YouTube Working on 'Unplugged' TV Subscription Service for 2017 as Hulu Confirms Live TV Plans

[ironpony]

I stopped reading after seeing the word "Bundle"!
That is a bad word created by the cable/cord/fiber optic/ etc companies that people are tired of! The internet would do itself a service to create a new term. haha. Think tank - "people are tired of being tied to a bundle of channels they do not completely use, so lets offer them a" ... wait for it ... "bundle." haha. Now "Cloud DVR" is a term I like.

 

[thespacekid]

Do you still have to log into each channel using your cable TV login credentials? If so, it still has a problem.

 

[maxsix]

It's a little groan worthy that the most valuable company in the world has the wait for somebody else to solve the streaming TV problem.

So true.

It is odd that the Cupertino Co can't make anything happen. The wealthiest tech company on the planet, it must be because they are so greedy and demanding that no one wants to work with them.

They may be the 800 lb. Gorilla that's neutered.

 

[azentropy]

Like many, the only things I really care about seeing "live" is sports and maybe some news events (not the news itself). Pretty much everything else I watch I DVR anyway and watch when I want to. So for any solution to work for me to move me away from DirecTV would have to include live sports on multiple tv's at the same time. (so ESPN, Tennis Channel, MLB Network and most importantly my regional sports network). SlingTV almost has it, since they added some multi-streaming and FOX RSN, but doesn't include ESPN.

 

[T-R-S]

$35.00/ Month - looks like the cable companies just want to maintain their 40 year old business model. "Reluctant to unbundle" That only proves that the cable companies are selling an overpriced product. Selling a product at a high price then charging millions of dollars for advertising on top of it. SORRY I am and NOT PAYING to watch commercials - if you what to sell commercials that's Ok then just give it to me. You can't have your cake and eat it too forever.

 

[Lemon Mac]

US TV Cable companies, LOL!

 

[SFamilyRep]

How is Hulu and Youtube able to do this when the talks with Apple fell through?

It's called being black balled. Smh

 

[malexandria]

Actually, it kind of works for some now because so (relatively) few actually play the full cord cutting game. If the masses moved on it, it would be killed with pricing shifts to preserve the existing revenue & profit streams and then some. The only way it could really happen as often dreamed about around here is if the average household was ready to lay out quite a bit more than they do now... for less channels (but the ones they want). Kill the commercials and each household needs to chip in at least $54/month just to make up that revenue (which currently is not coming out of our pockets but is instead paid for by other people). Cut Apple in and add 30% to the top for Apple.

We on the other hand, look at Netflix and Hulu and think that maybe we can get everything for nearly nothing on a mass scale. Yet we ignore that Apple already has an al-a-carte, commercial free service available... for years now. The shows & movies are priced for exactly that kind of consumption. The problem. The masses don't want to pay that much for THAT version of al-a-carte.

Instead, some think we will somehow get to go from paying about $90 for triple play packages but get everything we want to watch and cut Apple in for their 30%... maybe killing the commercial subsidy... and have the very players that would have to eat the bulk of that revenue & profit loss also have 100% control of the pipes on which Apple's replacement would entirely depend... and yet they would just roll over and let Apple have it anyway.

For a generally smart group on most topics around here, we can seem about dumb as rocks on this particular topic. I suspect it's that we just don't understand the many variables in play that work both for and against us consumers... but especially the "for" part.

Exactly. People who keep advocating for ala cart assume that some how channels will be $2 or something and or don't watch much television to begin with - hence the whine - "I don't want to pay for stuff I don't watch." However as the appification of everything proves. AlaCart only means instead of paying an additional $50 or $60 for a package of 200 channels. We'll end up paying $10 or $15 just to get Disney properties, or $25 for your ESPN Sports Packages (which wouldn't included the NFL Network since they are owned by different companies.). As someone who likes a bunch of different shows that are spread out over 10 or 15 channels, there's no way ala carte would ever be cheaper.

The only way AlaCarte would be cheaper is if all the Networks let Cable companies sell pick your own channel packages. So pick 15 Channels (anyone you want) and pay $30 or $40 a month. No way would cable companies EVER let cable companies do that.

