It looks like a nice start but it is missing a lot... CNN, TBS, and TNT. AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, Time Warner and A+E Networks, HBO are all missing.
I will stick with my DirecTV Now thank you. I wish AT&T would license the rights for DirecTV Now to Apple for the Apple TV so that they can integrate it properly.
Time will tell.
I suspect the only way Apple will catch up in this area if they make a bid for one of the cable or satellite companies. The complexities of existing agreements are just too vast.
Streaming customers don't want 200 channels package. They want smaller
package with channels they want at reasonable price and it can be
achieved in a win-win way. With base packages, allow customers to add-on
single channel each at price between 0.99-$2.99/month. Than, small group of channels
package($5) like SLING does; and obviously those special channels like HBO between $5-$15. This way, streaming service gets what they
want(revenue) and customers get what they want at reasonable cost.
Allowing single channel on top of Base package is key for customer
stickiness. Currently, DirectTVNow at $35 is best package deal with good channels selection.
I will not pay for a streaming package which offers only few channels that I watch and sometime don't let me add couple of individual channels that I really want and not in the package. I rather watch free OTA and than add Netflix or Hulu, etc
I would imagine that streamers don’t want channels at all. The allure of streaming is “anything I want to see, anytime I want to see it.” Programming for which you need a TV guide is so antiquated that... well, you get it.
The news channels (whose parent companies have to buy views/hits from China to artificially inflate their popularity to lie to their shareholders and advertisers) wouldn’t really suffer by having on-demand news programming, would they? The channels have the exact same five stories in every show throughout their entire day’s run, anyway, so who gives a shit if someone watches the morning show at 9 PM when they get home?
It looks like a nice start but it is missing a lot... CNN, TBS, and TNT. AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, Time Warner and A+E Networks, HBO are all missing.
I will stick with my DirecTV Now thank you. I wish AT&T would license the rights for DirecTV Now to Apple for the Apple TV so that they can integrate it properly.
Time will tell.
I suspect the only way Apple will catch up in this area if they make a bid for one of the cable or satellite companies. The complexities of existing agreements are just too vast.
Why does Apple have to provide a service that is a "me too" to what others are already offering? Apple is offering a prime platform for any streaming service provider - iOS and tvOS. Well over a billion active devices and growing. Apple gets a cut if subscriptions purchased through their platform, and they sell the platform.
Right now Apple provides a complimentary offering via iTunes with lots of movies for purchase or rental (and plethora of TV content to purchase). I am sure Apple is always analyzing the market to see what is better, but I don't think the path forward is clear enough.
It looks like a nice start but it is missing a lot... CNN, TBS, and TNT. AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, Time Warner and A+E Networks, HBO are all missing.
I will stick with my DirecTV Now thank you. I wish AT&T would license the rights for DirecTV Now to Apple for the Apple TV so that they can integrate it properly.
Time will tell.
I suspect the only way Apple will catch up in this area if they make a bid for one of the cable or satellite companies. The complexities of existing agreements are just too vast.
Why does Apple have to provide a service that is a "me too" to what others are already offering? Apple is offering a prime platform for any streaming service provider - iOS and tvOS. Well over a billion active devices and growing. Apple gets a cut if subscriptions purchased through their platform, and they sell the platform.
Right now Apple provides a complimentary offering via iTunes with lots of movies for purchase or rental (and plethora of TV content to purchase). I am sure Apple is always analyzing the market to see what is better, but I don't think the path forward is clear enough.
And what happens if everyone stops allowing you to purchase through Apple's platform because they don't want to pay Apple a cut of the monthly subscription revenue? I've never understood why Apple gets a cut. They're not hosting any of the content. People aren't signing up for Netflix or Hulu or whatever because of Apple's marketing. I understand paying Apple to be able to develop apps on their platform but giving them a monthly cut of subscription revenue is nuts even at a reduced rate.
It looks like a nice start but it is missing a lot... CNN, TBS, and TNT. AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, Time Warner and A+E Networks, HBO are all missing.
I will stick with my DirecTV Now thank you. I wish AT&T would license the rights for DirecTV Now to Apple for the Apple TV so that they can integrate it properly.
Oh look, another "bundle" of channels. This is no different than what the cable companies offer.
Anyone who thinks bundles are going away is just fooling themselves. And by the time you add up all the subscriptions for the different services you have - Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, ESPN, etc. you're close to cable pricing.
Being forced to pay ESPN's exorbitant monthly subscriber fee is the biggest reason i stopped paying for cable TV back in 2006. i don't watch it, i don't want to subsidize those that do.
for those talking about Netflix, ESPN's monthly subscribe fee is only about $1 shy of Netflix's cheapest monthly fee for all their catalog.
It looks like a nice start but it is missing a lot... CNN, TBS, and TNT. AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, Time Warner and A+E Networks, HBO are all missing.
I will stick with my DirecTV Now thank you. I wish AT&T would license the rights for DirecTV Now to Apple for the Apple TV so that they can integrate it properly.
Time will tell.
I suspect the only way Apple will catch up in this area if they make a bid for one of the cable or satellite companies. The complexities of existing agreements are just too vast.
