TiVo Community Forum banner
  • TiVoCommunity.com Ambassador Program Now Open! >>> Click Here

Apple TV Plus

24K views 228 replies 60 participants last post by  mlsnyc 
#1 ·
#4 ·
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...
 
#15 ·
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.
 
#16 ·
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).
 
#62 ·
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."
 
#65 ·
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.
 
#68 ·
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.
 
#72 ·
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.
 
#97 ·
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.)
 
#99 ·
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.
 
#115 ·
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).
 
#110 ·
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.
 
#137 ·
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.
 
#153 ·
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mschnebly
#157 ·
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.
 
#174 ·
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
 
#192 ·
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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beryl
#213 ·
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top