For me, Cable is a good value, most companies offer deals of $90 for Triple play stuff (I pay $150 because I have all the dumb pay channels that I never watch) that includes a couple of hundred channels, "blast" broadband and a lot of cable companies offer access to the apps for free. I don't understand all the constant complaining about the "price."

If I were to go Broadband only, my Broadband rate would go up to $80 a month AND I wouldn't have any cable. None of these TV Cable acts work unless you have a subscription or pay $10 a month. So essentially I'm only paying $60 a month for a lot of entertainment (and if I ever get around to cutting the Premium channels, then I'm only paying $20 or $30).

This would of course be different if I lived in one of these rare areas where there is competition in broadband and I could get it for $40 a month. Then I'd cut cable in a NY Minute. But as long as I can only get my broadband through Xfinity I can't cut cable.

 

[NewZealandGala]

How is Hulu and Youtube able to do this when the talks with Apple fell through?

Hulu is a joint venture of NBC Universal, Disney and Fox, so they were able to pretty much pull the deal together in-house.

 

[apnance]

Traditional cable is dead. The writing has increasingly been on the wall for a few years now, and this will no doubt be a huge catalyst. Crazy times!

Yeah, on the other hand $40/month(for what sounds like will be fairly limited selection of channels) combined with a Netflix subscription, an Amazon subscription, HBO now, etc. is starting to feel a lot like like we're paying premium cable prices again, just paying to a bunch of companies rather than one. I know someone's going to say you don't have buy these services, but you also don't have to buy the extended cable packages and basic cable packages run as low as $19-30, so really where is the benefit?

Give me true a la carte pricing, let me choose the exact channels I want and I'll happily pay $3-5/month/channel depending on the channel.

¡Viva la Evolución!

 

[tizeye]

For me, Cable is a good value, most companies offer deals of $90 for Triple play stuff (I pay $150 because I have all the dumb pay channels that I never watch) that includes a couple of hundred channels, "blast" broadband and a lot of cable companies offer access to the apps for free. I don't understand all the constant complaining about the "price."

If I were to go Broadband only, my Broadband rate would go up to $80 a month AND I wouldn't have any cable. None of these TV Cable acts work unless you have a subscription or pay $10 a month. So essentially I'm only paying $60 a month for a lot of entertainment (and if I ever get around to cutting the Premium channels, then I'm only paying $20 or $30).

This would of course be different if I lived in one of these rare areas where there is competition in broadband and I could get it for $40 a month. Then I'd cut cable in a NY Minute. But as long as I can only get my broadband through Xfinity I can't cut cable.

THIS! Discussion of cutting the cable universally ignore the other half of the equation - WIFI to actually receive it, and for high def and 4K programming, forget about low capacity offerings from the phone company. Cable is about the only game in town.

Was receiving DirectTV (never again) and Comcast Wifi combination until both's intro offers expired and full pricing hit, was able to get some reduction after groveling before the DirectTV/Comcast gods to complete the 2 year obligation on DirectTV. When that expired had to choose $80/mo for Wifi only or $90/mo (plus equipment charges similar to DirectTV) for the same 75mbps extreme high speed wifi plus the 200+ channel Xfinity, including HBO (or alternately, Showtime) not for intro 3 months intro, but the full 2 years. That was a no-brainer for only $10 more.

Now look at these discussions of Apple/YouTube/Hulu offering packages in the $40 range, and you still have $80/mo full charge for the broadband to even receive them. I will take $10 any day!

Broadband competition? I have it with neighborhood dually wired for Comcast and Brighthouse. I use to play the specials, as one would expire switch to the competitors broadband special, but Brighthouse quit the unbundles broadband option. Needless to say, I compared the two bundled specials and Comcast came out better, but they were close.

While I am fortunate, even if there is 2 or more companies in the area creating competition, many people don't have the infrastructure in their neighborhood and are tied into one provider. I am the same way with phone as the city is split, the original BellSouth territory after re-organization is now AT&T, while the other independent (where I am) after mergers and takeovers, is now Sprint/CenturyLink. Even if AT&T had a good deal, I couldn't get it! CenturyLink hasn't upgraded the wires in my neighborhood to fiber optic, so I am relegated to the slower wired speed of around 5 mbps. Even if upgraded, both CenturyLink and AT&T max out at around 15 mbps...which is well short of Comcast 75 mbps. Cable for broadband is about the only game in town for efficiently streaming video!

