# Apple TV Plus



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

It looks interesting and has taken a long time for them to actually bring it out.

Apple introduces Apple TV Plus for its original shows


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Yeah a lot of big stars. But no details on price yet so I really didn't learn anything new about it from the event they held. Already heard they signed up famous stars and creators like spielberg and Oprah.

Their strategy seems....safe I guess.

Their updated TV app lets you subscribe to services like Showtime or HBO right in the app by clicking on a show. They got a few OTT services as part of the app. One of bullet points of the TV app was ad-free so I don't know where the OTT services fit in with that bullet pt exactly. Anyway nothing earth shattering or new really on that front either.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

The price: TBA.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Basically, Apple is following Amazon's playbook here. The new Apple TV app will live not just on Apple hardware but (surprisingly, to me) also on Roku, Fire TV and all major brands of smart TVs. Just like the Prime Video app exists across platforms and is home to the Prime Video SVOD, the Apple TV app will be home to the Apple TV+ SVOD. Just like the Prime Video app gives you access to the content you've rented or purchased from Amazon (via their website or an Amazon device), the Apple TV app will do the same for your iTunes video library. Just like the Prime Video app integrates add-on subscriptions from Amazon Channels in with your Prime Video content, the Apple TV app will integrate Apple TV Channels add-on subscriptions (from basically the same sources as Amazon offers) in with your Apple TV+ content. (Although it looks like you won't be required to have an Apple TV+ subscription to subscribe to Apple TV Channels the way that you must first have a Prime Video subscription in order to subscribe to Amazon Channels.)

As JoeKustra points out, the big unanswered Q about Apple TV+ is the price. Given the small amount of content (premium ad-free stuff, presumably in 4K HDR) that it will have -- only new exclusive originals, no back catalog, no theatrical films -- *$5/mo* seems like a realistic price. But knowing Apple, they might try to price it up at $10, or maybe the same as Disney+ (expected to be $6-8), which will launch about the same time. If so, it won't fly. And they should offer an extended free trial (e.g. 3 months) to get folks hooked, especially if the model is to roll out new episodes on a weekly basis rather than dump entire seasons at once. We'll see...


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

Biggest question for me is what's the go-to-market strategy? Obviously they are building their own streaming service and have the talent on display to prove it. This service will compete I guess primarily with Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, HBO, Showtime who all have well established services and large libraries of original content. But will they make their service available cross-platform, as all these other services do, or will they tie it to Apple hardware (as is the normal Apple way)?


----------



## Scooby Doo (Dec 18, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> The new Apple TV app will live not just on Apple hardware but (surprisingly, to me) also on Roku, Fire TV and all major brands of smart TVs


Yes, they said this. But does that necessarily mean the AppleTV+ service, and original content, will be available cross-platform?


----------



## anthonymoody (Apr 29, 2008)

Which reminds me. Is the TiVo app for ATV ever going to be released?


----------



## JolDC (Dec 21, 2001)

anthonymoody said:


> Which reminds me. Is the TiVo app for ATV ever going to be released?


You mean the one announced for 3rd quarter of this year?


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

Although I do have an Apple Tv and I am a Mac guy mostly. I never buy from iTunes and probably never will. They remove videos you have rightfully purchased if they loose the rights to sell them. Happened to a friend of mine. I forget what excuse they gave him when he complained. So, your purchases are not really yours. I'll stick to an occasional rental from them and Amazon but stuff I want to own I will buy physical media and rip with Makemkv.

The announcement didn't do much for the stock, too bad.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Basically, Apple is following Amazon's playbook here. The new Apple TV app will live not just on Apple hardware but (surprisingly, to me) also on Roku, Fire TV and all major brands of smart TVs. Just like the Prime Video app exists across platforms and is home to the Prime Video SVOD, the Apple TV app will be home to the Apple TV+ SVOD. Just like the Prime Video app gives you access to the content you've rented or purchased from Amazon (via their website or an Amazon device), the Apple TV app will do the same for your iTunes video library. Just like the Prime Video app integrates add-on subscriptions from Amazon Channels in with your Prime Video content, the Apple TV app will integrate Apple TV Channels add-on subscriptions (from basically the same sources as Amazon offers) in with your Apple TV+ content. (Although it looks like you won't be required to have an Apple TV+ subscription to subscribe to Apple TV Channels the way that you must first have a Prime Video subscription in order to subscribe to Amazon Channels.)
> 
> As JoeKustra points out, the big unanswered Q about Apple TV+ is the price. Given the small amount of content (premium ad-free stuff, presumably in 4K HDR) that it will have -- only new exclusive originals, no back catalog, no theatrical films -- *$5/mo* seems like a realistic price. But knowing Apple, they might try to price it up at $10, or maybe the same as Disney+ (expected to be $6-8), which will launch about the same time. If so, it won't fly. And they should offer an extended free trial (e.g. 3 months) to get folks hooked, especially if the model is to roll out new episodes on a weekly basis rather than dump entire seasons at once. We'll see...


yeah and the thing is they already let you sign up for streaming services via your apple id and the tv app already does aggregation and you already could see itunes purchases thru the tv app I think. the only diff i saw was they made it a bit easier to sign up for other services.

Price will be interesting. Is the appletv+ service just their original content? Will they license movies every month like other services do? Will they bundle it with other services? Will they give it away for free for 2 years with hardware purchase? Will they charge HBO-like prices?


----------



## tommiet (Oct 28, 2005)

Apple has never cared about the price of their products and I'll bet this one will cost more than all the others. They expect loyal Apple customers pay up and shut up.

Note: I think Samsung has been in the Apple Kool-Aid too. A 2k phone?


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

Prices were TBA. I watched it and they didn't say. Most of the + stuff i would not watch. It is nice that all the extra stuff will just work with your apple ID. No-relogging in.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

The expression "walled garden" was used a lot on CNBC".


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Scooby Doo said:


> Yes, they said this. But does that necessarily mean the AppleTV+ service, and original content, will be available cross-platform?


I'm 99.99% certain it does mean that. Apple would have very little incentive to make their Apple TV app available on competing hardware platforms -- which is a bit of a stretch for Apple -- unless they planned to use that app on Roku, Fire TV, etc. as a portal for their paid subscription service, Apple TV+.



trip1eX said:


> yeah and the thing is they already let you sign up for streaming services via your apple id and the tv app already does aggregation and you already could see itunes purchases thru the tv app I think. the only diff i saw was they made it a bit easier to sign up for other services.
> 
> Price will be interesting. Is the appletv+ service just their original content? Will they license movies every month like other services do? Will they bundle it with other services? Will they give it away for free for 2 years with hardware purchase? Will they charge HBO-like prices?


Yeah, I don't think it's going to be some *huge* improvement to subscribe to HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc. through the Apple TV app as opposed to doing so through those providers' own apps, given that their apps/content were already integrated into the TV app's Up Next watch list. That said, yes, it will be a little more convenient for sign-up and billing; yes, it will be more convenient when browsing for new stuff to watch (since the full library is there in the same TV app); yes, video streams should start just a bit sooner since you won't be handed off from the TV app to the provider's own app; and yes, I expect video quality to be a little better since it's encoded by and streamed from Apple as opposed to HBO, Showtime, etc. Assuming the price is no higher than going direct through the provider's own app, and assuming one still has the option of using the provider's own authenticated app (e.g. Showtime Anytime) on non-Apple devices, then I'll probably switch to subscribing to those services via Apple TV Channels in the future.

As for Apple TV+, yes, it will ONLY be Apple's original content, which they just began producing in the last year or so (spending $1-2 billion so far). Unless they decide to license other companies' content -- which there have been zero rumors of them doing -- or they buy another content owner with an existing library (e.g. Sony Entertainment, MGM, Lionsgate, etc.), then Apple is only going to have a relatively small number of hours of video to offer at launch, with presumably only a few new hours added each month. It's hard for me to see how they'll be able to get many subscribers at all if they price it higher than $5-6 (or unless they bundle it in for free or super-cheap with other services, like Apple Music). There had been rumors that they would offer it for free, at least early on, exclusively to Apple device owners. Who knows, maybe that will still happen. Free for the first year to all Apple device owners, $6 for everyone else after one free month. Then you get another free year every time you buy a new iPhone, iPad, Mac or Apple TV.


----------



## Equals42 (Dec 7, 2015)

What interests me is whether they’ll write an AppleTV app for running on TiVo. I live basically off my AppleTV4k now with YouTubeTV for some networks and local channels. It has unlimited DVR. The remote on the AppleTV is crap for navigation and forwarding 30 seconds. I’d rather try to getting cable networks (ESPN+, CNBC, TNT, etc) through the TiVO via an AppleTV app and my locals OTA.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

Equals42 said:


> What interests me is whether they'll write an AppleTV app for running on TiVo. I live basically off my AppleTV4k now with YouTubeTV for some networks and local channels. It has unlimited DVR. The remote on the AppleTV is crap for navigation and forwarding 30 seconds. I'd rather try to getting cable networks (ESPN+, CNBC, TNT, etc) through the TiVO via an AppleTV app and my locals OTA.


The odds of that are probably slim to none.

EDIT: the inverse is on the way though, expected in Q3 2019. TiVo is writing a tvOS app for Apple TV (and Roku, and Fire TV).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Equals42 said:


> What interests me is whether they'll write an AppleTV app for running on TiVo. I live basically off my AppleTV4k now with YouTubeTV for some networks and local channels. It has unlimited DVR. The remote on the AppleTV is crap for navigation and forwarding 30 seconds. I'd rather try to getting cable networks (ESPN+, CNBC, TNT, etc) through the TiVO via an AppleTV app and my locals OTA.


Doing a hard click on the right edge of the Apple TV remote's touch pad always jumps me forward many seconds (15? 30?) in the video stream in nearly every app I use. Is that not working for you? Now, I will admit that I sometimes effect an up or down swipe, with the corresponding on-screen result, when I'm instead just meaning to do a left or right click or swipe. So the trackpad isn't perfect.

You might want to look into getting a Harmony universal remote. They can be programmed to control the ATV4K pretty well with just regular physical buttons, no trackpad. I used mine with my ATV4K when I first got it but quickly got used to the Apple remote and decided I preferred it. But, yeah, the Apple remote can still be frustrating now and then.


----------



## celtic pride (Nov 8, 2005)

I hate the apple remote ,I was hoping they would announce a new remote with regular buttons. I hate it so much i am thinking of just getting the amazon fire tv cube. i have had bad luck with roku so i dont see myself buying another one those either.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

I've ditched the Apple remote and exclusively use the one from Caavo.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

dadrepus said:


> Although I do have an Apple Tv and I am a Mac guy mostly. I never buy from iTunes and probably never will. They remove videos you have rightfully purchased if they loose the rights to sell them. Happened to a friend of mine. I forget what excuse they gave him when he complained. So, your purchases are not really yours. I'll stick to an occasional rental from them and Amazon but stuff I want to own I will buy physical media and rip with Makemkv.
> 
> The announcement didn't do much for the stock, too bad.


All of the movies I purchased from iTunes (before anyone else was selling them digitally) showed up in Movies Anywhere once I linked my accounts. Sadly, there is not the same kind of thing for TV shows.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

I just do not see me paying for the service or content. If the original content is really that good it will be available through other avenues either real time or following a reasonable delay... 

My personal opinion is that these premium service outlets do not bring a lot of value for the money. People are throwing as much cash at this garbage as they would have spent on regular cable service. 

Take Hulu as an example, forced commercials, content is available from all kinds of other sources and locked into another walled garden streaming app. On Sling you have to pay for the highest tier product just to get the Discovery Channel...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

ncted said:


> All of the movies I purchased from iTunes (before anyone else was selling them digitally) showed up in Movies Anywhere once I linked my accounts. Sadly, there is not the same kind of thing for TV shows.


Well, the good news is that, if you use a Fire TV or Roku, you should be able (probably by this fall) to install the Apple TV app on that device, which will give you access to all the TV shows (and movies) you ever purchased from iTunes.



bradleys said:


> I just do not see me paying for the service or content. If the original content is really that good it will be available through other avenues either real time or following a reasonable delay...


I'd say it's the other way around. If the original content in Apple TV+ is really good, then Apple TV+ will succeed, and its content will probably never be available via another source outside Apple. Sure, Apple might also sell it on iTunes, but they won't ever license it to other services/channels, like Netflix, Hulu, TBS, NBC, etc., as long as Apple TV+ is going strong. Just like we'll probably never see Netflix originals like Stranger Things, Orange Is the New Black, The Crown, etc. show up outside of Netflix.

Now, if Apple TV+ isn't very good and the whole thing is a bust after a couple of years and Apple throws in the towel, then yeah, I can see them saying, "Well, how do we get *something* out of these billions we spent on content?" Which might mean licensing that content to other platforms.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Well, the good news is that, if you use a Fire TV or Roku, you should be able (probably by this fall) to install the Apple TV app on that device, which will give you access to all the TV shows (and movies) you ever purchased from iTunes.
> 
> I'd say it's the other way around. If the original content in Apple TV+ is really good, then Apple TV+ will succeed, and its content will probably never be available via another source outside Apple. Sure, Apple might also sell it on iTunes, but they won't ever license it to other services/channels, like Netflix, Hulu, TBS, NBC, etc., as long as Apple TV+ is going strong. Just like we'll probably never see Netflix originals like Stranger Things, Orange Is the New Black, The Crown, etc. show up outside of Netflix.
> 
> Now, if Apple TV+ isn't very good and the whole thing is a bust after a couple of years and Apple throws in the towel, then yeah, I can see them saying, "Well, how do we get *something* out of these billions we spent on content?" Which might mean licensing that content to other platforms.


Good content is always available - that is never an issue


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

bradleys said:


> Good content is always available - that is never an issue


Not sure what the means. But let me know when you can watch Netflix's The Crown in the Hulu app, or Hulu's The Handmaid's Tale on a cable TV channel, or any of the upcoming Apple original series through any service other than Apple TV+.


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

Umm, the difference is really apples and oranges. Platform and Services. Apple is doing both, so it Amazon.

AppleTV+ feels just like it’s catching up Amazon Prime Video with special content along with Channels to other content. 

Additionally, you will be able to get the Apple TV+ running as an app or service running on Amazon FireSticks and Roku, etc. Where can run the Hulu app, as well as Netflix...and on each other’s platforms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Not sure what the means. But let me know when you can watch Netflix's The Crown in the Hulu app, or Hulu's The Handmaid's Tale on a cable TV channel, or any of the upcoming Apple original series through any service other than Apple TV+.


Good content is always available...


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Equals42 said:


> I live basically off my AppleTV4k now with YouTubeTV for some networks and local channels. It has unlimited DVR.


Yes, but just keep in mind, recordings expire after 9 months on that "unlimited" DVR.



Equals42 said:


> The remote on the AppleTV is crap for navigation and forwarding 30 seconds.


