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 TV 6.1 Software Update Makes Hiding Channels Easier
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The math in this equation makes my tummy hurt. Bolded: That's not how money works in the real world. Netflix made a little under $8B in 2013 with gross revenue of $1.3B. After it was all said and done they had a net profit of $113M. Netflix is not a substitution for cable. They can't afford to be. Sorry.
Consider: what are the chances that the distribution model that evolved in the 1970s and 1980s in an environment which was heavily technologically constrained is actually the ultimate most efficient model for content distribution for all time?
Just because this model "works" (with declining subscriber numbers despite giving it away for free) for the moment doesn't mean that it is where we will be five years from now - and definitely not that it is the best model for the consumer.
The cable model inserts the cable company as an aggregator on top of the network which is an aggregator on top of the production company which is the financier. The role of dealing with risks involved with the hit/miss model is the production company (which is sometimes the same as the network, but not necessarily and not even the majority of the time; it is fairly common for a *different* network to air a show that was produced in-house at a particular network). The network exists to bundle content. The cable company bundles networks.
Personally, true a la carte (i.e., on a show-by-show and episode-by-episode basis) works best for me. $2/show is a reasonable price for an hour-long show, and is a little higher than what the typical higher-end show gets in advertising per viewer. What doesn't happen, though, is the cable company making massive profits. Which, as you know, is why they do everything in their power to make it impossible.
Bundling is always consumer-hostile. It is a fundamental economic fact. With the massive levels of bundling inherent in the current cable model it is natural that the overall system is incredibly consumer-hostile. Which, of course, fits with the fact that about 95%* of the population absolutely hates their cable company.
Yes, the cable companies will fight tooth and nail to keep their gigantic profits from the current model. But, that isn't the same as some moral imperative nor a call for those of us who want more control over our content with less lining of cable company wallets to just roll over and give up.
(* completely made-up statistic)
As I said in an earlier post, their business model has yet to be proven long term. Just cause you like something doesn't necessarily translate into a viable business model. Your analysis is spot on.
Your mileage may vary of course.
My personal anecdote is that my family of eight is in Year Six of saving $60/month (in 2008 DirecTV prices; $100/month in current prices for the same bundle) by doing just that (to be clear, paying for most shows with ads on Hulu, but our "top tier" shows via season passes on iTunes).
The problem with the previous poster who said you can see the "true" cost of shows by buying them off iTunes or Amazon and compare that to your cable bill is that you are not comparing the same thing. You are missing the advertising revenue, which goes to the network as well as to the local cable company (in addition to your monthly fees).
Yes, iTunes (or DVD sales) gives a fairly accurate market price for shows. That price generally comes in just a little north (tens of cents) of what a mildly popular show makes in selling ad time. Even if you were to say that just half of that cost goes to removing ads and the other half accounts for the cable company profits, you would need to watch 100 shows per month, which is 3-4 per night every night of every week year-round, to match a $100 cable bill.
I just can't see how that is a value for anyone. For me, commercials don't bother me much on most shows, so watching a few more commercials on Hulu (recently; a year or so back we'd spend much less time on Hulu commercials than the corresponding network broadcast) in exchange for not paying a monthly cable company fee is a bargain. But even if not, we'd have a hard time coming up with $200 worth of TV shows in a month (accounting for the cable bill and our low-balled estimate of "lost ad revenues").
The main advantage of true a la carte, though, is that the "content bill" is under your own immediate control. If you want to spend more on some great shows this month, you can without affecting your cable bundle for the rest of the year; if you need to cut back a little this month, you can watch less and pay correspondingly less.
The only valid argument for staying with cable - which I do admit is compelling for a number of people - is the lack of live sports on alternative distribution channels. In fact it has been estimated that about half of your cable bill goes to sports broadcasting (see my previous comments on bundling being inherently consumer-hostile if this surprises you). So, if you are a big sports watcher, maybe that makes sense, and you can justify over-paying for all other content because most of the money you are spending is paying for you to have access to your favorite teams (on top of whatever sports-specific packages you might have added on if you are this big of a sports fan). If not, though, why subsidize the sports fans with your monthly fees?
in regard to original post...
that's it, no new channels or anything else?
What about the CW channel that was supposedly in the works a year ago?!?
that's it, no new channels or anything else?
What about the CW channel that was supposedly in the works a year ago?!?