I wonder if Comcast's profit margins are as high as Apple. I think that Apple can't make a deal where they get the sort of Profit that they normally get 30%+.
I like Playstation Vue but the DVR is pretty awful. If I can get a reliable DVR plus ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, ESPN, TNT for $35 I would switch
Again why is Apple so friken slow?
We should have Apple Live TV by now.
All this stuff sounds great on paper but is always disappointing in practice. Have you tried DirectTV Now? Garbage. Apple is smart not to get involved while these types of services are in their nascency.
I'm using Playstation Vue for the last 3 months and overall its BETTER THAN CABLE. Plus it cost only $35 versus $100.
The stream is fast and reliable. The only problem I had is the DVR. Its a little tricky and is not 100% reliable. But cable DVR's were not 100% reliable either.
Tried Sling. Its crap. DirectTV now is garbage. Try Vue. Its really good.
I have the $30 version of PS Vue for the past 2 months and I don't have a problem with the DVR function - what exactly is it doing? Agreed that it is way better than Sling ($25) and I dropped Hulu(~$10) as well since Vue covered my reason for having both services.
The only thing I'm missing is A&E for Bates Motel season 5, so I'll probably just buy that.
It looks like a nice start but it is missing a lot... CNN, TBS, and TNT. AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, Time Warner and A+E Networks, HBO are all missing.
I will stick with my DirecTV Now thank you. I wish AT&T would license the rights for DirecTV Now to Apple for the Apple TV so that they can integrate it properly.
Time will tell.
I suspect the only way Apple will catch up in this area if they make a bid for one of the cable or satellite companies. The complexities of existing agreements are just too vast.
Why does Apple have to provide a service that is a "me too" to what others are already offering? Apple is offering a prime platform for any streaming service provider - iOS and tvOS. Well over a billion active devices and growing. Apple gets a cut if subscriptions purchased through their platform, and they sell the platform.
Right now Apple provides a complimentary offering via iTunes with lots of movies for purchase or rental (and plethora of TV content to purchase). I am sure Apple is always analyzing the market to see what is better, but I don't think the path forward is clear enough.
And what happens if everyone stops allowing you to purchase through Apple's platform because they don't want to pay Apple a cut of the monthly subscription revenue? I've never understood why Apple gets a cut. They're not hosting any of the content. People aren't signing up for Netflix or Hulu or whatever because of Apple's marketing. I understand paying Apple to be able to develop apps on their platform but giving them a monthly cut of subscription revenue is nuts even at a reduced rate.
And you say the same thing every frickin' time. You don't understand, and that is fine. Suffice it to say that there are clearly many subscription services that do find it worthwhile, otherwise they would not do it. There is an easy solution to avoid it, that (to my knowledge) all of these subscription services implement that (sign up outside the app), AND STILL they allow in-app subscription purchasing with Apple's platform. AND subscribers are doing it. Maybe - just maybe - there is some benefit to those subscription services and hence they are willing to pay for that.
There are companies that aggregate all the channels into one easy-to-use service that can be controlled from one device. It's called a cable company. Some may balk at the costs or the company themselves, but for those people who want a lot of choices for programming, it's still the best solution. Has anybody actually replicated the service from their cable company with all these separate services AND saved money???
I like the direction the online services are headed, but none
of them can offer the value of cable. Yes, you can save money; but you will be
limited to what is available. If you are happy within those limits, go for it.
I pay $103/month* for both 75 MBps Internet and cable TV
w/HBO and channels I sometimes watch which aren’t included in many streaming
packages (USA, BBC America, Big10 Network). And my TiVo** is an excellent
aggregator of all of my cable channels, Comcast’s extensive VOD library, as
well as the main online services if you have any of those (Netflix, Amazon,
YouTube, Hulu, etc) including universal search across all of those services, a
Plex client for my personal video library, out of home streaming, and download
of content to iDevices for offline viewing.
I could maybe cobble together a set of services that covers
most, but not all, of what I want; but by the time the cost of internet access
is added there is no way it would be less than what I’m paying now nor would it
be anywhere near as convenient.
* currently on one of Comcast’s “introductory” packages, so
the price will go up in 6 months, but even if I can’t convince them to give me
another deal, which I usually can, it would still be far cheaper than trying to
put together a set of streaming services to get me what I want
** yes, you have an upfront cost for the TiVo unit and subscription,
but mine has already fully paid for itself in saved rental fees from Comcast’s
DVR, so $103/month is my all-in cost for internet and cable (not counting the
$99/year for Amazon Prime)
I don't believe Google. Here in the Los Angeles market DirecTV NOW made the same claim. In REALITY you couldn't live stream NBC or ABC because of their affiliate status. CBS has chosen to stick with their All Access plan.
The part that upsets cord cutters like myself the most is there are no specifics about your market until AFTER you sign up. Sure, there's legal language that say *not available in all markets but they never say specifically which ones.
Why would I want to spend $35 on channels you can get over the air for free? Worthless and to expensive!!!! Total rip off!
