True, perhaps... but you should know better than to repeatedly call it "free". It's like you've been hypnotized by them or something. You need to use the word "included", which of course casts a pall over your argument, but to folks like me who continue to debate whether they even NEED cable... its a very salient point. You put a significant amount of money in their bank each and every month. I certainly don't. At the end of the year, how much money have you paid them? You can also rip your DVDs to your Apple TV too. It has other uses.
~ CB
I don't disagree - I refer to it as "free" because I'm paying for the cable service to get the digital channels anyway (i.e., if there was no On Demand, I'd still subscribe to cable (or satellite)). So - included, or at no additional charge, or free - as opposed to the $3.99 fee on top of the regular costs for a new release. From my standpoint, they're getting that monthly fee for my internet, phone, and cable TV in any event.
The computer is actually similar, its just that Comcast is also getting that $40 for broadband just like they are getting the $$ for cable television - but the cost to access the computer content is unbundled from the content provider. The content is "free" once we get to the web, but there's a cost to access the data on the web.
Back to the notion that I'm paying for it anyway - for me, where it actually matters to what is in the subscription is more in case of the HBO, Starz, Encore package. Even with a DVR, I'd probably get very little out of premium channels, but since all the premium content is "included" On Demand at no additional charge, I can watch whatever HBO, etc. has on whenever I want to without having to set a recording first (which I would rarely do). Since it's all on demand and adds a lot of movie variety to the "included" category, its been worth it for us so far - e.g. we used to spend $16.99 on a DVD and watch it a few times. One DVD is more than the premium package a month. While it also is true that we get some of that same value where the kids are concerned, those viewing habits are different (which Steve Jobs is happy about) because kids will want to watch Cars or Mary Poppins or Lady and the Tramp or ... again, and again, and again, so we still buy those discs. But we're more likely to just watch something like Ice Age 2 on HBO On Demand for the few months that its on rather than buy it, so it's still useful even for the kids films.
The Apple service might be great, but I was just wondering aloud about the need it fills. With iPod / iTunes - having all your CDs with you and being about to buy anything you might want a track at a time when you didn't want to buy a CD was an early to market success. Already, and for years with more free (i.e. included in base access price / no additional $3.99 like for a new release) content in recent years, I can get all kinds of content direct to my TV already for what I'm paying anyway. Again, the Apple service might be great (Steve will explain have nothing like has ever been seen on planet Earth prior to it at MWSF - and who knows, there could be a real twist to it) but if I rent three or four movies a month, that's the price of digital cable (over non-digital) with the hundreds of included on demand choices and all the extra channels.
I also wonder about it because I haven't found the iTunes video content to be useful for me or my family. And if it's just another feature added to that set-up, I don't see us using the service any more frequently. It's just one soul opining that the space seems like its been addressed in various ways but curious to see what Apple comes up with.