not sure it will be any cheaper, seeing how Apple prices product, but it may end up being more meaningful. We'll see.
Apple plans to launch a web TV service this fall
- Thread starter Obliviax
- Start date
meaning more targeted to the individual consumer. It sounds like you may get a base package, and then have a menu of other channels. I have about 650 channels, of which I watch about ten. I am hopeful you can get highspeed, and then select from a menu. Perhaps I can lower my cable bill. Or, perhaps, I can get more channels that I am interested in watching.
My biggest concern is that it appears to be a Comcast partnership and they aren't about to sell out the cable cabal, as it were.
Regardless, once Apple jumps it, 20 more companies will right after that.
My biggest concern is that it appears to be a Comcast partnership and they aren't about to sell out the cable cabal, as it were.
Regardless, once Apple jumps it, 20 more companies will right after that.
Thanks Obli....that's a great link
I'll be interested to see what comes of this.
I'm one of those people who don't think ala carte or IPTV will benefit the consumer one bit. But, I'm interested to see where this leads because Apple, love 'em or hate 'em, has the potential to be a real game changer if it decides to do so. The company has the type of cash, and hubris, to turn an industry on it's head.
Years ago, AOL and other ISPs were x number of hours per month at y price. As IPTV comes to the forefront, I can see ISPs going back to such a format, especially since there are fewer and fewer choices for broadband internet service providers.
I'll be interested to see what comes of this.
I'm one of those people who don't think ala carte or IPTV will benefit the consumer one bit. But, I'm interested to see where this leads because Apple, love 'em or hate 'em, has the potential to be a real game changer if it decides to do so. The company has the type of cash, and hubris, to turn an industry on it's head.
Years ago, AOL and other ISPs were x number of hours per month at y price. As IPTV comes to the forefront, I can see ISPs going back to such a format, especially since there are fewer and fewer choices for broadband internet service providers.
I am still surprised that Apple has not really gone after the TV market. It goes in line with their core technology. Essentially make a TV that is just a really large IPad. I know they have Apple TV, but that is not the same. It is only really in the last few years that getting TV on your computer/Ipad is reliable and easy and most TV channels now have an internet channel that you can get.
It is only Comcast and the other big cable companies that have held back the Internet and TV essentially becoming one and the same but it appears that is finally starting to break down.
I agree that a la Carte channel pricing will only lead the regular consumer to pay the same as they are now but getting way, way less channels.
It is only Comcast and the other big cable companies that have held back the Internet and TV essentially becoming one and the same but it appears that is finally starting to break down.
I agree that a la Carte channel pricing will only lead the regular consumer to pay the same as they are now but getting way, way less channels.
agreed. I believe more choices benefits the consumer
if you watch the apple model, they are masters at packaging. They also have a tendency to offer product in a limited fashion at a high price, then make it generally available at a much lower price.
I would imagine that Apple...well...today there is a chasm between subscription and "on demand" pay (like iTunes). I wonder if Apple is going to try and draw you in with a low cost list of channels streamed to your device and then cross sell you into "on demand" like iTunes movies, HBO and the like.
In any case, others will surely jump into the market (Google, Amazon, etc.). That gives more choices and drives down price.
if you watch the apple model, they are masters at packaging. They also have a tendency to offer product in a limited fashion at a high price, then make it generally available at a much lower price.
I would imagine that Apple...well...today there is a chasm between subscription and "on demand" pay (like iTunes). I wonder if Apple is going to try and draw you in with a low cost list of channels streamed to your device and then cross sell you into "on demand" like iTunes movies, HBO and the like.
In any case, others will surely jump into the market (Google, Amazon, etc.). That gives more choices and drives down price.
I think they tried in a partnership with Sony.
I think they tired to sell Apple TV as part of a Sony smart TV. It may have been too far ahead of its time and are now just selling the apple TV adapter.
I believe in the "Internet of Things" (IoT). If you don't know what that is it is a concept that all devices will be connected to the Internet for more efficient control and monitoring. Today, we see "nest" thermostats, nanny cams, and more. I've got a friend who is coming out with embedding a camera and a smoke detector inside an LED can light that is connected to the Internet. You can be informed of a smoke event, and open the app to see what is going on (or just to see what the kids are doing).
Regardless, the TV is just a device in the wifi connected world. AT&T uverse lets me watch TV on my iPad from anywhere I can get a highspeed line. Better Call Saul has an interactive way to comment on the show while its on. (a way to get you to watch the commercials and not DVRing it and zipping them later). I'd love to watch PSU games and be able to chat on here (the game thread thing is awful, IMHO). You could have two windows: a game window and a chat window.
