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 2, 2013, 10:48 AM   #126
Ralf The Dog
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2008
Breaking news. Corporations don't care what we want. They tell us what we want, then, we want it or else!
Ralf The Dog is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 11:15 AM   #127
Obi-Wan Kubrick
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
I want a TV that is simple, looks nice, and has great picture quality. No Netflix or Pandora crap built in. That's why we have Xbox, PS3, Apple TV, etc.
Obi-Wan Kubrick is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:22 PM   #128
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirThis View Post
They've got my vote for that. I'm simply fed up of seeing social networking features being poured on top of apps like marmalade.
Actually, what I'd like to see is AD-FREE TV. Yes, this is what things like HBO generally offer (although they do show their own ads between shows for other shows), BUT this represents only a small portion of original content. I want ad-free TV for ALL shows. Yes, DVRs help a LOT, but you still have to manually fast-forward, etc. and it's still a PITA compared to say an iTunes collection of a show with zero commercials (not counting recent crap like Fox that includes commercials even on iTunes).

The problem is I don't want to necessarily OWN content (taking up valuable hard drive space (at least in a I don't want to have 4 hard drives running at the same time to keep track of) although the development of iCloud may rectify this to some extent). Either way it costs more to own than rent/watch once, but iTunes got rid of TV Show rentals so we're back to square one.

The point is that I want to only pay for shows I actually want to watch (not the wasted money paying for Cable/Sat 24/7 that I'm NOT watching) and I do not want my time wasted by being bombarded with tons of commercials either. Get a good solution to this for a "reasonable" price (should cost less than everything cable, but more than ad-filled content) and people with go for it. Do stupid things like adding commercials later on regardless of what users want and you will ultimately screw yourself over. People are SICK of Ads EVERYWHERE and I believe many are willing to pay for content free of them.

Meanwhile, I agree that social networking is a PLAGUE. I simply don't need to know when someone is sitting on the toilet nor do I care to read about such things and waste hours of my life "following" such garbage. One person's comment on the summary page mentioned that TV itself is mostly garbage and that the new generation isn't brainwashed with it and has better things to do...do they mean like following TWITTER???

Yes, I like TV, but I want to watch shows I'm interested in, not crap. This means funny comedies and interesting history/mystery shows, etc., not reality tv. Sadly, channels like History have switched to reality crap like "Pawn Stars" and moved any real history shows to H2 (which I cannot get in HD currently). Similar things happened to MTV, etc. (rendering music videos moot for the most part, making harder to find new music once again in favor of garbage like reality tv again; but then with newer cable boxes you cannot surf at light speed anymore, which is how I'd flick by MTV/VH1 to scan videos for something interesting sounding in the first place and only stop if it looked/sounded interesting).
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 12:55 PM   #129
mw360
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
Actually, what I'd like to see is AD-FREE TV. Yes, this is what things like HBO generally offer (although they do show their own ads between shows for other shows), BUT this represents only a small portion of original content. I want ad-free TV for ALL shows. Yes, DVRs help a LOT, but you still have to manually fast-forward, etc. and it's still a PITA compared to say an iTunes collection of a show with zero commercials (not counting recent crap like Fox that includes commercials even on iTunes).

The problem is I don't want to necessarily OWN content (taking up valuable hard drive space (at least in a I don't want to have 4 hard drives running at the same time to keep track of) although the development of iCloud may rectify this to some extent). Either way it costs more to own than rent/watch once, but iTunes got rid of TV Show rentals so we're back to square one.

The point is that I want to only pay for shows I actually want to watch (not the wasted money paying for Cable/Sat 24/7 that I'm NOT watching) and I do not want my time wasted by being bombarded with tons of commercials either. Get a good solution to this for a "reasonable" price (should cost less than everything cable, but more than ad-filled content) and people with go for it. Do stupid things like adding commercials later on regardless of what users want and you will ultimately screw yourself over. People are SICK of Ads EVERYWHERE and I believe many are willing to pay for content free of them.

