First look: Dish's Sling TV Web-based television service

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37

    So, in other words, same bag of crap as now with cable, only worse.

  • Reply 22 of 37
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,105member

    I want this year to be the year I finally cut the cable.  I'm paying $100/mo and only watch literally a handful of channels that I watch maybe a few hours a month.  It sucks.  

  • Reply 23 of 37
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    Just got a Samsung 4K UHDTV with SmartHub this weekend I've been playing around with. It intercepts my cable channels via IR signal and re-presents them in a well designed and useful graphic interface. A mouse like remote enables you to point and click with accuracy. Includes most major apps on Apple TV including UHD Netflix. I'm still adapting but feels quite functional.
  • Reply 24 of 37
    Replay restrictions and channel bundling. Sounds like a winner.
  • Reply 25 of 37
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadmatic View Post

     



    That would definitely be an issue for a family with multiple TVs.




    Yep, traditional cable and satellite are not going anywhere for a long time. Internet TV is in its infancy. Then there’s the matter of local programming. A lot of people live in urban areas where OTA reception is iffy at best no matter how big your antenna is.

  • Reply 26 of 37
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

     



    What would you consider the right price?




    That’s the 64K question. What consumers think is a reasonable price is almost always completely out of line with actual costs to provide the service. It’s the same argument some make about the price of songs on iTunes, that once its on iTunes it costs nothing to keep it there and therefore should cost almost nothing to buy. They ignore royalties, production costs, profit margins, basic business.

     

    So I’m guessing @cspro thinks $0.05/mo is about right for every channel so he can have those 20 channels for a dollar a month. That’s “reasonable” to a certain ilk.

  • Reply 27 of 37
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,056member
    Wait for Apple TV service where you create your own bundle...let's say 10 channels for $30.
  • Reply 28 of 37
    boeyc15boeyc15 Posts: 986member
    realistic wrote: »

    What would you consider the right price?

    I do not know the right price... In theory competition should solve that. However, I never understood why I (my cable provider) pay for channels that already has commercials. :\
    It used to be all these side networks and premium channels would just replay movies or commercials would pay for the shows. Now I (we) pay, whether we want to or not, and they have enough money to make their own shows. Eg house of cards etc. for me at least I would like a movie channel that is just first run movies. Love turner Classic. The industry has tons of them that get released every year, many of them fine, but never get aired. End of rant;)
  • Reply 29 of 37
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

     

    I want this year to be the year I finally cut the cable.  I'm paying $100/mo and only watch literally a handful of channels that I watch maybe a few hours a month.  It sucks.  


    How do you get your Internet? I have only one choice for broadband, cable, and it is expensive, often goes down or is slow and I'm convinced they throttle it intentionally when I try to stream a movie. (TWC)

  • Reply 30 of 37
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,311member
    realistic wrote: »

    What would you consider the right price?

    Under $10 a month! This falls into Netflix, Amazon and hulu+ prices.
  • Reply 31 of 37
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,311member
    pazuzu wrote: »
    Wen will I get Amazon Prime on my Apple TV? I have it already on my iPhone.

    Airplay to your Apple TV! It's on your iPhone, so there you go. I normal use my ROKU boxes for that. I have many different types of streaming devices.
  • Reply 32 of 37
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

     



    That’s the 64K question. What consumers think is a reasonable price is almost always completely out of line with actual costs to provide the service. It’s the same argument some make about the price of songs on iTunes, that once its on iTunes it costs nothing to keep it there and therefore should cost almost nothing to buy. They ignore royalties, production costs, profit margins, basic business.

     

    So I’m guessing @cspro thinks $0.05/mo is about right for every channel so he can have those 20 channels for a dollar a month. That’s “reasonable” to a certain ilk.




    There is definitely a large group (of commenters on Internet forums) that believe that all content should be dirt cheap or free (with no ads!), and you can never have a reasonable discussion with them about pricing.

     

    What Dish is doing here is a gen 1 product, by a current Tier 1 PayTV provider, looking to grow their business into a market where users are not going to buy the traditional cable/satellite/telcoTV products, but may go for a lower price that has a bundle of channels/content not available elsewhere.  It is for the cord-cutters / cord-nevers / cord-shavers.  In order to differentiate it from their traditional satellite services, it is being limited to one stream at a time (and perhaps will have another tier in future for 2 streams).  This is relatively unexplored territory so DISH is the first with an offering looking to figure it out for real.

