1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

C'mmon Apple, Let's Kill Cable!!!!

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by H. Flower, Sep 1, 2010.

  1. macrumors 6502

    I pay over 800 dollars a year for cable service.

    I watch maybe 6 channels total, a few shows regularly, largely because 95 percent of the stations and shows are utter garbage.

    I'd cancel the service but I'd hate to part ways with sports, news, and 3 or 4 quality shows.

    Give me the choice to pay for what I want to see!
  2. macrumors 68020


    If the new iTV indeed allows for Apps, it won't be long before MLB @ Bat comes to your TV without cable. Other sports will likely follow.

    I cancelled cable 3 years ago when I got AppleTV and never looked back. Then again, I don't watch sports and the only live TV I'd watch would be news, which I can see on my Mac. A CNN app would make up for the only thing I miss from cable.
  3. macrumors 68000

    Until the MLB changes its blackout restrictions the MLB At Bat is useless. Current blackout rules will not let me watch my teams game if I am in the geographoc region and nothing on Saturday afternoon when FOX has its game of the week.
  4. macrumors 601

    If Apple can really start causing pain in terms of falling cable subscription revenues, what will the cable companies do to make up for those revenues?

    Who provides the broadband pipe through which Apple's solution would flow?

    The dream is great, but it is dependent on big (cable) companies that own the pipe, letting another company (Apple) use that same pipe to undermine a lucrative revenue stream that flows to those big (cable) companies. Why would they allow that to happen (through their own pipes)?
  5. macrumors 601

    Can't do anything about the blackout rules for the local teams, but you could always put up an antenna for the Fox game. Or pay for basic (lifeline) cable and get Fox if you have antenna issues.

    I'm seriuosly considering cancelling cable and putting up an antenna plus a mlb subscription. Lucky for me, my team is not the local team, so I wouldn't be hit with as many blackouts.
  6. macrumors 601

    This is one of the big points on the Net Neutrality debate. I think we can figure out what Apple's plan are in this area by seeing what their position is on Net Neutrality.

    We've seen Google waffle on their postion, at least when it comes to the wireless side of the equation.

    NOTE - I don't know what Apple's position is, but would be interested to find out.
  7. macrumors Penryn


    You want to kill cable? Really?

    Have you considered how much they pay networks for content? Are you willing to pay to make up that lost revenue stream?

    Honestly, don't people think before they start threads like this? :rolleyes:
  8. macrumors 601

    Net Neutrality is like commitments to break our dependency on oil: lots of lip service to motivate the monopolies to throw a lot of money into re-election coffers in exchange for no real action. I'm confident that if an Apple cableTV-killer solution gets any traction at all, broadband bills will go up... either by outright price increases, or via a tiered model based on usage (which obviously would be higher if we're pumping lots of video from Apple to our :apple:TVs). Consolidation of players yields little-to-no competition in many areas, or the 1 or so competitors are also in the video subscription business (thus not wanting an Apple replacement solution to work either). Lack of competition keeps broadband rates high.

    A complete solution probably has to bypass the use of cable monopolists broadband pipes. As long as the solution flows through pipes owned by those companies, they are pretty much obligated to make up for fading revenues in one division by squeezing it out of another. If you were them, would you NOT do the same?

    If an Apple cable-killer solution is coming, I would guess Apple would be extremely pro on net neutrality. But unless Apple is willing to pay- er contribute- more to re-election campaigns than Comcast/AT&T/Verizon/Time Warner/Charter/etc, guess who will likely win? Little to no competition means natural forces won't pressure players to behave themselves.
  9. macrumors 601

    Totally agree with you on the likleyhood of an cable-killer system by Apple. I don't think it will happen at all.

    BUT ... if the current pay-tv model does disintegrate into a content streaming model (a la Netflix, Hulu, etc) where the content owners stream content to consumers directly ... then the cable companies are still covered. This is one of the reasons that Comcast is buying NBC/Universal. To get content. This way, they win if the current model sticks around. They also win if a new model emerges ... they get to sell their content as well as charge for the delivery method.

    I have no idea on how this will play out, but it sure will be interesting.