Meanwhile, I agree that social networking is a PLAGUE. I simply don't need to know when someone is sitting on the toilet nor do I care to read about such things and waste hours of my life "following" such garbage. One person's comment on the summary page mentioned that TV itself is mostly garbage and that the new generation isn't brainwashed with it and has better things to do...do they mean like following TWITTER???

Yes, I like TV, but I want to watch shows I'm interested in, not crap. This means funny comedies and interesting history/mystery shows, etc., not reality tv. Sadly, channels like History have switched to reality crap like "Pawn Stars" and moved any real history shows to H2 (which I cannot get in HD currently). Similar things happened to MTV, etc. (rendering music videos moot for the most part, making harder to find new music once again in favor of garbage like reality tv again; but then with newer cable boxes you cannot surf at light speed anymore, which is how I'd flick by MTV/VH1 to scan videos for something interesting sounding in the first place and only stop if it looked/sounded interesting).
What I'd like to see is free jewels sprinkled at the foot of my bed every morning.

Unfortunately TV production isn't magic, and producers can't just choose to give away content for any price they like. There are these boring things called economics. When it comes to TV consumption you have three choices:

PAY for it, WAIT for it, or WATCH ADS all the way through. You can pick and choose, pay more, wait less, even do a bit of all three, but you can't do none.

From your needs it sound like you just want to pay, and not endure the other two. But reading further in, it turns out no, you don't want to actually pay.
mw360 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 01:35 PM   #130
mantan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: By Grabthar's Hammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum View Post
Actually, what I'd like to see is AD-FREE TV. Yes, this is what things like HBO generally offer (although they do show their own ads between shows for other shows), BUT this represents only a small portion of original content. I want ad-free TV for ALL shows. Yes, DVRs help a LOT, but you still have to manually fast-forward, etc. and it's still a PITA compared to say an iTunes collection of a show with zero commercials (not counting recent crap like Fox that includes commercials even on iTunes).

The problem is I don't want to necessarily OWN content (taking up valuable hard drive space (at least in a I don't want to have 4 hard drives running at the same time to keep track of) although the development of iCloud may rectify this to some extent). Either way it costs more to own than rent/watch once, but iTunes got rid of TV Show rentals so we're back to square one.

The point is that I want to only pay for shows I actually want to watch (not the wasted money paying for Cable/Sat 24/7 that I'm NOT watching) and I do not want my time wasted by being bombarded with tons of commercials either. Get a good solution to this for a "reasonable" price (should cost less than everything cable, but more than ad-filled content) and people with go for it. Do stupid things like adding commercials later on regardless of what users want and you will ultimately screw yourself over. People are SICK of Ads EVERYWHERE and I believe many are willing to pay for content free of them.

Meanwhile, I agree that social networking is a PLAGUE. I simply don't need to know when someone is sitting on the toilet nor do I care to read about such things and waste hours of my life "following" such garbage. One person's comment on the summary page mentioned that TV itself is mostly garbage and that the new generation isn't brainwashed with it and has better things to do...do they mean like following TWITTER???

Yes, I like TV, but I want to watch shows I'm interested in, not crap. This means funny comedies and interesting history/mystery shows, etc., not reality tv. Sadly, channels like History have switched to reality crap like "Pawn Stars" and moved any real history shows to H2 (which I cannot get in HD currently). Similar things happened to MTV, etc. (rendering music videos moot for the most part, making harder to find new music once again in favor of garbage like reality tv again; but then with newer cable boxes you cannot surf at light speed anymore, which is how I'd flick by MTV/VH1 to scan videos for something interesting sounding in the first place and only stop if it looked/sounded interesting).
Let me get this straight....you think a 'reasonable price' would be something less than what you pay for cable now?

How could networks possible create and distribute shows to a smaller fragmented audience and still bring in the same revenue without a significant increase in price?

