Verizon to Take on DirecTV Now and Sling TV With New Streaming TV Package Launching This Summer

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I agree.

I also see comments about people wanting on-demand and live access to all current and past shows, commercial free for the price of Netflix. I find this very unrealistic, especially the commercial free part.

I remember when I first joined MR from another forum that was going under, most of the threads I participated in was about the (then rumored) ATV4, and the rumored Apple television service. Most of the comments were saying that it was too expensive (rumored $25-$35), too limited, and still a bundle package like the cable company.

People are delusional they think they will get access to all the networks tv shows for $10 a month. Or, access to a la carte networks for $0.99 a month commercial free.

Right but every thread fills with such comments anyway. I find it odd because these people around here seem generally pretty smart about most topics that get discussed. But this TV stuff seems to be best at setting collective common sense aside. And it's remarkably consistent over many years... as if we believe that if we keep whining for everything, commercial-free, for next to nothing, we'll get it... and maybe Apple can be the one to give it to us and get richer on their 30%+ cut too.

 

[Juicy Box]

CBS apparently doesn't have any deals with anyone. Even if you have cable, you still have to pay for all the stuff offered on the app.

*cough* Hulu

I don't think any current CBS shows are on Hulu. Which ones?

 

[Peel]

...Beyond that, over half of the channels they support don't offer their service as a method of authentication for the app based experience (which means no direct integration to Apple's "TV" app).

Thanks for the info. I've been looking at trying out thier service, and was wondering about this. Do you recall which apps will allow you to authenticate with DTVNow?

 

[nburwell]

Competition is good. I'm sure Comcast/Xfinity has something in works as well, especially since they don't want to be left out.

I'm currently with Playstation Vue and while I'm pretty happy with their service, but I'm anxious to see what Hulu and Verizon have to offer with their services.

 

[Mtmspa]

DTVN for $35 a month works for me. Would like more logins for other channels, but I see they are always adding more.

OTA with Tablo works great for local channels.

Both work great on my Apple TV.

 

[tasset]

Right but every thread fills with such comments anyway. I find it odd because these people around here seem generally pretty smart about most topics that get discussed. But this TV stuff seems to be best at setting collective common sense aside. And it's remarkably consistent over many years... as if we believe that if we keep whining for everything, commercial-free, for next to nothing, we'll get it... and maybe Apple can be the one to give it to us and get richer on their 30%+ cut too.

I understand that rationale, however, is it wrong for people to want high quality entertainment to be unbundled? It worked great for consumers in the age of music downloads no longer having to be constrained into purchasing the entire album. If you want a high-quality Mercedes sedan, must you also buy the Mercedes SUV? Each product should be able to stand on its own and make a profit, and if not should it be allowed to exist?
I would argue the same for TV. One should be able to select high-quality sports league on ESPN and not have to also purchase high-quality AMC drama if they choose not. Perhaps one or the other should not exist if they can not sustain producing content. You can even argue the content within one channel itself should be unbundled.
Now if you want to make an argument that people expect to receive ALL the high quality content at a fraction of the price, that I can totally agree with your analogy. But I dissent in continuing a shell game where one piece of content subsidizes another.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Thanks for the info. I've been looking at trying out thier service, and was wondering about this. Do you recall which apps will allow you to authenticate with DTVNow?

HBO Go did (but I already had HBO Now, had just been trying out to see if it meant I could drop the other) and Fox did. I know Food network and Comedy Central did not. Those are the ones I remember off the top of my head. If there are specifics you are interested in let me know and I'll look at those tonight.

 

[Juicy Box]

I understand that rationale, however, is it wrong for people to want high quality entertainment to be unbundled? It worked great for consumers in the age of music downloads no longer having to be constrained into purchasing the entire album. If you want a high-quality Mercedes sedan, must you also buy the Mercedes SUV? Each product should be able to stand on its own and make a profit, and if not should it be allowed to exist?

The MB analogy would work if at one point the sedan and SUV was bundled.

If you do a automobile analogy, it would be better to talk about all the individual parts that make up the Mercedes. You can buy the parts separate if you want to, and customize the car how you want it. Individually the parts would cost more, some parts would be subjectively more desirable, and some could be considered unnecessary. Similarly to how a la carte TV Channels would be.

You can even argue the content within one channel itself should be unbundled.

In many cases they already are in iTunes. You can buy whole series of many different TV shows.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I understand that rationale, however, is it wrong for people to want high quality entertainment to be unbundled?.

Did I say that? Or anything about that?

If you want a high-quality Mercedes sedan, must you also buy the Mercedes SUV?

Did I say that? Or anything about that?

But I dissent in continuing a shell game where one piece of content subsidizes another.

Did I say that? Or anything about that?

I would argue the same for TV. One should be able to select high-quality sports league on ESPN and not have to also purchase high-quality AMC drama if they choose not. Perhaps one or the other should not exist if they can not sustain producing content. You can even argue the content within one channel itself should be unbundled.

Did I write one word counter to this concept? Not one.

You are making up counterpoint to no point I made.

I also didn't argue that the sky is green or the earth is flat and so on.

Now if you want to make an argument that people expect to receive ALL the high quality content at a fraction of the price, that I can totally agree with your analogy.

That IS the issue I identified and basically faulted... not the other stuff you've brought up.

 

[dampfnudel]

Poor Verizon, all that pesky competition forcing it out of its comfort zone.

 

[RobNYC]

*cough* Hulu and YouTube TV *cough*
[doublepost=1490968160][/doublepost]
Optimum also doesn't have data caps (although they only serve the NYC Metro area).

Yeah but those are paid subscription services. If you already pay for cable you pretty much get access to most channels app and streaming services at no extra cost. I think CBS is the only over-the-air network that still charges you to gain access to their streaming stuff even if you already pay for cable tv.
[doublepost=1491054867][/doublepost]

That appears to be pretty generous pro-Apple spin. Rumor after rumor posted even on this very site about such deals pretty consistently pointed to the core problem which, to paraphrase one such partner in such deals, "Apple wanted everything" basically leaving next to nothing for partners. If true, that's not mutually beneficial... that's only Apple beneficial.

I have to think with Apple's great reach, ready distribution & subscription payment channels to hundreds of millions of potential subscribers, that any truly mutually beneficial deal would have been pounced upon by content-owning partners. Essentially, all one has to do is think: how does Playstation, Hulu, Youtube, AT&T, Sling, etc strike streaming subscription package deals when Apple can't get one done, yet Apple has more money & resources to throw at such a deal than pretty much any of them... probably ALL of them combined? If I was to guess- and that's exactly what I'm doing here- I would guess that all those players offered mutually beneficial deals to content owners and that's how their deals got done.

Not really. A lot of companies didn't want to relinquish control or have Apple control the user experience. This was back when Apple was still controlling what went on the Apple TV and was creating the apps themselves before they turned it over to the content providers. I think Apple thought they could come in like they did with digital music. The TV industry is a whole lot different and more complicated.

With things like Vue and others, they're still patchwork solutions they may not have everything you actually want and stuff you don't care about.