Disney and CBS Signing on to Apple TV Subscription Service? Tablet to be 'multimedia gadget'

[cmaier]

If you're referring to Comcast, well people in CA will have a tougher time but no one could care less about NBC/Universal and the shows they produce, with a couple of exceptions. .

Chuck? Psych? Burn Notice? The Office?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

They are going to have to allow it because of this administration's support of net neutrality.

Hoping that the Government is going to do something that benefits the people at the expense of the Goliaths that flow a lot of dollars into re-election campaigns, and control the channel that major re-election promotional messages are flowed, is definitely living in an illusion.

No one said this would be commercial free.

Actually, an awful lot of hopeful people in many threads are hoping this subscription offering from Apple is going to deliver the content that is currently available from Apple (commercial free) for a price lower than what they are currently paying their cable/satt providers. Some of the great enthusiasm for this will change when it is clarified that either the price will be "competitive" (meaning higher) with cable/satt and/or commercials will be inserted and/or lower price (than cable/satt) means a meaningfully lower supply of popular programming.

Broadband prices will not up that much because there would be lawsuits.

I believe in America those who own a thing can charge whatever they want for it. It is up to the buyers to decide if they want to pay for it at a higher price or not. If not, you can cancel your broadband service from the crook that raised it's rate and turn instead to... oh yeah (if you have a second option), they're in the TV programming distribution business too

Why do you think that the Goliaths who own most of the pipes keep buying up any smaller upstarts and consolidating control of those pipes to the few who would ALL generally lose if their underlying cash cow (tv distribution businesses) were reduced by this kind of solution.

As for your bandwidth concerns, virtually all cable companies serve their triple play package (phone, TV, & online) through one pipe. Most likely their pipes would not be more exerted as they already are.

I didn't share that because it is true. That will merely be the group excuse of why the broadband rates must jack up in this magical world where Apple moves the masses to dump cable/satt providers for this much cheaper option. The real reason would be because the companies that control the pipes want to maintain their revenues regardless of how this might play out. And with so few of them serving any given market place, it's pretty easy for them to conspire as a group to "need" to raise rates (and yes, that's illegal, but see if that stops them).

Broadband companies, which are the cellular carriers and cable companies, are dumb pipes. This isn't AIG where these companies are so powerful that they're too big to fail. Broadband prices may go up to $70/month but they won't be milking customers like they used to.

Companies that are "too big to fail" were saved because they are the dominant contributors to re-election campaigns (for both Dems and Republications). If they were too big to fail, why are they being supported by public tax dollars to become much bigger? Why isn't there any talk about breaking them into pieces ASAP?

Guess who else makes major contributions to re-election campaigns? Yes, that's right, the major communications companies, who will go to just about any length to keep things "as is".

I'd love for some of your suppositions to be right. But it's much easier to see that the Goliaths are the Goliaths because they know how to play the system. And unless Apple can bypass their pipes, those who own them are the gatekeepers, who can price their offerings as they see fit.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

As an amendment to my earlier post, broadband could potentially be faster without the cable companies pumping, what is largely garbage channels, through their pipes.

True, but to free up that bandwidth means completely surrendering their cable business to the likes of Apple. Is a Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner, etc just going to roll over and let Apple take this very profitable business from them?

Yes, if bandwidth is freed up because Cable starts dumping channels in surrender to Apple, there would be more bandwith for Apple's replacement solution. But do you actually imagine Cable doing that?

 

[kzin]

Good enough for me.

You type as fast on a virtual thumb keyboard, with as much endurance, as on a full size keyboard? That definitely doesn't the average person, who is faster with a full size keyboard than a virtual thumb keyboard.

If it supports blutooth keyboards, even better

meh. bt means managing batteries and connections. having tried a few, I greatly prefer my matias folding usb keyboard. full size, full speed, and fits quite well inside my gadget bag.

But I can take notes in meetings now on my iPhone, so the much bigger tablet keyboard would presumably be even better. Maybe throw in a little handwriting recognition, and we're golden.

