If Ala carte happened tomorrow , most people would pay double or triple what they pay now. Here is a good rule to follow, anything john mccain advocates usually will be a disaster
Okay, than can you explain why Charter Communication does not allow access to HBO Go on Apple TV yet but only through my iPhone? There is no excuse for this when many cable companies allow it.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, again it's possible to "cut the cord" and make it work. Lots of people do it and have been doing it for years. It all comes down to individual or individual household wants. I was commenting about the typical (not everyone) and in the typical, "we" want a selection of our favorite 10-20 channels. Nothing wrong with that. Where "we" go wrong is thinking there could be some scenario where "we" could legally get them for a fraction of what we pay now.
Per your example, in the typical (not universal), "we" want that HBO deal at $90/yr (that would be great HERE) times 15 channels. 15 times $90 = $1350. $1350/12 = $112.50/month. "We" currently pay about $100 per month for the 15 channels we want plus the 185 channels we don't want. So our net view would be 15 channels for $112/month or 200 channels (that include the 15) for $100/month.
Not for regular TV programming that brings you news, actual events and daily documentaries. I would also like to watch some normal good quality shows and these are not available on iTunes either. There is more than TV series and movies..
Not for regular TV programming that brings you news, actual events and daily documentaries. I would also like to watch some normal good quality shows and these are not available on iTunes either. There is more than TV series and movies..
Yes indeed. The next step would be to make it truly a-la-carte and to disassociate the programming from channels in general. Just pay for what you watch. Those channels that I do watch still feature too much crap (indeed the best watched shows on the planet such as XXXX's next top model etc..).
Really wish there wasn't IP blocking on the Apple TV. Would love to be able to access all these channels here in Japan.
Have that already (for years now). iTunes store rentals. Just rent the shows you want to rent and they are commercial free. Biggest problem? "We" don't want to pay that much for them. If we wanted al-a-carte to work and we wanted Apple to be the new middleman (cable company replacement), they already gave it a great cut at that. It's still available now. It's not even the only option like that.
However, in all such options, either we pay up for what we think we want (like that) or we don't pay up and accept the tradeoffs of commercials, lower quality, bundles of channels "we" don't want to get the ones we do, etc. What's lacking is the masses picking the way they want to go and voting with their wallets. Instead, the bulk of the masses just go with the "as is" but gripe about it every chance they get talk about the al-a-carte dream.
Apple isn't doing that. It's the content companies. If, for instance, you have American programs in Japan, it's likely part of a commercial deal between FOX or CBS and a specific broadcaster in your country. So Apple can't just violate that prior deal without the permission of the content creator and the local broadcaster. And they're not likely to give permission. The arrangement has been lucrative for both sides, and no-one will interfere with that.
Any digital company like Apple who just went ahead and disregarded the cable companies would be crucified. HBO GO needs authentication because they don't dare to sell to individuals, even though I think a combination of Netflix, HBO, a few cheap subscriptions, plus à la carte for individual movies or series, and antenna TV, would be a killer combination for most.
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.
You want to pay more to watch NFL games? Geez... They will wring every dollar they can out of you. They're the worst.Wake me up when the NFL is on board so I can watch any game played during that day. Once this happens, can finally cut satellite. Good to see fox though. Now how about an updated ATV with a better controller and users able to make menus. This plop another icon on the screen sucks the bag.
If your tests don't work out, you might want to think of switching to Dish. I had DirecTV for years, but they seemed to have lost their edge. Recently switched and am very happy, especially with the hardware (Hopper with Sling).
So the Fox Now app didn't require any cable login. I just typed in the activation code and clicked on ATT UVERSE and it worked.
More useless updates for those of us with DirecTV :/
Really? well what a fool i was for paying america online 25 a month for access to the internet, i should have told them internet is based on freedom