I never said all at the same time. The point is that virtually all shows are available at one service or another. Just cycle them and for less than $20 (certainly less than $50) you can watch them. I don’t understand why people pay for like 7 services at the same time.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Struggling to Keep Up With Increasing Piracy of Apple TV+ Content
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I guess this breed of pirate will be targeted too? They pay for a month of service (ex. HBOMax, Peacock Premium), use an app to decrypt and download all the shows they only really like to their Plex and then unsub. They cycle through a few others and then wait a few months for stuff to build up and then repeat. However, that type of pirate never shares or torrents them; they keep for themselves. But technically they are still violating law?
I have not followed the ATV developments at all since I don’t own a TV and never watched TV anyway. I don’t care if trillion/billion $ valuation companies lose some % to piracy. I care even less about spending 1 cent of my own money to make the rich even more rich.
I have rented iTunes movies 2-3 times. Used to pay for Apple Music. Every other movie, tv show has been pirated and I will continue to do so. Music discovery/playlists is the one thing thats missing in the piracy world though, but YouTube with full adblock takes care of that.
I have rented iTunes movies 2-3 times. Used to pay for Apple Music. Every other movie, tv show has been pirated and I will continue to do so. Music discovery/playlists is the one thing thats missing in the piracy world though, but YouTube with full adblock takes care of that.
I still kept using it, because I grew up in a small village with 1 grocery store and iTunes etc weren't available in my country.
The same goes for nowadays. Not everything is available and you can't even purchase everything. I dont remember what movie it was, but I pirated it, because I couldn't find it anywhere.
That's like saying "Robin Hood is a really pathetic human/fox". Steal from the rich, give to the poor. It's noble, not pathetic.
That's nice. My 2014 Haswell PC cannot upgrade to Windows 11. Period.
I don't really use iTunes, but recently I purchased an album and had to install iTunes to access the store.
Turns out the same album became available on Amazon MP3 and free to stream with ads on YouTube Music.
I think it also streams on Spotify.
I've been tinkering with Linux since 2008.
I guess I'll never give up trying until Linux and I get it right.
MS gets along with Linux but not Apple.
That's nice. My 2014 Haswell PC cannot upgrade to Windows 11. Period.
I don't really use iTunes, but recently I purchased an album and had to install iTunes to access the store.
Turns out the same album became available on Amazon MP3 and free to stream with ads on YouTube Music.
I think it also streams on Spotify.
I've been tinkering with Linux since 2008.
I guess I'll never give up trying until Linux and I get it right.
OOPS! Please delete.
Yeah, they're real heroes because they're too cheap to spend a couple dollars on tv shows.
Geo restricted streaming services promote piracy. Having a VPN does help to go around most of the time, you can be a paying subscriber and access the content from the other side of the world, but not everything is available. Many expats don't care about local TV offerings and want to access their home country content and just because of archaic distribution rights they can't. If real time American DirecTV was available in France, the UK, Argentina, Mexico or any other country and cable services of those countries available in the US, those cable companies would increase their revenue; I'm sure that a lot of people would be willing to suscribe.
So what you're saying is that you're a thief and are proud to commit misdemeanors and or felonies by downloading/hosting content?
Robin Hood never stole from the rich and gave to the poor however
Piracy is just a function of successful marketing and word of mouth. Every time I see a top pirated movies or series list, I notice a lot of stuff that's just popular. Squid Game is being wildly pirated in China now, where Netflix will never be allowed to operate. Obviously Netflix isn't losing any revenues and who knows, maybe some of those pirates will figure out how to sign up for Netflix from within China anyway. Where there's a will...
There's no reason people need to sign up for excessive numbers of streaming services though. Sign up for 2-3 at a time and then churn between them. I haven't even gotten around to AppleTV+ yet. Still working on the Netflix-Amazon-Disney+ trifecta.
But Apple seems like the least subject to piracy of all the platforms. The others are opting a lot more for mass market content. Apple is focusing on a more narrow target: high end premium, sometimes risky, content. I don't expect to ever see a Squid Game out of them.
There's no reason people need to sign up for excessive numbers of streaming services though. Sign up for 2-3 at a time and then churn between them. I haven't even gotten around to AppleTV+ yet. Still working on the Netflix-Amazon-Disney+ trifecta.
But Apple seems like the least subject to piracy of all the platforms. The others are opting a lot more for mass market content. Apple is focusing on a more narrow target: high end premium, sometimes risky, content. I don't expect to ever see a Squid Game out of them.
