Related
Hi guys,
Just wondering when will WinMo7 be released and what will the chances of us seeing it on our Vogues. Even though they will be about 2 years old by then.
Thanks for everyone's hard work.
Windows mobile 7 will be released in 2010. There's little to practically no chance that it'll run on our old devices. Officially, at least.
Take this with a grain of salt:
On LinkedIn, there has been two profiles (that I'm aware of) that cited working on the development group of Windows Mobile 7 for optimization of the MSM7x00 series chipsets.
That seems to imply that Windows Mobile 7 will run on MSM, but whether or not it comes to fruition (or provides for a decent user experience) is yet to be seen.
The biggest difficulty we'll probably face is an overhauled driver model, which would leave our devices without drivers that we can simply copy over.
Shidell said:
Take this with a grain of salt:
On LinkedIn, there has been two profiles (that I'm aware of) that cited working on the development group of Windows Mobile 7 for optimization of the MSM7x00 series chipsets.
That seems to imply that Windows Mobile 7 will run on MSM, but whether or not it comes to fruition (or provides for a decent user experience) is yet to be seen.
The biggest difficulty we'll probably face is an overhauled driver model, which would leave our devices without drivers that we can simply copy over.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Especially because we use resistive screens...
IMO, 6.5.x is where our phones will stay, if we are talking Winmo. Also IMO - that is also the case for majority of devices out there, even the ones being sold right now so how's that for getting your bang for a buck on the Vogue???
The Vogue is, given it's age, price, and specifications, a truly awesome phone. It's no wonder that it's one of HTC's most popular models ever.
Thanks for the insight guys. Good info.
Shidell said:
The Vogue is, given it's age, price, and specifications, a truly awesome phone. It's no wonder that it's one of HTC's most popular models ever.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agreed... the few times i called verizon i actually got a guy who has an htc ozone now but had the vogue.. he couldnt say enough good things, said verizon almost plans on them being regarded as the blackberry soon i dont know the truth to it but hes just sayin their brands are only gonna get better and soon it'll be a more recognizable name
right now i ask people if they heard of HTC and people are clueless
I love my HTC.
that said Im a realist.
providers are too busy scamming customers into monster contracts and bloated data plans to be interested in a real competitor to the blackberry.
competition drops prices...and therefore profits too.
I know full well Ièll be getting a blackberry in the near future as there is no BB messenger for win mobile yet.
the closest thing (msn messenger ish) uses 3x the data and requires me to have a major data plan.
unless htc decides to host that data and compete...like adding or buying into bb messenger. and getting on board with something to compete with the iphones appstore... theyre placing themselves in a solid 3rd
next to all the other regular phones with calendars.
im seriously disappointed.. i love win mobile and its customisations etc
but wheres the supported appstore so I can find decent software and apps for 2 dollars like the iphone... really we need to admit this
its the supported store thats getting these developers paid...and why theyre getting good apps and fast
and requiring full internet for messaging... bb messanger doesnt need it.
i just thank the programmers for threaded texts
kazzxtrismus said:
I love my HTC.
that said Im a realist.
providers are too busy scamming customers into monster contracts and bloated data plans to be interested in a real competitor to the blackberry.
competition drops prices...and therefore profits too.
I know full well Ièll be getting a blackberry in the near future as there is no BB messenger for win mobile yet.
the closest thing (msn messenger ish) uses 3x the data and requires me to have a major data plan.
unless htc decides to host that data and compete...like adding or buying into bb messenger. and getting on board with something to compete with the iphones appstore... theyre placing themselves in a solid 3rd
next to all the other regular phones with calendars.
im seriously disappointed.. i love win mobile and its customisations etc
but wheres the supported appstore so I can find decent software and apps for 2 dollars like the iphone... really we need to admit this
its the supported store thats getting these developers paid...and why theyre getting good apps and fast
and requiring full internet for messaging... bb messanger doesnt need it.
i just thank the programmers for threaded texts
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well depend with witch provider you are with , i'm with bell and my vogue htc let me use unlimited data plan for 5$ per month, with ev-do tech that is twice as fast as 3G ,
yes you are wright win mobile apps are way too expensive, they should aim at this htc should allies them self with windows mobile to implant real competition with Blackberry and IphoneCRap ,
it is sure something is coming with Palm getting best phone of the years when everyone tough they where buried long ago , LG that as the EVE that look great , htc as to be able to come up with something that will be about the same price to be in the competition,
what is killing everyone at the moment is the exclusivity of the carrier , as long that this will stand we will be charge crazy price for are plan and are device , we must complain to HTC , and carrier like Bell and Telus to stop getting the exclusivity on new model so every one can have a true good mobile experience ,
Sorry bobsters
the only people to complain to is HTC and our federal government.
In the last few weeks the CRTC denied WIND-MOBILE its liscence to operate because they were apparently not CANADIAN enough... Then was IMMEDIATELY OVERTURNED by the federal government.
This is because (in my and MOST other Canadians opinions) the CRTC is so deeply in the pockets of rogers bell and telus that they stink of phone company genetalia.
not a single consumer friendly decision has come out of the CRTC in regard to phone internet and TV in yeaers.. the posotive ones were mandated by the federal government against the CRTC's reccomendations and will.
WIND mobile a subsidiary of YAK, out bid the likes of bell and rogers for the newly released cell frequencies over a year ago.
in that time Rogers and bell have slowly reduced prices whilst becoming hosehold names for having the largest cellular profits in the world (also charging the highest rates in the world too)... and then by addition the new CEO of Rogers claimed that Canada couldn't support another major carrier.
ya?!?!?......... thats why you skyrocketed the charge for bulk minutes being sold to the likes of Virgin & Fido who both sold out to you in the last few years.
I dont work for wind, but I cant wait... if they can hold their own and not get baught out they'll steal a nice big chunk outta bell and rogers and telus... then maybe out the competing ceo's in youtube video's when they come with the bribe money and CRTC in pocket.
My phone is hacked to run on another carrier tahn origionally locked (IMEI swapped) also so I can have the phone without a data plan.
if you check your bill against everyone eltse. your probably paying close to $100/month... for a phone that has the internet hamstringed and capped, using old technology that has serious black holes in coverage.
my unlimited regular intenet at home costs me an additional $50/month
when I make a call it goes toa tower then is routed through fiber optic to a server and then handled like email or streaming audio....
why is this 2x the price??
the rest of the world pays $125/month for unlimited everything... including tethering and national long distance at roughly 7mb/s (high speed ultra)
that means I could save roughly $150/month on not having a home phone or home internet or a long distance plan...EVEN WHEN PACKAGED.
canada sucks
please excuse the rant.. needed to be done.
foot firmly inserted... just waiting for a push
According to the story in today's NY Times, having lost iPhone exclusivity, AT&T has announced it will be aggressively marketing its Android lineup. Not a word of WP7 from AT&T. I remain dumbstruck that Microsoft made AT&T their "premier launch partner," they couldn't care less about WP7 phones.
here's the link
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/technology/28phone.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
it's nothing personal against WP7, they're just going with where they think the money is.
Give it some time, this OS is not going to succeed for probably a few years.
Maybe I do take it too personally I love the OS, I love the Focus, and it seems to me if a company partners up with another company to sell its products, they should do something to sell the products. I was in a AT&T store recently with my college age son to get an iPhone (he has no interest in anything Windows), and just for kicks I asked the head sales engineer about the WP7 phones. He basically told me that they would have to be the last phones in the store for him to sell them. That's quite a partner.
Guess they didnt learn from putting all their eggs in the iphone basket.
efjay said:
Guess they didnt learn from putting all their eggs in the iphone basket.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what ? att made TONS of easy cash off the iphone. they just have competition in price now. competition is good for everyone.
ohgood said:
what ? att made TONS of easy cash off the iphone. they just have competition in price now. competition is good for everyone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And now they suddenly want to be behind android, but Verizon has that crown with their droid campaigns so now they are considered to have the best network AND the best phones. at&t is known as the former exclusive iphone carrier and for (alleged) poor wireless service, not as a great carrier for android phones and it will take time for them to make it as profitable for them as the iphone was. So putting all their eggs in the android basket doesnt seem smart. Nothing says they cant be strong supporters of both android and WP7, which benefits them now and not wait around till Verizon decides (if they ever do) to get behind WP7 in a big way and then at&t is once again just a one-OS carrier.
gmfeld said:
He basically told me that they would have to be the last phones in the store for him to sell them. That's quite a partner.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
just one douche in one store. In the AT&T near me the reps think the phone is great, a few have them and they have told me specifically that they think it is better than android...
I went from Winmo 6.1 to 6.5 and just spent the past ten months on an Android device, albeit a POS SE X10, but still Android.
I am thrilled to be back with WP7.
I think this OS will take off also. It will take time but I'm confident a substantial user base will materialize.
It would behoove MS to release updates on schedule.
I'm sure AT&T has a WP7 strategy also, but just wasn't mentioned in the article.
I hope it's an aggressive one.
For now, their main rival doesn't have any WP7 phones. So now is the best time to hype it up.
Whatever happened to being the "premiere" WP7 carrier?
So, all those WP7, I've been seeing from AT&T, were dreams.
canadariot2312 said:
Whatever happened to being the "premiere" WP7 carrier?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know where "premier carrier" comes from or means really. id rather the isp's just be big, fat, dumb pipes... and buy the phone from whoever makes it.
really, how do we, consumers benefit from a carrier logo on a phone ?
another cool thing would be phones using all gsm bands instead of one or anothers... maybe someday... maybe
ohgood said:
I don't know where "premier carrier" comes from or means really. id rather the isp's just be big, fat, dumb pipes... and buy the phone from whoever makes it.
really, how do we, consumers benefit from a carrier logo on a phone ?
another cool thing would be phones using all gsm bands instead of one or anothers... maybe someday... maybe
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There was a reason the AT&T Mobility CEO and President Ralph de la Vega was addressing the keynote during WP7 launch.
I thought the reason was that WP7 and Microsoft will be AT&T's safe haven after iPhone users would depart to Verizon. What happened?
lqaddict said:
There was a reason the AT&T Mobility CEO and President Ralph de la Vega was addressing the keynote during WP7 launch.
I thought the reason was that WP7 and Microsoft will be AT&T's safe haven after iPhone users would depart to Verizon. What happened?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
partners don't stay partners for long if there isn't money to be made, and tons of it. att was looking past the iphone exclusivity, and hoping wp7 was going to explode just like iphone did. if it does not, att will push whatever (android, blackberry, a box of crap that is perfumed like honey) it can to get people to sign a contract.
also, i wonder why people are supposed to suddenly drop att (and pay etfees) to go get on contract at another carrier ?
****
side note, i went shopping @ att's online chat service for a new phone, and service. the rep wouldn't even get into android, iphone, or wp7 MODELS without pushing for a contract first and foremost. they don't give a DAMN what phone you buy, so long as they can bill you (on contract) for $120 a month per line.
^ sounds about right. Contract first, then they will talk to you about any phone.
Last week I noticed that they discontinued their providing of the LG Quantum, and just now I was on there and see that they have also discontinued the HD7. No wp7/wp7.5 choices at all at the moment.
I can never for the life of me find out future phones coming to Canadian providers, so I'm not sure if they're making way for the Titan et al, or if they've just given up.
Must be temporary
Chad Saliba, Portfolia Collaboration Manager for Nokia Canada told MobileSyrup that in 2012 multiple Windows Phone devices will be released in Canada, across multiple price points and on several carriers, including Rogers, Telus and Bell, who are all sourcing Windows Phone 7 handsets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for posting that, good to see that.
I just hope it's true and the don't back out or something.
It's kind of weird, I don't think any Canadian carrier has announced any second gen devices yet, have they?
Not that I've heard. However I do know that we're always behind other countries. What's new to the US or UK, generally shows up... I'd say... 3-6 months afterwards?
sure haven't said:
Not that I've heard. However I do know that we're always behind other countries. What's new to the US or UK, generally shows up... I'd say... 3-6 months afterwards?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Used to be the case - now we routinely get devices before the US. For example, Galaxy S II.
In the UK, only one carrier (Orange) is offering a WP7.5 phone (the HTC Radar), O2 still have the Mozart and HD7, nothing on Vodafone, nothing on 3. Naturally, they are all going big on the Iphone 4s which will no doubt result in queues in every mall in the country, If you want WP7.5 in the UK now, you pretyy much have to go with a 1st gen handset on contratc or buy your own SIM free (which is what I did). Microsoft really need to sort this out, most people here go to the carriers for their phones and get them on contract - they are never going to see Windows phone at this rate let alone buy into the platform.
PG2G said:
It's kind of weird, I don't think any Canadian carrier has announced any second gen devices yet, have they?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How many 2nd gen devices are there? 2? I seriously doubt a lot of carriers will stock the Titan. It's way too much money to spend on a Windows Phone when a year old model can do the exact same things. Only a serious fanboy would buy it and WP currently has very few of them.
The other is Radar, which would have slipped past their radar in the midst of all the spanking new Android devices. You can't blame carriers for not carrying any WP7 phones when there aren't any to stock. Mozart, HD7, Trophy are old and outdated.
adesonic said:
In the UK, only one carrier (Orange) is offering a WP7.5 phone (the HTC Radar), O2 still have the Mozart and HD7, nothing on Vodafone, nothing on 3. Naturally, they are all going big on the Iphone 4s which will no doubt result in queues in every mall in the country, If you want WP7.5 in the UK now, you pretyy much have to go with a 1st gen handset on contratc or buy your own SIM free (which is what I did). Microsoft really need to sort this out, most people here go to the carriers for their phones and get them on contract - they are never going to see Windows phone at this rate let alone buy into the platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Vodafone are still showing the Optimus for sale. Interesting to see that Orange are no longer showing the Omnia 7 either...
Freypal said:
Vodafone are still showing the Optimus for sale. Interesting to see that Orange are no longer showing the Omnia 7 either...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oops, missed that one,
Given the price I got my LG Quantum for, I don't think they sold a lot when it came out. At $80 though, it's a steal.
radeon_x said:
Used to be the case - now we routinely get devices before the US. For example, Galaxy S II.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That depends on how much changes are made to the reference design by the carriers. If all they have to do is change the radio bands, then of course it will come much faster there than here. Carriers here like to have a bit more freedom with the cell phone design than in Canada.
Sad that we still have no mention of any WP7 new phones coming out of Bell (or any of the providers in Canada).
Next to no marketing of them I guess doens't help.
Everyone I show my phone to loves it...need another one for work and would rather not get an iphone...
I really don't want to wait for 2012.
has anyone contacted Bell to see if the LG quantum will be getting the tethering firmware update?
the stores in my area have no wp7 phones at all..
LG quantum is selling at WalMart for 120 as a pay as you go phone.
It sucks that they are pushing customers away from wp7.
They're probably waiting on new phones.
It's funny...the latest Futureshop cellphone advertisement "booklet" in the local paper has pages upon pages of android phones and blackberries but no wp7 phones...however, Microsoft have a big advertisement at the end about WP7...
What a waste of f'ing money...why advertise something you don't even sell in Canada.
Microsoft is doing a terrible job with this phone in Canada...horrible...you cannot buy a wp7 phone even if you want to...
What a f'ing joke.
Hey guys. I'm a Canadian. I would gladly pay for services such as Hulu (which isn't offered outside of the US) and Netflix (which has an awful, awful library in Canada). However, I cannot. I've tried looking for services that perhaps I can use, but it seems that TV providers don't want my money.
So, are there any good sites to watch on-demand tv shows that's updated frequently? I'd prefer to stream rather than download and then watch.
Sorry if this is against the rules, but I made an effort to actually find services I can pay for.
Thanks!
Possibly pay for a decent vpn service that has endpoints in USA then you can have Hulu and US Netflix listings.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using XDA
I know copyright laws are much more lenient in Canada, but I'm not sure about xda's policies on this type of question but Google is your friend you will be able to find something depending on what you want.
Have you tried HBOGo, Showtime, AMC, or FX?
CTV.CA has lots of shows in their online video player.
As well as all the other sister channels.
Just make sure u view whole site not mobile site.. links for other channels are at bottom of TV's main site..
The issue with lack of services in Canada is a combination of CRTC regulations, ancient backwater copyright legislation (which in same cases is a help and others a hindrance... ie under current law PVRs are grey, which is my understanding why TiVO pretty much never came to Canada), and the fact that the online streaming rights are purchased by CTV, Global, etc - who are under the same umbrella corporations as our options for internet and TV service providers.
So they basically keep companies like Netflix from being able to acquire anything decent (though I actually don't mind the Netflix catalogue these days, and if you travel between US, UK and Canada - its nice to have the local libraries available whereever) so that you can't cut the cable, or are still forced to go through their channels anyway.
So your best best is to check the individual networks webpages/apps to see what they have available and if that's good enough. Anything else and you get into greymarket options (if not straight 'illegal'), such as VPN service to bypass geo-ip restrictions.
A number of good options have been posted. We do not encourage breaking copyrights here at XDA so I am closing this thread before we get to the point.
Hi,
Has anyone compared the difference betweent sling tv and netflix? why is the sling so expensive?
blackantt said:
Hi,
Has anyone compared the difference betweent sling tv and netflix? why is the sling so expensive?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ultimately, the amount it costs each company to obtain its content is what determines the price. Sling TV is so expensive because cable networks demand that much. If Sling TV could give you the same number of channels for $10/mo and stay profitable, they probably would. I imagine they're not making much on the service and mostly testing the waters at this stage.
Also, the way I see it, it's about each service's competition. The two services are different and aren't really direct competitors. They compliment each other with little overlap in content. Netflix focuses on content that is consumed on-demand, like movies and TV series. Their competition is $0.99 rentals, so it's priced accordingly. Sling TV, on the other hand, focuses on content that is consumed as-it-airs, like CNN, ESPN, Food Network, and HGTV. Their competition is $40+ cable subscriptions, so it's priced accordingly.
blackantt said:
Hi,
Has anyone compared the difference betweent sling tv and netflix? why is the sling so expensive?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think sling is overpriced but i havent paid for TV in so long, i didnt renew my hulu or my netflix subscriptions either. We are not the norm though, and if you compare Sling to other subscriptions that offer ESPN (Legally) like USTVNOW that offers a 25 CHannels for $20 for the first two months and $30 a month after. I'd say its really competitive and maybe if starts facing more competition it will decrease in price OR maybe we might get more channels (Like AMC) for the same price.
P.S. i do recommend that you take advantage of the Sling promo for Fire TV/Fire TV Stick or the Roku deal which for me it brought down the cost (if i subtract the $50 discount from my newly purchased firetv) Sling for $10 to the first 3 months.
It is the price it is for the same reason cable and satalite service are the price they are. Cable channels do no get as high in the ratings as network TV, NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX, so they can not charge as much for comercial time, instead they charge cable and satalite companies to distribute their content. NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX are the major networks and everything else has to be paid for. All of these major networks own cable networks too, CBS own Showtime, ABC owns ESPN, NBC own USA Network, SYFY, And FOX own FX, just to name a few, but their cable networks do not and cannot make the money they make off ads so they charge you to watch their cable networks. My guess is most of the cost of the service is coming from the partnership between Disney and Dish network. Disney, ABC and ESPN are all the same company, and they are not gonna let you watch their content legally for pennies. If you take away all the networks that are not under the ABC Disney brand, the cost woulld probably still be over ten dollars, cause disney has a lot of content and people would still pay. Disney gives you sports with ESPN, Network TV with ABC and something for the kids with the Disney Channel. Disney/ABC could make their own app and include all their networks and people would still probably buy it for $20. Your cable and satalite bills are basically the cost of content, the cost of equipment and labor, and taxes. It cost a to keep equipment running and even if you are not effected by outages or equipment failure, you still have to pay for it. Its like if a big main water line bust in your town and it does not effect you at all, a few months later everyones bill goes up to pay for the work that was done to fix it. Its the same thing the content pushers do. So not only are you paying for the content, you are also chipping in to help pay to make sure the equipment they are using to push it to you stay up and running and is fixed when it has a problem. Its like the WWE sayin they needed a million subscribers to break even, which iis probably true. They probably do need around a million people to break even, cause it takes a lot of money to run their nework, and someone has to pay for and its not gonna be them, it will be the people that buy their content. The good part is if you are a fan of the WWE or any other content provider, the more people that pay to see it means the more profit they will make, and hopefully in return will mean the content will get better. The WWE is basically telling all these networks to follow them and sell their content online, and the WWE just reportedly made 57 million in profits from the WWE Network that was supposed to fail. They took a Pay Per View business that they basically created and everyone followed their lead, now they have basically killed Pay Per View by creating their own network, which you can already see that others are following. Five years from now most all networks will be broadcast over the internet on subscription, and when you get to the facts of it they will all be modeled after the WWE Network. I am not a fan of the WWE, but their subscription based network is gonna change the way all the networks give us their content. You do not need to have cable or satalite service to watch the WWE Network like you do with the other networks that have apps, you simply pay WWE your $9.99 and go on about your day. There is no middle man, and I honestly think all networks will copy this platform shortly in the future.
porkenhimer said:
but their cable networks do not and cannot make the money they make off ads so they charge you to watch their cable networks. .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont agree with this, they are just double dipping in my eyes. The Main stations like ABC, NBC, FOX, etc... have always been profitable when people were using Over the Air Antennas. originall cable was sold for those poor soles that were too far from the major cities to get a good enough signal.
porkenhimer said:
following. Five years from now most all networks will be broadcast over the internet on subscription, and when you get to the facts of it they will all be modeled after the WWE Network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only other PPV events are boxing and UFC and i see neither transitioning into the free PPV WWE model
Speaking of PPV, its a bit insane that other countries like Mexico and many places in europe Televise what we call PPV events for free (through espn) in their counties yet here in the states we need to pay $50 an event. USa and Canada are the only two countries i know that charge for PPV Events
mejdam said:
I dont agree with this, they are just double dipping in my eyes. The Main stations like ABC, NBC, FOX, etc... have always been profitable when people were using Over the Air Antennas. originall cable was sold for those poor soles that were too far from the major cities to get a good enough signal.
The only other PPV events are boxing and UFC and i see neither transitioning into the free PPV WWE model
Speaking of PPV, its a bit insane that other countries like Mexico and many places in europe Televise what we call PPV events for free (through espn) in their counties yet here in the states we need to pay $50 an event. USa and Canada are the only two countries i know that charge for PPV Events
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do not have to agree, but it is a fact that no cable channel gets anywhere near the revenue for commercial time as do the four major networks. NBC, ABC, FOX and CBS all air shows that get the best ratings and no shows, except Monday Night Football, on cable can compete. Why do you think the ratings system is divided between the four major networks and the cable networks? It is because the cable networks would have to cancel every show they have based on low ratings if they had to compete with the four major networks. The only show on cable pulling down major network type numbers is Monday Night Football. You can have a show on cable that gets a couple million viewers in primetime and they call it a success, but if you have a show in primetime on one of the major networks and you can't pull down 10 million viewers then its a failure. Cable networks charge a fraction for commercial time of what the four major networks charge. Shows like American Idol, the Super Bowl, NCIS can get a million plus for 30 seconds of commercial time, and that will never happen on a cable network, period. The UK has PPV. As a matter of fact the reason thw WWE Network took so long to come to the UK was because of a PPV deal they had in place. WWE PPVs were $15 in the UK. Also WWE is not giving PPV for free now. When they sell PPV the price is set by the providers, not the WWE, UFC etc. The WWE would get a few dollars from each PPV buy, but now they can just sell their PPVs on the network and add some original programming in between and still come out making more than they were making on PPV buys. Did you really think that the $50+ goes to the WWE UFC etc? They get the smallest cut of everyone involved, and thats why they cut out the middle man. It is gonna force everyone to do the same, cause nobody is gonna wanna pay $50+ for an event when they can get it for $10 a month. Wait and see, within a year or two the UFC will be doing the same. The only reason they have not done it yet is because Dana White predicted the WWE Network would never get a million subscribers, and would fail, but now he can see that it worked, and he will have to follow eventually, cause nothing last forever and PPV is on its last leg. Its not that other countries are giving free PPV events, those networks in other contries have deals in place and they pay the WWE, UFC etc about the same as they would get from a PPV buy here in America. Like I said, the UFC and WWE get a few dollars per buy. The PPV business was basically a scam by entertainment companies. It was called closed circuit TV and whenever you wanted to see Ali fight or something special like that you would pay money and go to a theater to watch it live, but Vince got the same idea, but instead of going to the theater you would not have to leave your house. So the cable companies seen it as an opportunity to get money. So they charge people whatever people will pay, give the WWE a few dollars per buy and everyones happy. It worked for about thirty years, but the providers are charging so much that it was becoming a real headache for anyone to make money except the cable providers, and thats not good for the WWE so they created their own network. The PPV business will die soon, and thats a fact. You must not know business, but the entertainment business is the shadiest business of all. Its like when you buy a CD at the store, the store gets the biggest cut, and whats left goes to the record comany and gets filtered down through everyone that worked on the music. Every successful music person will tell you that selling albums does not make you rich, its doing shows that makes you rich. its called a point system, and each CD sold the artist gets a certain amount of points, which is usually pennies on the dollar, and the PPV business is basically the same way. A UFC or WWE PPV gets a million sales, but they get pennies from those sales. Google the record point system and maybe you will understand why PPV is dead, cause its basically the same thing, and then you will understand why record stores, book stores, video rental stores are all going out of business in droves. The internet gives entertainment companies all the controll, and entertainment providers are hanging on by a thread, cause they know that everyone is going digital and when they do a lot of those companies will die out. I know it seems hard to believe that a company everyone knows would go out of business, but a goood example is blockbuster, digital movie sales put them in the dirt. Five years ago nobody would have guessed that, but its happening to all the companies that provide entertainment. Everything is dying out. Players to play your content on are even becoming a thing of the past, cause everyone has smart TVs, tablets and carry laptops. The internet is killing everything from an entertainment standpoint, and if these entertainment companies do not conform they will be left behind. Just ask Borders, Walden Books and Blockbuster.
blackantt said:
Hi,
Has anyone compared the difference betweent sling tv and netflix? why is the sling so expensive?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ESPN
mejdam said:
I dont agree with this, they are just double dipping in my eyes. The Main stations like ABC, NBC, FOX, etc... have always been profitable when people were using Over the Air Antennas. originall cable was sold for those poor soles that were too far from the major cities to get a good enough signal.
The only other PPV events are boxing and UFC and i see neither transitioning into the free PPV WWE model
Speaking of PPV, its a bit insane that other countries like Mexico and many places in europe Televise what we call PPV events for free (through espn) in their counties yet here in the states we need to pay $50 an event. USa and Canada are the only two countries i know that charge for PPV Events
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I googled this to get the right numbers so that you could look it up for yourself. In the last full year every cable network combined to make $10.2 billion dollars from ad sales, and ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC combined to make $9.15 billion from ad sales. So basically the four major networks are mking around the same amount aff of comercial time as 400 or so cable networks combined. Also the top five cable networks that made the most from ad sales were number 1.ESPN, number 2.USA Network, number 3.TNT, number 4.TBS and number 5.FOX News. Now maybe this will tell you why no cable network can compete one on one with any of the four major broadcast networks. Thats why the price of the app is $20.
porkenhimer said:
You do not have to agree, but it is a fact that no cable channel gets anywhere near the revenue for commercial time as do the four major networks. NBC, ABC, FOX and CBS all air shows that get the best ratings and no shows, except Monday Night Football, on cable can compete.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, except for The Walking Dead which consistently makes it into the top 5 despite being on AMC which is available in far fewer households than the major 4 networks. You points are still spot on though.
I am happy to see the shift from traditional transmission to digital streaming. My biggest fear is that we may end up back where we started, high cost for streaming TV plus increased Internet costs "needed to cover" increased streaming usage. My second biggest fear is if it becomes completely splintered, I don't want 10 different subscriptions through 10 different networks to see each of their content through their own service. I suppose my third fear is the move to a streaming model stalls out or even backslides for the next 10 years.
I have no interest in SlingTV, NFL is literally the only thing I watch live (via OTA, I have a commitment to be away from home Monday nights). Everything else is on demand, and generally binge watched after a number of episodes are queued up and ready. As I understand it SlingTV may have a very limited on-demand functionality, but certainly not at the Hulu/Netflix level. However, I hope SlingTV does well and is a profitable proof of concept. HBO-Go is coming to an Internet device near you, and again I hope it does well and shows they can profit from the purely streaming side. My guess is a lot of people in the TV industry will be watching to see how SlingTV and HBO-Go do, and if they are popular successes we could see a flood of similar services. If they flop, well, that could be a major setback for the cord cutters.
blackantt said:
Hi,
Has anyone compared the difference betweent sling tv and netflix? why is the sling so expensive?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apples and oranges.
Netflix streaming provides original and licensed programming on a on-demand only basis.
SlingTV provides licensed TV and Sports live and a limited on-demand basis for some channels. If you desire the channels offered and want them live then SlingTV is a good deal. If you don't want that then it is not.
Based on the what I have read on various cord cutter forums, it is a love hate offering. Some cord cutters refuse to pay for any programming and are very critical of SlingTV while others think it is an excellent alternative to cable and satellite.
I fall in the second group. I have a HD OTA Antenna with a "Tablo" OTA DVR, Neflix, Amazon Prime, and use PLEX extensively. I signed up for a SlingTV invite the day it was announced and have had it for about 3 weeks and think it is great and my monthly cost went from $16.86 to $38.42. Still a significant savings over the $98 I was paying for the programming I wanted with DirecTV. I dont include the cost of internet because I had the same internet service I had before I cut the cord. I watch everything on ROKU 3's and I am currently testing a Amazon Fire TV.
Just my $0.02 worth.
skeptic_always said:
Well, except for The Walking Dead which consistently makes it into the top 5 despite being on AMC which is available in far fewer households than the major 4 networks. You points are still spot on though.
I am happy to see the shift from traditional transmission to digital streaming. My biggest fear is that we may end up back where we started, high cost for streaming TV plus increased Internet costs "needed to cover" increased streaming usage. My second biggest fear is if it becomes completely splintered, I don't want 10 different subscriptions through 10 different networks to see each of their content through their own service. I suppose my third fear is the move to a streaming model stalls out or even backslides for the next 10 years.
I have no interest in SlingTV, NFL is literally the only thing I watch live (via OTA, I have a commitment to be away from home Monday nights). Everything else is on demand, and generally binge watched after a number of episodes are queued up and ready. As I understand it SlingTV may have a very limited on-demand functionality, but certainly not at the Hulu/Netflix level. However, I hope SlingTV does well and is a profitable proof of concept. HBO-Go is coming to an Internet device near you, and again I hope it does well and shows they can profit from the purely streaming side. My guess is a lot of people in the TV industry will be watching to see how SlingTV and HBO-Go do, and if they are popular successes we could see a flood of similar services. If they flop, well, that could be a major setback for the cord cutters.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe that when networks follow and do something similar to what the WWE did, it will actually be cheaper than your cable and satalite bill is now. Look at it this way, a lot of big networks own smaller networks, so I am guessing if they release apps for certain networks, all of their affiliated networks will be included. Can you imaging if a network like Discovery*gave us a subscription based service like the WWE? Discovery has over ten networks in the US. I can think of five different networks that combined own over 50 other networks, and if we could get the networks straight from the source for a small monthly fee, we could pick and choose what networks we want and only pay for those networks. I believe thats the way most people will be paying for TV in the next few years. I predict that in five years from now that the focus of major cable and satalite companies will be on internet service and not TV subscriptions, but I would not be suprised at all if a few of the major companies are out of business. The world changes way too fast these days and whats hot this week is dead next week. Look at how popular Blackberry was and now they are having to sell their security services just to stay afloat. Look at what has happened to several major news paper companies, the internet run them right out of business. Cable and satalites days are coming to an end, its just a matter of time before they are gone. The best example of how technology is changing the world is that song called "Heres a quarter call someone who cares". That song came out in the 90s, but it makes absolutly no sense for people who were born after 1995, cause cell phones killed the payphone business. There are way too many companies focusing on smart TV and focusing on releasing their products in the form of an app, for cable to survive. Cable is like a guy that pissed off several mafia families and they all put hits on him and its just a matter of time before somebody gets a kill shot. The end is coming.
