Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

AT&T Unveils 'DirecTV Now' Streaming Television Service

mantan said:
The economics of a la carte are more complicated than that. The 10 channels you like are subsidized by the 'garbage channels' that are out there. (In fact, some of those viewers likely consider your channels 'garbage' and their stuff great...).

A true a la carte pricing structure for 10 channels would likely cost the same as what you spend for a skinny bundle. That is the 'reasonable price'. Any less and content quality and variety would go down because networks would only make shows that appealed to the largest possible audience and took the fewest risks.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. I don't understand how smart people around here can't understand this. A la carte is not the answer everyone seems to think it is. There's no doubt in my mind that at the end of the day you'd pay a lot more to get the channels you want. If there's sports involved that's a whole other can of worms.

There's no doubt that prices need to come down and availability across devices has to increase but in the end you're always going to need some kind of bundle if you watch more than 3-4 channels/networks and want sports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjlawrencejr and Pheelyx
tbayrgs said:
Irrelevant comparison unless you're planning on ditching internet at home entirely. Otherwise, in either scenario, you're still paying for internet.

And unless things have changed dramatically in the 2 years since I last had DirecTV satellite service (and had it for over 10+ years), the cost of their equipment is ridiculous. I was required to pay for the set-top boxes upfront ($199 and STILL had to return them to DirecTV when I cancelled service) plus the monthly lease cost per box. DVR service---another additional cost and the whats involved in having everything installed...not a simple process to wire every room for service. The big ugly dish on the roof..another bonus. And if you want the best pricing, have to sign up for 2 years.

For this, I either connect via wifi or ethernet and I'm done. Is it perfect? Of course not but if one's use case fits within this service, the cost and commitment is FAR less than traditional cable or satellite service.
Click to expand...

People seem to always forget the hidden equipment and feature costs, like whole house DVR that that takes a basic $40 package up to $60-$70.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moorepheus, pokerplayer73, ohio.emt and 1 other person
I am leaning more and more towards adding a few Apple Tv's. By eliminating three receivers from my account I save $21 a month. This way I can add more Apple TV's while still keeping 2 satellite boxes. If I sub to Sunday ticket for Sat there is already an app for that.

If the features improve and possibly find a way for more streams I'll be grandfathered at lower cost.
 
rocknblogger said:
Exactly right. I don't understand how smart people around here can't understand this. A la carte is not the answer everyone seems to think it is. There's no doubt in my mind that at the end of the day you'd pay a lot more to get the channels you want. If there's sports involved that's a whole other can of worms.

There's no doubt that prices need to come down and availability across devices has to increase but in the end you're always going to need some kind of bundle if you watch more than 3-4 channels/networks and want sports.
Click to expand...

Removing the need for proprietary hardware goes a long way to reducing the costs. Those equipment rental fees are just ridiculous!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moorepheus and ohio.emt
Should be noted that limited time introductory pricing for the $60 Go-Big 100 channel package is reduced to $35. Also, the $35 rate is grandfathered, unless you cancel. If you do cancel and later sign up again, it'll be at current rates.

Screenshot of Google Chrome (11-28-16, 5-11-05 PM).png​
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bigandtasty and webbuzz
I tried talking my sister into getting an apple tv and going with PS vue but the issue is she has more than one tv. American households have so many tvs. Having to buy an apple tv for each tv is hindering more people from cutting the cord. Apple needs to figure out how to stream content to multiple tvs
 
sjn419 said:
I tried talking my sister into getting an apple tv and going with PS vue but the issue is she has more than one tv. American households have so many tvs. Having to buy an apple tv for each tv is hindering more people from cutting the cord. Apple needs to figure out how to stream content to multiple tvs
Click to expand...

I guess I am confused by this, as the "rental" fee per TV has become so ridiculously high you would pay for an Apple TV in no time. This is before you account for the savings from not paying a monthly fee and instead buying whatever you want to watch (or getting other monthly services that provide the same content).

And honestly the video/audio quality and the experience is so much better. Is it the hurdle of paying for purchase up front? Most people pay over $100/month for just the service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt
Slight correction to this.

the "Go Big" package is available for $35 per month for a limited time
Click to expand...

During the presentation ~31:30 minutes in, Brad Bentley said "anyone that comes in at this introductory price will be grandfathered in as long as they are a subscriber.
 
sjn419 said:
I tried talking my sister into getting an apple tv and going with PS vue but the issue is she has more than one tv. American households have so many tvs. Having to buy an apple tv for each tv is hindering more people from cutting the cord. Apple needs to figure out how to stream content to multiple tvs
Click to expand...