But the upside is, you'll miss out on the new Star Trek, which sucks. Seriously, is Star Trek ever going to be watchable again?
Adobe used to use this trick a lot when talking about piracy. They assume that every single person who downloads it would purchase it. "We lost XXX million in sales because it got downloaded XXX times". We all know that's crap. I'm guessing that Apple (or anyone) could even go so far as to say that if one person pirates it, they probably watch it with 2-3 friends, or assume that 10% of pirates are running their own media server and share it with 10 other "families". It's all guesswork math and you can make the numbers do whatever you want.
It's BS only if you are one person. When you have a household with different interests in TV shows on different streaming services, what do you do? It gets expensive fast.
True (although we were a household of 4 until a few months ago, and now 3 as one is now a growunup and left) to a point. There is no way that getting TV (and movies) isn't expensive. People have to understand this. It doesn't really matter if you have one package that consolidates all channels/distributors, or if you have 25 different streaming services. The total price is not going to change by much. TV series and movies are effing expensive to produce. And they have effing expensive to distribute. And they need to keep making money, over and over. In addition to the fact that now people want TV series that are high quality productions, the vast majority of TV series and movies are total failures, which means that most of the money are actually made by a subset of series or movies. People have to decide if they prefer having more content, which is more expensive by definition, or flexibility, which is tricky by definition. I don't think that watching TV is so important that one family has to pay $80/month for it (almost $1,000/month) especially when youngsters can and do watch youtube and such for free. With very few exceptions (Criterion is one), almost all streaming services have some content for the entire family, which means that cycling with 2 or 3 of them active a month is not truly a huge problem. Is it nice? No, it isn't but if the concern is the cost there is really no other way around.
1) that's now how RH worked...
2) Do me a favor. Next time you watch a good movie, read all names in the end titles. All of them. Like, watch Jurassic Park and read from the Jeff Goldbum to Fred Arbegast, Carlo Basail, Tony Leonardi, Louis Marquis, Pamela Klamer. Who are they? Goldbum, Actor. Fred Arbegast, Scultpor. Carlo Basail, Greensman. Tony Leonardi, painter. Louis Marquis, plasters. Pamela Klamer, set designer. These - and hundreds more - are the people you damage by not paying your $2.
Wait are people still able to pay that 15 bucks a month (or whatever it was) for CBS all access even though Paramount+ is a thing and cheaper?
I agree that streaming is fragmented.
You can't fault Apple for doing what most others do.
Many people who still have cable, or one of those live streaming services, that $65 item, still pay for a couple of extras.
I do feel Apple has the right to protect their service.
Have no clue how to do that, but the answer could make Apple TV+ more difficult to use.
Because Apple TV+ is just $5/month, it might be nice if they made an annual price option.
I personally think Apple should purchase Philo.
No you don't, I was just saying it's now a trend to release weekly instead of all at once.
You forgot "Hollywood Transitions To Streaming And Restores Weekly Once-A-Week Programming" thereby gutting the On Demand attraction of internet delivery.
This is gonna come to an end, I guarantee it. Once these services establish themselves they're going to create three-month block subscriptions or first month overcharges or whatever the hell else they can think up to penalize people who do this. It's going to become harder and harder to jump from service to service. And when that happens it'll be the death of popular culture as we know it because we'll all be fragmented into the slivers of services we can afford on our stagnating wages.
Nah! The big guys will swallow up the little guys or allow them to go under. Too many providers (Comcast/Universal) for example, only show what they own. Peacock and even COZI TV.
This is where the fragmentation comes from.
I don't think these providers will grow very well. Who wants to cough up for a service like Paramount+ for just CBS and Paramount inventory.
I'm puzzled as to why Apple even created Apple TV+.
Makes better sense to me for Apple to produce content, which they have proven to do quite well.
Us old cable television customers are use to getting everything from a single provider.
Trying to juggle multiple services is just crazy.
EDIT: Paramount+ also has Viacom programming and the winners in this race are the commercial free extra cost providers.
Last edited:
I think that Apple TV+ was Jobs' original idea for streaming. But when he made the rounds at the studios he met a wall everywhere because they'd seen iTunes take over music distribution and the studios were damned if Apple was going to take over movies & televisions as well. So they stonewalled them and refused and spun their wheels until everybody eventually caught up. When Apple TV+ finally dropped I think everybody thought, "This is it?" Well yeah, in 2019 it's nothing special. But back in 2008 when Jobs was making the rounds it would have been a game changer. And it's why TV+ presents itself so much like iTunes. I mean, it's shocking how little *content* they actually have on it. It's basically a sales portal.