Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You do realize you get over 20 stations with TWC for $20 and over 70 for $40. Why would I pay $40 on ATV to get 25???
.

Because those prices aren't accurate or truly all inclusive.

For starters, the $20 and $40 are for first time subscribers. You didn't include the rate jumps after the 12 and 24 month mark.

Second, you're missing all the equipment costs. And that to me is the biggest reason to cut TWC/DirecTV/etc. It's not the channel costs, it's the damn equipment costs. I spend $70 on DirecTV now (could spend less). But that's just the channels. Add in a DVR, equipment fee, HDTV access, it adds another $30 a month.

TWC it's $25 a month for the DVR (and no one can live without one now), and $11.25 per box additional (3 more boxes for bedrooms? $33.75 additional).

I'm hoping and praying that Apple has a subscription service, and either offers a cloud like service (like Sony/Playstation) or a DVR. Because this equipment rental or even access fees is ridiculous. It's not the channel costs, it's the ancillary costs to your house that kills it.
 
I believe strongly that within 18 months a subscription to an Apple TV service will be an essential purchase for anyone who wants to enjoy the very best content in their homes. These are exciting times for both Apple and consumers alike.

This requires all live sports streaming (ESPN, CBS, FOX, in-market regional MLB games.....) to be supported without having to deal with blackout rules.

Otherwise, too many people will be stuck with cable. Myself included.
 
Looks like Apple just wants to collect a cost-free grift as middle-man between consumer and producer.
 
So, are you streaming live TV or is it a netflix-like experience? Live TV already exists, so if that is the case, I don't see what innovation has been introduced other than cutting out one middleman (cable provider) for another (apple).
 
I hope Apple can succeed and find a way to distribute content and change the industry.
Also, it's a major thing the option to get live sports. I can't cut the cable until that is a reality.

Sling TV gives you ESPN & TNT. It's somewhat a reality.
 
Because those prices aren't accurate or truly all inclusive.

For starters, the $20 and $40 are for first time subscribers. You didn't include the rate jumps after the 12 and 24 month mark.

Second, you're missing all the equipment costs. And that to me is the biggest reason to cut TWC/DirecTV/etc. It's not the channel costs, it's the damn equipment costs. I spend $70 on DirecTV now (could spend less). But that's just the channels. Add in a DVR, equipment fee, HDTV access, it adds another $30 a month.

TWC it's $25 a month for the DVR (and no one can live without one now), and $11.25 per box additional (3 more boxes for bedrooms? $33.75 additional).


This, except I don't need or want a DVR. If it isn't On Demand, I am not watching it.

People trying to compare Apple's rumored service to existing TV services are a little silly. A large family's equipment rentals alone could cause as much or more than Apple's service.

Plus, something I haven't notice anyone mention yet is that you can most likely cancel Apple's TV service relatively easy, without disconnection charges, and then turn it back on when you want. Something that is not easy to do with other providers.

Cancel during the off season months, resume when you favorite shows are on.

And for HBO, get it long enough to watch Game of Thrones plus some other stuff for like 2 months, and cancel the subscription until next season...
 
What about the these benefits of faster CDN' Apple provided?

If Apple wants a streaming service, why must they wait for content providers to 'host' them... ?

Apple knows how nasty it is to get licensees anyway unable to get, but Apple somehow seems to manage based on their business 'renting' model, so if Apple wants to step this up, do the right thing, and host it yourself..

That way you cut out the middle man u only have to wait for licenses, not content, and it will quicker to deliver for Apple themselves. The only disadvantage would probably be cost and infrastructure.

But no delays.. Does Apple wanna keep their customers happy ? of course they do.
 
The real issue for most consumers is bandwidth and data caps for their ISP. Many will need to expand their Internet service to make this work, and that may cost more than the Apple costs.

It is amazing to me how many people miss this point.
 
Although I wish Apple would roll out a service similar to Google Fiber. I think those folks are paying $30-$40/month for Gigabit fiber service in their homes.

Then you could cut out the cord AND the evil cable companies. (I'm looking at YOU Comcast.)

I don't watch much TV. Not **** on. Currently have a basic cable package with Comcrap + 100mb (theoretical) high speed internet. As soon as March Madness is over (TBS), I'm removing TV from my package. Which won't dramstically effect my bill. But any dollar I'm not giving Comsuck is a dollar I'm not giving Comsuck.

In the meantime, I have been testing an HD antenna on a bedroom flatscreen and it offers crystal clear HD for all mainstream U.S. stations (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, PBS, etc.). That + Apple TV + Netflix + HBO Now + a fictitious ESPN Now option = a pretty satisfied customer. Not because I'm saving money, which unlikely won't be, but because I won't be giving it to Suckcast. And still only getting what I want.

