Anyone know why the atv4 is not updating to the GM seed? When I go to system, updates it says no updates found.
The ship hasn't left the port as of yet. Just under .005% of pay tv providers have left. That is an extremely slow trickle.
And relying on any streaming service, including Apple's, is still subscribing to a pay TV service. You are still paying the same rate that each channel provider charges. Yes it is a stripped down version of pay tv but can't be considered "cutting the cable". Apple streaming service and Dish's sling subs will be counted as a pay TV subscriber.
You must have old information, so I provided you with this link.
The only people that it doesn't make sense to cut the cord is people who want a lot of sports channels. That will change.
I left out that those numbers were for the 2QTR of 2015. Your report was a poll taken from a sample of 3,144 customer which can be slanted.
The numbers are reported are directly from 95% of the top pay TV providers. They are actual numbers and better represent the numbers leaving the pay TV market. This report is for the 2nd qtr 2015. http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...at-keeps-americans-from-cutting-the-cord.aspx
The 1st qtr 2015 had a minimal gain but lost some in the 2nd. Smoothed out over the first 6 months providers lost 294,000 subscribers.
I am in this category. I watch a tremendous amount of sports. In reality that is not going to change anytime soon because in market games are blacked out. I fully understand that there are DNS blockers but they do not work on devices that use location services (iPhones, android phones,iPads, tablets). Most people will not want to deal with them either.
IF ESPN ever offered a stand alone option, I think they're price would be steep but could include all Disney channels (ABC, Disney and ESPN).
Do you realize that .005% is nothing and that percentage is highly questionable? Now you say they lost 294,000 subscribers in 6 months. That's a far larger percentage than .005% even if half of that .005% was for the 2nd quarter.
You believe cable company numbers, which can legally be skewed by them any number of ways, but not a reputable polling service of real people. I'd bet over half the people on this thread knows a cord cutter. I personally know several myself that happened over the last 5 years.
294,000 is not a big number when you compare it to 95,000,000 Pay TV provider subs. Millions are going to have to leave before you'll see any change in the system.
I asked the same question to Leichtman Research Group who is a media research and consulting firm. He answered me with: "As public companies, providers cannot fake the numbers, or report long-term non-pays as subscribers, or report free subscribers (like Netflix does) -- over a decade ago there were some cable execs put in prison for shady subscriber reporting".
Now in fairness that does include business and basic cable subs as well.
I don't think it is the networks that are slow. Networks are driven by advertisers.
Last thought. If suddenly tomorrow providers lost half their customer base and everyone did things your way, don't you think costs will rise with the demand?
So tired of this "cable provider authentication" crap...
If they want cord cutting to take off they really need to end that requirement. I couldn't even watch the baseball game Sunday night because FS1 wanted a cable provider login.
294,000 is not a big number when you compare it to 95,000,000 Pay TV provider subs. Millions are going to have to leave before you'll see any change in the system.
I asked the same question to Leichtman Research Group who is a media research and consulting firm. He answered me with: "As public companies, providers cannot fake the numbers, or report long-term non-pays as subscribers, or report free subscribers (like Netflix does) -- over a decade ago there were some cable execs put in prison for shady subscriber reporting".
Now in fairness that does include business and basic cable subs as well.
I'm not questioning whether the polling service is reputable at all. They survey 3,000 people. But what 3,000? Are they mostly renters, 20 somethings, rich people..etc? And it is all in how the questions are asked too. The groups that most likely to not use a TV provider are renters, twenty somethings and believe it or not-rich people. The latter two groups watch less traditional TV and rely more on Netflix. My son, mid 20's, has cable but mostly watches Netflix.
Are satellite/cable companies losing subscribers? Yes and have been since a peak in 2010. But as the article I attached above says, they are losing in a trickle not a mad rush. The economy definitely has had an affect on everything, including the pay tv market.
The article I posted explains why it is a slow process. I looked back over the past 4 qtr and providers lost 753,000 subs. That is a lot but not when compared with 95,000,000.
I don't think it is the networks that are slow. Networks are driven by advertisers. Companies are always going to need to advertise their products. If not with the networks than probably in the shows or movies themselves. Just think if Sheldon and Amy finally decide to have coitus, Amy says "Sheldon did you buy the new and improved ribbed Trojans?"
Last thought. If suddenly tomorrow providers lost half their customer base and everyone did things your way, don't you think costs will rise with the demand?
Trust me, I am not against you at all. I'm just a realist and I understand how the industry works.
At $71, you are already at the price of some basic cable packages with internet anyway.
Great educated answer.
I think there is one other part of the equation that has to be considered in the slow adoption of cord cutting.
Most people find out it is not really that much cheaper.
You still need a broadband internet connection (most phone companies will no longer sell DSL without phone service <Verizon>). This still requires them in most cases to buy internet from phone or cable providers.
*This also puts them in the subscription count.... companies can be creative in how they report "we churned X subscribers" and breakout the details of cable, net, etc in a way its less obvious and buried. Number really have to be analyzed because you can make number comes from a perspective to justify any talking point without really lying.
Cable and phone operators have DRASTICALLY increased the ala carte price of internet without a bundle. If you go cheap (and those deals usually expire 6-12 months and increase the price), your streaming experience sucks. Video buffers, it stalls, or takes 20 minutes to buffer enough to even start to play basic 720P HD content.
