Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
unless you watch very little TV you are just going to nickel and dime yourself until you spend just as much on all the different services

Really? Because last I checked, cable was over $100 in my area and I'm paying less than $40 a month total for Netflix, Hulu Plus and whatever TV and movies I buy/rent from iTunes. The few things I watch live at the time of broadcast I catch via DTV antenna (free).
 
Last edited:
I was hoping Apple would work directly with studios to bring contents to consumers without the middleman. We really need a change in distribution of contents and working with a distribution company wouldn't like to bring anything new to the market. Plus Comcast is one of the worst cable companies out there.
 
I'm not sure I understand everyone's complaints.

I have Comcast for my Internet but I do not have cable with them.

If this deal happens, it sounds like even if Internet is slow, they are going to give them a separate "flow" of bandwidth that will provide a higher quality streaming experience on my AppleTV.

As I understand it, the idea is that they'd be prioritizing traffic to their PAID cable content flowing to your Apple TV.

You being a non-cable internet-only subscriber, wanna take a guess where your Netflix traffic gets prioritized?
 
I cut the cable 3 years ago. I still have cable for internet, but no phone or 10000 channels of garbage. If this will allow me to subscribe to what I want without having to pay huge amounts for trash, I am in. However the current approach of you have to be subscriber to get access to the content on the ATV is garbage. I hope if this is true and apple makes a deal we will solve these issues and truly make this better.
 
This is progress? No thank you. The whole point of AppleTV (at least for me) is to NOT have cable. I'm a cord cutter. What's the use if the cable company is still in play? Forget it. I'd like to see cable television go out of business some day!

And how do you plan on getting your internet?

You realize that's one of a few of the fundamental problems with the whole situation, right?

On an emotional level I suppose you could say, I completely agree with you. Cable TV and the ISPs are rather miserable and in a world where a better alternative existed, then down with their disaster of a system. But as of now, we do not live in that world and nothing is going to change that anytime soon.

The best case scenario in the mid-term is someone like Apple getting handed the keys to control the design and feel of the interface and maybe if we're really exceedingly lucky, there won't be an added charge to use the Apple TV as a cable box.

This outcome isn't going to change anytime soon. Why? The ISPs have their own competing services for delivering content. The studios have bundled contracts for content and they're not going to want to give those up to go a la carte anytime soon. And while there are legitimate options for those wanting to get rid of their cable TV subscription and go a la carte for most content right now, sports fans are still colossally out of luck.

The cable companies have exclusive agreements with the major sports leagues that cause blackouts for the paying season pass holders when trying to watch games in their local market. If I want to get rid of my cable TV and watch Detroit Red Wings hockey in Detroit, I can't just buy the NHL season pass and go on my merry way, because most if not all live broadcasts of local games will be blacked out. Same with the other sports. Fans of out of market teams hold a distinct advantage in these scenarios, but they're the minority. Until this changes and season pass subscriptions for sports can be used anywhere freely without restrictions, cable companies or should I say TV service providers in general are going to have a major hold over a considerable segment of the market.

I don't like it at all, and it irritates me to no end, but it is what it is. Many might think Apple would be shooting too low trying to partner with the cable companies, but at this point in time, it's the only reasonable option if there's any hope of running our entertainment lives solely off of Apple TV with Apple-designed interfaces. I hope that this won't be the case forever, but I'd be shocked if anything major changed even 5-10 years out unless the government were to step in and shake up the system by force, which would surprise me.

There are just too many big players in this mess that are doing all they can to avoid acknowledging where this is all eventually going. Again, I have no doubt we'll get to a point where there's a system that we'll generally like much more than the one that exists now, but it's going to be a long, slow, grueling and utterly and completely frustrating crawl to get there, and it's likely to get worse before it gets better as the studios and ISPs do all they can to fight for the system that's made them rich for this long.

If Apple can figure out a way to make the transition a little more bearable for some of us by partnering with them, I'm all for it. It's a foot in the door, and it'll get more people thinking differently about the way they get their content, paving the way towards a better system.
 
Apple and Comcast are absolute opposites. I can't imagine them ever collaborating on anything without Comcast completely screwing it up.

I know many people hate comcast, but I have had them 3 or 4 separate times in different cities and have no serious issue with them. They aren't perfect, but I don't think perfection is a fair expectation from a telecom. Their service is generally fast, reliable, and as-promised. The rates are high, but welcome to the US TV/internet market. I've had FiOS during the in-between times, and I see them as roughly equal and both quite good (though admittedly expensive).
 
I was hoping Apple would work directly with studios to bring contents to consumers without the middleman. We really need a change in distribution of contents and working with a distribution company wouldn't like to bring anything new to the market. Plus Comcast is one of the worst cable companies out there.

I don't like any of the ISPs, but I've had a few of them, and while I thought leaving Comcast would be a joyful day, I couldn't wait to switch back. No one has been able to touch Comcast's speeds for the price in my area, and in general, I just get a lot more for my money with Comcast. Most importantly, I get Internet that's nearly twice as fast (57mbps down, 11mbps up consistently on any speed test at any time of day) as Wow or ATT offer in my area in a bundle that even after the 1st year discounts expire is still significantly cheaper than the other providers if I skip the HD-DVRs and premium channels with them, though I still have them with Comcast.

