Low-Cost Streaming Service Philo Coming to Apple TV This Summer, Unlocking TV Everywhere Authentication Soon

[MacRumors]

Last November a new streaming TV service called "Philo" was announced, aimed at providing a much cheaper monthly cost for users by cutting out all sports-related content. Starting at $16 per month, subscribers can stream 37 entertainment networks on multiple devices including iPhone, MacBook, Roku, smart TVs, and more.

At the time of its announcement the company said a Philo app would be coming to Apple TV, and now CEO Andrew McCollum has confirmed that the Apple TV app for Philo will be launching this summer (via CNET).

Philo for iOS​

Alongside the launch window for the Apple TV app, McCollum revealed that the service will also allow subscribers to unlock the streaming apps for TV networks included in their Philo subscription. Much like DirecTV Now, this means that if users pay to stream a channel like AMC on Philo, they can use their Philo log-in within the AMC app to access paywalled content.

This will be a bonus for Apple TV owners, since most over-the-top live TV streaming services don't support Apple's TV app, but many individual network apps do.

The live-TV streaming company will work on Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV devices this summer, CEO Andrew McCollum said last week. An Android mobile app is next on the roadmap.

In addition, you'll be able to do more with your Philo account. The company is unlocking the streaming apps for the TV networks included in a customer's subscription. That means if you pay for Philo's $16-a-month bundle of cable channels, you'll be able to access the paywalled apps for channels like AMC, Nickelodeon, Discovery Channel and History.

Philo's $16/month tier provides access to 37 channels, including A&E, AMC, BBC America, Lifetime, TLC, Travel Channel, and VH1. There's also a $20/month option that increases the channel count to 46, adding in options like Logo and Nicktoons. Philo's entertainment-focused lineup lacks sports, live news, major broadcast networks, and local channels -- all of which help lower the monthly cost of the service.

On the channels offered by Philo, subscribers can record live TV and set recordings on future episodes to watch later, with space lasting for 30 days. In terms of streaming, Philo lets users stream on up to three screens at once in HD.

Comparatively, rivals like Sling TV start at $20/month for about 25 channels, DirecTV Now starts at $35/month for about 60 channels, Hulu with Live TV starts at $40/month for about 50 channels, and PlayStation Vue starts at $40/month for about 45 channels. All of these services include sports or have an option to add on sports content for an additional monthly cost.

ESPN itself has launched its own over-the-top streaming package called ESPN+, focusing on live sports, original shows and films, studio programs, and an on-demand library of content. ESPN+ costs subscribers $4.99/month or $49.99/year, and is pitched as a companion service to other ESPN channels and cable packages since it lacks some major live TV content, like games in the NFL and NBA.

Article Link: Low-Cost Streaming Service Philo Coming to Apple TV This Summer, Unlocking TV Everywhere Authentication Soon

 

[MICHAELSD]

I definitely don’t want to pay for sports content, especially when major networks have the only sporting events I’d care to see anyway, but every subscription of this type needs to include the top 4 major networks to be successful.

That being said this is probably good for those who can get ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS over the air.

 

[Westside guy]

I'm always happy to see more competition in the streaming space. At present this offering isn't particularly useful to me - I've got cable internet, and Comcast tacks on their "limited" channel package for a very, very low price (probably so their falling subscriber numbers don't look even worse). But if Comcast ever stops doing that, or if I move to a different internet platform, something like Philo would be appealing.

 

[StarShot]

I definitely don’t want to pay for sports content, especially when major networks have the only sporting events I’d care to see anyway, but every subscription of this type needs to include the top 4 major networks to be successful.

That being said this is probably good for those who can get ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS over the air.

CBS currently charges $6 a month for CBS NOW. Not to hard to imagine the rest of this group would also charge the same amount. $24 more monthly for streaming over the air channels if you can't pull them in with an antenna.

