to pay for 300+ channels I don't watch.

This is the future. Hopefully Apple brings it.
That's nothing but a pipe dream. Content creators would need you to subsidize the cost of lost affiliate revenue through your monthly subscription. You'd be looking closer to $15-20 for most "channels. It's a rough estimate that could go higher, due to the loss of advertising dollars each channel would suffer due to the potential loss in viewership.

Then you get into the cost of digitally archiving a 24/7 network and streaming it to viewers. Who pays for this cost? If it's the content provider, they're likely going to need to upgrade their infrastructure to support it. Keep in mind the need to serve up digital ads, which is a discussion in and of itself.

Maybe Apple could scale their infrastructure and do this at a lower cost, but then you'd have issues with content providers giving up the control of their content and letting apple serve it. Seems like a great idea, but then who is seeing the ad revenue? Providers won't give that up without some serious concessions from Apple.

As a consumer, it'd be awesome to get everything for next to nothing. As a realist, someone has to pay the cost for good content somewhere.
__________________
27' iMac, 3.4 GHz i7, 8GB Ram, 1TB HD
iPhone 5 & iPad 3

SteveAbootman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:12 PM   #58
Mattsasa
macrumors 65816
 
Mattsasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Minnesota
Send a message via AIM to Mattsasa
Quote:
Originally Posted by srxtr View Post
i hate that word. Imminent
+1
Mattsasa is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:13 PM   #59
danranda
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth.Titan View Post
This again? I believe Steve made the comment about "cracking" the TV just to troll everyone after he checked out.

Apple making a TV just doesn't make sense. An add-on box like AppleTV? Sure. An actual television set? Not so much. There's no way Apple could compete in the current television market with the thin margins, variety of models, and price points. If Apple tries to get into the TV game, I believe that it will be one of their occasional missteps.

I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it.


Although I mostly agree with the viewpoint that it seems unlikely that apple would be able to enter the TV market and be successful while probably maintaining high price points and few model options... the same could easily be said for when they entered the Cell Phone market. Back then, there were hundreds of various phone models, at prices staggered from free to $300, or more even. Then apple sold boat loads of their non-subsidized $500 phone and proved everyone wrong.
I'm skeptical, but I'd love to see it happen. GO !!
danranda is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:14 PM   #60
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXCherokee View Post
This....is wrong. Those shows get made because we are forced to pay for those numerous channels we don't watch (ESPN get $9 a month from the provider, History get $1.25, etc, etc.). WE are subsudizing the rest of the crap. If they weren't bundled with other channels we do watch, they would go away. That would be welcome in my book.
As for production quality going down, I for one don't care about special effects that drive up the costs. Good, well-written, shows can be cheaply made. Case in point, JourneyQuest on Youtube.
Look it up yourself. Commercial revenues are very important to the whole model. And having hundreds f channels that we never watch is hundreds of places for commercials we'll never be bothered with seeing generating OPM to help subsidize some of the stuff we do like on the channels we do watch. Believe whatever you wish but a new dirt-cheap, commercial-free, al-a-carte model will be a bear to actually pull off... especially with Apple as a new middleman dependent on broadband pipes entirely controlled by the cable companies we want them to overthrow.

If we currently pay $100 for a bunch of channels we never watch and $50 for broadband and this "new model" overthrows the television subscription part so that we can pay- say $20 per month for television, I expect our broadband bills to spike right up to $130+ per month. The spin will be for "high bandwidth users" (like video streamers). Doesn't this sound familiar to anyone?
HobeSoundDarryl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:15 PM   #61
Diode
macrumors 68020
 
Diode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington DC
Send a message via AIM to Diode
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Yes, there's plenty of junk on television that "I" never watch. By my "junk" is someone else's favorite show. And the junk that the vast majority of us never watch on those hundreds of channels we never watch is still generating subsidies via the commercials that run on those channels that goes into a pool that helps pay for the great(?) stuff that "I" do like to watch.

In short, a "new model" and us paying "about 10% of what I pay now" are incompatible concepts. Either we consumers pay up big or something more like the existing model wins. Thinking Apple can somehow pull it off is- IMO- extraordinarily wishful thinking.
Perhaps but you can also argue that current model supports crap filler television that would disappear if people realized how much it would cost them to support it. IE Many channels that exist now would simply not exist any more.

