Sidebar Sidebar
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+]

I just tried signing up for this, and boy is it a mess.

I currently subscribe to the no commercials plan via iTunes Billing. There was no option in the app to upgrade to the live service, so I figure they want me to go to their site and circumvent the 15-30% Apple tax. Fair.

So I go to their site, and it tells me to call support to upgrade. A bit antiquated, I think, but sure, why not. Call support who is clueless. I basically guided him to the solution of maybe I need to cancel iTunes billing and resubscribe via your site?

So I do that, nothing changes. It gives me a resubscribe option and points me back to iTunes billing, no options to upgrade. Clicking on the free trial for the live service just takes me back to my account page as an existing subscriber.

So I call back. The only proposed solution was to delete my account and lose all my profiles, watchlists, etc, or to wait until 5/10 when my existing subscription ends on its own.

It should not be this difficult for me to give them my money! If they were looking to woo customers from DirecTV NOW, they are off to a bad start.
 
After using it for 30min or so with all the addons (trials) it looks like a hot mess. No live ABC,CBS,FOX, or NBC. Awful UI. I'm not even sure how you record anything. Price tag is 63 a month? To be honest, regular Hulu with limited commercials seems just as good.
 
newdeal said:
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
Click to expand...

Put yourself in their shoes. Your network produces far more original content than any cable channel. You pilot far more new shows than any cable channel. You have a stream of income from selling commercials but the vast majority of cable channels have those too.

Your customers:
  • covet commercial-skipping technologies and use them such that being able to motivate those who pay for commercials becomes increasingly challenging. Thus your primary, long-term source of revenue is under attack.
  • generally don't want to put up/maintain antennas (though some- like me- are happy to do so) or can't get a stable HD signal via antenna.
The cable channels have commercial revenue PLUS cable subscription revenue. Do you happily keep "giving away" your channel to cable too or do you seek out this other revenue opportunity just like the cable channels?

I completely understand what you are saying and I make the same arguments as you- people should put up an antenna and get a better quality picture for free over-the-air. However, I can also sympathize with the big 4-5 networks who generally offer the most-watched television wanting to get their cut of subscription revenues. If I'm in their shoes, I rationalize it with ideas like "we" put out the most popular programming, generate the most original programming and are the most watched channels. Don't we deserve a cut of the subscription revenue stream too from those who opt to NOT put up an antenna and instead watch our channels distributed through a cable?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Little dude
oneMadRssn said:
It looks to be no cheaper than traditional cable, but certainly buggier and more complex. It's still chock full of ads. And it has none of the benefits of on-demand streaming. I cannot think of a single reason to buy into this entire category.
Click to expand...
Have you used cable? The STBs are not known for be bug free, especially when using on-demand.

As for price, Cable's equipment rentals alone could be just as much as Hulu's TV service.

There are other benefits too. Apps tend to get regular updates for bugs, while Cable STBs tend to stay pretty buggy.

You can (most likely) cancel your Hulu service at any time, and sign up again. So, if you only want to have live TV for the NFL season, it would be easy to sign up and then cancel when it is over. Doing this on Cable is not as simple, easy, cheap, or maybe even possible.

App sub prices tend to be stable, while cable sub prices tend to increase every year.

There are many other benefits too. There also some downsides, but that is true to most things.

oneMadRssn said:
I'll stick with my Netflix, Hulu Commercial Free, HBOGo mix of products.
Click to expand...
I am with you here, as I have no interest in live TV.

I think these live TV services are for people with $200 Cable bills, and looking to reduce costs. But, they don't want to lose live TV and certain channels with cord cutting.
 
chicagofan00 said:
Are you paying $100 for just cable or cable AND internet?
Click to expand...

People are going to have internet anyway, it was there before these live tv services came about, the focus
should be on the lower prices for the content, no per box fee and no contracts, thats where the savings should come from...
 
DVR? doesn't the basic Netflix and Hulu options are provide this "bookmarking/resume" functionality regardless? who cares about Live TV when its available anyway some time after it airs...unless its non-exlcusive to Hulu?