 

[BJMRamage]

dang. I originally thought it said it included Major Broadcast & Local Channels and thought SCORE! this sounds great.

still look good but will now add another line into the streaming chart to figure out the best options

 

[Nunyabinez]

This was a reminder to me that people are very different. The biggest issue preventing me from cord cutting is access to sports. Apparently, there are quite a few "anti-me's" around.

 

[masochist]

Maybe one day we’ll be able to pay for a service and not have it overrun with ads (this is utterly bizarre in my mind; every other service I use, I pay to remove ads). If TV actually had anything I wanted to watch, and if shows weren’t getting shorter every decade to make room for more ads, I’d be interested. I think these two things are related: the kind of person who is okay with paying for content that still has ads is not the kind of person who’d be interested in watching the kind of things I want to see.

 

[macaddiict]

We have been using Philo for a little over a month on a Roku 3. It works perfectly, has NEVER skipped or cut out, and the DVR functions are amazing.

Previously, we had tried out DirecTV NOW on Apple TV 4k and also Hulu w/ Live TV on Apple TV 4k. Both of those services are AT LEAST 2x as expensive. DirecTV NOW was ***awful*** -- we actually bought another service even though we'd pre-paid for a few months of DirecTV NOW. It skipped constantly, the interface was awful, the DVR beta never worked, it didn't let you fast forward through ANYTHING or pause... it was the worst. Hulu w/ Live TV was great, but too expensive at around $60.

Philo gives us everything we want for $16 a month. It's quick, it works perfectly, and best of all you can fast forward through commercials on EVERY show in your DVR (some VOD shows don't allow FF, but most do).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm always happy to see more competition in the streaming space. At present this offering isn't particularly useful to me - I've got cable internet, and Comcast tacks on their "limited" channel package for a very, very low price (probably so their falling subscriber numbers don't look even worse). But if Comcast ever stops doing that, or if I move to a different internet platform, something like Philo would be appealing.

Get Silicon HDHomeRunPrime and a Comcast cable card. If you can get locals via antenna, get HDHomeRun Quad or similar. Then, Channels app for TV. If you like DVR functionality, add Channels DVR for that app.

This combination will give you cable television + locals on all TVs in your home via TV boxes + (optionally) a real DVR for all those TVs, all controlled within a nice, unified on-screen guide.

If you or others watch on mobiles, either the Comcast app or a dedicated Channels app for mobile can bring all that to your mobile devices too.

It's a really good option for your situation.
[doublepost=1523909060][/doublepost]

Maybe one day we’ll be able to pay for a service and not have it overrun with ads (this is utterly bizarre in my mind; every other service I use, I pay to remove ads). If TV actually had anything I wanted to watch, and if shows weren’t getting shorter every decade to make room for more ads, I’d be interested. I think these two things are related: the kind of person who is okay with paying for content that still has ads is not the kind of person who’d be interested in watching the kind of things I want to see.

Your wish already exists and has for many years. Most everything one wants to watch is in the iTunes store, available to rent commercial-free. So why aren't all the "you's" doing that? Because they don't want to pay the price for commercial-free programming. A lot of us tend to see commercials as an intrusion, but they are also a subsidy: other people- those running the commercials- paying the various parties that make & deliver the shows instead of passing along the total cost directly to us consumers.

That is not so different than buying $600-$1000 phones for $0-$200. How? The companies selling the service traditionally subsidized the "rest" of the cost. Now we consumers are somewhat programmed to think phones should cost about $0-$200 and we thoroughly scoff at $600-$1000+. In other words, we want the subsidized pricing, perhaps even seeing that as "fair" pricing for phones. But the parties that make the phones want to be paid what they want.

A few "channels" have long offered what you seek. For example, HBO has long been "commercial free" (unless you count their own). And that has traditionally cost $10-$20 per month for just a few "channels" of HBO programming and movies. HBO is popular but not hugely popular. Why? Possibly because people don't want to pay that much for commercial-free HBO.