And it definitely wouldn't help with the quality of programming available. A lot of TV waters down the 'lowest common denominator' because that's what pulls big numbers. High quality content would likely be MORE expensive, because you are marketing to a niche audience. And networks would be reluctant to take risks. Right now networks can make quality/edge/complex content while underwriting it with 'safe' programming and reruns. If a show has to stand on its own and build an audience in a 'pay per' model, it would be a lot harder to do. Will nework execs take a chance...or just roll out 'America Loves Crotch Kicks - 5')?
mantan is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 02:21 PM   #131
pacalis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul4339 View Post
That's one of the problems, many people don't want the cable companies to 'pick shows' and they don't want their channels or packages of changes... they want to pick/pay for the shows or series themselves.
And to make it worse, in some regions you where can pick and choose and regions you can't. And when you finally do get the content, sometime you get HD and sometimes you get black bars, etc. ... Tough problem to crack to get everything to be consistent.

...
I get what you're saying about consumer picking. The "picking" I was referring to is earlier in the chain (much as the previous post). Cable companies make commitments to "buy shows." Without that capital, and the cable companies taking the risk, most shows wouldn't be made past the pilot. In essence the consumer would have nothing to pick.

I hate bundling as much as the next consumer, and I feel the consumer pain of not being able to on demand a given show... But I only know about those shows because typically some cable company liked the pilot, bought it, and provided the capital for additional episode development. And unfortunately without this function, many of our favorite shows would not be made.

So cable companies do a service that Apple has no skill at - picking and developing winners (and absorbing the cost of losers). And they already are in the business of marketing and distribution, unlike record producers were, so while there's some consumer pain there, the margin opportunities for Apple are pretty tight.
pacalis is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 02:27 PM   #132
DDustiNN
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Wait... so people want to use their TV to watch TV?? Not go on Facebook and browse the internet??

Huh... imagine that...
DDustiNN is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:45 PM   #133
Awakener
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantan View Post
The problem is a la carte is not as profitable as the current system. Everybody likes the concept of a la carte because they make the misguided assumption that they will spend less money watching the shows/channels they want..
The content providers and cable companies will always win. They'll just charge 4.99 movie/episode like they do a lot of current on demand content.
Awakener is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 03:02 AM   #134
Ironduke
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: England
I dont care for an Apple Television, apple will not make a better one then the market leaders do now or will be cheap.

Im more interested where apples AppleTV box is going, it should be fully intergrated with apples other devices and have its own app store, with the ability to use your iDevice as its controller
__________________
iMac 21.5" 4GB Ram, ATI 4670, 500GB HD - 13" Unibody Macbook Collectors Edition 2.4GHz, 4GB Ram, 320GB HD - iPhone 3G
Ironduke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 05:14 PM   #135
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 68040
 
MagnusVonMagnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by mw360 View Post
What I'd like to see is free jewels sprinkled at the foot of my bed every morning.
I'd like posts free of pointless sarcasm, but I guess we can't have everything we want.

Quote:
Unfortunately TV production isn't magic, and producers can't just choose to give away content for any price they like. There are these boring things called economics. When it comes to TV consumption you have three choices:

PAY for it, WAIT for it, or WATCH ADS all the way through. You can pick and choose, pay more, wait less, even do a bit of all three, but you can't do none.

From your needs it sound like you just want to pay, and not endure the other two. But reading further in, it turns out no, you don't want to actually pay.
I don't actually want to pay? I thought I said quite plainly that I'd rather pay more to have commercial free viewing. That doesn't mean I want to pay for things I don't watch. I mean you apparently think it's fine that I have to pay for cable AND watch ads, yet on the other side of the coin, it's fine that I have to pay to subsidize all kinds of shows that are running at the same time that I do NOT watch? For example, I do not watch QVC or any other shopping channel. Yet my cable company added them for me to watch in HD and yet refuses to add Travel Channel HD, BBC-America HD or History2 HD. WTF should I pay for crap I don't watch? Oh, that's right. It's because they like it that way. Well, tough. I don't like reality TV and I sure as heck don't want to encourage it by subsidizing it when I don't like it. Without a mechanism for people to vote with their wallets, any number of studios would just keep turning out cheap crap all day long as it's great for their profits and reality tv is as cheap as it gets.

