Apple TV Service aka cord cutting rant

[Mrs.G]

Please oh please Apple Gods... Please release a decent Apple TV service with the upcoming upgrade. You've granted us HBO and now Showtime access. Now the hubby needs live football game access.

As I get ready to move, I am disguised I'll be forced to re-join Comcast for Internet access. Hubby is delighted to have 80 channel cable. I can already bet we'll get into another 24 month contract when our lease is only 12 months. My wallet is physically sick with anxiety that were not going to have any control of fees and hidden taxes.

Please Apple Gods, please come to save my budget-wary cord-cutting ways again!

FWIW - it's fairly new construction apartments which offers only Comcast or Direct TV (satellite TV only). I'm going to miss my $30/month Internet only service from Century Link. New price is $70/month but I'm sure it will be closer to $90 with taxes and other crap-o-la. The more I think about it, the more it's starting to become a borderline deal breaker for me (the new lease). I've looked into FIOS and other internet providers - nothing is covered in the area.

I was reading up on the international game pass app (and what I would need to set it up so we could watch the games live). Planning on talking to the hubby this weekend about this option if he's only really excited about seeing football live and willing to give up the cable access for it.

Call me cheap, but I'd rather pay money up front, knowing we can see our hometown team (which we pretty much don't see where we're at now) and save my wallet from future money drama.

 

[punchwalk]

Please oh please Apple Gods... Please release a decent Apple TV service with the upcoming upgrade. You've granted us HBO and now Showtime access. Now the hubby needs live football game access...

Does he need live football for a local team or all teams? If it's local, he might be able to get the game over the air with an antenna (that's how I've been watching ever since I cut the cord over two years ago). If I remember correctly, the NFL is starting to offer a streaming package this year that anyone can buy, but you can't use it to watch actual games until after they've finished airing.

Condolences on having to sign up for Comcast. I was a begrudging customer of theirs for years until I finally moved into a county that has a local broadband company (who gives us a MUCH better deal on internet service than I ever got with Comcast, by the way).

 

[Hookemfins]

Call me cheap, but I'd rather pay money up front, knowing we can see our hometown team (which we pretty much don't see where we're at now) and save my wallet from future money drama.

Only way, even if ATV stream service becomes available next month, is through DirecTV's Sunday Ticket to see your hometown team. If you are a first time subscriber you can get it free for this season. Are you sure you don't have AT&T in your new area? You can get bundle discounts between AT&T and Directv.

 

[foobarbazqux]

Please release a decent Apple TV service with the upcoming upgrade.

That service is probably going to cost $30 - $40 a month. At that price, and especially if you'll also subscribe to Netflix/Hulu Plus, you might be better off just sticking with Comcast and getting their bundled TV+internet discount. We've been cord cutters for a few years and love it but it's not too hard to wind up paying about the same or more.

 

[cynics]

That service is probably going to cost $30 - $40 a month. At that price, and especially if you'll also subscribe to Netflix/Hulu Plus, you might be better off just sticking with Comcast and getting their bundled TV+internet discount. We've been cord cutters for a few years and love it but it's not too hard to wind up paying about the same or more.

Yep.

Adding some Apple service to the rip off Comcast/Xfinity internet already is puts me back to square one. I might as well get cable back, cancel the streaming services and make do.

Its disappointing that I felt like I made a lot of compromises to cut cable and save money just for big companies to find a way to whittle the money back out of me meanwhile not offer me anything. The cheapest internet I could find with comcast is some bundle that includes a couple channels of TV, HBO Go and Streampix (a bad joke in disguise as a streaming service).

 

[mattopotamus]

That service is probably going to cost $30 - $40 a month. At that price, and especially if you'll also subscribe to Netflix/Hulu Plus, you might be better off just sticking with Comcast and getting their bundled TV+internet discount. We've been cord cutters for a few years and love it but it's not too hard to wind up paying about the same or more.

Yep.

Adding some Apple service to the rip off Comcast/Xfinity internet already is puts me back to square one. I might as well get cable back, cancel the streaming services and make do.

Its disappointing that I felt like I made a lot of compromises to cut cable and save money just for big companies to find a way to whittle the money back out of me meanwhile not offer me anything. The cheapest internet I could find with comcast is some bundle that includes a couple channels of TV, HBO Go and Streampix (a bad joke in disguise as a streaming service).

You really have to know your viewing habits to cut the cord. Like you both said, add a few streaming services to the mix and you are right back to square one. I have internet for $41 a month, HBO included. I pay for netflix and am thinking about possibly showtime b.c I do watch ray donovan and homeland. All of that combined would run me about $65, which is half of what I use to pay for internet and TV.

