Add me to this tiny minority. Netflix, outdoor antenna for OTA free TV and an iTunes movie /TV collection for about 5 years now.
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 Shows Interest in Buying Time Warner Assets for Streaming TV Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Time Warner Inc. Owns Warner Bros, so Apple would essentially have access to Marvel/Disney and DC properties."
The above sentence implies with the acquisition of TWX, Apple would also have access to Disney. It does not imply 'in addition to' through the context of "so". Though I understand what you are saying now.
Apple should have bought Time Warner Cable when it had the chance lol
Though imagine an Apple specialist trying to install Apple TV at your home.
Though imagine an Apple specialist trying to install Apple TV at your home.
That's great, wish I could roll like that. Maybe I'd get more reading done!
How is less competition good? Prices go up, quality goes down. This scenario has been repeated for just about every buyout that has taken place in various industries. And it's the board that determines price - and without competition, unregulated, prices will go up. Could that be why regulations are always spat on by people?
Original TV series + all Disney and Marvel first-runs, and potentially Lucasfilm first-runs as well... more than just old movies.
They're shaping themselves after HBO, but over the internet.
+1 I added Amazon, Showtime and I am a happy camper. No longer need the news, weather, plenty of that on the web and for me a better choice.
However, Netflix is a REPLACEMENT for a lot of people who were cord-cutters. IF Netflix REPLACES their viewing habits and are fine without cable, then it IS comparable.
It all comes down to consumption.
A buffet restaurant may cost $25 a dish and Subway may be $5 a sandwich, but if a customer gives up the buffet and starts eating at Subway, then it is a comparable item.
In another sense, yes, it is true, they don't compare. It depends on how you look at it.
We gave up cable and regular TV many years ago and now have Netflix. Sure, we don't have everything, but then we don't have a $100 bill. Our habits changed and we are perfectly happy with what Netflix provides.
It's more than "crappy" movies. There are a TON of great televised shows, many from cable. It's more than enough for our large family.
This is not going to work. It's cheaper to get cable/Internet/Landline bundled than to get Internet and a $40 tv service (I did the math).
What I'm doing is having just internet for $55, and between Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime (all three I would have anyway) and my XBox One network tv apps I got more content to watch than I have time for.
That said, I'm more a hardcore, old-skool, surf/skate, counter-culture type so neither I nor my kids watch any sports (other than skate/surf videos on youtube).
That bit is a deal breaker for many cord-cutters.
So the future of TV is apps. Apple got that bit right. The wrong bit is the whole "Apple service", and the fact that the "future" is already here. And I don't need yet another Apple proprietary device, service, or whatnot, when i got cross platform compatibility with everyone else.
What I'm doing is having just internet for $55, and between Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime (all three I would have anyway) and my XBox One network tv apps I got more content to watch than I have time for.
That said, I'm more a hardcore, old-skool, surf/skate, counter-culture type so neither I nor my kids watch any sports (other than skate/surf videos on youtube).
That bit is a deal breaker for many cord-cutters.
So the future of TV is apps. Apple got that bit right. The wrong bit is the whole "Apple service", and the fact that the "future" is already here. And I don't need yet another Apple proprietary device, service, or whatnot, when i got cross platform compatibility with everyone else.
EXACTLY.
Add Hulu and you get current shows too, dude. Its CHEAP too, and you can do it from ANYWHERE!
Don't worry -- it literally just started this month... and the Disney bit happens to be the very reason I kept my subscription, with young children dominating its usage... I can get my (their) Thomas from PBS otherwise.
Teleco's tend to operate around a 10% profit margin. No way in heck Apple wants to deal with that type of profit.
Same here. I've never looked back since cancelling DirecTV. I do miss NHL hockey from my local team but I'm not getting cable just for that.
I do have an OTA antenna through Kodi PVR for watching and recording live network shows. Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and iTunes give me more than enough to watch. Plus Amazon and Netflix are now producing some of the best original programming out now.
Unless you are into live sports or 24 hour infotainment channels I don't see why you would pay for a dedicated cable service. Between Netflix and Youtube I'm perfectly content with what I watch on my TV (iPad).
Agreed. But I'm not sure that is their intention. They may just see this as an opportunity to getting a foot in the door towards 'cracking' the tv industry by offering the various creators/owners an additional avenue to sell their content. It will allow others like Apple to offer their own content menu while breaking the stranglehold of the cable/sat monopolies we currently have.
I have no illusions that Apple is pursuing this out of the goodness of their heart, but the end result for consumers is the same, more competition and choice for us.
Once content creators/owners are certain their bottom lines will not suffer, but are likely to improve by opening up additional distribution 'channels' for their programs, it's game over for those restrictive long-term contracts that have kept others out, and have been the status quo for way too long.
In the end it's the old saw about "Competition benefitting us all".
If Apple shows interest in a service $30 or $40 a month its still a "bundle" ..
Yes it may be skinny, but its still will be channels no one wants.. How skinny ?
Foxtel basic here in Australia is only about $20 a month, has has more than 25 channels, and i didn't want those..
So Apple is gonna have to make a better deal here, or i'm sticking paying for Hulu, Netflix as i do now.
I prefer the current idea we already have.... "pay for what u need" model.
Yes it may be skinny, but its still will be channels no one wants.. How skinny ?
Foxtel basic here in Australia is only about $20 a month, has has more than 25 channels, and i didn't want those..
So Apple is gonna have to make a better deal here, or i'm sticking paying for Hulu, Netflix as i do now.
I prefer the current idea we already have.... "pay for what u need" model.
My bad... I thought it was common knowledge that Apple and Disney already has a partnership.
Show me some honest statistics that prove the majority of people are using Netflix, Hulu or whatever, vs cable or satellite then we'll talk.Just because a few here are doing it doesn't mean the majority are.
[doublepost=1452716566][/doublepost]
You can have the best platform and interface in the world, but if the content isn't there because the cable companies absolutely REFUSE to give in to not screwing customers over with over priced plans and making customers pay for channels they don't want just to get another channel, then the best platform/interface in the world no longer matters.
Reruns ????
What about Daredevil , Jessica Jones, etc etc etc.
And there is a lot of TV I am enjoying watching again anyway.
For the ability to watch what I want when I want with zero adverts is worth every cent I pay netflix.
And I don't give a toss about sports.
If Apple buys this, they suddenly have a huge amount of clout when it comes to the other services, the other networks can join in or be left out in the cold and loose customers.
What about Daredevil , Jessica Jones, etc etc etc.
And there is a lot of TV I am enjoying watching again anyway.
For the ability to watch what I want when I want with zero adverts is worth every cent I pay netflix.
And I don't give a toss about sports.
If Apple buys this, they suddenly have a huge amount of clout when it comes to the other services, the other networks can join in or be left out in the cold and loose customers.
It depends on what is included.
If it is the exact same as Netflix, then I would agree with you.
But, if the service includes all the participating networks current and past content, with all seasons, with the ability to watch live, then $30 doesn't seem that much.
I'm against "buying" old media crap. In fact, there should be a clear line between producers and exhibitors, as they called it in the movie theater era. Remember? FOX theaters could not be owned by FOX studios, etc. Good idea. We have so many ways of delivering content, no one medium should be able to own a monopoly on exhibition. If your cable company wants to show a network, they have to pay. If Apple wants to stream that programming from the same producer, that should be allowed too. Time Warner has to get out of CNN or the cable business, take your pick. Everything should be showable everywhere. No monopolies, except for very brief "first run" rights.