Trading this
For this
That alone makes it worthwhile.. losing the 64 button monstrosity in favor of the impossibly sleek aluminum Apple TV remote with 3 buttons and a four point ring.
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
Trading this
For this
That alone makes it worthwhile.. losing the 64 button monstrosity in favor of the impossibly sleek aluminum Apple TV remote with 3 buttons and a four point ring.
Its Supposed to be the commercials.. And if you're paying a premium for cable service, then you shouldn't have commercials... HBO, etc.. at least get that part of it
essentially, everyone that has cable is PAYING for commercials... No thanks.
It's why I refuse to have cable until they give me a pay per channel type model
Just bought my Apple TV 3 a few weeks ago, cut my cable subscription, and LOVING IT. With my Mohu Leaf antenna for locals, Hulu+, Netflix, & iTunes, we have more than enough content.
Bring it on. The more content, the merrier.
Bring it on. The more content, the merrier.
Wild predictions:
There is a tipping point in our future: Content providers will eventually find that most of their content is being consumed via internet devices. Individual companies (discovery, espn, hbo) will find they can generate more revenue per user by selling subscriptions through individual apps, than through package deals with cable companies where their per viewer revenue is being diluted by channels no one wants to watch.
If that happens and viewers can subscribe to channels a la cart, cable companies will see their revenues drop dramatically over night and they will be in crisis.
At that point we will see an enormous effort by cable companies to be the fastest most reliable ISP. They will roll out vast fiber networks as fast as they can, in an effort to become the dominate (monopoly) player.
I really wouldn't want to be a cable company, their network hardware expenses will be huge and their margins will become razor thin. I'd love to be a content company. And i'd love to be an ap store collecting some % of subscription revenue.
Apple will win tremendously. -They'll make money on the ATV hardware with great profit margins because they have an ecosystem no one can copy. (they're so vertically integrated and walled off.) -They'll make money on the individual subscriptions to content providers on a recurring basis monthly.
Google will win tremendously. -Google, Ruku, Samsung, everyone, will make android based tv devices. They'll make no money on hardware. -Google will make money on the individual subscriptions to content providers through the google play store.
Both Apple and Google will also become gaming device companies. Home automation may follow.
Once this tipping point occurs, and the leverage for content deals swings over to internet players, Apple will release an Apple TV. It'll have a seamless control device and a full ios (facetime, apps, imessage etc.). Possibly we'll also see a gorgeous tv set.
There is a tipping point in our future: Content providers will eventually find that most of their content is being consumed via internet devices. Individual companies (discovery, espn, hbo) will find they can generate more revenue per user by selling subscriptions through individual apps, than through package deals with cable companies where their per viewer revenue is being diluted by channels no one wants to watch.
If that happens and viewers can subscribe to channels a la cart, cable companies will see their revenues drop dramatically over night and they will be in crisis.
At that point we will see an enormous effort by cable companies to be the fastest most reliable ISP. They will roll out vast fiber networks as fast as they can, in an effort to become the dominate (monopoly) player.
I really wouldn't want to be a cable company, their network hardware expenses will be huge and their margins will become razor thin. I'd love to be a content company. And i'd love to be an ap store collecting some % of subscription revenue.
Apple will win tremendously. -They'll make money on the ATV hardware with great profit margins because they have an ecosystem no one can copy. (they're so vertically integrated and walled off.) -They'll make money on the individual subscriptions to content providers on a recurring basis monthly.
Google will win tremendously. -Google, Ruku, Samsung, everyone, will make android based tv devices. They'll make no money on hardware. -Google will make money on the individual subscriptions to content providers through the google play store.
Both Apple and Google will also become gaming device companies. Home automation may follow.
Once this tipping point occurs, and the leverage for content deals swings over to internet players, Apple will release an Apple TV. It'll have a seamless control device and a full ios (facetime, apps, imessage etc.). Possibly we'll also see a gorgeous tv set.
Last edited:
Yeah, that would be advertising. Only in America are people programmed to accept paying a subscription fee then be forced to watch onscreen, embedded and cut to ads. It is completely ridiculous. I will either watch ads or pay up front, not both.
