All of the channels offered by Hulu Live are owned by 8 companies who provide content. Those 8 companies don't want to break up their offerings yet.
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
I'm totally with you, particularly for the considerations I quoted above: equipment rental, buggy STBs, contract lock in. It makes the choice to use an app/network based solution so much better, even if the price is "break even".
Same here, I used an amplified antenna from Amazon, ran ~$45 including a mounting arm, mounted up in the attic, dropped the output coax into the network closet to a HDHomeRun (picked one up for $99). We've got dozens of locals in HD, on two sets via ATV4 + Channels, and the install is nice and clean, the UI is terrific on the ATV app, and _no_ recurring costs.
We mostly don't watch locals or network TV, but occasionally there's some kind of special, or morning news, etc.
Exactly what I am thinking, such rip off. All users will just share one copy of the content on the server
That's why I still have FiOS TV with a TiVO DVR. I don't care about the majority of channels, but no streaming service has our regional sports network, 5.1 surround, and a great no-compromises DVR solution - all very important to me. I doubt I'd be able to beat the FiOS bundle pricing anyway. But I AM very interested in the streaming+cloud DVR model. I look forward to someday ridding myself of the physical DVR and especially the Verizon hassle. I'm already enjoying the ease and control of managing my premium channels via Amazon instead of FiOS. Unfortunately, I think we're a few years out from a really great streaming alternative with no step backward compromises.
For $45/mth I get 600+ channels and can watch live, on demand, and even recorded TV on my Apple TV or iPad. I have like 15 channels just for sports. What is this wonderful service? The service is called Cable TV (Bell Fibe), you should try it sometimes.
Keep in mind, that if they let everyone choose a la carte like that, of the 10 channels that you want (out of the 100-200 cable currently offers), 5 of the 10 would cost $1-$2/mo (though their network execs would try to hold out for $5-$10/mo, thinking their network is the most bestest evar), so far so good, but then, 2 of the 10 would cost $20-$50/mo each, because they're less popular networks and would now be trying to function on the direct subscriptions of tens of thousands of subscribers, rather than getting a tiny cut from each of millions of cable TV subscribers, and 3 of the 10 channels, those quirky, offbeat, channels that you really love, would go out of business, because they wouldn't get enough subscribers funding them to cover expenses, so you couldn't watch them at any price.
I don't like it, but I can see how things ended up the way they are. I dropped cable out of the same sort of frustration last year. The combination of Netflix, Hulu (non-live, ad-free), and YouTube (not their paid service) has been working pretty well for me (though today's update to the Hulu Apple TV app ... sucks).
The devs over at Channels are the exception. Don't expect that kind of quality from traditional pay tv providers.
Close, but no cigar. No Animal Planet. I watch that channel a lot.
I also don't like that all these services lump in sports channels. I don't watch sports. Ever. I have to think they could offer another cheaper package option without sports for those people that don't want it.
They are getting closer, but somehow after all this effort, and all these players in the internet TV space now, they are still not giving me quite what I want which is rather disappointing.
I also don't like that all these services lump in sports channels. I don't watch sports. Ever. I have to think they could offer another cheaper package option without sports for those people that don't want it.
They are getting closer, but somehow after all this effort, and all these players in the internet TV space now, they are still not giving me quite what I want which is rather disappointing.
A la carte is available right now.
Go on Amazon Prime, iTunes, Google, vudu and purchase the content you want.
Then you will truely see how expensive content really is.
What You are getting right now is multiple channels with a lot of content at bulk cost.
Discovery Communications, which owns Animal Planet, hasn't entered into a contract with any of these services yet. So blame Discovery, I'm sure the services would make a deal if it worked for both parties...
Maybe that works for you in Florida, but try it in a place with mountains and you will often find the OTA coverage to be pretty poor. Also try it with live, in-market sports.
[doublepost=1493842488][/doublepost]
Unless the content you want is not on any of these services.
You mean it works for some and doesn't work for others? Imagine that!
I also surf which I understand is tricky in the mountains
Seriously though, it was just to inform folks - which I assume was the intent of the poster I quoted - who might be interested in an alternative for local network, that if an option (based on geography, preferred content, etc.) works pretty well
Apparently with the $15 premium DVR upgrade you can. Not with the standard $39, though.
It's actually not a bad value considering it includes Hulu's current streaming service (which costs $7.99 for the ad supported version). You're basically paying $32 for the live channels, which, eh.
Vue is probably a better product though. More channels (has AMC) and real DVR functionality for the same price.
And if you're fine with not having the networks, Sling TV is only $20 or $25, depending on the channel package you want.
Vue is probably a better product though. More channels (has AMC) and real DVR functionality for the same price.
And if you're fine with not having the networks, Sling TV is only $20 or $25, depending on the channel package you want.
Yeah I understand it from the content owners' perspective, but I cannot fathom why Apple won't just bite the bullet and break even (or even take small loss) on the deal. They already have outrageous amounts of money, with more rolling in every day. They could easily dominate the streaming TV market at this point and use their position to first sell more Apple TVs/iDevices and then pressure the content owners for a better deal at a later date. Apple is supposed to be striving for the best user experience possible; it seems like the only thing holding them back is pure greed, which is unfortunate and disheartening.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That's me too. I've spent a lot of money to assemble a good home theater. I'm set up for Dolby Digital surround and pretty much none of these "the future" options offer DD.
