Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Pushing Ahead with Plans for Subscription TV Service by Christmas?

Retina

troop231 said:
This makes no sense, a TV is viewed at a much farther distance than an iPhone or iPad, making current TVs "retina" already.
Click to expand...

So TV resolution should stay at 1080p forever just because you sit too far away? TV is nowhere near retina.
 
I hope Apple is successful. I've always thought TV packages were a stupid idea. Why should I pay an extra £5 a month for a sports package when I only want to watch one game and one set of highlights on one Saturday afternoon?

Or, why should I pay Sky between £25 and £53 a month when all I want is to watch the occasional Comedy Central, Comedy Central Extra, Sky 1 or GOLD. All the other channels I currently watch & enjoy are free.

I'm not paying £25 for 4 more channels. Good luck, Apple.
 
klrobinson999 said:
So does Apple want to create a full-scale TV or a set-top box?
Click to expand...

I would assume both, if Apple are smart and smart they are.

As much as I like and use many Apple products, I will not necessarily be going out and replacing my current ('content compatible') TV's just because Apple has released one. I think the reality of the premium pricing policy of Apple products will determine this, unless they plan to be aggressive in their pricing for a TV, as seen with the ATV2 & iPad (to gain market share). I would hope so, but am not holding my breath, because to be able to provide the best visual performance, surely they would need to beat Panasonic and Samsung?. Panasonic have eclipsed Samsung this year because the old Kuro Team (acquired from Pioneer) have had time to work and bear results. Do Apple yet have that kind of experience or infrastructure and do it on a budget?

I have been serenaded by LCD, LED & 3D and nothing so far has even provoked me to give a thought to replacing my Pioneer KRP600A Plasma set-up, which includes an ATV2.

Bottom line is not everybody can afford, or will go and buy an Apple branded TV, but many will go and buy an ATV type set-top box for £100. In the same way that most iPod, iPhone and iPad owners do not own a Mac. I think it will all boil down to content, content access, content pricing over hardware. iPads, iPhones and iPods are great, but iTunes is where the money gets made in the long game.... That's why they go ape when you Jailbreak...

However, I have been waiting to replace my 11 year old Panasonic TH-42PW4B, so I am hoping that they do 're-invent' TV, but with continued and equally supported (something Apple has decided not to do of late...) access from both set-top and integrated offerings.

Just saying....
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A406 Safari/7534.48.3)

not interested unless they suddenly convince the studios to rethink their business strategy. to rent a HD movie for 24 hours on demand is 6€ here, totally redic when u can get the dvd for 10 bucks.

we already have packages with "Sky" here. u can get the "movie" the "sports" the "lifestyle" etc package or combine them to your desire
 
Pay less? I doubt it

What strikes me about many of the comments here is the perception that a re-jigged, Apple controlled, TV package will somehow save 'subscribers' money.

Judging by the pricing of TV content in iTunes, I'd say we'll be spending more (collectively), but getting a better experience.
 
attila said:
I'd LOVE the idea of subscribing to only the channels you want.

I do not want to pay for channels I never watch. I don't want to pay for 10 channels.

I do not want to pay TV license when the only reason I own a TV is to watch DVDs and play video games.

I'd be happy to pay for BBC1 and BBC2 and Channel 4 individually (for example)
Click to expand...

The TV License doesn't cover BBC content. It's the right to receive live broadcast. BBC doesn't just make content, which not a lot of people know. They also invest in new technologies, such as fiber optic internet, and are currently providing free assistance with the digital switch-over.
 
so, Apple comes out with internet based subscription package, I cancel my Comcast Cable Television package. But then my Comcast cable internet data usage goes over the 250GB cap each month and Comcast bans me from their service for a year. Sounds like a nice little cluster F%*&. Thank you world.
 
Laird Knox said:
Exactly - imagine what TV would be like if people actually paid only for the shows they really enjoyed. I only want to watch two or three channels or maybe five or six shows. Why should I subsidize the other 250 channels?

Imagine having twenty out of twenty five good shows instead of twenty out of 650. Send the money to the good actors/writers/directors. ;)
Click to expand...

NCIS won't get any better if people pay for it directly... because frankly... people WON'T pay for it.

If NCIS disappeared off the TV lineup... and the only way people could watch it was to pay $3 an episode or $50 for the season... say bye-bye to NCIS. And it's the highest rated drama on television.

So that's what's wrong with purchasing individual shows... what about entire channels?

If you pay $100 a month for 200 channels... you won't be able to pay $10 a month for 20 channels. It's not gonna turn out like you want it to.

The issue is this: your monthly cable fee is a subscription to basically anything and everything on TV. Good channels and bad. Good shows and bad. And for the most part, people are happy to pay that.

There are some cord-cutters out there... but they are a minority.

BTW... you might only watch 5 or 6 shows... but I may watch 5 or 6 different shows. Now spread that across the entire country... and there's an audience for everything.

I never watched Rescue Me on FX... but apparently somebody watched it... it was on for 7 seasons.

Should I bitch and complain that I'm paying for Rescue Me even if I've never watched it? :)
 
thekeyring said:
The TV License doesn't cover BBC content. It's the right to receive live broadcast. BBC doesn't just make content, which not a lot of people know. They also invest in new technologies, such as fiber optic internet, and are currently providing free assistance with the digital switch-over.
Click to expand...

If we are paying a licence fee for the services you describe, how can anything that they offer or do for us be described as free?

Also any 'free' help with the 'switch-over' is being funded by a Government scheme for elderly and disabled, not by the fee's we (in the UK) pay the BBC.

