I guess "in order to keep up with market pricing" they'll also be lowering the pricing of their mobile plans, right?
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.
DirecTV Now Raising All Plan Prices by $5/Month to Stay 'In Line With the Market'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So true. People are waking up to how much money they're wasting. Younger generations are seeking to spend more money on experiences such as travel, outdoor activities, fine dining, and even gaming and consume most of their screen-time media on their phones. And people think they're crazy for spending so much on new iPhones all the time when they use them as a computer and TV and often don't spend money on computers or TVs any more.
As for sports, I will subscribe to the CBS streaming stuff so I can watch my NFL games in the autumn, but then I cancel it. And even when it comes to sports I find myself not caring as much as I used to, which is why I was able to switch to this new "Watch TV" thing.
I remember a few years ago my mom was telling me how her Comcast bill was pushing $200/mo. I can get 250mbps internet for $70, Netflix for $11, Hulu ad-free for $12, Watch TV for $15, Xbox Game Pass + Xbox Live Gold for $15, and Apple Music family subscription for $15. That's $138 and I get additional types of entertainment (gaming and music) that the whole family can use. And honestly we're thinking about canceling Hulu because we don't use that as much anymore. I might end up signing up for YouTube ad-free (whatever it's called now) because at least half of my screen-time entertainment now comes from there. There's more science and history content in these YouTube videos than the reality-TV driven Discovery and History channels have today! And the production value of YouTube content keeps going up over time as these creators get better at using this very accessible technology and are able to make money to invest more into their content.
Ok... better question then. Why would anyone use On Demand when you can just launch that stations app and watch it there with, maybe, a lead-in commercial or 2 then zero commercial interruptions afterwards?
Some people don’t mind commercials.
+ Most stations apps have the same amount of commercials ( at least for the new content). The only app I can think of that has no commercials is the CW. The closest I can remember seeing to what your stating is about 25% of the time Hulu will ask if you want continued interruptions or to watch an extended commercial first.
The whole crux of the original argument is they are observing commercials in the On Demand library... and the only app I see with commercials is the NBC app when selecting from their own apps. Plus, Hulu has a completely ad-free tier for not a lot of money.
Ah when I had it I did not use the on demand feature as I had Hulu/Netflix for that
I cancelled mine yesterday. Service is okay. No PBS feed... other services have PBS. I just don't watch much ABC, CBS, NBC. The DVR needs improvement. Still in beta.
29€ is roughly $34 at the current exchange rate. Judging from people's posts here, sounds like US cable packages are mostly equivalent in price, or cheaper.
So instead of using the lower cost of service as a selling point, they are raising the price just because everyone else is... seems to make sense to me.
I thought the same thing, haha.
I get the "Live a Little" package, and to be honest I won't mind paying $40/mo, but they really need to add my local FOX and ABC affiliate channels. Those are my only two locals that remain that need to be added. Since they're raising the price, there's no excuse now.
Last edited:
Don't waste money on add free Youtube, blocking adds by using apps/plugins works well.
1. He said "all in", that might be 100 channels +
2. Your €29=$34 is too simplified, €29=$29 is most likely closer to the truth but i can forgive you here since most people just don't get it.
3. TV in most places in Europe is much cheaper than in the US, I pay €15 for 70+ channels(Cable) and know another package from a different provider which is 110 channels for just less than €20.
Last edited:
Lol. Between internet package and the cost of these streaming services you might as well have cable to begin with. Cord cutting was cheaper. It’s creeping up to be just as costly as regular cable.
So, admitting collusion. Nice. Not that our government seems to care about any of this. The Corps won.
It doesn't on iOS which is where I primarily consume YouTube content. Or are you talking about using YouTube in Safari on iOS? Does it block there? I haven't used anything but the app in ages. Is the mobile site better nowadays?
I was literally about to sign up for it on my iPhone when it said it was $15.99! I remember it being $9.99 but everywhere else online said it's like $11.99 and includes YouTube Music now, which I don't give a crap about, so I switched to my Mac to sign up for a trial since I guess they charge iPhone users more. Then Safari locked up when I visited YouTube and stays locked up even after I force quit and relaunch, which I've never seen it do before, and then I got distracted because I had MacRumors open in this other browser lol.
I don't get why they have the Music thing forcibly bundled now at a higher price. Why in the world would I want to use YouTube to listen to music? This is dumb. Also they still don't allow PIP even if you pay them on iOS but are starting to allow it in the newest Android which just now added PIP. Don't think I want to pay for a service where they treat me like a second class citizen and try to charge me more for the privilege. Also I don't like the idea of giving money to Google but they make money on the ads either way.
To each his own. Ad free YT is great. $15 family plan gets ad free YT and Google Play Music. Can't beat imo.
On topic - apropos excerpt from Ars Technica article:
"AT&T scoffed at the Justice Department's argument that the merger would raise prices. The telecomm giant wrote in its post-trial brief that the merger will "enable AT&T and Time Warner to reduce consumer prices."
"The evidence overwhelmingly showed that this merger is likely to enhance competition substantially, because it will enable the merged company to reduce prices, offer innovative video products, and compete more effectively against the increasingly powerful, vertically integrated 'FAANG' [Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google] companies," AT&T told US District Judge Richard Leon in the brief.
"There is no sound evidence from which the Court could fairly conclude that retail pay-TV prices are likely to increase," AT&T said in that same filing.
/said with a straight face
In line with their “we won’t raise price with the Time Warner acquisition” statements.
This is exactly what normals said would happen. Att got their way because they kissed up to the fake pres.
If you have an ATV, download the PBS apps and you can watch 90% of all the programs they offer. With the kids app you have even a live TV option from your local station.
Am a first day signup to DTVN, but haven't received an email yet, but doubt I can stay on the $35 plan. I am fine with their service, no need to start shopping somewhere else. DVR Service has certainly improved from the early stages, but I agree that it is still not perfect yet.
Well quite. The whole point of a functioning market is to benefit the consumer by competitively driving prices downward.
The goal is to drive suppliers into increasing their efficiency. Not give them free handouts.
