Apple Is Reinventing TV. Why Didn't The Cable Companies?

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Cable companies have been sitting back on their big fat assets for way too long now and have recently been awakened to the fact that the new kids on the block are chomping at their heels and other exposed parts. Companies like Apple and even upstart Sling are giving subscribers a viable alternative to established cable companies and their static ‘take it or leave it’ tier programming.

For decades, they have enjoyed near monopolies and been able to rely on simple demographics to grow their businesses. As long as their customers kept having children, their bottom line was bound to increase.
Click to expand...
 
Apple is? I thought Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon were... and then a "me too" Apple attempt. *shrugs*
 
Ducman69 said:
Apple is? I thought Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon were... and then a "me too" Apple attempt. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

Does it matter? Alternatives is a good thing, it means choices. More attempts just means more options, more pressure.

The more companies "like" Netflix means a greater chance we will get on-demand no commercial programming. Not going to complain about that one bit!
 
dandirk said:
Does it matter?
Click to expand...
Its just comical to me how Apple gets all this free press (its basically just a Apple TV commercial) in the form of "news", and given credit for doing things others have been doing longer and/or in much greater volume, more successfully.

Its like Mercedes fanbois saying that Mercedes reinvented private transportation, when they do the same thing as Ford, Toyota, Honda, GM, BMW, etc. Nothing wrong with a "me too" additional competitor in the market, but the press really needs to let it go with the whole Apple reverence.
 
Apple Is Reinventing TV. Why Didn't The Cable Companies?
Click to expand...
If you have the only cow and everyone wants milk why would you kill it?
 
So how are they reinventing TV again? They paid a metric fuck ton of money to HBO in order to gain exclusive rights to HBO Now... kind of sounds like what DirecTV did with the NFL, what Cable does with everything else... so they're basically doing the exact same shit as cable/satellite, they have a service that only they have, and other people are shit out of luck.
 
Is it just me or does practically all editorial content on the Internet suck ass now. Everything is quantity over quality, SEO-focused, marketing-driven bullshit that nobody should care about. I'm sick of these fucking useless bloggers who manage to spout utterly fictitious, idiotic shit on high-traffic sites, creating a perpetual wave and cycle of nonsense.

Yes, Apple re-invented TV. Hilary Clinton also never used a personal e-mail server.
 
dandirk said:
Does it matter? Alternatives is a good thing, it means choices. More attempts just means more options, more pressure.

The more companies "like" Netflix means a greater chance we will get on-demand no commercial programming. Not going to complain about that one bit!
Click to expand...

Point is, I already get unlimited "on-demand no commercial programming" through Netflix for $8...;) I also get a Blu-Ray on-demand, commercial-free disk rental service for another $10, with no late fees. Apple will probably end up like Sony--taking Netflix and reselling it for a dollar or two in profits...;) Wish 'em luck at that, I really do.
 
Ducman69 said:
Its just comical to me how Apple gets all this free press (its basically just a Apple TV commercial) in the form of "news", and given credit for doing things others have been doing longer and/or in much greater volume, more successfully.

Its like Mercedes fanbois saying that Mercedes reinvented private transportation, when they do the same thing as Ford, Toyota, Honda, GM, BMW, etc. Nothing wrong with a "me too" additional competitor in the market, but the press really needs to let it go with the whole Apple reverence.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Mercedes-Benz predecessors were actually making cars before the other 5 companies you mentioned existed, right? So at one time they not only "reinvented private transportation", they invented it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benz_Patent-Motorwagen
 
Ducman69 said:
Apple is? I thought Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon were... and then a "me too" Apple attempt. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

Amazon Unbox released on TiVo September 7, 2006.
Apple TV (iTV) unveiled September 12, 2006.
Netflix streaming started Febuary 2007.
Hulu announced March 2007.

Western Digital didn't release their first player until 2008. Roku released their first player in May of 2008. If there were any other devices and streaming services before Apple TV, there weren't many. :)
 
timta2 said:
You do realize that Mercedes-Benz predecessors were actually making cars before the other 5 companies you mentioned existed, right? So at one time they not only "reinvented private transportation", they invented it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benz_Patent-Motorwagen
Click to expand...
Oh yeah? If you want to get technical, Mercedes had nothing to do with the Benz automobile, since it was under Daimler before Daimler and Benz merged, and there were several steam powered cars well before that such as our good ol' red, white, and blue Carhart's 200 mile endurance race winner. Uhn! Regardless, if anything that actually reinforces my point, when you look at the development of the automobile and how tons of work has been done in parallel across the globe in baby steps for all parties involved, first simply marrying existing basic horse carriage design with existing steam engine technology and working from there.