I miss the days of C band satellite. Ala carte was the best possible entertainment for the buck there was. They were big and ugly but you could even watch shows before they aired for free like Seinfeld. Would of been awesome if someone came up with a compact one. I don't get cable so I'm out of luck I guess on this. I am sure other stuff will come. First company to offer true ala carte wins the race guaranteed.
Yep... And if ther un-cabled, it will be better.
Lets make it half way, and add non-cabled customers to the mix.. While this may not make mich sense, at least everyone can watch. Plus, they ill still be getting their monthly share from the non-cabled people anyway, Jist like Netflix, you pay a monly fee to watch, you can do the same here too.
I don't see an isse with this.
Except streaming has ****** random access and a DVR doesn't. And who "thinks" about recording a show? That's why DVRs are great -- it's about the easiest thing in your house to operate. And when ISPs increase their bandwidth to accomodate this functionality -- oh, you mean TWC again, oops, guess they don't ever leave this equation, do they? -- who do you think pays for that? One guess.
I see this happening in the near future. Not just TWC, Comcast, or Verizon, but individual networks (USA, TBS, FX, AMC, etc.). An al a carte if you will. Just a few hurdles for Apple to get through for this to happen. But once it does..... Checkmate.
Here's the part people who say that always miss: somebody else is subsidizing your viewing habits, too. The whole system actually works quite well. What people are really b****ing about is, "Gee, I wish my cable bill was smaller." Well, congrats, I wish all my bills were smaller. In fact, I wish everything was free, but it ain't.
----------
The only way any change or competition can come into play is if the government decouples the ISP business from the cable-channel delivery business -- i.e., split companies like TWC into two separate businesses. Otherwise, nothing'll move. It still might not work: splitting up AT&T didn't, in the end, really do anything to your average phone bill.
The only thing Apple should be working with Time Warner about is a buy-out price. Why doesn't Apple skip all this nonsense and BUY a media/cable company? All of us want streaming via some device, correct? But guess what, it's becoming *very* fragmented. Some on Netflix, some on Hulu, some on studio sites, some here, some there. Guess what, to get any good cross-section of entertainment, we'll have to spend as much or MORE as we are spending on a cable bundle. Soon, the cable bundle will be the deal, and that's exactly what the cable companies watch.
Quick poll, how many people here are like me, and would only need a package of 10 channels, including live news channels, etc. plus the ability to buy season passes or single episodes of any other shows?
See if you could get buy for $20.00/mo. for 10 channels. I know I could. I probably could get that down to 7.
I fear that everyone is going to get too greedy, try to do the job themselves. The content providers should never distribute. Just put out your content for a fair fee, and let Apple, Netflix, Hulu, etc. pick it up.
Why not have an RSS-type feed for media companies, with people actually paying for content that is wanted. Have an open standard so you truly pay for what you want. Sounds great huh? By Viacom would have to shut down 10 channels on day one with no viewership. They'd rather make cable companies pay for crap only to get the popular channels.
Aereo is coming to Providence, RI soon. And guess what, for $8/mo, streaming live channels to my MBP is all I need, along with iTunes/Netflix/Hulu. I will be paying less than $30/mo, plus buying season passes that I want, and not the network.
That is another thing. I don't want to buy networks. I want to buy content. Don't want AMC, just want Mad Men/Walking Dead/Breaking Bad. This scares networks/cable companies. If I only watch a channel for a handful of hours each month, why should I pay for it 24/7?
My rant is over. I'm hot and need a milk shake.
Quick poll, how many people here are like me, and would only need a package of 10 channels, including live news channels, etc. plus the ability to buy season passes or single episodes of any other shows?
See if you could get buy for $20.00/mo. for 10 channels. I know I could. I probably could get that down to 7.
I fear that everyone is going to get too greedy, try to do the job themselves. The content providers should never distribute. Just put out your content for a fair fee, and let Apple, Netflix, Hulu, etc. pick it up.
Why not have an RSS-type feed for media companies, with people actually paying for content that is wanted. Have an open standard so you truly pay for what you want. Sounds great huh? By Viacom would have to shut down 10 channels on day one with no viewership. They'd rather make cable companies pay for crap only to get the popular channels.
