Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hmm. And yet, many people who do exactly that end up spending much less for entertainment than they were spending on cable.

My specific example: We dropped an $85/month DirecTV bundle (which had been grandfathered in over several years) in 2008 and went with Hulu+AppleTV+DVDs. Out the gate, we set our budget at $20/month. It was easy to stick to. We've added Amazon Prime (primarily for shipping) since then and changed Hulu to Hulu Plus (and gotten rid of the laptop sitting next to the TV in the mix), but still manage $30/month overall ($40 some months, but that is completely in our own control). This is a family of eight, with kids aged (now) 6 through 17 and the varied programming needs/desires to match.

The main strategy here is simple:

* Hulu is ad-supported and lower-quality streaming. Use it for the "B-tier" shows.
* iTunes is more expensive, but is also higher-quality and can be downloaded and watched anywhere at any time. Use it for "A-tier" shows.
* Past seasons for catch-up can often (but not always) be bought on DVD and ripped cheaper, or just watch them on Hulu/Amazon if available there.

If we want to budget a little less one month, we "skimp" and watch those shows on Hulu (or not at all and catch up later on).

We watch probably 80% of our content on Hulu. The remaining 20% goes to Apple for iTunes shows. This keeps us well under budget for our month-to-month entertainment costs, and still with a very healthy backlog of shows (more shows to watch than we have time to watch them, to be honest!)

The thing is, though, if we went to 100% iTunes (cutting out the Hulu Plus subscription), we still would be less than what that DirecTV subscription would cost us if we subscribed today ($125 was the last estimate based on their current packaging structure; $22/month * 5 is $110/month). At the very least, it is competitive. With our current setup, though, we are in control of how much we spend each month, rather than being locked in by the satellite or cable provider.

What you seemed to be asking for is hulu with iTunes slection, which by the way wouldn't be a la carte. Second the price of the streaming would go up due to many more networks being involved, last they would have to sign a new deal anyway since they don't have any rights to stream in which goes against the whole ideology of your original post of apple all ready having access to all this stuff.
 
And tell people "hey, don't buy an Apple TV for 7 months"?

Unless it turns out that the current model of Apple TV is capable of an OS update supporting apps, similar to how the iPhone 2G could be later updated to iPhoneOS 2.0, and thus still sold in the many months before 2.0 and the iPhone 3G was available in stores.
 
I don't trust TWC to do anything in the consumer's favor... more than likely it's just a TWC app just like the one on Xbox 360 which basically turns your Xbox (or Atv) into a Wifi Cable box. You'll still need to have service with TWC (and pay for TWC Cable Internet) but you just are able to rent fewer boxes from them. Which still equals out to a pricey cable bill no matter how you splice it.

If that that ISN'T the case and we are able to get TWC "cable service" and on demand videos and not pay their horrible rates then count me in... but I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
This was addressed to my fellow overweight couch potato Americans

Gotcha. It was unclear. It looked to be directed at me since you quoted me to make the point. Also, sure there are a lot of overweight folks out there. I DO agree with you that something should be done about this. Big business is constantly dreaming up new ways to plump us up. It's just gross. Here is the latest example.
http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydi...eleven-20140211,0,6048884.story#axzz2t9COMReE
 
I believe that "Complete My Season" is universal or nearly so. If you buy the first 2 episodes of a new show for $6 (HD) and the season is $35 (HD), then you can get the rest of the season for $29. The only hitch is that HD and SD versions are treated as different shows, so you can't, say, get the first episode as a free sampler in HD (iTunes used to do that a lot) then buy the second episode in SD and get the rest of the season pass in either SD or HD with both ep's discounted. But, that's not a very common scenario.

In my case, though, "new show discovery" tends to happen on Hulu or the network's online streaming player. There are exceptions where word of mouth has me convinced we'll want to get the show on iTunes (ex, Sherlock) and we jump straight there, but by and large Hulu is good for sampling a show.



Live sports is the classical "cut the cord" killer. There just isn't a good option there yet (other than "frequent more sports bars" ...)
Thanks for that info. I was not aware of "complete my season" option.

----------

I think many people don't realize that there is free HD OTA signal almost everywhere in The US.
I think you don't realize there are a lot of people that live on the fringe (or total lack) of signal and don't want (or can't) erect a giant antenna in order to receive distant signal. ;)
 
Or just change habits, and watch free 1080i OTA channels. You get local channels, plus NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX all in HD for $0.00/month. And everything else you can probably do something more useful than watching TV. Like reading a book, being with your family, playing board games with kids, getting some exercise, etc......