I actually love the AppleTV remote, especially for navigation and video transport control. I can jump back or forward by clicking the sides of the remote. I can scrub precisely to the exact second I'm looking for with the touchpad. And Siri works pretty well, too. I use this Fintie case BTW, which makes it easier to pick up correctly, hold and use, and less likely to get lost in the couch.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Surprising, but perhaps not too surprising (as it's coming to Amazon Fire Sticks and Roku too: )

The new TV App is coming to third generation Apple TV hardware


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

bradleys said:


> Good content is always available...
> 
> View attachment 39894


I assume those are screenshots of The Handmaid's Tale on disc? Sure, subscription services often maximize their returns on content by selling it on disc and/or digitally while still retaining exclusive subscription service rights to it. Note that that series is not legally available in the US as part of any subscription service other than Hulu. Same with, say, Stranger Things on Netflix (but which also can be bought on disc).

As I mentioned before, yes, Apple may choose to sell their Apple TV+ original content via iTunes, but if Apple TV+ is a success, they won't distribute that content via any other subscription services/channels. In addition to iTunes sales, it's _possible_ that they'll also distribute it on disc but I seriously doubt it given Apple's general attitude toward physical media. Keep in mind that Macs all lost DVD/CD drives years ago and Steve Jobs famously referred to Blu-ray as a "bag of hurt". (No Apple product has ever had a BD drive.)

So, as I said before, there's no reason to think that anyone's going to be watching The Morning Show, Amazing Stories, See or any of the other upcoming Apple original series on their TVs any time soon (legally, anyhow) through anything other than an Apple distributed app, whether you're watching it through the Apple TV+ subscription service or because you've purchased it digitally from Apple/iTunes.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Fofer said:


> Yes, but just keep in mind, recordings expire after 9 months on that "unlimited" DVR.


If I haven't watched something in 9 months then I didn't really want to watch it.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

You and I DVR content very differently. 

Sometimes, there are things I enjoy so much, I'll watch them again. It might even be 10 months later.

And sometimes I record a whole season and wait until it’s over, to binge it all consecutively.

A 9 month timer on all recordings would make me anxious.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

@Dan203 Can this thread title please be changed to "Apple TV +" (or "Apple TV Plus") because right now the title makes it sound like the thread is about the AppleTV hardware, and we already have an active thread for that.

This thread is about the newly-announced Apple TV Plus streaming video service.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I assume those are screenshots of The Handmaid's Tale on disc? Sure, subscription services often maximize their returns on content by selling it on disc and/or digitally while still retaining exclusive subscription service rights to it. Note that that series is not legally available in the US as part of any subscription service other than Hulu. Same with, say, Stranger Things on Netflix (but which also can be bought on disc).
> 
> As I mentioned before, yes, Apple may choose to sell their Apple TV+ original content via iTunes, but if Apple TV+ is a success, they won't distribute that content via any other subscription services/channels. In addition to iTunes sales, it's _possible_ that they'll also distribute it on disc but I seriously doubt it given Apple's general attitude toward physical media. Keep in mind that Macs all lost DVD/CD drives years ago and Steve Jobs famously referred to Blu-ray as a "bag of hurt". (No Apple product has ever had a BD drive.)
> 
> So, as I said before, there's no reason to think that anyone's going to be watching The Morning Show, Amazing Stories, See or any of the other upcoming Apple original series on their TVs any time soon (legally, anyhow) through anything other than an Apple distributed app, whether you're watching it through the Apple TV+ subscription service or because you've purchased it digitally from Apple/iTunes.


It is not...


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Looks like Plex and I’m guessing the content is pirated.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

bradleys said:


> It is not...


Oh. Is it illegally obtained copyrighted material, then?


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Oh. Is it illegally obtained copyrighted material, then?


I didn't pirate it, but one of the libraries I am linked too found a way to get it tinto their library. But when everything is segmented into small little walled gardens each with mandatory commercials and service fees - other options become available.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

FWIW, Apple did make it clear that at least programming from TV Plus would be ad-free.


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

NashGuy said:


> Oh. Is it illegally obtained copyrighted material, then?


I get most of my Tv Plex library from Tivo/kmttg. Others may do the same. If I can't then I wait until Amazon has a sale on complete seasons and I buy the disks.
My big P.I.A. is what do you do with all the disks? It is starting to become a storage nightmare but I am too afraid to sell them just in case I have hard drive failure. Then all my CD music, dvd's, Blue-rays would not be available to rescan. I know, back-up your media. Still expensive to do properly.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

dadrepus said:


> I get most of my Tv Plex library from Tivo/kmttg. Others may do the same. If I can't then I wait until Amazon has a sale on complete seasons and I buy the disks.
> My big P.I.A. is what do you do with all the disks? It is starting to become a storage nightmare but I am too afraid to sell them just in case I have hard drive failure. Then all my CD music, dvd's, Blue-rays would not be available to rescan. I know, back-up your media. Still expensive to do properly.


What are the reasons why you choose to buy full seasons of TV shows on disc rather than digitally (from Amazon, Apple, Google, Vudu, etc.)? Seems like there are trade-offs either way. FWIW, buying TV shows is not really something that I do. Would be nice, though, if Movies Anywhere extended from just movies to also include TV, so that when you buy TV episodes/seasons from one major digital vendor, they're included in your library with all of them.


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

NashGuy said:


> What are the reasons why you choose to buy full seasons of TV shows on disc rather than digitally (from Amazon, Apple, Google, Vudu, etc.)? Seems like there are trade-offs either way. FWIW, buying TV shows is not really something that I do. Would be nice, though, if Movies Anywhere extended from just movies to also include TV, so that when you buy TV episodes/seasons from one major digital vendor, they're included in your library with all of them.


1) The Disks always come with extras. If you like commentaries and that extra stuff, it is worth it. 2) I have had a friend claim he had his digital stuff disappear from their iTunes account after Apple lost the right to carry the show.
It seems that you don't actually "own" that digital show. Now, I have never purchased anything other than some music from Amazon, Apple or Google and was able to download them onto my computer but I don't know about movies or tv shows. He may have been bull****ting me.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

In my experience the streaming copies have the same Extras as physical disks.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

PJO1966 said:


> In my experience the streaming copies have the same Extras as physical disks.


In my experience, not often enough--in fact, well in the minority.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

dadrepus said:


> My big P.I.A. is what do you do with all the disks? It is starting to become a storage nightmare but I am too afraid to sell them just in case I have hard drive failure. Then all my CD music, dvd's, Blue-rays would not be available to rescan. I know, back-up your media. Still expensive to do properly.


I chucked the cases and, eventually, artwork for music cd's, put them in cd sleeves and Snap-N-Store boxes from Staples. A few years ago, I did rerip the classical albums.


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

Series3Sub said:


> In my experience, not often enough--in fact, well in the minority.


Thanks. This is what I was told by my friend who buys digital instead of physical. He didn't get the extras that I get with the physical copy. I didn't think he would lie to me.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

dadrepus said:


> Thanks. This is what I was told by my friend who buys digital instead of physical. He didn't get the extras that I get with the physical copy. I didn't think he would lie to me.


Which digital retailer does he buy from?


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

bradleys said:


> Good content is always available...
> 
> View attachment 39894


But it's not always available legally, unless you're willing to pay. Sure libraries have great content and are sometimes overlooked. But frequently the good material isn't readily available for a long time or at least a little while after the DVDs come out. I can potentially see subscribing to different services in different months and watching the back catalog for each service in 1-2 month increments.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

NYHeel said:


> But it's not always available legally, unless you're willing to pay. Sure libraries have great content and are sometimes overlooked. But frequently the good material isn't readily available for a long time or at least a little while after the DVDs come out. I can potentially see subscribing to different services in different months and watching the back catalog for each service in 1-2 month increments.


Yeah, I think rotating between streaming services is not uncommon, at least among non-cable TV subscribers. Churn is definitely an issue for those services since it's so easy to drop and add them. I noticed recently that Starz (streaming) is offering the option to sign up for a year at a discounted rate ($75 for 1 year vs. $9/mo). I wonder if we'll see more of that sort of thing going forward.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Showtime is $110/yr I think. BAsically 2 months free compared to their $11/mo rate.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I think rotating between streaming services is not uncommon, at least among non-cable TV subscribers. Churn is definitely an issue for those services since it's so easy to drop and add them. I noticed recently that Starz (streaming) is offering the option to sign up for a year at a discounted rate ($75 for 1 year vs. $9/mo). I wonder if we'll see more of that sort of thing going forward.


Of course we will, their goal is to lock us in so we can pay for their service when there is nothing on it that's worth watching. They can't have us sending a message with our feet as we cancel and say, bye-bye. What do you want them to answer to their idiot investors, "We can't go back to the good old days."


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Joe3 said:


> Of course we will, their goal is to lock us in so we can pay for their service when there is nothing on it that's worth watching. They can't have us sending a message with our feet as we cancel and say, bye-bye. What do you want them to answer to their idiot investors, "We can't go back to the good old days."


Offering a discount to subscribe for a longer period isn't the same thing as locking you in with a contract (which is what satellite and some traditional cable TV services do). Starz isn't forcing customers to sign up for a year in exchange for a 31% discount off the monthly rate. But, for loyal Starz customers, it's certainly a nice option to have.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Offering a discount to subscribe for a longer period isn't the same thing as locking you in with a contract (which is what satellite and some traditional cable TV services do). Starz isn't forcing customers to sign up for a year in exchange for a 31% discount off the monthly rate. But, for loyal Starz customers, it's certainly a nice option to have.


I'd check fine print that I believe will be very wet. (ಥ﹏ಥ)


----------



## quackman (Sep 29, 2012)

mrizzo80 said:


> The odds of that are probably slim to none.
> 
> EDIT: the inverse is on the way though, expected in Q3 2019. TiVo is writing a tvOS app for Apple TV (and Roku, and Fire TV).


I will be very interested in the Tivo app on ATV. The video quality on my ATV is so much better than my Tivo Bolt. I'm finding myself watching more and more programs and sports streaming on ATV instead of watching on Tivo with Comcast.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I think rotating between streaming services is not uncommon, at least among non-cable TV subscribers. Churn is definitely an issue for those services since it's so easy to drop and add them. I noticed recently that Starz (streaming) is offering the option to sign up for a year at a discounted rate ($75 for 1 year vs. $9/mo). I wonder if we'll see more of that sort of thing going forward.


Last December I took advantage of a STARZ promotional offer for six months @ just $1.00 p.m., but I cancelled last month when I changed my Comcast CTV sub to a Preferred Blast! bundle that includes STARZ (150mbps HSI plus Digital Preferred TV tier @$49.99 p.m.).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

quackman said:


> I will be very interested in the Tivo app on ATV. The video quality on my ATV is so much better than my Tivo Bolt. I'm finding myself watching more and more programs and sports streaming on ATV instead of watching on Tivo with Comcast.


I'm pretty sure that when the Bolt serves up live or recorded TV to the forthcoming TiVo apps for Apple TV, Roku, Fire TV and Android TV, it will be relying on the same tech that it currently uses to stream content to the TiVo mobile app on iOS and Android. So that means a max resolution of 720p. Video probably won't look as good streamed from the Bolt to an Apple TV as it looks coming directly from the Bolt itself. However, if you mainly use the Apple TV anyhow, you may find it more convenient just to launch the TiVo app on there to watch a recording here and there as opposed to switching TV inputs and remote controls to use the Bolt.


----------



## quackman (Sep 29, 2012)

NashGuy said:


> I'm pretty sure that when the Bolt serves up live or recorded TV to the forthcoming TiVo apps for Apple TV, Roku, Fire TV and Android TV, it will be relying on the same tech that it currently uses to stream content to the TiVo mobile app on iOS and Android. So that means a max resolution of 720p. Video probably won't look as good streamed from the Bolt to an Apple TV as it looks coming directly from the Bolt itself. However, if you mainly use the Apple TV anyhow, you may find it more convenient just to launch the TiVo app on there to watch a recording here and there as opposed to switching TV inputs and remote controls to use the Bolt.


So, do you think then that the video quality on OTT services on ATV 4K, such as Hulu or YouTubeTV, will be better than the the Tivo app? I recently used these and other OTT services during their trial periods and found that the video quality was a lot better than on the Tivo bolt with Xfinity cable. I'm not sure how much of it is because of the ATV 4K device itself, or the resolution of the OTT services. Maybe a little of both?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

quackman said:


> So, do you think then that the video quality on OTT services on ATV 4K, such as Hulu or YouTubeTV, will be better than the the Tivo app?


Yes, definitely. The video quality of those OTT services is better than Comcast cable TV to begin with, even if you're watching Comcast on the Bolt. Streaming Comcast TV, whether live or recorded, from the Bolt to the TiVo app on Apple TV definitely won't make it look any better. If anything, it will make it look a little worse. We'll have to see when the new TiVo app comes out.



quackman said:


> I recently used these and other OTT services during their trial periods and found that the video quality was a lot better than on the Tivo bolt with Xfinity cable. I'm not sure how much of it is because of the ATV 4K device itself, or the resolution of the OTT services. Maybe a little of both?


It's not really about the hardware quality of the TiVo Bolt vs. the Apple TV. It's all about the video quality provided by the OTT services vs. Comcast cable TV. The OTT services use better encoding with less compression while Comcast over-compresses their channels, making for video that looks soft and, at times, pixellated. Also, the OTT services stream channels in either 1080p or 720p (depending on the original resolution that the network offers), while Comcast just broadcasts all HD channels at 720p.

On the other hand, Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound is common across Comcast cable channels while it's still somewhat limited on those OTT services like Hulu and YouTube TV (but becoming more common). So while Comcast loses the picture quality battle, I'd say it's still ahead when it comes to sound quality.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> . . . Comcast over-compresses their channels, making for video that looks soft and, at times, pixellated. Also, the OTT services stream channels in either 1080p or 720p (depending on the original resolution that the network offers), while Comcast just broadcasts all HD channels at 720p.
> 
> On the other hand, Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound is common across Comcast cable channels while it's still somewhat limited on those OTT services like Hulu and YouTube TV (but becoming more common). So while Comcast loses the picture quality battle, I'd say it's still ahead when it comes to sound quality.


While I agree with your statement of Comcast's unfortunate video transmission methodology, lately I have found the resultant PQ nonetheless to be quite good on many programs. Just last night we were watching a recording of the SyFy channel's Happy! and I was struck by the sharpness of the image (particularly facial close-ups). Some of that may be due to my use of a Darbee Darblet video processor, and not all channels appear to be equally clear, but I believe Comcast has made some improvements in their PQ over the past few months.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

chiguy50 said:


> While I agree with your statement of Comcast's unfortunate video transmission methodology, lately I have found the resultant PQ nonetheless to be quite good on many programs. Just last night we were watching a recording of the SyFy channel's Happy! and I was struck by the sharpness of the image (particularly facial close-ups). Some of that may be due to my use of a Darbee Darblet video processor, and not all channels appear to be equally clear, but I believe Comcast has made some improvements in their PQ over the past few months.


That's good to hear! I honestly haven't laid eyes on any Comcast channels in a little while now, so my general opinion about their PQ is based on what I remember from over the last few years as well as what I read from Comcast TV subscribers around the internet. Maybe Comcast has improved their encoders.

And, for the record, I do think that some of us exaggerate the PQ differences between sources sometimes; or perhaps I should say that some of us are more sensitive to PQ differences that an average viewer might find negligible.