I _can_ take notes in a meeting on a pocketable ... physical or virtual thumb keyboard. but they wont be as complete as notes taken on a full size keyboard. slower input, less endurance... i've never seen anyone who takes complete, extensive, and detailed notes on their iPhone or iPod touch.

 

[str1f3]

Chuck? Psych? Burn Notice? The Office?

Damn! It's me vs this thread. I'll try to answer these two post as best as I can since I'm on an iPhone now. It's my last day before vacation time and I'm on break so I'll try to reply to these posts.

As to your post, while I like Chuck, it was half a step away from cancellation. As to The Office, the last season sucked and there is only so far that they can take it. Psych? Burn Notice? If you watch these shows you should find better ones to watch. The only shows that NBCU have that are worth watching are 30Rock and House. I only watch the former.

 

[cmaier]

You type as fast on a virtual thumb keyboard, with as much endurance, as on a full size keyboard? That definitely doesn't the average person, who is faster with a full size keyboard than a virtual thumb keyboard.



meh. bt means managing batteries and connections. having tried a few, I greatly prefer my matias folding usb keyboard. full size, full speed, and fits quite well inside my gadget bag.



I _can_ take notes in a meeting on a pocketable ... physical or virtual thumb keyboard. but they wont be as complete as notes taken on a full size keyboard. slower input, less endurance... i've never seen anyone who takes complete, extensive, and detailed notes on their iPhone or iPod touch.

I didn't say I type "as fast." I just said "good enough." My notes are as complete and detailed as they need to be.

 

[pinkpj]

i hope the pricing is fair...it was about time!!!!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

As to your post, while I like Chuck, it was half a step away from cancellation. As to The Office, the last season sucked and there is only so far that they can take it. Psych? Burn Notice? If you watch these shows you should find better ones to watch. The only shows that NBCU have that are worth watching are 30Rock and House. I only watch the former.

str1f3, you respond like YOU represent the entire market of the viewing public. To each his own. I'm sure there are a number of people who would argue that these- and other shows YOU might not like- are the best shows on television. Else, why bother with advertising on television shows unless str1f3 says he/she watches those shows? Apparently companies like Nielsen and similar waste a lot of time... not to mention the many production companies creating shows that YOU personally do not watch/like.

 

[cmaier]

Damn! It's me vs this thread. I'll try to answer these two post as best as I can since I'm on an iPhone now. It's my last day before vacation time and I'm on break so I'll try to reply to these posts.

As to your post, while I like Chuck, it was half a step away from cancellation. As to The Office, the last season sucked and there is only so far that they can take it. Psych? Burn Notice? If you watch these shows you should find better ones to watch. The only shows that NBCU have that are worth watching are 30Rock and House. I only watch the former.

House isn't on NBC, though it's a good show.

But you are stating things as facts that are merely your opinions. Further, they are opinions that seem to differ from that of the viewing public and/or the critics. And while you are entitled to your opinions, don't pretend they are facts.

 

[kzin]

I didn't say I type "as fast." I just said "good enough." My notes are as complete and detailed as they need to be.

I guess I just need more detailed/extensive/detailed notes than you do.

 

[cmaier]

I guess I just need more detailed/extensive/detailed notes than you do.

Or I'm a better virtual-keyboard typist then you. Either way, there's a portion of the market for whom these things would be perfect.

 

[str1f3]

Hoping that the Government is going to do something that benefits the people at the expense of the Goliaths that flow a lot of dollars into re-election campaigns, and control the channel that major re-election promotional messages are flowed, is definitely living in an illusion.

I'm not going into a political debate but have you seen how hard they are pushing net neutrality? The cell carriers are going in fits over this. Thisis something that is very real and they have pushed since day one.

