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.
Hulu Bringing CBS-Owned Networks to Live TV Service, Which Will Be Priced 'Under $40' Per Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have PS Vue and it's the best option by far. I've tried them all and none of them compare to PS Vue. The only downside is you need the current Apple TV or one of the other major boxes for PS Vue.
I don't understand what anyone is watching on CBS that this makes it a deal breaker.
I don't understand what anyone is watching on CBS that this makes it a deal breaker.
From my perspective: PS Vue is leaps and bounds better than Directv Now in terms of stability and the cloud DVR. However the price and channel selection on DTV Now would easily win out if their platform was functional.
If Hulu came out with a similar lineup of channels, and included their existing service all for under 40$ they would likely destroy either of the other two - plus they have more experience than either with streaming tech.
If Hulu came out with a similar lineup of channels, and included their existing service all for under 40$ they would likely destroy either of the other two - plus they have more experience than either with streaming tech.
Did you even read the headline, much less the article? It isn't "just" Hulu plus CBS........
Not sure about the guy you quoted, but I did read the article, and I missed this the first time.
Still, a little pricey I think. I guess we will have to wait to see what is actually included and the final price.
I personally don't care about live TV, but if has the stuff above plus showtime, this might be worth looking into.
I have both TiVO and Tablo, and the TiVo wipes the floor with the Tablo in terms of interface, navigation ease, channel skipping, load times, and others. The Tablo is now just my conduit to OTA channels outside of the house. Only downside is bouncing out of the Apple TV to get to TiVo when I'm not using DirecTV Now (which is unbearable with 1502 errors ALL DAY LONG!!)
I just don't get these services. This is $40 a month and you still have to watch ads. If you get Netflix, Amazon and HBO (occasionally) there is more than enough to watch. You need never see an ad again. I signed up for the DirectTV deal and am not using it at all. Network TV is awful and the basic cable channels are ruined by ads.
This might be true for some, but if you have a medium size family, the equipment rentals alone from the cable company could be as much as this rumored service price.
FiOS where I live for example:
HD boxes - $13 each a month
Router that they make you use with TV service - $10 a month
Having a family with a few kids, it wouldn't be uncommon to have 3 or more HD boxes. You are looking at $43 a month just for equipment.
I am not saying one couldn't get better deals, the one I have with Comcast currently is pretty good. After the price for Internet, then $5 more a month for local TV and showtime for 12 months, with a free basic adapter box that has never been hooked up.
Not everyone can get these deals.
One other thing, you can cancel most of these streaming services at anytime, unlike many cable plans. With the Netflix/Hulu/HBO Now type streaming plans, you can use them for a few months to catch up on your favorite shows, then cancel them for a while.
Last edited:
The article doesn't make clear whether Star Trek will be included since it's an All Access-only show. If not, count me out.
Although you switched from FIOS to Comcast, here is the way to defeat all cable-box monthly fees:
Get a Roku Streaming Stick for each TV (one-time cost of $45 -- I got mine for $35 during cyber week). Assumes that your TVs have a HDMI 2.0/HDCP port, and not just legacy, analog ports (component and/or composite ports).
Signup to each channel you enjoy supported by your cable provider using the Roku, but using your cable-provider's credentials. (In your use case Comcast).
Not only you can watch on your Monitor/TV, but you can watch also on your laptop and idevices -- anywhere there is internet access.
This is what I do. And returned my 2x$10-month HD boxes. A savings of $240 + (significant) state taxes/fees per-year.
Last edited:
Well, this is what I currently do with my ATV 2, 3 , and 4 boxes. If there is not an app on the ATV4 for a particular channel, then I don't watch it.
I currently do not pay any money to rent STBs, and I will never again.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Are we genuinely surprised? Except for a niche of naive dreamers, nobody else in the chain has any interest in cutting their own revenue throats to give us consumers everything we want, commercial-free for a fraction of what we pay now. We thoroughly, thoroughly delude ourselves into believing equations like "less channels = less cost" and/or "200 channels for $100 = 50 cents per channel. I want 10 channels, so my bill should be $5/month" and similar. It's NEVER going to happen.
Instead, the owners of the content, the middlemen between us and the owners, Apple if Apple becomes one of those middlemen etc are all wanting to find ways to INCREASE average annual revenue-per-subscriber... not decrease it. Change along these lines is driven by showing all those players how they are going to make MORE money. None of them are interested in making less.
