Apple's Rigid Negotiating Tactics Cost Us 'Skinny Bundles' For Apple TV, Says Report (thenextweb.com) 111
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Next Web: According to a new report from The Wall Street Journal, the reason we don't have actual TV channels on the Apple TV is because the company tried to strong-arm networks -- and failed. Apple's Senior Vice President Eddy Cue is said to have taken the wrong approach. In one meeting, he reportedly told TV executives that "time is on my side." Cue is also accused of bluffing executives by claiming other networks -- specifically Disney and Fox -- were already signed up. The company also refused to show off the Apple TV interface, or "sketch it on the back of a napkin," as one media executive requested. Cue also tried to strike hard bargains, says WSJ. He reportedly asked that Disney put off the royalties Apple would have to pay for several years. Those 'skinny bundles' we heard so much about were what Apple was planning to build its TV experience around, too. In 2015, a bundle consisting of Fox, ESPN and Disney content was conceptualized (and priced at $30), but no agreements were ever signed. In an effort to create more original programming, Apple is scheduled to release its 'Planet of the Apps' TV show about app developers next year.
Oh noes (Score:3, Insightful)
Luckily pirating doesn't cost anything, and I get to watch whatever I want, and then I get to own it.
The companies can fight all they want, it doesn't bother me. If they want my money they'll give me their content really cheap, and make it really easy to watch. If not, tough for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't watch Walking Dead because there exists news? That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
I stopped watching the walking dead because it was boring as fuck and nothing ever happened
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't watch Walking Dead because there exists news? That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
Hey, watch the RNC, and it's not only funny as hell, it actually is "The Walking Dead".
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the DNC Sequel in Novermber, "The Voting Dead" ??? (evil grin)
Re: (Score:2)
I quit watching the Walking Dead when all the human characters devolved into such a loathsome bunch that I was actually rooting for the zombies to kill them all... but they went the rest of the season without doing so. At least the most awful people in GoT qualify as magnificent bastards, not just bastards. And GoT does offer up some sympathetic characters like Tyrion, Daenerys, and Arya.
Really though, I'm hoping for some genuine Roddenberry-style optimism in the upcoming Star Trek series. I'm seriously
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ten years ago, I felt the same way. Then about 2 years ago, it began to sink in just how completely divorced from popular culture I'd become when I spent a night attempting to have a meaningful conversation at a family gathering, and didn't know anything about popular shows & movies like Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, pretty much the entire Marvel cinematic universe, etc. I still have zero interest in Kardashian gossip or New Jersey housewives, but the truth is, I DID miss out on a lot of enjoyable show
NO (Score:5, Insightful)
WSJ shill laps up TV industry PR flack (Score:5, Insightful)
The WSJ piece was an obvious force fed piece from the TV industry. It's the equivalent of the Taxi industry writing about Uber. No love.
I'm sure the industry would have kowtowed if Mr. Cue had worn an suit rather than a hawaii shirt and we'd all have skinny bundles and ponies.
Apple Tv is for suckers (Score:1)
I broke down and started buying movies on Amazon after they blocked all the bit torrent traffic while I was deployed in the desert. $6-20 (most for $15)for a movie to buy in HD, works on my phone, Kindle, laptop, Fire TV and the other 5 devices I have scattered around my house and at other family members houses with zero effort on my part and bonus works just about anywhere in the worl
Re: (Score:1)
Apple TV also has YouTube, Netflix and Hulu. No Amazon Prime of course, but you also won't get movies from the iTunes Store with a Roku either.
And you say Apple TV is for suckers so I'm guessing you think you can only use iTunes with it, but then you turn around and overpay the same amounts of money to Amazon instead.
You're the sucker and you're ignorant too.
Re: (Score:3)
And their fire line is far more locked down than Apple could ever dream of, with a small pool of apps.
Locked down what? You can sideload any app you want to any fire device you want. And what's more, you don't even need to plug in a USB cable to do it; They have ES File Explorer in their store. Once you have that installed, you can install anything you want, and uninstall ES if you like afterwards. The latest revision of the launcher on the Fire TV stick finally integrated non-Appstore apps into the app menu, so you don't have to launch them from application settings.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he was referring to the fact you can lock them down tighter than any Apple device? Which is IMHO actually a great selling point of the Fire line, they are the best devices for young children going, especially as they now sport a microSD slot so you can load them up with video content.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is IMHO actually a great selling point of the Fire line, they are the best devices for young children going, especially as they now sport a microSD slot so you can load them up with video content.
