OT: Potential Apple TV Content Deal
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Glad the BIG snatched up Rutgers and Maryland before everyone else. /s
I can link just fine on my phone.
March 17th, 2015 at 10:45 AM ^
No but my laptop can and since I pay for internet..
Related, but the HBO ToGo is kicking off exclusively with Apple as well I believe (Apple TV, iPad, iPod). With Sling TV as well, cable TV is really set to take a dive in coming years. Fine by me though. Cable/Dish TV is such a freaking waste. There's so few things I actually want to watch TV I just cannot justify huge packages to get the few things I want to.
You realize this is no different than what you have today, right? Swap out the name of DirecTV or Dish Network or Comcast on your bill with Apple, and it isn't any different. You're still paying a third party for a bundle of video programming and they get to decide the contents. If the major networks are going to go this route, you can be sure that their satellite network are going to be included.
This isn't going to change anything, and it isn't going to be cheaper than your existing setup. The only way it is going to work financially is to sell advertisements for the streams, so goodbye watching your "hour" show in 42 minutes.
It's very different from what I have today. What I have today is no cable or TV package because I was sick of paying a lot of money for things like TruTV and CNBC. Yeah, I miss out on watching live sports and HBO, the two things I really enjoyed on TV. But now? I have a $40 internet connection. I could add SlingTV to get ESPN and WatchESPN for $20 a month and add (soon at least) HBO Now $15 a month. Brings my total to $75 to get the majority of what I actually want to watch. That's almost half of what I was paying for a cable/internet package with fucking Comcast. Yeah Dish Network runs SlingTV, but the bigger change is this slow move to al a carte programing so I don't pay another $70 a month for stations I don't want and don't care about. And I don't understand your arguement about this only working financially to sell advertising time. Hasn't HBO's entire buisness model worked where you pay a fee to replace ad revenue?
I can easily see that $40 internet connection skyrocketing as more people switch from cable to internet. The internet providers will explain the price increases as an attempt to provide the "best experience possible" to their customers in response to "market demands".
Or, Comcase/ATT/etc. will continue to ramp up data caps with ridiculous overage fees to pull in more money. Ahhh, so many choices when you're an oligopoly!
This is why I honestly believe that in the near future ISPs will be treated like power companies are now, where their rates are regulated and where they must submit requests to a regulatory agency in order to raise prices. The internet is too necessary to leave this up to the free market. Currently Charter is the only reliable internet in my area, and they are pretty much raping everybody now. I pay over $50 month, and the quality is extremely shitty. It seems like they are trying to make up for decreasing cable revenues. We should not let this happen.
March 17th, 2015 at 10:04 AM ^
True, but more choices as far as which TV channels a consumer wants to pay for is good for the consumer. In my situation I have Charter as well as a smaller regional service available for my internet where I live now. If one starts being a jackass, I always have the option to leave. This was not the situation where I used to live where Comcast was literally my only option beside paying for a very expensive satelite and/or wireless service.
In your case where you have a competing internet provider I can see how the streaming option works well. I can only get Comcast, and right now my internet is decently priced...It's nearing the end of my first year, and I am about a month away from getting screwed for being a loyal customer.
Unless something like Google Fiber continues to expand, or the FCC actually enforces the ability to allow competing services, I can see prices for internet rising at an even faster rate than they already have.
I need to become a Comcast executive.
That is not really any different than what I have with my Comcast deal. $75 gets me Internet, limited cable, watchespn, and hbo. I am just waiting for a B1G Network package.
March 17th, 2015 at 10:02 AM ^
You sir must live in a different market from me. Comcast was my only option and I could get it down to $95 but that required me to call every single month and do the "I'm going to cancel if you don't give me a special" thing. Which got old fast.
Besides it's also about the fact that I don't want 90 channels. That shit is addictive. I just want the few channels that I really want.
This deal is available to everyone.
It is called Interenet Plus (Double Play) from Comcast. (go here http://www.comcast.com/cable-internet-packages.html and expand to see ALL packages).
It includes Limited Basic, HBO, and Streampix (and WatchESPN), plus 50mbs Internet. Limited Basic is pretty much just local channels and Discovery, but I need it since there are too many trees in my neighborhood to get OTA signal (I tried many, many times).
I got it for $69.95. It looks like they have a special going now and have it listed for $39.99. That is a STEAL.
The only bad thing is that I cannot add BTN channel to this package (all upgrades require Basic Cable).
March 17th, 2015 at 10:48 AM ^
This isn't " A La Carte" programming. You ae paying $40 a month and getting a bundle of channels, just like you did when you had Cable/Satellite. The provider just changed, and you're getting a smaller bundle for a smaller fee, so you're just rolling back the clock a few years as far as TV service goes. In a few years, your $40 basic bundle is going to expand to a $120 200 channel bundle.