So the average person is stuck paying $40-$60 at some point (promo price ends, they got internet speeds that are viable) for just internet.
Internet: $55 (going in the middle, because it really about what you HAVE to pay for the right speed)
Netflix: $8
Hulu: $8
Total: $71
Then for sports.... Mo $$$ HBO Mo $$
At $71, you are already at the price of some basic cable packages with internet anyway.
All these cord cutting arguments usually forgo the cost of the internet required to cut the cord. This is why Verizon makes you buy phone, or Comcast gives you a $30 per month deal that expires in a year and jumps up..... and those packages have speeds too slow to stream 1080P.
Now.... initiative like Google Fiber.... when those hit more people and competition in low cost high speed internet are more available and Comcast and Verizon have true competition, then cord cutting might be a viable option.
For most people, that hassle to save $10-$20 a month isn't worth it.
I pay $60 for cable internet. Unlimited, 60mps, Netflix,Hulu,feelin,CBS. Still cheaper than $130 for cable and internet.
The cord cutting footsteps you hear running from commercial-infested cable is becoming a stampede.
Nonsense. I worked directly with a CFO of a well-known global Fortune 100 company and I'm well aware of the legal things they can construct to make the earnings and numbers look a certain way to please investors.
Sports is the backbone holding up cable. There isn't a matching streaming service at the same price as cable
Wrong. Advertisers aren't slow. Why do you think Google rocketed to the top of the stock market? They were the first to measure audience online viewing, track users and position advertising for full effectiveness. I work in advertising and I am well aware of what Google has done to position itself for ad revenues in all forms of online, streaming services and mobile advertising (Apple too). More people view ads through online and streaming services than traditional TV. I proved it to you in my pervious post #152 where over 13 millions viewed the Star Wars trailers via YouTube. More than on traditional TV. This was accomplished over mobile, set top boxes and computer devices…not cable TV. Advertisers are more adept at leveraging viral ads than networks.
My monthly outlay:
$45 - highest speed fiber optic business class internet (more than most people pay).
$8 - Netflix
$12 - Hulu ($4 extra gets you commercial free)
$0 - over the air HD antenna for live tv - major networks and local news and local channels
$0 - Youtube, Vimeo, using airplay to beam video from websites to my AppleTV
$0 - Crackle app (movies, TV)
$0 - Misc apps to get live news, free music, radio stations across the globe and locally, plus much much more
_____
$65 month
For this I get way more than I got with traditional cable too in the way I want it.
I think there is one other part of the equation that has to be considered in the slow adoption of cord cutting.
Most people find out it is not really that much cheaper.
You still need a broadband internet connection (most phone companies will no longer sell DSL without phone service <Verizon>). This still requires them in most cases to buy internet from phone or cable providers.
I feel that “cord cutting” people are more wish casting the demise of satellite/cable TV. There is an erosion of subscribers but the providers will adapt when people start dumping them by the millions per quarter not by a few hundred thousand.
They are already allowing more flexible viewing on devices and you can also watch what is on your DVR. I do think that the providers have a long way to go in that department. I think at some point there will be ala carte offers by the providers. But whether it is ala carte by a provider or to a “cord cutter”, price per sub will be higher. Remember the term “unintended consequences”.
Through all of this I am so glad that for your TV entertainment you are rooting for TV providers to lose subscribers and have employees lose their jobs just to make you happy.
That's part of the “unintended consequences”.
The fact that public companies are under a microscope I don’t think they will risk everything to lie to make the numbers better. Content providers are also watching closely because it affects how much money the providers pay them thus their bottom line. Remember, content providers get money on a per subscriber basis. ESPN/ESPN2 gets $6.77/ sub.
With the scrutiny today, it is more unlikely that they do.
I can't say that it is the backbone but a strong reason. You can purchase MLB, NHL and NBA streaming of “out of market” games. The problem is seeing your local team. Yes there are DNS blockers to overcome that but doesn’t work on devices that use location services. When that happens I can consider making the move. Directv every year prices matches MLB Extra Innings with MLB.TV. We also get MLB.TV for subscribing for EI.
You missed the point. Comparing online views of a highly popular movie is not the same advertising I’m talking about. My point was for product advertising commercials. Companies are going to need to advertise their products somewhere? Online people try to avoid commercials or any type of advertising by using ad blockers.
If your are in advertising than you are a bit of a hypocrite. Getting products seen is what you do but in the same breath you avoid commercials like the plaque.
Above somewhere you said that you use iTunes as well. You didn’t factor that cost in the above costs. How many shows/series do you order? From what I gather the average cost is around $20-25 per series.
For others, they do what you do and include HBO Now and Showtime. The main point that posters in this thread want is to use the ATV channels w/o having to enter TV provider info. That will only occur if they were offered as stand alone and that would have a monthly cost as well.
I feel that “cord cutting” people are more wish casting the demise of satellite/cable TV. There is an erosion of subscribers but the providers will adapt when people start dumping them by the millions per quarter not by a few hundred thousand.
They are already allowing more flexible viewing on devices and you can also watch what is on your DVR. I do think that the providers have a long way to go in that department. I think at some point there will be ala carte offers by the providers. But whether it is ala carte by a provider or to a “cord cutter”, price per sub will be higher. Remember the term “unintended consequences”.
Through all of this I am so glad that for your TV entertainment you are rooting for TV providers to lose subscribers and have employees lose their jobs just to make you happy.
That's part of the “unintended consequences”.