Meanwhile, the big cable TV providers continue to stand there with heads buried firmly in the sand, offering no compelling competing services of their own and seemingly hoping this 'phase' will pass them by. I'll be here with my popcorn cheering as the TV side of their businesses crash and burn and Tom Wheeler's FCC gives them the smackdown when they try to take it out on customers on the ISP side.
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.
YouTube Working on 'Unplugged' TV Subscription Service for 2017 as Hulu Confirms Live TV Plans
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But you're arguing something that is already possible today. Any hump with a camera and spare time can do, and has done to our detriment in most cases, what you're suggesting. The internet is filled with it. Forgive me, but I thought you were talking about quality content, not just content in general. Quality content costs money. It's all good to want content to be king but financial investment must be made to generate the content.
Let's say you have 10 shows you love to watch. You buy that content a la carte, and you're happy. Let's then say only you and a few others like 5 of those shows enough to continue to pay for them. Those 5 don't exist anymore b/c production cost outstrip revenue.
Wake me up when media companies stop being jerks and let consumers have what they want: al a carte tv service!
I don't know how you cable cutters do it. I can only get broadband through my cable company and if I cut Cable, my broadband only rate would be $80 a month.
Then it would become more expensive. No different than a cable provider raising the prices of their TV packages.
Besides, I don't see any signs of stricter data caps. Even Comcast has raised the cap in their trial markets to 1TB per month (which is worth about 185 hours of Netflix 4K streaming, or about three times that in regular HD).
General comment for all the a la carte advocates: There seems to be a general consensus among you that the shows you like, and would be willing to pay for, would be available in this hypothetical a la carte world. Why is that? Collectively, are you guys/girls only watching the most popular and profitable shows? Is there not one among you who watches a show that only exists because it's supported by the bundle?
I ask because, to a man, the assumption seems to be your personal favorite shows would continue to exist.
I ask because, to a man, the assumption seems to be your personal favorite shows would continue to exist.
Let's be honest: what consumers really want are lower prices. But it's questionable if a la cart services will actually be cheaper than packages, especially the "thin" packages that many providers are now offering.
[doublepost=1462395065][/doublepost]
Perhaps said company would achieve more if it spent less resources on extravagant office buildings, custom wood tables, and making colored plastic watch bands for fashion shows.
My fear is what's going to happen to the price of your internet once you ditch you cable service.
If you get your cable and internet from the same provider (ie, Comcast or TimeWarner), they'll just make up that lost $$$ by increasing the cost of your internet (or overages from data caps (or both)).
Cable companies won't care if you cut the cord.
If you get your cable and internet from the same provider (ie, Comcast or TimeWarner), they'll just make up that lost $$$ by increasing the cost of your internet (or overages from data caps (or both)).
Cable companies won't care if you cut the cord.
All they have to do now is buy the huge cable companies so they can provide internet service for a more reasonable price.
Often, standalone internet service is almost as expensive as bundled TV/internet packages. The cable companies know how to gouge people. Until Google, Apple, or a similar company is able to offer internet access, this is hopeless.
Often, standalone internet service is almost as expensive as bundled TV/internet packages. The cable companies know how to gouge people. Until Google, Apple, or a similar company is able to offer internet access, this is hopeless.
To be fair it's the content owners who want the current system to stay as is. They make billions with the current model. And unless you can show them how to match and exceed that with a different model, the current one will stay as it.
I think I disagree with two points: First, quality content doesn't necessarily mean expensive to make. Second, while this sort of distribution is possible today, the sort of cable-tv cartel actively prevents a lot of it from moving online.
Dr. Who was quite low budget in the beginning, and it was awesome. The longest running reality show is almost free to make, Cops. Sure, we can talk about quality dramas all day long, like Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad, but those are exceptions. If anything, Netflix and Hulu have shown that is possible to make quality high-budget dramas for streaming only. Indeed, I was replying to your comment: "What do you do if the content you personally like isn't very popular regionally/nationally?" This sort of content is exactly the kind that can't exist on cable. Low-budget niche stuff is better on the internet. Take this niche for example: I love cars, I like toilet humor. RegularCarReviews fits that niche, it's on YouTube, and it's awesome for me. That show can never exist on any cable channel today. Quality doesn't have to cost a lot, but even when it does, there are online avenues for it.
Look at all the shows that weren't profitable enough on cable-tv, but had cult followings that supported the shows enough that an online revival was possible. There is are many - XFiles, Fuller House, Arrested Development, Trailer Park Boys, Community, and more. These shows were only able to move online after the cable channels gave up on them. Imagine the backflips that would occur in the sci-fi community if FarScape was revived this way. Currently, I see cable tv is only getting in the way of good shows being put online.
All these networks playing hard, in a few years they'll be begging to have their shows in those services. But I like the way we're heading on this and I need to see more competition. I want Netflix and Amazon and others produce more quality shows. This way these so called hardcore networks will start losing subscribers. Cable companies and networks are double dipping on us for a while. Paying for cable and watching commercials I hope more people will realize this soon. I want to see more independent producers to start some shows without the worry of being cutoff after season 1. The only thing left to worried about are some sports. But most of them are getting smarter as long that you're willing to watch their commercials. I hope all this change will happen very soon, 2017 could be a year of a new television.