As much I steer clear of google, their fiber is tempting. And any dollar I'd be giving them for insane up/down speeds is a dollar I'm not giving Crapcast. But their roll out - like most things google (save search & maps) - seems to have fizzled. More roadblocks for it to continue development.
 
1) Offer streaming TV service
2) Have content providers do all the work
3) Sit back and relax
4) Profit!

They are brokering a deal with the Stations to get content in front of people, not actually running the service themselves are they?

Sky have iPlayer content on their systems, but it comes from the BBCs CDNs rather than Skys, I think that would be the same here.

iPlayer outside of the UK is subscribed, Apple deal with the subscription, while the content is again provided by the BBC Worldwide's CDNs.

It's another portal.

I don't see what the issue is here.
 
To be honest if providers are able to stream a show, I see no reason why we should pay, if the show includes commercials (looking at you hulu paid tier). If this does happen from Apple (TV Service) I don't want to pay for a service, then be hampered with adverts while watching...

It is bad enough we have that problem with cable tv now.
 
As usual Apple lagging behind!!!!

I'm an Apple product owner of all their products, but I have to say that they are always behind the 8 ball.

I'll keep my Sling TV and Fire Stick. I cut the cord and it's all working great without Apple. If their watch is crap, I may leave and go to Android where you have many options.
 
To be honest if providers are able to stream a show, I see no reason why we should pay, if the show includes commercials (looking at you hulu paid tier). If this does happen from Apple (TV Service) I don't want to pay for a service, then be hampered with adverts while watching...

It is bad enough we have that problem with cable tv now.

Not sure that's going to happen. The money gained from subscriptions cannot offset the costs of production of the tv shows. That's where the real/big money is.

Just like newspapers and magazines don't really make (a lot) money from subscriptions, it's all in the advertising.
 
They are brokering a deal with the Stations to get content in front of people, not actually running the service themselves are they?

Sky have iPlayer content on their systems, but it comes from the BBCs CDNs rather than Skys, I think that would be the same here.

Sky actually do distribute iPlayer content through their CDNs, but it's an exception that proves the general rule (the BBC distribute the content to Virgin TIVO boxes themselves for example).
 
If rumors are correct, the TV service / new Apple TV will be announced at WWDC but launch September / October to give devs time to develop their apps for the Apple TV.

Why is time needed for developers to develop apps for a streaming service provided by big networks? This is two different things here. Yes there is a tendency to announce things and release them later in the fall after WWDC to allow time for development of new apps but if agreements aren't in place by the time of the announcement at WWDC, they'll likely put it on hold instead. They aren't going to say "We hope to have a streaming video service with the big networks by the time it's released if we can work things out which has been taking us several years so far. We'll see if it happens in time but you might have to wait."

Remember that this developer accessible Apple TV has been rumored since iOS 2.0 came out in 2008 first giving developers access to create new apps. It's been rumored over and over and over again for the past 7 years and it wouldn't be surprising if we had to wait a bit longer.
 
Not sure that's going to happen. The money gained from subscriptions cannot offset the costs of production of the tv shows. That's where the real/big money is.

Just like newspapers and magazines don't really make (a lot) money from subscriptions, it's all in the advertising.

Yeah, but in the case of the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc) we can watch shows over the air for free, all we get commercials in that case. Why should Internet TV be any different?
 
Yeah, but in the case of the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc) we can watch shows over the air for free, all we get commercials in that case. Why should Internet TV be any different?

I don't understand the point you're making. And I don't want to misinterpret - can you clarify?
 
Are data caps by ISPs really widespread now? I've never encountered anyone who has one.

They're common in the U.S. My tier is capped at 250 GB, but even with all of the streaming I do, I rarely go over 100 GB.
 
You do realize you get over 20 stations with TWC for $20 and over 70 for $40. Why would I pay $40 on ATV to get 25???

I agree, Apple shouldn't be streaming the content. Apple should just provide the interface to do so.

This.

Most folks who clamor for getting rid of cable don't realize they are getting a lot of content for a much smaller fee than if they had to get them individually.
 
This.

Most folks who clamor for getting rid of cable don't realize they are getting a lot of content for a much smaller fee than if they had to get them individually.

Well what's' also amusing is the complaint is that there's a tons of stuff they don't want so they should be able to choose.

But the flip side is - if they do choose, they will get less for the same or more cost.

Personally, I'd rather have tons of extra channels - even if I might not watch them regularly or only only once and have a lower/same cost than not.

Of course, I'm not the audience because I don't really watch a lot of tv. Only broadcast, and we cut the cord about 2 years ago. Broadcast, Tablo, Roku and Apple TV (for iTunes rentals) works great for us.
 
I don't understand the point you're making. And I don't want to misinterpret - can you clarify?

Basically unless you are talking about channels like EPSN, the channels one should be able to get OTA should be free if streamed with commercials. I don't think channels like ESPN should have commercials if you are paying for them, but then again, I understand that is a losing proposition.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.