Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by CraigerM, Dec 12, 2019.
2/26 according to an ATT employee on Reddit. (aka, some random person on the Internet)
This is correct.
FWIW, Cord Cutters News is saying Feb. 27. At any rate, looks like it'll be the last week of this month. One poster on Reddit says that the AT&T TV streaming boxes are already showing up at AT&T retail stores.
That site should really be avoided. The guy who runs it basically just trolls Reddit for comments and reports anything from any source as “news” to drive ad click revenue to his blog.
You can get the same information yourself on Reddit, and you’ll have the benefit of seeing the user who sourced any information to gauge authenticity. CCN just strips the origin, reports it as “multiple sources” if multiple people comment on a topic, and does no work to first party source anything.
Eh, I'm well aware of the issues with that site. You do have to take what he posts with a grain of salt, and often dig deeper into the sources he links to (IF he offers links), but he is a semi-useful aggregator of news. And as his readership has grown, he has at times gotten info directly from companies themselves (although, yes, he typically just reposts info from press releases or other online sources).
I really don't understand why anyone would purchase this unless they cannot get DirecTV for some reason. Price is the same with major flaws, DirecTV is a inferior product for sure.
Missing key RSNs in LA, Houston, Baltimore/DC, Boston, Denver, Seattle, Pittsburgh (May of missed some cities)
Missing NFL Network
No Sports Pack offered, only out of market package offered is the NBA (which is more $$ on AT&T TV for some weird reason)
No 4K programing
Less channels for the the same price
Only 3 TVs at once (they will sell you up to 6 receivers, but only 3 can be active at once) can only imagine people buying 4+ and not reading the fine print..
It is insane that AT&T thinks this is going to "save" their TV business or whatever nonsense they are thinking. Either match DirecTV in what is offered or lower the price. I just don't see why anyone would switch at this time. Of course any of these issues could change before the official launch, I just don't have any faith that it will..
I believe that at least some of the things you listed will improve in AT&T TV's favor by the time it launches nationwide. But even if AT&T TV had the same packages, pricing, and 2-yr up-front contract as DTV, it would still offer some advantages over DTV:
far better on-demand experience
inclusion of thousands of apps on the box, including Netflix and YouTube (which together account for a majority of TV-connected streaming)
voice remote with integrated Google Assistant
larger capacity DVR (500 hours) that never has recording conflicts (i.e. "unlimited tuners"), with your recordings accessible by phone, tablet or laptop anywhere in the nation that you have an internet connection
ability to use the service on your own Apple TV or Fire TV device at home if you prefer
But they are competing with YTTV and others who are offering better pricing and plenty of channels. And those don’t require buying someone’s proprietary box or have a contract longer than one month.
And with YTTV, DVR is unlimited hours and you can use it one almost any kind of mobile or streaming device.
IMO, I still see nothing that makes the upcoming ATT streaming product a compelling buy. And for those that can get cable or streaming, neither of the satellite services are a good deal these days.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Better on-demand experience than what? DIRECTV? YTTV? And how do we know it is better?
From what I've read there are several popular apps that are not on the AT&T box.
Voice remote with integrated Google Assistant isn't exactly new technology...it is for AT&T but my LG TV has it. My Fire TV Cube has Alexa voice. My Apple TV has Siri voice.
DVR lags behind YTTV as AT&T TV only keeps the recordings for 90 days while YTTV keeps it for 9 months. And it also "never has recording conflicts (i.e. "unlimited tuners"), with your recordings accessible by phone, tablet or laptop anywhere in the nation that you have an internet connection". And my DIRECTV DVR can keep it until the box dies.
You still have to have that one AT&T box on your network though. I don't consider that an actual plus.
If you look, you'll see I was responding to the preceding post saying that AT&T TV was inferior to DTV and that no one who could get DTV would instead choose AT&T TV. All of the points I raised are comparisons between only those two services, i.e. reasons that someone might choose AT&T TV over DTV.
As for comparisons with YTTV: look at the product page for AT&T TV. Scroll down to the "Compare Your Options" section. Who does AT&T compare it against (and therefore consider its main competitors to be)? Comcast Xfinity and Charter Spectrum. In other words, other full-scale cable TV services that can be bundled with home broadband, offering a full range of channels accessible through a dedicated device.
YTTV isn't who AT&T TV is competing against. If you're willing to go with a service that's missing some popular channels, and you don't mind accessing cable TV via an app on your own device using a remote control that isn't customized for that kind of service, then great, I would agree that YTTV is the best value right now in terms of channel line-up and DVR feature set for the money.
I understand that, from a consumer perspective, you'd love for AT&T TV to compete with YTTV purely on price. But I can't see why that would be in the interests of AT&T's stockholders. Same holds true with Comcast. Just interacted with a guy on another forum who has Comcast standalone broadband. When he asked a Comcast CSR about deals for adding TV, she replied that he'd come out cheaper just getting YTTV.
