$15/mo for almost nothing. Hulu w/ads and without Live TV only costs $5.99 so for $7 you get Disney+ and ESPN+. ESPN+ costs $5/mo so you're getting Disney+ for $2. I understand Disney+ gets you some extra shows but I didn't see anything about this package offering live TV except possibly from ESPN+. I don't think this package is that big of a deal, especially at this price. I'm paying $45/mo for Hulu (w/ads) + Live TV.
Disney+ will be a massive amount of content. All Disney contents for kids and grownups + more stuff from the Fox purchase.
I did not realize that Hulu w/ads only costs 6 bucks. So Hulu w/ads + Disney+ by themselves = $13 then I might as well get the package for $13 and have the ESPN stuff from 2 sources. It's a better deal for people who do not have ESPN, but it's still a good deal. Looking forward to inexpensive AppleTV+.
Choices are good, competition is good. I'll be curious to see what AppleTV+ launches at;
Well there is such a thing as consumer fatigue - where we're presented with too many choices - it's getting there.
I can't imagine they're going to charge too much for it, especially if it is just their original content. Really doesn't seem like enough for a monthly service? However, if they made a good portion of the iTunes catalog available for streaming, then it might actually be worth something.
There were rumors that all original tv+ content was going to be free for users of their platforms, but I really can't see that happening.
If it is just original content, $4.99 for tv+, $12.99 for music/tv+bundle If it's original content and iTunes catalog, $9.99 for tv+, $14.99 for music/tv+bundle
How would Apple be able to offer streaming of the iTunes catalog? It's not their content. A lot of the rights holders are starting their own streaming services so I think they'd outright say no or charge Apple up the wazoo for Netflix-like streaming.
Both Amazon and Netflix offer tons of 3rd party content, there's no reason Apple couldn't do the same. I'd argue that most content producers are willing to make back catalog content available to other services as it is usually not something people specifically look for but find by discovery - so the more places the better. It's the new content that they'll hold sacred and want people to pay more for (sign up to 1st party streaming services). As it is now, Netflix usually has to wait up to a year before they get some 3rd party content.
Apple also has the ability to place a "Buy" button next to the "Play" button for those who might want to outright buy something they really like. That might be enough for 3rd party content producers to offer their older content for streaming.
Both Amazon and Netflix pay out the wazoo for that 3rd party content. Just like I said Apple would have to do to get the content. That content is only getting more expensive and/or more exclusive. Even back catalog stuff is getting premium pricing. Why do you think Netflix went from spending a couple of billion for original and licensed content to almost 10 billion. If Apple would be willing to spend, and spend heavily, they could most assuredly get streaming licenses. Question is, will they be willing to spend that kind of money. Personally, I doubt it. Content owners know Apple has deep pockets so they aren't going to value their content cheaply. Apple entering the fray drove the pricing up for everybody.
Does ESPN+ include all the ESPN channels? If so then I will subscribe for the football season and maybe keep it.
Don't think so. As far as I know it is everything that isn't shown on their main channels. A few college football and basketball games weekly along with Olympic sports. Not worth it IMO.
How much without ESPN? I don't watch sports, not even the ones I'm marginally interested in.
Bundling was the thing we were trying to get away from in cable, wasn't it? Or at least the ability to create our own bundles without things we don't really want.
Um ... since not including ESPN (which I couldn’t care less about either) makes it no longer a “bundle,” the cost would be $6.99/month for Disney and $5.99/month for basic Hulu or ... wait for it ... $12.98!
I really believe Apple should offer their new content free with 2-3 minutes of commercials. Apple could charge 2-3X Super Bowl advertising rates. Maybe more.
I really believe Apple should offer their new content free with 2-3 minutes of commercials. Apple could charge 2-3X Super Bowl advertising rates. Maybe more.
I think it is highly unlikely that Apple will offer any content with ads. Apple Music does not have a free tier with ads. I don't think Apple TV+ will have it either.
I really believe Apple should offer their new content free with 2-3 minutes of commercials. Apple could charge 2-3X Super Bowl advertising rates. Maybe more.
I think it is highly unlikely that Apple will offer any content with ads. Apple Music does not have a free tier with ads. I don't think Apple TV+ will have it either.
You're correct but I think they will be missing out on 10's of billions. I suppose if subscriptions don't go how they want it is something they could re-visit.
I really believe Apple should offer their new content free with 2-3 minutes of commercials. Apple could charge 2-3X Super Bowl advertising rates. Maybe more.
If Apple are committed to the privacy of their users then they offer a less enticing advertising platform than a lot of others. If they chose to charge a premium for a lesser service then I doubt they'd be able to attract many advertisers. Remember Apple's past adventures in advertising, iAd, tried that and didn't exactly set the world on fire.
I really believe Apple should offer their new content free with 2-3 minutes of commercials. Apple could charge 2-3X Super Bowl advertising rates. Maybe more.
Apple does not need to make all their money directly from their content. They need everyone to consume television via the AppleTV+ application preferably on an AppleTV hardware. They will make money from TV makers, iPhones, iPads, AppleTVs, Macs, MacBooks etc...
The idea is that which ever TV set or Streaming box you buy, you will use the AppleTV+ application to consume your content.
I really believe Apple should offer their new content free with 2-3 minutes of commercials. Apple could charge 2-3X Super Bowl advertising rates. Maybe more.
Apple does not need to make all their money directly from their content. They need everyone to consume television via the AppleTV+ application preferably on an AppleTV hardware. They will make money from TV makers, iPhones, iPads, AppleTVs, Macs, MacBooks etc...
The idea is that which ever TV set or Streaming box you buy, you will use the AppleTV+ application to consume your content.
Do we think TV makers are paying to include the AppleTV+ application? I haven't heard that before.
Comments
I did not realize that Hulu w/ads only costs 6 bucks.
So Hulu w/ads + Disney+ by themselves = $13 then I might as well get the package for $13 and have the ESPN stuff from 2 sources.
It's a better deal for people who do not have ESPN, but it's still a good deal.
Looking forward to inexpensive AppleTV+.
I think it is highly unlikely that Apple will offer any content with ads. Apple Music does not have a free tier with ads. I don't think Apple TV+ will have it either.
The idea is that which ever TV set or Streaming box you buy, you will use the AppleTV+ application to consume your content.