A bit confusing and over priced, especially people already have a set-up for this or less
 
I really don't understand why there is even such a thing as 'cloud DVR'. It is completely pointless.

All Hulu needs is a single copy of a program, delivered once, pushed to all of its users. Such a waste of resources hosting multiple copies of the same media over and over and over again.
 
This is just too expensive and I'm in a location where I can't even get the big 4 networks only in demand. What's the point? And $15 extra for "unlimited" screens? If I want to pay $60 for all that I'll go back to regular cable and free screenings with my local cable company. There's a reason I moved away from cable!

If only they'd offer additional screens at the same time for the non live streaming subscriptions. I actually wouldn't mind paying extra on top of the $12 if I could just get at least a few more screen at the same time option.
 
I have to admit that in theory Cutting the cord sounds good, until you actually try the services and do it. Single sign in sounds good until my phone and apple TV suddenly forgets my login data and i have to sign in all the time. and then remembering where all my stuff is thru numerous apps.

I stayed with Dish. I started with their new flex pack, $35 A MONTH, ADDED REGIONAL SPORTS $10, THEN THEY MADE ME AN OFFER ALL THE PREMIUMS FOR $20 a month. And now its all on my hopper in one location. I'm currently on promo pricing so I'm saving 20% on all of that but even once it ends and I go to cancel some services, they'll throw me some sort of bone to stay.

when i come home from work and i want to watch some tube i just turn it on.
 
newdeal said:
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
Click to expand...

So buy an antenna and get them for free? Good luck getting all the "free" channels clear and clean 24/7.
 
So...with an HD antenna, one normally gets FOX, NBC, CBS, ABC ... Hulu is offering FX, FSN-1 and ESPN...for $40 a month? I don't see the value in this...seems like a blatent money grab
 
  • Like
Reactions: newdeal
Nope. Not a chance.

We pay 11.99 per month for Netflix, own over 800 movies on disc, watch TV using an antenna and rent from the likes of redbox, VUDU and the library. Have had ZERO need for any type of TV service for years and it will stay that way. Also, that $39.99 price point should already include no ads but whatever. For those that could use this, hope it works out for you, but for me, I'll pass.
 
Cheriegate said:
WHY doesn't anyone talk about the monthly INTERNET charges? Add that $$ to $35+ YouTube TV (which works beautifully) and you're nearing $80-$90. I'm paying $100 for Cable, can't beat that.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY Comcast charges me close to $90 for 25mps DL, i'm getting ready to either drop it to ten or do away with it all together and just hotspot from my phone.
 
avanpelt said:
Everyone who pays for TV service is still shown commercials when they are watching live TV.
Click to expand...

exactly. I think the aggravation starts not with live tv though but with VOD limitations forcing 'ad viewing points' within the on-demand content.
[doublepost=1493828479][/doublepost]
djeeyore25 said:
Paying for the ability to fast forward through commercials is a deal breaker for me. I'll stick with my OTA TiVo.
Click to expand...


Also there is a fantastic apple tv app called 'channels' (or getchannels?) that works with OTA equipment. Problem is they want a subscription for DVR capabilities though the guide data is free. But if you want to stick in the apple tv realm, its really good. Scrubbing with the atv remote is so nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: djeeyore25
is there a link/place where can i check to see what channels are available in my area?
The only local channel i get with DTVNow is NBC Boston and Telemundo.
 
Kaibelf said:
Not exactly. If it's live streaming of the right mix of channels, and one already subscribes to Hulu, this comes in about the same as say, Hulu + DirecTV Now, but with DVR.
[doublepost=1493819531][/doublepost]
Click to expand...

Yup. I'm paying $47 a month for DTVNow plus ad-free Hulu. This would only be $44. Unfortunately, the channel lineup just doesn't stack up. No AMC, no Discovery networks, no Viacom (although I could personally live without Viacom networks). Also no ESPNNews, which is often used as an overflow for other ESPN networks when games overlap.
 
these stand alone services are slowly approaching cable cost, but without the ease of cable and live local TV. No thanks!
 
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