I've paid up for high quality televisions but none of these feed them video at a comparable quality to the "old school" SATT option.
I'm accustomed to a pretty fully-featured DVR and none of these seem to offer much in that way and/or leave out fundamentally-important features.
I'm long-term accustomed to a single, "just works" on-screen guide that brings everything available to watch together in one place. If I try to somewhat replicate all I want to watch, I need multiple services and multiple services don't seem to support any kind of unified on-screen guide. Instead, it's a lot of hunting & remembering where one has to go to watch something.
So I find myself still clinging to SATT enjoying great HD & DD on most channels, a unified guide, a real & feature-rich DVR, lots of on-demand content, play on any screen inside or outside the home (DISH Anywhere app) and a single STB (
TV) for any on-demand not available via DISH. My regional sports network is included in HD and DD. My local channels are included in HD and DD. An over-the-air dongle makes use of my antenna for maximum quality locals too and includes those in the same on-screen guide (and records local OTA programming on the very same DVR). Total cost is less than $80/month.When I try to configure something that will get me most of my favorite programming using a mix of available services, and make this "what if" work by compromising on picture quality, sound quality, no real DVR, etc, my potential savings might be as much as about $20/month (depending on compromises and just doing without some favored programming). What I end up with is hodgepodge, needing to jump though some hoops of app-to-app or service-to-service and so on to make it work... and then train the family to be able to jump through those same hoops... AND be tech support when they are just trying to watch something and can't remember where they need to go to watch it. Is $20/month "savings" worth it? Not to me. It actually loses me at lower quality picture & sound. Historically, I'm accustomed to tech-driven "the future" progress actually improving upon the present. Lately, it seems "the future" is actually about regression of even headline benefits.
But to each his own. Some seem awful proud of rolling with the compromises so they can brag about saving $10 or $20 or $30+ per month. I'm glad everyone is happy.
[doublepost=1493845935][/doublepost]
I suspect the new Apple starts all thinking with "can we get our target margin?" If they can't, they move along to something else. Bean counters may rule.
Rumors were hot & heavy a few years ago regarding Apple seriously trying to make this go. However, deal after deal would not close. If you read comments about them objectively, the theme seemed to revolve around how one prominent one summed it up: "Apple wanted everything" meaning "leaving us with nothing." It's little surprise that the non-Apple (potential) partners didn't want to take that kind of deal.
Since, there's been rumors about stuff like NFL Sunday Ticket, NFL Thursday Night football, the Time-Warner media library, etc all being for sale to a highest bidder. Apple could have bid. But they didn't. I'm not a huge football fan but a DirecTV-like exclusive of NFL Sunday ticket for
TV likely would have sold a LOT of TVs. That Time-Warner library is HUGE. Apple certainly has the money to outbid all competitors. But they didn't.Meanwhile, much, much smaller players with much smaller cash hoards (or even debt) are making deals and launching streaming services. And even us Apple people are embracing them, sending subscription dollars to these other players and running their service on
TVs. Opportunity lost???
Last edited:
You mean it works for some and doesn't work for others? Imagine that!
I also surf which I understand is tricky in the mountains
Seriously though, it was just to inform folks - which I assume was the intent of the poster I quoted - who might be interested in an alternative for local network, that if an option (based on geography, preferred content, etc.) works pretty well
Can you channel surf in the mountains? That's totally boss, man.
I don't have any idea what percentage of viewers can meet their own viewing preferences with OTA and couple of streaming services. For sure the sheer volume of programming won't be an issue. Even without OTA, you could still watch yourself silly and never eat or sleep. Yet. The reality is, all of these options still come up way short for at least some viewers. Fans of local sports teams, for one (not an insubstantial group) still have few options. I wonder when all of these different services will add up to real choice, meaning, everybody being able to order the programming they actually want without a lot of stuff they don't care about.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Exactly right. Al-a-carte has been available for many years now. Apple rolled out a pretty rich al-a-carte offering while Jobs was still alive.
The problem? Many of us continue to believe we can get al-a-carte... perhaps commercial-free... for a fraction of our traditional cable bill. And nobody else beyond us- including Apple- has any motivation at all to make that happen. So we'll whine & complain and believe that maybe Apple can convert their entire video library into a Netflix-like offering at a Netflix-like price and that really can happen. It can't. It won't. It's only a delusion.
We already have a pretty rich al-a-carte option.
Now we have multiple company cuts at "skinny bundle" subscription offerings cheaper than traditional cable.
Both "the future" visions are here now, both with many competitors competing for our attention.
So what are we complaining about? Oh yeah, we want al-a-carte, commercial-free at a dirt-cheap price. And we want Apple to get a big cut too. Keep dreaming everyone. Personally, I'm modifying that dream to envision getting the next iPhone for 80%-95% lower than current iPhone pricing too. I think my chances are about as good.