You would thus get to your cheaper price by reducing the quantity and not quality of programing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Look it up yourself. Commercial revenues are very important to the whole model. And having hundreds f channels that we never watch is hundreds of places for commercials we'll never be bothered with seeing generating OPM to help subsidize some of the stuff we do like on the channels we do watch. Believe whatever you wish but a new dirt-cheap, commercial-free, al-a-carte model will be a bear to actually pull off... especially with Apple as a new middleman dependent on broadband pipes entirely controlled by the cable companies we want them to overthrow.

If we currently pay $100 for a bunch of channels we never watch and $50 for broadband and this "new model" overthrows the television subscription part so that we can pay- say $20 per month for television, I expect our broadband bills to spike right up to $130+ per month. The spin will be for "high bandwidth users" (like video streamers). Doesn't this sound familiar to anyone?
Internet access without a cable subscription is already higher for most providers.

Most if not all of channel adds go directly to the channel - not the cable company (Can't find any reference to back this up but I think it's right). A typical channel makes half of their money from Ads and the other half from fees paid for by the cable channel. Link

While in some cases the revenue would go back to the cable provider (IE Comast owns NBC) - I'm sure whatever Apple produces will still have commercials. On top of paying a monthly access - I'm sure channels and cable providers will still make plenty of money.
__________________
16GB iPhone 4; 2.4 GHZ C2D iMac 4GB Ram; 32GB iPad2; AppleTV2

Last edited by Diode; Nov 15, 2012 at 03:25 PM.
Diode is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:19 PM   #62
portishead
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: los angeles
Just give me my Apple DVR box. Since I'm stuck with time warner for another 10 years because of my association.
portishead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:20 PM   #63
winston1236
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: ><
Quote:
Originally Posted by shulerg View Post
^^^this. Down 11 again today and trading at a ridiculously low 11x earnings.
Everything is trading lower as a result of the election, not apples fault.
winston1236 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:21 PM   #64
rei101
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
I work in a cable channel and dealing with cable operators is so hard.
We have an Spanish movie channel but in order for you to watch it you will need to ask for the Spanish package and IF is available in your area.

On the other hand, in my house my cable provider does not distribute my channel, but I have about 30 channels that I just do not care, I do not care about sports channels at all!

With the Apple TV, in theory, if you saw the latest James Bond movie and you liked the villain Javier Barden, you could do a search for that actor and have all the movies he has played before and we have right now 2 movies with him, so you would be able to watch them, capish?
rei101 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:22 PM   #65
crackbookpro
macrumors 65816
 
crackbookpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Om nom nom nom
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggyonice View Post
I want time shifting.

I want to be able to watch any show I want. At anytime. Anywhere.

I don't want to have to subscribe to cable for this very reason — television companies hate time shifting. They want you to watch TV on their schedule.

I want to subscribe to channels on an a la carte basis. I want to pay a couple bucks per month for an ESPN "app" and a couple others, through my Apple ID. I then want to watch the content live or on-demand, my choice. None of those "package deals" crap. I don't need to pay for 300+ channels I don't watch.

This is the future. Hopefully Apple brings it.
The a la carte is the key... customization is what the user is looking for & Apple has known this for quite some time about TV/cable. I just don't know how Apple breaks into this industry without some huge negotiation talks, the cable co's have such a stronghold on your cable service in your/a particular area that Apple is just caught in a bully-market to begin with.

I truly think before we will ever actually hear about or see the actual device, the talks about contracts will be pushed to the media, and we will here of the contracts & negotiations getting slipped to the press. I unfortunately do not think we will see an iTV for a couple years still. Hope I'm wrong, but the cable co's make me believe I am right.

An Apple iTV could destroy the cable co's... I mean destroy. The TV advertisement business model would change even more so quickly than the current pace is trending.

The other item I want to add is - the TV from Apple is the key, not a cable box like some suggest, and the only feasible way the market for this is started, is simply due to data speeds increasing.

