Looks like my OTA --> HD Homerun --> EyeTV --> Apple TV system is going to become a long-term solution.
Have you tried Tablo?
Looks like my OTA --> HD Homerun --> EyeTV --> Apple TV system is going to become a long-term solution.
If Steve were alive, he would have gotten the deal done. He's probably the only one that could have gotten that deal done though.
At least in the US cable companies rarely compete in the same geographical location so the AT&T approach doesn't apply. If you live in zip code XYZ you get Comcast, if you live in zip code ABC you get TWC, etc.. Incentives to switch are pointless when customers have no choice about who their provider is.
Well, Comcast just bought TimeWarner cable so that'll expand their reach. I don't know if it's universal but in my market (Toronto) we have multiple choices. All the major ISPs offer cable tv packages as well.
The pressure is building, though - just look at Netflix. They're able to do things like House Of Cards and Orange Is The New Black because they have many people willing to pay a small fee. We'll have to see if the industry keeps changing this way.
BTW - Breaking and Mad are remarkable shows. The major networks, the cream of the crop and highest paid, all passed on these shows. It was the risk taking cable network with the lower paid visionaries that rolled the dice on these productions.
TV shows have about a 2% success rate. You would not believe how many pilots are shot yearly, very expensive, a few are aired and most fail. Apple would never recoup. Netfilx will never actually recoup on their productions, it's just a way to get subscribers...which really hasn't worked either.
I have ripped DVDs, home movies, and all sorts of not-purchased-from Apple content in my iTunes server.... Why base your home electronics around a perceived lock-in to one container or another?
The only argument for MKV support that makes a lick of sense comes from bit torrent file traders who routinely download a movie (public domain only, of course) in an MKV container and want to play it Right Now without shifting the content to a different container. If you have a"library" of titles you watch once then throw away, a container shift is a pain in the neck for no reward....
But the cost of ESPN raises the cost for everyone regardless if they watch it or not. Its time for this model to die.
The Aereo case is about local networks (the "big 4 or 5") only (no cable channels). The biggest benefit of Aereo is not having to install an antenna or rabbit ears; instead they install it somewhere away from your home, capture and convert the signals to something that can be streamed over the internet and you get the free signals via your broadband connection. Nice? Yes. But the only "win" in that for us consumers is not having to install an antenna to get free network programming.
In some- maybe many? cases- we already have something like this. Hook your local cable up to your TV and do a channel scan. It may very well find your local channels in HD without you having to have a cable subscription at all. If you subscribe to cable broadband, odds of this are even higher because the cable will not be disconnected somewhere outside of your home. If this works for you, who needs an Aereo?
But if Aereo does win, then what happens?
Do you pay Aereo something to "rent" their antenna and signal conversion service? If yes, why not just put one up yourself and avoid the rental?
Like any magical, cable-replacement solution, does Aereo depend on using broadband pipes typically owned by the very same cable company that likes their television service revenues "as is"? Yes. Why we seem to ignore how the scenario of the masses cutting the cable cord but still entirely reliant on cable broadband would (actually) play out is beyond me. Do we think a Comcast, etc would keep broadband rates "as is" while allowing others to take their cable TV revenues? It seems many of us do believe that. Can we not see the future in tiered data pricing per the example set- and readily accepted by the market- in broadband wireless? It seems we can't. Instead, we imagine cable broadband rates remaining unlimited* and at about current pricing while an Apple, Aereo or others are allowed to just take the big cableTV subscription revenues even though all such alternatives are entirely dependent on that very same CABLE-OWNED PIPE.
Some of those major network heads have already said that a victory for Aereo would lead to them quitting the local broadcast business. In other words, they kill the free broadcast model and probably turn those channels into another paid (scrambled) cable channels. Would they actually do this? If the profit motive supports it, yes. And such a move would make Aereo useless (just as Aereo has no ability to share ESPN or any other cable channels) while also stripping away the ability of those who have put up their own antennas from continuing to get local programming for free*.
For once, I entirely agree with a "if Steve were alive" comment.
And how exactly would Steve have gotten this done? The TV industry isn't in the same state the music industry was in back in the early 2000s.
If content creators or owners could be swayed to upload their programming directly to satellite, while collecting their own revenue, or to the servers of digital content distributors such as Amazon, Apple, Google, etc., for an iTunes-like distribution model, rather than sell it to cable and satellite companies, who then turn around, add their hefty margins --as well as tons of advertising--, and distribute it to us, that would have a 'music industry-like' potential to revolutionize the way we consume video content, be it movies, sports blockbusters, documentaries, sitcoms or whatever.
I think that's more a riff on life aboard a military vessel where traditionally sailors were cut off from the world and had to find ways to entertain themselves. People living on planets still had access professional entertainment.I think back to Star Trek where the visual entertainment appeared to be either the officers putting on plays as unpaid volunteers, a computer creating an interactive (holodeck) experience or the crew watching old movies already long since in the can. I wonder if this "new model" where the source of the money flow is shrunk by 85% leads to something like that (other than the holodeck which seems beyond 50 years). And we already have that kind of (dirt cheap-to-free) new video production model via youtube or similar.
What can Apple offer Hollywood? A streaming device? Those are a dime a dozen. A streaming service? That's easy enough to make in house and/or partner with one of the existing players. Apple was in a unique position with the music industry (namely Apple was willing to make peanuts selling music so it could make bank selling iPods) but that position doesn't exist here. There are a variety of competing hardware devices and streaming services that all offer the same movies and TV shows that people want to watch.It would however, behoove Apple to wait until the hollywood money's gone and they're in a weaker position. And that means, no solution this year.
Seems content creators are much smarter then Apple thinks ..
(and more stubborn)
I wonder if Siri would be possible and plausible with an ATV...
I wonder if Siri would be possible and plausible with an ATV...
BTW, my actual point was not why Apple TV doesn't support WebM, but why Safari doesn't support it, when it's considerably better than M4V, open source and supported by the other major browsers.
Have you tried Tablo?