     

    What we seem to hear a lot that ESPN was the key channel that "cord cutters" wanted, so this will give them that option.  Whether the total bundle is worth $20 is of course up to each person to figure out.  Personally the bundle seems a bit filled with "crap" - I would sooner have less channels but of more quality.  I hope everyone realizes that the reason for no ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox etc is that these can be easily obtained OTA or from Hulu.

     

    For all those that claim to only watch limited number of channels / shows but nothing on the market satisfies them, not sure why they don't just purchase the seasons of content from iTunes.  If you truly watch little TV, it is a very convenient way to watch HD quality content, with no ads, on multiple devices.  I think in the US a seasons pass is about $30/show.  Netflix + Hulu + iTunes seems to cover most of the bases, outside of sports, and there is now an option for that.

  • Reply 33 of 37
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,056member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brucemc View Post

     



    There is definitely a large group (of commenters on Internet forums) that believe that all content should be dirt cheap or free (with no ads!), and you can never have a reasonable discussion with them about pricing.

     

    What Dish is doing here is a gen 1 product, by a current Tier 1 PayTV provider, looking to grow their business into a market where users are not going to buy the traditional cable/satellite/telcoTV products, but may go for a lower price that has a bundle of channels/content not available elsewhere.  It is for the cord-cutters / cord-nevers / cord-shavers.  In order to differentiate it from their traditional satellite services, it is being limited to one stream at a time (and perhaps will have another tier in future for 2 streams).  This is relatively unexplored territory so DISH is the first with an offering looking to figure it out for real.

     

    What we seem to hear a lot that ESPN was the key channel that "cord cutters" wanted, so this will give them that option.  Whether the total bundle is worth $20 is of course up to each person to figure out.  Personally the bundle seems a bit filled with "crap" - I would sooner have less channels but of more quality.  I hope everyone realizes that the reason for no ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox etc is that these can be easily obtained OTA or from Hulu.

     

    For all those that claim to only watch limited number of channels / shows but nothing on the market satisfies them, not sure why they don't just purchase the seasons of content from iTunes.  If you truly watch little TV, it is a very convenient way to watch HD quality content, with no ads, on multiple devices.  I think in the US a seasons pass is about $30/show.  Netflix + Hulu + iTunes seems to cover most of the bases, outside of sports, and there is now an option for that.


    HBO...?

  • Reply 34 of 37

    I signed up and began using SlingTV this weekend. 



    Not sure it's a long term solution for me.  I cut the chord in 2011 and haven't looked back.  This was neat to try out, but there just isn't any channels that I'm a fan of.  I am a huge sports fan, but ESPN is a terrible sports station.  Playstation VUE...that sounds more like a winner when they come out.  Sounds like they have the Fox Sports network in their mix.  Add in FX and FXX, and I'd pay $20 a month for that.   My 4 year old son wasn't interested in the kid offering, considering we have netflix and he can watch what he wants any time he wants. 



    I'm pretty sure what I've realized is that the scheduled programming model is dead.  We are in a "I want it, and I want it now" world, and scheduled TV doesn't fit that. 

  • Reply 35 of 37
    dachardachar Posts: 330member

    In England, Virgin Media is the main cable supplier. Telephone line, broadband and tv packages cost between £22 to £99 a month. The basic package is telephone line, 50 Mb broadband and 60+ TV channels. For £99 a month you get faster broadband at unto 152 Mb and 230+ TV channels. I have no idea how anyone can require 230+ TV channels let alone watch even a quarter of them. On top of the cable rentals everyone who uses TV must have a TV licence for over the air transmissions.  This costs £145.50 per year. There are loads of channels over the air so many like me don't subscribe to cable TV.

  • Reply 36 of 37
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member

    These days I find little time to watch much TV, between work & related travel, kids & activities, etc.  When I do have time, I just can't stomach network television any longer (ABC, NBC, etc).  Everything is either reality TV, crime or medical dramas (which maybe aren't bad in and of themselves, but I am just done with that category over the years).  And the odd time I do get into a series, the buggers decide to cancel it.  To me at least, broadcast network television is indeed in its last days of relevance.

     

    My kids spend more time on YouTube or Netflix than traditional TV programming in any case, so don't see the future so bright for the traditional delivery models.

Sign In or Register to comment.