The problem is most people pay $50-$70 for internet only. If you have to pay for HBO, Netflix, and Showtime you are right back at your cable bill.

 

[d21mike]

The problem is most people pay $50-$70 for internet only. If you have to pay for HBO, Netflix, and Showtime you are right back at your cable bill.

To me the big monthly cost (that I object to) is hardware. I know I may be in the minority but I pay $67 per month on 2 DVR's and 2 STB. And that only covers 4 of my 7 TV's (big house). And on those boxes I can not get Netflix or Hulu and some others. Also, there is the Video Tax you have to pay if you have TV as part of your package. These two items for me is about $80 per month. As you can see I have a lot of room to pay for additional streaming packages. I am ok with paying for content that I want and using the ATV to Stream it (I have an ATV on every TV already). The reason for the DVR's is mainly to skip commercials. I am very interested in the possibility of Hulu offering a higher cost no commercial option.

 

[Hookemfins]

Adding some Apple service to the rip off Comcast/Xfinity internet already is puts me back to square one. I might as well get cable back, cancel the streaming services and make do.

I have been on record as saying that going with either the new "alleged" Apple TV streaming service or Slings Streaming service is not really cutting the cord. You are still relying on service that cuts the same deal with the content providers on a per subscriber rate.

 

[mattopotamus]

To me the big monthly cost (that I object to) is hardware. I know I may be in the minority but I pay $67 per month on 2 DVR's and 2 STB. And that only covers 4 of my 7 TV's (big house). And on those boxes I can not get Netflix or Hulu and some others. Also, there is the Video Tax you have to pay if you have TV as part of your package. These two items for me is about $80 per month. As you can see I have a lot of room to pay for additional streaming packages. I am ok with paying for content that I want and using the ATV to Stream it (I have an ATV on every TV already). The reason for the DVR's is mainly to skip commercials. I am very interested in the possibility of Hulu offering a higher cost no commercial option.

more good points. I was looking at adding basic cable to my internet only, and of course I would want HD channels. $10 for HD service and another $15 for an HD-DVR...uh no.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I don't mind if I end up paying the same as cable or more for the internet streaming services. As long as there are no ads, I still consider myself ahead by a lot. Cutting the cord isn't about saving money, it's about getting the content you want on more favorable and more flexible terms.

What I hated with cable tv wasn't the high cost. What I hated was the fact that over 1/3rd of the content was ads AND I was paying for the privilege of watching those ads. If you count the pre-commercial suspense-preview and post-commercial suspense-recap that many reality shows and dramas employ that would be unnecessary without ads, then ads cause nearly 1/2 of the time to be wasted. And that was "premium" cable.

Netflix, HBO, Showtime, Amazon Prime, MBL.tv, and few season passes on iTunes. It might be pricey, but at least those don't have ads.

There was a rumor a few weeks ago that Hulu might offer an more expensive tier with no ads - I would subscribe to Hulu then. My time is valuable, and the added monthly cost will surely be less than that time is worth to me.

 

[mattopotamus]

I have been on record as saying that going with either the new "alleged" Apple TV streaming service or Slings Streaming service is not really cutting the cord. You are still relying on service that cuts the same deal with the content providers on a per subscriber rate.

exactly. If you are willing to shell out $30-$40 for a selective TV package you are better off bundling internet/TV and get 100+ channels.

 

[arbogast777]

To me a new TV service isn't about saving money. It's about:

1) Wanting a better, more usable product than 100 channels of crap. Let me watch the show when I want to, not when it's on.

2) After years of being treated poorly by a cable company because I had no other choice (oh I have stories), I would love to give Apple that business instead. My cable company had many opportunities to keep me a loyal customer and they blew it every time.

My perfect TV service would be live news and sports, with entertainment offerings on demand, not live. The cost to me is irrelevant.

 

[Hookemfins]

I don't mind if I end up paying the same as cable or more for the internet streaming services. As long as there are no ads, I still consider myself ahead by a lot. Cutting the cord isn't about saving money, it's about getting the content you want on more favorable and more flexible terms.

What I hated with cable tv wasn't the high cost. What I hated was the fact that over 1/3rd of the content was ads AND I was paying for the privilege of watching those ads. If you count the pre-commercial suspense-preview and post-commercial suspense-recap that many reality shows and dramas employ that would be unnecessary without ads, then ads cause nearly 1/2 of the time to be wasted. And that was "premium" cable.

Netflix, HBO, Showtime, Amazon Prime, MBL.tv, and few season passes on iTunes. It might be pricey, but at least those don't have ads.

