Profound? That's a bit much. More convenient and elegant, yes. But FF is hardly manual labor compared to skipping. Personally I prefer FF b/c sometimes there is a promo or ad that piques my interest.
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 Negotiating With Cable Companies and Networks to Allow Viewers to Pay to Skip Commercials
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Profound? That's a bit much. More convenient and elegant, yes. But FF is hardly manual labor compared to skipping. Personally I prefer FF b/c sometimes there is a promo or ad that piques my interest.
This is where the loss of Jobs really hurts
As the head of Pixar and not just Apple, Steve Jobs was seen by the entertainment/content industry as one of them. That is my opinion is one reason why Jobs was so successful negotiating concessions for services such as iTunes that previously no other service could achieve.
Tim Cook as only the head of Apple is not a part of the entertainment/content industry. He is to them the enemy.
As the head of Pixar and not just Apple, Steve Jobs was seen by the entertainment/content industry as one of them. That is my opinion is one reason why Jobs was so successful negotiating concessions for services such as iTunes that previously no other service could achieve.
Tim Cook as only the head of Apple is not a part of the entertainment/content industry. He is to them the enemy.
You really think it's the cable companies driving up the programming costs? Yeah, that's exactly how the networks like it. The networks constantly try to drive up subscriber fees for content...and bundle channels into tiers so you can get 6 channels you probably won't watch to pay for the one that you do. When ESPN/ABC comes back for an extra 30% each contract negotiation to pay for the obscene sports right fees...that goes straight to your bill. But when it goes up, everybody blames the cable company...not ESPN/HBO, etc.
(Now I will say they have a nice racket going with equipment rentals - but that's a different story altogether.)
I agree with some of the posts here.What I can't is some type of a la carte cable service. My TV is 10 years old and I've been holding out for the rumored iTV, but can't wait any longer. If I do see concrete evidence by Thanksgiving, I'll be looking at the Samsung and Sony TV's for Christmas.
That makes no sense. Why would product costs go up when they are forced to spend less on stupid ads?
I realize the high cost is because of the sports channels. That's why I got rid of my cable company. I was paying them astronomical fees to subsidize ESPN and HBO etc. and the only thing I ever watched was History/Discovery. I understand that. But the cable companies were still the ones taking my money.
That is completely incorrect. ESPN is quite hated in the 'community' for its overpricing and other crap business garbage. Also, the biggest cable companies have merged with the biggest networks, they are the same companies, now.
I already purchase everything I enjoy watching from iTunes ad free.
Have not had cable/satellite for over two years.
Saved me a small pile of cash.
Have not had cable/satellite for over two years.
Saved me a small pile of cash.
Most people nowadays DVR their shows, and FF through all the ads for free. But advertisers still pay for the ad. Are u saying that even this will hurt us in the end?
*The typical US TV hour is 30% ad time (!!!).*
For those who traditionalists (Mad Men of macrumors) who think that everything revolves around advertising, I've got some news for you. Not always, and not often. Marketing exists to sell products that can't sell themselves. Sure, products need publicity or an occasional 30-second "awareness" spot. But current trends in marketing are just deplorable, and not only do people want to skip them, but marketing is a major expense to companies. The pharmaceutical industry is just one example (glorified drug dealers?). And do those ads work? Have you decided Verizon had convinced you to get a DROID?
The fact that Apple--probably the company best positioned to take on this archaic cable TV design--should be good news to all. I'd like to also mention that in many countries outside the US, if you have cable you don't usually have ads. If you do, they're max 1 minute or so.
Look at Hulu!
Let Microsoft TV have all the ads. Let Google TV have banner ads...whatever! The typical US TV hour is 30% ad time (!!!).
For those who traditionalists (Mad Men of macrumors) who think that everything revolves around advertising, I've got some news for you. Not always, and not often. Marketing exists to sell products that can't sell themselves. Sure, products need publicity or an occasional 30-second "awareness" spot. But current trends in marketing are just deplorable, and not only do people want to skip them, but marketing is a major expense to companies. The pharmaceutical industry is just one example (glorified drug dealers?). And do those ads work? Have you decided Verizon had convinced you to get a DROID?
The fact that Apple--probably the company best positioned to take on this archaic cable TV design--should be good news to all. I'd like to also mention that in many countries outside the US, if you have cable you don't usually have ads. If you do, they're max 1 minute or so.
Look at Hulu!
Let Microsoft TV have all the ads. Let Google TV have banner ads...whatever! The typical US TV hour is 30% ad time (!!!).
So you're suggesting that Apple break up the cable "monopoly" by creating their own monopoly? Brilliant.
I would rather subscribe to my favorite shows as separate "channels" than bother remembering which channel number, station, or network they happen to air on. Who cares if its ABC, CBS, NBC, WB, Fox, etc.? I just want to watch my show. Instead of an icon that said "CBS", it would just be "TBBT," and you could just buy, stream, download, delete, and re-download them at will.
I would buy some TV through iTunes if it were more affordable.
Right now, I just watch whatever is on Netflix and download the occasional "FREE" pilot episode of new series from itunes to see if they might be interesting.
I would watch more Hulu, but they only support flash (which doesn't work on iPad) and I'm not paying for their Hulu+ service if they continue to show commercials. (do they show commercials on the Apple TV also?)
Last edited:
So if consumers stop watching commercials, why would anyone buy commercials? And if no one is buying commercials, doesn't that mean I do not pay for the cost of advertising when I buy a product? Doesn't the producer of the product have an incentive to pass the savings on to me?
Can't I use the money I don't spend on being advertised at to pay not to be advertised at? Then my time wouldn't be wasted with advertising right?
Isn't that the part of the feedback loop you left out?
There are plenty of browsers available that allow you to watch/use flash websites on iPad/iPhone. I use Puffin, and Hulu is just fine on my iPad.
<<<I would watch more Hulu, but they only support flash (which doesn't work on iPad) and I'm not paying for their Hulu+ service if they continue to show commercials. (do they show commercials on the Apple TV also?)[/QUOTE]
<<<I would watch more Hulu, but they only support flash (which doesn't work on iPad) and I'm not paying for their Hulu+ service if they continue to show commercials. (do they show commercials on the Apple TV also?)[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
You can't downvote stuff anymore.
----------
So do I, but that's because I'd be playing SSBM on my TV's RCA input during that 1 hour
----------
"Viewers could potentially pay Apple to skip commercials on a per show or per channel basis". Of course, this is a "potentially" true statement, but I think it will actually be this way. Someone has to pay for this, and Apple probably isn't going to pay the cable providers for all those users.
----------
Haha, true.
That's pretty much how it would be, but at least Apple would give us the Apple TV instead of a really crappy box. I hate FiOS's cable box; ours broke 3 or 4 times I think. It self-destructs if you use it with a non-HDCP-compliant TV too many times and has this ridiculous requirement where you NEED to use the FiOS router someone on your LAN for it to work at all!
I've been without cable in the past and am right now because the box is broken. Antenna TV is fine if you can get good reception.