What's the big deal about an Apple TV streaming service?

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by Rogifan, Nov 5, 2015.

  1. Rogifan macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    I'm a DirecTV customer and my subscription includes pay channels like HBO and sports. Right now using the DirecTV iPad app I can watch every channel on my iPad outside my home except CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX and regional sports channels. Why then would I want to subscribe to streaming service from Apple or anyone else? Most likely it's not going to have all the channels I want and once I add on Netflix, HBO etc. subscriptions my bill is probably going to be close to what I'm paying right now. Unless someone offers a service that lets you choose the channels in your bundle I don't see what the big deal is. And if something like that ever came to fruition my guess is it would be extremely expensive.
     
  2. aneftp macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    #2
    If you are a cable, directv, fios dish etc. any streaming box isn't of much value to you.

    I have directv myself.

    But I have 2 fire sticks and a 2nd gen Amazon Fire tv and recently sold my Apple tv2 to get Apple TV 4.

    I am just a tech geek who buys everything.

    But the appeal is to cord cutters and also those who don't want to pay an extra $7-10 per cable box.

    Personally I put the Apple TV in my kids room. They don't need a cable box. I can stream live Disney channels etc. also can AirPlay movies from iTunes library from movies I rip from dvd so kids can watch.
     
  3. rmhop81 macrumors 68020

    rmhop81

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #3
    it really depends....we have time warner cable and can use roku and xbox one to run the twc tv app...which has all channels. I just wish they would make one for apple tv so i can get rid of all the roku boxes and replace with apple tv!
     
  4. Aluminum213 macrumors 68040

    Aluminum213

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    #4
    If you have cable not only would apple's live tv streaming service be worthless, but the Apple TV itself would be worthless
     
  5. 2010mini macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    #5
    I have fios and 2 Apple TVs. I use it to watch on demand as the ATV UI is way better than on my cable box. The worst thing about my tv service is the set top box!!!!

    As for the streaming service.... Dish network has reported that a large number of their subscribers already have and keep a cable tv subscription. Strange but true.
     
  6. Rogifan thread starter macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #6
    Not really. I've used apps on it already. And I prefer things native vs using AirPlay whenever possible.
     
  7. rmhop81 macrumors 68020

    rmhop81

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #7
    if Time warner cable would come out with their app for apple tv....i'd use the apple tv as a cable box in another room. currently have 3 roku's that run their app and act as a cable box for me. i can't wait for the day that i don't have to use a roku anymore. would love to have 4 apple tv's in the house all running the twctv app...would be perfect.
     
  8. seadragon Contributor

    seadragon

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #8
    It's all about Crossy Roads for me. LOL.. I'm kidding of course. :p

    I "cut the cord" over 2 years ago. I was paying about $100 per month for 300 (or whatever) channels, most of which were garbage and really only watched maybe 10 of them. Even then, I HATE watching commercials, so I was DVR'ing everything to watch offline. I also got rid of my landline phone that was costing me $50 per month and replaced it with voip.ms service which is $5 per month.

    After canceling those services, I knew I'd be streaming a lot so I went and got a really good fast internet service instead (150 down, 15 up, 400 GB/mo).

    Everything I watch now is streamed or on Blu-ray. The Apple TV 3 became my go to box for stuff. I also have a Mac-mini connected to my system that I use as a Plex and iTunes server. The Apple TV 4 has made things even better now that it has a Plex app and more content available via the app store.

    So, for me, I never want to go back to cable or satellite service. The Apple TV has served me well for the years I've been using it and I really am looking forward to the future on this device. I may also get a different streamer just for a bit more variety such as a Roku or something. The boxes are cheap compared to what I was paying for cable service.
     
  9. aneftp macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    #9
    Not exactly.

    Like I said. If u have kids and want to limit their TV exposure and also save money on the per month $7-10 HD box rental. Bright house cable in Orlando area charges me $8 I believe. The Apple TV pays for itself in 18 months roughly vs renting a cable box.