Really, the ideas are endless. But Apple, with the devices and iTunes is in a great place to broaden their offerings. If the cable companies are opening to this, its game over.
This post was edited on 3/17 9:35 AM by Obliviax
I think they tired to sell Apple TV as part of a Sony smart TV. It may have been too far ahead of its time and are now just selling the apple TV adapter.
I believe in the "Internet of Things" (IoT). If you don't know what that is it is a concept that all devices will be connected to the Internet for more efficient control and monitoring. Today, we see "nest" thermostats, nanny cams, and more. I've got a friend who is coming out with embedding a camera and a smoke detector inside an LED can light that is connected to the Internet. You can be informed of a smoke event, and open the app to see what is going on (or just to see what the kids are doing).
Regardless, the TV is just a device in the wifi connected world. AT&T uverse lets me watch TV on my iPad from anywhere I can get a highspeed line. Better Call Saul has an interactive way to comment on the show while its on. (a way to get you to watch the commercials and not DVRing it and zipping them later). I'd love to watch PSU games and be able to chat on here (the game thread thing is awful, IMHO). You could have two windows: a game window and a chat window.
Really, the ideas are endless. But Apple, with the devices and iTunes is in a great place to broaden their offerings. If the cable companies are opening to this, its game over.
This post was edited on 3/17 9:35 AM by Obliviax
Re: I think they tried in a partnership with Sony.
would love to here what your friend thinks about possible misuse of the led light embedded camera, like perverts for instance. Really just curious if that is something he considered
Probably more overpriced proprietary crap that people will....
...fall all over themselves to get on the day it becomes available because the set top looks cool.
I give Apple a lot of credit. They've identified the suckers in this country and around the world, and have leveraged them nicely from a profit perspective.
...fall all over themselves to get on the day it becomes available because the set top looks cool.
I give Apple a lot of credit. They've identified the suckers in this country and around the world, and have leveraged them nicely from a profit perspective.
apple does a really good job of taking someone else's ideas and making
those ideas better. IPOD?? That's an old design 2 guys from outside of Apple had, Apple basically refined it and made it smaller. Dont even start on the computers, as back in the day, Jobs took everything he could from Xerox (PARC?) and put it in his computer. Apple pay?? I've been scratching my head. I've had a 'smart pass' from Exxon for almost 20 yrs. its a little wand on my key chain, wave it in front of the pump, the pump turns on, I get gas, it charges my Credit card!! Go inside, get some stuff wave it in front of the CC machine, done!! Paid for!! Does that sound like Apple pay?? FWIW I love apple products my second Apple TV will be here any day.
those ideas better. IPOD?? That's an old design 2 guys from outside of Apple had, Apple basically refined it and made it smaller. Dont even start on the computers, as back in the day, Jobs took everything he could from Xerox (PARC?) and put it in his computer. Apple pay?? I've been scratching my head. I've had a 'smart pass' from Exxon for almost 20 yrs. its a little wand on my key chain, wave it in front of the pump, the pump turns on, I get gas, it charges my Credit card!! Go inside, get some stuff wave it in front of the CC machine, done!! Paid for!! Does that sound like Apple pay?? FWIW I love apple products my second Apple TV will be here any day.
Re: I think they tried in a partnership with Sony.
I mentioned that...in his mind, no different than buying a GoPro and setting it up behind a knickknack. To technologists, its like a shovel. You can buy a shovel and build the foundation of a magnificent structure, or you can hit someone across the back of the head and throw then into the hole you've built. They build tools, you decide how you want to use them.
I mentioned that...in his mind, no different than buying a GoPro and setting it up behind a knickknack. To technologists, its like a shovel. You can buy a shovel and build the foundation of a magnificent structure, or you can hit someone across the back of the head and throw then into the hole you've built. They build tools, you decide how you want to use them.
one step closer to my vision of web based tv
A la carte channel selection would be fantastic. I know the cable companies will fight it but hopefully technology wins out eventually.
I can't wait to watch web tv in my driverless car
Posted from Rivals Mobile
A la carte channel selection would be fantastic. I know the cable companies will fight it but hopefully technology wins out eventually.
I can't wait to watch web tv in my driverless car
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Ha! You'll be dead before either happens.
You need somebody to provide the "pipe" to your house whether it be Comcast, AT&T, Direct TV, etc... And they've got the leverage over your bundlers such as Netflix, Amazon, Sling, Apple, etc... The bundler market is hardly mature enough to take on the pipers.
