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.
AT&T Unveils 'DirecTV Now' Streaming Television Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yay! Just in time for Comcast's 1tb hard limit with auto-upsell for additional data!
Make no mistake, Comcast is licking it's chops for streaming only TV. They will make bank and they know it.
Loss for consumers...Google Fiber is so close to me in UT, yet so far.
Make no mistake, Comcast is licking it's chops for streaming only TV. They will make bank and they know it.
Loss for consumers...Google Fiber is so close to me in UT, yet so far.
You save on taxes, fees and box rentals. Switching could save you $50 a month easy.
Hulu offers a commercial free option---though there are a few outliers (i.e. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D has a commercial at beginning and end of show). Again, not perfect but an option.
PS Vue's DVR functionality also allows for fast forward/rewind.
I was waiting for the details on this but it looks like my PS Vue service laughs at this offering. All the channels I want, Cloud DVR, pause / rewind / start over, works on iPhone, iPad, Mac, PS4 and works as a provider in apps. Looks like Sony knocked it out the park first time. It's a shame...Apple should have been able to match the PS Vue service themselves but they decided to give up and let third parties cover it for them. Typical of the Tim Cook era.
As you may have seen, a la carte pricing is actually much worse for consumers.
$9.99 for HBO, $7.99 for CNS, $9.99 for Showtime. Congrats you're paying $30 for 3 channels!
$9.99 for HBO, $7.99 for CNS, $9.99 for Showtime. Congrats you're paying $30 for 3 channels!
LOL - Renaming packages something cute DOESN'T make the service any different. STUPID POS COMPANY.
I would have to pay twice as much to get the same channels from my cable company.
A la carte has existed for years, you can get any show you want a la carte from iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, Google, wherever.
Except with cable, your bill is twice as much, you have to sign a 2 year contract, they charge you $10/month for a 10 year old cable box, you pay extra to watch a 2nd stream.
The equipment fees are where they make money. It's like being appalled at the price of concessions at the movie theater. The price of the ticket goes almost entirely to the movie studios, concessions is how the theater makes money.
The cable/satellite providers pay almost all of their fees to networks. (And they actually spend a lot of time fighting to keep prices down because the higher overall cost impacts their subscription levels.) Equipment has been a way for cable/satellite companies to for costs of distribution and still turn a profit.
This model takes out a lot of those costs...(since the user bears the high speed internet cost)....
I agree for the most part...been pleasantly surprised with the service myself. Unfortunately, they lost a bunch of their channels (Viacom??, not sure), the Android app is garbage--doesn't have a Guide
confused and adding HBO is significantly more expensive. DirecTV Now offers more channels for same price (at least, initially). I'm curious, to say the least...what bothers me the most is HBO charging widely different subscription prices based on what service you use.
Psvue on iPhone has limited dvr capability. I've had to install the network apps on my phone so I can watch them the next day. Hopefully this service does not have mobile restrictions.
I'm just signing up for this so I can get the Apple TV and try out the psvue competition
If that's the case, then why did UVerse never charge me for equipment unless I wanted to add multiple set top boxes, wireless boxes, etc to my service?
It's great you want to watch those shows....but who's going to pay for them?
In the current model the networks buy shows and are willing to take the risk on them taking off or flaming out because they have the steady stream of subscriber fees to bank on. Do you think a show like Walking Dead or Game of Thrones gets made if they have to rely solely on the people who watch those shows to bankroll them? The startup costs are immense. Nobody is going to take that risk hoping that an individual show's subscribers are going to pay for it.
A lot of cord cutters and those who use alternate delivery services lose sight of the fact those shows are paid for by the traditional model.
Exactly. People are crapping on this service for ulterior motives (AT&T hatred?). Fine. But the pricing for the channels included completely destroy what Optimum offers me here in NJ. The base package plus HBO for 40 bucks? I gotta pay 65 just to get ESPN 1/2 and the Turner networks into a tier.
