Intel Is Reportedly Going To Destroy The Cable Model By Offering People The Ability To Subscribe To - Polidicks

[quote=Source]Intel is reportedly on the cusp of delivering something that consumers around the world have been wanting for a long, long time. Kelly Clay at Forbes reports Intel is going to blow up the cable industry with its own set-top box and an unbundled cable service. Clay says Intel is planning to deliver cable content to any device with an Internet connection. And instead of having to pay $80 a month for two hundred channels you don't want, you'll be able to subscribe to specific channels of your choosing. Here's the key paragraph: This set-top box, said by industry insiders to be available to a limited beta of customers in March, will offer cable channels delivered “over the top” to televisions anywhere there is an Internet connection regardless of provider. (Microsoft Mediaroom, for example, requires AT&T’s service, and Xbox has limited offerings for Comcast and FiOS customers). For the first time, consumers will be able to subscribe to content per channel, unlike bundled cable services, and you may also be able to subscribe per show as well. Intel’s set-top box will also have access to Intel’s already existing app marketplace for apps, casual games, and video on demand. Leveraging the speed of current broadband, and the vast shared resources of the cloud, Intel plans to give customers the ability to use “Cloud DVR”, a feature intended to allow users to watch any past TV show at any time, without the need to record it ahead of time, pause live tv, and rewind shows in progress. This is a holy-grail of sorts for people that subscribe to cable. We've been skeptical of Intel's ability to make a dent in the TV market. If it somehow manages to deliver this unbundled channel option, we're more optimistic Intel could have success. Before anyone gets too excited, Janko Roettgers at GigaOm is skeptical it happens. Roettgers knows the TV business very well. The reason its unlikely to happen is that content companies don't really want to see cable blown up. It's been very good to them. Last summer, Peter Kafka at All Things D poured cold water on the idea of Intel unbundling. Not only is going to be hard to make it happen, it's unclear if it would even save money for cable subscribers: Those bundles are core to today’s TV ecosystem. And the TV guys insist that consumers really don’t want “a la carte” programming, because if they do, the channels/shows they like today will end up costing much, much more. Disney, for instance, charges TV distributors about $5 for every subscriber that gets ESPN. And, by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base. [/quote] It's interesting to see Intel expanding into new markets, yet I fear for the safety of the 'free-internet' that we have today. It would be too easy for them to say 'bam, here's Facebook', 'bam, here's Youtube' and instantly 50% of average Joe's internet needs are Satiated and now it's impossible to launch some great website for people to enjoy because you're either required to develop a proprietary app which is accepted and popularised at their discretion, or (the more likely option) that you simply cannot. Source: [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-cable-2013-1#ixzz2GkSFccYf[/url]

Wasn't intel rumoured to also start shipping their CPU with a mobo only? I'm not going to start caring until there is an official announcement.

i'll keep news, documentaries and sport but other than that... it's pretty pointless to pay for reality crap and awful music channels. I'll watch TV shows that I want to watch at any time, and film whenever I want to.

As long as they don't charge some ridiculously high rate per channel, I'm okay. Ridiculously high= 10$ or more per channel

I don't know if its true, but damn, it's a good idea and I'd gladly subscribe.

[QUOTE=valkery;39060145]As long as they don't charge some ridiculously high rate per channel, I'm okay. Ridiculously high= 10$ or more per channel[/QUOTE] By the sounds of things it'll be based on user demand. So if like 1,000,000 people are subscribed to ESPN it'll cost $10 or whatever If 5,000,000+.. price could drop to $5 as they'd be able to get more ad revenue. I'd love to see an 'ads disabled' subscription for an additional $9/month or something.

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;39060190]By the sounds of things it'll be based on user demand. So if like 1,000,000 people are subscribed to ESPN it'll cost $10 or whatever If 5,000,000+.. price could drop to $5 as they'd be able to get more ad revenue. I'd love to see an 'ads disabled' subscription for an additional $9/month or something.[/QUOTE] But... It's TV, isn't it? What happens while the ads are playing? You just stare at a black screen?