That's the issue. What a lot of people want is cheaper than they've traditionally paid AND commercial-free. All the other players in the chain want to make MORE money, not less. That can't be resolved without something having to give. If the masses ever move on that want and refuse to pay until they get it, quality and breadth & depth likely has to fall substantially. Imagine youtube-type programming where the show writer is also the actor is also the director is also the producer, etc.

Bottom line: either the consumer masses pay and/or there is some kind of subsidy model to make it so those masses can pay less directly... OR something else has to give. There is no magic solution to this problem... any more than whining about $1000 iPhones and expecting Apple roll them out for $200 without a subsidy model.

 

[scotty588]

Been a Philo subscriber for a few months now and I'm happy with it. I don't watch sports or any of the junky news networks. That said, Philo has been great. They have a lot of the channels I watch like Comedy Central, Discovery and Travel. I have a Channel Master Smartenna+ to pull in OTA channels and even though it's a expensive antenna, I face the wrong direction in my apartment so it's hit or miss.

The only streaming services in my area that provide the full local channel lineup are Vue ($$$) and Spectrum Stream. I refuse to pay Spectrum anymore money since their streaming service is deceptive. They advertise a special price ($21.99), which does not include broadcast fees or tax + I'm pretty sure that price is just for the first year (just like their internet). Yet they still call me every month trying to sell me on it and I tell them exactly what I just said. The line is recorded so hopefully their dumb sales and/or marketing people get it through their head.

 

[macduke]

Wow, this is amazing. We don't watch a lot of TV and looking at the $16/mo lineup it has everything my wife wants. We're currently grandfathered on DirecTV Now and have a huge channel lineup for only $35/mo but we don't watch most of them. Not even to mention that the few sports we get are usually blacked out so I can only watch out of network teams that I don't even care about. I'll try it out as soon as the Apple TV app is ready. Hopefully it works better than DirecTV Now, which shouldn't be difficult, although when I first tried Sling TV's streaming service before DirecTV Now was announced, it was even worse. So there's always room to go down, unfortunately.

 

[PastaPrimav]

I cut my family off from the idiocy of live TV. I told them anything they want to watch can be found on Netflix/Hulu/HBO/Starz/Prime/iTunes. If they can't find it there, tell me and I'll find it somewhere. But you're not watching commercials. Television advertising is poison, especially to impressionable people like all children and some adults.

No longer in my house is there a TV playing endlessly in the background with a litany of propaganda streaming into everyone's thoughts.

 

[Plutonius]

I'll stick with the $25.00 Sling package.

 

[expiredyogurt]

this is all i wanted in streaming, i want something that i can watch while it is live but i dont want to see ads. i only want to watch TV series and not sports so this really appeals to me. sucks that it took so long for someone to come up with this idea but it made me think that i am pretty smart and i should come up with some groundbreaking idea and get rich from it hmmh...

 

[burgman]

I cut my family off from the idiocy of live TV. I told them anything they want to watch can be found on Netflix/Hulu/HBO/Starz/Prime/iTunes. If they can't find it there, tell me and I'll find it somewhere. But you're not watching commercials. Television advertising is poison, especially to impressionable people like all children and some adults.

No longer in my house is there a TV playing endlessly in the background with a litany of propaganda streaming into everyone's thoughts.

Sometimes worse propaganda is generated in the home as seen on the news everyday.

 

[RobNYC]

This sounds good since I don't care about sports at all but I'd still like to have my local channels and news channels as well.

 

[masochist]

Your wish already exists and has for many years. Most everything one wants to watch is in the iTunes store, available to rent commercial-free. So why aren't all the "you's" doing that? (lecture snipped)

I do buy things from iTunes, actually. Please don’t make assumptions about your audience in your arguments. Please don’t put words in my mouth. There’s a difference between buying it after it’s been out for a while and watching it live. Also, lots of things (e.g. Black Mirror) just aren’t available on iTunes. Furthermore, some of the things that I’ve gotten through the store still had commercials, like a season of Archer. I was extremely annoyed about that.