 

[malexandria]

THIS! Discussion of cutting the cable universally ignore the other half of the equation - WIFI to actually receive it, and for high def and 4K programming, forget about low capacity offerings from the phone company. Cable is about the only game in town.

Was receiving DirectTV (never again) and Comcast Wifi combination until both's intro offers expired and full pricing hit, was able to get some reduction after groveling before the DirectTV/Comcast gods to complete the 2 year obligation on DirectTV. When that expired had to choose $80/mo for Wifi only or $90/mo (plus equipment charges similar to DirectTV) for the same 75mbps extreme high speed wifi plus the 200+ channel Xfinity, including HBO (or alternately, Showtime) not for intro 3 months intro, but the full 2 years. That was a no-brainer for only $10 more.

Now look at these discussions of Apple/YouTube/Hulu offering packages in the $40 range, and you still have $80/mo full charge for the broadband to even receive them. I will take $10 any day!

Broadband competition? I have it with neighborhood dually wired for Comcast and Brighthouse. I use to play the specials, as one would expire switch to the competitors broadband special, but Brighthouse quit the unbundles broadband option. Needless to say, I compared the two bundled specials and Comcast came out better, but they were close.

While I am fortunate, even if there is 2 or more companies in the area creating competition, many people don't have the infrastructure in their neighborhood and are tied into one provider. I am the same way with phone as the city is split, the original BellSouth territory after re-organization is now AT&T, while the other independent (where I am) after mergers and takeovers, is now Sprint/CenturyLink. Even if AT&T had a good deal, I couldn't get it! CenturyLink hasn't upgraded the wires in my neighborhood to fiber optic, so I am relegated to the slower wired speed of around 5 mbps. Even if upgraded, both CenturyLink and AT&T max out at around 15 mbps...which is well short of Comcast 75 mbps. Cable for broadband is about the only game in town for efficiently streaming video!

That's what amazes me, people who constantly talk about cutting cable never mention how much their Broadband is. Like you Xfinity charges $80 for their blast service.

 

[thomasguide]

It is unfortunate that while many channels have 1 or 2 shows worth watching, no channel has $15 a month worth of shows to watch. Certainly not for 12 monthly payments. For myself, HBO is worth the fee when Game of Thrones or The Leftovers is on, but at no other time. I don't know what the answer is, I just hope there is still enough money around to make shows like Game of Thrones when all these channels die.

The answer is $25 a month and you pick your own channels, but these guys are too greedy and that won't ever happen.
[doublepost=1462813591][/doublepost]

The "channels" like CBS and NBC are liking the app concept along with streaming, because they can force viewers to watch ads. Media owners can set rules on how their content is viewed, and not viewed, by setting timeframes on its availability. HBO can allow you to watch "Trainwreck" now, but not after August 31, for instance. A cable plan and a proper DVR (TiVo), allows me to record programs and keep them as long as I like. I can also skip ads.
This is a big deal. The Supreme Court has ruled on recording programs and skipping commercials in the past.
Many Network TV show ads hog up a high percentage of the program's length. They are wasting my time by showing me stuff I'd never buy. And they show me that stuff over and over and over.
I'll keep my cable TV subscription, and grumble about the cost. I won't waste 24 minutes out of an hour watching a TV show.

I do that too, except I use Hulu and Netflix I pay the extra $4 for Hulu and don't watch ads either. It's still way cheaper than any cable bundle. I don't care for sports so it works for me.
[doublepost=1462813934][/doublepost]

I don't know how you cable cutters do it. I can only get broadband through my cable company and if I cut Cable, my broadband only rate would be $80 a month.

If you throw in cable tv your bill would be more than $80 how long will that intro rate last? Or how long will those monthly credits apply to your bill? After 6 months or a year you're looking at $150 a month. That's what it was with directv when I dumped them. They are the worst offenders with this monthly credits scam they got going on.