Lastly, this: I find that facial close-ups are the one of the least demanding types of scenes, for whatever reasons (probably in part because there tends to be little movement, good lighting and few background objects/surfaces with complex detail). When I'm watching a source with sub-optimal PQ/encoding, such as when I streamed Mrs. Wilson through the PBS app last night, I'll often think how much better the PQ is during facial close-ups.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Netflix app for iOS no longer supports AirPlay; support document on Netflix site says Airplay is no longer supported due to "technical limitations." 

Netflix App for iOS No Longer Supports AirPlay Because of 'Technical Limitations'

Netflix app for iOS no longer supports AirPlay; support document on Netflix site says Airplay is no longer supported due to technical limitations

Many are surmising that this is "payback time" for Apple's introduction of TV Plus.

(Netflix also recently stopped using in-app subscription on iOS and tvOS. Apple will lose ~$350 million in App Store revenue as a result.)


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

Definitely suspect by Netflix. Good part is people will probably have the Netflix app on their TV but the walled garden approach is pretty crappy.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

So Apple brings Airplay to TVs and then Netflix stops Airplay support. Weird timing.

Don't think it has much to do with ATV+. I don't see the connection. Amazon has a competing service. I don't see Netflix not supporting FireTV or anything. Netflix still has an app on ATV. 

Either Netflix just dropping support because it isn't used. Or possibly they see a lot of support calls on the horizon as Airplay comes to tvs and they don't want to provide that support.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Either Netflix just dropping support because it isn't used. Or possibly they see a lot of support calls on the horizon as Airplay comes to tvs and they don't want to provide that support.


Yeah, likely. And since everything but your toaster has its own native Netflix app running on it anyway, there's not a huge need to cast Netflix.

But it does, IMO, kind of underscore Netflix's arrogance. They're very popular and they know it. They don't have to go out of their way to support any particular platform; rather, platforms need THEM. "Would you prefer to pay for Netflix through your iTunes account? Too bad, you'll need to subscribe directly through our website. You'll figure it out because you can't live without us. Would you like to browse some of our content in a UI outside of our own app? Sorry, we need total control, you'll need to come inside our app, which is really the only app you should ever need, because we're building what is, in effect, a single-channel replacement for the existing cable TV system."


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> Don't think it has much to do with ATV+. I don't see the connection. Amazon has a competing service. I don't see Netflix not supporting FireTV or anything. Netflix still has an app on ATV.


Except Netflix rather famously doesn't support Apple's current "TV" app, either. The connection is there, and it's very obvious that Netflix doesn't appreciate Apple encroaching on (what they believe to be) their "territory."

Perhaps Apple just buys Netflix next, and fixes these "technical limitations"


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Fofer said:


> Except Netflix rather famously doesn't support Apple's current "TV" app, either. The connection is there, and it's very obvious that Netflix doesn't appreciate Apple encroaching on their territory.
> 
> Perhaps Apple just buys Netflix next, and fixes these "technical limitations"


A recent WSJ piece on Apple revealed that they did, in fact, discuss buying Netflix while sorting through their options on how to move forward in TV. They passed then and I doubt they'll ever change their mind and do it.

Netflix today has this aura of invincibility because they're so big and crank out so much new content and they've become so ingrained in the culture of younger Americans who "Netflix and chill". But I do wonder if they'll look the same way five years from now after competing OTT services from Disney, WarnerMedia, Amazon and Apple have matured. In the mean time, a whole lot of Netflix's catalog of licensed content will have disappeared, gone to those other services, leaving them with mainly just Netflix's own original series and films. Just take movies, for instance: once their deal with Disney expires soon, there won't really be any recent theatrical movies coming to Netflix. Are people really all _that_ excited about the likes of Bird Box, Triple Frontier or another Adam Sandler movie whose name you don't recall? And they won't be making any series or movies with established characters from Marvel, DC, etc. Just their own stuff. Netflix is sort of a like a store that's transitioning from carrying lots of name brand products to a store where everything is their own store-brand.

I'm certainly not predicting that Netflix is going to crash, I'm just saying that I don't know that they'll always be the one streaming service that everyone thinks they have to have. It's still early days in the evolution of TV from traditional broadcast/cable to OTT streaming. Apple knows this and I think they're playing the long game.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> So Apple brings Airplay to TVs and then Netflix stops Airplay support. Weird timing.


Netflix is saying this is why they disabled it as they claim that they can't tell what device is being AirPlayed to and they can't certify all devices that support AirPlay, so they simply disabled.

Netflix abruptly loses support for Apple AirPlay (updated)

That seems like a bogus reason since Netflix supports Chromecasting to various devices.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

It’s not a feature I would use for long form or episodic content — simply because AirPlay isn’t an independent stream, and therefore it’s prone to interruption. Especially if you fiddle with the mobile device that’s doing the sending.

But it sucks that Netflix has taken this feature away from people who did use and appreciate it. Especially travelers 

Perhaps this will compel Apple to make AirPlay (3?) work via independent streams, like how Chromecast works now, and how iTunes Store purchases work now, too. It feels like a smarter method. At least for video streaming, IMO.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I'm certainly not predicting that Netflix is going to crash, I'm just saying that I don't know that they'll always be the one streaming service that everyone thinks they have to have. It's still early days in the evolution of TV from traditional broadcast/cable to OTT streaming. Apple knows this and I think they're playing the long game.


I agree. They're a bit annoying in terms of not integrating with other platforms like Amazon, Apple TV (app), etc. They also just raised their prices AGAIN, they're at $15.99/mo now, and it's annoying that you have to buy the 4 stream package just to get UHD. I wouldn't be surprised to see Netflix lose subscribers. What that means for profitability, I'm not sure, it may still be a net gain. I think we're going to see a lot more people jumping from one service to another on a regular basis.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Apple event was kind of a zero, to announce things without specific launch date or pricing.

Maybe they're still trying to negotiate with other providers but they locked in the celebrity guests to appear this time of the year.

But really, launching their original shows in the Fall means much greater competition than launching in the spring or summer.

Who knows if they will be successful but they just overtook Spotify in music streaming in the US. They only need to convert 5 or 10% of the installed base into subscribers of their video service to have 50 million or more subscribers. So some Wall Street analysts have said they could have 100 million video subscribers in a few years.

They will need at least a handful of hits from their slate of original shows.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> A recent WSJ piece on Apple revealed that they did, in fact, discuss buying Netflix while sorting through their options on how to move forward in TV. They passed then and I doubt they'll ever change their mind and do it.
> 
> Netflix today has this aura of invincibility because they're so big and crank out so much new content and they've become so ingrained in the culture of younger Americans who "Netflix and chill". *But I do wonder if they'll look the same way five years from now after competing OTT services from Disney, WarnerMedia, Amazon and Apple have matured.* In the mean time, a whole lot of Netflix's catalog of licensed content will have disappeared, gone to those other services, leaving them with mainly just Netflix's own original series and films. Just take movies, for instance: once their deal with Disney expires soon, there won't really be any recent theatrical movies coming to Netflix. Are people really all _that_ excited about the likes of Bird Box, Triple Frontier or another Adam Sandler movie whose name you don't recall? And they won't be making any series or movies with established characters from Marvel, DC, etc. Just their own stuff. Netflix is sort of a like a store that's transitioning from carrying lots of name brand products to a store where everything is their own store-brand.
> 
> I'm certainly not predicting that Netflix is going to crash, I'm just saying that I don't know that they'll always be the one streaming service that everyone thinks they have to have. It's still early days in the evolution of TV from traditional broadcast/cable to OTT streaming. Apple knows this and I think they're playing the long game.


That strikes me as a very astute summation of the state of play. I would add, however, that no one can accurately predict what the field will look like five years from now given the rapid rate of change we are witnessing.



Bigg said:


> I agree. They're a bit annoying in terms of not integrating with other platforms like Amazon, Apple TV (app), etc. They also just raised their prices AGAIN, they're at $15.99/mo now, and it's annoying that you have to buy the 4 stream package just to get UHD. I wouldn't be surprised to see Netflix lose subscribers. What that means for profitability, I'm not sure, it may still be a net gain. I think we're going to see a lot more people jumping from one service to another on a regular basis.


I may very well not be a typical viewer, but Netflix and HBO have captured me. I started out as a "combined unlimited DVD by mail and streaming" Netflix subscriber (for $9.99 p.m.) in 2010 and--except for a two-year hiatus in 2011-13 in protest at the clumsy and ill-advised Qwikster fiasco--am still on board at the current monthly fee of $25.98 for unlimited Blu-ray/4K streaming. And after many years of free or virtually free ($1.00 p.m.) HBO via Comcast promotions, as of this month I am starting to pay full freight ($15.00 p.m.) for Comcast's HBO premium channel.

My point is that each of these services offers enough high-quality programming that, once I was lured in by the free or reasonably low pricing, they had me hooked as a consumer. And they have changed my viewing habits inasmuch as I watch much less content on the cable channels (and nothing at all on the broadcast channels other than an occasional sports event) in favor of what I would consider the superior original content found on Netflix and HBO (not to mention Amazon Video as well).


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

chiguy50 said:


> I may very well not be a typical viewer, but Netflix and HBO have captured me. .


That's basically cabletv for us nowadays. Netflix and HBO.

I only have "real" cable tv these days for sports.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I agree. They're a bit annoying in terms of not integrating with other platforms like Amazon, Apple TV (app), etc. They also just raised their prices AGAIN, they're at $15.99/mo now, and it's annoying that you have to buy the 4 stream package just to get UHD. I wouldn't be surprised to see Netflix lose subscribers. What that means for profitability, I'm not sure, it may still be a net gain. I think we're going to see a lot more people jumping from one service to another on a regular basis.


Yeah. I wonder what Netflix's long-term plan is? It seems to be to keep upping the amount of original content they produce and likewise to keep upping the subscription price in order to pay for all that content. That's the wrong strategy, IMO. I'd prefer that they produced fewer shows -- just funding their A and B-grade ideas -- as opposed to throwing money at a lot of Cs and Ds too. Spend less, charge less, and offer less new content but with a higher average quality. Yes, there's always something new to watch on Netflix but I'm increasingly seeing a bunch of stuff that I'm not interested enough in to even sample. And of the stuff I do watch, I'm increasingly thinking "OK, I was interested enough in it to finish it but I kinda wish I'd spent those several hours watching something else."

Why Too Much Original Content from Netflix is Bad for Subscribers


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> Apple event was kind of a zero, to announce things without specific launch date or pricing.
> 
> Maybe they're still trying to negotiate with other providers but they locked in the celebrity guests to appear this time of the year.
> 
> ...


I think, per rumors that had been floating around for some time, that Apple had originally expected to launch Apple TV+ this spring, so that was the basis for setting a March date for the introductory event. But then things were running behind, as they do, and they had to go ahead with the event because you can't necessarily get Spielberg, Oprah, Jennifer Anniston, etc. to all reschedule on the same date a few months later.

I think Apple may still be trying to figure out their go-to-market strategy for ATV+ too. I still don't think they're going to have enough content in the early days to get many people to actually pay for it. I suspect nearly everyone who has it, for the first year anyway, will get it for free because they subscribe to some other Apple service (e.g. Apple Music, iCloud, etc.) or because they own an Apple device.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> That strikes me as a very astute summation of the state of play. I would add, however, that no one can accurately predicate what the field will look like five years from now given the rapid rate of change we are witnessing.


That's a good assessment. If you look at what people were saying in 2014, no one could have predicted where we are today. Now, it's clear that a lot has changed, and a lot is going to change, but where the market ends up is still to be determined.



NashGuy said:


> Yeah. I wonder what Netflix's long-term plan is? It seems to be to keep upping the amount of original content they produce and likewise to keep upping the subscription price in order to pay for all that content. That's the wrong strategy, IMO. I'd prefer that they produced fewer shows -- just funding their A and B-grade ideas -- as opposed to throwing money at a lot of Cs and Ds too. Spend less, charge less, and offer less new content but with a higher average quality. Yes, there's always something new to watch on Netflix but I'm increasingly seeing a bunch of stuff that I'm not interested enough in to even sample. And of the stuff I do watch, I'm increasingly thinking "OK, I was interested enough in it to finish it but I kinda wish I'd spent those several hours watching something else."
> 
> Why Too Much Original Content from Netflix is Bad for Subscribers


I completely agree. In the first couple of years of original content, it was mostly A-grade content, with a bit of B-grade, now it's all over the map, and the interface has become hard to navigate through with the amount of junk that's popped up. There are a small number of shows that everyone is talking about, and a whole lot of junk. They also need to carefully consider how much true crime content they put out, as that could turn into a PR nightmare if more is written about that weird obsession.



NashGuy said:


> I suspect nearly everyone who has it, for the first year anyway, will get it for free because they subscribe to some other Apple service (e.g. Apple Music, iCloud, etc.) or because they own an Apple device.


Apple needs their version of the Prime bundle. Their services strategy looks like a mess because they don't really HAVE a services strategy. They need to bundle AppleCare+, Apple Music, iCloud, and ATV+, and then have a second tier that also includes the iPhone leasing program.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Bigg said:


> They *need* *to* bundle AppleCare+, Apple Music, iCloud, and ATV+, and then have a second tier that also includes the iPhone leasing program.


"Need to?" No, I don't think they need to do that. We might _like_ for them to do that, but they don't _need_ to.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Fofer said:


> "Need to?" No, I don't think they need to do that. We might _like_ for them to do that, but they don't _need_ to.


Well, they don't need to do anything. They don't need to release a new iPhone, they don't need to improve the Mac lineup, but all of these things need to happen if Apple is going to be successful in those spaces. Right now, they are trying to pivot towards services, and if they are going to be successful in that market, they need to offer bundles to draw people in and get them onto a steady monthly payment for something that is very sticky. One service alone isn't sticky, a bundle is very sticky.


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Well, they don't need to do anything. They don't need to release a new iPhone, they don't need to improve the Mac lineup, but all of these things need to happen if Apple is going to be successful in those spaces. Right now, they are trying to pivot towards services, and if they are going to be successful in that market, they need to offer bundles to draw people in and get them onto a steady monthly payment for something that is very sticky. One service alone isn't sticky, a bundle is very sticky.


Agree that bundles would make sense, but they have never offered anything ever reasonable with their pricing...and I am Apple hardware fan.

That said, I have always been Leary of their services. Don't use Apple Music because it's been a walled garden unlike Spotify and Pandora....

I don't buy/use iCloud storage because they should give the same amount of total cloud storage amt as the hardware device so that cloud backups could be really viable. Their cloud storage and experience is not at all premium, just mediocre and poor and priced not accordingly.

So Instead I use google and amazon to back up my files and pics in the cloud, and use my Mac to do full encrypted backups of my iPhones and iPads (which save all data, passwords, health data, etc).

I don't see much hope they will offer anything reasonable in terms of pricing for anything coming up including bundles (if offered), but I would always welcome the chance to be delighted....and that hasn't happened much from them lately.

Everything I like about the ecosystem and their os/hardware integration is about 5 years old now...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Either Netflix just dropping support because it isn't used. Or possibly they see a lot of support calls on the horizon as Airplay comes to tvs and they don't want to provide that support.


That seems as good an explanation as any. Their claim that they needed to "certify the experience" was laughable on its face.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Bigg said:


> Apple needs their version of the Prime bundle. Their services strategy looks like a mess because they don't really HAVE a services strategy. They need to bundle AppleCare+, Apple Music, iCloud, and ATV+, and then have a second tier that also includes the iPhone leasing program.


