Apple TV Updated with CNBC and FOX NOW Channels

The al-a-carte that many think they can get (apparently by whining) is whole channels for near nothing. In other words, their math is 200 channels / $100 per month = 50 cents per channel. "I" want 10 channels, so my "new model" price should be about $5. Take 95% of the cash flow out of any business and that business will die.

Well for me this is obviously completely different. The cable companies are completely ripping me off! I did the math the other day (I'm really good at math you see) and I really only watch maybe 3 shows on 2 of those channels, and only watching maybe 2 hours of TV a week, or 8 hours of month. The rest is time not spent watching! That means I'm paying for an extra 702 hours/month worth of TV I don't even watch. If I'm only using 2 channels at $0.50/channel ($1/month) and only watching for 8/720 hours, I should actually be paying ~$0.0111/month.

*rage* *throws chair*

In fact...with this in mind, they should be paying me to watch their commercials since they get money for them! *throws bigger chair out window* Say $10...no $15 an hour (my time is very valuable of course) for this privilege!!! And if Apple doesn't cater to me and my exact needs soon they are evil and I'm gonna take this $99 Apple TV (okay $79 on sale)...and maybe even an ottoman... and throw it out the window too!

gggggrrraABBLEGB[incomprehensible noises]!!!!

:D
 
It's just an icon. The content is pulled from the provider once you access the channel. You could have thousands of channels and it wouldn't make much of a difference as far as space is concerned.

True, but as more and more icons are added, it becomes more and more difficult to navigate and find the content you want (assuming you don't want to hide half of the available channels). Apple TV needs a redesigned interface to handle this. Maybe folders based on channel genre? or a simpler interface? I'm not sure of the method, but that's what Apple is good at. Time to put a team on designing a clear and simple way to navigate my Apple TV.

Maybe this is already in the works for Apple TV 4 or iOS8.
 
(assuming you don't want to hide half of the available channels).

Not sure why it is apple's problem if someone is too lazy to hide channels they don't want. Also you can move channels around and group similar channels together
 
oh they will and have already started adjusting agreements to fit that model

It's not just about confidence in the business paradigm. My understanding is that the cable companies have standing agreements with the content providers (channels) that they would be breaching if they offered direct streaming simulcast through a third party.

So along the way new agreements have to be forged to compensate for the missing revenue or to eventually terminate cable distribution for a given content provider all together.... So it's not as simple as it looks, since there's a maze of negotiated agreements for them all to navigate.

This is obviously why most content has a time delay before it's up for purchase on iTunes, usually the following day, so that the cable providers with existing agreements don't have their ad revenue compromised on the original airdate.
 
I am curious how old alot of the people who complain are? I am 41 but I Would hope anyone under the age of 40 knows a thing or two about the internet and you know umm like finding out information . Do people just enjoy complaining or are they really ignorant? if you have any clue you can easily get a login, easily get A VPN ,Easily change your DNS, so stop complaining that you need cable or you live in another country.

And another thing ala carte cable is a pipe dream, it wont save you money!!!
 
Wow, every one of these threads are the same.

What holds the model up now is not just ads. It's not the studios getting ad money and "greedy" cable taking the subscription. It's ads + subscription that makes it all go now.

<snip>

We already have programming created on the dirt cheap that might fit the al-a-carte "dirt cheap subscription" dream. It's called youtube.

Again I agree with you in general, but there are examples that it can work at a lower price. A very good example is HBO, which is comparatively cheap (in The Netherlands ~$90 per year) and delivers premium quality without advertisements. I would be very interested if they would add good quality news and reporting to their productions.
 
Actually I was able to steam certain programming (24, Masterchef Junior) without a cable subscription and outside of the US. So for now it's not completely useless, hopefully it will stay that way.

No 5.1 surround though :(
 
What's the point in adding channels that require a cable subscription when you can already watch them through your cable box.
Do cable companies in the UK give you as many cable boxes as you want for free?

In the US, you have to pay monthly for every cable box.

If people have rooms where they don't frequently watch TV (guest room, workshop, etc) and the AppleTV has apps for the channels they want, then why pay US$10/month to rent a cable box for those locations when they can get the same content for free on an AppleTV?
 
Someday i will get round those pesky cable companies :mad:

This update is useless to me ...