Then don't buy an Apple TV. Amazon Fire TV sticks are $40 ($30 today ;)) and have all of these streaming apps (PS Vue, Sling, and now DirecTV Now). And if they can't afford those, but still afford to have multiple TV's, that's an entirely different conversation you need to have with your sister.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jdag
epirali said:
I guess I am confused by this, as the "rental" fee per TV has become so ridiculously high you would pay for an Apple TV in no time. This is before you account for the savings from not paying a monthly fee and instead buying whatever you want to watch (or getting other monthly services that provide the same content).

And honestly the video/audio quality and the experience is so much better. Is it the hurdle of paying for purchase up front? Most people pay over $100/month for just the service.
Click to expand...

I think she pays 7/month for her second box so it would take 2 years to recoup savings. That and issues with local programming and live tv make the switch a harder decision than it should be. She's paying 130/month for everything now. Just internet would be 50/month. So 50 for internet + 35 for this service and she would be paying 85 a month instead of 130 saving 45/month. Thats a pretty good amount to save every month but when you add in the initial cost of 2 apple tvs its not that appealing for her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: epirali
tbayrgs said:
Then don't buy an Apple TV. Amazon Fire TV sticks are $40 ($30 today ;)) and have all of these streaming apps (PS Vue, Sling, and now DirecTV Now). And if they can't afford those, but still afford to have multiple TV's, that's an entirely different conversation you need to have with your sister.
Click to expand...

Ive used a fire stick and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
 
rocknblogger said:
Exactly right. I don't understand how smart people around here can't understand this. A la carte is not the answer everyone seems to think it is. There's no doubt in my mind that at the end of the day you'd pay a lot more to get the channels you want. If there's sports involved that's a whole other can of worms.
Click to expand...

You might. I wouldn't. Neither would others.

Don't care about sports. I care about watching only the networks I like with quality programming (I could count those on two hands) and the ability to stop and start subscriptions to them when I want to based on their content. Not have to jump through ridiculous cable hoops to negotiate a better deal, or be upsold to other products.

MSO packages are full of low-quality drivel that hardly anyone watches, yet you have to subsidize. Maybe channel costs would come down if the owners didn't keep padding them with pointless offshoots purely for additional ad revenue.
 
I have PS Vue, but I would consider switching. I do have some questions, though.

1.) Is there a channel line up posted anywhere?
2.) Do we know which Apple TV is free as part of the offer? If it isn't the latest, I wonder if you can pay a little extra for the newest model. (Sling TV offered a similar promotion)?
3.) PS Vue's local channels are OnDemand only. I wonder if DirectTV now's local channels (ABC, NBC, etc.) will be live.
4.) If there is no cloud DVR option, will there be an option to watch a few of the latest episodes of a show OnDemand (PS Vue has this).
5.) I wonder if there will be a ton of taxes/fees tacked on to those prices each month.
 
mantan said:
My daughter is a college student. She had zero interest in taking a TV to school because she consumes most of her content through Hulu and Netflix. When she graduates, I could see her much more interested in a service like this than a traditional cable/satellite setup.
Click to expand...

As a recent college graduate, I can not agree with this more.

npmacuser5 said:
Needs more information before I get excited. Devil is in the details.
Click to expand...

This ^

I need to see a channel lineup in order to make a decision. The "Go Big" package may fit MY needs perfectly especially if I'm grandfathered into the $35/month price.
 
Remember cable started "cheap" as well. Expect annual increases.

Also I think a lot of people bundle cable TV AND internet. So choose carefully.

I pay $130 but $60 is my internet connection. Meaning my cable TV is $70 for everything (including HBO) and all the sports channels
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BJMRamage
sjn419 said:
I think she pays 7/month for her second box so it would take 2 years to recoup savings. That and issues with local programming and live tv make the switch a harder decision than it should be. She's paying 130/month for everything now. Just internet would be 50/month. So 50 for internet + 35 for this service and she would be paying 85 a month instead of 130 saving 45/month. Thats a pretty good amount to save every month but when you add in the initial cost of 2 apple tvs its not that appealing for her.
Click to expand...

You mean additional cost of 1 Apple TV. If she signs up for 3 months she gets one for free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uofmtiger
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back