A new (and likeable) cable provider

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by robnplunder Likeable cable provider sounds like an oxymoron to me.

I have a hard time using 'Apple' and 'likable' in the same sentence. I've always bristled at what many consider the tyranny of Apple's closed system approach.

Still, anyone who gives the cable companies a run toward lowering my bill via competition gets my vote.

[ExFlyBoy5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko I have a hard time using 'Apple' and 'likable' in the same sentence. I've always bristled at what many consider the tyranny of Apple's closed system approach. Still, anyone who gives the cable companies a run toward lowering my bill via competition gets my vote.

+1

I do think Apple needs to do something. I don't think they can continue to make the profits they are making just off the iPhone. The market share they have is not great and the last few iterations of the iPhone have been a overwhelming "meh". Eventually, even the Apple fans will get tired of paying a premium just to have a shiny Apple logo on the product. They *might* make strides in the electric car market, but that would be several years off.

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko I have a hard time using 'Apple' and 'likable' in the same sentence. I've always bristled at what many consider the tyranny of Apple's closed system approach. Still, anyone who gives the cable companies a run toward lowering my bill via competition gets my vote.

Note: replying to my own comment

OTOH, owning a lot of Apple stock in my portfolio has been quite the good thing....

[Cobra9777]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko I have a hard time using 'Apple' and 'likable' in the same sentence. I've always bristled at what many consider the tyranny of Apple's closed system approach. Still, anyone who gives the cable companies a run toward lowering my bill via competition gets my vote.

+2

I'm not about to get into Apple's ecosystem at this point, in any form or fashion. I've never been enthralled with their products, services, and certainly not their pricing. But I do like the cable shake-up that's happening generally, and the options that will hopefully create in the future.

A la carte, over the web, is what people want. Not 800 channels, where "nothing is on," via some proprietary black box. These skinny offerings like Apple and Sling are really just smaller, cheaper versions of the old model. No doubt, some people will jump on them. But I see no chance they will magically suit our needs.

I don't watch TV very much, but when I do, I have very specific interests that I would gladly pay a fair price to access. DW has a completely different set of interests, which are mainly satisfied by OTA networks and a handful of cable shows. We cut the cable when I ER'd and now just use OTA, Netflix, Amazon, and a variety of other free streaming sources via XBMC. It works, and it's cheap, but it's not elegant. I would happily pay a fair price for a more elegant solution, but only if I can customize it to include exactly what we want and nothing more.

[explanade]

Apple has been working on TV for years but they haven't been able to get the networks or the cable TV providers to bite. They're wary and envious so they're supposedly asking for things like a cut of each device sold.

But the way the streaming TV services are shaping up, it's not clear you'd save a lot of money because as has been pointed out, you have to pay a big chunk for Internet.

[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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by explanade 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.

Quote:

... 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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