As for you driverless car, two things prevent it from ever getting off the ground: 1) incompetent software engineering and programming (you see it in today's car infotainment systems) and 2) lawyers.
Just keeping it real.
This post was edited on 3/17 11:44 AM by Cosmos
You need somebody to provide the "pipe" to your house whether it be Comcast, AT&T, Direct TV, etc... And they've got the leverage over your bundlers such as Netflix, Amazon, Sling, Apple, etc... The bundler market is hardly mature enough to take on the pipers.
As for you driverless car, two things prevent it from ever getting off the ground: 1) incompetent software engineering and programming (you see it in today's car infotainment systems) and 2) lawyers.
Just keeping it real.
This post was edited on 3/17 11:44 AM by Cosmos
Joke is on you because I plan to live forever.
Your vision is short sighted. I don't doubt that the providers will put up a fight, but we are already half way there. I have plenty of friends that ditched cable/sat and just do netflix/hulu already. HBO to go is out now. It's just a matter of time and the providers will have to adapt.
Technology is advancing exponentially at this point. You sell software engineering way too short. Driverless cars in our lifetime. Legal issues will surely arise, but the benefit to safety will be too great to prevent them.
Your vision is short sighted. I don't doubt that the providers will put up a fight, but we are already half way there. I have plenty of friends that ditched cable/sat and just do netflix/hulu already. HBO to go is out now. It's just a matter of time and the providers will have to adapt.
Technology is advancing exponentially at this point. You sell software engineering way too short. Driverless cars in our lifetime. Legal issues will surely arise, but the benefit to safety will be too great to prevent them.
Re: Joke is on you because I plan to live forever.
you are right Grant, we will see them in our lifetime
Driverless cars will be safer than cars with drivers. I don't know how anyone can argue against this point, though you can surely try. It is usually people that have not a clue arguing against these things
you are right Grant, we will see them in our lifetime
Re: car to share why??****
hear are a few ....
Driverless cars are not distracted by texting, talking, shaving, poor vision, old age, the big mac in your mouth that dripped on your shirt, the baby screaming in the back seat , etc
I've got over 20 years of automotive experience.
every electrification step made in the automotive industry has made cars and driving safer
hear are a few ....
Driverless cars are not distracted by texting, talking, shaving, poor vision, old age, the big mac in your mouth that dripped on your shirt, the baby screaming in the back seat , etc
I've got over 20 years of automotive experience.
every electrification step made in the automotive industry has made cars and driving safer
Content providers (Discover, FX, NBC, etc...) have no incentive to change..
the status quo. The more customers bidding for their product the higher the price they command. And currently those bidders are aplenty; the pipers AND the bundlers. What you are witnessing is an overcrowding in the bundler niche.
I get a kick out of this "cut the chord" argument because you'll never completely wean yourself from the 'pipe'. Somebody's got to run the 'pipe' whether it be the phone company, the cable company or satellite provider. Do you think Apple wants to assume the infrastructure and overhead of an AT&T, a Charter or these other utilities. It's like Ford and GM paying the government to help maintain roads! Think about it.
As for 'driverless' cars it will never be completely driverless anymore than commercial airlines will be pilotless. Theoretically the technology exists but it won't happen in our lifetime. Best we can hope for HOV lanes with dedicated vehicles you can lease and 'ride share' with others but that's as far as it gets. The rest of this is George Jetson/pie-in-the-sky shit. At least here in Amerika we won't see it in our lifetime as we value our independence too much. Doubt it? For years now insurance companies could monitor your car's acceleration and braking through a device that's plugged into your inspection port and yet few people use it. Why hasn't it received widespread acceptance? Driverless cars might see better acceptance in places like Japan and Korea where the societies are homogeneous and therefore, people are more inclined to get into lock step. And never underestimate the power and influence of our increasingly litigious society.
Lastly, I trust our techno-geeks about as far as I can pick them up and throw them. Too many lack common sense and many think technology exists for technology's sake. There are a few who 'get it' like Mark Zuckerberg and Mark Cuban but they are far and few between.
the status quo. The more customers bidding for their product the higher the price they command. And currently those bidders are aplenty; the pipers AND the bundlers. What you are witnessing is an overcrowding in the bundler niche.
I get a kick out of this "cut the chord" argument because you'll never completely wean yourself from the 'pipe'. Somebody's got to run the 'pipe' whether it be the phone company, the cable company or satellite provider. Do you think Apple wants to assume the infrastructure and overhead of an AT&T, a Charter or these other utilities. It's like Ford and GM paying the government to help maintain roads! Think about it.