Apple TV with iCloud is the only thing Apple that I've ever had but... because of how well that device works and how much we like it, I have started to wonder about trying some of their other things like Apple music and possibly even trying an iPhone someday. A bundle of some kind might just be something that would get me to try those other things.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

d_anders said:


> Agree that bundles would make sense, but they have never offered anything ever reasonable with their pricing...and I am Apple hardware fan.
> 
> That said, I have always been *Leary* of their services. Don't use Apple Music because it's been a walled garden unlike Spotify and Pandora....


Is that an autocorrect error or was your phone perhaps on an LSD trip?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

d_anders said:


> Agree that bundles would make sense, but they have never offered anything ever reasonable with their pricing...and I am Apple hardware fan.
> 
> That said, I have always been Leary of their services. Don't use Apple Music because it's been a walled garden unlike Spotify and Pandora....
> 
> ...


I use Apple Music. Not sure what your "walled garden" comment refers to. I just stream music with it. It's priced the same as Spotify afaik.

I pay the $3/mo for 200gb icloud storage for our phones. The convenience factor is hard to beat. Tempted to to $10/mo for 2TB and put Mac content on there.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> I use Apple Music. Not sure what your "walled garden" comment refers to. I just stream music with it. It's priced the same as Spotify afaik.
> 
> I pay the $3/mo for 200gb icloud storage for our phones. The convenience factor is hard to beat. Tempted to to $10/mo for 2TB and put Mac content on there.


I think it's the fact that Spotify is available on more devices either via an app or Spotify Connect. Which is true compared to AirPlay (though that is expanding).


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

smark said:


> I think it's the fact that Spotify is available on more devices either via an app or Spotify Connect. Which is true compared to AirPlay (though that is expanding).


Yes, Apple Music can only be played on a very limited number of devices (this walled garden)...and yes, that appears to be finally changing.

Same has been true to access ITunes movies etc...though that's finally changing too

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

I can use the Spotify app itself to send music to my Sonos speakers and I have been able to use voice commands to control Spotify via Alexa and I have access to Spotify on every screen and speaker. I can’t say the same about Apple Music. I think that’s what is meant by “walled garden.” The walls are higher, and slower to get over, that’s all.

I also find Spotify Connect to be far more usable and versatile than AirPlay. 

Spotify also offers collaborative playlisting, which is a real differentiator. It’s shocking to me that Apple *still* hasn’t added this.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

d_anders said:


> Yes, Apple Music can only be played on a very limited number of devices (this walled garden)...and yes, that appears to be finally changing.
> 
> Same has been true to access ITunes movies etc...though that's finally changing too
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oh I guess I didn't see the problem since the guy had iphones and ipad and Mac etc.

Nevermind Apple mUsic has been on Android for 3.5 years. iTunes been on Windows for forever. You can use Apple Music via Sonos etc.

And then a few months ago they announced they putting Airplay/itunes app on tvs going forward.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> You can use Apple Music via Sonos etc.


It's the "etc." that matters though. You can only use it via the (less capable) Sonos app itself. You can't do voice control of it via Alexa to Sonos (yet?)

The devil is always in the details.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Fofer said:


> I can use the Spotify app itself to send music to my Sonos speakers and I have been able to use voice commands to control Spotify via Alexa and I have access to Spotify on every screen and speaker. I can't say the same about Apple Music. I think that's what is meant by "walled garden." The walls are higher, and slower to get over, that's all.
> 
> I also find Spotify Connect to be far more usable and versatile than AirPlay.
> 
> Spotify also offers collaborative playlisting, which is a real differentiator. It's shocking to me that Apple *still* hasn't added this.


According to Sonos: You can use Apple Music app to airplay to Sonos speakers. And use Siri now to control your Sonos. And even switch to Alexa for some things from what I read.

As far as comparing music services. I'm sure there are pluses and minuses to both. My kid prefers Apple Music because of the UI. He's used both. I've only used Apple Music. It plays music.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

AirPlay 2 is Here: 5 Things the Sonos System Can Do Now


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> According to Sonos: You can use Apple Music app to airplay to Sonos speakers. And use Siri now to control your Sonos. And even switch to Alexa for some things from what I read.
> 
> As far as comparing music services. I'm sure there are pluses and minuses to both. My kid prefers Apple Music because of the UI. He's used both. I've only used Apple Music. It plays music.


Unfortunately AirPlay to Sonos takes away from the beauty of Sonos where it direct plays so you aren't burning phone battery using AirPlay/Bluetooth.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Or interrupted by phone calls or text notifications. Or other media someone stumbles on (inadvertently or otherwise) on the host device. Or the host device leaves the network. The stream is completely dependent on the host device. 

Sure, AirPlay is great as a “plan B” but independent device streaming (a la Sonos, Chromecast, or iTunes Store purchases on AppleTV) is far better, in my experience.

Both Spotify and Pandora have native Sonos control directly in their respective apps. Using AirPlay as a bridge for Apple Music to Sonos speakers that support AirPlay is nice and all, but it’s just not as good.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

smark said:


> Unfortunately AirPlay to Sonos takes away from the beauty of Sonos where it direct plays so you aren't burning phone battery using AirPlay/Bluetooth.





Fofer said:


> Or interrupted by phone calls or text notifications. Or other media someone stumbles on (inadvertently or otherwise) on the host device. Or the host device leaves the network. The stream is completely dependent on the host device.
> 
> Sure, AirPlay is great as a "plan B" but independent device streaming (a la Sonos, Chromecast, or iTunes Store purchases on AppleTV) is far better, in my experience.
> 
> Both Spotify and Pandora have native Sonos control directly in their respective apps. Using AirPlay as a bridge for Apple Music to Sonos speakers that support AirPlay is nice and all, but it's just not as good.


Sure but too dramatic. From what I read Apple Music now has more paid subscribers than Spotify. I don't think these things are keeping people away from the service. 

Maybe because not many have relatively expensive Sonos speaker setups. And many are using their phone to control their Sonos anyway. I mean only the newest versions of Sonos speakers can be controlled via voice directly. This started ....last year I think?

But the whole pt was the walled garden comment about Apple Music seemed off to me. It's on other platforms. And you can hook up a phone or computer to any speaker pretty much.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

I don't think you're understanding the distinction here. Using the phone to control the Sonos (for browsing, and play/pause/next commands) is world's difference from _the entirety of the audio stream coming from the phone itself_.

When you're hosting a dinner party and the music is completely interrupted because someone calls your phone, the distinction is clear. Turning on Do Not Disturb mode is a sad workaround. iOS needs to handle this better. A DJ mode, perhaps?

And besides, Spotify Connect works on many more devices than just Sonos (including TVs, AV receivers, as well as cheap Echo speakers.)

Whether or not "these things are keeping people away from the service" has no bearing on me. I've used both services extensively and know which one works best for me (in the real world.)


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Fofer said:


> I don't think you're understanding the distinction here. Using the phone to control the Sonos (for browsing, and play/pause/next commands) is world's difference from _the entirety of the audio stream coming from the phone itself_.
> 
> When you're hosting a dinner party and the music is completely interrupted because someone calls your phone, the distinction is clear. Turning on Do Not Disturb mode is a sad workaround. iOS needs to handle this better. A DJ mode, perhaps?
> 
> ...


The pt is Apple Music doesn't strike me as a walled garden. I can take nearly any Android phone or Windows pc and connect it to virtually any stereo system and play Apple Music. 

and, btw, you don't have to use your personal phone to play Apple Music. I mean I have at least 5 old phones sitting around here. Any of which I could turn into a dedicated Apple Music controller if I wanted to do so. I have a pc and a Mac as well that can do the job.

Also most people that owned Sonos before streaming became as widespread were playing some music off their phones already which is the same difference as far as the music traveling from your phone to Sonos goes.

It's not that big of a deal. As you said it's just your personal preference. You don't care how the market votes.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Fofer said:


> I can use the Spotify app itself to send music to my Sonos speakers and I have been able to use voice commands to control Spotify via Alexa and I have access to Spotify on every screen and speaker. I can't say the same about Apple Music. I think that's what is meant by "walled garden." The walls are higher, and slower to get over, that's all.
> 
> I also find Spotify Connect to be far more usable and versatile than AirPlay.
> 
> Spotify also offers collaborative playlisting, which is a real differentiator. It's shocking to me that Apple *still* hasn't added this.


Alexa can now play Apple Music on the Echo Dots*. Is that not the same on the Sonos?

* Presumably other Alexa devices, but I've only used in on the Dot.

Edit: I see they did not add Apple Music to Sonos when they rolled it out to other Alexa devices. That's disappointing.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> The pt is Apple Music doesn't strike me as a walled garden. I can take nearly any Android phone or Windows pc and connect it to virtually any stereo system and play Apple Music.
> 
> and, btw, you don't have to use your personal phone to play Apple Music. I mean I have at least 5 old phones sitting around here. Any of which I could turn into a dedicated Apple Music controller if I wanted to do so. I have a pc and a Mac as well that can do the job.
> 
> ...


All good points. Thanks for sharing. Yes, everyone has a different set of priorities when it comes to this sort of thing.



realityboy said:


> Alexa can now play Apple Music on the Echo Dots*. Is that not the same on the Sonos?
> 
> * Presumably other Alexa devices, but I've only used in on the Dot.
> 
> Edit: I see they did not add Apple Music to Sonos when they rolled it out to other Alexa devices. That's disappointing.


Apple Music was on Sonos well before Apple Music was rolled out to Alexa devices. But _voice control_ via Alexa is a different thing. And yes, not all of the features on Echo devices (like Dots) get rolled out uniformly to third-party Alexa-enabled devices (like Sonos speakers.) Some features (like "followup" mode) eventually arrive later. Some features might not arrive at all (like messaging or "drop in".) We've been told that Alexa control for Apple Music on Alexa-enabled Sonos devices is on the way, though.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

d_anders said:


> Agree that bundles would make sense, but they have never offered anything ever reasonable with their pricing...and I am Apple hardware fan.


I'm not saying that a bundle would or should be cheap coming from Apple, but it needs to exist so that the service is "stickier". They should also through Apple News Plus in there in addition to AppleCare Plus, Apple Music, iCloud, and Apple TV Plus.



> That said, I have always been Leary of their services. Don't use Apple Music because it's been a walled garden unlike Spotify and Pandora....


Agreed, although I've also moved away from the iPhone as the hardware has fallen so far behind Android, especially in terms of the RF performance. I love my Note 9 with it's SD845 and Qualcomm X20. The thing is a total beast in weak signal areas where iPhones would have little or no service with their inferior Intel radios.



> I don't buy/use iCloud storage because they should give the same amount of total cloud storage amt as the hardware device so that cloud backups could be really viable. Their cloud storage and experience is not at all premium, just mediocre and poor and priced not accordingly.


To be fair, there really isn't any equivalent on Android, and you can make a local device backup, and let your cloud backup service slurp that up.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

I am not likely to subscribe to a music streaming service but I might to this Apple TV +, if the shows they're developing turn out to be good.

Anyways, the "walled garden" critique is that Apple doesn't allow some other apps. or services to be run on their devices. So for instance, no side loading like Android, all apps. have to be approved by Apple to go on the App. Store.

The "walled garden" isn't Apple products and services not being available on other hardware. So they've made iTunes and some other apps. and services available on Windows and Android. But they have no obligation of any kind to make it available on every device or OS. They have the right to assess the business case for putting their software on other hardware.

Now, some argue that people who buy Apple devices should be able to run any software they want, even if there are security risks or whatever. Well for people who believe in that right strongly, they are free to buy other hardware. Apple isn't forcing you to buy their hardware and run only software that they bless.

Similarly, Apple isn't forcing you to get Apple Music on your Android phone. They offer it, see if you will like the service, even if you don't buy their hardware. I would assume the video service will be similar. They want to reach people beyond their hardware installed base. But they're not forcing you to buy an Apple TV or an iPad to get this video content.

The "walled garden" connotes there is some kind of coercion involved. If that was the case, you'd think some govt, the EU if not the US, would make an antitrust case against Apple.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Just subscribed to finish "See" and also enjoyed "Elephant Queen". No interest in the other current content. $5 is a little high but not unreasonable (a cup of Starbucks coffee).

I wish other streaming services would lower their prices. Netflix and Amazon Prime have enough content *and services * to justify their prices, but the rest (including HBO) should be capped at or below $10, IMO. Otherwise, customers like me will only subscribe a couple of months per year.

(The price of CBSAA w/o commercials is insane.)


----------



## EWiser (Oct 2, 2008)

wco81 said:


> The "walled garden" connotes there is some kind of coercion involved. If that was the case, you'd think some govt, the EU if not the US, would make an antitrust case against Apple.


The reason for a what you call walled garden is to limit the devices that Apple writes software too. This means they don't have to write software that has to run on a wide variety of devices. In doing so that can make sure that the drivers for the video chips and audio chips and all the subsystems on the motherboard work together. 
This is also true for viruses by limiting how one can load software on iPhones you keep them off peoples phone.

You can't say anti trust as Apple does have competition in the smartphone business and does have a commanding 
Lead in the phone space.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Beryl said:


> I wish other streaming services would lower their prices. Netflix and Amazon Prime have enough content *and services * to justify their prices, but the rest (including HBO) should be capped at or below $10, IMO. Otherwise, customers like me will only subscribe a couple of months per year.
> 
> (The price of CBSAA w/o commercials is insane.)


HBO is going in the opposite direction: rather than lowering their price, they're going to offer more than twice their current amount of content in the upcoming HBO Max service but still charge the same $15 price. And it'll be a broader array of stuff too. It'll be more like Netflix, a one-stop-shop that, at least for some, could serve as a full replacement for cable TV (except for live sports and news).

I agree about CBSAA, though. It's too expensive given what it offers when compared to Hulu, Netflix and Prime Video. I look for them to eventually fold in all that content from the Viacom channels (Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount, etc.) now that CBS and Viacom have re-merged. If they did that and held the version with ads at $6/mo, the same as Hulu, it would be a pretty competitive offering.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

Beryl said:


> I wish other streaming services would lower their prices. Netflix and Amazon Prime have enough content *and services * to justify their prices, but the rest (including HBO) should be capped at or below $10, IMO. Otherwise, customers like me will only subscribe a couple of months per year.
> 
> (The price of CBSAA w/o commercials is insane.)


I usually only keep Netflix for about 3 months out of the year. I'm sure many people do the same. What Netflix should do is offer an annual plan similar to Amazon. Offer a 10-20% discount for people that pre-pay for the entire year. In the long run I'll bet they would make more money.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Adam C. said:


> I usually only keep Netflix for about 3 months out of the year. I'm sure many people do the same. What Netflix should do is offer an annual plan similar to Amazon. Offer a 10-20% discount for people that pre-pay for the entire year. In the long run I'll bet they would make more money.


I agree with this.

You can sort of achieve that by applying prepaid and discounted gift/promo cards on Netflix and Apple.


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

Adam C. said:


> I usually only keep Netflix for about 3 months out of the year. I'm sure many people do the same.


