A new (and likeable) cable provider

[MichaelB]

The choice of the wording in the title (likeable cable) was deliberate. I admit that Apple is not the first thing that comes to mind when I read the word tyranny. In fact, since the very beginning, Apple has always competed, with it's closed architecture, against an open architecture platform. IBM, WinTel, Android are good examples. People using Apple do so by choice, not obligation. Apple brought choice to the market.

Perhaps this is Apple irony, as the "closed platform" belongs to Comcast, TWC and the other cable providers, and Apple potentially brings more, not fewer, consumer options. In this case Apple is the threat to closed non-negotiable bundles.

I can see Apple selling this to the networks as incremental business, not a threat to the base, something to get millennials onboard who don't currently subscribe. To me this looks a little like Vonage in the beginning, only with better management and deeper pockets.

 

[txtig]

I heard today of another new entrant to the streaming service field. Sony has launched its "Vue" service. $50/ mo. for around 60 stations. Currently requires a Sony PlayStation for streaming, but soon to be available on other devices. Looks like competition in this category is heating up.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[audreyh1]

The choice of the wording in the title (likeable cable) was deliberate. I admit that Apple is not the first thing that comes to mind when I read the word tyranny. In fact, since the very beginning, Apple has always competed, with it's closed architecture, against an open architecture platform. IBM, WinTel, Android are good examples. People using Apple do so by choice, not obligation. Apple brought choice to the market.

Perhaps this is Apple irony, as the "closed platform" belongs to Comcast, TWC and the other cable providers, and Apple potentially brings more, not fewer, consumer options. In this case Apple is the threat to closed non-negotiable bundles.

I can see Apple selling this to the networks as incremental business, not a threat to the base, something to get millennials onboard who don't currently subscribe. To me this looks a little like Vonage in the beginning, only with better management and deeper pockets.

Definitely can't it tyranny when no one is forced to use it. They've been bringing in competition and leveling the playing field in lots of areas

I do find Apple products likeable because they work well and well together. And a closed ecosystem is one of the things that makes it possible. And it's not that closed, either, otherwise there wouldn't be all these app providers writing for the platforms.

I'm an engineer and an end user and I prefer to use low hassle electronic gadgets even if they do cost a bit more. My productivity is important to me, even my leisure time productivity, LOL!

 

[FUEGO]

Though I'll probably never get an apple device due to craptacular past experiences, this is still great news. Once a "cable TV over broadband" takes hold it'll grow and others will compete and something awesome will occur since we'll like have tons of competitors vying for business. Apple TV is just hardware, no reason there can't be a proliferation of device types.

We have free cable and never turn it on. Netflix is more awesome. We maybe used to obtain shows of questionable copyright origin ( ) from teh intarwebs but haven't done so lately since Netflix is like sucking from an entertainment fire hose and we can't swallow all of the content as is.

Edit to add: I'd bite if there was a Google Chromecast type device that did everything (or the Amazon FIRE stick). Google is a company I trust to balance cost, convenience, and cross-platform functionality. Apple might give convenience (if you're already part of the hive-mind) but maybe not so much a good balance of cost and cross-platform functionality.

 

[audreyh1]

Though I'll probably never get an apple device due to craptacular past experiences, this is still great news. Once a "cable TV over broadband" takes hold it'll grow and others will compete and something awesome will occur since we'll like have tons of competitors vying for business. Apple TV is just hardware, no reason there can't be a proliferation of device types.

There is already a proliferation of Internet to TV streaming devices. Of course there can be even more.

 

[FUEGO]

There is already a proliferation of Internet to TV streaming devices. Of course there can be even more.

We just need the One device to rule them all.

Will apple offer this service across all other hardware platforms or force subscribers to use their proprietary hardware?

 

[audreyh1]

We just need the One device to rule them all.

Will apple offer this service across all other hardware platforms or force subscribers to use their proprietary hardware?

They aren't forcing anybody. People use Roku, FireStick, and various devices now with Netflix, Hulu+, etc. Amazon Prime Video supports some devices but not others, Acorn TV supports some devices but not others.

It's up to the streaming service and/or content providers to decide which platforms they support.

