How does live TV without commercials look like? A two-minute blank screen break?
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 With Live TV' Appears on App Store, Includes FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, ESPN, and More [Update: $39.99+]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Any example where Apple opted to do something major with a goal of not making a profit but only breaking even?
Any example where Apple opted to be the low-price leader?
Could Apple do either or both? Of course they could. But why will they? Apple could roll out the next iPhone with a big cut to price by opting to make substantially less profit on each unit. But why will they do that?
Last edited:
I'm still in shock that Apple is sitting idly by while all these other services are unveiled. They have such an obscene amount of money just sitting around and they couldn't loosen the purse strings just a bit to get these deals first? For Christ sake I would pay way more than $40 for a good Apple-designed streaming TV service. The current TV App sucks.
The app doesn't exist on the italian app store, I don't know about other european countries
It's crazy to think that the value leader in this space is an AT&T product, of all things. DirecTV Now is so far and away better than all of these that have popped up, particularly for everyone that signed up and got the "Big" package for $35. They also kicked in free HBO for a year. Only issue is lack of DVR.
Yeah, I think I will pass on this whole TV for 40.00 or more a month. I am happy with my free TV over the air, and the shows I do like, I rather just pay for those apps e.g. HBO, or do the Itunes TV show subscription. You-tube, and others just feel like a digital cable company trying to take more of my money.
For the No Commercials plan, that's specifically referencing hulu's on-demand library, not the new Live TV section. So live streams will still have commercials.
To further increase brand lock-in? For bragging rights? To appear innovative again? To sell more Apple TVs like OP said? TO lock in people now and then squeeze the studios for better deals later? So many reasons...
A lot of people miss this. I have Fios Gigabit now and for $15 more a month, I could have gotten the "bundle". However, I've been on that road. That bundle doesn't include, taxes, fees, rental fees, boxes and all that other crap that pushes your bill well over $120 a month.
So, I have Fios for $70 and DTVNow for $35 w/free HBO for a year. $105 for internet and TV, I am good with that. No taxes, fees or equipment rental crap. Also, NO 2 YEAR AGREEMENT BS!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That's the favored spin. OR, instead of those "greedy" execs refusing to make more money by potentially selling products already in the can to upwards of millions of potential Apple service subscribers, Apple won't share enough of the profit with the content owners on par with these other players? Your excuse redirects all blame to the other guys. But it depends on believing those other guys don't want to make lots of money. The other possibility is that Apple just wants too much for Apple such that there isn't enough left over for the content owners. Which sounds more plausible?
[doublepost=1493824414][/doublepost]
OK. So they've had years and years to forge such a deal. Money is no obstacle vs. these smaller entities that have been able to secure deals and bring offerings to market. Why doesn't Apple already own this space? Let me guess: it's the other guys fault- they don't want to work with Apple and enrich themselves on upwards of millions of new subscribers paying for their content.
Last edited:
Price is too high for me. I have all the TV I want (quite a lot really) with other services that cost me less than $10 per month, and an antenna with a mac mini for a DVR (and we rarely DVR anymore). Sounds like it's Cable TV all over again.
I have no idea why they haven't done that...truly I would love to know. It seems to me like it would be enormously profitable in the long run.
I don't get the appeal of live TV, I really don't. I'm so much more content with a library of thousands of titles on demand.
Interestingly enough, doesn't seem to be integrated into Apple's TV app, like the previous version of the Hulu app... how does that happen, Hulu? Do we keep both versions of the app?
Same, I updated the post to reflect this. My zip code doesn't have ANY of the big four networks for live streaming, super disappointing. On demand content is still available, but that's just like the normal version of Hulu.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I offered my best guess at why in response to lunarworks in the same post #86. I suspect Apple is not able to get the Apple margin and a competitive price around these same price levels and motivate the content owners to basically take the hit to make it happen. In other words, we want our 3X% right off the top and we want to offer a comparable service at a comparable price. You content owners can have what's left over. The problem: there's not enough left over to motivate the content owners to support an Apple service. I speculate what is needed here is a real win:win deal... something likely similar to what the content owners make from these many other players who have already struck such deals and rolled out this kind of product (even without having a $25X billion cash hoard).
Is it? I was on the 3 month trial, and it was unstable, on-demand content availability sucked, and the UI was pretty terrible. And they don't even have CBS. I haven't tried the Hulu live service yet, but their on-demand content and UI is in a different league.
Have you actually compared the channel lineup of the "big" package with that of the regular $35 one? I didn't see anything additional in the "big" package that I would watch.
When it comes to the major networks, I am not sure I will ever understand a business model which makes me pay a monthly fee for something that I can get for FREE with an antenna. The antenna is in HD, and I can hook up a PVR to it just as easily if needed. If I am paying for Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS all of which are already free channels on my antenna, at least I should be able to do so without commercials,of course that is impossible because the networks have their shows scheduled to include commercial breaks
Paid live tv? For local networks? I think I'll spend my money on a set of HD rabbit ears!
As much as I hate the Sling TV app sometimes... this is does not seem worth money whatsoever. The lack of Viacom and AMC network is huge IMO. For $5 less I get way more channels with Sling TV. I was looking forward to just using Hulu and getting rid of Sling.. but at the moment, Hulu's live service is just disappointing / not a great value. Not to mention I only get CBS in my area.