And the automobile INDUSTRY wasn't invented until Henry Ford combined new mass production techniques to the automobile, since Benz had only ever sold 25 of his hugely expensive hand-built cars while Ford literally pumped out millions upon millions leading to the development of a national road system and reinventing private transportation. ;)
 
MajorDomo said:
Cable companies have been sitting back on their big fat assets for way too long now and have recently been awakened to the fact that the new kids on the block are chomping at their heels and other exposed parts. Companies like Apple and even upstart Sling are giving subscribers a viable alternative to established cable companies and their static ‘take it or leave it’ tier programming.
Click to expand...

Sling is interesting, but ultimately, this is going to become what a media professor said 25 years ago about ala carte (though these are still packages): you'll pay more to get less.
 
nilepez said:
Sling is interesting, but ultimately, this is going to become what a media professor said 25 years ago about ala carte (though these are still packages): you'll pay more to get less.
Click to expand...

Price per channel may be higher but if you only really want 1 or 2 channels on cable you would probably save money. Though I can see cable companies adding an ala carte fee that pretty much makes it the same price as the bundle.
 
I don't really understand the benefits of cord-cutting at least from a monetary perspective. You're going to end up spending as much much or almost as much as you would with a bundle - at least in my experience.

Right now I have cable and internet with Time Warner for $105 after taxes and fees. I also have Netflix so that makes the total $113 per month for 1 cable box and one regular TV. If I went with these newfangled options I would spend $60 per month on just internet, $8 on Netflix, and $20 on Sling TV, which brings me up to $83. Add in Hulu Plus so that I can watch older shows since I don't think you can DVR with Sling and that gets me to $91. I'd also have to spend $50-60 on an antenna so that I could watch the networks. I also wouldn't have access to NBC Sports for hockey and soccer, but let's assume I don't care about that.

At the end of the day, I'd be saving $22 per month a pretty significant amount of money. However, you can only watch Sling on one device at a time, which sucks if you have a girlfriend or someone else that wants to watch something else at the same time. You're also completely reliant upon your internet connection not to suck, which is generally a toss up for me. And you don't get near as many channels. I'm not talking about the shitty channels, but rather NBC Sports, CNBC, The History Channel, National Geographic, etc.
 
Ducman69 said:
Apple is? I thought Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon were... and then a "me too" Apple attempt. *shrugs*
Click to expand...
I think they're referring to real time show streaming. If it actually happens. The article was weak in content and didn't go into any detail on why or how Apple is reinventing TV.
 
The article is not very useful.
I'm interested in all competition coming out. I like choices. Generally, competition=innovation, competitive costs.
 
babyshark31 said:
At the end of the day, I'd be saving $22 per month a pretty significant amount of money.
Click to expand...
That's a good reason for a lot of people.

I cut the chord and it was hard at first, but after 7 or 8 years, I'm happy I made the choice. It wasn't about penny pinching as much as the principal. Before Comcast bought my cable company in the Bay Area, I was paying $20 a month and getting all the major stations as well as some other stations. After they bought our local cable company our bill jumped up to $32.00, but they said we'd get more offerings and we did. However the bill kept going up and up and the offerings we were getting were awful. They were mostly channels we didn't watch except History and Discovery. Then they changed their tier and if we wanted even History or Discover it was even more expensive. Then HD came in and another tier change and it was even more expensive.

When HD came out they were charging $7.00 extra a month for each HD box. Oh and don't forget Comcast's horrible customer service, a wells know fact.

Right now I pay for Prime and Netflix discs and $39 a month for 50MBs cable. I'm still watching all the same shows for the most part, actually watching more newer shows that I wouldn't have know about. I get to watch when I want when I want.

With the internet we really don't need a middleman like Comcast. We could buy a Roku box or something else and stream the content.The industry is still changing and it's not all ideal as you mention sports and live programming, but it's coming. Sooner or later everyone will be a chord cutter.
 
timta2 said:
Amazon Unbox released on TiVo September 7, 2006.
Apple TV (iTV) unveiled September 12, 2006.
Netflix streaming started Febuary 2007.
Hulu announced March 2007.

Western Digital didn't release their first player until 2008. Roku released their first player in May of 2008. If there were any other devices and streaming services before Apple TV, there weren't many. :)
Click to expand...

And then there's tivo and generations of DVRs as well as XP's media center.
WebTv, ATI TV wonder too... but sure, all history is erased one APPLE does something.
Hell, TV and computers, then TV+Computers+internet video (as it speeds up) have been trying to get married for about 2 decades by my count.

