(08-13-2017 08:21 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-12-2017 09:44 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/09/pf/disne...index.html

"we are getting back to the TV bundle."

Will never get back to that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Slim bundles. The content is owned by only a few companies. Each will push all their channels.

KODI for the win.

Has anyone here tried buying their own cable box to save on rental fees? This Yahoo! article tells how, but I've never tried it myself.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/pogues-basics...51992.html

I think it will get more expensive. It will start out fine with al a carte pricing, but will change within a decade. Just like Disney is going to sell their own separate streaming service, you'll start to see other channels do the same. so instead of paying 80 bucks for 100 channels, you'll have to pay $7.99 if you want to watch Disney content, then $8.99 to watch TNT and TBS, then AMC will cost 6 bucks and Animal Planet will be $7. Each channel or family of channels will be sold separately.

So cable companies will come back to us with a new pricing structure. They're going to give us the freedom to choose which channels we want, but each channel will be more expensive than if you paid for them all in an old standard cable package. Once you start picking out the 10-12 channels you actually watch, you could end up spending $50-70 bucks a month on them.

(08-15-2017 11:41 AM)MichealBond Wrote:  I think it will get more expensive. It will start out fine with al a carte pricing, but will change within a decade. Just like Disney is going to sell their own separate streaming service, you'll start to see other channels do the same. so instead of paying 80 bucks for 100 channels, you'll have to pay $7.99 if you want to watch Disney content, then $8.99 to watch TNT and TBS, then AMC will cost 6 bucks and Animal Planet will be $7. Each channel or family of channels will be sold separately.

So cable companies will come back to us with a new pricing structure. They're going to give us the freedom to choose which channels we want, but each channel will be more expensive than if you paid for them all in an old standard cable package. Once you start picking out the 10-12 channels you actually watch, you could end up spending $50-70 bucks a month on them.

What will happen is the channels that don't get eyeballs might fail. These cable companies still think we need 300 channels. There are days I don't even turn on the tv.

The free & open internet encourages competition so there will be a cheap option as long as we have Net Neutrality. But that cheap option might not have the shows you want to watch. You can already use Youtube for unlimited free entertainment, but if you want a high quality (and high budget) show like Game of Thrones you need to pay for it.

HBO is charging $20/mo for their OTT option, which is a lot but it costs them over $10 million per episode for GoT. It's a free market experiment to find out if people are willing to pay for high quality content. If HBO is successful then others will follow, but that's a GOOD thing. That's how a free market works. You can spend as little or as much as you want.

And if it turns out that we aren't willing to pay for GoT level quality then those shows will be canceled or have their budgets reduced and we'll get the low quality content we deserve.

(08-15-2017 12:34 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The free & open internet encourages competition so there will be a cheap option as long as we have Net Neutrality. But that cheap option might not have the shows you want to watch. You can already use Youtube for unlimited free entertainment, but if you want a high quality (and high budget) show like Game of Thrones you need to pay for it.

HBO is charging $20/mo for their OTT option, which is a lot but it costs them over $10 million per episode for GoT. It's a free market experiment to find out if people are willing to pay for high quality content. If HBO is successful then others will follow, but that's a GOOD thing. That's how a free market works. You can spend as little or as much as you want.

And if it turns out that we aren't willing to pay for GoT level quality then those shows will be canceled or have their budgets reduced and we'll get the low quality content we deserve.

People have always been willing to pay for high quality entertainment. The problem has been the divide between what the mass audience thinks is high quality entertainment and what the producer thinks is high quality entertainment. In other words, a big budget doesnt automatically equal high quality entertainment (I give you "Ishtar" and "Waterworld" as two good examples).

(08-15-2017 12:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:34 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The free & open internet encourages competition so there will be a cheap option as long as we have Net Neutrality. But that cheap option might not have the shows you want to watch. You can already use Youtube for unlimited free entertainment, but if you want a high quality (and high budget) show like Game of Thrones you need to pay for it.

HBO is charging $20/mo for their OTT option, which is a lot but it costs them over $10 million per episode for GoT. It's a free market experiment to find out if people are willing to pay for high quality content. If HBO is successful then others will follow, but that's a GOOD thing. That's how a free market works. You can spend as little or as much as you want.

And if it turns out that we aren't willing to pay for GoT level quality then those shows will be canceled or have their budgets reduced and we'll get the low quality content we deserve.

People have always been willing to pay for high quality entertainment. The problem has been the divide between what the mass audience thinks is high quality entertainment and what the producer thinks is high quality entertainment. In other words, a big budget doesnt automatically equal high quality entertainment (I give you "Ishtar" and "Waterworld" as two good examples).