 

[libmanj]

I actually think the currently available Sling TV has exactly the channels I want. They just don't have a DVR/on Demand option, so I'm not interested as of yet.

 

[thomasguide]

What?

Have you seen Dish's $50 flat fee offer? http://www.dish.com/searchpricelock/?WT.srch=1&WT.tsrc=Paid Search&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=Bing&utm_campaign=PaceCar Priority - Dish Network Promotions Broad&utm_term=+dish network promotions&kcid=19df1ec5-9c09-46ff-849a-baee284f3fcc&pid=4|480442&match=b&RP=SEM159541&KBID=8886127794&WT.mc_id=BSBN1901_24552

What happens when your 2 years are up? Then it goes to something like $160 a month. Are you still willing to pay for channels you don't watch at that rate? If the $50 a month was the permanent price then I think most people wouldn't care for an a la carte system. Then you have to play the game with them, threaten to cancel and they will give you discounts. But that only lasts for a little while or until you get tired of calling them.
[doublepost=1462814929][/doublepost]

YouTube (Google) and Hulu making an end run around Apple. Apple has been rumored to be working on this since before Job's death. They still haven't been able to make it work but their competitors now seem to be moving closer. It makes the Apple leadership and their salesmanship appear to be deficient, lacking competence or having too much arrogance.

I'm becoming more disillusioned with Apple. I just hate the alternatives more... right now.

This is not complicated, as it stands now the networks and content providers don't need Apple. It as simple as that. They have the shows, they have channels, they get revenue from Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, cable and satellite. This is not like the music industry, Apple TV is nothing more than a hobby at this point. No one needs Apple TV, there are plenty of options to get streaming shows Roku, Amazon, Google, computers, and even cable/sat apps. Apple is no position to demand anything. This is why there is no deal, Apple wants more revenue and the studios don't really have to give it them.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

What happens when your 2 years are up? Then it goes to something like $160 a month. Are you still willing to pay for channels you don't watch at that rate? If the $50 a month was the permanent price then I think most people wouldn't care for an a la carte system. Then you have to play the game with them, threaten to cancel and they will give you discounts. But that only lasts for a little while or until you get tired of calling them.

When my 2 years is up, I have no further obligation. So whatever the next best option is at that time, I can take it. No games, no threatening to cancel. It's just the end of that term. If the next best option is this al-a-carte dream where Apple is the new DISH/Comcast, I can jump on it then. If it's DISH, again I can go with them. The point is not the hassle potential at the end of promotional periods. The point is that in whatever an Apple might roll out vs. this Youtube rollout vs. this Hulu rollout, does some $40/month skinny bundle of maybe 30-40 channels picked by some corporation actually compete with:

• 150+ channels +
• HD DVR +
• no broadband caps/tier worries +
• live sports & local channels at +
• full(er) HD quality vs. risk of over-compression +
• Dish Anywhere-type apps that makes all that "just work" with our iDevices + when we are away from home
• an on-screen guide that shows everything available now instead of having to just know what I want to watch (new show discovery is pretty hard in that mindset) and hopping app to app to app trying to find it

...at only $10 or so dollars more? There must be a threshold where somebody weighs some "skinny bundle" concept that is really just Cable Jr vs. full Cable and decides that the extra $10 or $15 dollars IS worth the other 180 channels "I never watch" + DVR + (list above).

And nobody actually pays for channels they don't watch. If you want to allocate what you pay each month, it's paying for whatever you actually do watch. Most of what some would call "junk" channels are bundled in not to squeeze another nickel or dime out of us subscribers but to make more money from the commercials that are sold to run on those channels. Some- even many- PAY the distributor to be included in a bundle. That does NOT come out of my or your pocket but it flows OPM revenue through the model, some of which chips in on the stuff you and I do want to watch. Kill THAT golden goose and you kill a whole bunch of money that might contribute to the budget of whatever you do like.

