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
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 Updated with CNBC and FOX NOW Channels
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Talk to Charter & Apple. Odds are that somebody hasn't agreed to the terms or haven't got to that agreement yet. And either party could be at fault.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
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.
----------
It's not about the shows (that's only important to us viewers). It's about the commercials. There aren't 180 channels of "crap nobody watches". If nobody actually watches, there's no eyeball counts. No eyeball counts means the companies don't want to buy commercials on channels where there really is no chance of being seen. No commercial sales means no channel (unless it's a premium channel that is commanding a fairly big piece of the subscription revenue… like HBO, etc).
The fact is that one man's crap show is another man's favorite. Some of the most watched cable shows are shows I (personally) would consider some of the crappiest television ever made.
no, the cable companies have been billing for PPV. ABC, Fox and the rest of the content owners don't have any consumer contact.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That's right. The lack of al-a-carte is not really a technology or logistical problem. If the whole industry really wanted to do it, they could make it go. The issue is overwhelmingly about money. If they thought they could make more money by switching to al-a-carte, they'd run there. Instead, everywhere it comes up, the market psychology tends to be the reverse of what they want to see- thinking less channels should = less price. Conceptually, it seems logical. But dollars often override apparent logic.
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..).
Make it more a matter of supply and demand. That means the general public can keep watching crap shows at a low price and we can watch premium TV, maybe at a somewhat higher price but at least we don't co-finance shows such as extreme home-renovation and so you think you can dance...
Until you can prove to networks, studios and subscription tv providers and advertisers that they will make more money going direct to consumers, your choices will be limited.
So far no one has proven that all the players would not lose big in a ala carte model.
There are a milliion way to get news and realt time news without paying a cent other than to get internet access and an APPLE tv, PBS has good documentaries all for free on their app also. hate to break it to you but there will not be day in your life when every single thing you want is available for free or at a cost you will be happy with
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
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.
These "authenticate with your cable provider" apps remind me of when Ron Swanson got a printer and used it to print out emails to send by post. So useless. I wish AppleTV had a setting to automatically hide ALL apps that require a cable subscription.
----------
a-la-carte is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The death of cable is inevitable. Not because of cord cutters but because NO ONE growing up now would even think of subscribing to cable. They're about as likely to sign up for cable as they are to get a land line. Cable needs to stop trying to kill Netflix with legislation and instead... offer a BETTER alternative! Offer their own internet-based streaming service. If they don't, they're dead. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
----------
a-la-carte is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The death of cable is inevitable. Not because of cord cutters but because NO ONE growing up now would even think of subscribing to cable. They're about as likely to sign up for cable as they are to get a land line. Cable needs to stop trying to kill Netflix with legislation and instead... offer a BETTER alternative! Offer their own internet-based streaming service. If they don't, they're dead. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
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.
I am able to watch content from the FOX NOW channel without VPN or DNS alternating in Hong Kong. Watching "I want to marry 'Harry'" now lol
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.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Correct (to both points). Again, the desire for al-a-carte is mostly from us consumers. Everybody else in the chain including cable as middleman or Apple as middleman doesn't want a "new model" that involves huge cuts to the cash flow from us. Apple is trying because they want to pile on. A solution where Apple would completely replace the Cable company fails because the Cable company still owns the pipe between iCloud and us. Apple cannot bypass them. It's not even about dealmaking with the Studios; there is a physical separation between us consumers and iCloud linked by the very same cable company middlemen who will get theirs either way.
To the latter point, you need to also fit in sports. The antenna will cover some of that for some people but I would assume the masses want some sports beyond what they get on local channels. If so, that won't come cheap in an al-a-carte world. Recall when one could get NFL Sunday Ticket on it's own (al-a-carte) via DirecTV. I think that was about $600. $600/12 = $50/month for just that ONE sport. Now, of course, they spin it as "free*" where "*" means multi-year renewal commitment- a very similar kind of free* like a new iPhone.
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).
You want to pay more to watch NFL games? Geez... They will wring every dollar they can out of you. They're the worst.
By the way, the NFL is classed as a non-profit by the IRS. Look it up. Sickening.
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.
Maybe you should contact Apple and let them know they should consult Direct TV subscribers before they schedule channel additions in the future. I'm sure they hop right on what you all want!