I don't think apple TVs ever had a tuner (?) I seem to remember thinking about getting one, but functionality was so cut-down from what I already had since, pretty much my TV wonder times, it made so sense. Maybe I remember wrong.
Is there a ROKU with DVR?.. I will check things out, I miss my PC-DVR (Small PC, 2 tuners.. it died long ago)
 
babyshark31 said:
I don't really understand the benefits of cord-cutting at least from a monetary perspective. You're going to end up spending as much much or almost as much as you would with a bundle - at least in my experience.

Right now I have cable and internet with Time Warner for $105 after taxes and fees. I also have Netflix so that makes the total $113 per month for 1 cable box and one regular TV. If I went with these newfangled options I would spend $60 per month on just internet, $8 on Netflix, and $20 on Sling TV, which brings me up to $83. Add in Hulu Plus so that I can watch older shows since I don't think you can DVR with Sling and that gets me to $91. I'd also have to spend $50-60 on an antenna so that I could watch the networks. I also wouldn't have access to NBC Sports for hockey and soccer, but let's assume I don't care about that.

At the end of the day, I'd be saving $22 per month a pretty significant amount of money. However, you can only watch Sling on one device at a time, which sucks if you have a girlfriend or someone else that wants to watch something else at the same time. You're also completely reliant upon your internet connection not to suck, which is generally a toss up for me. And you don't get near as many channels. I'm not talking about the shitty channels, but rather NBC Sports, CNBC, The History Channel, National Geographic, etc.
Click to expand...

You don't need a 60 dollar internet connection.

I cut cable a long time ago and with Comcast 105/30 at 49.99 a month I get everything I want for an additional 20 bucks a month.

Everything is really YMMV based on region, because here the 120 a month package comes with slower internet and no premium channels.

Cutting the cord gets you out of contracts, gives you way more diversity in how you watch your content and you only lose sports.
 
pgwalsh said:
I think they're referring to real time show streaming. If it actually happens. The article was weak in content and didn't go into any detail on why or how Apple is reinventing TV.
Click to expand...
IMO that's an obsolete business model anyway. I never understood the appeal of switching to TV channels in the middle of a stream, not able to see what just happened before that. I'd much rather have a list of TV shows, movies, or news/documentaries etc, mouse or arrow over it and get a preview clip to play (like their intro with theme music, with synopsis text superimposed), and then click it to play or click for more info like "more with this actor" or "more from this director" etc.

The whole idea of even needing a DVR in the digital age is so silly. If I want to watch Grimm at 6:30 instead of 7:30, why should I need to leave something on to record it or adjust my life schedule... just let me pull it when I want to pull it. And that's whats great about a P2P model, in that none of us are really the unique snowflakes we think we are, and chances are others in the country can serve each other on the web, eliminating the need for expensive single-point servers.

Peercasting with on demand clients is the future IMO.
 
babyshark31 said:
I don't really understand the benefits of cord-cutting at least from a monetary perspective. You're going to end up spending as much much or almost as much as you would with a bundle - at least in my experience.

Right now I have cable and internet with Time Warner for $105 after taxes and fees. I also have Netflix so that makes the total $113 per month for 1 cable box and one regular TV. If I went with these newfangled options I would spend $60 per month on just internet, $8 on Netflix, and $20 on Sling TV, which brings me up to $83. Add in Hulu Plus so that I can watch older shows since I don't think you can DVR with Sling and that gets me to $91. I'd also have to spend $50-60 on an antenna so that I could watch the networks. I also wouldn't have access to NBC Sports for hockey and soccer, but let's assume I don't care about that.

At the end of the day, I'd be saving $22 per month a pretty significant amount of money. However, you can only watch Sling on one device at a time, which sucks if you have a girlfriend or someone else that wants to watch something else at the same time. You're also completely reliant upon your internet connection not to suck, which is generally a toss up for me. And you don't get near as many channels. I'm not talking about the shitty channels, but rather NBC Sports, CNBC, The History Channel, National Geographic, etc.
Click to expand...

Are you on a 12 month promo rate?
 
Hostivar said:
How exactly are the reinventing it?
Click to expand...

The rumor had it that Apple will come out with new ATV this June. They are couple years delayed because cable/network companies playing hardball and refuse to give up their fat.

It is true that Apple is not always the first to (re)invent something new but they are usually the one who do it right or won't release until they get it right. most other companies release products first but usually half-baked, too complicated, or plainly does not work right for most average consumers.

that is why apple usually got more media attention and "reinvent" title when they release new product. you don't have to take my words for it. follow the money. Apple is now wall-street top tier money maker. they just joined DJ 500 Index, replacing long-time member AT&T.
 
foxnews said:
The rumor had it that Apple will come out with new ATV this June. They are couple years delayed because cable/network companies playing hardball and refuse to give up their fat.