How do you think NBC/ABC/ESPN/CBS are going to get revenues without selling advertisements? Companies aren't going to pay for advertising on TV if more and more people are moving away from traditional TV watching and moving to streaming content. But the money has to come from somewhere, and I doubt $40 per person per month is enough to cover the costs involved with showing all of the included channels. CBS is trying to charge $6 per month just for a limited set of their content. HBO is $15 per month, I'm sure ESPN is close to, if not more. Add in Apple's costs, and they have to be subsidizing somehow.
Curious why you give a rip who gets paid on the deal? Sure, at first things might not be too much better as content providers work out how to set prices in a drastically changed media landscape, but that is not my concern. My concern (as a current Dish network subscriber) is to lower the amount I pay monthly for the content I want. I realize that the per channel costs will be high, but eventually I really believe that a lot of fat will be trimmed and we will be able to more exactly target our subscriber packages to better reflect our individual tastes and save money at the same time. The truth is, there are quite a few people on this board, and whom I know personally who would be happy with ESPN, BTN, HBO and Netflix.
There is a certain amount of pessimism involved when people calim that the high cost of cable is inevitable regardless of how we might choose to structure our subscriptions. It's as if we have accepted that in order to get any of the desired content we want we have to pony up a certain fixed amount. However, look at cell phone plans. It was only 3 or four years ago that everybody was on a cell phone contract with a major carrier. I had two shitty phones on a Sprint contract with no data and my monthly bill was $120-$130. My wife and I now have two high quality smartphones that each cost around $100 and we pay less than $100/month inclusive for unlimited minutes, text, and data in excess of what we will ever conceivably use. Not bad. But, I would also note that the other day I was in a meeting with a guy and he talked about the Radio Shack where his son works. Talked about how half the people who go there are buying prepaid phones and he said all of this with an air of distaste, as if there is something low class about not being bound to a contract. I said nothing, because he is a valuable client and I usually allow my good clients to revel in their self-indulgent fantasies. However I imagine that in the future, after many of us have cut the cord and are paying 25-30% less than our neighbors who are buying cable, there will be scorn heaped on those who no longer participate in the game.
March 17th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^
cable systems don't let you do ala carte programming. period. if you want just espn or just hbo you have to get the entire cable package.
March 17th, 2015 at 10:19 AM ^
That's the only provider for their new service that's available for Internet-only users regardless of platform.
I'd much rather Apple, Google, Roku, Sling, etc. stay out of the content business and just make great hardware. The networks should offer this streaming package themselves and take in the revenues. I'm kind of surprised that CBS is supposedly a part of this, since they're in the middle of rolling out their own subscription-based streaming service right now.
I take it you don't realize that SlingTV is different than a sling box. SlingTV is run by Dish.
You can get all of those for free with a HD digital antenna (like $15 on amazon).
hey ... try this:
Take any metal paper clip and bend it so that you have 1 straight section. Now take that straight section and stick into your HD TV antenna input. Voila ... the cheapest HD antenna ever!
I installed a 46" HDTV in the conference room at work for online meetings, but w/o anyone's knowledge I stuck a paper clip into the antenna input ... I picked up like 25 digital stations (20 of which suck) - but I can get any local channel in perfect HD.
Years ago I installed an antenna on my roof to get the local HD signal - but now I just use a paper clip. Fast, easy and a perfect picture.
Go Blue!
Did it to test that I would get the signal, but it's choppy, at least where I live. The $15 antenna doesn't require that it be on the roof, just stick it on the wall or window (indoors) by the tv
Not when you live in a mountain hollow and can't get any antenna service...
I bought a Mohu Leaf to try and pick up Detroit stations from Ann Arbor...distance is too great, and I can't do a roof mounted one as I'm in an apartment. So I just pay comcast for the local stuff with my internet.
They had a pretty good HBO deal last year that I snapped up.
This sounds like it would be a small step in the right direction - the lack of ESPN / BTN on things like Apple TV is the sole reason I still have cable, and I believe a fair number of people here perhaps are in the same boat. If they were able to throw BTN into such a deal, I would probably be on the phone with Comcast the moment after the contract was signed. Even $30-$40 per month saves me a little bit given the package that I have.
Just buy an HD antenna and Sling TV. The HD antenna is a one time purchase of around $65-85 depending on the model and the antenna strength. I bought a Mohu Leah 50 HD. I get NBC, 2 FOX channels, CBS, and 3 ABC channels plus some other channels that I have no interest in, all in beautiful HD.
The Sling TV is $20 a month and includes ESPN, ESPN 2, TBS, TNT, AMC and other channels. You can also purchase additional sports packages for an extra $5 a month.