How are you going to watch those shows on your iPad? Watch them if you are away from home? Record it to watch later? Or watch last night's episode that you forgot to record?
Sure there are ways around that like setting up a computer based DVR, buy an OTA TiVo, etc. But the only way it's "free" is if you are willing/able to make sure you are sitting on the sofa at home when the show starts and be restricted to real-time viewing only (no pausing, rewind, commercial skipping, etc). Otherwise there is going to be some cost involved and/or it is going to be far less convenient.
Lol, few more networks and you guys will have cable all over again. Netflix is the future. People don't want channels, they want shows and films without the bullshit. Apple can give us Shark Tank 2.0. Meanwhile I'll stick with Netflix and €10 a month. Most US TV is utter junk anyway.
Netflix is pretty good. Amazon Prime video is pretty good. What they can't do provide is live streaming TV, which some people want.
It started at last. Now I want my custom package - not offered one. So when are we going to have subsriptions by channel? I do not watch some channels nor care to have them in some "package". I really know what I want so do not sell me more than that.
so why am i supposed to pay $35 a month for OTA channels i get for free?
Plex has a DVR, Channels has a DVR...both are far cheaper than $35 a month, and get me all the 40 odd OTA channels & sub-channels within my broadcast area...
That is actually good point as I built antenna for 10 dollars some 10 years ago (much better then those sold "with amplifiers" - http://www.diytvantennas.com/sbgh.php ) that picks up signal from up to 100 miles so , why would I care?
So, less channels than basic cable for $35 a month. Commercials? Can't see this appealing to many. YouTube red doesn't seem to be doing so well either.
These TV discussions on AI always have the most interesting comments. Lots of "I want" and "you can't" and "Apple doesn't" kinds of things.
At the end of the day, TV is a commodity. Market forces control prices of commodities. Options and competition are always good things for consumers. Providers of the commodities seek to maximize their profits in apposite to consumers' desire to pay less.
Delivery of TV is now possible through many, many, many technologies and business methods. Consumption is a very personal thing, and thus generalizations are difficult at best.
I do like hearing about the choices people make and why.
Comments
I will not pay for a streaming package which offers only few channels that I watch and sometime don't let me add couple of individual channels that I really want and not in the package. I rather watch free OTA and than add Netflix or Hulu, etc
The news channels (whose parent companies have to buy views/hits from China to artificially inflate their popularity to lie to their shareholders and advertisers) wouldn’t really suffer by having on-demand news programming, would they? The channels have the exact same five stories in every show throughout their entire day’s run, anyway, so who gives a shit if someone watches the morning show at 9 PM when they get home?
Right now Apple provides a complimentary offering via iTunes with lots of movies for purchase or rental (and plethora of TV content to purchase). I am sure Apple is always analyzing the market to see what is better, but I don't think the path forward is clear enough.
Being forced to pay ESPN's exorbitant monthly subscriber fee is the biggest reason i stopped paying for cable TV back in 2006.
i don't watch it, i don't want to subsidize those that do.
for those talking about Netflix, ESPN's monthly subscribe fee is only about $1 shy of Netflix's cheapest monthly fee for all their catalog.
The only thing I'm missing is A&E for Bates Motel season 5, so I'll probably just buy that.
I like the direction the online services are headed, but none of them can offer the value of cable. Yes, you can save money; but you will be limited to what is available. If you are happy within those limits, go for it.
I pay $103/month* for both 75 MBps Internet and cable TV w/HBO and channels I sometimes watch which aren’t included in many streaming packages (USA, BBC America, Big10 Network). And my TiVo** is an excellent aggregator of all of my cable channels, Comcast’s extensive VOD library, as well as the main online services if you have any of those (Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Hulu, etc) including universal search across all of those services, a Plex client for my personal video library, out of home streaming, and download of content to iDevices for offline viewing.
I could maybe cobble together a set of services that covers most, but not all, of what I want; but by the time the cost of internet access is added there is no way it would be less than what I’m paying now nor would it be anywhere near as convenient.
* currently on one of Comcast’s “introductory” packages, so the price will go up in 6 months, but even if I can’t convince them to give me another deal, which I usually can, it would still be far cheaper than trying to put together a set of streaming services to get me what I want
** yes, you have an upfront cost for the TiVo unit and subscription, but mine has already fully paid for itself in saved rental fees from Comcast’s DVR, so $103/month is my all-in cost for internet and cable (not counting the $99/year for Amazon Prime)
Sure there are ways around that like setting up a computer based DVR, buy an OTA TiVo, etc. But the only way it's "free" is if you are willing/able to make sure you are sitting on the sofa at home when the show starts and be restricted to real-time viewing only (no pausing, rewind, commercial skipping, etc). Otherwise there is going to be some cost involved and/or it is going to be far less convenient.
At the end of the day, TV is a commodity. Market forces control prices of commodities. Options and competition are always good things for consumers. Providers of the commodities seek to maximize their profits in apposite to consumers' desire to pay less.
Delivery of TV is now possible through many, many, many technologies and business methods. Consumption is a very personal thing, and thus generalizations are difficult at best.
I do like hearing about the choices people make and why.