DTV Now Beta Hardware Tests

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by jborchel, Feb 13, 2019.

  1. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,931
    1,620
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa

    Those services failed because they were trying to sell other people's content, which is a model that had a limited shelf life. Netflix made it work only because they were the first one there, but they are losing all the content owned by the other studios and will have to survive on their own content alone before long.

    All the new streaming services will succeed because they are attached to major studios, which have proven through decades of success that they generate original content people are willing to pay to see. Basically they aren't "new services" so much as existing studios adding a new outlet to monetize the original content they generate, along with their back catalog. Please tell me why you think Disney or Warner can't support a streaming service, when they own far more content than Netflix? You really believe people are more willing to pay money to watch movies like Bird Box than the movies Disney and Warner Brothers release?

    Netflix is going to be no different than them, they are basically going to be another studio with the main difference that they don't monetize their content in theaters or on broadcast TV, but only via streaming. Seems to me the players who have more than one way to monetize the same content will be more successful in the long run. Even if its a zero sum game they certainly won't be LESS successful.
     
  2. SledgeHammer

    SledgeHammer Icon

    3,400
    526
    Dec 28, 2007
    My theory? No, it was Slice's. I've said from the beginning of this discussion that there is a standalone streaming bubble and that people will go for the one stop shops rather then a bunch of separate ones. Buying a bunch of separate services is pointless. It'll add up to just getting a conventional service like DirecTV.
     
  3. SledgeHammer

    SledgeHammer Icon

    3,400
    526
    Dec 28, 2007
    I didn't say Disney and Warner won't succeed. I said Netflix subs aren't going to cancel Netflix to go to Disney. At worst case they'll add Disney. If you did nothing but watch Disney content on Netflix, then you would cancel. I also mentioned that any Disney fanatic is going to have the content on DVD or BluRay or UHD and wouldn't need a streaming service for that as that would be the cheaper approach with better PQ. Kids wouldn't care about PQ, but an adult who is a Star Wars geek isn't going to watch it on streaming, they're going to watch it on the collectors edition UHD on their Oppo 203 and OLED TVs that have been ISF calibrated and Dolby Atmos AVRs.

    I also pointed out that Disney is investing over 8B in the service. I would consider that kind of investment a failure out of the box as it will take them years, if ever, to recoup that kind of money from Disney+ depending on how many subs sign up.

    Speaking of questions... how many subs do you realistically think Disney+ will get in say year 1?
     
  4. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,931
    1,620
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    But what makes them want to keep both services 12 months out of the year, when they can easily have each service for six months and watch everything they want on each? Unless you care about being able to watch something the moment it is released (the "appointment TV" model that streaming is supposed to free you from) there's no reason you should keep them both active at the same time.

    Maybe some people are willing to keep two, but what if they want Warner, and HBO's content as well? Suddenly the bill starts looking a lot like the cable bill they fled, so they will have to make some choices. Do you think they will give up services that have content they want, or compromise on how many subscriptions they keep at once? There are no contracts forcing them to keep Netflix, or even a "buy a year at once for less" discount on Netflix, so why exactly should they keep it for 12 months when they will be streaming other services a lot of the time?
     
  5. SledgeHammer

    SledgeHammer Icon

    3,400
    526
    Dec 28, 2007
    That's what I've been saying. A bunch of streaming services will add up to a DirecTV bill. Although people have posted on here that they've got 5 or 6 services and it adds up to less then they paid DirecTV.

    I'm still going to say that the Disney fanatics are going to own the media based on the Disney fanatics that I know. Two of them I know pretty much re-buys the movies every time a new edition comes out.

    Netflix releases new content every Friday, so while you and I obviously have time to post on dbstalk every 5 minutes lol, the majority of people don't. So I wouldn't expect people to have the time to slam binge watching 10 shows in a month or two.

    I'm a very un-busy person and I only discovered 24 last year. It took me about 2+ months to get through it and I was watching it pretty heavily. I'm now re-watching Burn Notice and I'm going to say its taken me a month or more to watch it. And again, this is from a very un-busy person.

    It's also my perception that the younger crowd who are the streaming customers aren't going to go around cancelling services every few months to save a few bucks. Remember, these are the same people who buy $18 Starbucks coffees every day and eat out every day. A guy I know of that type can't even keep his bills straight. He isn't going to mess around with jumping around. He's the type "ugh.. I can't go to lunch today, I accidently paid my mortgage twice this month".

    So point is... Netflix and Disney+ will likely co-exist. It's hardly going to be the nail in the coffin you say it will be.

    And if Disney+ only gets a million or two subs, how is that justifying the 8B they spent on it? Disney's prior attempt at being a premium service failed. Although they do have a lot more content now.