I'd just go for Kodi to my NAS... which is what I actually do. Runs great on the Fire TV Stick so far. AFAICT the Fire TV stick is the cheapest reliable platform for Kodi which comes with a halfway decent remote, and I do mean it's only about halfway decent. Still, it has enough buttons to drive the interface.
Re: (Score:1)
And their fire line is far more locked down than Apple could ever dream of, with a small pool of apps.
Locked down what? You can sideload any app you want to any fire device you want. And what's more, you don't even need to plug in a USB cable to do it; They have ES File Explorer in their store. Once you have that installed, you can install anything you want, and uninstall ES if you like afterwards. The latest revision of the launcher on the Fire TV stick finally integrated non-Appstore apps into the app menu, so you don't have to launch them from application settings.
Amazon is not kind to sideloaded applications. My Kodi install gets screwed up or deleted from my FireTV randomly during some of their automatic updates.
Re: (Score:2)
The latest revision of the launcher on the Fire TV stick finally integrated non-Appstore apps into the app menu, so you don't have to launch them from application settings.
I haven't come across that yet, it would be nice to get Kodi put on the menu. Any pointers to how it works or where to find it in the settings?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, here's someone who doesn't actually own or ever bothered to use an Amazon device.
Or you're trolling.
Next!
Re: (Score:3)
We have a few AppleTV devices. One of them is used solely as a digital photo frame using Flickr (it's a cheap way to build a DPF). The primary AppleTV (plugged into the main TV) is used nearly solely for NetFlix (with some RedbullTV too).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that would mean having to run Android. Sorry, I've experienced the fragmented culture all you suckers love and I'll pass. I want to watch TV, not tinker with a unit like it was a pet project.
disclaimer: I'm not the OP.
No tinkering and an added bonus is that the Android device handles streaming off of network storage and handles more video formats than Apple TV.
Re: (Score:2)
After getting totally fucked by Google & Logitech over the Revue, I swore to every relevant deity known to western civilization that I'd never buy another Android TV device that couldn't be rooted and reflashed... without sacrificing any of its hardware features (specifically, h.264 and MPEG-2 playback acceleration... with it, a 500MHz ARM is semi-adequate. Without it, you'd better have a fairly hefty 2+ core AMD64-architecture CPU running at 2.5GHz or better unless you're willing to tolerate stuttering
Re: (Score:2)
The AppleTV fits well within the tech ecosystem I have at home, it just works after plugging it in and the price is so low as to consider to be pretty much free. As a bonus I get a Netflix app, RedbullTV and Flikr with no additional configuration. VPNing thorugh to different countries is simple too.
Opposite is true, AppleTV is great for TV (Score:4, Interesting)
All of the things you mentioned you can play on an AppleTV. Most have AppleTV apps, the few that do not (like Amazon Prime) I can if I wish Airplay from phone to the TV...
It's been especially nice for some things like HBO Go and Starz, because there is a good AppleTV app I could fire up to watch content - but the absolute best aspect by far is that I can sign up for service on those apps through Apple as subscriptions, which means I can *easily* cancel them and just buy in month intervals... HBO bored me by the time Game Of Thrones was over, so I just cut off the subscription until something compelling leads my to subscribe again...
In that way Apple actually has provided the "thin bundles" they wanted, only even thinner - because most channels have individual AppleTV apps now or are building them, so I can truly pay just for content I find interesting, for the period of time that suits me (in monthly increments). I could get an MLB app too if I cared about baseball and get every game instead of the cable bundles which come with restrictions or don't offer all games...
Re: (Score:3)
Apple walked away because of the rules Disney and other have. You can't buy Espn without buying all the other ESPNs, and Disney Kids. They know that if you can pick just one or two out of the lineup, it'll weaken the "monopoly" of Disney. So they come as a group, and any trimming of a few to save costs is not allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
I broke down and started buying movies on Amazon after they blocked all the bit torrent traffic while I was deployed in the desert.