What we are getting is complicated, haphazard kludge that typically sacrifices picture or sound quality and/or makes us miss or delay seeing shows that others will see and want to talk about tomorrow. We probably have to jump through some hoops to get the variety of what we want. Those who live with us that are less technically savvy probably gripe about such complications and/or we have to be ready to leap to their aid when they need to slip through 3 hoops to get to see what they want to see. Etc. And what's the gain? We might save $10 or $20 or $50/month IF our broadband provider doesn't make up for their cableTV losses by squeezing more out of us for broadband. You'd think that $10 or $20 or $50 would make or break us the way we carry on about it. And yet, in other threads we will spin arguments for why we all should pay up for anything Apple wants to offer and happily roll with extra costs that come from Apple making decisions like killing commonly-used ports and gluing everything down.
Wake up smart people! Nobody- including Apple- is with us on this false dream of getting everything we want, commercial-free, for pennies on the dollar. Look at this story right here. CBS, which can be had at generally better quality for free if one puts up an antenna, is wanting $3-$4 for some ambiguous bundle of offerings via this Hulu deal. For their own All-Access offering they want $6/month. What do you think ABC, NBC, Fox & CW will want to do with their generally OTA "free*" programming? They'll want their $3-$4-$6/month too. 5 free* channels times about $5 = $25/month for just those channels.
Nationally, I've read the average household bill for cable/satt is about $73/month. All the other players beyond us consumers will be motivated to change by the opportunity to grow that number, not shrink it. If Apple is allowed to plug in in some form, they'll want their 15% or 30% right off the top too. In other words, to get the dream, think $100-$150/month for the "new model." That is probably what gets all the players mobilized to make it happen. Else, enjoy the relative bargain of about $73/month for 500 channels of which the 480 "I never watch" can be hidden by a favs guide, and apps and DVR and on-demand is there too.
Or look back at it longingly as the "good old days" when our selected mix of 10-20 "channels" or bundles of al-a-carte "shows" in the future is costing us 30%-70% more than we are paying now when this transition is complete.
$40 seems like waaaay too much for this meager offering. I quit Cox Cable and DirectTV years ago and simply use a $15 HD antenna to get local channels. Quit Hulu a while back because it really didn't have much content. I tried SlingTV; lag and artifacts were bad as were black-outs when too many people tried to watch big premier or season finally shows. Sony Vue and Directv sound promising...
So, most importantly, what does this mean for Star Trek: Discovery? 
Can we see it with this deal?
Or do we still have to pay $5.99 a month to watch it with commercials in the US, unlike the rest of the world (except Canada) who gets it free and commercial free as part of their local Netflix subscriptions?
Then again, it IS Hulu... and as Homer Simpson famously said, "If I wanted to pay to watch commercials, I'd subscribe to Hulu Plus!"
Can we see it with this deal?Or do we still have to pay $5.99 a month to watch it with commercials in the US, unlike the rest of the world (except Canada) who gets it free and commercial free as part of their local Netflix subscriptions?
Then again, it IS Hulu... and as Homer Simpson famously said, "If I wanted to pay to watch commercials, I'd subscribe to Hulu Plus!"
Hulu is $10US/mo. However DirectTVNow costs $35US/mo. and has 100 channels of live TV so....
That's actually not a bad cost what you're paying for DirecTV. $10 for who is also a fraction of what you're paying for DirecTV by itself.
So I still have to pay for CBS all access to watch past shows? Hulu shouldn't have settled for this, they should've pushed more to get their content.
I've given up on DirecTV Now - I'm using PS Vue and while not perfect, its everything I expected DirecTV Now to be. I actually have 3 local stations streamed live (vs 1 with DTV Now), the cloud DVR and the streams are reliable.
I also subscribe to Hulu - so I'll wind up giving it a shot once it launches. Hopefully it won't be as painful as DTV Now - so disappointed with it.
[doublepost=1483657590][/doublepost]
In Phoenix, the CBS affiliate actually is on the live streamed local channels on PS Vue. So far I'm enjoying this service...
They mention Mom and Big Bang Theory in the CBS HULU lead article, yet fail to mention their number one long time show and its subsequent successful spin-offs: NCIS. Why? Anti-Military? Anti-Patriot? Still upset that the author was "with Her" and she lost?