I hate ads but that's what DVRs are for. I have an option on DTV to just slip 30 seconds ahead. I pretty much have the timing down of how many clicks to get past the commercials. Some on demand content from WGN and TV Land just records with no ads.

Just what you have listed above costs around $53/month. Add the proposed stand alone ESPN that'll add another $30/month if not more. I am not sure but maybe for the $30/month it'll include all the Disney channels? Then to get past blackouts on MLB or NHL add another $4/month.

 

[arbogast777]

One thing too about all these services... No one says you have to remain subscribed to them all the time. If you are trying to save money you can do Netflix one month, Hulu the next month, HBO the next, Showtime the next... etc. It's actually really easy too if you subscribe via iTunes - it can all be controlled in the App Store app.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I hate ads but that's what DVRs are for. I have an option on DTV to just slip 30 seconds ahead. I pretty much have the timing down of how many clicks to get past the commercials. Some on demand content from WGN and TV Land just records with no ads.

Just what you have listed above costs around $53/month. Add the proposed stand alone ESPN that'll add another $30/month if not more. I am not sure but maybe for the $30/month it'll include all the Disney channels? Then to get past blackouts on MLB or NHL add another $4/month.

Maybe I expect too much of technology in 2015, but having to manually skip commercials seems very archaic to me. It was the best solution 10 years ago, but we can do better today. Further, it just rewards the gouging by the cable company. First, you pay for the cable package, then they sell your time to advertisers, then they rent you "upgraded" hardware that allows skipping those ads. They make money at every turn. Next some of them charge advertisers more to turn around and disable ad-skipping on certain on-demand content, regardless of DVR capability. I reject that spiral of ********, and I will not feed into it.

As for cost, saving money isn't the goal. The goal is getting good shows with no ads for the same money. Put another way, more bang per buck.

I used to pay $1440/year (~$120/month) for internet and cable tv. I live in a good area with actual competition between two cable companies, so my prices were better than for many others. It makes more sense to compare annual costs, since some things aren't paid for year-round.

Currently, I pay the following annually:
$360 - Internet only from cable company ($30/month)
$96 - Netflix
$180 - HBO
$99 - Amazon prime
$130 - MLB.tv
$14 - SmartDNS ($2/month from AdFreeTime for 7months of baseball)
----------------
$879 Total Annual Cost

That leaves me $561/year, or $46/month, to subscribe to Showtime or Qello or other random services as needed, or pickup a few seasons of whatever show I want on iTunes using the season pass. If I go over, so be it. If I use less, good. It all evens out in the long run.

MOST IMPORTANTLY - none of the above have ads.

The rest I fill in with OTA network TV, which does have ads, but for the low price of $0, I think ads are fair. There is also a ton of great content out there for free. I love skiing, and there are some very cool ski-movie type shows on RedBull TV, Vimeo, and YouTube.

 

[tulsamal]

The problem is most people pay $50-$70 for internet only. If you have to pay for HBO, Netflix, and Showtime you are right back at your cable bill.

That's true.. but it is apples and oranges. I pay $50 a month for my internet service. But if I did zero streaming TV... I would still be paying $50 a month for internet. We are heavy computer/iPad/iPhone internet users... that has nothing to do with the TV. So it doesn't seem fair to include that. If I somehow had "cable" then I would be paying for cable plus internet.

Same thing with Amazon Prime. We've had Prime since it was introduced. We live in a very rural area and far from most big city shopping. So I order stuff from Amazon all the time. All that two day delivery stuff is gold. We were paying for Prime for at least a couple years before we got high speed internet and were able to finally watch the streaming video on Amazon. So I don't include the streaming video or music on Amazon in my "TV costs" either since we were paying it before!

 

[mattopotamus]

That's true.. but it is apples and oranges. I pay $50 a month for my internet service. But if I did zero streaming TV... I would still be paying $50 a month for internet. We are heavy computer/iPad/iPhone internet users... that has nothing to do with the TV. So it doesn't seem fair to include that. If I somehow had "cable" then I would be paying for cable plus internet.

Same thing with Amazon Prime. We've had Prime since it was introduced. We live in a very rural area and far from most big city shopping. So I order stuff from Amazon all the time. All that two day delivery stuff is gold. We were paying for Prime for at least a couple years before we got high speed internet and were able to finally watch the streaming video on Amazon. So I don't include the streaming video or music on Amazon in my "TV costs" either since we were paying it before!

Amazon is unique in the sense it provides benefits other than just streaming.

 

[cynics]

I have been on record as saying that going with either the new "alleged" Apple TV streaming service or Slings Streaming service is not really cutting the cord. You are still relying on service that cuts the same deal with the content providers on a per subscriber rate.