Uh, which desert was that, and/or whose military? In the US military you could pretty much throw a rock in any direction in a FOB and hit someone's stash of pir^H^H^Harchived movies.
Oh, were you with the Taliban? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Skinny? (Score:5, Insightful)
You call $30/mo skinny? $30 for a lifetime is skinny..
Re: (Score:2)
Well, compared to the average US cable bill which is WELL over $100/mo.....$30 a month is skinny!!
Don't get me wrong, I like a bargain as much as anyone and am always looking for a good deal. Even though I make a healthy living, I try not to over pay for things. I look for bargains on everything I buy...food, clothes, toys...etc.
However, most all LEGAL things have a price, and you decide what is and isn't reasonable.
I don't mind paying for things th
Re: (Score:2)
I've never in my life had a cable or satellite bill over $100. However, I don't pay for sports packages, and I don't pay for premium (HBO) channels, so maybe I'm not average. In the end, though, the $70-80 I was paying wasn't justified by the 3-5 channels I DID watch, so now I record the OTA stuff I want to watch, and Netflix/Amazon for the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
30 bucks for just those few channels is not at all skinny.
Pure speculation, but several networks have a vested interest (literally vested) in Hulu, so my guess is they're not entirely on board with competing with themselves on a different platform that likely won't get them as much cashish.
Apple should just buy Hulu and put live streaming on it.
Gotta wonder... (Score:3)
if Cue wore a red jump suit, captain pips, refereed to network CEOs as "mon capitaine" and their respective board members as a "dangerous, savage child board".
They'd need to (Score:2)
No one needs a $45 alternative to the same cable programming you can get for $44 from the cable company. If Apple can't negotiate a lower cost deal that's more customer-friendly, then there's no point in offering that content at all. It's too bad they didn't succeed. But Sling and PlayStation have less expensive OTT bundles already, and there are surely more coming.
Re: (Score:2)
But Sling and PlayStation have less expensive OTT bundles already, and there are surely more coming.
What's the cheapest way to legally watch The Walking Dead? How about Grey's Anatomy? I've not found an OTT solution that has popular shows of the current season. You have to subscribe to the channel to get it. If you know otherwise, please let us know.
Re: (Score:2)
It completely depends on what you want to watch. You only mentioned 2 shows. Sling has AMC in their bundle and it costs $20/month. You can get an antenna and watch ABC over the air or sometimes watch the shows on the ABC web site. Playstation has both ABC and AMC in their $30/month bundle. Hulu might also have them for even less, but I don't know much about Hulu.
If you really only want to watch 2 shows, then they can be bought on Amazon or iTunes or lots of other places for a less than subscribing to an
Re: (Score:2)
But Sling and PlayStation have less expensive OTT bundles already, and there are surely more coming.
What's the cheapest way to legally watch The Walking Dead? How about Grey's Anatomy?
Wait. Then buy the boxed-set DVD (do they still make those?), watch them, then sell the DVDs in the classifieds for half what you paid. I did this for years for the shows I want to watch because it works out well if you only have a few shows you want to watch (five or so).
If you're even more patient, then wait some more, and buy it in the classifieds for half the new price. That worked well for me, too. My wife bought every season of Charmed for $50 about five years ago.
If you want it as it comes out, then
Re: (Score:2)
What's the cheapest way to legally watch The Walking Dead? How about Grey's Anatomy?
Wait. Then buy the boxed-set DVD (do they still make those?), watch them, then sell the DVDs in the classifieds for half what you paid.
Well, if you are willing to wait that long to save a few bucks, you might as well wait a few years longer and watch the shows for on syndication.
Re: (Score:2)
The syndication runs are often edited- run faster and/or trimmed to get more commercials in. Skipping the commercials (or worse, watching them) is also more annoying than watching on the DVD. So the DVD box sets often are the sweet spot.
Re: (Score:2)
Waiting is not an issue. Life moves on and soon enough people are done talking about it and moving on to the next thing. Then, viola, there's the show on Netflix or Amazon Prime.
No show or movie is worth shelling out extra money for imo.