I see a market for an iTV in a couple years, and I wouldn't doubt Apple is trying to find out how they can curtail the cable co's. As the internet speeds become universally faster, there is more & more of a market for the so-called iTV...

The cable co's are doing everything to not let the iTV debut... it's the 100% truth, the will lose in many avenues, and they don't want to ever see Apple breakthrough with a TV, never.
__________________
iMac 21.5" l 3.06GHz l 4GB RAM ~ iMac 24" l 3.06GHz l 4GB RAM
MBA 11" l 1.6GHz l 4GB RAM ~ Alu Uni MacBook l 2.4GHz l 4GB RAM
iPhone 5 ~ iPad 2 ~ TV ~ BlackBook [R.I.P]
crackbookpro is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:23 PM   #66
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
Quote:
Originally Posted by danranda View Post
Although I mostly agree with the viewpoint that it seems unlikely that apple would be able to enter the TV market and be successful while probably maintaining high price points and few model options... the same could easily be said for when they entered the Cell Phone market. Back then, there were hundreds of various phone models, at prices staggered from free to $300, or more even. Then apple sold boat loads of their non-subsidized $500 phone and proved everyone wrong.
I'm skeptical, but I'd love to see it happen. GO !!
Apple did sell lots of unsubsidized phones at first but then they had to quickly flip to the subsidized model. The issue here is not could Apple sell boatloads of high-priced televisions- they probably could. The issue is very much lined up with the cost of cell phone service. Did Apple's entry into the cell phone business result in cell phone SERVICE rates plunging to 10%-15% of what they used to be? Then why do we think we'll somehow get our television subscription service for 10-15% of what we pay now?

The al-a-carte calculation is not what we pay now divided by the number of channels we get now times the number of channels we would actually like to get. That's the mistake that many make. If we ever get to an al-a-carte model, I believe that most of the available "junk" channels will be killed off. And I also think that each of the "good" channels that remain would be priced around $15-$30/month each. Net result: currently we get 200 channels for $100/month. In this dream, we get 10 or 20 channels for $100/month. In no scenario, do we go from $100/month to $15/month just as we didn't see huge cuts to cell phone service subscription costs when Apple innovated the iPhone.
HobeSoundDarryl is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:24 PM   #67
Saladinos
macrumors 68000
 
Saladinos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriot24 View Post
Apple left a rather large hole in their release schedule when they moved iPads to Fall (assuming they keep a yearly release cycle from here on out).

Old Schedule:
Spring: iPads
Summer: Macs
Fall: iPhone

New Schedule:
Spring: ?
Summer: OS X & Devices
Fall: iOS & Devices

Given the current state of product updates, what are they going to release in the Spring?

<Queue rampant speculation>
Another new iPad. Just to annoy everyone.
Saladinos is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:24 PM   #68
macchiato2009
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
AAPL $525
macchiato2009 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:26 PM   #69
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWallace View Post
Beyond network infrastructure, what about bandwidth caps?

I believe Comcast is the most generous at around 250GB per month, but I have seen some members note they have caps 1/10th that or even less.

Of course, the cable companies can raise the performance and caps - and charge more money for it. Which would kind of defeat the savings bit...
Comcast ended a cap about 3 months ago . There is currently no bandwidth cap with Comcast .

Interesting coincidence eh ?
__________________
Throw us one Russell---John Fox Super Bowl 48
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:28 PM   #70
KdParker
macrumors 68020
 
KdParker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Cost????

Apple TV subscription
Cable connection ....highend
HD - channels
Movies
Live events...etc...

This is starting to sound expensive.
__________________
16g iPhone5s Space Grey; 16g iPhone5 White;
15" retina - MBP 2.6 GHZ 16 RAM;
iPad4 retina
KdParker is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:34 PM   #71
SPUY767
macrumors 68000
 
SPUY767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by shulerg View Post
^^^this. Down 11 again today and trading at a ridiculously low 11x earnings.
Lower than almost every no petroleum blue chip.
__________________
Yo' mama's so STUPID, she went to Bangkok to get a TIE Fighter.
SPUY767 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:38 PM   #72
Saladinos
macrumors 68000
 
Saladinos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by crackbookpro View Post
The a la carte is the key... customization is what the user is looking for & Apple has known this for quite some time about TV/cable. I just don't know how Apple breaks into this industry without some huge negotiation talks, the cable co's have such a stronghold on your cable service in your particular area that Apple is just caught in a bully-market.