As for 'driverless' cars it will never be completely driverless anymore than commercial airlines will be pilotless. Theoretically the technology exists but it won't happen in our lifetime. Best we can hope for HOV lanes with dedicated vehicles you can lease and 'ride share' with others but that's as far as it gets. The rest of this is George Jetson/pie-in-the-sky shit. At least here in Amerika we won't see it in our lifetime as we value our independence too much. Doubt it? For years now insurance companies could monitor your car's acceleration and braking through a device that's plugged into your inspection port and yet few people use it. Why hasn't it received widespread acceptance? Driverless cars might see better acceptance in places like Japan and Korea where the societies are homogeneous and therefore, people are more inclined to get into lock step. And never underestimate the power and influence of our increasingly litigious society.
Lastly, I trust our techno-geeks about as far as I can pick them up and throw them. Too many lack common sense and many think technology exists for technology's sake. There are a few who 'get it' like Mark Zuckerberg and Mark Cuban but they are far and few between.
A la carte will be a mixed blessing
The current system of bundling, with 300 or 500 channels, is very cost effective for people who consume a lot of TV, who are watching 3-4 hours a night, who follow most major sports etc. For $150 or $200 a month you get an incredible variety of stuff.
But for people who don't watch much TV it's not such a good deal. For those people -- who watch say 3 movies a month, maybe a couple of series a week, and not much need for sports -- a la carte or even pay per view works out better -- you can get most of what you want for $40-50 a month.
But really, it doesn't matter. Whether you like it or not, keeping the old system is not an option. The old system is dying of its own weight. There are too many channels, too much content, and the content is just too expensive for the average person to want to pay for it all. You think $200 is a lot for premium cable -- do you want to pay $400 for 2000 channels? That's where it's going. Very few people will want it all.
The cable companies I think made a mistake sticking to conventional bundling for too long. Just enough households (and mostly young people) unplugged from cable, the content providers have to offer streaming access or they have no way to reach this highly desirable market. Cable is losing control over the content.
For me, the big issue isn't streaming vs. scheduled in any case. I have had a Tivo for 15 years now so it's the same thing. The biggest issue for me by far is watching content without commercials. And for that I am willing to pay a big premium.
The current system of bundling, with 300 or 500 channels, is very cost effective for people who consume a lot of TV, who are watching 3-4 hours a night, who follow most major sports etc. For $150 or $200 a month you get an incredible variety of stuff.
But for people who don't watch much TV it's not such a good deal. For those people -- who watch say 3 movies a month, maybe a couple of series a week, and not much need for sports -- a la carte or even pay per view works out better -- you can get most of what you want for $40-50 a month.
But really, it doesn't matter. Whether you like it or not, keeping the old system is not an option. The old system is dying of its own weight. There are too many channels, too much content, and the content is just too expensive for the average person to want to pay for it all. You think $200 is a lot for premium cable -- do you want to pay $400 for 2000 channels? That's where it's going. Very few people will want it all.
The cable companies I think made a mistake sticking to conventional bundling for too long. Just enough households (and mostly young people) unplugged from cable, the content providers have to offer streaming access or they have no way to reach this highly desirable market. Cable is losing control over the content.
For me, the big issue isn't streaming vs. scheduled in any case. I have had a Tivo for 15 years now so it's the same thing. The biggest issue for me by far is watching content without commercials. And for that I am willing to pay a big premium.
What's going to happen to broadband internet prices?
Regarding "cutting the cord". I agree I can see the Comcast's and Verizon's jacking up the price of internet connection if they start losing their video customers.
Does this new net neutrality law mean the government is going to regulate how much Comcast can charge for their interent connection like a utility? If not I can see all the $$ savings consumers gain from paying less for content go out the window when they have to pay more for an internet connection.
Regarding "cutting the cord". I agree I can see the Comcast's and Verizon's jacking up the price of internet connection if they start losing their video customers.
Does this new net neutrality law mean the government is going to regulate how much Comcast can charge for their interent connection like a utility? If not I can see all the $$ savings consumers gain from paying less for content go out the window when they have to pay more for an internet connection.
Re: What's going to happen to broadband internet prices?
NJPSU gets it. For those thinking a la carte will be cheap, think again. Remember when everybody wanted and thought the internet would bring access to PSU sports. Now you have to pay All Acess $10 bucks a month for some, the Big Ten premium for other, and the cable company (normal TV) for the rest. So the content that you think will be cheap will just raise in price. Think about it, a move on demand cost $5. How much do you think a content provider is going to charge for CSI or Big Bang Theory or a big time TV series. It will not be $1 a show I can tell you that. And how much will PSU or Big Ten charge for a season football.