That would (apparently) be why Apple TV+ is going to be releasing certain content weekly (like CBSAA, and Disney+), to avoid the churn, and turn everyone into constant subscribers (back before the DVR and on-demand you had to subscribe all year to watch the new episodes on HBO, too). The Netflix binge approach has value, but encourages the short timers. That, too, may change.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Adam C. said:


> I usually only keep Netflix for about 3 months out of the year. I'm sure many people do the same. What Netflix should do is offer an annual plan similar to Amazon. Offer a 10-20% discount for people that pre-pay for the entire year. In the long run I'll bet they would make more money.


Netflix has had a great run over the past few years in terms of continually building their subscriber base while still increasing their prices. But I think the going will get a bit rougher for them going forward with all the new streaming competition. I imagine it will become more common for folks to keep Netflix for just part of the year, switching between it and other services like HBO Max, Hulu/Disney+/ESPN+, etc. So I can imagine Netflix feeling like they need to offer a full-year discount (like lots of other services already do) in order to reduce churn.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Beryl said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> You can sort of achieve that by applying prepaid and discounted gift/promo cards on Netflix and Apple.


Yeah I bought a few $100 Netflix cards at Best Buy during the summer because each one had a $15 BB gift card attached to it.

I do that with iTunes too. Maybe once a year 20% off comes along. 15% off happens a few times a year. 10% off is pretty common. Pay for storage and Apple Music and now maybe AppleTV+.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> HBO is going in the opposite direction: rather than lowering their price, they're going to offer more than twice their current amount of content in the upcoming HBO Max service but still charge the same $15 price. And it'll be a broader array of stuff too. It'll be more like Netflix, a one-stop-shop that, at least for some, could serve as a full replacement for cable TV (except for live sports and news).


The problem is that it's not going to be a one-stop shop. Let's assume that they fix their awful HBO and AT&T TV and all their other crappy apps and get to par with Netflix on that. That's a big assumption, but that can be done if they want to. That leaves content. If they're going to look at a silo'ed Time Warner/HBO content package, it's not going to do well, as Netflix has a broad offering with a lot of different types of content. ABC has Disney and ESPN, so they have a lot to leverage, the others just don't, and aren't going to do well with brand-specific streaming packages.



trip1eX said:


> I do that with iTunes too. Maybe once a year 20% off comes along. 15% off happens a few times a year. 10% off is pretty common. Pay for storage and Apple Music and now maybe AppleTV+.


Apple really needs a bundle for all of their disjointed service. They might take a bit of a revenue hit up front, but it would definitely make it a LOT stickier.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Bigg said:


> The problem is that it's not going to be a one-stop shop. Let's assume that they fix their awful HBO and AT&T TV and all their other crappy apps and get to par with Netflix on that. That's a big assumption, but that can be done if they want to. That leaves content. If they're going to look at a silo'ed Time Warner/HBO content package, it's not going to do well, as Netflix has a broad offering with a lot of different types of content. ABC has Disney and ESPN, so they have a lot to leverage, the others just don't, and aren't going to do well with brand-specific streaming packages.
> 
> Apple really needs a bundle for all of their disjointed service. They might take a bit of a revenue hit up front, but it would definitely make it a LOT stickier.


They have been kicking the idea around..
Bundle of Apple Music and Apple TV Plus hits a snag
*Apple Music-Apple TV Plus bundle hits a snag: Skeptics at record labels*


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Thing about HBO Max is it's unknown if it will be UHD HDR, despite being $14.99.

UHD HDR of HBO content would be a draw for many.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tenthplanet said:


> They have been kicking the idea around..
> Bundle of Apple Music and Apple TV Plus hits a snag
> *Apple Music-Apple TV Plus bundle hits a snag: Skeptics at record labels*


That's not enough. They need to bundle Apple Music, Apple TV Plus, iCloud, AppleCare (in some form), Apple News+, and Apple Arcade, and offer some sort of incentive or higher tier bundle for those subscribers to do the iPhone upgrade program as well. They've got WAY too many different subscription services going on.


----------



## aristoBrat (Dec 30, 2002)

Bigg said:


> That's not enough. They need to bundle Apple Music, Apple TV Plus, iCloud, AppleCare (in some form), Apple News+, and Apple Arcade, and offer some sort of incentive or higher tier bundle for those subscribers to do the iPhone upgrade program as well. They've got WAY too many different subscription services going on.


OTOH, multiple smaller charges coming in on different days through the month may "seem" cheaper than a single, larger charge.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

As it stands now, I'm not subscribing to three of those. And I doubt I'd be paying for TV+ if the first year wasn't free. But if the bundle introduces incentive (like the total bundle price was less expensive then subscribing to them all individually) I'd probably bite.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

aristoBrat said:


> OTOH, multiple smaller charges coming in on different days through the month may "seem" cheaper than a single, larger charge.


Not to mention not everyone can use every apple service. It's possible to have a Apple Tv, and have Apple Music running on Android phones. I'm doing it now, I wouldn't need every service but I'm in for Apple TV plus, Apple Music, and maybe Apple Arcade, that's a bundle I could see a number of people using.


----------



## d_anders (Oct 12, 2000)

wco81 said:


> Thing about HBO Max is it's unknown if it will be UHD HDR, despite being $14.99.
> 
> UHD HDR of HBO content would be a draw for many.


I'm sure for an extra $5-10 a month it will be provided. Netflix charges a premium for UHD HDR as well.

But to your point, They should just offer for the premium they want for their service.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

Bigg said:


> That's not enough. They need to bundle ....


There are some people who prefer bundles, and some people who prefer a-la-carte pricing (for their cable channels, their package delivery and video service, and for their airplane seat with bag and food). As marketing knows, bundling of related services for small increments is a good way to up-sell the customer, until/unless the bundle price exceeds some magic value that causes a significant part of the base to reconsider everything (and decide to go without).

btw, for the Apple iPhone upgrade program, it is sort of the reverse, since if you purchase a new iPhone every year you should (in theory) get another year of (free) TV+ service (at least as long as the offer of a year of service for a new purchase continues), and the upgrade program already includes Applecare. So I could easily see them adding Music and Arcade to the upgrade program ("it's in there!") to continue their move to being a company with ongoing licensing/leasing/subscription services rather than just outright sales (which are cyclic). And, of course, add in that Apple credit card to get that 3% back on the Apple purchases to make the upgrade program seem a little cheaper.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aristoBrat said:


> OTOH, multiple smaller charges coming in on different days through the month may "seem" cheaper than a single, larger charge.


Sure, but they need a larger, stickier bundle if they're going to succeed in the long run. They seem to be trying to extract as much money in the short run, unlike Amazon, which is in the long game.



gary.buhrmaster said:


> As marketing knows, bundling of related services for small increments is a good way to up-sell the customer, until/unless the bundle price exceeds some magic value that causes a significant part of the base to reconsider everything (and decide to go without).


Amazon Prime is about stickiness. It's a gazillion things rolled together. Apple should learn a less from Amazon and bundle. Once you're sticky on one or two services, you've got the customer for all of the services, and they are incented to start using more of them and get attached to those.



> btw, for the Apple iPhone upgrade program, it is sort of the reverse, since if you purchase a new iPhone every year you should (in theory) get another year of (free) TV+ service (at least as long as the offer of a year of service for a new purchase continues), and the upgrade program already includes Applecare.


The free ATV+ is probably going to end at some point. What would make sense is making the iPhone upgrade program an add-on to the bundle.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> Thing about HBO Max is it's unknown if it will be UHD HDR, despite being $14.99.
> 
> UHD HDR of HBO content would be a draw for many.





d_anders said:


> I'm sure for an extra $5-10 a month it will be provided. Netflix charges a premium for UHD HDR as well.


I'll be very surprised if they don't include 4K HDR in the main $14.99 plan for HBO Max. Yes, I know that Netflix reserves that format for its most expensive $15.99 4-stream plan but Netflix is an outlier in the way they structure and price their service. Prime Video, Hulu, Disney+, and Apple TV+ all offer 4K HDR (or, in Hulu's case, regular 4K) for no additional charge. I expect HBO Max to do the same. As the streaming wars heat up, they know they're going to need to go the extra mile to attract subscribers. (And for the record, I'm predicting that HBO Max -- like AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now -- will allow 3 simultaneous streams, but that limit will apply across the combo of both HBO Max *and* AT&T TV/Now if you get the former packaged in with the latter. And I predict that all channel packages on AT&T TV/Now will include HBO Max.)

Rolling out a major new streaming service in 2020 without 4K will look weak. I think they either have to have it at launch or announce that it's on the way. And it wouldn't surprise me if HBO Max is the exclusive source for HBO original series in 4K or 4K HDR. Withholding it from regular HBO would definitely discourage MVPDs from resisting HBO Max distribution and, for those who resist anyway, they'd likely see a good chunk of their HBO subs cancel and sign up for HBO Max (direct from AT&T, who then doesn't have to share the revenue with an MVPD distribution partner).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> The problem is that it's not going to be a one-stop shop. Let's assume that they fix their awful HBO and AT&T TV and all their other crappy apps and get to par with Netflix on that. That's a big assumption, but that can be done if they want to. That leaves content. If they're going to look at a silo'ed Time Warner/HBO content package, it's not going to do well, as Netflix has a broad offering with a lot of different types of content. ABC has Disney and ESPN, so they have a lot to leverage, the others just don't, and aren't going to do well with brand-specific streaming packages.


I disagree. I think HBO Max will be as much of a "one-stop shop" as Netflix. They've done their homework in terms of knowing the demographics that are attracted to all of the existing content on HBO (it skews a bit male, and older), so they're making the new line of Max Originals to tilt female and younger (kids to Millennials) in their appeal. And some of those new shows will be reality competition type stuff (Ellen Degeneres is doing three shows for them), filling in holes that HBO doesn't cater to. Then add in stuff from TBS, TNT, TruTV, CNN docs and docuseries, plus new CW series. Then lots of DC superhero movies and shows from over the years, including at least some new original content from DC Universe like Doom Patrol. Then consider how stocked they're going to be on animation: South Park, Rick & Morty, recent stuff from Adult Swim and Cartoon Network, classic and new Looney Tunes, classic Hanna-Barbera (Scooby Doo, Flintstones, etc.), anime from Crunchyroll and Studio Ghibli. Then add in movies that span from TCM classics up through HBO's current line-up of films from Warner, Fox, and Universal. Plus past TV series like Big Bang Theory, Friends, The Bachelor, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Pretty Little Liars, The West Wing, as well as BBC shows like Doctor Who, The Office, Top Gear, etc.

So I don't really see HBO Max having any less varied a collection of content than Netflix does. Both are aiming to have something for everyone, and to essentially serve as a potential replacement for the entire cable dial (save for live sports, news, and local content) from basic to premium. But HBO Max will have an advantage over Netflix because they have such a huge library of recognizable titles and characters from Warner Bros. going back decades. Yes, Netflix has created a phenomenon with Stranger Things. And they'll still have some valuable classic shows available even after losing Friends, The Office and Parks & Rec; Seinfeld will be moving there, for one, and they'll retain past seasons of Schitt's Creek, Shameless, The Blacklist, and current CW shows like Riverdale. But increasingly, Netflix is becoming a service that you get just for their originals, which are a pretty mixed bag and don't, IMO, really stand up overall to HBO's originals.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Netflix does a lot of foreign stuff. They have this business where they are developing and buying shows in other countries and airing them to all their subscribers in all other countries. And finding shows in this or that country air really well in many other countries. Their CEO has brought up that part of their business quite a few times. It sounds like its a big deal for them.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Sure, but they need a larger, stickier bundle if they're going to succeed in the long run. They seem to be trying to extract as much money in the short run, unlike Amazon, which is in the long game.
> 
> Amazon Prime is about stickiness. It's a gazillion things rolled together. Apple should learn a less from Amazon and bundle. Once you're sticky on one or two services, you've got the customer for all of the services, and they are incented to start using more of them and get attached to those.
> 
> The free ATV+ is probably going to end at some point. What would make sense is making the iPhone upgrade program an add-on to the bundle.


Apple is pretty sticky as it is. Not really something they have to worry about.

And not even Amazon includes Amazon Music in a Prime membership. There is some free music with Prime but it's not the full fledged Amazon Music. You do get a discount though with Prime.

I don't know if a huge bundle would make sense for Apple. I'm sure they are thinking about it as they get paid to do stuff like that. But ...as a customer I don't know if I would go for it or not. It's a not a huge interest of mine. IT's pretty simple to sign up for apple services and get billed under one billing system. You can even add a lot of 3rd party services to iTunes billing as well like HBO or Showtime I think.

Also not sure the free with 1 yr of hardware goes away or not. I guess as they get more programming it could. But for now that is taking a page out of Amazon's playbook. Buy your yearly Apple device aka pay your yearly Prime Membership and you get video streaming for free for that year.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I disagree. I think HBO Max will be as much of a "one-stop shop" as Netflix. They've done their homework in terms of knowing the demographics that are attracted to all of the existing content on HBO (it skews a bit male, and older), so they're making the new line of Max Originals to tilt female and younger (kids to Millennials) in their appeal.


We'll see, but I don't forsee HBO Max being a one-stop shop for anything. I think Netflix has a massive lead in this area.



> But increasingly, Netflix is becoming a service that you get just for their originals, which are a pretty mixed bag and don't, IMO, really stand up overall to HBO's originals.


Maybe for back catalog, but in terms of what's out right now, the shows that people are talking about are almost all on Netflix. I just don't foresee that changing anytime soon.



trip1eX said:


> Apple is pretty sticky as it is. Not really something they have to worry about.


Their devices/ecosystem is, but their services themselves are not. They need the service revenue, and they need to make the services themselves sticky.



> And not even Amazon includes Amazon Music in a Prime membership. There is some free music with Prime but it's not the full fledged Amazon Music. You do get a discount though with Prime.


That's true, but Prime Music does have a lot of music included with Prime, albeit that not being the top tier, which is Amazon Music.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Maybe for back catalog, but in terms of what's out right now, the shows that people are talking about are almost all on Netflix. I just don't foresee that changing anytime soon.


What shows on Netflix are people really talking about, other than Stranger Things and The Crown? (House of Cards and OITNB were big first-gen Netflix hits but they're over now.) They've had a couple of middling original movies break through into the public consciousness -- Bird Box and Murder Mystery -- and I expect The Irishman will do so as a prestige film for them soon.

IMO, Netflix is in serious need for one or two new big original series that can gain the kind of acclaim and viewership that those above did. I find their preoccupation with original movies lately a bit odd, because movies don't keep viewers hooked on a service for years to come.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> What shows on Netflix are people really talking about, other than Stranger Things and The Crown? (House of Cards and OITNB were big first-gen Netflix hits but they're over now.) They've had a couple of middling original movies break through into the public consciousness -- Bird Box and Murder Mystery -- and I expect The Irishman will do so as a prestige film for them soon.
> 
> IMO, Netflix is in serious need for one or two new big original series that can gain the kind of acclaim and viewership that those above did. I find their preoccupation with original movies lately a bit odd, because movies don't keep viewers hooked on a service for years to come.