I agree, I think traditional cable/sat service is on the way out (kicking and screaming and suing and lobbying for protective laws), it's just a question of time. I just hope we don't get stuck needing to run a dozen different apps and paying a dozen different subscription fees no matter how cheap it is. Let me subscribe to SlingTV but let me pick and choose which channels I want from all channels Dish has and give me DVR access to anything on those channels that has played in the last year. Expand Hulu, perhaps offer "Hulu Plus Plus" for a slightly higher fee that includes more shows. Decriminalize rebroadcasting of free public OTA programming. These are the types of things I'd like to see.
Hulu is owned by Fox, Disney and NBC - they already have something place they can expand on.
skeptic_always said:
I agree, I think traditional cable/sat service is on the way out (kicking and screaming and suing and lobbying for protective laws), it's just a question of time. I just hope we don't get stuck needing to run a dozen different apps and paying a dozen different subscription fees no matter how cheap it is. Let me subscribe to SlingTV but let me pick and choose which channels I want from all channels Dish has and give me DVR access to anything on those channels that has played in the last year. Expand Hulu, perhaps offer "Hulu Plus Plus" for a slightly higher fee that includes more shows. Decriminalize rebroadcasting of free public OTA programming. These are the types of things I'd like to see.
Hulu is owned by Fox, Disney and NBC - they already have something place they can expand on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hulu is a sinking ship too, but can be turned around if done right. They need to be more consistant with how they put stuff on their site, cause it has turned a lot of their customers off. Also they need to start doing a lot of original programming. Not already doing a few original series tells me the company has no real plan. Also saying netflix is not their competition then saying they are should tell everyone that the company has no leadership and cannot even agree on who they are competing against. If they would invest in some originl content, put everything on at the same time and not make it seem like the good stuff needs more time before they release it to hulu, add more content and stop blocking people that paid from watching it in other contries, then they may be able to turn it around, but Hulu is just dead in the water right now and its gonna go under too if something is not done. The worst idea they ever had was making it seem like you have to wait to get the good stuff. Who makes people pay for something then basically tells them if they want the new content they gotta wait? Very very bad idea,especially when there is plenty of other places to watch it sooner. If they wanna succeed they gotta get the content out faster. When a free service like Crackle with a fraction of the content has more viewers than you, you are in trouble. Jerry Seinfeld single handedly put the beatdown on Hulu with a 20 minute show of him driving, eating, talking and drinking coffee. Trust me, Hulu is in trouble. If Jerry Seinfeld can get over 100 million watches off a show like that than Hulu should take that as a sign that they need some good original content. They should have just sold Hulu and let someone else deal with it, cause it looks like its going nowhere. Like I said though, it can be turrned around if they wanna really do something with it, but a lot has to change. To me it seems like they look at Hulu as a hobby and nobody is really incharge. While Crackle, Netflix, and Amazon Prime are making original content, getting new viewers, adding more and more content, Hulu is doing nothing. The craziest part in all this is that Crackle is able to compete with any of these companies, but somehow they have and are even winning in some areas.
The number of Hulu Plus subscribers is growing steady. http://www.statista.com/statistics/258014/number-of-hulus-paying-subscribers/ They also have a number of Original and exclusive shows, and are growing that as well. I just counted 32 original series and more on the way. I don't know how many exclusive titles they have, but quite a few and growing. http://blog.hulu.com/2015/02/19/hulu-acquires-exclusive-svod-rights-to-csi/ http://blog.hulu.com/2014/12/16/hul...to-resurrection-devious-maids-and-mistresses/ http://blog.hulu.com/2014/12/19/hulu-mgm-fargo/ http://blog.hulu.com/2014/12/18/hulu-signs-landmark-agreement-with-fx-productions/ and the list goes on and on. Just start here and look: http://blog.hulu.com/
There are some things I don't like, some shows are available the day after they air but others are delayed. Some shows I can watch every episode ever aired, others expire a month or two after being made available. This isn't a Hulu decision as much as a licensing agreement. I'm sure they could have agreed to pay more for a next day airing, but a one month delay doesn't really matter to me. Same for other countries, it's a licensing agreement thing and that's just the way it is now. Same holds true for Netflix and even Bluray/DVD movies... The worst thing is the handful of "web only" shows. Shows you can watch on a PC but not on a mobile device or something like a Roku or FireTV. Fortunately I can just cast it from my laptop to my Chromecast, but it's still more hassle than just watching it on FireTV.
I have Hulu+ and Netflix. There is a fair amount of overlap, but they really are different products that offer different things. However, lots of people compare the two and lots of customers will only pay for one or the other. I suppose you could say they are not competitors but at the same time they are.
Too expensive for us too. We haven't had cable or satellite since last summer. We use Netflix, Amazon and an OTA DVR for our needs. During the trial of Sling we just didnt use it. It felt like going backwards. Turning on the TV to see what they wanted us to watch along with the commercials just made us not watch it. Then there was no 5.1 audio either.