When things get broken down smaller and smaller, the price actually goes up for the overal content.
NJPSU gets it. For those thinking a la carte will be cheap, think again. Remember when everybody wanted and thought the internet would bring access to PSU sports. Now you have to pay All Acess $10 bucks a month for some, the Big Ten premium for other, and the cable company (normal TV) for the rest. So the content that you think will be cheap will just raise in price. Think about it, a move on demand cost $5. How much do you think a content provider is going to charge for CSI or Big Bang Theory or a big time TV series. It will not be $1 a show I can tell you that. And how much will PSU or Big Ten charge for a season football.
When things get broken down smaller and smaller, the price actually goes up for the overal content.
Re: What's going to happen to broadband internet prices?
Why do you think Apple chose to offer a bundle as opposed to ala carte. It is easier to get someone to pay via a bundle/package than it is via the pay-per-view approach. I just heard that very line uttered by an 'expert' on CNBC. It rings true. Either way, we'll pay.
This is a battle over margin and the industry is sorting it out. And NJ is right in one respect and that it no savings will be passed onto consumers. We can forgettaboutit!
Personally, I just subscribed to Netflix. I access it through Charter Cable/high speed I-net. Now Direct TV has competition in my household. They had better bring their costs down or I will seek an alternative to Direct TV. And I plan on telling them that in our next discussion.
This post was edited on 3/17 5:02 PM by Cosmos
Why do you think Apple chose to offer a bundle as opposed to ala carte. It is easier to get someone to pay via a bundle/package than it is via the pay-per-view approach. I just heard that very line uttered by an 'expert' on CNBC. It rings true. Either way, we'll pay.
This is a battle over margin and the industry is sorting it out. And NJ is right in one respect and that it no savings will be passed onto consumers. We can forgettaboutit!
Personally, I just subscribed to Netflix. I access it through Charter Cable/high speed I-net. Now Direct TV has competition in my household. They had better bring their costs down or I will seek an alternative to Direct TV. And I plan on telling them that in our next discussion.
This post was edited on 3/17 5:02 PM by Cosmos
Where this basically fails is that most people are held Internet hostage by the Cable companies.
For $10 more than what I pay for Internet, Comcast bundles for me a bunch of channels that are sufficient for my household, including HBO, and they have other bundle options that are similar. Apple or other 3rd parties will never be able to offer a $10-$15 package which people will pay for and makes money for them.
Comcast, Time-Warner and the other big ones also forced the cost of their digital-on-demand upgrades onto consumers during the government's OTA HDTV upgrade - what cable did at that time was totally unrelated, pure marketing, and got consumers to foot a billion dollars in digital upgrades they never would've wanted nor asked for. Everyone now has been forced to pay for mostly purposeless cable boxes, which we pay rent for (often many per household), which do virtually nothing you couldn't do with your standalone digital TV or a $50-$100 box from Google, Amazon, Apple, Roku, etc. - and those 3rd party boxes mostly have wonderful user interfaces - unlike Xfinity's horrendous mess.
Right now, when you get Internet from a cable company, you're heavily subsidizing their digital cable / on-demand services.
Make Internet a utility, separate the cablecoms from Internet service, and make cable companies compete with everyone else. In the short term, it'll probably cost people more, but in the long run, the Internet will become much more innovative.
For $10 more than what I pay for Internet, Comcast bundles for me a bunch of channels that are sufficient for my household, including HBO, and they have other bundle options that are similar. Apple or other 3rd parties will never be able to offer a $10-$15 package which people will pay for and makes money for them.
Comcast, Time-Warner and the other big ones also forced the cost of their digital-on-demand upgrades onto consumers during the government's OTA HDTV upgrade - what cable did at that time was totally unrelated, pure marketing, and got consumers to foot a billion dollars in digital upgrades they never would've wanted nor asked for. Everyone now has been forced to pay for mostly purposeless cable boxes, which we pay rent for (often many per household), which do virtually nothing you couldn't do with your standalone digital TV or a $50-$100 box from Google, Amazon, Apple, Roku, etc. - and those 3rd party boxes mostly have wonderful user interfaces - unlike Xfinity's horrendous mess.
Right now, when you get Internet from a cable company, you're heavily subsidizing their digital cable / on-demand services.
Make Internet a utility, separate the cablecoms from Internet service, and make cable companies compete with everyone else. In the short term, it'll probably cost people more, but in the long run, the Internet will become much more innovative.