Netflix seems to focus less on that one big hit, despite having a few, than throw as much up on the wall and see what sticks. They seem to green light everything for a season or two no matter what it is.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Netflix does a lot of foreign stuff. They have this business where they are developing and buying shows in other countries and airing them to all their subscribers in all other countries. And finding shows in this or that country air really well in many other countries. Their CEO has brought up that part of their business quite a few times. It sounds like its a big deal for them.


Yeah, I've thought about this too and I can see Netflix's brand evolving, to an extent, into being an international TV service. Netflix customers in the US should expect to see a growing percentage of content, including Netflix Originals, that originate in other countries and are often shot in languages other than English (with subtitles or dubbing).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

morac said:


> Netflix seems to focus less on that one big hit, despite having a few, than throw as much up on the wall and see what sticks. They seem to green light everything for a season or two no matter what it is.


Yeah, but I'm not sure that that strategy is serving them well any more. There seems to be growing opinion that Netflix has a whole bunch of mediocre stuff and also that they tend to cancel a lot of their series (even ones with passionate fan bases, like The OA) after a couple of seasons.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> What shows on Netflix are people really talking about, other than Stranger Things and The Crown? (House of Cards and OITNB were big first-gen Netflix hits but they're over now.) They've had a couple of middling original movies break through into the public consciousness -- Bird Box and Murder Mystery -- and I expect The Irishman will do so as a prestige film for them soon.


There's the new Breaking Bad movie, and a bunch of other shows that I've heard people talking about, like Dirty Money, Rotten, Dark Tourist, Marie Kondo, American Factory, Mindhunter, Fyre, etc. HBO gets some love too, virtually nothing else does. John Oliver is key for HBO, without him, they're in trouble.



> IMO, Netflix is in serious need for one or two new big original series that can gain the kind of acclaim and viewership that those above did. I find their preoccupation with original movies lately a bit odd, because movies don't keep viewers hooked on a service for years to come.


That's an interesting point. Movies create a lot of buzz, but then it's over.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I've thought about this too and I can see Netflix's brand evolving, to an extent, into being an international TV service. Netflix customers in the US should expect to see a growing percentage of content, including Netflix Originals, that originate in other countries and are often shot in languages other than English (with subtitles or dubbing).


Agreed, and this is exactly why I cancelled Netflix. I got tired of searching for 10 minutes to find a movie that sounded good, only to find that it's dubbed over in English.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, but I'm not sure that that strategy is serving them well any more. There seems to be growing opinion that Netflix has a whole bunch of mediocre stuff and also that they tend to cancel a lot of their series (even ones with passionate fan bases, like The OA) after a couple of seasons.


Agree with this point also. They seem to have a lot of quirky, niche-type programming that seems to be most popular among younger viewers and people that really don't use any other type of TV service (so Netflix is pretty much all they have to choose from).


----------



## MassMan (Mar 19, 2019)

Naming convention bothers me. When searching for info on the hardware Apple TV vs search for info on the service Apple TV plus, + just blows...Yeah not a big deal in the scope...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> There's the new Breaking Bad movie, and a bunch of other shows that I've heard people talking about, like Dirty Money, Rotten, Dark Tourist, Marie Kondo, American Factory, Mindhunter, Fyre, etc.


Hmm. I know what those shows are but I don't feel like I've seen much talk about them in the media/online or among people I know, other than Marie Kondo for a little while there.



Bigg said:


> HBO gets some love too, virtually nothing else does. John Oliver is key for HBO, without him, they're in trouble.


Seems like Watchmen are Succession are both getting a lot of buzz and acclaim right now, and His Dark Materials too, to a lesser extent. Bill Mahr continues to be talked about. We'll see if Westworld gets back on track and generates excitement when it returns next year. I think HBO is doing fine and will likely beat Netflix at next year's Emmys once again.



Bigg said:


> That's an interesting point. Movies create a lot of buzz, but then it's over.


Well, they CAN create a lot of buzz, but if they're not released in theaters and they don't get advertised -- which is the case for most Netflix original movies -- they're just tiles that scroll by on the home page.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> There's the new Breaking Bad movie, and a bunch of other shows that I've heard people talking about, like Dirty Money, Rotten, Dark Tourist, Marie Kondo, American Factory, Mindhunter, Fyre, etc. HBO gets some love too, virtually nothing else does.


Yeah there's lots of shows. Narcos and it's sister series Narcos Mexico or whatever it's called. There's one with Jason Bateman and Lauren Linney that is going on 4 seasons.

There's a lot. I watch a ton of foreign shows whose names all run together.

And lots of stand up comedy specials. There's just a lot of content.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Bigg said:


> That's not enough. They need to bundle Apple Music, Apple TV Plus, iCloud, AppleCare (in some form), Apple News+, and Apple Arcade, and offer some sort of incentive or higher tier bundle for those subscribers to do the iPhone upgrade program as well. They've got WAY too many different subscription services going on.


A 2TB iCloud, music, books, tv, new, arcade, movie rentals for $79-99/month


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Anything over $10/month is hard to swallow so if HBO Max offers similar discounts, I may bite. I’ve been subscribing to HBO an average of 3 months per year for over a decade. Most months were gratuit from Comcast. 

I’m paid up on Netflix til June thanks to 50% off gift cards. Apple TV+ is essentially 20% discounted (if I choose it over other Apple content). Amazon Prime is an entirely different animal except they occasionally offer sweet deals on streaming channels.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Hmm. I know what those shows are but I don't feel like I've seen much talk about them in the media/online or among people I know, other than Marie Kondo for a little while there.


We must live in different worlds in terms of media, but when my friends talk about "TV" it's almost always Netflix or HBO. There really isn't anything beyond that.



> Seems like Watchmen are Succession are both getting a lot of buzz and acclaim right now, and His Dark Materials too, to a lesser extent. Bill Mahr continues to be talked about. We'll see if Westworld gets back on track and generates excitement when it returns next year. I think HBO is doing fine and will likely beat Netflix at next year's Emmys once again.


I'm a Bill Maher fanatic, but I listen to him via podcast, as you don't need to watch 95% of the show to get it, and there's just too much to watch. He does have a loyal following, like John Oliver. The problem with a lot of their shows is that they are on 10 weeks out of the year, versus John Oliver and Bill Maher who are on 10 months out of the year. I believe Silicon Valley is in it's last season, GoT is gone, Veep is gone, and they had an incredibly funny show in The Brink that I don't think many people watched, and they gave up on after a single season, which was really sad.



> Well, they CAN create a lot of buzz, but if they're not released in theaters and they don't get advertised -- which is the case for most Netflix original movies -- they're just tiles that scroll by on the home page.


Far as I can tell, Netflix movies create more buzz than theaters since they are much more accessible to a lot more people more quickly.



trip1eX said:


> And lots of stand up comedy specials. There's just a lot of content.


Comedy is a big one too. My dad watches those all the time.



andyw715 said:


> A 2TB iCloud, music, books, tv, new, arcade, movie rentals for $79-99/month


They need to get the whole bundle under $200/year.



Beryl said:


> Amazon Prime is an entirely different animal except they occasionally offer sweet deals on streaming channels.


This made me think about how much content is out there. I think a big headwind to retaining and gaining new subscribers is that there is just so much content out there. It's easy to see something interesting but not bother subscribing for it because you've already got so much on whatever you're subscribed to now, or conversely, drop existing subscriptions when you get a new one because there is so much on.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Far as I can tell, Netflix movies create more buzz than theaters since they are much more accessible to a lot more people more quickly.


Heh. If you think Netflix movies generate excitement, then yes, we do live in two different worlds. I never hear anyone talk about Netflix movies, with rare exceptions. For the most part, they're today's version of "straight-to-video" but with a few high-profile exceptions sprinkled in, like Roma and The Irishman.



Bigg said:


> This made me think about how much content is out there. I think a big headwind to retaining and gaining new subscribers is that there is just so much content out there. It's easy to see something interesting but not bother subscribing for it because you've already got so much on whatever you're subscribed to now, or conversely, drop existing subscriptions when you get a new one because there is so much on.


Yeah, I think the future of TV is that most people won't subscribe to all the major streaming services, at least not at the same time. So it will be increasingly likely that others you know won't be watching the same stuff you're watching around the same time because you won't be subscribed to the same services then. At a given moment, you might have Netflix, Hulu and Disney+ while I have HBO Max, Showtime and Prime Video.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> I never hear anyone talk about Netflix movies, with rare exceptions.


I have noticed a big swing towards _stars_ plugging their streaming movies on talk shows. A-listers as well those not quite so famous. To a large extent the topics (endlessly debated here) are not marketed to us (in most cases relatively old folks per se). We aren't the target market and as such our beliefs (even understanding) is far from reality. Now my two nephews are another story...

Regarding Netflix with well over 50% of their subscribers overseas again looking at the US market (only) is rather tunnel vision.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Heh. If you think Netflix movies generate excitement, then yes, we do live in two different worlds. I never hear anyone talk about Netflix movies, with rare exceptions.


We live in different worlds then.

Everyone I know either subscribes or has access to Netflix. I disagree that folks don't talk much about the original movies. When They See Us", "Birdbox", "Roma", "The Irishman" .....among others... were talked about for some time.

Many watch blockbusters movies on Netflix instead of going to theaters. True, they show up on HBO faster than Netflix but folks who don't want to pay for theater tickets don't want to pay for HBO.

People talk the most about the series they binge watch on Netflix. Folks who don't want Hulu wait for popular TV seasons to appear and enjoy domestic and foreign content like Ozarks, Wentworth and 3%. (The loss of all new Marvel content is significant, however.)

I don't disagree that HBO Max will do quite well though and will replace Netflix in some homes. However, I agree with the analysts that the price should top off at $12. $15-$16 is too much.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I think the future of TV is that most people won't subscribe to all the major streaming services, at least not at the same time. So it will be increasingly likely that others you know won't be watching the same stuff you're watching around the same time because you won't be subscribed to the same services then. At a given moment, you might have Netflix, Hulu and Disney+ while I have HBO Max, Showtime and Prime Video.


I can't speak for others but I've had Netflix, Hulu and Prime for years and have no plans to change that. I also have Disney+ for the next 4 years and AppleTV though maybe not much going forward as it seems it would be an excellent one to turn on to binge watch.
And of course, you're opinions on how and who is going to be the big players in streaming going forward disagrees with mine. For instance, you are pretty positive that ATT is going to be one of the big dogs in it, and that might happen. But it isn't going to be with anything like they are peddling to the streaming market now. HBO Max to me looks to be another one good to sign up a couple times a year for a month at a time and binge watch, not to keep going for the whole year.
I think as the various channels shuffle where and how they will stream that the cable/sat replacements will have a tough road to hoe.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

AT&T has bungled their TV efforts. Uverse went nowhere. Then they buy DirecTV and now they're urged to sell it off.

They launch streaming services and then raise prices over and over again, which leads to big subscriber losses.

Now they're going to probably dilute the HBO brand. Probably would launch a dozen Game of Thrones spinoffs if HBO didn't push back. As it is, they're going to put some crappy shows under the same umbrella as the HBO prestige shows.

But I can kind of understand the HBO Max pricing, because they already charge $15 or more for HBO with most MSOs and I heard they plan to maintain HBO Go and HBO Now even after HBO Max launches. So unless they want to devalue HBO subscriptions, they have to start out at $15.

If they deliver UHD HDR for HBO Max, then I can see a lot of people who get HBO through MSOs cancelling their existing subscriptions and going to HBO Max.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Heh. If you think Netflix movies generate excitement, then yes, we do live in two different worlds.


Yeah, I guess so. I wouldn't call my friends average by means, but it's interesting to hear different people get excited about different types of TV content.



> Yeah, I think the future of TV is that most people won't subscribe to all the major streaming services, at least not at the same time. So it will be increasingly likely that others you know won't be watching the same stuff you're watching around the same time because you won't be subscribed to the same services then. At a given moment, you might have Netflix, Hulu and Disney+ while I have HBO Max, Showtime and Prime Video.


As it is, no one can keep up with the sheer volume of new content coming out. I have people recommending me stuff all the time. It will just get worse when people have different subscriptions.



lparsons21 said:


> I can't speak for others but I've had Netflix, Hulu and Prime for years and have no plans to change that. I also have Disney+ for the next 4 years and AppleTV though maybe not much going forward as it seems it would be an excellent one to turn on to binge watch.


How'd you get Disney+ for 4 years? All the deals I've read about are a year. However, I'd agree on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu. More and more of the stuff I watch is YouTube. I might get CuriosityStream and Nebula, and I love the documentary content, but for now, I really only pay for Netflix. I share it with my dad, and I have his HBO login from Comcast. Beyond that, Amazon Prime is free, since I pay for shipping anyway, and I have Hulu bundled with Spotify, which I pay for anyway, on top of Slacker, which I was going to cancel, but they gave me a year for $20 or $25, which is worth it IMO.



> HBO Max to me looks to be another one good to sign up a couple times a year for a month at a time and binge watch, not to keep going for the whole year.


I agree. HBO Max should be at the $8/mo price point, not double that. The problem is, they can't do it, as it would undermine their MSO partners.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Beryl said:


> We live in different worlds then.
> 
> Everyone I know either subscribes or has access to Netflix. I disagree that folks don't talk much about the original movies. When They See Us", "Birdbox", "Roma", "The Irishman" .....among others... were talked about for some time.


Most everyone I know has Netflix too but again, I never hear folks talking about their original movies. As far as the specific ones you listed, those are the same few that I had also cited (except for When They See Us, which is a mini-series, not a movie) as breaking through the noise and getting some level of media attention. But still, not on the level of big theatrical releases.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lparsons21 said:


> And of course, you're opinions on how and who is going to be the big players in streaming going forward disagrees with mine. For instance, you are pretty positive that ATT is going to be one of the big dogs in it, and that might happen. But it isn't going to be with anything like they are peddling to the streaming market now. HBO Max to me looks to be another one good to sign up a couple times a year for a month at a time and binge watch, not to keep going for the whole year.


Saying that HBO Max is going to be a big dog isn't a stretch. Consider that regular HBO already has about 35 million US subs, which is more than Hulu has. More than any pay TV services except Netflix and Prime Video (which would have FAR fewer subscribers if it weren't packaged in with Prime free shipping). The handwriting is on the wall that regular HBO will be phased out, with its subscribers all eventually transitioned over to HBO Max, which will carry the same price as HBO but have over twice the content, including everything in regular HBO. HBO Max isn't starting at zero, like Disney+ or Apple TV+.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I agree. HBO Max should be at the $8/mo price point, not double that. The problem is, they can't do it, as it would undermine their MSO partners.


If HBO Max should be $8, then how much do you think Netflix should be priced at? And why the heck would a service that has successfully built a 35-million-strong subscriber base at $15/month more than double their content while simultaneously cutting their price in half?


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> If HBO Max should be $8, then how much do you think Netflix should be priced at? And why the heck would a service that has successfully built a 35-million-strong subscriber base at $15/month more than double their content while simultaneously cutting their price in half?


You didn't ask me but I think Netflix needs a reduction as well. Netflix was the only game in town when they raised their price. That isn't the case anymore. If I don't get another significant discount by May, I'll likely suspend my subscription.

None of these services should be more than $10 if they want more than just 2-4 month/year subscriptions.

Apple TV + is priced right today (essentially $4 with gift cards) with its limited (but promising) content.