The future is ala-carte. If these studios want my money, they better start earning it by offering something I'd actually want to watch and that doesn't mean 12 minutes of commercials and 18 minutes of show which most shows are doing now. If an ad-subsidized show on iTunes were $1 an episode, I'd gladly pay $2-4 (depending on the quality of the show) for an ad-free version. At some point, I'd rather just not watch the show. There's other things to do in this world than just watch the idiot box, after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantan View Post
Let me get this straight....you think a 'reasonable price' would be something less than what you pay for cable now?
That would depend on how many shows I watch, now wouldn't it? See my reply to mw360 above. My cable company charges me $65 a month for basic cable + basic HD regardless of whether or not I watch ONE SINGLE SHOW. They DON'T CARE if I watch any TV what-so-ever. They just want their $65 a month regular and on-time. Well WTF does that have to do with me purchasing content to view? Do you think people should pay for things they don't use? Should I be forced to buy 5 cans each of peas, carrots and spinach each month from the local grocery store even if I don't eat those things because that's what they want to sell me?

Things are changing and it's only a matter of time before people will be able to buy what they want to watch and not have to pay for all the things they don't want to watch. Having more than one source for programming and the Internet is what will make this possible (i.e. COMPETITION). If not, well there's other ways to spend my time than just watching television.

I have no problem with two tiers of programming (ad-filled and ad-free) at different price points. I'm willing to pay more to not see ads, but that doesn't mean I want to pay for content I'm not watching (i.e. if I'm on vacation, should I have to keep paying for cable/internet those weeks? Well, I do whether I want to or not and that's part of the reason I'd rather see ala carte options than just "meal plans". It's worse yet when I cannot even get a show I want in HD because the cable company doesn't carry it. That's where AppleTV has an advantage. I can just buy that one show. I'd rather rent it (i.e. cheaper), but that option seems to have disappeared for now.

I will not pay the same price for ad-filled content as ad-free content so Fox can be sure I will not buy their shows on iTunes.

Quote:
How could networks possible create and distribute shows to a smaller
fragmented audience and still bring in the same revenue without a significant increase in price?
How is the audience smaller or fragmented? Companies pay for ads based on show viewer audience ratings (i.e. estimates on the total viewing public determines the price that advertisers are willing to pay). Above I talk about how it sucks to pay for cable I don't watch, but that largely benefits the cable company for the most part (yes they pay fees to carry given channels, but advertising is separate and based on viewership).

In other words, if you have an estimated (and it is still an estimate since you can't account for over-the-air viewers entirely, etc.) 5 million people tuning in to watch The Big Bang Theory and if it were offered on a digital download service without commercials and let's say 1 million of those viewers switched and got it that way, it'd be a simple calculation to figure out how much a network would need to charge in order to make up for the loss in ad revenue by the ad-audience dropping by 1 million. If that service sold a version with ads, it would correspond to the difference in price of what they would have charged for 5 million viewers versus 4 million tied into sales. It might have to be based on the previous month or something, but it could be worked out within reason. Of course, raising prices might lose viewers, etc., but this is no different than anything else based on supply/demand.

Really, it IS going to eventually happen that way whether the studios like it or not. If they want me to pony out more money for a given show, it better be a really good show. If it sucks, no one will pay those prices. Why should television be any different from movies, music or books? If those suck, no one buys them. Why should tv networks get away with lousy programming easier than Hollywood can with bad movies?
__________________
Mac Mini Server 2012 (2.3GHz Quad i7, 8GB, 2x1TB RAID 0) ; External 12x Memorex Blu-Ray USB3, External WD 3x3TB,1x2TB HD USB3)
15" Matte MBP 2.4GHz, 4GB/500GB, NVidia 8600M GT; 3 ATV; 2 iPod Touch
MagnusVonMagnum is offline   1 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 11:56 PM.

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

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