I said I cut cable, as in TV. I didn't say I cut any cords so I'm not sure what the point of your post is.

"I admire your stance on this subject!" *clapping vigorously*

 

[Hookemfins]

Maybe I expect too much of technology in 2015, but having to manually skip commercials seems very archaic to me. It was the best solution 10 years ago, but we can do better today.

The reason why you can't expect anything different in 2015 than 10 years ago, or in the near future, ads pay for what you watch. Cable doesn't pay advertisers.

Further, it just rewards the gouging by the cable company. First, you pay for the cable package, then they sell your time to advertisers, then they rent you "upgraded" hardware that allows skipping those ads. They make money at every turn. Next some of them charge advertisers more to turn around and disable ad-skipping on certain on-demand content, regardless of DVR capability. I reject that spiral of ********, and I will not feed into it.

The only part that you got correct is renting of the upgraded hardware. I don't like the fact that if you purchase your own DVR you still have to pay monthly rent. The rest is wrong. The ads are paid for by the products themselves to the stations. (CBS, NBC, ABC, AMC, TV Land, Nick, WGN, NGC, HGTV...etc). Disabling ad skipping is by the networks themselves. But not all. I recorded a show from TV Land on demand and no ads and I could skip forward. I also watched a show on demand from NBC and while no skipping there were no ads. CBS and FOX are the worse when it comes to ads on demand.

If it wasn't for commercials, there'd be no shows. And yes, no MLB.tv either.

On MLB.tv I don't see ads on ATV or on my MacBook but I do see some ads on my iPad and iPhone.

As for cost, saving money isn't the goal. The goal is getting good shows with no ads for the same money. Put another way, more bang per buck.

If it works for you, great. I can't even think about because I watch a lot of sports. Most streaming is tied, rightly so, to being required to having a satellite/cable subscription. I watch football on ESPN and FS1 plus NASCAR on FS1 and NBCSN.

 

[oneMadRssn]

The reason why you can't expect anything different in 2015 than 10 years ago, or in the near future, ads pay for what you watch. Cable doesn't pay advertisers.

This myth needs to die already. I agree that ads are currently subsidizing the cost of TV, but to imply that advertisements are some sort of necessary condition precedent to making and financing good TV is absurd. Netflex makes good original programming without ads, HBO has always been expensive but also clearly shows it's possible to create great original content without the help of ads. I can go on and on. Ads are ONE way to pay for content - there is absolutely no reason they are necessary, and they don't subsidize the content to such a degree that it becomes prohibitively expensive without them.

The only part that you got correct is renting of the upgraded hardware. I don't like the fact that if you purchase your own DVR you still have to pay monthly rent. The rest is wrong. The ads are paid for by the products themselves to the stations. (CBS, NBC, ABC, AMC, TV Land, Nick, WGN, NGC, HGTV...etc). Disabling ad skipping is by the networks themselves. But not all. I recorded a show from TV Land on demand and no ads and I could skip forward. I also watched a show on demand from NBC and while no skipping there were no ads. CBS and FOX are the worse when it comes to ads on demand.

First, CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX are free over the air broadcasts that cable companies just re-transmit over wires. They pay for the privilege, and thus charge you money. However, the content is paid for entirely by ads and I agree those channels need ads to survive.

As for the "premium" cable-only channels such as AMC, TV Land, Nick, WGN, NGC, HDTV, etc, I think you're the one who is incorrect. Those channels split ad-time with the cable companies. Some of the ads are put there by the channel, and some of the ads are put there by your cable provider. The local ads are usually the cable company ones. The local rug installer, or window blinds installer, or real estate agent, lawyer, whatever. Those are put there by the cable company. The channel builds in these blank times for the cable company as part of their agreement.

Nevertheless, the premise that these ads are necessary is absurd. It is possible to make TV without ads.

If it wasn't for commercials, there'd be no shows. And yes, no MLB.tv either.

No ads paid for Orange Is The New Black; no ads paid for Veep. Clearly, there are some shows. I don't know about baseball, but I bet they make much much less off ads per individual than they do from my annual subscription fee - which is quote large.

On MLB.tv I don't see ads on ATV or on my MacBook but I do see some ads on my iPad and iPhone.

They're not really ads - at least not the ones I see. More like cross-promotion for other MLB content. The ones I usually see feature clips of old games. Hardly as disruptive as political ads or some dcik selling the latest shamwow.

If it works for you, great. I can't even think about because I watch a lot of sports. Most streaming is tied, rightly so, to being required to having a satellite/cable subscription. I watch football on ESPN and FS1 plus NASCAR on FS1 and NBCSN.