I always love it when people who've never met me feel they can tell me what is the best use of my time.
 
That would make a lot of sense if Apple was absolutely dying to provide access to Spokane's Channel 37. But, why the hell would Apple want to do that? People watch shows, not channels. Channels are a delivery mechanism. Shows are the content.

Apple already offers the shows a la carte. So, obviously, no big new licensing deal needed there. I would imagine if they wanted a "channel" arrangement they could provide a "get a season pass to all AMC's shows for $X" deal without having to renegotiate anything at all.

You are asking why Apple might want to take over a big part of the set top box market? Is this a serious question?

Apple only offers a la carte programming from the providers who make their programming available that way, and for the most part, it isn't the same programming sold to the cable providers, or it's an on-demand version of the programming customers are already paying for through their cable subscription (e.g., HBO Go). For a reason.

The reason is they already sell that programming to the cable providers, so they can't double-deal it to someone else in that market without being sued. This is precisely what happened when TWC released their iPad app a couple years back. Even though the app was locked down to a paying cable subscriber and could only be used in their own home, the content providers still demanded more money from TWC. It was a screen they hadn't authorized in their contracts with TWC, and that was what mattered to them.

So obviously, licensing is key to all of this. And that's even before you get into the massive pro sports broadcasting hairball. That one is basically not solvable.
 
Apple offers a la carte across all major networks already. If it is on TV tonight you can generally purchase the show tomorrow.

I don't understand the desire for a la carte channels. For that matter, I haven't cared about a channel for over five years and certainly haven't missed them. Why would I want to get, say, everything on AMC rather than just the show or two that I actually watch?

The desire to be able to watch a show at the same time as it airs rather than the next day ... maybe that's important for some people, but I find that "the day it airs" has just been shifted for me by 24 hours (or whatever the actual delay between broadcast and availability happens to be for the particular show). No one that I know who has a cable subscription still watches anything as it airs; they all Tivo and watch the next day anyway. So, I don't miss out on "water cooler conversation" in any case.

What I would like to see from Apple, in fact, is the exact opposite of a "support a la carte channels". Allow individual apps to be installed (either Apple does this as now, or an app store opens up), and allow them to "subscribe" to content. But, and this is the biggie that's missing: provide a single search and favoriting interface across all the apps in addition to the app-centric browse interface. If I want to watch American Horror Story, I should be able to go to one place and see the options available to me - Buy from iTunes, Season Pass from iTunes, stream from Amazon (oh yeah, that needs to be added too), stream with ads from Hulu Plus, etc.

The counter argument to this is "that would cut into Apple's content sales profits; never happen!" That's BS. Apple routinely cuts into its content sales profits. Apple is a hardware and software company. Unlike some of their competitors, Apple makes a profit (and a healthy one) from selling its hardware, AppleTV included. Having people using its hardware on its platform is a huge advantage for Apple, and almost as valuable as the entirety of the content sales business.

Besides which, Apple's content sales have many distinct advantages over the competition; they aren't just the "you didn't know better" store to go to. They are generally about the same price as Amazon (sometimes a little more, rarely a little less for season passes), but they allow local downloads and are higher quality. They are obviously more expensive than a subscription to Hulu Plus (assuming you watch more than a couple shows each month), but are much higher quality and without ads.

As often as I would go in and say, "Huh. I guess this is available on Hulu; I'll just watch it there," I would likewise go in intending to watch something on Hulu or Amazon and say "Ugh. I don't feel like the ads. Let's just buy this episode this time."

I don't care how Apple gets there. I suspect that keeping it a walled garden they would be able to get there much faster than if they open it up to all comers. And the fact that they haven't done it any time in the past several years leaves the unsavory impression that they just don't want to consolidate viewing and/or think they can "win" all content sales by shutting out "the competition". I'm hoping that's wrong, though. Apple has a lot to win by making the AppleTV the go-to interface and hub for all video content.

So true.

It seems everyone who wishes for a la carte tv have no clue just how expensive it would be. To get a clue, start purchasing all the shows you watch on itunes, Amazon...etc. then you will get a clue when you start to see when the cost add up.

Making quality TV shows costs a lot of money. Actors, directors, set designers, lighting engineers, make up artists, costume designers, permits for locations.....etc.... All go into the cost of each episode.