But...

It's still Comcast, and I find that I hate myself a little whenever I talk about them because it sounds like I like them, but I can assure, it's a lesser of several evils situation, and it's largely due to the fact that competition has increased in my area. And while Wow, wasn't terrible, their interfaces were archaic, there online features were archaic or non-existent, and their service, while never really bad, was never really good, and I found myself needing it more with WOW than I did with Comcast, at least for Internet. ATT was and based on neighbors stories still is the worst in every way, shape and form.

But let's be honest here: if Apple is going to be able to market the Apple TV as a cable box replacement successfully, they're going to be working on deals with all the biggest players. If they can get the biggest ones to sign on first, it'll be much easier to get everyone else to play ball.

And again, like I said above, it's probably the best and most reasonable option for a fully-featured Apple TV solution to exist in the near future, and they know as well as anyone that it'd just be the first step of many made before we evolve to a more free and open content distribution system where we pay for what we want and stream it over dumb pipes.

But don't forget, if that ever happens, barring government regulation, all that will end up happening is that the ISPs will jack up the price of Internet service and perhaps move to a tiered system like the cellular companies have for data packages.

Nothing is easy in this industry...
 
Really? Because last I checked, cable was over $100 in my area and I'm paying less than $40 a month total for Netflix, Hulu Plus and whatever TV and movies I buy/rent from iTunes. The few things I watch live at the time of broadcast I catch via DTV antenna (free).

How much do you pay for internet access?
 
What I want from Apple TV

I want to be able to pick and choose what cable channels I want. Frankly, there are only half a dozen that interest me. And I want to be able to bypass a cable box and directly stream cable channels using Apple TV.
 
I'm not sure I understand everyone's complaints.

I have Comcast for my Internet but I do not have cable with them.

If this deal happens, it sounds like even if Internet is slow, they are going to give them a separate "flow" of bandwidth that will provide a higher quality streaming experience on my AppleTV.

You're assuming Comcast will get its way and force us to subscribe to their TV service. Why aren't you assuming that Apple will get it's way and not require you to purchase the Comcast service? Does Apple need Comcast or does Comcast want Apple? If Comcast's services through Apple's box is a fee, couldn't it be an optional fee?

Doesn't it seem more likely that Apple will want their box with users having the option to subscribe to Comcast from Apple's superior interface ("they broke the code") with Comcast getting a subscriber and Apple getting a cut? (And Comcast not needed to supply the box)

Gary

Comcast holds the key to delivery. Apple needs Comcast more. Why would Comcast lose revenue to give Apple a good deal when Apple will be taking their customers? And Comcast has to deliver the content to your home making less than if they did it on their own. Don't you think that internet access rates would rise to compensate for this?

----------

I want to be able to pick and choose what cable channels I want. Frankly, there are only half a dozen that interest me. And I want to be able to bypass a cable box and directly stream cable channels using Apple TV.

Using the cable companies delivery system and paying Apple instead of them. I would expect an internet access rate increase from the cable company to compensate for their lost revenue.
 
AT&T was the first cell phone to get the iPhone because they bought Cingular. Verizon originally told Apple to take a hike with the iPhone until they saw the long lines at AT&T.

Now TimeWarner cable was in talks with Apple about iTV. Comcast is buying TimeWarner and is now in talks with Apple. Verizon may be left out again. They bought some technology from Intel.

Oh ok. I must of misunderstood your statement. lol
 
Apple has been negotiating with the ISP's and entertainment industries for, what seems like, forever. Unless Apple can show them a way to make more profit, neither industry has any real use for Apple. With Comcast being an ISP and a media company, they have even less need of Apple. If Apple finds a way to drive more cash in their pocket, the negotiations will move forward. Til then :(
 
We all want the cable companies to suffer and yet still die a quick death but we have to be realistic. We're not getting a la carte content everywhere for $49.99. If Apple can disguise the terrible cable box UI, give live, dvr and iTunes content all in one interface, and not increase the overall cable bill by too much, they've already done what no one else could do. I'm willing to pay the the same or more for an Apple cable experience. I think cord cutters will never go back. Too much pride and possibly savings.

Pride, no. Savings, yes. I got a Triple Play two-year contract with Comcast for $127 per month, which was reasonable. After the two years ended, the monthly bill gradually crept up to $220 over the next year. I didn't need the land line phone, but not having it wasn't an option. I was ready to cut the cable, but Frontier (which bought out Verizon's FiOS network in my area) offered me the same cable TV and Internet package, with no land line and no contract, for $79 per month. That will increase to $99 after six months, and then to $120 for the second year. After that, if the rate goes up, I'll cut the cable and switch to their slowest high-speed Internet service for $30 per month (Comcast charges $70 per month for the same speed, if you only want Internet from them).