That's the issue. What a lot of people want is cheaper than they've traditionally paid AND commercial-free. All the other players in the chain want to make MORE money, not less. That can't be resolved without something having to give. If the masses ever move on that want and refuse to pay until they get it, quality and breadth & depth likely has to fall substantially. Imagine youtube-type programming where the show writer is also the actor is also the director is also the producer, etc.

Bottom line: either the consumer masses pay and/or there is some kind of subsidy model to make it so those masses can pay less directly. Else, something else has to give. There is no magic solution to this problem... any more than whining about $1000 iPhones and expecting Apple roll them out for $200 without a subsidy model.

This is an awful lot of lecturing. It sounds like you’re emotionally invested in this topic. As for the YouTube thing, yeah, that’s most of the content I watch, actually. Lots of Let’s Players, for example, do it all themselves. And I’m fine with that. And they get my YouTube Red money every month.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Sorry, I was writing in generalizations to your post, not at or about you in particular. Many, many on here want lower price + commercial free. It comes up in every thread along these lines. My response is to try to make people think a little more deeply about that topic. There is NO way to get what "we" (as a group) collectively want without something being compromised. And that something is not some super fat profit margin that can simply be cut and everyone else in the chain still gets paid in full. There's also no way to let Apple pile in on top, take their margin and we somehow get a steep discount on our bill too.

We consumers are the source of the money that makes it all go. If we ever get what "we" say we want, we probably kill the golden goose instead of everyone else involved just sucking up the financial hit to keep on delivering the same quality, the same breadth & depth of programming, etc.

 

[nburwell]

This was a reminder to me that people are very different. The biggest issue preventing me from cord cutting is access to sports. Apparently, there are quite a few "anti-me's" around.

And this is why I subscribe to Playstation Vue. Would it not be for live sports, my wife and I would be completely fine with just Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video and HBO.

 

[PastaPrimav]

Sometimes worse propaganda is generated in the home as seen on the news everyday.

LOL yea ok. Keep on being a zombie created by the state.

 

[Swampthing]

I cut my family off from the idiocy of live TV. I told them anything they want to watch can be found on Netflix/Hulu/HBO/Starz/Prime/iTunes. If they can't find it there, tell me and I'll find it somewhere. But you're not watching commercials. Television advertising is poison, especially to impressionable people like all children and some adults.

No longer in my house is there a TV playing endlessly in the background with a litany of propaganda streaming into everyone's thoughts.

LOL... now they'll just be room for more endless streaming propaganda from music, religion, books, newspapers, and other sources. I haven't had cable since 2012. Six years in and no real regrets. You'll love it.

 

[CarlJ]

But you're not watching commercials. Television advertising is poison, especially to impressionable people like all children and some adults.

Poison is quite an overstatement. I grew up watching broadcast TV commercials, it didn't kill me. I also had a unit in elementary school on the strategies that advertisers use (bandwagon "everyone's jumping on this", celebrity/sports hero endorsement, including the toy in impossibly cool scenes you'll never replicate at home, etc.), and the problems with each strategy (why would a football player or actor have a more informed opinion on cars or floor wax anyway?), which was extremely effective - if you just wall them away from all advertising, rather than inoculating them against it, then they'll have no tools to resist ads when they finally see them (I've known kids who were "kept safe" from popular culture, growing up, and then became complete junkies when they got out on their own). It's better to minimize the ads and also be able to pick apart the ads you/they do see to understand the angles/tricks being used.
[doublepost=1524258651][/doublepost]

This was a reminder to me that people are very different. The biggest issue preventing me from cord cutting is access to sports. Apparently, there are quite a few "anti-me's" around.

I like watching the Olympics. I like participating in sports occasionally. I never really got the fascination in spending every weekend watching other people exercise. A comedian pointed out a long time ago that with all the players moving around from state to state, it isn't really even your home team (made of locally born/raised players) any more in most cases, so you're basically cheering for laundry.

 

[masochist]

Professional sports is tribalism. That's it, that's all it is. Very rarely is it actually about the game; instead it's about a sense of schadenfreude. And, like primitive tribes, people can get really violent about it.