The problem isn't that I pay my cable provider for the content I DO watch; it's that I pay them for the content I DON'T watch, too.
The last time cable innovated a la carte, live television, most people watching it thought the wrestling was real.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Close to Completing Apple TV Deal with Time Warner Cable
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem isn't that I pay my cable provider for the content I DO watch; it's that I pay them for the content I DON'T watch, too.
The last time cable innovated a la carte, live television, most people watching it thought the wrestling was real.
Thanks. Is that a single IP address concurrently, or a single IP address at all?
So it sucks, but otherwise is great?
No, of course it won't be free, content creation would all but disappear. We'll just be paying someone else. But it will be refreshing to have the choice of a new business model. One-size solutions do not fit everyone!
Agreed!
I don't understand why this is being celebrated like it is. So now everyone that already has a cable box can watch directly through AppleTV? That saves them what, a few seconds?
----------
I'm happy to pay for what I watch, but I don't want to pay for everything else.
----------
Advertising pays the lion share. Our subscription money is far less a piece of the pie.
I don't understand why this is being celebrated like it is. So now everyone that already has a cable box can watch directly through AppleTV? That saves them what, a few seconds?
----------
I'm happy to pay for what I watch, but I don't want to pay for everything else.
----------
Advertising pays the lion share. Our subscription money is far less a piece of the pie.
So what you're saying is that if you launch the TWC app, all the shows they broadcast will be available on demand? I don't think that is how it works, but maybe someone with the TWC app on their ROKU could chime in on this.
For homes with multiple TVs, this lets you watch most of your cable channels on all of them, even if you rent a cable box for only one of them. But even if that doesn't apply to you, why wouldn't you watch cable through the Apple TV, assuming the quality level is the same as cable? Not having to change inputs all the time isn't a game-changer, but it's pretty nice.
It's all about content. What Apple could do to help things along would be to take about 10 billion and hire the best writers and producers around the world to create original content for Apple TV. If they have great original content, i.e.
"Breaking Bad, Mad Men, etc. that can only be accessed on ATV more people will want ATV and more will buy ATV. Prying content providers away from exclusive cable control is all about money. Content providers want money and cable companies give it to them. Until content providers can make more money without cable than they do with cable, things will continue as they are.
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 think Apple may be working to get channels such as A&E, Discovery, etc. to have their own apps. This way, you buy the app, you buy the content that that particular network dishes out. The more apps you sell, the higher you can charge for advertising because you KNOW what is more popular because of REAL data on app sales, not some bs neilson ratings. If you want to go even finer grain, you can sell apps for particular shows and the same concept applies.
It won't happen over night, but the cable companies are crapping their pants right now. Follow Motley Fool or another investment adviser and they will tell you that an upheaval is imminent. The TWC thing is a stepping stone to something much more consumer-friendly in my mind. I think if all goes well, it would work like some of the independent music artists that produce their own content and distribute through multiple outlets, like iTunes, etc.
It won't happen over night, but the cable companies are crapping their pants right now. Follow Motley Fool or another investment adviser and they will tell you that an upheaval is imminent. The TWC thing is a stepping stone to something much more consumer-friendly in my mind. I think if all goes well, it would work like some of the independent music artists that produce their own content and distribute through multiple outlets, like iTunes, etc.
It's not so much being 'celebrated', as the fact that this hits a raw nerve with people, many of whom, rightly or not, and deservedly or not, have the perception that the cable cos are greedy, and have been 'hosing' people for too long. You yourself are saying, rightly so, that you don't mind paying for what you watch, and no more. I believe that is the sentiment of many people.
If any company can come along, and break these old business models, and replace them with a reasonable alternative, that people could custom tailor to their own viewing habits or preferences, many people will defect from the status quo, imho.
Out of curiosity, I would love to know, how much the cable cos are really paying content creators/owners.
So basically the Apple TV would act like a cable box?
Channel lineup: http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/residential-home/tv/channels/channel-lineup.html
So when is something like this coming to Oztwaylya? We have YouTube & Vimeo as the feature selling points right now!
Exactly, but the fact that Apple is now playing ball with the cable companies means this will never happen unless there is a major disruptive change in the industry. I generally like Tim Cook, but I feel like he's much more in the Obama vein of The Great Compromiser -- believing that it's better to get things done and move on, even if they are not great wins, rather than hold out for an idealistic vision as Jobs tended to do and possibly not gain any ground.
Ads and the fancy ability to track and collect all our viewing habits and personal data should be sufficient.
And who do they think owns the internet pipeline into the home? The cable company or the phone company, who also have a TV service.
One thing is guaranteed - no matter what illusion of choice we end up being given, in 10 years we'll be paying more for internet and viewing content, not less.
Not sure what you mean exactly, but the app checks to make sure you are connected to your home router. Otherwise, no workie. Now, I'm not sure what happens if you don't have TWC internet.
So it sucks, but otherwise is great?
A person does need to be realistic.
The model for this has yet to be seen. One big issue is live sports. I don't want to be stuck with cable either, but it's such an enormous hairball I don't see how it can be untangled.
You would still need the cable company to provide your broadband internet connection so you could watch all that content, unless you can think of another solution.
One reason could be the difference in the remote controls - the typical cable remote has dedicated buttons for recording shows, entering the guide, quickly switching between channels, volume, turning the TV on and off, etc.
Why is Apple making deals with cable companies to provide content that the customer is already receiving through the cable box?
Apple should be revolutionizing the way content is provided/delivered and kill off the cable companies -- just the way they revolutionized the market with the iphone and ipad.
Apple should be revolutionizing the way content is provided/delivered and kill off the cable companies -- just the way they revolutionized the market with the iphone and ipad.
I hope Time Warner merges with Charter Communications and kills them off. I still do nto get HBO Go on my Apple TV because Charter is too greedy to offer it.
That's great, except for the fact that the content you dont want subsidizes the content you do.
I'm not saying I like the current system, or that I don't hope for something better, but the system is set up the way it is for a reason, and it's more nuanced than "money grubbing cable companies!"
Read this: http://stratechery.com/2013/the-cord-cutting-fantasy/
You're absolutely right about that. At the moment, they hold most of the cards. We would need more competition amongst ISPs. The Telecommunications industry is still evolving, and who knows what the future holds. One thing it will not hold, imho, is an everlasting stranglehold by the cable cos on our entertainment/internet access needs. Technology will find a way around them.
For their sake, let's hope they will come to that realization as well, before they fade away into self-induced oblivion.