At the same time, if we also get our much-desired "huge discount," we suck another source of revenue out of the flow. How we generally smart people can believe that stripping out the bulk of the revenues in both ways but then all of what we do want will keep right on coming... at the same quality... and all of what we will want to become favorites in the future will still get piloted... and Apple can get their 30% too... and Cable who is also broadband provider will just let an Apple have it even though Apple cant deliver 1 second of video unless Cable's broadband pipe lets them... is beyond me.

 

[thomasguide]

When my 2 years is up, I have no further obligation. So whatever the next best option is at that time, I can take it. No games, no threatening to cancel. It's just the end of that term. If the next best option is this al-a-carte dream where Apple is the new DISH/Comcast, I can jump on it then. If it's DISH, again I can go with them. The point is not the hassle potential at the end of promotional periods. The point is that in whatever an Apple might roll out vs. this Youtube rollout vs. this Hulu rollout, does some $40/month skinny bundle of maybe 30-40 channels picked by some corporation actually compete with:

• 150+ channels +
• HD DVR +
• no broadband caps/tier worries +
• live sports & local channels at +
• full(er) HD quality vs. risk of over-compression +
• Dish Anywhere-type apps that makes all that "just work" with our iDevices + when we are away from home
• an on-screen guide that shows everything available now instead of having to just know what I want to watch (new show discovery is pretty hard in that mindset) and hopping app to app to app trying to find it

...at only $10 or so dollars more? There must be a threshold where somebody weighs some "skinny bundle" concept that is really just Cable Jr vs. full Cable and decides that the extra $10 or $15 dollars IS worth the other 180 channels "I never watch" + DVR + (list above).

And nobody actually pays for channels they don't watch. If you want to allocate what you pay each month, it's paying for whatever you actually do watch. Most of what some would call "junk" channels are bundled in not to squeeze another nickel or dime out of us subscribers but to make more money from the commercials that are sold to run on those channels. Some- even many- PAY the distributor to be included in a bundle. That does NOT come out of my or your pocket but it flows OPM revenue through the model, some of which chips in on the stuff you and I do want to watch. Kill THAT golden goose and you kill a whole bunch of money that might contribute to the budget of whatever you do like.

At the same time, if we also get our much-desired "huge discount," we suck another source of revenue out of the flow. How we generally smart people can believe that stripping out the bulk of the revenues in both ways but then all of what we do want will keep right on coming... at the same quality... and all of what we will want to become favorites in the future will still get piloted... and Apple can get their 30% too... and Cable who is also broadband provider will just let an Apple have it even though Apple cant deliver 1 second of video unless Cable's broadband pipe lets them... is beyond me.

Dish is not going to give you that same deal after your 2 years are up. That is an intro rate to lock you into a 2 year contract then jack up your rate after the intro period is over. Chances are you won't finding anything like that again and yes you can cancel your service at that point. Then what? Even if they are still offering the same deal, you won't qualify for it because you are an existing customer. The point is people want something that is affordable and not have a spiking bill at the end of the 2 years. Most people don't like switching providers, it's a hassle. If you can get a good price then most people wouldn't care about the crap channels. The problem is these guys want to bundle all those channels to increase their ad revenue, but they are also increasing your monthly payment. There is a breaking point to how much people are willing to pay, your breaking point maybe $50 to someone else it's $150 and to others is $10 for Netflix or bust.

If ala carte is priced right then that will work. If everyone decides to price their apps like HBO then a la carte tv will be doa.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I suggest you go look at the deal. It is NOT one of those classic promotional rates that then jumps up after a period of time while you're "locked in." The term is 2 years. The pricing is for 2 years. That's the POINT of what makes it stand out from those kinds of deals... AND compete with these "skinny bundle" concepts.

And frankly, if they don't offer something like that again... or if anyone has something to offer that is even better... I am completely free to do whatever I want for television in 2 years.

And if we are going to talk about what "most people" like or don't like, it appears that most people don't like the al-a-carte, commercial free service that Apple has already been offering for many years now. And they don't appear to be running all over each other to jump on some "skinny bundles" that are already out there. And the "future of television" that involves having to hop app to app instead of having a simple channel guide that works across all apps doesn't seem to be drawing them in in droves either.