Aereo is coming to Providence, RI soon. And guess what, for $8/mo, streaming live channels to my MBP is all I need, along with iTunes/Netflix/Hulu. I will be paying less than $30/mo, plus buying season passes that I want, and not the network.
That is another thing. I don't want to buy networks. I want to buy content. Don't want AMC, just want Mad Men/Walking Dead/Breaking Bad. This scares networks/cable companies. If I only watch a channel for a handful of hours each month, why should I pay for it 24/7?
My rant is over. I'm hot and need a milk shake.
Somebody else is saying the same thing about AMC, which benefits you. Everybody is subsidizing everybody else to some degree. It works.
Apple is American, this website is American. Need I say more? Go start www.macrumors.de or something if you're so concerned.
EDIT: Oh, there is a Macrumors.de. Well, you now have a site that suits your needs.
My parents said the same.
Streaming of Apple TV constantly, she likes a how, and wants a DVD copy of it, so she asks me.. I say no.
But i can understand this concept, while optical media also gets scratched, with streaming, you don't have any control, they can be pulled at any time because someone decided to stop pay their license fees.
I can appreciate this, but its tough. Which way to turn??
So really, how many are 100% streaming..... I think there is at least a DVR somewhere.
Streaming of Apple TV constantly, she likes a how, and wants a DVD copy of it, so she asks me.. I say no.
But i can understand this concept, while optical media also gets scratched, with streaming, you don't have any control, they can be pulled at any time because someone decided to stop pay their license fees.
I can appreciate this, but its tough. Which way to turn??
So really, how many are 100% streaming..... I think there is at least a DVR somewhere.
I don't want to subsidize anyone else anymore and don't want anyone subsidizing me. I'm willing to pay fair value for their content. They don't have to push crap anymore.
The thing is, you don'e even need a network. The producers of Breaking Bad can simply offer their content to Apple to distribute. Wow, how clean and efficient. That's cost savings right there.
EDIT: Oh, and don't forget that Comcast will be limiting our bandwidth so we won't be able to watch an endless amount of streamed tv/movies. Thanks in advance for that.
First of all, if you ******* with the existing cost structure, the content you want would change, and you might not like it. Second, I refer to my earlier post: how exactly does Apple distribute, say, Breaking Bad (which likely wouldn't exist in your new model anyway)?
Through an ISP. Hey, TWC again! Those guys just never go away, do they? As long as TWC offers both cable channels and Internet, you will pay.
part of my $7.99 to netflix subsidizes content i don't watch but others do. its not fair.
itunes is a la carte TV shows and it mostly sucks because its too expensive
At $7.99 for tens of thousands of shows.... you can call that subsidizing others... I call that paying for content.
As for iTunes, some content is expensive, as they are trying to gouge the early adopters. But for commercial-free content, it's worth it. When HBO GO can be purchased by non cable subscribers, the game changes.
And I buy season passes on iTunes where it is NOT more expensive than paying for cable. $30-$40 for an entire season of a show, vs $50+/mo just to get same. My father pays $120/mo for DirecTV, until his contract expires. I did the math, and for the stuff he watches, if he went straight to iTunes for series', he'd save $500.00 year.
Checkmate indeed, which is why I'm afraid the cable companies might not ever let it happen. From what I read they have the networks bent over.
once you figure the $50 a month for internet, the savings from a la carte vanish
FIOS is coming to me for $80 a month for TV and internet. TWC is now down to $100 per month for TV and internet with no more shoving the phone on to me. my TWC internet is $50. netflix is mostly crap. with all the on demand apps out there that use the cable logon i might as well pay the extra $20 a month and get lots more content
Someone who gets it!
Breaking Bad ( and shows like it) WOULDN'T exist on this pay-per-show model.
The risk for the networks would be astronomically larger without the "guaranteed" affiliate fees. Why would they make big bets (like full season orders, good actor contracts, etc) on high-production value shows like Breaking Bad, when they would be at the mercy of per episode purchases?
Also, people always talk about already established, critically acclaimed shows..."I just want to pay for those!"
Those shows would never get off the ground with the pay per episode model. Who starts buying first run episodes of things they've never seen before?!?!?! It's difficult enough to build an audience under the CURRENT model!
Everyone seem to misunderstand the underlying economics of television. All the "the ads pay for it!" posts demonstrate that.