Or the Denver Broncos had a mad man on the east coast not bought them as a gift to his power plant worker.


/why was this my first thought

I think we currently have the wrong approach to our media consumption. We all love the idea of getting our media interface centralized but the content providers are bent hell-for-leather to make centralizing content in any one company's service impossible. They fear, perhaps rightly so, what that type of monopoly may represent for themselves. It could end up sucking for customers as well if any one company achieved market dominance.

I think what we will end up seeing is the media providers offering a hodge-podge of services, with any number of independent software applications offering the ability to gather all of your media for you.

So for example, instead of having an iTunes account and ITunes content being limited to what Apple can make a deal for. iTunes could simply be an app where you input your preferences and then it gathers the media you are after. Instead of the user having to figure out where they could get say, "Time Bandits" online the app would scour the media sphere for you and present you with availability options based on what services offer it. It could the offer it for purchase, rental, or free streaming based on what media services you have signed up for.

Boudyro: I think we currently have the wrong approach to our media consumption. We all love the idea of getting our media interface centralized but the content providers are bent hell-for-leather to make centralizing content in any one company's service impossible. They fear, perhaps rightly so, what that type of monopoly may represent for themselves. It could end up sucking for customers as well if any one company achieved market dominance.

I think what we will end up seeing is the media providers offering a hodge-podge of services, with any number of independent software applications offering the ability to gather all of your media for you.

So for example, instead of having an iTunes account and ITunes content being limited to what Apple can make a deal for. iTunes could simply be an app where you input your preferences and then it gathers the media you are after. Instead of the user having to figure out where they could get say, "Time Bandits" online the app would scour the media sphere for you and present you with availability options based on what services offer it. It could the offer it for purchase, rental, or free streaming based on what media services you have signed up for.

You are describing a paid version of The Pirate Bay.

One of the (brand new) apartment communities I work with has Apple TV's installed in its common areas. I was there a few days ago playing around with the one in their theater room. They seem... pretty. I was having a bit of a hard time figuring out how to use them though, but maybe if I had a little more time to fiddle with them I could have sussed it out. But the menus did look pretty. Kind of underwhelming, overall so far.

They're big on Apple at that property... All of the apartments have iPod docks in the wall which will play movies stored on them through your TV, there are iPod docks in a bunch of places in the common areas of the buildings, their business center are all Macs and they even will loan you an iPod touch for free as many times as you like (though I think for 24 hours each time), and even will have it preloaded with a selection of movies from the community's library. They even have some virtual yoga thingee which runs on Apple TV.

The only things I use my AppleTV for are Netflix and XBMC. It's the only Apple product I own. And fark itunes.

I don't understand the headline.

Android TVs will be better.

/oh wait

Boudyro: I think we currently have the wrong approach to our media consumption. We all love the idea of getting our media interface centralized but the content providers are bent hell-for-leather to make centralizing content in any one company's service impossible. They fear, perhaps rightly so, what that type of monopoly may represent for themselves. It could end up sucking for customers as well if any one company achieved market dominance.

I think what we will end up seeing is the media providers offering a hodge-podge of services, with any number of independent software applications offering the ability to gather all of your media for you.

So for example, instead of having an iTunes account and ITunes content being limited to what Apple can make a deal for. iTunes could simply be an app where you input your preferences and then it gathers the media you are after. Instead of the user having to figure out where they could get say, "Time Bandits" online the app would scour the media sphere for you and present you with availability options based on what services offer it. It could the offer it for purchase, rental, or free streaming based on what media services you have signed up for.


Yeah, I'd like the TV content companies make their shows available online, more directly to consumers. Then I could pay them micropayments for shows and have whatever set-top box or portable media player that I want to use simply need to have an internet connection and then access the content I like.

fluffy2097:
You are describing a paid version of The Pirate Bay.

Ya I figgered there had to be something like it already. I just don't see services like Netflix or even the mighty iTunes being able to make their current models work long term. Apple got lucky/took advantage of the music industry and had them by the short an curlys before they knew what happened. The TV and movie folks are being a lot more cagey. Long term I think a more ala carte approach will probably be better for consumers anyway. There would be more competition.

Functionally it wouldn't look much different from a service but it would be under the hood.

"We didn't get rich by writing lots of checks, subby."

mongbiohazard:

Yeah, I'd like the TV content companies make their shows available online, more directly to consumers. Then I could pay them micropayments for shows and have whatever set-top box or portable media player that I want to use simply need to have an internet connection and then access the content I like.

Basically a 21st century version of on demand that covered all media. The problem is that it is a massive change to content providers revenue models and is going to take a while to all shake out. Would you pay high dollar for high production values and no advertising? Or would you prefer free/low cost content with advertising?

The other thing is it could do for TV/Movies what is going on with books and music right now. Which is: if you put the work in you no longer have to have a traditional publisher to get your stuff out there. You might not make Gaga money but you can make a living.

Looks like Viacom has a market cap of $26 billion.

I remember an article back in the summer about Apple having $75 billion cash on hand.

They really could just BUY VIACOM. I think. Or a controlling interest.

/Disney has a $70billion market cap.
//That's a lot of mouse.

Broadcasters aren't about to walk in to the situation the music industry found themselves in with Apple.