Re: (Score:2)
My wife bought every season of Charmed
I'm so sorry...
Re: (Score:2)
My wife bought every season of Charmed
I'm so sorry...
Why? She watches all the shows I hate (Smallville, Charmed, Bones, CSI) by herself, thus leaving me free to pursue other hobbies in that daily 30min slot :-)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as Grey's Anatomy goes, it plays on ABC in the US and CTV in Canada, both of which don't require cable. So for many people within broadcast range, the answer to the question is that all it requires is a cheap digital TV antenna.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think Apple let the customers benefit when they negotiate a lower cost deal you've clearly misunderstood the situation. You can bet that watching a cable show over Apple TV would have been more expensve than watching it straight from the cable co. Because of the "high quality ecosystem", of course.
media companies are inflexible (Score:5, Insightful)
The old media companies are infamous for their inflexibility, so this comes as no surprise. The only way to break them is to actually start taking sizable portions of their market by producing well received content but when you get to that point, you might as well tell them to fuck off because you don't actually need them anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Piracy helps too. We are starting to see the first signs that the old visual companies are learning what the music companies did about online distribution and availability. Like the new Star Trek being on Netflix should reduce piracy outside the US.
On the other hand, the music industry is slipping backwards a little with their exclusive releases on their exclusive platforms, but in the long run they will continue to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
> Like the new Star Trek being on Netflix should
> reduce piracy outside the US.
And yet here in the US, they're still restricting it to their stupid "All Access" service. So it's apparent that they STILL don't understand that people don't want to have to go to "All Access" for this for one thing, HBO GO/Now for the next, Hulu Plus for another, Vudu for one more, then a VPN link to the UK and iPlayer, then FXnow, Amazon Prime for more, and of course Netflix, which is where it all belongs in the first p
Re: (Score:2)
The old media companies are infamous for their inflexibility, so this comes as no surprise. The only way to break them is to actually start taking sizable portions of their market by producing well received content but when you get to that point, you might as well tell them to fuck off because you don't actually need them anymore.
That seems to describe the conclusion that Netflix came to. Amazon as well. Maybe to a lesser degree some of the larger movie channels like HBO, Showtime, AMC. The latter were earlier to produce their own content, I think, but couldn't go very far with it because they still have to rely on the cable companies to deliver the content, so that limits their potential subscriber base and revenue. They can't sink too much into their own programming, because the cable companies still control the purse strings,
Time IS on Apple's Side (Score:3, Insightful)
The reality is the TV networks time in history is over, no one believes the corporate propaganda any more, their marketing ability is collapsing and the actual content producers, the people who actually produce the entertainment (the writers and animators) are sick of them (and of actors). So more direct content, from content creator to end user with minimal interference from content library services (not publishers any more, just a lend lease libraries). That is the inevitable trend and time most definitely is on Apple's side. They who produce the most economical, friendly and accessible libraries will win (exclusivity whilst sounding fine in psychopathic corporate board rooms is actually a no, no and will push those companies into second and third rate status), along with the content creators (writers and animators). Actors are on the way out because of course as computers increase in capability so virtual acting bots become possible and they live forever, do not have hugely wildly bloated egos and once paid for remain paid for and do not lose that investment in a drunken, drugged up splurges involving minors (that corporate main stream media together with public relations firms can not gloss over). Keep in mind those lend lease libraries will also become social media hubs, user to user and content creators to content creator and user to content creators (a lot more content creators will appear, as a result of non-exclusive deals with libraries, more of an investment in the content creator and hence limiting their ability to trade content via other libraries, will stupidly limit returns upon that investment. Why the investment by libraries into content creators, the more the merrier or cough, cough, the cheaper they become, enabling libraries to build up masses of cheap, competitive content and the market is opened up far wider to many amateur content creators, even user to user created evolving content (no fixed story, changes over time, with specific recorded creation points). Current main stream media is just so last millennium (although that era will go done in history as creators of the most bloated and inflated egos imaginable from demanding worship, to unlimited greed, to endless celebrations of their own egos and even publicly choosing political leaders thumbing their noses at the majority, spending way beyond what the anonymous majority could ever afford, laughing at the nobodies campaign efforts).