I could argue that "it's a hassle" to make existing cord-cutting options work, except for those who are single living alone or maybe some hive of all tech-savvy people that can jump through some hoops to get at what they want to watch. I've seen nothing that is as "for dummies", "just works" simple as certain "status quo" options, most notably an on-screen guide and DVR combo.

Do I have an Apple TV? Yes, several of them. They're great. Am I tech savvy? Certainly. Could I make cord cutting work pretty well for me? Certainly. But I don't want the "hassles", the sacrifice of video quality, the jumping through hoops, the one-or-more-day delays for some shows, the lack of live sports important to me, etc to save even $50/month. In THIS example, the "savings" might be as little as $10 or $15, but there is a lot of sacrificing to only "save" $10 or $15.

Al-a-carte is already DOA. All of what all of us want to watch can't be made at the same quality & breadth & depth if we all get commercial-free at pennies on the dollar. Personally, I think Apple ALREADY took best shot at that dream. The pricing of the existing Apple al-a-carte/commercial-free is apparently low enough to "just work". So why doesn't it rule as "new model extraordinaire"? Because "we" keep thinking that there is a Netflix-like pricing model that can be applied to the A-list, brand new programming + live sports, etc... maybe even without commercials... and we can actually get that... and Apple can have their 30% too... and Cable broadband will just let an Apple take their Cable Subscription revenues without doing anything to make up for those revenue losses.

I can certainly wish right with "most people" that we can get everything we could want to watch, even commercial-free, for next to nothing. But those same "most people" would like the next iPhone to cost next to nothing too... and Macs... and iPads, etc. Both "most people" wants probably have an equal chance of being realized.

 

[thomasguide]

I suggest you go look at the deal. It is NOT one of those classic promotional rates that then jumps up after a period of time while you're "locked in." The term is 2 years. The pricing is for 2 years. That's the POINT of what makes it stand out from those kinds of deals... AND compete with these "skinny bundle" concepts.

And frankly, if they don't offer something like that again... or if anyone has something to offer that is even better... I am completely free to do whatever I want for television in 2 years.

And if we are going to talk about what "most people" like or don't like, it appears that most people don't like the al-a-carte, commercial free service that Apple has already been offering for many years now. And they don't appear to be running all over each other to jump on some "skinny bundles" that are already out there. And the "future of television" that involves having to hop app to app instead of having a simple channel guide that works across all apps doesn't seem to be drawing them in in droves either.

I could argue that "it's a hassle" to make existing cord-cutting options work, except for those who are single living alone or maybe some hive of all tech-savvy people that can jump through some hoops to get at what they want to watch. I've seen nothing that is as "for dummies", "just works" simple as certain "status quo" options, most notably an on-screen guide and DVR combo.

Do I have an Apple TV? Yes, several of them. They're great. Am I tech savvy? Certainly. Could I make cord cutting work pretty well for me? Certainly. But I don't want the "hassles", the sacrifice of video quality, the jumping through hoops, the one-or-more-day delays for some shows, the lack of live sports important to me, etc to save even $50/month. In THIS example, the "savings" might be as little as $10 or $15, but there is a lot of sacrificing to only "save" $10 or $15.

Al-a-carte is already DOA. All of what all of us want to watch can't be made at the same quality & breadth & depth if we all get commercial-free at pennies on the dollar. Personally, I think Apple ALREADY took best shot at that dream. The pricing of the existing Apple al-a-carte/commercial-free is apparently low enough to "just work". So why doesn't it rule as "new model extraordinaire"? Because "we" keep thinking that there is a Netflix-like pricing model that can be applied to the A-list, brand new programming + live sports, etc... maybe even without commercials... and we can actually get that... and Apple can have their 30% too... and Cable broadband will just let an Apple take their Cable Subscription revenues without doing anything to make up for those revenue losses.

I can certainly wish right with "most people" that we can get everything we could want to watch, even commercial-free, for next to nothing. But those same "most people" would like the next iPhone to cost next to nothing too... and Macs... and iPads, etc. Both "most people" wants probably have an equal chance of being realized.