Lots of football is on OTA channels - at least my local team is. I agree that sports has a ways to go. However, let them know! NHL contracted out their streaming to BAM and will have a similar setup to MLB.tv now. WWE did as well. Tennis has a good streaming option too. I think sports are coming around, slowly but surely. If ESPN and NBCSN happen to die in the process, I say that's a win-win.

 

[sarbear]

Does he need live football for a local team or all teams? If it's local, he might be able to get the game over the air with an antenna (that's how I've been watching ever since I cut the cord over two years ago).

This has been my approach too. I just have a basic digital antenna for indoors and it works well to local channels that air games.

 

[mattopotamus]

This has been my approach too. I just have a basic digital antenna for indoors and it works well to local channels that air games.

Redzone needs to offer a standalone!

 

[Mrs.G]

With the latest rumor about no Apple TV service till 2016, I guess I'm just SOL. I did look into FIOS service, but it is also not offered where we are moving to. So it's either stream off my phone or see what basic Internet/tv package I can get from Comcast or kill off my Apple TV and only take DirectTV.

Thanks for all of the replies. I now think I've got more choices than I did before.

 

[Hookemfins]

This myth needs to die already. I agree that ads are currently subsidizing the cost of TV, but to imply that advertisements are some sort of necessary condition precedent to making and financing good TV is absurd. Netflex makes good original programming without ads, HBO has always been expensive but also clearly shows it's possible to create great original content without the help of ads. I can go on and on. Ads are ONE way to pay for content - there is absolutely no reason they are necessary, and they don't subsidize the content to such a degree that it becomes prohibitively expensive without them.

I was going to mention Netflix and HBO but we are talking about satellite and cable. Netflix, HBO, Showtime do produce very good, if not exceptional, programming but they are a subscription based model. The tradeoff is, paying a premium to watch but the seasons are shorter usually running 10-12 episodes. TNT, TBS..etc also run their own series in 10-12 episode seasons.

As for the "premium" cable-only channels such as AMC, TV Land, Nick, WGN, NGC, HDTV, etc, I think you're the one who is incorrect. Those channels split ad-time with the cable companies. Some of the ads are put there by the channel, and some of the ads are put there by your cable provider. The local ads are usually the cable company ones.

I have never, ever seen a local ad on any of those channels. I asked friends who have Comcrap and UVerse and neither have they. I have heard that spots are embedded in DVRs but nothing local. Either way it doesn't bother me because I skip commercials.

They're not really ads - at least not the ones I see. More like cross-promotion for other MLB content. The ones I usually see feature clips of old games. Hardly as disruptive as political ads or some dcik selling the latest shamwow.

The ads are on the actual RSN station. Yes they are not shown on the internet but for the majority watching on the actual station there are commercials. If it wasn't for that there would be no MLB.TV or NHL game center. It is because of the lack of commercials on the internet is why only out of market games are shown on MLB.TV.

BTW, on my iPad yesterday I saw ads for State Farm.

Lots of football is on OTA channels - at least my local team is. I agree that sports has a ways to go.

Limited with what the NFL sends to OTA in each market. If the home team has a game then you are limited to only two afternoon games.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I was going to mention Netflix and HBO but we are talking about satellite and cable. Netflix, HBO, Showtime do produce very good, if not exceptional, programming but they are a subscription based model. The tradeoff is, paying a premium to watch but the seasons are shorter usually running 10-12 episodes. TNT, TBS..etc also run their own series in 10-12 episode seasons.

I guess my main point is this: If Netflix can make Orange Is The New Black and House Of Cards, and HBO can make Veep, Silicon Valley, and Game Of Thrones using a subscription model of $8 and $15 per month respectively without ads, then surely USA can make Suits and TBS can make The Big Bang Theory under a similar model, along with their mostly cheap reality shows. I'm not asking these content products to banish all ads forever. I'm saying it would benefit them to offer users an ad-free subscription option. I would certainly be a customer if those shows were ones I was interested in, because I refuse to both pay and watch ads out of principal. I know I'm not alone in this stance.

As for baseball, I don't think either of us know the revenue numbers. To have a proper discussion about this, we would need to know how much money MLB and the franchises make from TV rights and ads, divided by average viewership. I suspect that they make less per viewer from ads than most people think. I suspect that they make less per viewer this way than they do from the annual subscription cost of MLB.tv as an alternative (meaning they would make more money if every baseball fan cancelled cable tv and subscribed to MLB.tv). The only thing I have to back all of this up is that BAM is wildly successful right now, and there are articles about how their operation is basically printing money.