    And I have more flexibility to stream movies I rip from dvd to iTunes to stream to Apple TV b
     
  10. johntechwriter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Location:
    Somewhere west of Laramie
    #10
    Apple do not charge for a streaming service. Apple TV is a platform that lets you install -- as apps -- the streaming services (or "channels" in cable speak) you are subscribed to. Most streaming-enabled channels are available via Apple TV, but not all. They don't support arch-rival Amazon's Prime video service for example.

    (As a Prime customer, I get around this by running the Amazon video app on my iPad and use AirPlay to transfer the movie from my iPad to my TV via Apple TV. I do the same with YouTube. YouTube is a PITA to run on Apple TV but works great on iPad -- for searching and browsing, etc. So I run YT on my iPad and AirPlay it to my TV. It's beautifully integrated. I do the searching and browsing on the iPad and the content I play pops up on the TV.)

    Eventually a Apple WILL offer a bundled streaming service for a monthly fee. They're negotiating with the content producers right now and within a few months intend to offer Apple TV owners about the same variety of content as the cable companies offer now, including network television.

    The cable companies have had a monopoly until now on both the signal and the content, and used that monopoly to royally screw American consumers: for example, making us pay for garbage channels we'll never watch in order to get the ones we do.

    Because the Internet is the delivery medium for streaming channels, the cable companies have lost control of the signal and competitors like Apple are about to give us couch potatoes an opportunity to escape their greedy clutches.

    I haven't used cable in years because with Apple TV, a fast Internet connection, and access to other content via my iPad, I've got more quality programming at my fingertips than I know what to do with.

    But then, I don't watch football.

    Cable's last holdout is stick-and-ball sports. They've teamed up with NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. (via ESPN and other jock channels) to generate billions in revenue for the teams, the leagues, the advertisers, and of course themselves. All paid for by the poor schmuck with the $190/month cable bill and yet STILL has to endure endless commercials to get through a game.

    All that is about to change. Some day, maybe soon, maybe not, you'll be able to fire up your Apple TV, switch to the NFL app, and watch the day's games in real time. Because they're apps, you'll be able to watch games, movies, TV news, whatever, on your TV, your iPad, even your iPhone. If your home's WiFi network is healthy, Apple and other Internet content providers will free your viewing life from being packaged in the form of a giant ripoff by the cable industry.

    The cable industry is not taking this lying down. At this very moment they are fighting the FCC for control of the Internet. But they're not going to win because America's consumers now have a CHOICE and they're not going to give it up without a fight. (Unless the Republicans with in 2016, in which case all bets are off!)
     
  11. 2010mini macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    #11
    believe it or not... its not the cable companies that are forcing "channels you don't watch" on consumers. Its the content OWNERS: the studios and networks who force cable companies to purchase those channels. Cable companies get the blame and they get a pass.
     
  12. aneftp macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    #12
    Agree for the most part content owners.

    Fox forced cable companies to bundle different Fox channels. Espn/Disney did the same thing.

    Saying that. It's a symbiotic relationship between the cable company and content owners. They both need each other to generate money off the consumer.

    Dont forget ur local city and county either. Look at ur cable bill closely and see those little $1-5 nasty cable franchise fees added each month. So ur local city or county rely on easy tax revenue as well.

    Same thing happened as people start moving away from landlines to mobile. Cities lost easy tax revenue from landline fees and ur cell phone bill becomes the target for tax revenue. Some cities impose a $2-4 per line tax like Baltimore city does (or did) can't remember since I moved away 7 years ago
     
  13. Rigby macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #13
    Be glad that Time Warner offers an app for the Roku. Comcast doesn't provide their "Xfinity TV" on any streaming box (only mobile devices), because they want you to use their craptacular "X1" box.

    It doesn't matter much to me personally though, since my package has only local channels plus HBO (Go). I chose this package since Internet alone would have been roughly the same price, so basically they threw in HBO and the big networks for free. Since all major channels are available as cable-authenticated apps on Apple TV (both the old and the new one), I don't need Comcast's cable box at all and haven't even connected it (although I don't use the CBS app since they want to charge an extra $6 for their "all access" even though CBS is part of my cable package :rolleyes:). 90% of my entertainment comes from other sources such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO Go and iTunes.