You're just stubborn and will never see it any other way except your own. You and your type of thinking is why cable is where its at today. Lack of vision, staying with the status quo because it's convenient. Keep paying for satellite, they need your money to provide quality shows that I can watch at a fraction of what you pay and without commercials.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I could write most of that right back to you: stubborn, see it only your way, etc. I did acknowledge that I'd love to have it exactly as commonly dreamed but I recognize that that is fools gold. All of the other players- including Apple- don't want the monthly revenue stream to fall from an average of about $73 to $5 or $10 or $25/month. Nobody else in the chain wants that. Nobody.

We have deluded ourselves into an idea that we can get Netflix pricing applied to maybe Apple's entire video library offerings. We can't. Again, NOBODY else int he chain wants to do that. And they don't HAVE to do that. And even if most of the other players could be motivated to do that, the last mile or more between some "the future" alternative and our TV screens is completely controlled by the Cable company.

You enjoy what shows you can watch at a fraction of the cost I pay. I'll enjoy watching many of those shows when they firs air, so that I'm ready to talk about them with friends immediately after airing... rather than having to wait hours or up to the next day(s) to see them. I'll enjoy watching them at a generally higher HD quality instead of something less than that. I'll enjoy watching live sports that I like to watch, local programming, etc. I'll enjoy being able to easily find new shows that might become future "must watch shows" using a simple on-screen guide instead of having to somehow hear about the new show and then figure out which app offers it and remembering to go into that app when new episodes are available.

Oh, and my family enjoys "just works" simplicity of finding a quick answer to everything that's on right now, and easy access to what they've recorded on the DVR whether at home or on the road somewhere... without needing lessons in how to hop from app to app, streaming device to streaming device, input port to input port, etc to get at whatever they want to watch.

Yes, that may cost me more- apparently a lot more than you pay- but then again, I am Apple guy: lowest possible price is pretty much never the primary driver of my purchase decisions.

Bottom line: to each his own. If you & yours are happy with this part of your life, I'm happy for you. It just doesn't convince me that it's what's best for me & mine... even if it can "save" me $10 or $15/month vs. other appealing offers out there right now.

 

[Dmunjal]

I could write most of that right back to you: stubborn, see it only your way, etc. I did acknowledge that I'd love to have it exactly as commonly dreamed but I recognize that that is fools gold. All of the other players- including Apple- don't want the monthly revenue stream to fall from an average of about $73 to $5 or $10 or $25/month. Nobody else in the chain wants that. Nobody.

We have deluded ourselves into an idea that we can get Netflix pricing applied to maybe Apple's entire video library offerings. We can't. Again, NOBODY else int he chain wants to do that. And they don't HAVE to do that. And even if most of the other players could be motivated to do that, the last mile or more between some "the future" alternative and our TV screens is completely controlled by the Cable company.

You enjoy what shows you can watch at a fraction of the cost I pay. I'll enjoy watching many of those shows when they firs air, so that I'm ready to talk about them with friends immediately after airing... rather than having to wait hours or up to the next day(s) to see them. I'll enjoy watching them at a generally higher HD quality instead of something less than that. I'll enjoy watching live sports that I like to watch, local programming, etc. I'll enjoy being able to easily find new shows that might become future "must watch shows" using a simple on-screen guide instead of having to somehow hear about the new show and then figure out which app offers it and remembering to go into that app when new episodes are available.

Oh, and my family enjoys "just works" simplicity of finding a quick answer to everything that's on right now, and easy access to what they've recorded on the DVR whether at home or on the road somewhere... without needing lessons in how to hop from app to app, streaming device to streaming device, input port to input port, etc to get at whatever they want to watch.

Yes, that may cost me more- apparently a lot more than you pay- but then again, I am Apple guy: lowest possible price is pretty much never the primary driver of my purchase decisions.

Bottom line: to each his own. If you & yours are happy with this part of your life, I'm happy for you. It just doesn't convince me that it's what's best for me & mine... even if it can "save" me $10 or $15/month vs. other appealing offers out there right now.

Here's my example of cutting the cord.

DirecTV with four DVRs with HBO was $150 a month for their mid level package. This includes the fees for HD, DVR, and regional sports. I've been with them for 15 years.