Actually, an awful lot of hopeful people in many threads are hoping this subscription offering from Apple is going to deliver the content that is currently available from Apple (commercial free) for a price lower than what they are currently paying their cable/satt providers. Some of the great enthusiasm for this will change when it is clarified that either the price will be "competitive" (meaning higher) with cable/satt and/or commercials will be inserted and/or lower price (than cable/satt) means a meaningfully lower supply of popular programming.

That may be true but keep in mind that none of the specifics have been openly discussed by the two parties and CBS & Disney would not be interested if they believe those revenues could not be recouped.

I believe in America those who own a thing can charge whatever they want for it. It is up to the buyers to decide if they want to pay for it at a higher price or not. If not, you can cancel your broadband service from the crook that raised it's rate and turn instead to... oh yeah (if you have a second option), they're in the TV programming distribution business too.

I believe in these things too but it's not as easy as you're making it out to be. Many of these companies influence Congressman to change regulations and to take advantage of loopholes in the system. I will feel no sympathy for them. As it is now many of these companies operate as monopolies with the consumer having only one choice of a provider. It is in these situations where gov't intervention is needed.

Why do you think that the Goliaths who own most of the pipes keep buying up any smaller upstarts and consolidating control of those pipes to the few who would ALL generally lose if their underlying cash cow (tv distribution businesses) were reduced by this kind of solution.

I think they're pissed off but what are they going to do? I've already described outcomes and they will lose at every corner. They are going to have to eat this.

I didn't share that because it is true. That will merely be the group excuse of why the broadband rates must jack up in this magical world where Apple moves the masses to dump cable/satt providers for this much cheaper option. The real reason would be because the companies that control the pipes want to maintain their revenues regardless of how this might play out. And with so few of them serving any given market place, it's pretty easy for them to conspire as a group to "need" to raise rates (and yes, that's illegal, but see if that stops them).

They will up the prices but it will still be affordable compared to the pricing of having everything through your provider if the rumors are true (and the WSJ is pretty accurate). It will not go past $75 or they will get no sympathy from a Congress or judge when we are just starting to break out of a recession. Their options are limited.

Companies that are "too big to fail" were saved because they are the dominant contributors to re-election campaigns (for both Dems and Republications). If they were too big to fail, why are they being supported by public tax dollars to become much bigger? Why isn't there any talk about breaking them into pieces ASAP?

I hate to break it to you but that is the way it is. Some companies have become so powerful and have their hands in everthing so they cannot go under. This is the world we live in. I don't want to get into politics but there is a reason that both presidential candidates supported the bailout. I'm as disgusted as you are at the way the world works.

Guess who else makes major contributions to re-election campaigns? Yes, that's right, the major communications companies, who will go to just about any length to keep things "as is".

I'd love for some of your suppositions to be right. But it's much easier to see that the Goliaths are the Goliaths because they know how to play the system. And unless Apple can bypass their pipes, those who own them are the gatekeepers, who can price their offerings as they see fit.

As to your first paragraph, can you tell me what victories these companies have had? All I have seen is them bemoaning what this administration is doing which is a good sign. Don't get me wrong. Of course these companies influence both sides of the aisle. I just think this is one position where either they invested in the wrong side or the elected wasn't willing to take the media pressure.

 

[str1f3]

True, but to free up that bandwidth means completely surrendering their cable business to the likes of Apple. Is a Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner, etc just going to roll over and let Apple take this very profitable business from them?

Yes, if bandwidth is freed up because Cable starts dumping channels in surrender to Apple, there would be more bandwith for Apple's replacement solution. But do you actually imagine Cable doing that?

They're not surrendering to Apple but the net itself. They have no other options or it's lawsuit time with the EFF, ACLU & an administration that is not favorable to them. They already know this. It will be a hard fight but they hold no cards in their hands. All the advantages are on our side right now.

 

[str1f3]

str1f3, you respond like YOU represent the entire market of the viewing public. To each his own. I'm sure there are a number of people who would argue that these- and other shows YOU might not like- are the best shows on television. Else, why bother with advertising on television shows unless str1f3 says he/she watches those shows? Apparently companies like Nielsen and similar waste a lot of time... not to mention the many production companies creating shows that YOU personally do not watch/like.