It is true that Apple is not always the first to (re)invent something new but they are usually the one who do it right or won't release until they get it right. most other companies release products first but usually half-baked, too complicated, or plainly does not work right for most average consumers.

that is why apple usually got more media attention and "reinvent" title when they release new product. you don't have to take my words for it. follow the money. Apple is now wall-street top tier money maker. they just joined DJ 500 Index, replacing long-time member AT&T.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for the clarification :)
 
not many companies have the resource, willing, and power to change the current polluted TV cable model that is monopolized bye powerful cable/network companies.

Netflix has been fighting with these companies for years to get contacts with these companies.

if I have to vote for a company that have all the ingredients to change the tv business model, it would be definitely Apple. beside having resource and power, Apple would come out with a complete package: hardware top set box, contents, and integration with other devices/services.
 
BloodyIron said:
Still waiting for a better than piracy experience
Click to expand...

apple tv is pretty damn convenient. I'll sit on my ass and watch star trek TNG with the click of a remote. Of course I can dump out to netflix with another couple of clicks. Or like 500 other alternatives.
 
munkle said:
Price per channel may be higher but if you only really want 1 or 2 channels on cable you would probably save money. Though I can see cable companies adding an ala carte fee that pretty much makes it the same price as the bundle.
Click to expand...

If you want 1 or 2 channels, it'll work out. Once you get 30 channels the benefit goes away.
Every subscriber they lose means the price/subscriber has to go up.

I'm not against it. I'd benefit from ala carte. I don't think most will. I'll add that given the move towards capped service, you may end up paying more for your internet too.
 
timta2 said:
Amazon Unbox released on TiVo September 7, 2006.
Apple TV (iTV) unveiled September 12, 2006.
Netflix streaming started Febuary 2007.
Hulu announced March 2007.

Western Digital didn't release their first player until 2008. Roku released their first player in May of 2008. If there were any other devices and streaming services before Apple TV, there weren't many. :)
Click to expand...

Yup, plus Unbox was tied to the ancient TiVo which required a cable/satellite subscription or OTA. Aside from that, even now Amazon is a relative small player in digital media sales. Not to say that they're small but iTunes still leads in digital media sales by a wide margin.
 
I would be ok with paying around the same amount for ala carte tv as satellite if i could get rid of all the junk channels. I don't want 50 music channels, 10 home shopping network channels, 10 porn channels, or porn channel advertisements listed in between the HBO listings. I've used DirecTV, TIVO, Dish, and Comcast cable DVR's and they're all crap. While I can tolerate DirecTV, I wish they would all adopt a cleaner UI similar to Plex..
 
Babbster said:
Nothing is invented until Apple invents it.
Click to expand...

To be fair, apple has been attacking the notion of some sort of cable replacement since before streaming was massively viable and the download it to a local cache model was the only broadly usable option.

They really wanted to replace cable with a packaged option that was very similar but sent over TCP/IP. If you mean replacing cable with cable, but form someone different over your broadband connection, they have been hacking away at the legal and licensing for a long time and have had a platform for a long time now.

If you mean replacing the cable way of doing business with something better than simply adding competition.. then no, they haven't really.

As fro why the cable companies haven't done it, they have. They could be offering ala carte and streaming equivalents any time they want. Their on-demand infrastructure could do the job, and the back end could in all probability be used for TCP/IP delivery of that.
 
raz-0 said:
To be fair, apple has been attacking the notion of some sort of cable replacement since before streaming was massively viable and the download it to a local cache model was the only broadly usable option.

They really wanted to replace cable with a packaged option that was very similar but sent over TCP/IP. If you mean replacing cable with cable, but form someone different over your broadband connection, they have been hacking away at the legal and licensing for a long time and have had a platform for a long time now.

If you mean replacing the cable way of doing business with something better than simply adding competition.. then no, they haven't really.

As fro why the cable companies haven't done it, they have. They could be offering ala carte and streaming equivalents any time they want. Their on-demand infrastructure could do the job, and the back end could in all probability be used for TCP/IP delivery of that.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I think people in this industry are really sick of the Apple circle jerk. I would venture a guess that the average American is just wanting to have some pride in the fact that the most powerful tech companies are in the USA, but those of us who know just how much money (in production costs and profit) is sent overseas are sick of the butt kissing.

Mind you, Google seems to be really bad in this area too and should get more grief for it than it does.

http://financesonline.com/how-iphone-is-made/

http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/22/w...s-is-fair-and-why-congress-largely-disagrees/

IMO the American media should spend less time kissing Apple's butt and give more praise to companies like Ford. I'm sure they hide money too, but at least they put food on the table (when you realize they have dealerships in even very small towns) virtually everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top