The Really Official Apple Event Thread of Awesome

[sourceninja]

I'd be down for hulu plus but they don't state if the content is current. That is a big factor. Burn Notice on hulu is like 8 days after the episode airs. I hate dodging everyone who has already seen the show for that long. I can deal with a 24 or 48 hour delay, but I'm not going to pay money and have a delay.

 

[Kmax82]

A la carte channel rentals won't happen. Comcast, ATT and every other cable/satellite provider would shit huge bricks if that happened; their business models are centered around packaging huge bundles of channels.

However, Cable networks would gain considerably. How much of my $60/mo cable bill is going to NBC? I get 100+ channels, so I would think maybe a couple $'s? Possible $5? The cable networks stand to gain considerably in their revenue department for a la carte channels. Yes, cable providers would lose out on the monthly revenue, but really.. it would allow there to be more democracy on TV. I really only want (ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS, SyFy, TBS, Food Network, TLC, History Channel, etc...), so a la carte would be fruitful to both subscribers and the networks.

The loser, however, is the cable providers and since cable networks won't want to ostracize them, I can't see it happening any time soon, if ever.

$10/month gets you:

10 watch-once TV show rentals on Apple TV

or all this: http://www.hulu.com/plus#content

Tough decision

I don't currently want either model, really. If Hulu Plus offered better selection and 24 hour new releases, then I'd be all over it. But they don't. You get 14% more content with Plus and they still have delays with when shows come out.

A business model will win out in the end, and I hope it's something better than cable.

 

[Patranus]

However, Cable networks would gain considerably. How much of my $60/mo cable bill is going to NBC? I get 100+ channels, so I would think maybe a couple $'s? Possible $5? The cable networks stand to gain considerably in their revenue department for a la carte channels. Yes, cable providers would lose out on the monthly revenue, but really.. it would allow there to be more democracy on TV. I really only want (ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS, SyFy, TBS, Food Network, TLC, History Channel, etc...), so a la carte would be fruitful to both subscribers and the networks.

Then people would shout discrimination when their boutique cultural network goes out of business because the subscribers who don't watch it no longer subsidize its operations.

 

[Kadarin]

Noticing that iTunes 10 is now available for download (from the apple.com site, not via iTunes internal update).

 

[MotionMan]

Noticing that iTunes 10 is now available for download (from the apple.com site, not via iTunes internal update).

I got it via Software Update this morning.

MotionMan

 

[0roo0roo]

However, Cable networks would gain considerably. How much of my $60/mo cable bill is going to NBC? I get 100+ channels, so I would think maybe a couple $'s? Possible $5? The cable networks stand to gain considerably in their revenue department for a la carte channels. Yes, cable providers would lose out on the monthly revenue, but really.. it would allow there to be more democracy on TV. I really only want (ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS, SyFy, TBS, Food Network, TLC, History Channel, etc...), so a la carte would be fruitful to both subscribers and the networks.

wouldn't work.
the smaller channels add value that justifies the entire service for many folks but can't support themselves with such a model. its a bit like trying to watch tv through itunes purchases, you lose the abillity to really browse and reach something by chance. pay barrier is very strong, imagine how few people would actually pay extra to view anandtech if the internet were a la carte.

 

[scootermaster]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kmax82
However, Cable networks would gain considerably. How much of my $60/mo cable bill is going to NBC? I get 100+ channels, so I would think maybe a couple $'s? Possible $5? The cable networks stand to gain considerably in their revenue department for a la carte channels. Yes, cable providers would lose out on the monthly revenue, but really.. it would allow there to be more democracy on TV. I really only want (ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS, SyFy, TBS, Food Network, TLC, History Channel, etc...), so a la carte would be fruitful to both subscribers and the networks.
Then people would shout discrimination when their boutique cultural network goes out of business because the subscribers who don't watch it no longer subsidize its operations.

As per my previous post, ESPN is the most expensive cable network, at I think somewhere around $4-$5 a subscriber.

Most, if I remember correctly, get less than a dollar per subscriber.

 

[Kmax82]

wouldn't work.
the smaller channels add value that justifies the entire service for many folks but can't support themselves with such a model. its a bit like trying to watch tv through itunes purchases, you lose the abillity to really browse and reach something by chance. pay barrier is very strong, imagine how few people would actually pay extra to view anandtech if the internet were a la carte.

Why does it need to work? Very rarely are small networks worth the investment. I don't watch the channels and typically skip over them when "channel surfing"

I think a form of IPTV is a better way to go, personally. Something like Boxee. Have an aggregator. Networks would post their streams there and make it on demand and offer subscriptions and rentals. If I'm interested in a show, I can rent the episode to watch it... and if I find myself watching lots of shows on a network, then they could have a smaller fee in return for my monthly subscription.

The bottom line is will the networks change and step out of the mold that has started from the 50's? I don't think they will easily, but like online music distribution.. it will eventually, I'm hoping.

I'm done paying $60+/mo for cable for 80+ channels I don't watch. I watch what I can on Hulu and rent the rest on Netflix when they come out.

 

[Kmax82]

As per my previous post, ESPN is the most expensive cable network, at I think somewhere around $4-$5 a subscriber.

Most, if I remember correctly, get less than a dollar per subscriber.

Ah.. missed that part.

 

[0roo0roo]

Why does it need to work? Very rarely are small networks worth the investment. I don't watch the channels and typically skip over them when "channel surfing"

I think a form of IPTV is a better way to go, personally. Something like Boxee. Have an aggregator. Networks would post their streams there and make it on demand and offer subscriptions and rentals. If I'm interested in a show, I can rent the episode to watch it... and if I find myself watching lots of shows on a network, then they could have a smaller fee in return for my monthly subscription.

The bottom line is will the networks change and step out of the mold that has started from the 50's? I don't think they will easily, but like online music distribution.. it will eventually, I'm hoping.

I'm done paying $60+/mo for cable for 80+ channels I don't watch. I watch what I can on Hulu and rent the rest on Netflix when they come out.

doesn't work, people watch too many parts of things whether its news shows or talk shows or cooking shows, bits and pieces, and that just doesn't work with a rental model.
people graze. its like the internet. if you had to pay for each site you visited, even if it were cheap you'd think twice about looking at most sites.

 

[mmntech]

doesn't work, people watch too many parts of things whether its news shows or talk shows or cooking shows, bits and pieces, and that just doesn't work with a rental model.
people graze. its like the internet. if you had to pay for each site you visited, even if it were cheap you'd think twice about looking at most sites.

You guys are both right in a way. Networks aren't going to adopt a rental model, and neither are consumers. The problem is reconciling our on-demand culture with networks still needing to make money. Advertising is going to have to be part of that since television production is expensive. People aren't going to pay those fees. Even if you just watch one show a day, that adds up to $30 a month. Ad backed on demand makes more sense.

In the present time, I'd personally like to see the free-to-air networks start simulcasting their broadcasts online via HTML5. It's not that difficult to do. We experimented with it a bit in college.

 

[Kmax82]

You guys are both right in a way. Networks aren't going to adopt a rental model, and neither are consumers. The problem is reconciling our on-demand culture with networks still needing to make money. Advertising is going to have to be part of that since television production is expensive. People aren't going to pay those fees. Even if you just watch one show a day, that adds up to $30 a month. Ad backed on demand makes more sense.

In the present time, I'd personally like to see the free-to-air networks start simulcasting their broadcasts online via HTML5. It's not that difficult to do. We experimented with it a bit in college.

Yea.. Here's hoping somebody figures out how to make it work!