This will be my setup in about 3 weeks. I currently live in an apartment, and can't get an OTA signal due to my location/direction I'm pointing (I bought a Mohu Leaf and the signal isn't good). But I'm moving into a house soon and expect to get an OTA signal from there. Assuming I do, my setup will be:
- $50/month for internet (15 mbps from Time Warner)
- $20/month for SlingTV
- ~$11/month for MLB TV Premium package
- ~$9/month for Netflix
- $8.25/month for Prime (though this nearly pays for itself with free shipping)
- $0/month for local TV
The only thing missing in there is BTN (and I suppose HBO, but I wouldn't pay for HBO even if I got cable). A comparable cable and internet package would cost about the same (I don't know for sure, but I believe Time Warner's cable + TV option is around $75-$80/month). So the total cost is essentially the same (I would still have to pay for MLB TV if I had cable), but there's almost no fluff in there - almost everything I'm paying for there is stuff I will watch (I won't watch all of the channels available via Sling). There's not hundreds of channels that I'm paying for that I'll never watch.
The only potential downfall to this whole model is if the ISP's start to charge for internet data packages (like the cell providers do). If (or when, depending on who's talking) this happens, that could significantly deter people from trying to stream as much as possible. But in the meantime, I'll be streaming away.
That is basically my set up as well minus Prime. The lack of BTN sucks, but if Michigan is on BTN I will just go out and watch it or use my parents Time Warner account and just watch the game on my laptop.
My Time Warner package when I lived in my apartment last year was $105/mo. That included internet and DVR, plus all the standard channels.
Now Im paying $45 for internet, $20 for Sling TV and $9 for Netflix. Im saving myself $30/mo. I agree Moleskyn, there is no fluff. I do not watch a lot of TV, so Im paying for channels I actually watch, and Netflix has more than enough movies/shows in case I get bored.
I do miss DVR. But I just use my parents time warner account and I am able to watch shows the day after. You will need a Roku or another streaming device to do that, but it's well worth it.
March 17th, 2015 at 10:29 AM ^
March 17th, 2015 at 10:39 AM ^
Yes, that is true. I heard they are working to fix that, but as it stands now, you can only watch Sling on one device at a time.
March 17th, 2015 at 12:09 PM ^
March 17th, 2015 at 10:26 AM ^
March 17th, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^
Correct. Detroit fan, live in Cleveland. Only time the games are blacked out are when they play Cleveland. I love it, their streaming service is excellent. And they're constantly updating/optimizing their Android app.
March 17th, 2015 at 11:40 AM ^
March 17th, 2015 at 10:58 AM ^
So let me get this straight: you are comfortable paying the same amount each month, split out to a bunch of different companies, to receive less programming, because you don't watch the other programming anyway? But at least one company isn't gouging you, right?
Why are "free" extras a good thing in every industry except TV?
March 17th, 2015 at 11:30 AM ^
The short answer is yes.
The long answer is that I'm actually paying less than a comparable internet + TV package. In my previous post, I was just going off the top of my head for what I thought a TV + internet package would cost. I just now went onto Time Warner's website, and the package that would get me similar content is $89.99/month, not including taxes, and not including equipment fees. Total out of pocket is going to be over $100/month. And the TV channel lineup includes over 200 channels, not including BTN (if I wanted a package that includes BTN, that would cost even more). When my wife and I had cable a few years ago, we watched maybe a dozen channels (including local stations) with any sort of regularity. So even though you get a ton of channel options, what are you really paying for if you're not watching them?
I feel like I'm getting more value for my money when I pay for just the things I want to watch (with a little bit of fluff...I'm obviously not going to watch everything on Netflix, and there are a few channels on Sling TV that I won't be watching), so even though I'm technically getting less content, it's only the content I want, and I'm going to make good use of it.
March 17th, 2015 at 11:33 AM ^
Just received an email from Sling...they have added History, H2, A&E will be available in a couple of weeks. Also, they just added TruTV for March Madness for an extra $5.
I'm dropping Comcast cable soon for Sling and HBO's standalone. We also have Netflix and Prime...the only thing I'm concerned about is BTN (but have until fall).
HD antenna and Chromecast for ESPN (with the use of a family members comcast log in). All the money I save I go out to watch games that are on B1G Network.
The family login is clutch. Thank god my parents still pay for their cable even though I swear they don't ever watch TV.
Between that, Prime, HBOGo and local TV I'm set. Anytime there's something I want to see on Netflix I just wait til I have a free trial again (Trailer Park Boys season 9 later this month)
March 17th, 2015 at 10:23 AM ^
March 17th, 2015 at 10:32 AM ^
True.
I haven't had cable since graduating and honestly don't feel like I've missed a lot. You can catch up on shows so easily now. There isn't much TV I feel like I'm missing out on live besides sports.
I like being in Ann Arbor so I can get CBC and get Hockey Night, and then the NFL games. Only thing I am missing is Fox Sports Detroit for Wings, Tigers and Pistons. If the regional sports networks ever show up on Sling I'll snap one up but right now I have no reason to.