Oh well... while Cable companies put a lid on things at home, I keep pirating...

Works both ways..

(umm... maybe i can strike a deal with them) :D

too right we want things for free... the internet is based on freedom... then people began later charging....

What do you reckon what would happen ??
 
Remember when DirecTV was the LEADER in this stuff? The past 2 years or so, I can't remember them adding ANYTHING.

I am seriously thinking of dropping them when my "free" move commitment is up... About 10 months to go, so have time to start testing the netflix/hulu/prime method, plus looking how to authenticate some of these channels.

Frustrating right? But I still have to keep them if I want Sunday Ticket/MLB Extra Innings :/

Well since AT&T and DirecTV are merging, that might solve your problem pretty soon.

If you think the merger will be complete "pretty soon" you're dreaming.
 
Wow, every one of these threads are the same.

What holds the model up now is not just ads. It's not the studios getting ad money and "greedy" cable taking the subscription. It's ads + subscription that makes it all go now.

We already have Apple's cut at al-a-carte. Had it for years. Subscribe to just the shows you want via the iTunes store. They even come with the benefit of commercial-free.

The al-a-carte that many think they can get (apparently by whining) is whole channels for near nothing. In other words, their math is 200 channels / $100 per month = 50 cents per channel. "I" want 10 channels, so my "new model" price should be about $5. Take 95% of the cash flow out of any business and that business will die.

The "requires cable subscription" issue is simple. All of the other players besides us consumers LIKE the model "as is". To make the big change "we" desire, THEY need to see how they are going to make MORE money- not less- by switching to what "we" seek. You guys keep whining about cutting the cord and cutting THEIR cash flows too. They don't want to make less money.

To get the al-a-carte "we" want then, involves a "new model" that would up the average revenue made per household now. If that is- say- $100/month now, the rest of the players probably want a "new model" to yield $125/month or more. So, "as is" is 200 channels for $100 month. New model will be "our" 10 or 15 favorite channels for $125/month or more. Channels wouldn't be priced at 50 cents each. They'd be priced like HBO at $10, $15, $20 or more EACH. The end result must be "more money" for the rest of the chain or they don't want to make the change. Why should they?

And what about those commercials? Commercials provide a subsidy. That's other people- companies- paying money into the model just hoping that you might see their commercial and buy something from them. If you have 10 or 15 favorite channels and "190 channels 'I' never watch", that's 190 channels running commercials you never see… that throw money into the pot to discount the model "as is" down to the $100 "we" pay. Kill the 190 channels "I" never watch and "we" kill a LOT of subsidy dollars.

How much is all those commercials worth in a monthly fee (for commercial-free) terms? I've done the math a few years ago. To get rid of all of the commercials and replace that with a monthly fee to make up for them, it would cost every household in America about $54/month.

The al-a-carte crowd is generally dreaming of $5/month, $10/month or maybe as much as $20-30/month. Plus $54/month? No way. But "we" expect the people that make the shows "we" do want to watch can keep making those shows anyway.

Then, there's the miserable dependency of any "new model" replacement over the internet. To connect us consumers with the cloud requires the replacement to work through pipes owned by the cable middlemen who likes their cable revenues "as is" now. Even if an Apple could motivate the Studios to take a HUGE risk and embrace the "new model" now, why should the cable middlemen allow Apple to take their cable TV revenues without making up for that revenues in- say- higher broadband rates.

I love the dream as much as the next guy but it falls apart as soon as we think beyond our own self interest. Very simply, the rest of the players in the chain can NOT make more money AND Apple piling on for a big cut while "we"- the source of all of the money in the model- get a huge discount. We already have programming created on the dirt cheap that might fit the al-a-carte "dirt cheap subscription" dream. It's called youtube.

But wouldn't another alternative arise, one where the networks would be forced to make the shows people want, and not the cruft that fills %80 of airtime?

If networks were going to have to charge a decent price for their content, they would need content people would watch. No more games of crappy show in an uncontested time slot. It could be similar to the way iTunes and other "buy only the songs that are good" offerings killed sales for crappy albums with 3 good songs on them.
 
right now the content companies share in an average bounty of $35 per account per month before premium channels plus selling ads.

if they sold a la carte they would have to set up billing systems, hire people, pay CC company to process payment or pay apple, etc.
when you figure plain internet is $55 a month, you aren't going to save much buying a la carte. easier to pay an extra $10 or $20 a month and just get more TV than you can watch.

