I would say DVR and Cable will ALWAYS be preferable to Internet Only services. You can easily fastfoward over commercials, you can fast forward/ rewind without getting stuck in Buffering Heck. Not only that but you don't have to rely on a shaky Internet Connection to watch TV.
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 Planning to Launch Streaming TV Service Featuring ABC, CBS, Fox and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would say DVR and Cable will ALWAYS be preferable to Internet Only services. You can easily fastfoward over commercials, you can fast forward/ rewind without getting stuck in Buffering Heck. Not only that but you don't have to rely on a shaky Internet Connection to watch TV.
So your plan is that everyone in the U.S. who wants TV spends $20 per month instead of $80. So what happens when revenue into the TV industry is dropped by 75%? Oh wait, I think you are also asking for ad free. So you are really talking about dropping the revenue by 95%. Do you think the only outcome of that is that some cable company executive gets a smaller bonus?
With such little revenue coming in, it might be the end of TV as we know from a quality perspective. Maybe they drop all the dramas and even the sitcoms and make the entire program cheap reality TV so they can cut production costs.
I'm hoping for something BETTER than cable. But I don't think it will be radically cheaper than cable.
Netflix is creating their own original shows. So yes, it is possible to pay less and still get original shows.
You need to offer what the customer wants and they'll buy it + more revenue.
TV revenue ( including advertising ) is dropping and will keep dropping. The end of the traditional cable package is slowing coming to an end.
People no longer want to spend $80 on 100 channels of crap they'll never watch.
You need to offer what the customer wants and they'll buy it + more revenue.
TV revenue ( including advertising ) is dropping and will keep dropping. The end of the traditional cable package is slowing coming to an end.
People no longer want to spend $80 on 100 channels of crap they'll never watch.
Last edited:
What, no KitchenSinkTV? (No disrespect to Food Network, HGTV, etc. I wouldn't rent a package that *didn't* include them.) No NBC is a major fail if that comes true, though.
*I* am not assuming that the reporting is complete and accurate, but I'm just waiting to see how totally blown out of proportion this gets. After all, it is Apple, and it is an eyeball-catcher, more especially when viewed outside the context of MacRumors, which is, after all, a site about Mac and *rumors*.
Presumably this would come with on-demand access and a back library for each channel (using CBS' streaming service as an example). With an over the air antenna, you get what they're showing right now, or you have to throw additional hardware at the problem to record and store it for later viewing.
Now, for some channels, the "live" feed is really the only one that matters - news and sports, for example - but for entertainment programming, time-shifting has become the preferred method for many. The ability to watch older episodes on demand also allows people to get "caught up" on series that they might have missed out on when they started.
As for the cost... well, CBS's streaming service is priced at $5 or $6 per month. The bundle price seems reasonable using that as a guideline, if they're talking 25 channels. Personally, I'd prefer to see an ala carte option, because even paying more per channel, I might be able to pay less overall for the few channels I actually care about.
Dvr?
Any mention of a DVR-like function? I'd say about 80-90 percent of what I watch is DVR'd at this point - some cable, some over-the-air.
If I can have DVR functionality streamed to my iphone/ipad for that price, it'd rock. (Yes, I know Sling/Dish has this; I'm a Dish customer).
Any mention of a DVR-like function? I'd say about 80-90 percent of what I watch is DVR'd at this point - some cable, some over-the-air.
If I can have DVR functionality streamed to my iphone/ipad for that price, it'd rock. (Yes, I know Sling/Dish has this; I'm a Dish customer).
Kudos to Dish for Sling
"$30 to $40" sounds a whole lot like $40 to me, which is way to close to existing business models, especially if they can't guarantee the Comcast family. I love Apple (iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air, Apple TV), but kudos to Dish Network for beating Apple to the punch with Sling. I now have local channels OTA for free along with the assortment Dish offers for $20 per month. That's a reasonable price point for ESPN, ESPN 2, HGTV, Disney, ABC Family, TNT, TBS, AMC, CNN, and more.
I'm hoping for great things on this front from Apple, but I'll believe it when I see it.
"$30 to $40" sounds a whole lot like $40 to me, which is way to close to existing business models, especially if they can't guarantee the Comcast family. I love Apple (iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air, Apple TV), but kudos to Dish Network for beating Apple to the punch with Sling. I now have local channels OTA for free along with the assortment Dish offers for $20 per month. That's a reasonable price point for ESPN, ESPN 2, HGTV, Disney, ABC Family, TNT, TBS, AMC, CNN, and more.