Re:Time IS on Apple's Side (Score:5, Insightful)
Actors are on the way out because of course as computers increase in capability so virtual acting bots become possible and they live forever
I was with you until you took a left turn into sheer fantasy. The most compelling stories are about humans (or analogies), after all, so I have a hard time believing we'll be discarding the human element entirely from story-driven entertainment. After all, even though we can play back musical recordings with perfect fidelity, music-lovers still flock to live entertainment.
Also, paragraphs > giantwallsofindecipherabletext.
Re: (Score:2)
I was with you until you took a left turn into sheer fantasy. The most compelling stories are about humans (or analogies), after all, so I have a hard time believing we'll be discarding the human element entirely from story-driven entertainment.
Only until computers are also the target audience and all the shows are about how they killed all humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actors are on the way out because of course as computers increase in capability so virtual acting bots become possible and they live forever
I was with you until you took a left turn into sheer fantasy. The most compelling stories are about humans (or analogies), after all, so I have a hard time believing we'll be discarding the human element entirely from story-driven entertainment.
Actually, I think he's right. I don't think they'll go away completely; it's really cheap to make a movie which mostly consists of some people doing mundane things. You can shoot on location (getting easier and easier as gear gets smaller) so you don't have to build sets. Your only big cost is talent. On the other hand, I think we'll see action movies without real humans in them eventually.
I also think we'll see more and more video games, and they will have digital actors. More and more of the public plays
Mediums change (Score:2)
Actors are on the way out because of course as computers increase in capability so virtual acting bots become possible and they live forever
I was with you until you took a left turn into sheer fantasy. The most compelling stories are about humans (or analogies), after all, so I have a hard time believing we'll be discarding the human element entirely from story-driven entertainment. After all, even though we can play back musical recordings with perfect fidelity, music-lovers still flock to live entertainment.
Also, paragraphs > giantwallsofindecipherabletext.
Yes, they flock to live entertainment--but the dominant form of the industry is no longer live entertainment. Seventy years ago we were still eight years before the first national color broadcast. In seventy years AI may be able to create movies custom tailored and optimized to intrigue the individual watching.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually believe it will work the other way, where popular actors and actresses will preserve and license their likeness, so they can be digitally recreated at any age and for any performance based on past works. You may see instances where actors are created digitally from scratch, but I believe that people will be more interested in seeing human performances in most creative endeavors, except in rare cases as a novelty.
Re: (Score:2)
> Actors are on the way out because of course as computers increase in capability so virtual acting bots become possible and they live forever,
So everybody in the industry is a psychopath, and we're about to have all entertainment be some alternate reality version of Jar-Jar Binks? Only on Slashdot would this great pile of nonsense be rated insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the TV execs are now crying about this in the media means that Eddy Cue walked away from those meetings as the winner.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to know where you get your drugs.
People said radio was over when talkies came around. Movies were over when TV came around. Now TV is over because ... why? I'm not sure I got it.
The fact remains that good old broadcast TV rakes in huge piles of cash because that's what people want. This pipe dream of cheap content is just that, a pipe dream. I fail to see a day where we're all watching different versions of PewDiePie beamed directly into our brains. Please shoot me.
Good content, good storytellers,
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine (Score:2)
Imagine a real free market. ... and choose their own cost margin.
Imagine effective regulators creating a marketplace where anyone can contribute content, and set their price per view. And conditions such as allowing adverts to be inserted or overlayed, or to refuse permission.
Where any distributor can source content from anywhere, add value such as links to reviews, parental filters, extra language subtitles, whatever
Imagine a world where consumers can choose their content independently of the distribution
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds good. Do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good. Do it.
Are you being stupid on purpose, or just born that way? Such a free market requires society legislating, and legislators to act in the consumer interest, rather than the established corporate powers. This is a fatal flaw in my plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's not a free market, it's a very tightly regulated market with very strict rules (and presumably very harsh penalties for breaking them). The only way you could have your utopian vision is to outlaw every other type of arrangement.
I suppose it's possible to have a very big, entirely vertically integrated company like Netflix create such a model and have it succeed and be copied. But none of those companies seem interested.