AT&T and Comcast both have a large, but gradually dwindling, base of TV subscribers. Which makes more sense for their stock prices? To aggressively cut TV prices across the board to compete with YTTV (a relatively tiny competitor with only 2 million subs), which would immediately have a sharp negative effect on their profit margins? Or to hold TV prices steady, so that whatever TV subs they still have remain sufficiently profitable, while their TV subscriber base continues to melt away over time? Going this latter route allows the stock price to gradually adjust. Both companies realize that cable TV is slowly dying and there's nothing they can do to stop it. No point suddenly and prematurely harming their profit margins in order to try to sustain a business that will eventually die anyway.
OK thanks for the clarification. From what I have read so far of what is coming with AT&T TV I would not consider moving from DTV to AT&T TV. They have no Premier package equivalent on AT&T TV. None of those 5 points you made move the needle for me.
You seem to think that a streaming version of cable/sat’s fat channel count and high prices, with a contract that has ETF is going to be successful? Couple that with a proprietary box, the poor customer service that ATT is nearly famous for, and you have a method to fail IMO.
In what sane world does that make sense? ATT is shedding customers by droves and it isn’t because what they are doing is what people seem to want. And it darned sure isn’t just ‘low value’ customers.
And while ATT might want to not compete with YTTV and other streamers, that just isn’t the case. They are exactly what they will be competing with. If there is anything else I might have learned in all of ATT’s blathering, is is that they cannot seem to read the tea leaves right and continue to solve problems that don’t exist, but not solve problems that do.
BTW, in case you haven’t noticed, ATT’s upcoming offerings are missing channels too. How popular they are is open to conjecture.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
It doesn’t really matter who AT&T TV thinks it’s competitors are, or who they want their competitors to be, the only thing that is going to matter is who the consumer will compare the AT&T TV offering to.
We'll see how it does. You seem incapable of understanding that different consumers have different preferences and not everyone wants what you want, or is even aware of the options you're aware of and comfortable trying them out. Most consumers don't actively seek out and trials lots of different ways to get TV. (It appears to be a hobby for you. Nothing wrong with that, but that's not at all typical.) Most consumers have no idea what YouTube TV is. Folks are far, far more likely to get TV service from a company that they already have an existing relationship with or one that they expect to offer cable TV (e.g. a local broadband provider). That's a benefit that AT&T has that YTTV does not.
You seem to assume that all consumers have full knowledge of all the available options, how they work, how they stack up. They do not. Marketing and advertising, as well as existing customer relationships, play a huge role.
Yes, we will see how it does. I figure it is a flop from nearly day one of release. There is no compelling reason at all to switch from cable/sat to ATT’s upcoming streaming. Doesn’t save hardly any money, doesn’t have as many channels but still has a fat channel count, still requires a contract with ETFs. And of course, the icing on the cake, you get less for about the same price, but you get to keep that uh, wonderful ATT support that everyone just loves.
But you are right, lots of people either don’t know about the choices and aren’t geeky enough with lots of time on their hands to try out various models as I have. So for them, they’ll either find out and make an informed switch, or they won’t and just stay with what they have. And some small portion might just be conned into taking ATT’s streaming solution. But I think going forward that many more WILL find out from family and friends about all those other options.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
So your argument is that AT&T will be able to bamboozle the uninformed with slick marketing and advertising...unfortunately you are probably right...
I can't tell what you are saying. If DirecTV is an inferior product then why wouldn't people pick AT&T TV instead?
The fatal flaw in AT&T TV is not the box or the available channels or even AT&T's legendary (horrible) customer service. It's the 2 year contract with only a one year price guarantee! Many, if not most, of the customers they are shedding are those whose price guarantees expired and the full rate is not competitive. I don't have a problem in theory with a two year contract IF the price is guaranteed through the life of the contract. This two year contract with one year special pricing is what will kill them. It's old school thinking and cannot effectively compete with month to month streaming providers like YTTV and Hulu Live. Yes, streaming prices my increase each year but that is a result of the demands of the content providers who get more and more greedy with each passing year. But at least with the streaming providers you know what the price is and when it becomes more than you care to pay you can cancel without penalty and move on. Even Spectrum plays the game. They don't have contracts but when the special pricing expires after a year the churn begins anew. I played the provider switching game for years and have made the leap to Hulu+Live. It's not perfect but I really don't have serious complaints especially given Hulu's ginormous streaming library. And if (when?) Hulu's price becomes unpalatable I will switch from one service to another with just a few mouse clicks. No messing with calls to Retention/Loyalty, no more contracts, no more hassle. It's actually quite liberating, provided of course that you have an adequate internet connection (which will keep cable/satellite in the game far longer than some might think).
I always felt that the goal with AT&T TV was to eventually replace their SAT offering with this offering because it's cheaper to maintain and roll out. This won't appeal to the folks who moved to YTTV (that's what AT&T Now is for), this will appeal to those who want to sign up for cable or sat. So that's why this offering is similar to their SAT package in more ways than it's similar to YTTV or AT&T now. It's going to be their premium offering. What's dismaying to me is the limitation such as number of streams at 3. I guess that's OK for most people but doesn't work for me.
I think AT&T would like to get out of the SAT business and move to OTT, simply for the cost savings. I don't think they plan to move current SAT users, but rather than push those with premium needs to SAT they will push them here.
So I don't think this is something you should be comparing to YTTV, which is less premium. Now, I think the CONSUMER is going to see it as the same and that's bad for AT&T's plans.