So for us to get a la carte, get ready to pay a **** tonne more money to watch your favorite shows. And deal with even more commercials, because that is the only way content providers can offset costs.
 
That would be very expensive, those networks make all their money from ads which a la carte doesn't have. A season to a show is like 40$, now add all those shows and networks a person wants, now add all those seasons those shows have since those networks play reruns since many people missed or just got into a show. Thats more than paying for cable with ease.

Nothing to do with ads, actually. Or very little. HBO (and many other) programs have no advertising, but you can't watch them without a cable subscription.

OTOH, the broadcasts of your local sports teams' games are loaded with ads, but you can't stream them live, or on demand, with or without ads. You can't stream them at all, in market.

----------

Hmm. And yet, many people who do exactly that end up spending much less for entertainment than they were spending on cable.

What most people don't realize is that half or more of their cable bills go to pro sports teams in their market area for the right to broadcast games in their market. So sure, you can go streaming if you want no local sports. Just understand you will get none. You will also get none of the local affiliates, unless you are lucky enough to get them on-air.
 
Announce in April with very ambitious claims and make cable subscriptions plummet, thus forcing cable companies into working out deals quickly for a holiday release after making SDK available for developers at WWDC in June. New device acts as a hub (and standalone device) for a household's current or new Apple TVs, so sales of current Apple TVs aren't really compromised. Massive excitement with further details at WWDC along with SDK for developers and beta of the iOS software running on it, and developers begin making their apps in time for the holiday release.
 
I always love it when people who've never met me feel they can tell me what is the best use of my time.

I just presented an alternative to paying $100+/month for watching TV. If you're fine with it, then that's cool! However, I know many people who've cut the cord and couldn't be happier. Over time, they no longer miss their so-called "favorite" channels and realize there are things even more enjoyable than watching TV. In other words, they found a better way to make "the best use of (their) time."
 
Apple TV needs a better UI. Perhaps a traditional guide?

are you kidding me?

1) cable tv guides are atrociously awful.

2) apple tv's UI poses no problems to me -- i move the focal point w/ the directionals, then push enter. i disable unwanted channels. whats the problem?
 
They will hit you with the iwatch after they fatten you up ;)

Ha

----------

I just presented an alternative to paying $100+/month for watching TV. If you're fine with it, then that's cool! However, I know many people who've cut the cord and couldn't be happier. Over time, they no longer miss their so-called "favorite" channels and realize there are things even more enjoyable than watching TV. In other words, they found a better way to make "the best use of (their) time."

Exactly

We fill that time working out

We don't even watch tv on most days!!!!
 
Or just change habits, and watch free 1080i OTA channels. You get local channels, plus NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX all in HD for $0.00/month. And everything else you can probably do something more useful than watching TV. Like reading a book, being with your family, playing board games with kids, getting some exercise, etc......

That is exactly what we have done. Along with those other channels, you get antenna-TV, me-TV, cozi-TV, etc... My family watches more of those that the regular channels.
 
They need to ditch the current antiquated remote with it's four axis and introduce a new era of touch screen remotes.
 
Bleh. If I wanted cable, I'll get cable with one of their boxes....

I have Apple TVs precisely because I do not want cable. I actually have TW, but only for internet.

I used to have HTPCs, then ATV, Roku, then Boxee, now back to Apple TVs.

I basically use it for Netflix. I also use it with iTunes for my NAS-stored media, but this is still a hassle: iTunes has to run on a computer and it keeps disconnecting from the ATVs virtually every day, requiring a restart of iTunes.

I also use ATV for photos and MOG, although photos are limited to iCloud, which is annoying, and MOG has to be run on an iPad and sent to ATV through AirPlay, which is also kind of annoying.

I am still looking. I have a Chromecast stick, although it's in a drawer: if it gets better, it will come out and replace ATV.
 
Long delay is most likely if they're planning to release a full blown set-top box for games to take on the PS4 and XBox. That would give the developers time to update their games. Sounds exciting if true.

----------

4K UI please Apple.

Why? What would you play on it? There's no 4K content in the iTunes Store and they're not going to go back to discs. Makes no sense.
 
are you kidding me?

1) cable tv guides are atrociously awful.

2) apple tv's UI poses no problems to me -- i move the focal point w/ the directionals, then push enter. i disable unwanted channels. whats the problem?

Good for you?
 
