OTA is missing the hundreds of cable channels that are out there.
It's still a step in the right direction.
People could watch the Big Four live, the Oscars, local Sunday football, etc..
Enough to make a dent. Throw in DVR support-- game changer.
OTA is missing the hundreds of cable channels that are out there.
It's been done already.It's still a step in the right direction.
People could watch the Big Four live, the Oscars, local Sunday football, etc..
Enough to make a dent. Throw in DVR support-- game changer.
Apple could do that but how many people would switch? The first-to-market factor is significant. YouTube has become the go-to for video hosting and become so huge that even a company as big as Apple would have a hard time to develop and launch a service that would provide a return that only Apple is accustomed to. Apple Music is a good example of this. It's a no brainer for Apple to launch it because of their iTunes model but they were way too late that many people were already comfortable with Spotify.
Because it's hard. Very very very hard.
Nope, you don't need a cable subscription. Just an internet connection. I haven't had a cable subscription since 2010.Can you have hulu without a cable subscription? I thought they required you to authenticate your cable service. If so then watching TV on Hulu really costs you cable subscription + 12$ a month.
You would think Apple could put together a good YouTube competitor, but look at the mess that is Apple Music..
I agree with this in principal. The problem is that it isn't very profitable. Even YouTube is just starting to be profitable after over a decade of trying. The fact is that the real profits are still on the traditional side of media and content delivery. It will change and Apple is trying to push the change but they're not going to give the profits to Apple for free.Different situations, with different rights to content. Apple has to get the approval of record companies to run that service, that's the same problem they're having with CBS and the others in the visual content space. I'm saying they side step them completely, and turn the power of content generation to individuals (like YouTube did) or smaller production houses (Like Netflix did) and cut these bastards off at the knees. They don't want to do whats right for the customer, and want to hold revenues hostage through legislated oligopolies? Use the power of the internet to subvert them and crush them.
Besides, the content they produce is garbage. The stuff on Netflix, and especially YouTube (if you look for it) is vastly superior and more detailed. I for one am tired of the mindless drudgery which is offered by the major media verticals.
For the love of Pete,
Here's what you do Apple:
Figure out a way to integrate this:![]()
into this: ------->![]()
and also add this:![]()
to this --------------------->
![]()
Pour your billions of dollars and engineering to perfecting OTA reception. Slap on the usual Apple interface polish (7.1 WHABC-TV listing = ABC) and....
Voila! The TV industry will collectively **** its pants and will come back to the table and reason for a more acceptable price.
This would terrify them.
Netflix is just another channel. How do you see them as changing TV?
Ok .... CBS won't be on Apple TV. Is anyone really missing anything?
Capitalism also works the other way - sellers choosing how to sell products. They know pope will buy a bundle to get a few channels they want, and different people may want different ones in the bundle. So , they bundle the product because they'd rather get $1 from 150K subscribers than say $3 from 30K people who actually want the bundle. Only the most popular channels would be available a la carte, such as they are today.
I'm ok with being one season behind and sticking with Netflix.
I don't know why Apple would come up with a bundle… that's just like a cable subscription. If I could pay something like $4.99 per channel (or less), I could create a bundle that is fitting to me.
I don't know why Apple would come up with a bundle… that's just like a cable subscription. If I could pay something like $4.99 per channel (or less), I could create a bundle that is fitting to me.
You mention DVRs, but judging by the statement below, it seemed like you were overlooking the cost, like it was a negligible amount. Many families equipment charges could be as much as Apple's rumored service.
Typically they are the same. Most cable companies are also the local ISP, although you may have some choice in more populous areas generally you're picking the lesser of two evils.What is "cable cutting" though?
I'm just really curious about this whole streaming problem in the US, and why there isn't an ISP (like we have BT) that can offer unlimited bandwidth and not be tied up with TV services too. Are the two the same in the US (internet provider+TV provider)?
It only works the other way if people don't give a **** and just buy what is offered. Freedom is not free. If you want to be in control and free, sometimes you have to go without, spend more money, etc. until the sellers get a clue. If even 10% dropped their bundles and told the sellers no way unless its offered al-la-cart, then the sellers would go al-la-cart or at least set up and take notice.
Unfortunately, the HomerunHD sucks unless you have a wired connection between the two devices. I did the KS DVR thing but have basically dumped my HD Homerun because the overall experience is poor; and that's being generous .That setup isn't far off. A lot of people use the HDHomeRun Connect or Extend network tv tuner with the 'Channels' app on the Apple TV for live TV right now. Pretty seamless setup and the bonus of a network tv tuner is you can hide it. Native DVR isn't available yet, but the 'Channels' app does have the ability to pause live tv in the current beta. If Tablo just releases their ATV app then you'd have your all-in-one solution, but the upfront cost + the external hard drive don't make it much of a deal.
I don't know though. But my advice is still to carefully examine what you're already paying... then see if an alternative will suffice.
Are you talking about Linear Channels like Live TV... where one show is played per half-hour or hour on a set schedule?
Or are you talking about On-Demand Channels... where you can select a show to watch at any time?
I've heard many people say they'd pay $5 for a channel... just curious what they are expecting.
I'm not sure I'd pay $5 for one channel when I could only watch it at certain times (I sleep and go to work) and still be stuck to a traditional broadcast schedule.
What is "cable cutting" though?
I'm just really curious about this whole streaming problem in the US, and why there isn't an ISP (like we have BT) that can offer unlimited bandwidth and not be tied up with TV services too. Are the two the same in the US (internet provider+TV provider)?
Typically they are the same. Most cable companies are also the local ISP, although you may have some choice in more populous areas generally you're picking the lesser of two evils.
Comcast is the big one with Time Warner after them, they cover most of the US. There are others, but not in the way of competition. That is the ISP problem in the US, no competition
I was also wondering the same thing. Everyone is naming prices on what they would pay, but not really describing the service they are expecting.
I would think people are not talking about live TV only, but some might be. I guess most people are probably talking about live tv + on demand, but there is also old seasons content, and old show content.
Also, are they talking about advertising free content?
The ones that mentioned the $2.99 per channel, I doubt that it would ever be that price and no ads.
Even at $5 a channel, there will probably be ads.
Apple has really been sucking lately. Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs, that's for sure. Apple can't seem to do anything right. Mac Pro is stuck in 2013 and iPad Pro is epic fail. Now AppleTV which is more like Apple Roku. Too little too late. What a bunch of losers.