I'm hoping for great things on this front from Apple, but I'll believe it when I see it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I think even $5-6 isn't it for "commercial free". A few years ago I looked up total television commercial revenue for the year and compared that to census information about total number of U.S. Households. Divide one by the other and it suggested that replacing all of the revenue generated by the TV commercials would involve EVERY household in America paying $54 PER MONTH. All of these people whining for "commercial free" should be thinking that $54/month is the starting price for any "new model" replacement. And since not every household in America would want to (or could) jump on this "new model", I'd expect the starting price to actually be higher than $54.
And THEN we have to start paying for channels or shows, as the $54 is just replacing the subsidy.
Oh, and let's all just continue to ignore that it's generally the cable companies who would feel the pain of "Die <cable company> Die" cord-cutting, yet they also tend to be source of the broadband on which any such cable replacement model entirely depends. Why we imagine our internet bill would remain the same is way beyond me. It most certainly would not. Personally, if such a model ever comes to pass and the masses shift towards it, I expect the broadband bill to fully make up for the "losses" of the cable TV subscription revenues and then some... all under the banner of tiers for "higher bandwidth users" (sound familiar?).
If a Comcast was really hit so hard that "Die, Comcast Die" actually resulted in corporate death, the broadband they provide would die with them which means any replacement service dependent on their broadband would die too.
All these price recommendations for "everything I want" for a fraction of what "I pay now" would be the same as saying "I want all of the Apple hardware for 75%-95% off". One might say, "but Apple's margin means they would lose money with that kind of discount" which would apply to just about any other established business model too. If we consumers ever get "all we want" for 75%-95% less than we pay now, the quality of what will be produced new then should fall to youtube quality (productions that don't involve much in the way of paid talent like writers, professional actors, special effects, professional crew, etc).
There is no way to cut the cost the masses pay and kill off the commercial revenues too (which is a big subsidy paid for by other people mostly running commercials on channels you never watch) and expect the breadth & depth of new, high quality programming we do want to watch to keep on coming. Every one of these threads fills with this same stuff, thinking somehow that Apple can magically make the math work so that we get everything for nothing. Even Apple doesn't want 30% of near nothing.
Absolutely true. Just highlights the ridiculousness of the FCC allowing the Comcast and NBC merger to go through. While it's nice to see companies like Amazon and Netflix create their own content to fight off the media companies' attempts to thwart their growth, large, evil companies like Comcast having control over the production of media is bad. Very bad.
Some of you are just never satisfied.
No this is not a one size fits all service, pay TV providers already do that. There are people who only have broadband but no good access to OTA TV. This would fit those consumers.
And again with the ridiculous notion of getting entire channel of programming for $2.... WTF?!! Really??
Oh and true a la carte already exists: go to iTunes and buy only the content you want to see on Apple TV.
No this is not a one size fits all service, pay TV providers already do that. There are people who only have broadband but no good access to OTA TV. This would fit those consumers.
And again with the ridiculous notion of getting entire channel of programming for $2.... WTF?!! Really??
Oh and true a la carte already exists: go to iTunes and buy only the content you want to see on Apple TV.
I just had a curious thought: what if our iPhones are the Internet gateway of the future? What if ATT, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc., keep raising their data limits, increasing their speeds and moderating their costs? Then our mobile devices can become our ISPs through tethering.
IO haven't read through all the comments yet but the $30-40 price/month added to price for decent speed internet.
I am guessing the Data will be capped/throttled (as it seems to be currently with streaming via Comcast/Xfinity) and then I would probably be missing channels and no phone (maybe I could drop that now but still good to have)
I really do think that Internet providers should simply have ONE data "stream" to a house.
You Pay for the speed you want and get unlimited service, however each device you add on will slow things down...so, you add a phone and a few cable boxes or AppleTV Boxes and then add in a few smartphones and laptop and suddenly the speed you pay for is divided between those devices.
Charge me a flat fee and then add in a set price for Premium channels per month.
I am guessing the Data will be capped/throttled (as it seems to be currently with streaming via Comcast/Xfinity) and then I would probably be missing channels and no phone (maybe I could drop that now but still good to have)
I really do think that Internet providers should simply have ONE data "stream" to a house.
You Pay for the speed you want and get unlimited service, however each device you add on will slow things down...so, you add a phone and a few cable boxes or AppleTV Boxes and then add in a few smartphones and laptop and suddenly the speed you pay for is divided between those devices.
Charge me a flat fee and then add in a set price for Premium channels per month.
You are a bit off base on this one. I read this often but it is simply not a good comparison. At one point iTunes did allow for TV Rental but now you have to BUY. Most people will watch a season of a particular show and that is it. No need to watch it again so no need to BUY it. If they had a TV Rental for a reasonable price then I would agree with you. I.E. Similar to Renting vs. Buying a Movie. In this example the cost for Rental is about 25% of the cost of Buying. If I could Rent a season of a TV show for about 25% of the current cost to Buy then I would do it.