I switched to Playstation VUE for $45 a month plus $17 for HBO Now. That almost $100 a month in savings, not $10-15.

I did have to make an initial investment in 2 Amazon Fire TV boxes and 2 Fire TV sticks. But if you have a playstation or iOS device, you don't need them. The WAF is pretty high and even the kids haven't noticed any difference.

I think the time has come to cut the cord.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yes, I get that. But extreme cost deals like that are not the ONLY deals out there. One could write a post about abandoning Apple everything and replacing it all with similar, but much cheaper products too... Even to the extreme.

Good for you if you are happy with what you have there. The Vue deal can be a good one. It doesn't do it for me though. Right now I pay about $80 for a DISH bundle. I also have TVs for the many joys in that. But I'm just a few months from getting the same for $50 to maybe $65/month. Meanwhile,all of these 'skinny bundle" rumors seem to be revolving around an approx $40/month price point.

My viewpoint is the "150 channels I never watch" looks different when the difference is $10 or $20 vs economics like you just shared... Especially when one then factors in the niceties of a HD DVR, a real channel guide, live sports on just about all the live sports channels, higher quality HD video, and on and on.

If my "deal" was $150/month (like yours was) vs. say the Vue deal, I'd see this differently. But the extremes are not the ONLY deals in town.

 

[Dmunjal]

If my "deal" was $150/month (like yours was) vs. say the Vue deal, I'd see this differently. But the extremes are not the ONLY deals in town.

If my satellite service with 4 dvrs was less than $100, I would probably keep it. It was 15 years ago when I was paying about $75. It has more than doubled in that time and I'm no longer willing to spend that kind of money.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Again, I get it. If my economics were yours, I'd be less interested in sticking with "the old" solution.

Things are changing though. Maybe the subset of real cord cutters have players like DISH reworking packages & pricing? Whatever brings the best value in individual eye-of-the-beholder ways. You like your's? Great. I like mine. Great too. Choices are good. Capitalism can actually work with enough competition.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I don't think there is a point to the many literal channels on a cable box. For example, with HBO channels on cable, there is HBO, HBO2, HBO Comedy, HBO Family, HBO Latino, HBO Signature, and HBO Zone. None of those distinctions matter - it's all owned by HBO and all available on HBONow. That is what I mean by channels are pointless.

From a purely pragmatic stance channels are the only way OTA TV works so they are 100% still relevant for that reason alone. Channels are also the easiest way for cable/sat TV to work in it's current form. The concept of channels doesn't go away when we talking about streaming services either. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Vudu, HBO Now, etc., are all basically channels and if someone could offer all of these services combined for a price lower than subscribing to them individually we'd have the OTT version of a cable bundle. Netflix doesn't want you to watch Daredevil and then skip over to Amazon to watch Man in the High Castle anymore than FOX wants you to jump over to HBO after watching the Simpsons. Same concepts, just a different delivery 'channel' (sorry, couldn't help myself).

If ala carte is priced right then that will work. If everyone decides to price their apps like HBO then a la carte tv will be doa.

But that's the thing, what is "priced right"? A lot of what I read in this forum and others is people want to pay a buck or two and get a ton of content and that's just not how it works. People are looking at their monthly cable bill, dividing it by the number of channels they have and going "Ah, ha! it's $0.50 per channel (or whatever) so I should only have to pay a little more than that for the channel in an a la carte model" and that logic is just completely wrong and fundamentally flawed. The pricing we see from HBO, WWE, Starz, CBS, Hulu, MLB, UFC, etc., is what we can expect from everyone else. HBO is more expensive because HBO can afford to be more expensive and still get customers. Who's going to be the network to lowball everyone else in an effort to drive prices down? Who wants to voluntarily make less money for doing more work and taking more risk (which is what these companies are doing by offering these OTT services)?

As HobeSoundDarryl has mentioned many times Apple (and Amazon) have had a la carte pricing on shows for years but people complain because it's too expensive, but a la carte is always more expensive than buying a 'bundle'. If you buy one Coke it has a higher per unit cost than if you buy a 12 pack, and a 12 pack has a higher per unit cost than if you buy a 24 pack.