I agree with "to each his own" and I know Burn Notice is the most popular show on cable. Seriously, though, there are better shows on and suggest people experiment. The argument of I made was from my taste alone but I must say I have good taste.

 

[northy124]

House isn't on NBC, though it's a good show.

They produce it though.

 

[cmaier]

I guess I just need more detailed/extensive/detailed notes than you do.

They produce it though.

But they don't have distribution rights to it.

 

[northy124]

But they don't have distribution rights to it.

And what does that have to do with anything? they produce it and therefore to an extent (a small extent) it is theirs.

 

[str1f3]

House isn't on NBC, though it's a good show.

But you are stating things as facts that are merely your opinions. Further, they are opinions that seem to differ from that of the viewing public and/or the critics. And while you are entitled to your opinions, don't pretend they are facts.

House isn't on NBC but is made by NBC/Universal. That's the way it works. Some shows on are produced by opposing networks.

That's fine if I differ from the viewing public. NCIS is the most watched show on TV but i'd never watch it. Teens also like watching MTV but I haven't watched it since they stopped playing videos and started practicing pseudo kiddie porn.

I consider the majority a problem. That's why Firefly and Arrested Development is no longer on the air but Survivor is.

 

[str1f3]

But they don't have distribution rights to it.

I believe they do have the rights otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. Why make something if you can't own it? I believe you can catch recent House episodes a week later on USA (or whatever).

 

[cmaier]

I believe they do have the rights otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. Why make something if you can't own it? I believe you can catch recent House episodes a week later on USA (or whatever).

Fox has the distribution rights and can veto internet broadcasts of House.

 

[northy124]

Fox has the distribution rights and can veto internet broadcasts of House.

NBCUniversal's website says they distribute it so...?

 

[cmaier]

NBCUniversal's website says they distribute it so...?

Yes, they distributed it to fox, which can veto additional distribution (since fox is paying for the exclusive right to broadcast it, at least without delay).

 

[Mad Mac]

What am I missing here? Why would I spend $$$ on a tablet and PAY for shows available over the air for free?

Unless this is a total cable/sat replacement that includes regional sports channels and live news, the price of $37 for the subscription seems absurdly high. You can get "basic" level channels on Dishnetwork (including locals) for $24.99.

Maybe Jobs CAN sell sand at the beach.

 

[Tilpots]

I believe they do have the rights otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. Why make something if you can't own it? I believe you can catch recent House episodes a week later on USA (or whatever).

Fox has the distribution rights and can veto internet broadcasts of House.

NBCUniversal's website says they distribute it so...?

Yes, they distributed it to fox, which can veto additional distribution (since fox is paying for the exclusive right to broadcast it, at least without delay).

Boys, boys... The producer ultimately owns all the rights until they sell them, but these rights are typically not forever. So when the contract is up, the producer regains control...

Contracts determine specifics, of course...

 

[tmofee]

The study isn't perfect but it goes to show that people really don't know what it is.

Anecdote: My family is in Long Island and has Cablevision. I went to their house and they had recently picked up an HDTV. I viewed the HD channels and the picture was disgusting. Cable companies give an even worse HD feed than iTunes (with FIOS being the exception). I had to convince them it was not HD by pulling out my laptop to show the difference. They didn't really care too much.


Ultimately the most important thing is that you are pleased with the picture rather than letting technical details get in the way (at least in my case). For me, iTunes is good enough though there is some pixelation in action scenes. For others it may not be.

i dislike the "near enough is good enough" attitude. i also thought about it last night, with a bluray disc you also have the people who master it put more effort restoring it, you're spending that little bit more on it, you better be damn sure there's no telecline wobble or dirt on that print. probably best comparison would be DVD's attempt a few years ago - the superbit DVD releases.