 

[explanade]

Apple along with Sling is promising "live" TV presumably so there would be a way to view live sports games.

That's the difference.

 

[sengsational]

I'm looking forward to kicking TimeWarner to the curb after they build out google fiber here! Right now I just switch between TWC and uVerse to get the new customer price. Internet only (no TV).

 

[FUEGO]

I'm looking forward to kicking TimeWarner to the curb after they build out google fiber here! Right now I just switch between TWC and uVerse to get the new customer price. Internet only (no TV).

Call up TWC and downgrade to the minimum $15-20/mo plan. They'll either offer to retain you at a low price (I'm paying $30/mo for standard 15 mbps) or downgrade you. Then you can go online and upgrade to get another full 12 months of a very low rate ($30-35 for standard online). Maybe 30 minutes including 25 minutes on hold waiting for a CSR.

 

[marko]

Definitely can't it tyranny when no one is forced to use it. They've been bringing in competition and leveling the playing field in lots of areas

I do find Apple products likeable because they work well and well together. And a closed ecosystem is one of the things that makes it possible. And it's not that closed, either, otherwise there wouldn't be all these app providers writing for the platforms.

I'm an engineer and an end user and I prefer to use low hassle electronic gadgets even if they do cost a bit more. My productivity is important to me, even my leisure time productivity, LOL!

The "tyranny of Apple" is a common discussion in geek circles and while of course, no one is forced to use them, there is a certain "our way or the highway" once you join their world.

I do like that their products work extremely well, and I had been an invited early adopter/tester (from their old Apple IIe to iPod).

IMHO their closed system limits them; they come out with some really innovative products but then someone like Google spreads a close copy to a wider audience because they offer a more flexible way of access and usage across many/wider/cheaper platforms. Over time I've become a full fledged all-things-Google user just for that reason.

However, as mentioned earlier here, I hold a fair amount of Apple stock for which I'm quite grateful.

 

[UnrealizedPotential]

Ever since digital TV became available OTA there is no incentive to pay for channels. Of course this assumes you don't care too much about sports and you live within range of your cities tv signals. I am lucky enough to get so many channels it's unbelievable. When I was a kid in the 80's it was pretty sad for OTA. Those days are gone.

 

[explanade]

The closed/open thing is propaganda.

Only things they don't allow in the App. Store are obvious porn or scams. So Google Play has been more afflicted by malware.

Google open sources Android but tries to limit certain things. So Amazon and others have modified the code to make their own variants, which are not fully compatible with Android.

Practical matter for end users is that App. Store and Google Play have the most apps. and are more or less the same selection of software.

"Open" software is just a theory, in practice it amounts to very little difference from so-called "closed" platforms, as far as average users are concerned.

There are ideologues on open software, who believe there should be no such thing as commercial software. Well there's far more commercial software which is useful to average people than OSF software.

 

[ERD50]

The closed/open thing is propaganda. ...

Not when it comes to hardware. With Apple, I'm limited to what they decide to offer, which often does not fit my needs/budget. That is what drove me to Linux, I was able to buy a $289 netbook in 2009, when Apple had only the $2000+ 'air', IIRC. I found I liked Linux, so I stuck with it.

... There are ideologues on open software, who believe there should be no such thing as commercial software.

There are ideologues in every area. What they think doesn't matter, really. I have no problem with someone offering software for sale. If they developed it, they can choose to charge for it. And if it is better than the freely distributed open-source software, I'll buy if if I need it.

-ERD50

 

[audreyh1]

The closed/open thing is propaganda.

Only things they don't allow in the App. Store are obvious porn or scams. So Google Play has been more afflicted by malware.

Google open sources Android but tries to limit certain things. So Amazon and others have modified the code to make their own variants, which are not fully compatible with Android.

Practical matter for end users is that App. Store and Google Play have the most apps. and are more or less the same selection of software.

"Open" software is just a theory, in practice it amounts to very little difference from so-called "closed" platforms, as far as average users are concerned.

There are ideologues on open software, who believe there should be no such thing as commercial software. Well there's far more commercial software which is useful to average people than OSF software.