I'm also a PlayStation Vue subscriber, for a few months now, and I really enjoy the service. $34.99/month for 70 channels with no hidden fees or DVR fees, beats my local cable price by almost $30 for the equivalent service. My only problem with it is the audio is limited to 2.0.
If Hulu or YouTube's service offers the same channels for the same price then I may switch just because those apps are on my devices then PS Vue. I would assume the Apple TV apps would get updated to support the TV services.
If Hulu or YouTube's service offers the same channels for the same price then I may switch just because those apps are on my devices then PS Vue. I would assume the Apple TV apps would get updated to support the TV services.
Money. Without it, your content does not get made. Hulu, Amazon, Netflix are the exceptions using their existing revenue to fund new or buy new original content.
If you remove channels, the margins fall back to the content producers, independents, Warner Brothers, Paramount, Touchstone, etc. And it's much more riskier for these companies to fund shows when they can't recoup their costs if the content doesn't sell advertisements or is purchased by a subscription service. If Scandal starts making less money for ABC, they still have Grey's Anatomy and Dancing With The Stars revenue to fall back on. Then they assess and either reduce the order from the production company or cancel. It's easy to produce content when you're talking about a low budget show with no name actors. But shows like House of Cards, with big names, huge set pieces, etc, cost millions per episode. Something your average indie company releasing content online can't afford. It's all about money.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
What?
Have you seen Dish's $50 flat fee offer? http://www.dish.com/searchpricelock/?WT.srch=1&WT.tsrc=Paid Search&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=Bing&utm_campaign=PaceCar Priority - Dish Network Promotions Broad&utm_term=+dish network promotions&kcid=19df1ec5-9c09-46ff-849a-baee284f3fcc&pid=4|480442&match=b&RP=SEM159541&KBID=8886127794&WT.mc_id=BSBN1901_24552
They have a great DVR- the new one has 16 tuners- and that's live television, much at HD quality without burning a byte of your broadband provider's bandwidth. They have a traditional on-screen guide so that one doesn't have to open & close app after app hunting for something to watch. And if one could actually live without wired broadband, only they + DirecTV offer a real way to "stick it to the greedy cable companies" and completely cut Cable out of your own equation. Else, we don't really stick it to them if the replacement requires Cables broadband... probably at higher unbundled pricing.
And if one doesn't like some- even many of those- channels, they are easily hidden so the guide can list just the channels anyone actually wants. In short, if anyone is serious that they only would want 10 or 20 channels, they could hide all but those 10 or 20 and that's all that would show in their own guide. Meanwhile, the commercials that are a huge subsidy we don't have to pay that are running on all those hidden channels get to keep on running... and keep on subsidizing the total cost for us.
Dish Anywhere (app) lets one watch about any of that programming on their iDevices from anywhere. I'm not a shill for Dish or anything but I think that's a pretty compelling offer that shows at least one traditional "cable" company does not have their head in the sand.
These $35-$50 "skinny bundles" vs. the same channels + 160 or so that "I never watch" but then again maybe I sometimes find something to watch on some of them for about $50... and that $50 includes a DVR plus live sports plus no exclusion of a few great channels that are not included in some corporation's choices of what should be in their cut of "skinny" etc for maybe the same or up to $15 more than anyone's "skinny bundle" seems pretty tempting to me.
Is the average Joe going to look at a bundle of 30 channels for $40 vs. 190 channels for $50 and opt for the 30 channels to "save" just $10, giving up the DVR, giving up the on-screen programming guide that shows everything that on right now, live sports on at least some channels not included in the "skinny", etc? This Joe is not.
Last edited:
Because Apple probably asked for more than the networks were willing to give. Call it greed if you're anti-Apple, or reasonable business if you're pro-Apple.
Apple is kind of known for demanding a lot in these kinds of deals. Like the 30% cut on all app store purchases.
only one particular channel has legal rights to show whatever particular game you want to watch, so the channel is relevant
I agree that it sucks and should be changed. not all sports offer mlb.tv style bulk purchase, baseball fans are lucky there
I know everybody hates soccer in the US, but I want Premier League (nbcsn) + Champions League (Fox Sports). There is no mlb.tv style package available. Fox soccer 2 go has no premier league and nbcsn is cable sub only I believe. Cant cut the cord if I want to stay legal
I want that too... but I need to add that I don't want it unless they give it to me at 60 fps.
I get MLS Live... and they state it's 30 fps. I've also watched MLB.tv, they state the same. I don't know if that's accurate, but the ball movement in both is a slide show... I dare not even try to watch the NHL online with how fast they skate.
LOL, so I guess there's 'first world problems' (e.g. my bluetooth connection keeps dropping). Then, there's 'first world principals'.
This post is a wonderful example of the latter.
Forget about making a stand for something lofty like the environment or abused children, take a stand against youtube!!! Yea, that's the way to channel you're human capital
Because those two companies host platforms that are all about mining data that is valuable to the content creators/studios.
Apple likely wouldn't want to give them much data on it's user's viewing habits and such which stifle the Advertising world's desire to target their ads tot he audience watching. Since the Advertisers are the lifeblood of the studios in terms of revenue, the studios want from a platform what gets them paid the best and most, and that is rather opposite from Apple's stance on user privacy.
That's just one, albeit large, reason. I'm sure timing has something to do with it.
And Hulu is co-owned by a group of these studios, so they are making whatever they want it to be. They don't really have to do the dance that apple is trying to do.