1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

HBO Is Coming to Amazon Prime

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Johncv, Apr 23, 2014.

  1. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    But people are subsidizing your channels, too.

    Your cost isn't going to go down, not a penny. What does it matter that you "get" some other channels you never watch? Is it that offensive that you don't want to have available to you some content that you will never watch?

    I really cannot wrap my head around you and bigg's argument here. It just makes no economic sense.
     
  2. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,427
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    It only starts to make sense with a mass die-off of crappy channels, so that there's less content to support, and market forces start to apply to individual channels.
     
  3. mattack

    mattack Active Member

    20,750
    4
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    It makes economic sense that any other meritocracy does. The channels should cost what they cost to make (including profit). I don't want religious/shopping channels subsidizing me, just like I don't want to subsidize ESPN for other people. (I would likely subscribe to ESPN for the months it has the WSOP... just not the rest of the year.)
     
  4. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    "Meritocracy" :rolleyes:

    It seems like you don't have any idea how TV works.
     
  5. tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,649
    5
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    You don't want to be subsidized huh? Advertisements are subsidizing you too. If everything was a la carte and there were no ads, ESPN alone would probably cost you $50/month.
     
  6. moonscape

    moonscape Member

    469
    2
    Jul 3, 2004
    SF Bay Area
    Exactly. I remember when Bravo first came on the scene and I loved it! It was loaded with art films and substantive (to me) arts programs. Viewership wasn't as great as other channels so in time it started dropping great films and migrated more and more to (to me) junk.

    Some of the most popular channels are sports and I don't watch those. My viewing is eclectic and I find programming bits on many less popular overall channels. A la carte would be a disaster for me, as would pruning channels down to the 'most popular' which would leave lots of niche, and quality, programming in the dust.
     
  7. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    That you don't watch sports is important. Not everyone watches ESPN, which currently charges about $4.60 per subscriber, and every single cable subscriber has ESPN. With a la carte, you can expect that people who actually want to watch ESPN will probably have to pay upwards of $10-15 just for ESPN, and nothing else.
     
  8. NYHeel

    NYHeel Active Member

    1,915
    16
    Oct 7, 2003
    The problem is that every channel out there is going to start putting out new content and then you're right back to where you started. HBO puts out new content because they're competing for customers directly. These other marginal channels would do the same. Already obscure channels are putting out new content now. Heck, even WGN is putting out a new show. You're going to have the problem of having 1 show you like on each of 25 different channels as opposed to 5 shows each on 5 different channels.

    My point is that I don't want to have to subscribe to the Sundance channel because there's 1 show they put out that I like. I'd rather the system now where I don't care what channel a show is on because my Tivo records it. I don't want ot worry about subscribing to 25 different channels because I like 1 or 2 shows it puts out.
     
  9. NYHeel

    NYHeel Active Member

    1,915
    16
    Oct 7, 2003
    Do you enjoy watching the game? You can always just wait and get the score and highlights on ESPN.com. I enjoy the experience of watching games much more than just looking up the score. Therefore, I will use discipline to not look up the score and watch the game in a way that provides me with the most enjoyment possible.

    I watch a lot of Carolina basketball that way. The game starts at 7 but I'm putting my kids to bed between then and 8:30 so I'll just start watching at 8:30 from the beginning.
     
  10. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,427
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    The thing is, with a la carte, a big chunk of the middle of cable would either get WAY better, or they would go clean out of business within months. There are dozens of channels that have degraded to low-value programming that people aren't going to pay for. It would probably also kill off all of the tertiary channels that various networks have started up, like most of the 13 Discovery channels, several of which are basically trashbins for re-runs, and turn over on a pretty regular basis. It would also kill off the channels that just re-run old movies. Lastly, it would force networks to be much more topic-centric and not wander all over the place, in order to make a good value proposition to a specific type of viewer.

    I can't handle DVR'ed sports... just knowing that it's not live makes it bad enough, even if I isolate myself from everything else. I need the excitement of LIVE!
     
  11. aridon

    aridon Member

    244
    0
    Aug 31, 2006
    Different strokes for different folks. A la carte sounds good until you realize that you'll end up having to watch the crap the masses watch when there aren't enough subs to your particular channel to justify keeping it.

    Personally the shopping channels and religious stations can sit there and collect dust and the people that watch / enjoy them can subsidize my experience while I remove them from the guide and never think twice about them.

    If you think corporate America is going to stop its gravy train to break out of the status quo only to save you money and screw themselves out of big profits you're nuts.
     
  12. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    19,194
    27
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    Live or recorded the excitement would be identical. Besides with a DVR your are never watching anything live. There is first a delay in the transmission from OTA, cable, or satellite. Then on the dvr it is written to the hard drive first and then read off of it. So it is never actually live.
     
  13. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    Don't be pedantic.
     
  14. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    5,740
    26
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    Sorry I am with aaronwt on this one. The only way you are actually watching live sports is if you are at the event watching it directly. Otherwise it is recorded and it is delayed even if it is only a few seconds. The assertion that it changes anything because you are watching a recording that has been delayed a few minutes instead of a few seconds is what is ridiculous.
     
  15. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    Maybe I misread the original post regarding not DVRing sports, but I believe he was referring to recording something and watching it much later, like hours or days later. Not "delayed a few minutes"

    I always "DVR" my sports, but I also watch it "live". It being delayed by a few seconds or minutes (I'm almost always behind by a few minutes because I often trickplay) is not worth mentioning. But, I too cannot watch a sporting event that happened hours ago or days ago. Just not the same.
     
  16. javabird

    javabird Active Member

    1,023
    0
    Oct 12, 2006
    Seattle
    I actually like the old movies. I remember when I first got cable, AMC ran old movies without commercials. I also enjoyed the commentary and background about the movie they gave before the show started. Watching a movie was a popcorn event then.

    Now there are a couple of local channels in my area that run old movies and I record them, especially the old film noir.
     
  17. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,427
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Of course there are transmission delays. But if I'm watching it later, it's far less exciting, as I know it's not live.

    It's a waste of channels. That's what Netflix is for.
     
  18. Johncv

    Johncv Active Member

    1,545
    1
    Jun 11, 2002
    Chula Vista, CA
    Except, because of exclusive deals like this between HBO and Amazon, Netflix is now having a hard time obtaining material to stream.
     
  19. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,427
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    True, Netflix isn't the source of movies it was a few years ago, although they still have a LOT of stuff.
     
  20. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    19,194
    27
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    I still don't get that. If you don't know the outcome or anything about the game, how can it be less exciting watching it from a dvr that has already recorded it?

    What makes a live game less exciting for me is all the commercials. Which is why I don't want to watch it live. Take the NFL. Actual game play where there is any action is only around 12 minutes of the actual sixty minute game. The rest of the 48 minutes are mostly players standing around. Then you add time outs, commercials, and talking heads and that adds another two hours of mostly nothing to the three hour plus game that is broadcast.
     

Share This Page