I see where you're coming from. But unfortunately, networks are going to adopt the model that the majority of people will use. And I don't think you're in that majority. The majority makes their decision based on 2 things - price and content. And a bundled service is the only economically feasible option for that,…

But you have to consider the fact that it would be more expensive for these networks to produce content if they unbundled. That 90% may be dropping, but it's still much, much higher than what their subscription base would be unbundled.

You can't base what each channel would charge separately based on what they currently add to your cable bundle. That's not how the economics of the industry works. The reason TNT only adds $1.33 to your cable subscription is because it's bundled. Remove that bundle, and that $1.33 then becomes $8 - $10. If you…

Only if the cheaper channels made their subscription costs at $2 - $3 each. But there's no way that's going to happen. If, say, the History Channel decided to unbundle itself from cable and offer it's own subscription service, I'll be very surprised if it was under $8/month. Even if you only watch 5 channels, at…

The others aren't as expensive BECAUSE they're bundled. But if each network separated into their own subscription service, you'll be paying a lot more. Bundling keeps everything cheaper. Would you pay $10 just for FX? And another $10 for CNN? And another $10 for whatever? That right there is more than what I…

But not everyone is willing to pay more, and these companies have to come up with a service that the majority would use. I currently get about 200 channels with my cable package. I only watch about a dozen of them, tops. If I paid for each of those dozen channels separately, I would be paying a lot more than what I…

Bundling is what keeps costs down. If each individual network offered live access to their shows for a subscription price, You'll end up paying $10/month for each network. Even if I only want access to 10 channels, I'll be paying more than what I currently am for 200 channels.

Sling is just the first real step in finally destroying cable companies, not the final step. Do you want Sling to be the only option for non-cable live TV? Then it'll just become another Comcast.

Unfortunately, bundling is what keeps prices down. Would you rather pay $40/month for 100 channels - half of which you don't watch, or pay $10/month for each individual channel?

Apparently, they can see a rabbit from 2 miles away.

Not sure what you think is "stolen". Original? Of course not. But then, very very little is actually an original idea. But not stolen, at least not any more than what any other tech company has done. As for what they "stole" from XEROX, Apple paid them with Apple stock. XEROX owned 20% of Apple at the time. If…

You're over-simplifying it. True, it's not amazing to take the ideas of others and give it a new look. What is amazing, though, is being able to see the potential in an idea that no one else sees, and turning it into something that millions of people want. XEROX's mouse idea was over-complicated, cost $300, and…

Well that was the most over-done video I've ever seen.

Not on iOS. On the iPhone, you have to open the Google Now app or the future Cortana app to use them. Much more inconvenient than being able to access Siri without even waking up your phone.

Apple won't deny a Cortana app. They allowed Google Now. But it won't have access to system settings like Siri does, which means it'll be limited to internet searches.

I've been wanting this forever.

It has it, but it just doesn't work nearly as well as other apps such as Calendars 5 or Fantastical.

"She (and I assume many other people in America) are ready for a woman president"

"Make them compete" IS government regulation, and is exactly what these rules are going to do.

Not on the iOS version. I just re-downloaded it again a few minutes ago to double check.