HBO Max will need to get closer to $10/month to make it worthwhile to *new and long-term subscribers*. Those who are currently playing $15/month won't feel this way and are excited about getting more for their money.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> Saying that HBO Max is going to be a big dog isn't a stretch. Consider that regular HBO already has about 35 million US subs, which is more than Hulu has. More than any pay TV services except Netflix and Prime Video (which would have FAR fewer subscribers if it weren't packaged in with Prime free shipping). The handwriting is on the wall that regular HBO will be phased out, with its subscribers all eventually transitioned over to HBO Max, which will carry the same price as HBO but have over twice the content, including everything in regular HBO. HBO Max isn't starting at zero, like Disney+ or Apple TV+.


Yep, HBO Max should do quite well. But then again...

As people shift to streaming the incentive to subscribe and forget, which a lot of people do with cable/sat these days, will be diminished. Mostly because it is so easy to sub and cancel and resub, which is not the case with cable/sat. I believe more people that go streaming will start binge watching vice the way they've done with cable/sat. And when you start doing that it does change things. We'll see going forward.

EDIT: It should be noted that Dish without HBO and most RSNs lost fewer subs than ATT did, and in fact with Sling added in, added net subs. Meanwhile back at the ATT ranch, they keep losing both.

As to the rest of ATT's efforts with streaming, well no, I don't think they will survive without some big changes in both channel counts and costs.

While I'm still subbed to cable, after my streaming experiment, I'm also streaming quite a lot more, especially during the day. Daytime linear TV just sucks, no other way to say it. Mostly made up of reruns of reruns, some soaps and fake reality reruns. So I'm watching more streaming and less linear almost to the point of cancelling my cable subscription.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Beryl said:


> You didn't ask me but I think Netflix needs a reduction as well. Netflix was the only game in town when they raised their price. That isn't the case anymore. If I don't get another significant discount by May, I'll likely suspend my subscription.


Agreed. They also need to do per-stream pricing without charging more for 4k streaming like they do now. I don't use it that much, but have to have the highest plan just to get 4k. It's not even a novelty anymore, pretty much every TV over 40" sold in the last few years is 4k.



> HBO Max will need to get closer to $10/month to make it worthwhile to *new and long-term subscribers*. Those who are currently playing $15/month won't feel this way and are excited about getting more for their money.


The challenge is that they can't undermine their MSO partners.


----------



## brianp6621 (Nov 22, 1999)

I just realized that the Apple TV app does not work on slightly older TCL Roku TVs of which I have quite a few... That's a huge bummer as I thought the Roku platform was pretty universal. This is the first I've seen of something like this.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

I have found a way to lower prices...have a large family who share login info. Only SiriusXM limits you to one stream.


----------



## hahathatsfunny (Jul 29, 2008)

mattyro7878 said:


> I have found a way to lower prices...have a large family who share login info. Only SiriusXM limits you to one stream.


Yeah. Another approach is rotate the services e.g.one month HBO and watch everything there, cancel switch to Showtime for a month and watch everything, cancel switch to Netflix, etc.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

hahathatsfunny said:


> Yeah. Another approach is rotate the services e.g.one month HBO and watch everything there, cancel switch to Showtime for a month and watch everything, cancel switch to Netflix, etc.


I have to think that those services are going to offer year subscriptions in order to combat churn with people switching services.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

Yeah. I have no idea why I am paying showtime to watch Billions. I could wait till September and watch them all.


----------



## hahathatsfunny (Jul 29, 2008)

The one to be careful with is Sling. If you have a 14 day free trial, and choose to cancel a couple days earlier than the renew date, Sling will cut off the day of cancel rather than the renewal date. So, the free 14 day trial wound up being a free 10 day trial, if I did it four days ahead to prevent an unwanted billing.

If you paid though, Sling won't do that, but I still have skepticism with them, given it is owned by Dish Network.

And, I had a bad experience with Vonage where I paid for period of time, and gave notice to cancel and they cancelled on me without refund of the extra days. (e.g. paid out to say 5/29, call on 5/23 to cancel so I won't get charged on 5/29, they close out service on 5/23 without a refund up to 5/29)

So far, I haven't had bad experiences cancelling out of any paid streaming though.


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

Bigg said:


> I have to think that those services are going to offer year subscriptions in order to combat churn with people switching services.


Disney+ already has a discount for yearly subscription, and Netflix has experimented with doing so in a few markets with targeted offerings (nearly 50% off for a yearly subscription).

However, to make such things work well for the services, they will probably also need to consider making certain new content available weekly (to keep you coming back) rather than binge-able (a few services already do this), and expire previous episodes after a few months of initial release from viewing for at least a year or so (to prevent the in-and-out'ers at the end of the season), or maybe alternatively offering previous episodes at some increased prices.

And more than a few streaming services are trying to better identify a household to cut down on sharing outside of the contractually agreed domain (none want to stop streaming on the subway commute, but they are raising an eyebrow about streaming from residential services located across the country). There is an independent company working with the streaming services using the connection data which is attempting to use AI to identify "interesting" cases.

I have little doubt all the services will be testing the waters as to how to maximize revenue. It is what they do.


----------



## hahathatsfunny (Jul 29, 2008)

CommunityMember said:


> I have little doubt all the services will be testing the waters as to how to maximize revenue. It is what they do.


I agree. And they want more of our data.

I got a $5 promotional Amazon credit offer, if I back up my photos in a Auto Save to Amazon Photos. It has to be a full phone backup through Auto Save, not a selection of photos backup. While I believe it's just a way to compete against Apple ICloud, I have a growing distrust in Amazon in what they do with data. I can possibly move majority of my photos off my phone to a PC, except for a few, then set the Auto Save on, and then I'll take their $5 credit.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

CommunityMember said:


> Disney+ already has a discount for yearly subscription, and Netflix has experimented with doing so in a few markets with targeted offerings (nearly 50% off for a yearly subscription).


Interesting. I didn't realize Netflix was doing that, but I'm not surprised.



> However, to make such things work well for the services, they will probably also need to consider making certain new content available weekly (to keep you coming back) rather than binge-able (a few services already do this), and expire previous episodes after a few months of initial release from viewing for at least a year or so (to prevent the in-and-out'ers at the end of the season), or maybe alternatively offering previous episodes at some increased prices.


Binge-ability is Netflix's main selling point, and the main way Netflix is consumed. I don't think going backwards to the TV release model would work well for them, and expiring original content would really make people mad. There's already content overload, and people are just going to feel stressed about watching content before it expires, defeating the whole point of relaxing and watching some Netflix on your own terms.

They are just barely hanging on for me at $17/mo or whatever they have crept up to now. It's like they're providing the bare minimum that they can to not get me to cancel. Tiger King was great, now Space Force is coming out in a few days. After that, I don't know. There is so much content to watch, it's overwhelming.



> And more than a few streaming services are trying to better identify a household to cut down on sharing outside of the contractually agreed domain (none want to stop streaming on the subway commute, but they are raising an eyebrow about streaming from residential services located across the country). There is an independent company working with the streaming services using the connection data which is attempting to use AI to identify "interesting" cases.


There's going to have to be a business decision to balance these sorts of crackdowns versus the number of people who currently reciprocally share various services who may start cancelling various services and either rotating them or just not subscribing entirely.



> I have little doubt all the services will be testing the waters as to how to maximize revenue. It is what they do.


Profits, not revenue. Although they are very closely linked since customer acquisition and churn cost a lot less in a pure-digital model.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I'm looking at where I want to spend money in streaming services. Hulu is bundled with Spotify, so I'm keeping that, I don't pay for VUDU or YouTube. Amazon comes with Amazon Prime, which even with their recent meltdown, and my increasing skepticism of their quality of products, I'm not going to cancel, as there are some things that are just harder to find anywhere else. Netflix is the outlier. They aren't bundled with anything.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Netflix is the outlier. They aren't bundled with anything.


Except for Tmobile.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

And Comcast CATV subs in some markets.


----------



## CommunityMember (May 22, 2020)

Bigg said:


> Profits, not revenue.


Actually, it is (or can be) revenue, not profits, for at least some companies. And while *eventually* a company is supposed to be profitable, the value of the company (on the stock market) is often related to revenue (look at Uber, which has never really made a profit, but is worth $50B?). And the CEO bonus is based on the stock price. And the way that the streaming services with new content are playing accounting games can make actual profit/loss more complex too (for example, for Netflix, even if they never made another series/movie would have costs for doing so for years to come because they account for those costs over an extended period, and not when actually incurred).

And since revenue is used as an indication of ability to repay, the cost of borrowing also declines when revenue is high. That is one of the reasons some cable companies keep offering TV services. While TV service does make some money, a lot of that money coming in goes right out the back door to the content providers. Eliminating TV service (and just telling people to subscribe to their favorite streaming/OTT service(s)) would be an attractive way to move forward to reduce certain costs (and a lot of overheads of content negotiations), but it would impact total revenue, raising borrowing costs (just when the cable systems need to invest more), and resulting in loss of market value (even though it would still have all the same physical assets, and potential for even more profits with their HSI offering), and the CEO ending up being an ex-CEO as the stock price plummeted.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

CommunityMember said:


> Actually, it is (or can be) revenue, not profits, for at least some companies. And while *eventually* a company is supposed to be profitable, the value of the company (on the stock market) is often related to revenue (look at Uber, which has never really made a profit, but is worth $50B?). And the CEO bonus is based on the stock price. And the way that the streaming services with new content are playing accounting games can make actual profit/loss more complex too (for example, for Netflix, even if they never made another series/movie would have costs for doing so for years to come because they account for those costs over an extended period, and not when actually incurred).
> 
> And since revenue is used as an indication of ability to repay, the cost of borrowing also declines when revenue is high. That is one of the reasons some cable companies keep offering TV services. While TV service does make some money, a lot of that money coming in goes right out the back door to the content providers. Eliminating TV service (and just telling people to subscribe to their favorite streaming/OTT service(s)) would be an attractive way to move forward to reduce certain costs (and a lot of overheads of content negotiations), but it would impact total revenue, raising borrowing costs (just when the cable systems need to invest more), and resulting in loss of market value (even though it would still have all the same physical assets, and potential for even more profits with their HSI offering), and the CEO ending up being an ex-CEO as the stock price plummeted.


Customer churn doesn't look good either for company value. I don't think cable companies keeping video service is a function of borrowing, but rather of being able to eke out a bit of profit at large scale, and vertical integration. The smaller players are already dropping video or will do so soon. Comcast, meanwhile, has massive scale, and owns NBC, so the money paid to NBC for carriage fees means that Comcast as a whole is profitable in video even if they are only breaking even on cable TV per se. I think they still have some upside in selling premiums, VOD, and extra box rentals at scale as well, in addition to bundled competition (FiOS, AT&T) in some small, but lucrative parts of their markets.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

Looks like the Apple website has removed LG WebOS (2018) from its list of supported platforms...

Apple TV app - Devices


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

MikeekiM said:


> Looks like the Apple website has removed LG WebOS (2018) from its list of supported platforms...
> 
> Apple TV app - Devices


So older LG OLED models but not current ones?

Guess LG isn't updating the webOS that much?


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

wco81 said:


> So older LG OLED models but not current ones?
> 
> Guess LG isn't updating the webOS that much?


Yeah... I am somewhat surprised that WebOS is not the same baseline platform across their annual product lines... After all, we don't talk about a 2018 Roku STB versus a 2019 Roku STB, right? Why do we have to care that it's 2018 versus 2019 LG WebOS?

But in any case, when Apple first announced the Apple TV+ app, they originally targeted WebOS 2019 with support for WebOS 2018 being supported shortly thereafter... And both were listed as planned for support...

After deployment of the Apple app to WebOS 2019, I have been monitoring for the app to show up on WebOS 2018... I have grown impatient, so today I decided to check the Apple site and discovered that they removed reference to WebOS 2018...


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

wco81 said:


> So older LG OLED models but not current ones?
> 
> Guess LG isn't updating the webOS that much?


LG has updated WebOS with every new model year and rarely ported features back, so if you have a 2016 LG set its WebOS will stay at that revision level with only security and patch updates.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Probably different application processor capabilities.

For instance LG touted the 2019 models with HDMI 2.1 outputs because the same processor they use to run the OS and the apps. also has the throughput to support the higher IO of HDMI 2.1.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Despite purchasing an iPhone 12 and a S6 watch, Apple didn't extend my free year to February. (phone, watch).  It expires In January. Guess I'll opt for the $50 renewal. I do like the CBS+Showtime for $10/month.

Apple should offer 5% cash back with their CC (like Amazon). I've not found using their card worth the trouble of another bill to schedule paying.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

So no more 1-year free Apple TV +?

Did the Watch alone get you a free year?


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

wco81 said:


> So no more 1-year free Apple TV +?
> 
> Did the Watch alone get you a free year?


Nope. You only get it once. There are games that might work (another Apple ID) though.


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

I got the email that it is extended until February - since until I assume it expires Jan 31 and I wonder if, since yours expired in Jan anyway they just didn't bother with those accounts.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Mine subscription expires January 31 as well. The Apple Card gets 3% back on Apple Purchases, so not nothing.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

My sub updated this morning. Was End of November and now end of February!


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

End or Feb -eh - my email say until Feb. And looking at subscriptions it says next billing date is 2/1/2021
GO Whalers


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

ManeJon said:


> End or Feb -eh - my email say until Feb. And looking at subscriptions it says next billing date is 2/1/2021
> GO Whalers


Long live the blue and green!


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

jlb said:


> Long live the blue and green!


It is still weird to me that we got an NHL team in central NC, and it has been here longer than it was in Hartford at this point. I enjoyed it when they wore the Whalers uniforms a couple times in 2018. Still a fair number of people in the blue and green at most games back before the pandemic.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

I miss going to games in Hartford, be it as the Hartford Whalers or New England Whalers.


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

Now live in Maine - was a Whaler season ticket holder for 21 years. I see bunches of Whaler license plate frames here in Maine. A plate that reads HRWHLRS (or something similar) - My daughter saw a sign on the NH, VT border that said bring Whalers back to Hartford, etc. Kevin Dineen's daughter is a newscaster here and gets a lot of greetings for her dad.
They were the heart of CT. Bad management with bad decisions cost CT the Whalers and will never be forgiven


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

I never got the email but my renewal date was finally moved out.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

I’m happy to see they moved my subscription out to July especially since they won’t allow another year from my new phone and watch purchases.

Are they doing this for everyone or is there hope that they will extend it after another purchase. (I just bought another iPad.)


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Beryl said:


> I'm happy to see they moved my subscription out to July especially since they won't allow another year from my new phone and watch purchases.
> 
> Are they doing this for everyone or is there hope that they will extend it after another purchase. (I just bought another iPad.)


They extended it out to July for everyone.

At this point 2/3 of the people with ATV+ aren't paying for it and most people said they won't pay for it when their trial ends. Since ATV+ has the lowest rankings of all the streaming services I assume Apple keeps pushing back the free trial end date to keep from losing subscribers.

I actually had a free trial for around 13 months before I finally watched something on ATV+.


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

I am in that category - I watched a few things and then... I think they are trying to roll out more stuff before people quit and maybe the more will entice more.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Well I will pay for it after the free trial ends because it would only be $2/mo more than what I'm paying anyway for Apple services due to the AppleOne bundle.

I can only recall watching one show on it so far tho.


----------



## powrcow (Sep 27, 2010)

My guess is they saw all of the Reminders people set on their phones to "Cancel Apple TV Plus" and panicked.


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

Moved my reminder to middle of June


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

Is there a way to setup auto play the next episode when you are binging a full season? I watch on the the 4K AppleTV. Thanks in advance.


----------



## jay_man2 (Sep 15, 2003)

tigercat74 said:


> Is there a way to setup auto play the next episode when you are binging a full season? I watch on the the 4K AppleTV. Thanks in advance.


I start from the "Watch Now" menu, and the next episode will start unless I press the "back" button on the remote.

I start the first season first episode from the app it's from, and from then on it appears in "Up Next" in the "Watch Now" menu, and the next episode will start when the current one concludes.


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

jay_man2 said:


> I start from the "Watch Now" menu, and the next episode will start unless I press the "back" button on the remote.
> 
> I start the first season first episode from the app it's from, and from then on it appears in "Up Next" in the "Watch Now" menu, and the next episode will start when the current one concludes.


Thanks. I will try that the next time.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

The $10 bundle for Showtime/Paramount+ is worth continuing Apple TV+ @ $50/yr — to me. Are there other special discounted bundles like that with other channels?


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

Beryl said:


> The $10 bundle for Showtime/Paramount+ is worth continuing Apple TV+ @ $50/yr - to me. Are there other special discounted bundles like that with other channels?


I haven't seen any other 'bundles' and I believe that if you're not now currently subscribed to the Paramount+/Showtime you can no longer bundle those 2. If a person is subscribed to that package I'd make a decision very early on ATV+.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Not exactly ATV Plus related, but since there is an Amazon Video app I’ll mention currently Amazon Prime members can subscribe to practically any channel for $1 a month for 2 months.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Apple announced that the free 1 year of Apple TV + is going away starting in July.

It will only be 3 months.

So if you're going to get a free year, do it before the end of the month.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

So I wonder if this also means that the trials that they have been extending out will no longer be extended any further? It was nice while it lasted….


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

morac said:


> ... currently Amazon Prime members can subscribe to practically any channel for $1 a month for 2 months.


Thanks for the heads-up. Just sub'd to STARZ, SHOWTIME, EPIX & AMC+.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

krkaufman said:


> Thanks for the heads-up. Just sub'd to STARZ, SHOWTIME, EPIX & AMC+.


Perfect timing. We're Heartland fans and now we can catch S14 with the Up Faith and Family channel. The two months with more than cover the time for last episodes to air. I think e7 of 10 is tomorrow.

I wonder if Apple TV+ Channels would match. I like the integration when I do a channel that way, but for one series it's fine going into Amazon app on ATV to play the content.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Wait, I can still add it to the watch list in the Apple TV app and just say "Open With Prime Video App". There you go!


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

WVZR1 said:


> I haven't seen any other 'bundles' and I believe that if you're not now currently subscribed to the Paramount+/Showtime you can no longer bundle those 2. If a person is subscribed to that package I'd make a decision very early on ATV+.


Wow. I'm glad I got it then. So if I paused/cancelled that bundle, do you think I could ever get it back?


----------



## WVZR1 (Jul 31, 2008)

Beryl said:


> Wow. I'm glad I got it then. So if I paused/cancelled that bundle, do you think I could ever get it back?


'cancelled' - I doubt it!

'paused' - How brave are you? Try it!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Beryl said:


> Wow. I'm glad I got it then. So if I paused/cancelled that bundle, do you think I could ever get it back?


Nope. Since they're not offering that bundle to new subs any more, I'm pretty sure if you dropped it, there would be no getting it back at that price.

I'm honestly surprised that bundle was ever offered for only $15/mo when separately they cost $5 for Apple TV+, $11 for Showtime, and $10 for Paramount+ ad-free.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Nope. Since they're not offering that bundle to new subs any more, I'm pretty sure if you dropped it, there would be no getting it back at that price.
> 
> I'm honestly surprised that bundle was ever offered for only $15/mo when separately they cost $5 for Apple TV+, $11 for Showtime, and $10 for Paramount+ ad-free.


True. Renewing annually makes it $14.15/month for the 3 services. Using a cash-back credit card makes it $13.87/month. (I wish we could get those $100 iTunes cards for $80 like in the old days.)


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Beryl said:


> (I wish we could get those $100 iTunes cards for $80 like in the old days.)


Sadly I think now that Apple gift cards have been unified and can be used for hardware purchases in the Apple Store, as well as digital media and subscriptions in the App Store, we'll never see those kinds of deals/discounts again.


----------



## jay_man2 (Sep 15, 2003)

If I can't find a deal elsewhere I buy Apple Gift cards for email delivery at Target and pay using my Target RedCard to get 5% off. Right now I see Target is offering a $10 Target gift card with a $100 Apple gift card purchase.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Well I missed my window to get the free 1 year so the best you can get now is 3 months.

That's whether you buy a new Apple device or not.

So I just ordered a Chromecast with Google TV instead of an Apple TV 4K.

Difference of up to $150 in price.

I think a year of Apple TV + is less than that anyways?


----------



## cwteevee (Dec 24, 2007)

wco81 said:


> Well I missed my window to get the free 1 year so the best you can get now is 3 months.


You can get 4 months free as a (free to join) Target Circle member: Target Circle™ Partners


----------



## kcarl75 (Oct 23, 2002)

cwteevee said:


> You can get 4 months free as a (free to join) Target Circle member: Target Circle™ Partners


Thanks! Going to start Ted Lasso season 2


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

cwteevee said:


> You can get 4 months free as a (free to join) Target Circle member: Target Circle Partners


If you have a PS5, you can get 6 months free. Granted that's an expensive (and hard to find) purchase just to get Apple TV+.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

wco81 said:


> So I just ordered a Chromecast with Google TV instead of an Apple TV 4K.
> 
> Difference of up to $150 in price.
> 
> I think a year of Apple TV + is less than that anyways?


The annual (12-month) sub to Apple TV+ is $50, but AFAIK this option is only available to current subscribers. IOW if you are looking to start (or re-start) a sub you will only be presented with the monthly $5 plan.

And if you ordered the CCGTV + Netflix bundle, the cost of the CCGTV amounts to a measly $6 plus sales tax.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

What is CCGTV?


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

wco81 said:


> What is CCGTV?


Chromecast with Google TV streaming device ... and they're referring to >this bundled promo<. (The $6+tax net presumes you're already a Netflix subscriber, so most of the purchase price of the CCGTV is advance payment of the continued Netflix subscription.)


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Ah forgot about that bundle. Oh well.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

chiguy50 said:


> The annual (12-month) sub to Apple TV+ is $50, but AFAIK this option is only available to current subscribers. IOW if you are looking to start (or re-start) a sub you will only be presented with the monthly $5 plan.


That is somewhat disappointing. I wonder if that annual option will be available when it comes around for me in 2022.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> The annual (12-month) sub to Apple TV+ is $50, but AFAIK this option is only available to current subscribers. IOW if you are looking to start (or re-start) a sub you will only be presented with the monthly $5 plan.


I see an option for the annual sub. It's always been there as far as I'm aware.

Just go to the Subscriptions area on your device, choose Apple TV+ and pick the annual subscription. You don't get a trial with that, but if you sign up for a trial, you can pick it when the trial near the end.

How to save money on Apple TV+


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

morac said:


> How to save money on Apple TV+


Nephew's leaving for college in a few days, so I forwarded him the tip Re: student discounts. Thanks!


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

morac said:


> I see an option for the annual sub. It's always been there as far as I'm aware.
> 
> Just go to the Subscriptions area on your device, choose Apple TV+ and pick the annual subscription. You don't get a trial with that, but if you sign up for a trial, you can pick it when the trial near the end.
> 
> How to save money on Apple TV+


The article at that link actually confirms what I wrote:

"_To subscribe to Apple TV+ yearly, first sign up normally. After you have signed up to the monthly plan, go to your Settings on your iPhone or iPad. Select Apple ID -> Subscriptions. Tap on Apple TV+. On this screen, you will be able to switch from Apple TV+ monthly to Apple TV+ yearly._"

I have looked for the annual subscription without being a current subscriber (I had allowed my 12-month freebie to expire) and the option was not presented to me.

Once I had signed up for the monthly plan, the annual sub option appeared, but it was a tack-on to my current sub. IOW, I was on the hook for the $5 for the first month and then the $50 annual would kick in subsequently; there was no way to alter or substitute for the existing sub. So unless you are currently on a free sub, if you want the annual option the final cost is $55 for 13 months.

Anyway, that was my experience. YMMV.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

krkaufman said:


> Chromecast with Google TV streaming device ... and they're referring to >this bundled promo<. (*The $6+tax net presumes you're already a Netflix subscriber*, so most of the purchase price of the CCGTV is advance payment of the continued Netflix subscription.)


That's not entirely accurate. You do not have to be a current Netflix subscriber to get the bundle offer, but obviously if you do not already have one you will have to start an active account in order to apply the credits (which must be done by 1 March 2022). The credits can be used for either the streaming or the disc-by-mail service or both. Essentially, the $83.94 shows up as a credit on your account and is paid down month by month.

One caveat for those who might want to pause (i.e., cancel) their Netflix service from time to time: I was told by a Netflix CSR that the credit would continue to be drawn down until exhausted even though the customer may have asked to cancel the account. That is, you will be charged the full monthly subscription fee against the credit so that you save nothing by cancelling as long as there remains a credit balance. I have not verified this myself, but since Netflix does not offer an actual subscription pause feature (unlike Comcast, for example) it does make sense however consumer-unfriendly. If this is factual, then the best solution would be to temporarily downgrade the account to the lowest-priced tier (i.e., basic streaming @ $8.99 or 2-DVD-by-mail @ $4.99) until you are ready to resume using the service. (N.B.: The 2-disc-mail plan is only available to current subscribers or by special arrangement with a CSR.)


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

I've applied two of those Netflix credits so far, from two CCGTV purchases at the Google Store. I'm told there's a maximum of 3 allowed per account. I was considering buying yet another CCGTV for the Netflix credit alone, but it would just end up sitting in a drawer somewhere.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> I have looked for the annual subscription without being a current subscriber (I had allowed my 12-month freebie to expire) and the option was not presented to me.


Expired subscriptions stick around for a year in the subscriptions area before disappearing. You should have been able to tap on the Apple TV+ expired subscription and picked the yearly option from there. It was there for me after I canceled my "12 month" (which ended up being around 19 months). I'm on another freebie and the option is still there, along with Apple One.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Fofer said:


> I've applied two of those Netflix credits so far, from two CCGTV purchases at the Google Store. I'm told there's a maximum of 3 allowed per account. I was considering buying yet another CCGTV for the Netflix credit alone, but it would just end up sitting in a drawer somewhere.


The promo page specifically says 3 per account. It also says if you redeem the Netflix credit and then return the device, you'll get 49.99 back rather the full price. I'm not sure how that makes any sense for Google since it sounds like you can get (*) 6 months of Netflix for $40 that way.



> 1Eligible Chromecast with Google TV purchases on the Google Store between 09/30/2020 and 12/31/2021 include 6 months of the Netflix Standard Streaming Plan 2-screen plan (total current value $83.94). Offer applies only to the following SKUs while supplies last and subject to availability: GA02764-US, GA02765-US, GA02766-US. *Limit 3 per customer / Google Account. If you return the device within the allowable return period and have already redeemed the Netflix offer, you will be refunded $49.99 USD (cost of the Chromecast device).* If you return the device within the allowable return period and have not redeemed the Netflix offer, you will be refunded the entire amount charged. To redeem Netflix offer, customers must set up an eligible Chromecast with Google TV device and follow instructions to apply offer value to a Netflix account by 03/01/2022. Available to new and existing Netflix subscribers, except for those who receive Netflix access via bundled services offered by a third-party partner (e.g., T-Mobile). The offer must be redeemed in the same country in which a user's Netflix account is established. Not redeemable or refundable for cash, and cannot be exchanged. Offer value may be applied to a different Netflix streaming plan under the same account; exchanges in this manner may alter the duration of the offer. Netflix price plans subject to change and the duration of the offer value may be prorated accordingly. A Netflix compatible device (manufactured and sold separately) and broadband Internet connection are required to watch instantly. See www.netflix.com/termsofuse. Visit g.co/cast/netflixhelp for more information on redeeming your Netflix offer. Offer subject to applicable law and void where prohibited.


(*) - The credit is for the price of the HD plan so if you subscribe to 4K you'll only get 4.5 months free.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

morac said:


> Expired subscriptions stick around for a year in the subscriptions area before disappearing. You should have been able to tap on the Apple TV+ expired subscription and picked the yearly option from there. It was there for me after I canceled my "12 month" (which ended up being around 19 months). I'm on another freebie and the option is still there, along with Apple One.


That's not what I recall when I renewed last month, but perhaps I just missed it.

I'm going to let my current monthly sub expire at the end of this month and will look again for the annual option when I renew based on your guidance.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> That's not what I recall when I renewed last month, but perhaps I just missed it.
> 
> I'm going to let my current monthly sub expire at the end of this month and will look again for the annual option when I renew based on your guidance.


I can't demo it to you with Apple TV+ since I'm subscribed currently, but I canceled an Apple Arcade trial July 8th and this is what it looks like down in the expired section under subscriptions.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

T‑Mobile is Giving Customers One Year of Apple TV+, on Us | T‑Mobile Newsroom



> T‑Mobile is Giving Customers One Year of Apple TV+, on Us
> 
> August 23, 2021
> 
> Starting August 25, Magenta and Magenta MAX customers get Apple TV+ free for a whole year - an offer only available from T‑Mobile


EDIT: additional info..
AppleTV+ on Us: Subscription Included With Your Plan | T-Mobile


----------



## LoREvanescence (Jun 19, 2007)

Apple’s “CODA” wins historic Oscar for Best Picture at the Academy Awards


Apple tonight made history after “CODA” landed three Academy Awards from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at the 94th Academy Awards.



www.apple.com





Yay! Very good movie. Glad it won best picture.


----------



## spiderpumpkin (Dec 1, 2017)

I've had Apple TV+ for free one way or another since it came out and I think I watched one movie and that's it.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I've watched quite a lot on Apple TV+. After my free year expires, I definitely plan to renew for another year for $50. (I'll probably let it lapse for 2-3 months in between while I cycle in Netflix and one or two other services.)

Watching Severance right now and it's fantastic. Also loved Acapulco, which was sweet and funny. The Morning Show is good, soapy drama. Everyone knows about Ted Lasso, so enough said. The Shrink Next Door was underrated -- it's a great psychological character study. The Banker and Finch were both good (though not great) films, while CODA is the film I was pulling for to win Best Picture. It deserved it.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Haven't subscribed, not even to the free trials yet.

But several shows on my list, Ted Lasso, Severance, Pachinko, Slow Horses, Mosquito Coast.

Considered to have the best 4K HDR picture and sound quality of all the streamers.


----------



## cwteevee (Dec 24, 2007)

For All Mankind is not to be missed.


----------