Last edited:
Living in Australia, I just don't get it. Here, I have my TV and I get to watch HD digital TV for free. I can get the free FV (freeview) app from the app store and watch all the streams for free. I can use PVR functionality to record the shows I'd normally not be able to watch for free. Each network (admittedly on 4 + 1 govt) has their own catchup apps and web sites which I can access for free. In America it seems that everyone is happy to pay money each month just to watch crappy TV. Can American's get TV for free?
Apple also wanted stuff content owners just won't do right now because it will disrupt their revenue stream. Apple wanted the ability for end users to pay a fee to avoid ads on live content (not sports/news) they also wanted everything on demand. No schedules, just watch what you want whenever. Traditional tv providers make money off scheduled shows. They can charge more for certain time Slots.
Can you channel surf in the mountains? That's totally boss, man.
I don't have any idea what percentage of viewers can meet their own viewing preferences with OTA and couple of streaming services. For sure the sheer volume of programming won't be an issue. Even without OTA, you could still watch yourself silly and never eat or sleep. Yet. The reality is, all of these options still come up way short for at least some viewers. Fans of local sports teams, for one (not an insubstantial group) still have few options. I wonder when all of these different services will add up to real choice, meaning, everybody being able to order the programming they actually want without a lot of stuff they don't care about.
Bold = Isn't that the truth? The wife and I were joking the other day about the TV shows we have "in the queue", and I estimated at our average viewing speed, it'll take like two years
(and that's just catch up, let alone, the new episodes coming out every day).Sports appear to be the real deal breaker for many folks, and even with locals - as you pointed out - there's all the blackout rules. Unless of course you sub to all the dedicated sports options and that gets _real_ expensive. I've got a BIL who's a displaced football and hockey fan, and he spends a ton just to watch what used to be local.
For us, we could honestly do AMC, HBO and Netflix and be OK, for others, it gets way more complicated and expensive.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yes, many Americans can get lots of TV for free. Major networks are available free over-the-air and deliver the best picture quality and most of the most-watched new programming. We too can buy DVRs to record that programming and watch it whenever we like (too). A variety of apps (like Crackle) offer lots of classic television for free. Many stations offer streaming video via their websites and apps for free. With a little effort, a great deal of professional programming can be watched for free.
However some of the most desirable content is not accessible for free. And the whine you read is from many of us who want everything for dirt-cheap. We are not "happy to pay money each month to watch crappy TV." We want ALL of our crappy and not-so-crappy for dirt-cheap. We have zero appreciation for the subsidy (other people paying) model manifested as commercials. We want commercial-free programming... but don't want to make up for that revenue out of our pockets.
For some reason the creators & owners of the desirable content that is not accessible for free want to be paid for creating or delivering that content... and don't seem to want to just hand it over to Apple and let Apple take their big cut right off the top. That seems to frustrate many of us too.
Meanwhile, we're the same people that will proudly proclaim "shut up and take my money" and/or even line up or camp out to pay $1000 for a phone with only a couple of features that our current phone doesn't have and $2500 for a laptop that barely does anything that our existing laptop doesn't do. We're the people who will go to the cinema once or twice per month at maybe $50 per movie for 2 or 3 people (for maybe 3 hours of video) but then rip our cable/satt providers to shreds for providing up to 500 channels of maybe 18 hours of video PER DAY for a WHOLE MONTH wanting about that same amount of money.
Last edited:
News isn't very good unless it's live. Same with awards shows where you might hear the results before you watch if you don't watch live. Same with sports. Not everything is scripted TV!
That business model has been in effect for literally decades with cable TV. So obviously it works. Not everyone wants to deal with the hassle of an antenna and some people can't get OTA networks with an antenna. Then there are cable TV channels which are ONLY paid unless you are pirating them somehow.
Not true. Animal planet (and thus I assume other Discovery shows) are available on DirecTVNow. Which is why I am using that one. It's missing CBS, but that I can live with as I don't really watch that channel much.
Surprisingly, this includes CBS locally for me; they aren't normally part of Hulu as they went for their own CBS All Access.
I went from paying $145.19 to Verizon for a Triple Play, down to $54.99 for Internet only. I bought and paid for 6 years of home phone from MagicJack for ~$3/month (I'd rather not give out my cell number), and have Hulu and Amazon Prime (which is not just for TV), and I've almost cut my costs in half. Sure I don't get Doctor Who right away, and I have to wait for the Americans, but no need to rush those. I bought an antenna, and my TiVo has lifetime service. I looked at Netflix, Sling, PlayStation and DirectTV Now, and they weren't worth it, and neither is this. But I will keep the non-live Hulu streaming.
I went from paying $145.19 to Verizon for a Triple Play, down to $54.99 for Internet only. I bought and paid for 6 years of home phone from MagicJack for ~$3/month (I'd rather not give out my cell number), and have Hulu and Amazon Prime (which is not just for TV), and I've almost cut my costs in half. Sure I don't get Doctor Who right away, and I have to wait for the Americans, but no need to rush those. I bought an antenna, and my TiVo has lifetime service. I looked at Netflix, Sling, PlayStation and DirectTV Now, and they weren't worth it, and neither is this. But I will keep the non-live Hulu streaming.