| reply to Androidian
Re: You think they'd figure it out... I'll second that. The pay TV business model is on life support. A company like Apple or Intel need to pull the plug... |
|
|
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| Please note Apple's model is a pay per episode/season (pretty expensive if you watch more than a couple shows) and nothing realtime so sports and current events are out.
Intel is starting a service which sounds like Netflix but so far might be redbox or even a blockbuster of a fail.
Even Google fiber (which some believe to be the holy grail of broadband  ) chose a standard catv video subscription model. |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by tshirt:Please note Apple's model is a pay per episode/season (pretty expensive if you watch more than a couple shows) and nothing realtime so sports and current events are out.
As contrasted with the waste of many money for a broad selection of mostly similar channels with similar shows, when you only watch a couple of shows; and no live sports.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| As in my post above "it's a choice" but the limited number of shows/channels watched is human nature even with thousands of available choices you/most will pare it down to a few favorites that they regularly watch.
As far as sports there are plenty shown even on limited basic/OTA for a casual fan, it's a rabid addict that MUST have EVERY sports channel- the reason for the premium price supporting a hugely overpaid industry (as bad or worse than other parts of the entertainment industry IMHO)
and yet, still cheaper then a single trip to the stadium per year for football or a few basketball or baseball games or soccer matches.
TV and CATV IS the cheap way to view sports. |
|