I was potentially interested in whatever Apple might offer, but, realistically, I don't expect it to be cheap. If they indeed plan to work through Comcast but offer a better user experience, then I'm guessing they'll charge more than Comcast. If that's the case, then I definitely won't be interested. There's more than enough good stuff for me to watch on over-the-air TV, Netflix, and various other Internet sources. Yeah, it would be inconvenient not having everything available through a common interface, and I wouldn't have access to all the cable TV content I currently watch, but I don't watch enough TV to justify paying more than $120 per month.

That's just me, though. I'm curious as to what other people would be willing to pay for a "better cable TV experience" through Apple, and what "better" would mean to you. For the record, I don't think an inexpensive a la carte model (e.g., $2 per channel) is realistic, for reasons that have been explained in other threads. Let's assume that Apple iTV would be at least as expensive as Comcast, but better -- unless you can come up with compelling reasons why it might be cheaper.
 
Really? Because last I checked, cable was over $100 in my area and I'm paying less than $40 a month total for Netflix, Hulu Plus and whatever TV and movies I buy/rent from iTunes. The few things I watch live at the time of broadcast I catch via DTV antenna (free).

Your cable is kind of a rip off! We pay $109 for cable and internet from charter. 30Mb/sec down, 3Mbsec up. And I watch an insane amount of Netflix and internet video. Plus all the netflix the kids watch. Never a bandwidth cap. For$100 you better get all the premium channels!

----------

You folks want to save serious cash? Get off the expensive $40-50/mo telephone services! I've got a magicjack plus for $30 a year. A year. Yes a year. It works just as good as Vonage ever did.
 
So I assume the cost of this service is going to be at least as expensive as a cable tv subscription is now, right? Comcast not only needs to make their money, they need to pay Apple a cut (30%?) on top of that. So this plan is just basically Comcast cable running through an Apple TV, for the same jacked up price or more? Plus, you'll need to start worrying about your monthly data caps streaming all that video. How is that in any way compelling for anyone? I don't get it.

Cox just upped my cable bill to $91 a month (not including internet) and would not let me change plans...ever. They would let me drop HBO and/or a sports package I have, except I wouldn't pay any less because dropping those would void some "discount" I was supposedly getting for having them. Basically I was trapped into that plan forever, for whatever they decided they wanted to change me. So I dropped it. I'll miss some of the shows, but at $91 a month I figured I could BUY more than 30 entire season series of shows on iTunes at $35 each (way more than I actually watch), every year, if I wanted to. The only things I'm missing are live playoffs (I can get subscriptions for NBA, MLB, and NFL regular seasons) and HBO, but the extra cost just doesn't nearly justify it.
 
Compare this with Google's approach

Google is building its own network while Apple is trying to do ... hell, I have no idea what they are trying to do. Improve a set top box?
 
It seems to me like Apple is simply putting out another set-top cable box like Cisco or Scientific Atlanta, but with Apple's own UI. If it doesn't have a DVR function then I don't want it. If it doesn't have PLEX support. I don't want it. If it doesn't do games, I don't want it. I already have an OTA antenna with about 60 channels and someday I'll take the leap and dump my cable TV but not just yet.
 
Apple really should build their own fiber-optic network and get it done with.

It's ridiculous that Apple is held hostage by such a known quantity like IP networking.

They have $150 billion. That's enough to wire up every household in America if they wish with a 100Gbps fiber optic line.

And, Apple knows that they can control their own fate if they can control the connection - no need to negotiate for control of a set-top box with thirty different cable providers.

Google knows this, which is why they're building their own network.

Apple needs to do the same.

Like the Alan Kay quote, "People serious about software should make their own hardware," people serious about hardware should make their own network.
 
Last edited:
This has the potential news to be great news. TWC is seriously one of the worst cable companies out there, so for many under their wings are extremely happy to possibly have better service.

All that said, Apple doesn't want to deal with the infrastructure of delivering their service, but would be happy to be first in line for delivery of their and their constituent's services.

This is a step in the right direction.
 
Apple really should build their own fiber-optic network and get it done with.

It's ridiculous that Apple is held hostage by such a known quantity like IP networking.

They have $150 billion. That's enough to wire up every household in America if they wish with a 100Gbps fiber optic line.

And, Apple knows that they can control their own fate if they can control the connection - no need to negotiate for control of a set-top box with thirty different cable providers.

Google knows this, which is why they're building their own network.

Apple needs to do the same.

I've been thinking along the same lines, but I would try to go wireless and acquire an existing infrastructure, buy Verizon (if you can afford it, market cap is $194B) or maybe Sprint ($36B). Network is already mostly there, no physical lines to run. Sell off all the crap you don't need, which is probably most of the company, like all the stores, office buildings and real estate, sales and marketing teams, stadium and race car sponsorships, etc.) to recoup a big chunk of the acquisition cost.

Then start selling wireless service for iOS devices and possibly even non-iOS devices, and home service. If they could sign up 30M customers at an average of $60 per month, that's $22B per year, to start. No doubt Apple could make the plans cheaper, more useful, and less infuriating than they currently are. I realize this would be US-only at first and there would be regulatory hurdles, but you have to start somewhere.
 
This is a win-win in my eyes as long as you can still buy an Apple TV without Comcast. Cord cutters will get a new and improved Apple TV while people with cable (like me) will be able to get the DVR they've been waiting for since... forever.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.