Google has had to tighten up operations in their Play site because of too many problems with malware. Google follows Apple's lead, introduces human app review team for the Play Store

 

[explanade]

Not when it comes to hardware. With Apple, I'm limited to what they decide to offer, which often does not fit my needs/budget. That is what drove me to Linux, I was able to buy a $289 netbook in 2009, when Apple had only the $2000+ 'air', IIRC. I found I liked Linux, so I stuck with it.

-ERD50

The chips in the Apple notebook are likely more expensive -- Intel charges more for them -- than the one in that laptop.

Sure you can get a good $500-600 laptop which can run Windows or Linux.

Then you find Apple charging close to $2000 for a 15-inch laptop. Well the components are not the same, from the screen to the build quality.

That said, I bought an HP laptop for $700 which has a decent 1080p touch screen and then a year later, got a 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display for $2000.

They both have their merits, though the MacBook Pro also has faster processor and SSD and 16 GB of RAM.

 

[mpeirce]

One problem with really cheap commodity hardware is that there is very little profit in making it. This leads to bad behavior like manufacturers trying to make some money by bundling in awful or even malicious software (like Lenovo did with Superfish).

 

[ERD50]

The chips in the Apple notebook are likely more expensive -- Intel charges more for them -- than the one in that laptop.

Sure you can get a good $500-600 laptop which can run Windows or Linux.

Then you find Apple charging close to $2000 for a 15-inch laptop. Well the components are not the same, from the screen to the build quality.

That said, I bought an HP laptop for $700 which has a decent 1080p touch screen and then a year later, got a 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display for $2000.

They both have their merits, though the MacBook Pro also has faster processor and SSD and 16 GB of RAM.

I don't disagree at all. But sometimes, a low cost, basic unit is 'good enough' for what I want - and Apple doesn't really have a 'value line'. But at that higher price point, the Apple products generally do have some higher end components and build quality to them. Not so sure about CPU though, you need to carefully compare something like the passmark scores on the specific model CPU. There is a wide range of performance among i3, i5, and i7, with many examples of i3s with higher scores than i5s - devil's in the details.

For another example, the laptop that I use as my 'desktop' 99% of the time is a Lenovo 17" monitor unit that I bought for $570 on Amazon about 1 year ago. It absolutly is not as full featured or as slick as a MacBook Pro, no question about it - but I wanted a 17" monitor and plenty of memory (it was 6GB - 4/2, I bumped it to 12GB - 4/8 myself for another $67). I've been very happy with it, and the cheapest 17" MacBook would have cost far more - oh, wait a minute - Apple doesn't even make a 17" any more.

I just like having more choice than Apple usually offers. But if their offerings fit what you want, that's great.

One problem with really cheap commodity hardware is that there is very little profit in making it. This leads to bad behavior like manufacturers trying to make some money by bundling in awful or even malicious software (like Lenovo did with Superfish).

Well, that gets wiped and Ubuntu/Xubuntu installed over it, so if that bundled software that I'll never see lowers my price, I'm OK with that. I've looked into laptops w/o an OS installed, and there don't seem to be any bargains. First of all, they aren't mainstream enough for them to push with/compete with discounts, and apparently the makers get enough $ to at least partially (fully?) offset the cost of Windows.


-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

OK, I got curious about the CPU. This mac, though just 13" is about what I could have bought at the time.

MacBook Pro "Core i5" 2.4 13" Late 2013 Specs (Retina Late 2013 13", ME864LL/A*, MacBookPro11,1, A1502, 2678) @ EveryMac.com


Intel Core i3-4000M 2.4 GHz Processor (passmark 3429 ) My Lenovo

Intel Core i5-4258U @ 2.40GHz 4163

So yes, faster processor, but only by ~ 22%:

4163/3429 = 4163 ∕ 3429
≈ 1.2140566

I find memory is more important for me for performance than the CPU speed, I thought 6GB would be enough, but I did upgrade to 12GB which has been great (I just never hit much swap anymore).

But that MacBook RAM is not upgrade-able :

*4 GB or 8 GB of RAM is onboard by default, but it could be upgraded to 16 GB at the time of purchase at additional cost. RAM*cannot*be upgraded later.

