Add me to this tiny minority. Netflix, outdoor antenna for OTA free TV and an iTunes movie /TV collection for about 5 years now.You are in the tiniest minority of people for whom Netflix serves every need.
Add me to this tiny minority. Netflix, outdoor antenna for OTA free TV and an iTunes movie /TV collection for about 5 years now.You are in the tiniest minority of people for whom Netflix serves every need.
"Time Warner Inc. Owns Warner Bros, so Apple would essentially have access to Marvel/Disney and DC properties."Maybe you didn't understand my post.
If this deal goes through they will have access to both. Apple already has a partnership with Disney
Add me to this tiny minority. Netflix, outdoor antenna for OTA free TV and an iTunes movie /TV collection for about 5 years now.
This is great news, but I still think $30/$40 is too much for a service like this, especially since Netflix is only $9.
If you were offended by my comment I can give you a hug. My point was that Netflix is one service with some original material and a whole bunch of old movies and tv shows...might not be enough for some people.
+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.Add me to this tiny minority. Netflix, outdoor antenna for OTA free TV and an iTunes movie /TV collection for about 5 years now.
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.Netflix has absolutely nothing to do with what Time Warner offers. You can't get network TV on Netflix, no other cable TV channel's, etc. All you can get is old crappy movies which is why its only $9/month. Your argument is totally invalid.
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.
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.
I stand corrected. Maybe time to give them a longer look.
Teleco's tend to operate around a 10% profit margin. No way in heck Apple wants to deal with that type of profit.TW is small potatoes. Apple needs to side step Comcast and/or TWC in order to deliver content without the customers internet bill increasing. Should be thinking....AT&T or Verizon. THAT would really shake up the playing field!
+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.
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......Apple should be about creating the best platform for everyone else to put their content on. I don't think they should be competing with content creators.
"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.
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.
Apple's role should be to create the best platform to distribute other people's content. I don't think spending $60B on an old media company is the way to do it.
And note they didn't do that with Beats/Apple Music. The stock is flat to down today. CNBC spent all of 1 minute on this story (and it was basically dumb idea Apple) which tells me it's really not a story.
This is great news, but I still think $30/$40 is too much for a service like this, especially since Netflix is only $9.