Which is why, I think, the nets are reticent to do this. They're likely facing enormous pressure from cable and satellite providers to keep their content as part of larger bundle that they can repackage.
Cable and sat providers actually don't like bundles (well, they like selling bundles, they just don't like paying for bundles). That was a big sticking point between Viacom and DirecTV a couple years ago. Viacom would only sell DirecTV its content as a package deal but DirecTV just wanted the big brands like MTV, Nickelodeon, etc.,). Ultimately Viacom won that argument.

Be that as it may, many execs still claim that they haven't found a way to properly "monazite" streaming. (I think a more likely explanation is that they haven't found a way to monazite it to their liking.)
I spent most of the mid-to-late 2000's working with original web content and the money just isn't comparable. The 1am time slot on a 2nd tier cable channel is significantly more valuable, in terms of what advertisers will pay, than a VOD web stream. If a popular show airs on Mondays at 8:30pm on channel XYZ there is an inherent scarcity of ad space (one block of time on one specific channel) which means you can charge more for it. The more viewers that tune in the more you can charge. On demand, and even live-simulcasting, fragments the audience and decreases the scarcity which reduces the value to advertisers.

The ratings system is evolving (slowly) to factor in streaming, DVRs, etc., so that all the 'eyeballs' are being counted (which is good), but audience fragmentation still drives ad revenue down.

For cable channels that don't have ads, like HBO, they still depend on ratings because that's how their worth is determined when it comes time to renegotiate their contracts with cable and sat providers. I'd love an HBOGO app that wasn't tied to a cable provider but I understand why HBO is hesitant to put one out. If they offered a stand alone app it would cannibalize there own ratings thus making them worth less to cable/sat providers. This is one reason why there is a one hour delay to watch a new episode of a show on HBOGO. IMO a stand alone HBOGO app would have to generate significantly more revenue (taking into account the loss of cable/sat revenue as well as DVD sales) for it to be worth the financial risk.


Producers are also very cognizant of how iTunes reduced the likelihood of consumers downloading entire albums, in favor of tracks a la carte. If people are purchasing shows a la carte, Networks run the risk of becoming irrelevant, as consumers can effectively purchase their content directly from the producers, which is essentially how Netflix has set up their model.

Networks are the ones that pay for shows to be made. When Production Company ABC has an idea for a show they'll pitch it to a TV or cable network. If they network likes it they will order a season's worth of episodes (if the show does well they'll order more episodes). This is part of what makes the TV game so much more complicated than the music game. People want to watch The Walking Dead but they don't want to pay for AMC even though AMC is foots the bill for the making of The Walking Dead. The channels that people want to cut out of the picture are the ones that pay for the shows to get made.


Netflix rarely works with content producers directly (it's first party content being the biggest exception). Netflix makes deals with cable channels, TV networks and movie studios to pay for the right to distribute their content via on demand steaming. So, for example, when Netflix wanted to get the rights to the TV show Lost they talked to ABC, not J.J. Abram's production company. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Streaming, iTMS (TV/movie side), etc., would not exist without TV shows and movies that were paid for by TV/cable networks and movie studios. This is why Netflix, Hulu and Amazon are all trying to create original programing because controlling your own IP can be much more lucrative (and stable) than distributing other people's IP.

Apple, on the other hand, wants to sell iDevices so they are more than happy to be a low-overhead, middleman that takes a 30% cut from each sale. I doubt they'll take on the risk of paying for content creation like Netflix et al. are.

'New media' is just 'old media' (paid for by the companies that are hip to hate) via a new delivery method.
 
This suggests Apple is trying to replicate the AT&T strategy that worked so well to kick off the iPhone. Offer exclusivity of the new AppleTV to Time Warner customers in exchange for Apple getting to sell iTunes movies/tv shows while TimeWarner gets subscriptions for live TV and Internet service.

Steve Jobs said that the impediment to selling set top boxes was that people already got free set top boxes with their provider. The solution is for Time Warner to subsidize the AppleTV and give them to every customer as part of their cable subscription instead of a standard set top box. AppleTV would gain a substantial foothold in the market and Time Warner would gain an advantage over other providers.

Apple could continue to sell the current AppleTV without DVR/live TV capabilities. If you want the latter, you get a TimeWarner subscription.

It's a good strategy although I'd prefer if Apple had used its massive cash reserve to pick up Netflix and then give TV channels the opportunity to get in on the AppleTV via dedicated apps.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.