    Personally, I would prefer to go with dumb pipes and pay individually for my content. But I fear that some less popular programming that I enjoy would disappear and we'd be left with programming aimed at the lowest common denominator.
  10. macrumors member

    Have you considered how much profit the middle men, i.e. cable providers, are making off of us? No middle men, and better choices would be a win, win for consumers and media creators. Some people pay upwards of $100 a month for cable. That is ridiculous. Cable providers are taking advantage.
  11. macrumors 65816

    This would be amazing… I was actually talking to my fiance about this a few weeks ago. I hate that I pay $80 a month for just a few channels that I watch. I was telling her that someone needs to make something that will allow you to kind of "build your own" channel package. I would be willing to pay $75 for a package that only has the channels I watch instead of the $80 because I will save $5 for something I dont want.

    If apple could do live streaming of NFL games (the only sport I watch) and some type of episode purchasing (99 cents per show or $2 per month or something as I only really watch like 5 shows) I would save a ton of money! Seriously, figure 18 NFL games a year ($18) and 5 shows, 4 times a month, for 5 months ($100) means I would pay $118 a YEAR! Let's say I even order another 365 things a year at $1 each that means $483 a year ($40 a month).

    That would be AMAING! ANNNND, it would push other companies (Such as Comcast and DirecTV) to work on similar packages. They wouldn't just increase internet prices, I am sure they would a little such as $60 a month instead of $50, but they would need to reinvent themselves. :-D

    I am praying this is what we see. Steve-o said it himself that TV needs to be reinvented for it to change. Maybe this was his idea! :)

    - Joe
  12. macrumors 65816

    Have you also thought about how much more money these companies will make if they make better programs. Think, if you ONLY pay to see the content from one channel, they will be worth more than the next who not as many people are paying for. From companies like ABC and NBC, you could get the channels for free anyways because they are OTA stations. ESPN, for example, could make more money by getting $0.70 for every single game they broadcast instead of $XXX for the year regardless of what they broadcast. PLUS, it will be easier for them to understand what people want to watch and what they dont want to watch. ;-)

    - Joe
  13. macrumors 68000

    99% of regular season baseball games are on cable (at least the Tigers) most games are on a cable channel, FSN, YES, etc....
  14. macrumors 601

    That's where mlb.tv would come in. I live in the Philly area and my team is the Mets. So I would be able to watch most Mets games using mlb.tv. The ones that I'd miss out on are the games against Philly that are broadcast on Comcast SportNet. I could watch the Mets/Phils games on Fox and PHL using an antenna or lifeline cable.

    For me, it would work out and I'd have options if I do indeed kill cable. The only thing would be a losing Nickelodeon for the kids. Right now, that's the deal killer.
  15. macrumors 6502

    Picture quality is just as important to me as content. I would like to see 1080P video as well as high quality audio to match. I watch most of a video on a 60 inch screen and can easily see the difference on over compressed low bit rate programming. I am willing to pay for quality. I would have no problem paying each network $9.99 each per month for the shows I want to watch. My currrent Directv bill is about $120. per month and I only watch 8 to 10 channels on a reguler basis. Even at .99 per show, I would save money. But, quality comes first.
  16. macrumors regular


    I pay almost double what you pay but that also includes high speed internet.
    I agree it's way to high for the 4-5 channels I actually watch,,,, but there is something comforting about channel surfing just in case there is a "classic" movie on Saturday afternoon after cutting the grass, you know something to nap too.;)
  17. macrumors 65816

    But you WILL be able to channel surf - but you only pay for it IF you want it ;-)

    - Joe
  18. macrumors 601

    Well, if you wait until Sunday to mow your lawn, you could fall asleep to a NASCAR race. ;)
  19. macrumors 601


    Cable and internet are different businesses, though they use the same pipe. If cable providers go away, the pipes don't.
  20. macrumors 68020


    If cable providers start charging through the roof for their internet services, competitors who built their business on internet -- not cable TV -- will have the upper hand and can charge less. The cable operators will have no choice but to compete by keeping their prices low.
  21. macrumors 601

    Well, in my area, there really is no competitor. It's either Comcast or Fios. Both of them are built on TV. Sure, I guess I can get DSL, but that would be a major downgrade, espeically if I'm trying to stream video.

    I'm sure that my situation isn't unique. I don't think many areas have power companies offering internet.
  22. macrumors regular

    99.9% of the people on these forums have no idea how the cable/entertainment industry works. They just think that w/o the MSO as the middle man that their bill will mysteriously be slashed in half each month.

    It doesn't work that way.
  23. macrumors 6502

    Advancements in technology have made media/information more efficient and less expensive for every industry throughout all of history. How is television above this?

Share This Page