    YouTube TV is losing money at what, under a million subs? and YouTube Red has already been shutdown. We've seen this before. DotCom bubble ring a bell? You can only operate at steep losses for a short time.

    And then there is always the Trump wildcard. If all the content on the planet is owned by one or two companies, he may throw a hissy fit and try to break them up as he is going after Amazon.
     
  6. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    5,255
    119
    Jul 21, 2008
    no an outlet fee or an per device fee. Now will be unlimited devices? billed per device or per live stream.
     
    tivofan2018 likes this.
  7. NashGuy

    NashGuy Well-Known Member

    1,131
    239
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    Yes. This is why Netflix is spending so much on original content these days, to bulk up their library in anticipation of what will happen in the next couple of years when a good portion (but certainly not all) of their licensed non-original content goes away because the owners of that content will have their own OTT SVOD service. At some point, Netflix either has to reduce their content spend (because they believe they've built up enough of a catalog so that they don't need to keep adding to it so rapidly) and/or significantly increase their monthly price. Netflix has a big first-mover advantage in the SVOD space and they've built up quite a devoted subscriber base but at some point price increases won't work unless Netflix is seen as having everything that a viewer wants -- which seems unlikely because established studios like Disney, Warner, etc. are creating their own SVOD services and also because Netflix doesn't offer sports, which will continue to be a major pull for viewers.

    We're still in the early days of the streaming TV revolution. Netflix is the king of the hill now and they'll continue to be very important for years to come but I don't foresee a future where they ever fully own the TV landscape.
     
    Rich likes this.
  8. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    51,142
    2,328
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Netflix is not a one stop shop. There is too much missing from their service for people not to also pay for something else.
     
  9. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,931
    1,620
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    A lot of the "younger crowd" wishes they had the problems your guy does - to even be in a position to have a mortgage he can accidentally pay twice. The ones who have to give up things they want like owning a home in order to pay down their student loan debt might decide saving $500 a year is worth the hassle of rotating streaming services instead of subscribing to four year round.

    If Disney+ never gets more than a million or two subs yes it will be a massive failure. But who says that $8 billion worth of content will be Disney+ exclusive forever. They could put it on Disney Channel or Disney XD eventually, just like their content might come to Disney+ down the road. Maybe something wildly successful comes out of that $8 billion, and leads to feature films, or spinoffs that find their way onto Disney Channel or even ABC? They have a lot more avenues for deciding what "success" is that number of subscribers to Disney+.
     
  10. SledgeHammer

    SledgeHammer Icon

    3,400
    526
    Dec 28, 2007
    I would have theoretically agreed with you since I know people love their sports, but the numbers don't show it. ESPN+ has about 2M subs in a little under a year. And guess what? The mothership has LOST 2M subs in the same time frame.

    ESPN+ = $4.99 a month
    ESPN = $8 - $9/mo according to the most recent figures I found

    So they gained +$10M in revenue on the streaming service, but lost -$18M on the channel for a net loss of -$8M a month. Sounds like a sound business move since the channel makes 2x the money :). That's also not including the estimated $200M - $500M in operating costs for the streaming service.

    We'll see how that affects Disney when they go live with Disney+.

    Most analysts are saying Disney is testing the waters with it. If they are losing that much money on it, they can always reverse their decision on Disney+ as well. Remember, they are planning to spend OVER $8B this year on it. That's over 10x the money they invested in ESPN+ which on paper *right now* is a dud.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2019
  11. tivofan2018

    tivofan2018 Member

    147
    15
    Oct 19, 2018
    i did read somewhere the box was gonna cost 50.00 smackers as well!!!
     
  12. tivofan2018

    tivofan2018 Member

    147
    15
    Oct 19, 2018
    yep!!!
     
  13. SledgeHammer

    SledgeHammer Icon

    3,400
    526
    Dec 28, 2007
    *shrug* I'm not in my 20's anymore, but I work with people that are. Two of them just left the company because they wanted more money. Yeah, they got an extra $20K on the headline number, but they gave up at least $10K in benefits making the jump since the new place has much lower benefits. Then of course they're also ignoring the fact that this company is very laid back and easy and they were pretty much working 4 - 6 hours a day if that and now they are legit working 10 - 12 at a more aggressive pace. So they lost a lot of benefits and the true per hr rate plunged. To them $20 - $30/mo they don't even care about it. I've also worked with people in their 30's who had a lot of debt and still went out to $15 lunches every day. Point is, young people are hardly financially savvy or worry about such silly things like paying down debt. I'm being sarcastic on that since I've always been financially responsible even when I was younger.
     