I didn't see prices for that config on that page, but I'm guessing that 16GB from 4GB base would bring the price way up from the original $1299. Probably double my less than $700 with 12GB (and 17" screen!).

Again, not trying to sway anyone from Apple, they are good products and a good choice in many cases - and this is not an apple-to-Apple comparison, but that's just it - they don't have things at this price range to compare to, so they lost me as a customer for computers at least. But their business seems to be doing just fine w/o me, so that's OK too.

-ERD50

 

[explanade]

Yeah the soldered RAM is regrettable but it's the tradeoff for a thinner design.

Battery isn't swappable either.

I looked up RAM upgrades for my HP a few months ago and it wasn't cheap. I know you can upgrade yourself but the case isn't easily opened.

Hope it will run Win10 with 8GB of RAM. It's sluggish waking from sleep, won't fully redraw windows after waking up.

 

[ikonomore]

What people often forget with Apple products is that they have resale value.
I paid $1100 for my macbook air, 3 years ago.
I could sell it easily for $700. So total cost for 3 years is $400.

A comparable PC laptop would've cost $700 or so and it'd be worth $200 or so.

YMMV but resale is important and I've done this many times. After buying my dell laptop for $1400, sold it for $75, 4 years later.

 

[audreyh1]

What people often forget with Apple products is that they have resale value.
I paid $1100 for my macbook air, 3 years ago.
I could sell it easily for $700. So total cost for 3 years is $400.

A comparable PC laptop would've cost $700 or so and it'd be worth $200 or so.

YMMV but resale is important and I've done this many times. After buying my dell laptop for $1400, sold it for $75, 4 years later.

Good point! Don't assume your older Apple products are worthless.

 

[audreyh1]

FWIW - Amazon Prime Video is working very well for me with AppleTV if I use the "Amazon Instant Video" app on my iPad and set up Airplay to the AppleTV. This works much, much better than from a laptop using Airplay from a web browser like Safari.

It's still indirect (since it requires a device in addition to the AppleTV), but works so seamlessly I don't notice. So this is probably the "workaround" that Amazon has intended users to use all along, as this allows Amazon to work outside of the Apple iTunes system.

I think when I first tried the app, the movie I was trying to play was restricted to only playing in a web browser (a restriction imposted by the content provider) and the Instant Video app couldn't play it. So I hadn't tried the app for a while.

 

[txtig]

I heard today of another new entrant to the streaming service field. Sony has launched its "Vue" service. $50/ mo. for around 60 stations. Currently requires a Sony PlayStation for streaming, but soon to be available on other devices. Looks like competition in this category is heating up.

I've been test driving "Vue" this week (on a one week free trial) as a possible substitute for my current U-verse TV service. They have three levels of programming. I chose the middle level: 70 channels for $35/month. But, no local Channels. It has almost all the channels we ever watched on our 300 channel U-verse service.

I streamed Vue through an Amazon Fire Stick. It worked well, but took a while to switch stations. I suspected that it was a memory issue, since the Fire Stick has very small amount of memory. So, I upgraded and got an Amazon Fire TV shipped to me overnight. Hooked it up and, wow, what a difference. All the channels loaded with very little delay.

Quality of the picture is excellent, even though I'm using the Fire TV wirelessly over Wifi. I still plan on running a network cable to the Fire TV, which should provide an even better signal.

My plan is to ditch U-verse after I decide on an OTA solution. My current thought is to buy a 4 tuner Tablo for OTA channels, which will also stream through the Fire TV. $299 plus the cost of a hard drive to store the programming.

I should be able to save over $100 per month as compared to my current deal with U-verse.

Anybody else out there using Tablo? If so, I'd sure be interested in hearing your thoughts on it.

 

[Beldar]

If we could get the Food Network at a reasonable price, DW would be so happy. That's the one thing about not having cable that she really wants. I record a few OTA cooking shows for now with the PVR, that helps, but I guess it's not THE Food Network.

-ERD50

Has she taken a look at the cooking/foodie channels on Roku? There must be a bazillion of them (mostly free). On demand by subject (although there is a live chef-type channel from Brazil, if you understand Portuguese). We make sure we're not hungry when we browse the shows.

_B