TV is a little different than movies. For most things, they can see week to week how many eyeballs they have.

I like the way things are going. I'll pay for HBO, and I watch a pretty good bit of YouTube channels for free. If the Sci-Fi channel doesn't make it in the end, tough poo.

I would say that it is going to get things where only the best entertainment is on, but let's not kid ourselves. It will be all cat videos and people injuring their balls when the dust settles. (Still ok with that)

(08-15-2017 12:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:34 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The free & open internet encourages competition so there will be a cheap option as long as we have Net Neutrality. But that cheap option might not have the shows you want to watch. You can already use Youtube for unlimited free entertainment, but if you want a high quality (and high budget) show like Game of Thrones you need to pay for it.

HBO is charging $20/mo for their OTT option, which is a lot but it costs them over $10 million per episode for GoT. It's a free market experiment to find out if people are willing to pay for high quality content. If HBO is successful then others will follow, but that's a GOOD thing. That's how a free market works. You can spend as little or as much as you want.

And if it turns out that we aren't willing to pay for GoT level quality then those shows will be canceled or have their budgets reduced and we'll get the low quality content we deserve.

People have always been willing to pay for high quality entertainment. The problem has been the divide between what the mass audience thinks is high quality entertainment and what the producer thinks is high quality entertainment. In other words, a big budget doesnt automatically equal high quality entertainment (I give you "Ishtar" and "Waterworld" as two good examples).

You lost me when you implied Waterworld isn't high-quality entertainment.

Just noticed that PS Vue mid level is moving up to $45. My recent bill was $35 so I guess it is going to adjust soon. They did add all the local channels of ABC, CBS, and NBC along with existing Fox. So yes streaming TV is getting more expensive but still much cheaper than Cable and reduced tax portion of the bill. PS Vue mid level will now be $45 flat price (includes tax)

(08-15-2017 02:50 PM)Wudizzle Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:34 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The free & open internet encourages competition so there will be a cheap option as long as we have Net Neutrality. But that cheap option might not have the shows you want to watch. You can already use Youtube for unlimited free entertainment, but if you want a high quality (and high budget) show like Game of Thrones you need to pay for it.

HBO is charging $20/mo for their OTT option, which is a lot but it costs them over $10 million per episode for GoT. It's a free market experiment to find out if people are willing to pay for high quality content. If HBO is successful then others will follow, but that's a GOOD thing. That's how a free market works. You can spend as little or as much as you want.

And if it turns out that we aren't willing to pay for GoT level quality then those shows will be canceled or have their budgets reduced and we'll get the low quality content we deserve.

People have always been willing to pay for high quality entertainment. The problem has been the divide between what the mass audience thinks is high quality entertainment and what the producer thinks is high quality entertainment. In other words, a big budget doesnt automatically equal high quality entertainment (I give you "Ishtar" and "Waterworld" as two good examples).

You lost me when you implied Waterworld isn't high-quality entertainment.

lol...Its up to the individual to decide. I used "Waterworld" because it was a situation where a huge budget failed to deliver a product that the mass audience found attractive.

(08-17-2017 04:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 02:50 PM)Wudizzle Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 12:34 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  The free & open internet encourages competition so there will be a cheap option as long as we have Net Neutrality. But that cheap option might not have the shows you want to watch. You can already use Youtube for unlimited free entertainment, but if you want a high quality (and high budget) show like Game of Thrones you need to pay for it.

HBO is charging $20/mo for their OTT option, which is a lot but it costs them over $10 million per episode for GoT. It's a free market experiment to find out if people are willing to pay for high quality content. If HBO is successful then others will follow, but that's a GOOD thing. That's how a free market works. You can spend as little or as much as you want.

And if it turns out that we aren't willing to pay for GoT level quality then those shows will be canceled or have their budgets reduced and we'll get the low quality content we deserve.

People have always been willing to pay for high quality entertainment. The problem has been the divide between what the mass audience thinks is high quality entertainment and what the producer thinks is high quality entertainment. In other words, a big budget doesnt automatically equal high quality entertainment (I give you "Ishtar" and "Waterworld" as two good examples).

You lost me when you implied Waterworld isn't high-quality entertainment.

lol...Its up to the individual to decide. I used "Waterworld" because it was a situation where a huge budget failed to deliver a product that the mass audience found attractive.

Ummm, that movie made a profit lol and actually did alright. We always think of it as a big flop though.


http://deadline.com/2013/08/isnt-it-time...st-557797/