I think this is somehow related to the contracts that SAG et al got a few years ago. For some reason I thought it dramatically changed the royalties for any digital non-over-the-air transmission of shows, meaning that the Apple music way can't be profitable....which is why Netflix wanted to cut the DVD users out because their contracts were per-subscriber, not per person who watches a show.

Boudyro: Functionally it wouldn't look much different from a service but it would be under the hood.

Let me put it this way - I watched "The terminator" three times last week because it's on Netflix and I love it. I am thinking about buying it, but frankly - hey, it's on Netflix.

There are lots and lots and lots of movies that I would basically continue to watch over and over - not enough for me to buy the DVD - I don't want the clutter, and I like the impulse thing - but I'd be glad to spend my limited time budget on the same 80 or so movies or TV shows again and again.

Here's the kicker - I was GIVEN the IT crowd as a Christmas present three years ago. It's still in shrinkwrap - I watch it on Netflix all the time.

and I will *NEVER* until it's shoved down my throat, and skillfarked into my livingroom.

rubi_con_man: Boudyro: Functionally it wouldn't look much different from a service but it would be under the hood.

Let me put it this way - I watched "The terminator" three times last week because it's on Netflix and I love it. I am thinking about buying it, but frankly - hey, it's on Netflix.

There are lots and lots and lots of movies that I would basically continue to watch over and over - not enough for me to buy the DVD - I don't want the clutter, and I like the impulse thing - but I'd be glad to spend my limited time budget on the same 80 or so movies or TV shows again and again.

Here's the kicker - I was GIVEN the IT crowd as a Christmas present three years ago. It's still in shrinkwrap - I watch it on Netflix all the time.

and I will *NEVER* until it's shoved down my throat, and skillfarked into my livingroom.

The wife and I have pretty much taken the approach of buy it only if you know you love it. Everything else is either Netflix or a rental.

wildcardjack: They really could just BUY VIACOM. I think. Or a controlling interest.

There was something the other day I read that showed how Apple could basically straight out buy every major music label in existence and still have a significant amount of cash left over. I don't recall the numbers but it really put things in perspective.

Boudyro: I think we currently have the wrong approach to our media consumption...

The thing that frustrates me is that we're headed down a road just like you describe. Every damn content producer wants you to be paying them $10-15 a month for what they have, and unless you're willing to severely compromise what and how you watch things, in all likelihood you'll find yourself back at that ~$100-$125 a month level you current/used to pay for cable TV. Hard to blame them, I know; it's not like I'm going to my employer and begging them to give me less money or anything. But still there has to be a better way.

That's why I was really hoping Apple would make a serious push to "get into TV" beyond the current Apple TV/buy shiat from iTunes model. They, Amazon, and Microsoft (aside from telcos) are really the only ones that have the clout, expertise, and resources to make the kind of deals necessary to make this happen, and still be willing to offer it to customers at a reasonable price/with a reasonable subscription model (something beyond cables "tier" system).

Look, if Apple (or anyone else) gave me true ala carte pricing, or at least the ability to customize my channel tiers (say, any 10 channels for $25, 25 channels for $50, whatever), I'd be all over it. In truth by the time I figured out what channels I really wanted, I'd probably be close to that $100 range/month anyway. But I'd feel a lot better about it because I was paying for what I really wanted, getting what I pay for on my terms.

I really want to stop paying for cable and switch over to a Boxee/Torrent/Netflix/Hulu solution, but a couple things are holding me back.
A) My wife and I love sports. It is possible to get MLB.tv and NHL GameCenter, but they blackout the local games. All the solutions for using a proxy are quite a hassle everytime I just want to watch the game.
B) Channel surfing. I don't always watch just one program at a time. Mostly, while watching sports, I will flip to something else to fill the commercials, 18 min Intermissions, 17 min halftime, etc. If I am streaming the game, it is harder to flip over to something else to fill the void.

I do see getting rid of cable helping us watch less TV as for most shows we would be expressly deciding to watch them.

So if anyone has any easy solutions to the MLB/NHL local game problem, let me know. The kicker is if there were not any blackouts, I would pay the $120 per sport to stream the games in a heartbeat.

jayhawk88: at least the ability to customize my channel tiers (say, any 10 channels for $25, 25 channels for $50, whatever), I'd be all over it

Truth. I don't understand why I have to buy a crap ton of channels I don't want just so I can reach the package of channels I do want. I am not even talking about the MLB/NFL/NHL channels, but like NatGeo, Science, etc. I will trade away a number of channels just to get those, even at the same rate. Why is that not doable?

DaJesus: jayhawk88: at least the ability to customize my channel tiers (say, any 10 channels for $25, 25 channels for $50, whatever), I'd be all over it

Truth. I don't understand why I have to buy a crap ton of channels I don't want just so I can reach the package of channels I do want. I am not even talking about the MLB/NFL/NHL channels, but like NatGeo, Science, etc. I will trade away a number of channels just to get those, even at the same rate. Why is that not doable?

Disney.

I'd like a la carte cable. I hate paying directv for 300 channels and only watching 5.

Holy shiat! I just got it! Cleveland Brown... Family Guy... Cleveland Browns!!!

The cable companies have seen how apple has destroyed the record industry and want no part of changing everything about their business model to suit apple.

As for those that don't understand bundling, The content producers do it to the cable providers and the cable/dish providers are just passing it along to you and me. Those 25 channels owned by ESPN or 18 channels owned by History are in the packages because the cable company is forced to pay for them in order to get the channels people actually want.