We have thoroughly thread-jacked this topic. Apologies to all.
Allow me to reply with this tidbit. Your reply to my comment presupposes the players in our scenario are all separate and distinct entities:
"The cable model inserts the cable company as an aggregator on top of the network which is an aggregator on top of the production company which is the financier. The role of dealing with risks involved with the hit/miss model is the production company (which is sometimes the same as the network, but not necessarily and not even the majority of the time; it is fairly common for a *different* network to air a show that was produced in-house at a particular network). The network exists to bundle content. The cable company bundles networks." - jettredmont
As in the case of Comcast, all three are the same entity. Also we're arguing different sides of the same coin. I'm stating the status quo is, and will be, the entrenched model until those in the industry find a viable way to make more money, not less. You're stating from a consumer standpoint a-la-carte would be a better model. I personally disagree but that's irrelevant. The problem I see with the a-la-carte model is it is disproportionately dependent on the industry taking it in the shorts for the benefit of the consumer. No one on this forum, in this thread or any other, has provided a viable reason for the content providers to change their way of doing business. The only consistent reason I tend to see is "because it works best for me". That's not that compelling. It wouldn't work on me, and I don't know if it would work on those making the suggestion in the first place.
Funny thing, if this was to happen a ton of those a-la-carte fans would be p.o.'d to no end when some of their favorite shows and channels no longer exist. Only the most popular and profitable content would be produced, catering to the widest audience possible. So basically we will have a crap ton of cheap reality tv and procedural crime dramas... and wrasslin'. Well sports too, there will always be sports.
Question: Can you provide a viable reason for content providers to change their model?
If you don't like it, I suppose you could buy from the competitor. I have ATV, Roku and Chromecast. I chose to use the ATV primarily because I feel it's a better product. Vote with your wallet.
LOVE IT!
The hiding feature is the only thing I care about. Adding WWE, Crackle, RedBullTV, all these hypermasculine networks to my menu annoyed me more than the 4 disney channels.
Wow! All that hostility of a single row of tiles that can't be hidden.
Hostility? You want hostility?
I don't want those tiles hidden, I want them disappeared!
....
....
....
....
This is a very useful update, despite the fact that my photo streams seem to have been messed up somehow...Not a high deal as I can redo them, but I was getting placeholders instead of images.
The ability to hide those Icons not in use is a very welcome one, particularly here in the UK where many of the options are just not available.
The ability to hide those Icons not in use is a very welcome one, particularly here in the UK where many of the options are just not available.
For people like me who rarely touch the AppleTV for anything other than a quick AirPlay Video, it was nice to see I can easily hide the onslaught of "channel-app-things" that keep appearing that I don't want.
Without turning on password-locked Parental Controls to block it from access, this is just hiding the icon with a click. I wouldn't call that "very slightly less convenient". I'd call that a completely different implementation of an already long-overdue feature.
iTunes Extra?
Guess it is just too much to ask for iTunes Extra or at least make the bonus content available on the Apple TV
Guess it is just too much to ask for iTunes Extra or at least make the bonus content available on the Apple TV
does it feel faster?
Im still using a second gen apple tv (saw no need for a third gen with 1080p...)
but am feeling that the operation is pretty laggy
Im still using a second gen apple tv (saw no need for a third gen with 1080p...)
but am feeling that the operation is pretty laggy
To continue the thread jacking (sorry). I'd think the answer is obvious. The answer is because they won't have a choice. I only have personal observation and no real statistics, however I don't see many people my age, those under 30, subscribing to cable. Why would we when we have the Internet? They will have to make buying what we want to watch, where we want to watch it, when we want to watch it easy and convenient. Just as or more convenient than piracy. The old cable subscription model is as dead as the music store, it just doesn't know it yet.
Not to derail this already way off-topic thread, but after this update, streaming large movies from my Mac Pro via iTunes as I've always done in the past now has significant issues. It's almost as if it is dropping frames or somehow the buffering is getting off track. The audio is always fine and the picture "looks" great.
If I stop the movie and resume, all is well for another 10 minutes or so until it begins to get worse and worse. This is not with just one movie, this is with all the movies that have played without issue time and again in the past. Definitely something up with the update.
If I stop the movie and resume, all is well for another 10 minutes or so until it begins to get worse and worse. This is not with just one movie, this is with all the movies that have played without issue time and again in the past. Definitely something up with the update.