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;39060190]By the sounds of things it'll be based on user demand. So if like 1,000,000 people are subscribed to ESPN it'll cost $10 or whatever If 5,000,000+.. price could drop to $5 as they'd be able to get more ad revenue. I'd love to see an 'ads disabled' subscription for an additional $9/month or something.[/QUOTE] So potentially, if they get enough subscribers, channels could be free?

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;39060190]By the sounds of things it'll be based on user demand. So if like 1,000,000 people are subscribed to ESPN it'll cost $10 or whatever If 5,000,000+.. price could drop to $5 as they'd be able to get more ad revenue. I'd love to see an 'ads disabled' subscription for an additional $9/month or something.[/QUOTE] They would still force superimposition of ads during programs at the bottom. The annoying ass ones that slide out and then cover up your show.

[QUOTE=valkery;39060263]So potentially, if they get enough subscribers, channels could be free?[/QUOTE] I imagine there's a limit e.g. most channels cost like $3 but it keeps increasing with decreasing popularity

[QUOTE=Most wanteD;39060288]They would still force superimposition of ads during programs at the bottom. The annoying ass ones that slide out and then cover up your show.[/QUOTE] I had one of those where the fucking guy "used" a remote to "pause" the show I was watching and talk about his show. DAMMIT I WANNA WATCH THIS SHOW.

[QUOTE=valkery;39060263]So potentially, if they get enough subscribers, channels could be free?[/QUOTE] That's not how things work. :v:

[QUOTE=Del91;39060619]That's not how things work. :v:[/QUOTE] I wish it were though. :rolleyes:

interesting, this is something I always wanted, just sub to a channel you want and pay that price instead of having to pay a bigger price for a bunch of shit channels....very interesting, cant wait for more news on this

If I can get just HBO without having to pay for half a dozen other shite "Drama" channels I'd be happy as fuck.

If I could subscribe to channels, I would have less than ten channels. I'd pay to just have individual series and organize them from there.

don't know about you guys but I could definitely deal with just History and AMC this is something I've wanted for years

We already have this in Finland..

[QUOTE=rider695;39060113]Wasn't intel rumoured to also start shipping their CPU with a mobo only? I'm not going to start caring until there is an official announcement.[/QUOTE] There was an AMA by a CPU architect at intel that said that this was massively sensationalised

Probably not going to be available in Canada due to our glorious (absolute shit) monopoly

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;39060190]I'd love to see an 'ads disabled' subscription for an additional $9/month or something.[/QUOTE] What would they fill ad space with? Since shows are 22 - 42 minutes, it'd be hard to keep up with when not aligned to the hour.

I can see the cable companies genning up lawsuits to this left and right to try and keep a monopoly on television with things like "unfair trade practices" and "but if you launch this our poor media networks are going to be singled out and go broke".

Too bad this isn't how things work and at the moment the content providers are going to middle-finger Intel. Its not going to work, even if this is true. You don't just go "fuk you I'm going to give YOUR content on a per channel basis" because then they go "fuk you you can't give our content at all then. hope you get fucked"

Not bad, one of the reasons I don't have cable is because I don't see the point in paying 60/mo for 50 channels I don't use is annoying. NO I DON'T FUCKING WANT Home and Gardening I DON'T EVEN HAVE A LAWN

Can I subscribe to History channel from a decade ago?

Nice idea, but at least 75% of US broadband customers, probably more, get their connection from a cable provider. They'll just cap everyone's connections further, or just block Intel's service. Also, Intel needs content rights to all these channels, which probably won't happen because content providers are just fine with the cable monopoly.

If they do this, I'll just have the local stations, plus like 5 other channels. I dont need 999 channels if I watch only 7

snip

[QUOTE=zakedodead;39061975]Can I subscribe to History channel from a decade ago?[/QUOTE] I'd much rather have that than the Hitler Alien Doomsday Channel.

[QUOTE=Most wanteD;39060288]They would still force superimposition of ads during programs at the bottom. The annoying ass ones that slide out and then cover up your show.[/QUOTE] Call me an entitled twat, but I won't pay for anything that comes with adds like that anymore. Got off of cable, and I'm not going back to anything remotely close to that pile of shit ever again. Content on demand. No bullshit. Wont see a cent from me otherwise.