I truly think before we will ever actually hear about or see the actual device, the talks about contracts will pushed to the media, and we will here of the contracts & negotiations getting slipped to the press. I unfortunately do not think we will see an iTV for a couple years still. Hope I'm wrong, but the cable co's make me believe I am right.

An Apple iTV could destroy the cable co's... I mean destroy. The advertising business model would change even more so quickly.

The other item I want to add is - the TV from Apple is the key, not a cable box, and the only feasible way the market for this is started, is simply due to data speeds increasing.

I see a market for an iTV in a couple years, and I wouldn't doubt Apple is trying to find out how they can curtail the cable co's. As the interenet speeds become universally faster, there is more & more of a market for the so-called iTV...
We haven't heard anything from Apple about the pricing structure of a future TV subscription or anything like that.

It's not Apple who knows that it's time to break these stupid bundle packages - it's the customers. Customers don't want 100000000 channels they'll never watch bundled with the handful that they do.

Europe is a million years ahead of the US when it comes to television.

American TV is all about tacky commercialism - the obscene numbers of channels (again, where most of them don't really deserve their own channel), the incredible number and duration of advertisements, not to mention direct marketing of prescription drugs to consumers (I was absolutely shocked by this when I first visited). There are occasionally some good series that come on the major networks, with some impressive computer graphics, but in a package of 999 channels or more, that's a tiny fraction of what you're paying for.

On the other hand, the BBC produces approximately one hundred thousand times better quality shows at a fraction of the cost. With no ads, and without any of the blatant media bias you get in the US (two great examples: the way Top Gear can afford to slate anybody they like because they have no commercial sponsors; and the investigative work they did on uncovering some of the administrative failings of upper BBC management in dealing with a certain child abuser. No US network would have the balls to do either of those things).

The best part is that it's absolutely free to watch online. The BBC are funded by a license to watch programmes as they're broadcast, but shows from the last 30 days on iPlayer are absolutely free.

By the way: I don't mean to trash America per se, just the tight grip of the media companies there who stifle innovation. The demand for an "a la carte" model of TV shows that American consumers won't be fooled, and that's good. I hope they'll be able to bring about some change. And get rid of Fox News (it's embarrassing).
Saladinos is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:38 PM   #73
extricated
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Did Apple's entry into the cell phone business result in cell phone SERVICE rates plunging to 10%-15% of what they used to be? Then why do we think we'll somehow get our television subscription service for 10-15% of what we pay now?
Will cell phone service, we pay in relation to how much data/texting/voice service we consume. Somewhat level rates across the board.

For television, if someone only consumes sports channels as their "service", they would reasonably expect to pay less or it wouldn't be worth it.
Granted, INDIVIDUALLY, the content would likely end up costing more (had you divided the cost of all 300+ channels), but if someone only cares about sports, cartoons, etc. it may be worth it to spend $10 on the particular item you want rather than $100 for everything in the store you don't really care about.

Forgive me if I'm oversimplifying or misrepresenting what you were saying.
extricated is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:44 PM   #74
Radio
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California
[QUOTE=thelink;16303381]Here we go again.... [/QUOTE

Another hobby product lol]
Radio is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 03:49 PM   #75
ShamrockSolace
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth.Titan View Post
This again? I believe Steve made the comment about "cracking" the TV just to troll everyone after he checked out.

Apple making a TV just doesn't make sense. An add-on box like AppleTV? Sure. An actual television set? Not so much. There's no way Apple could compete in the current television market with the thin margins, variety of models, and price points. If Apple tries to get into the TV game, I believe that it will be one of their occasional missteps.

I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it.
I seen an Article on Bloomberg the other day about how Hitachi got out of the TV business. The parts in the article reference Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung as currently losing money manufacturing TV's.

Not sure that a TV set is in store. Set top boxes work well and have the markup. Need to implement more in the software.
ShamrockSolace 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:55 PM.

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

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