Yeah, they don't have those billing systems and people in place already, it'd have to be completely done from scratch.

Oh, wait, they've been billing for pay per view for like 30 years.
 
Previous owner of a jailbroken Apple TV 2 here.

It doesn't do a whole lot else, a lot of software you can download is broken or unavailable due to lost support. The things that are available are mostly low quality streams which may or may not work, the sort of thing you could just stream on a computer (think [watchtvforfreeonlinecartoons-now].com). and it doesn't expand a whole lot on what you can do compared to just...well...buying a Roku*. Neat to look through and I'm glad I tried it out, but it probably isn't worth the investment unless you already have one, and may not be worth the effort.

The only real upside is that you can sell it on eBay for 2-3x the cost of a new Apple TV.

*Disclaimer: I have never actually tried using a Roku.




Thanks, I am no longer kicking myself for having given away 2 Apple 2s as the money part doesn't concern me much ;)
 
But your premise is silly just based on the fact you have to pay first to get access to the internet

I wasn't suggesting 'free' as in 'free'

I was pointing basically 'almost free'... to lack of a better phrase...

The same thing with apps... we expect low prices, yet when we see an app is $10,,

too expensive... its stands out like a store thumb because we're used to getting thing much cheaper... how it once was back in the day..

if the internet started originally as people actually 'paying high prices' for their stuff, this wouldn't be a problem, because we would be used to it.
 
I wasn't suggesting 'free' as in 'free'

I was pointing basically 'almost free'... to lack of a better phrase...

The same thing with apps... we expect low prices, yet when we see an app is $10,,

too expensive... its stands out like a store thumb because we're used to getting thing much cheaper... how it once was back in the day..

if the internet started originally as people actually 'paying high prices' for their stuff, this wouldn't be a problem, because we would be used to it.

Other than piracy when have content companies offered their stuff for free on the internet? up until around 12 years ago not many people were on the internet. You act like a burglar that complains the local store does not offer him free stuff since he always got it "FREE"
 
But wouldn't another alternative arise, one where the networks would be forced to make the shows people want, and not the cruft that fills %80 of airtime?

If networks were going to have to charge a decent price for their content, they would need content people would watch. No more games of crappy show in an uncontested time slot. It could be similar to the way iTunes and other "buy only the songs that are good" offerings killed sales for crappy albums with 3 good songs on them.

But who decides what is "worthy" of being produced? You? Me? Cletus the Yokel? Everyone has different tastes. I like things like Endeavour, Fringe, Life On Mars (our original, not the US re-make), QI, Have I Got News For You. My mother can's stand most of that, preferring soap operas, reality shows and game shows. Whose view is more valid?
 
But who decides what is "worthy" of being produced? You? Me? Cletus the Yokel? Everyone has different tastes. I like things like Endeavour, Fringe, Life On Mars (our original, not the US re-make), QI, Have I Got News For You. My mother can's stand most of that, preferring soap operas, reality shows and game shows. Whose view is more valid?

It is decided by ratings.
 
Spot on, but one point that I personally disagree with. I currently pay 100 dollars per month (Netherlands) for indeed about 200 channels of which I occasionally watch about 15. I would gladly pay that same amount of money for only those 15 channels if it would rid me of at least 50% of the advertisements and hidden advertising in TV programs.

I can't speak for how things are there but here our set-top boxes tend to have a "favorites" channel feature. In short, you identify the channels you would like to see in your on-screen guide and the rest can be hidden. It's a great way to get part of the al-a-carte dream because it allows the 190 channels "I" never watch to still exist… and thus still run commercials "I" will never see to keep that subsidy in place.

Now, if your goal is to get rid of 50% or more of the advertisement on the 15 channels you want, that can be done here by going with Apple's cut at "al-a-carte" (renting shows or seasons via iTunes). I realize that may or may not be a possibility there (or may not be a great possibility there if Apple has not yet filled out the availability of shows there).

What I do know is that the desire to be rid of the commercials does beg for that revenue to be made up in higher subscription rates. While you might be willing to pay, my observation is that many here seem to perceive the biggest benefit of "al-a-carte" is this idea of getting a small subset of favorite channels for a fraction of their current bill. Not going to happen.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top