According to the BBC's 2009–2010 Annual Report, its income can be broken down, as follows:

£3,446.8 million in licence fees collected from householders;

£888.3 million from BBC Commercial Businesses;

£293 million from government grants;

£112.9 million from other income, such as providing content to overseas broadcasters and concert ticket sales.

Therefore it would appear that anything that the BBC do is what they are being paid to do either by the fee paying licence holder, 'internal big business' (which would require any updates to be viable) or the government.
 
i think the cable companies need a few more years until more and more people start cancelling their subscripcions and start watching tv on the internet. then they may be willing to negotiate with apple. just like the music industry 10 years ago.

as long as people pay them all this money for crappy channels they dont feel any pressure. :mad:
 
SBlue1 said:
i think the cable companies need a few more years until more and more people start cancelling their subscripcions and start watching tv on the internet. then they may be willing to negotiate with apple. just like the music industry 10 years ago.

as long as people pay them all this money for crappy channels they dont feel any pressure. :mad:
Click to expand...

The thing about music is... all that really changed was where we bought it.

People used to buy songs on pieces of plastic from a store... now they buy songs from iTunes. But in the end... they're still buying songs.

With television... we pay the cable company for a subscription... and we get access to every show on TV.

But we've never paid for individual shows. I don't think most people will ever be ready for that... they're too used to the buffet.

I said this earlier: people watch Jeopardy... but would people PAY to specifically watch Jeopardy? No... they just watch it because it's on... and it's included in what they already pay.
 
I stopped paying for TV years ago. 250 Channels for $40+/mo. and I would only watch 2 channels because the rest were dreck. Ripoff. I've said for a long time that if I could get those two channels alone for $5 or $10 a month, I'd be in.

If we had per-channel pick-n-choose-n-pay, MANY stations would go down. Media would be rearranged and QUALITY would reign instead of "stuff to put on screen between commercials". It would also, if there are series' subscriptions, put effort back into the product rather than into a channel. I'd much rather support the artists than support a channel.
 
I just need an apple tv that clones my settopbox mac-address and allowes IPTV (i have fiber) channel selection / viewing AND recording to remote macbook storage.

No need to try and conquer cable / content providers. Just give me what I need damnit or else the new Zotac Zbox will get my money (very likely anyway).
 
wiimixer said:
What strikes me about many of the comments here is the perception that a re-jigged, Apple controlled, TV package will somehow save 'subscribers' money.

Judging by the pricing of TV content in iTunes, I'd say we'll be spending more (collectively), but getting a better experience.
Click to expand...

Probably. Seems to be a standard business model to bundle quality content together with lesser content to pad it out. I can't pick a few individual programmes I like, I have to get the entire channel. And I can't just get that channel, I have to buy a package of channels. (Similar with music, and albums having a couple of good songs padded out with lesser tracks).

No doubt if there was an "a la carte" option, the content providers would just charge more per-programme or per-channel in order to get the same (or more) money back.
 
I don't see Apple going into TV's, just set-top boxes. The TV industry is tough to get into with a lot of fierce competition and very low pricing. Apple would have to at least come out with 3-5 different sizes and you know none of the TV's will be under 2,000. Not even for a 32" and that just won't sell to the majority of people.

I don't see Sony, Sharp, or Samsung (even their high end) letting Apple win and take over market share on this. Samsung is one of the best in the TV markets for features/quality and it'd be hard to compete with. I know Samsung sucks in the phone/tablet market, but they are smart in their TV's at least.

Creating a set-top box that's subsidized through the cable companies is a better idea. Cable company provides the service and content, and Apple provides how the content is selected and shown.
 
Ditched cable years ago. Did the whole Mac Mini media center thing. Get the networks over broadcast air in HD. Problem for me is that I love live sports. So ESPN3 comes along and is a godsend. All their programming online for free. TNT has started airing NBA games on their site. Seems those two providers are already giving it away. Likewise, you can buy iPad full season MLB and NBA packages and HBO completely separate from the cable packages.

It seems we're already pretty close to apple's vision just by bundling these things together on the iPad. Networks will follow. The cable companies have responded by charging me a ridiculous $70 a month for medium high speed Internet that still is fairly janky. That's what I was paying for cable tv back in the day.
 
The problem with TV is mostly the content providers, not the cable companies.

Especially those content providers who have a huge heavily watched channel and own 2-3 other channels that are crap. They force cable companies to carry all 3 or carry none.

The cable companies have no choice but to take all 3. And they simply pass on the added cost to the customer. Because in the end a customer will end up paying a little extra so they don't lose ESPN or some other big time network.

That's why we all get screwed with ridiculous bundled deals. And it sucks.
 
Rogifan said:
Yes if Apple wants to go down this path then thy should buy DirecTV. I have DirecTV right now and am quite happy with it. I'd have zero reason to switch to Apple.
Click to expand...

I'm a happy DTV customer too - generally speaking. I still pay quadruple what I feel is reasonable, for what I consume. I'd be a much happier DTV customer if I could pick and choose what I want, and only pay for that. If Apple (or anyone) would buy DTV and be able to unbundle everything, I'd be knocking over strollers and grandmas to get in line.
 
mattraehl said:
i've always enjoyed apple products, but after getting an iphone and ipad recently, i really wish all the device interfaces i used were made by apple - dvr/stb, car, microwave, whatever. So many of the interfaces we use are just really crappy.
Click to expand...

+1,000,000!

----------
cvaldes said:
Fake article, or written by a poseur (or blathering idiot). None of which would surprise me from the New York Post.

The spelling of the Apple executive's name is "Eddy" not "Eddie".

You'd have to be an absolute nitwit not to check the executive bios on Apple's PR site to verify this information.

Which is typical for today's tech media.

Journalism is dead.
Click to expand...

don't be such a drama queen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back