  14. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,931
    1,620
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa

    ESPN would have lost those 2M viewers regardless, because the overwhelming majority of the people who drop MVPDs don't watch sports - there currently isn't any other (legal) way to get them. So it isn't like they deliberately traded 2M $9 people for 2M $5 people. The 2M $5 people are basically new revenue that reduced the pain somewhat.

    Their real problem is that only about a third of people watch ESPN, but 90% of MVPD packages include it. They are going to take a revenue hit over the next decade millions more leave MVPDs each year, and sports are subsidized by non-sports viewers less and less over time. They can raise the price they charge for ESPN, but that will only accelerate the cord cutting amongst non sports viewers.
     
    NashGuy likes this.
  15. SledgeHammer

    SledgeHammer Icon

    3,400
    526
    Dec 28, 2007
    Yup. I got +$7 on the hike in January and I've got $15 rolling off in April. I wasn't going to call retention over the +7, but I'll call them over the +22. At that point my Preferred Xtra + HR24 = $90/mo. I've got another $30 rolling off in Sept. At that point I'll be at $120/mo. If they won't get me back to the $75 I'm paying now, I guess I'm out. I'll probably go to Cox. I can probably get that on an intro price for 12 months cheaper then my DirecTV bill would be and it'll be less hassle to bounce between Cox & DirecTV then DirecTV and Dish.
     
    Rich likes this.
  16. compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    3,745
    654
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    Clearly you are out of touch also like this younger crowd. While I am sure sarcastic. There is no 18 dollar Starbucks drink. And to people shopping correctly you can spend less or save a lot of time eating out vs eating in
     
  17. SledgeHammer

    SledgeHammer Icon

    3,400
    526
    Dec 28, 2007
    Yup. I've never been in a Starbucks in my life. Looks like in California they go up to $8. My guess was pretty close ;).
     
  18. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    51,142
    2,328
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The sound business decision was creating a new revenue stream (ESPN+) to help reduce the potential loss of income. Using your numbers they had a net loss of $8M revenue instead of $18M. Isn't that good?

    The same applies to AT&T|DIRECTV (although DIRECTV NOW is a replacement for DIRECTV satellite, not a supplement). AT&T|DIRECTV is pushing DIRECTV NOW to catch the millions of people falling away from satellite TV. DISH managed to catch 2.4 million customers of the 4.1 million satellite customers they have lost in the past six years. DIRECTV has caught 1.6 million of the 1.7 million satellite customers they have lost in the past two years. While I am sure that some of those satellite customers were lost because DISH and DIRECTV gave them someplace to go (streaming products), I believe the majority of those customers would have been lost to other "cord replacement services" or cable. It was wise to offer customers an option that kept the revenue within the family.

    The emphasis is not "lets convert everyone over to DIRECTV NOW so we can make less money" ... DIRECTV NOW is there as a safety net so customers do not need to be completely lost when they leave satellite.
     
  19. Getteau

    Getteau Icon

    993
    72
    Dec 19, 2007
    Houston
    A per stream model it would save me a ton of money. Between my two accounts, I have 10 receivers. I only need four streams. Being able to cut back on that extra $7 per receiver would take a huge chunk out of my bill. Unfortunately, after living with the disaster that is DTV on-demand, I'm going to need a lot of convincing that they can actually pull off streaming.
     
  20. NashGuy

    NashGuy Well-Known Member

    1,131
    239
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    Your analysis might make some sense IF -- as I think you're assuming -- ESPN+ was a standalone service that carried the same content as the regular ESPN cable channels. But it doesn't. ESPN+ has an entirely different schedule of (less popular) sporting events than ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN 3, ESPN U, etc. You can't drop a cable package with those ESPN channels (for which ESPN receives ~$9 per subscriber) and then sign up for ESPN+ for $4.99 and still see the same games/matches. It's not like dropping Showtime from your cable/satellite TV service for $12 and instead signing up through the Showtime app (which offers all the same stuff) for $11. It's called ESPN+ (emphasis on the "plus") because its content is additive to the ESPN cable channels.

    I do believe that the high cost of TV sports contracts are a big reason why so many folks are dumping cable TV, though. Yes, a large minority of Americans are regular sports viewers but for those who aren't, why pay for a cable channel package with ESPN and other expensive sports channels they don't watch? Eventually, I can see just about all regular season sports except NFL games (which draw more viewers than any other sport) getting shunted off into a la carte services. Only the most popular stuff (NFL games, playoffs in other leagues) will be offered through general entertainment services. Right now Disney is just experimenting with ESPN+ but they're preparing themselves for the day when it makes sense for them to free ESPN from the cable channel bundle and offer all of their content on a standalone basis.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements