I can get unlimited 60/10 internet and cable tv for $79 a month. Add HBO for another $12.
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.
HBO and Apple in Talks for $15/Month Apple TV Streaming Service Launching in April
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can get unlimited 60/10 internet and cable tv for $79 a month. Add HBO for another $12.
ABC and FOX have both moved to a 7-day window before it's available on their websites for free, unless you connect using a cable/satellite account (and that assumes your provider participates).
Works perfectly for me who does not watch what is on my free standard cable being paid by my apartment complex.
I only watch Bein Sports and GOL TV in European Sports bars for my European football/La Liga/Bundesliga fix.
Bein Sports $12
GOL TV $10
for $22 or maybe max $30, I am all set!
$15, too expensive.
I would like to build a la carte channel line up. But prices need to be more reasonable. Right now I pay $70 for DirectTV and can't wait to cut them out of my bills. I would love to pay no more than half of that for 8 channels that I eventually watch besides the free OTA network channels.
I would like to build a la carte channel line up. But prices need to be more reasonable. Right now I pay $70 for DirectTV and can't wait to cut them out of my bills. I would love to pay no more than half of that for 8 channels that I eventually watch besides the free OTA network channels.
Not quite sure what your talking about. You do know that the president pushed for the rule change to reclassify broadband as a title II service. This means the FCC can now regulate the Internet providers like they regulate the phone service.
http://www.cnet.com/news/the-fcc-got-net-neutrality-right-but-the-fight-isnt-over-franken-says/
This regulation would ensure all Internet traffic gets fair and equal treatment.
Putting small content distributors on the same level as big people like Netflix and Amazon and Apple, thus preserving competition and encouraging entrepreneurship and preventing already entrenched companies with profits from preventing all other entries into the market.
Sky and HBO have an exclusive deal here in the UK and Ireland which means they have their content exclusive on Sky Atlantic. No way will the deal involve the UK and Ireland, maybe in future when the deal with Sky expires, if Sky don't renew it.
Given the quality of original programming and the movie selections, I wouldn't mind paying $15/mo for HBO. Other channels however do not have that value so there'd have to be some kind of tier system setup. Like $2-5/mo for Fox.
I'm not saying it can't/won't work or that it's wrong. All I'm saying is if this is the direction things are going for the cord-cutters who hope for a la carte TV then things could get a little expensive.
Uhm, it is a channel....
Big difference between HBO (a single channel for $15) and Netflix (infinitely more content for $8).
Movies used to be close to 4:3 until TV became popular and then movies went widescreen to try and differentiate themselves from TV. Typical movie aspect ratios are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 (both of which are 'wider' than the 1.78:1/16:9 ratio of HD).
$15/month? Since I watch 2 shows, I might as well wait and buy the blu-rays, save lots of $ 
This is too much, will end up costing more instead of less.
I also am unwilling to pay for commercials. I have Netflix, but do not have hulu+ as they make me pay to see content but still feed me commercials.
I come from the cable TV era where you paid for TV instead of getting it free off the air, so it was commercial free. That's the way it was and that's the way it must be. It's also why ISPs that are also content providers don't like Netflix...because Netflix gets away with no commercials.
What we really need is to go back to commercial free pay TV service, but, pay for channels we want and get it over internet.
This is too much, will end up costing more instead of less.
I also am unwilling to pay for commercials. I have Netflix, but do not have hulu+ as they make me pay to see content but still feed me commercials.
I come from the cable TV era where you paid for TV instead of getting it free off the air, so it was commercial free. That's the way it was and that's the way it must be. It's also why ISPs that are also content providers don't like Netflix...because Netflix gets away with no commercials.
What we really need is to go back to commercial free pay TV service, but, pay for channels we want and get it over internet.
I am not disagreeing at all with you. You are quite right. I am just boasting and blessed for not being addicted / watching too much TV, lol. I am just saying I will never be ever charge for more than $30, jeje. My channel lineup might compose forever of only 1 or 2 channels only. I am set for life. Unless those 2 channels (or their equivalent) will charge me arm and leg that could equal or similar to what you would be paying with DirecTV or Dish or Google Fiber or Apple Cable
whatever are charging for an entire channel-lineup plan. Ever wonder how some of these networks/channels survive? It is directly because of the bundling. It guarantees them a revenue stream. So say a tier of programming has 10 channels and cost $15. 1 of those channels is highly desirable. 3 more are nice to have but used occasionally. The remaining 6 are junk nobody watches. That $15 gets divided up between the channels, so that even the channel that has zero audience gets something. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if one of the channels was just dead air. So it is bundling that keeps the dead weight afloat. Of that $15, maybe $10 goes toward the 4 channels that anybody cares about. The other 6 get the rest, with NO AUDIENCE. Not possible without bundling. Stupid circle jerk that cable execs and network execs to keep screwing the consumer
If bundling disappeared, cable fees might go lower, or might not, but for darn sure the junk channels would disappear cause nobody would buy them a la carte.
I got an Amazon Fire TV for my birthday the other week, I did look into the best lil streaming boxes and ruled out the Apple TV as the Fire TV can stream iOS and Mac and Android devices plus the Apple TV hardware is a bit old now and it can't play games.
It's also my first ever Amazon device, I'm blown away with it, I mean it's so fast, easy to use, sure I don't get half the stuff I can with my Sky satellite box, but I love the thing.
I am going to try some things out with it and then see if I can live without my Sky, it's the future for sure, I can see these channels just offering subscription streaming services to access their content, along with all the other services.
I read that this HBO streaming service could be in Europe too so I could get access to all that content on my Fire TV if they support it, which I imagine they will.
Internet streaming IS the future of television watching.
It's also my first ever Amazon device, I'm blown away with it, I mean it's so fast, easy to use, sure I don't get half the stuff I can with my Sky satellite box, but I love the thing.
I am going to try some things out with it and then see if I can live without my Sky, it's the future for sure, I can see these channels just offering subscription streaming services to access their content, along with all the other services.
I read that this HBO streaming service could be in Europe too so I could get access to all that content on my Fire TV if they support it, which I imagine they will.
Internet streaming IS the future of television watching.
I had a similar experience pricing my Fios triple play (phone, internet and basic cable) vs double play (phone and internet only). There are better discounts if you keep the TV service, so there is no point to "cutting the cable". Verizon is not that dumb.
The content providers are just delaying the inevitable. They're afraid of their business model becoming like the music industry. It's not surprising though, it's only natural to be resistant to change that negatively impacts your bottom line. Though I won't be paying $15 for HBO, not worth it in my opinion, it's a step towards what will occur in the near future.
For longer than they have not, film aspect ratios have been widescreen. The technical film aspect ratios used the most are 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 and it has been that way since the 70's.
Film was typically cropped to 4:3 ratio during the onset of the television era. VHS tapes usually had a disclaimer before them that said "this content has been modified to fit your screen." Once widescreen televisions started to populate the market, films were converted to 16:9 M.A.R. to fit widescreen TV's or kept their native O.A.R. resolution. It has nothing to do with film differentiating itself from television.
Even older television shows were filmed in widescreen aspect ratios using 4:3 blocking and then later converted to 16:9 for television air. This is why the majority of all older television shows and films can be digitally remastered in widescreen HD, because they were originally filmed that way.
Instead of saying all movies were filmed in 16:9, I should have stated widescreen has been in use since the 1920's. But as far as my reply to user who doesn't know anything about ratios, It was correct enough.