Utopianism leads to disappointment.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's not a free market, it's a very tightly regulated market with very strict rules (and presumably very harsh penalties for breaking them).
That's what we have right now with current laws, oligopoly middle men, and the RIAA/MPAA etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Just don't call one very narrowly defined government-mandated market mechanism a "free market".
In free markets people arrange their transactions as they choose rather than to satisfy someone's specific utopian vision.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple Wanted (Score:1)
Did apple ask for 30% of the networks profits as well, with ofcourse a drop to %15 after the second year... Its a great deal
Hey (Score:2)
Who are you callin' a skinny bundle?
and so the tables turn (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd always been under the impression it was the networks that tended to be the "bullies" that were doing the "strong-arming" around the block? I guess life's rough when you're used to being the 400lb gorilla when the 600lb gator enters the scene.
Reminds me of a very dated newspaper cartoon from a long time ago, picture godzilla (labeled "Microsoft") rampaging through a city. He gets surprised by a tap on the shoulder from a much larger godzilla, labelled "AOL". Yeah, that was a long time ago, but you get the idea.
Moral of the story: bullying is OK as long as you're the one DOING the bullying, but quicky becomes NOT cool when you're the one GETTING bullied. I find it very hard to be sympathetic to a bully who just got the tables turned on them. Cry me a river.
Re: (Score:1)
Regardless of your take on TV networks, it's interesting to see someone who wasn't swayed by Apple's cash hammer.
It wouldn't make sense anyway (Score:2)
I don't want my TV producers negotiating with my hardware manufacturers or software developers. I want them negotiating with me, the person who watches the TV. Why the fuck should such a totally-unrelated third party be involved? How can that possibly be in my best interests?
It's not just a little weird; it's totally absurd. It's like if a I drive to the store to buy some socks, and what socks are available depends on a deal between the textile producer and my car manufacturer. WUT?! Believe me: this is not
Comment removed (Score:3)
SlingTV got it mostly right... (Score:3)
SlingTV has the right idea of offering a bundle that has many popular channels, without two specific (and expensive) channels that are of negligible interest to a significant chunk of their subscribers: ESPN and Disney.
Companies like Comcast and AT&T could gain, or at least retain, plenty of subscribers while maintaining revenues, just by following SlingTV's lead and allowing people who subscribe to one of their economy packages to substitute channels like Showtime and HBO for expensive channels like ESPN, regional sports networks, and Disney (plus kids' channels, with the specific exception of Cartoon Network's Adult Swim). Or allowing customers to subscribe WITHOUT local OTA channels for a discount equal to slightly less than they'd otherwise have to pay those channels in carriage fees.
Right off the top, without requiring customers to give up a single channel, DirecTV could offer a relatively painless $8/month discount for service without local channels. Or even a $5/month discount, if they gave us back a feature that was almost universal among satellite TV boxes circa 2010 -- the ability to connect the dish to one input, the antenna to another input, and have the box seamlessly insert the OTA channels into the lineup. Yeah, I know there are people who "can't" have an outdoor antenna... but the fact is, 99% of the people who "can't" have just been conditioned by 40 years of HOA propaganda and social norms. By law and FCC regulations, a HOA can't outright prohibit reasonable OTA TV antennas unless they offer a free alternative of equal value (which is why lots of HOAs DO offer "free" basic cable, and pay for it out of the association fees... it's their one legal loophole). I live in Miami about 10 miles away from our local antenna farm near Hallandale, and enjoy nearly perfect reception of OTA channels with an outdoor "bowtie" type antenna that's less than 2 feet by 2 feet, & almost unnoticeable unless you're actively looking for it, together with an inline amplifier (mostly, to compensate for 50 feet of cable loss and splitters).
If SlingTV had a virtual tuner available for Windows Media Center (so I could use my HTPC as a DVR for SlingTV channels), it would be damn near perfect. As it is, the lack of DVR support is the only reason I'd even contemplate Comcast (with a HDHomeRun Prime HDHR3-CC and cablecard) or DirecTV (their $50/month all-inclusive package for Uverse customers is tempting, though I suspect the REAL cost is probably closer to $70 or $80 after taxes and fine-print fees)..
Planet of the Apps (Score:2)