    As for the rumored Apple streaming TV service, I agree with some of the previous posters. I don't see the point either. If it ever comes to pass, it will probably cost about the same as buying the same stuff through a cable company. The content owners will not just give away their content for cheap just because Apple wants a piece of the pie.
     
  14. HobeSoundDarryl, Nov 5, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2015

    HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #14
    OP, the answer is basically a math equation. How many channels do you watch and if all of those channels are available on any 2 services at about the same quality, which one charges the least? In this case, if one can get through the filter of whether 2 services have all the channels they feel they must have, they then need to factor in the broadband bill in a bundle (cable + broadband) vs. (any streaming pkg from anyone + unbundled broadband) AND the rental cost of some cable/satt boxes in multi-TV households vs. the one-time cost of set-top boxes. Essentially, it will come down to total cost vs. total cost if one feels all other variables are about equal.

    Myself? I bounce back & forth between Dish and Directv. Dish has their new offer of 190 channels with everything included for $49/month (see the "this is how we do it" commercials). Apple's rumored subscription product apparently has 30-40 channels for about $40/month. Conceptually, if I get all of my desired channels in the Apple package, I'll save $9/month. However, each channel I'd have to give up to go with the Apple package has some "opportunity cost" in them. It won't take many to wash the $9 savings.

    In broad generalizations, it's looking like the target price-per-channel in this streaming al-a-carte world seems to be about $5-$6/month (some much more and others less). If we reach a point where all channels are available that way, the math equation might be something like Dish 190 channels for $50 vs. Streaming Service favorite channels at about $5.50 each. 50/5.50 = about 9 channels. So the broad generalization is that if someone can be content with their chosen 9 channels or less, there may be some savings in the streaming option. Else, Satt (like the Dish example) and Cable will likely match any package of channels someone like Apple rolls out PLUS a few channels Apple leaves out and a bundled broadband deal that will win on total cost. If I'm them, that's what I do. The new streaming box challengers can't even deliver ONE show without having total dependency on "my" broadband pipe.

    There are those who talk about binge watching, basically adding and dropping channels rather than keeping channels year round as is generally done in the classic cable/satt model. They add a channel, binge watch the show they like, then drop that channel, paying as little as 1/12th of the annual bill for that channel. Then there are those who jump through a lot of hoops to "beat the system" where that victory vs. the classic model might actually net them $5-$20/month. Often what they have is a complicated jumble of hoops through which they jump, mixing stuff like airplay for some programming, trading off HD quality for some shows, not getting to see latest hit shows until a day or days after cable/satt people and so on. I think a lot of that works better for the tech-savvy single people, living alone than it would for the families where members of those families are not as good at jumping through the variety of hoops to make that work. Some sure work hard to squeeze $10 or $25 or $50/month out of this one bill... yet they'll pay more than that to take the family to the movies to watch one 90-minute "show".

    I look forward to seeing whatever Apple can put together. But it will have to be good to woo me away from Dish at $49/month for 190 channels even if my core favorite group of channels is a fraction of that 190. Maybe they will amaze us?
     
  15. natedagreat142 macrumors newbie

    natedagreat142

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2015
    Location:
    US
    #15
    Kinda ruined what was an amazing post with that last statement lol.
     
  16. rmhop81 macrumors 68020

    rmhop81

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #16
    oh definitely, i agree. But i've used apple tv forever to watch movies etc and like the OS. So i end up with a roku JUST for the TWC app...then watch everything else on apple tv. It's overkill, so i hope they will finally make one for the apple tv so i can just have that box only.
     
  17. Carmenia83 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    #17
    I had Time Warner for cable tv and Internet. Despite paying extra for "Turbo" internet (30 Mbps) I was only actually getting 3-5 Mbps, which was dropping my Netflix stream down to unwatchable quality. My only other option is FiOS internet but they don't offer tv service here. I ended up ditching TW and only have FiOS internet, so an Apple TV streaming package *could* be a huge deal if it's priced right and isn't inundated with ads like regular cable tv. Time will tell...
     

Share This Page