DBSTalk Forum banner
21 - 40 of 103 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Agreed. How many other services did DIRECTV let shirt-tail off of their exclusive content. ZERO! The service that gets it will be paying top dollar for what they end paying for EXCLUSIVE content. If it wasn't exclusive to their service they wouldn't be paying that amount.
What has been reported as a possibility is that DirecTV could cut a deal with the winning bidder to continue offering the package on satellite, with the revenue passing to the streamer. The streamer would get additional revenue from satellite customer who can't or won't stream, and DirecTV would retain customers it might otherwise lose. There is no way of knowing at this point if it's a real possibility or just a rumor, but that's what some sources have reported.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
I'm 92 and can stream. Streaming is easy with a Roku TV set. I have been streaming Netflix, Prime Video, Paramount+, Acorn, HBO Max and PBS Passport. I also switched from cable to YouTube TV a month ago and am happy with the results and the big $ savings.

I've been working with computers since the late 50's but I would still have to search Google to figure out what a plex server is and how to set it up.
It's easy to set up a Plex server and it's free if you don't need the extra features that come with a Plex pass. You just download the software and install it on a PC. Copy your videos into folders and configure them in the web interface with the appropriate program type (TV shows, movies, etc.). The Plex server imports all of the program info from online databases like IMDB and theTVDB. Install the Plex client on your TV and portable devices and you have a Netflix-like interface for watching whatever TV shows, movies, or other videos you have recorded. If you have an OTA antenna, you can even use Plex as a free DVR for OTA TV.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Do you realize the options are not mutually exclusive? Having DIRECTV does not prevent a subscriber from streaming. Having streaming does not prevent a subscriber from having DIRECTV.

Putting NFL Sunday Ticket on streaming is a business decision intended to reach the 122 million households with broadband instead of the less than 15 million (optimistically - probably less than 12 million) with DIRECTV satellite. If you were marketing your product, would you not look for the largest distribution channel possible? If you did look for the largest market place it would not be DIRECTV satellite. Comcast has more subscribers than DIRECTV (satellite and streaming) and by moving to streaming they are opening the door to reach more subscribers.

While the NFL Sunday Ticket deal has not been subscriber count based having a larger market place means a better chance of the winning company being able to make a profitable offer. And no, the streamer doesn't need to involve DIRECTV to be successful. They can mount a successful profitable product without DIRECTV.
Yes, there are lots of people like me who have cable or satellite TV and also streaming. I have DirecTV and I also subscribe to a bunch of streaming services.

Sunday Ticket was exclusive in the beginning because only satellite TV had the capacity to carry it. It stayed exclusive because DirecTV was willing to overpay to keep it exclusive and not, as many claimed, because the NFL wanted to limit its distribution. It has always made sense for the package to be broadly available.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
We do have a choice and there is zero indication that we won't continue to. I get the Disney bundle as part of my Verizon Wireless plan, but I pay the extra $6/month for ad-free Hulu. I pay the higher fees for HBO and Paramount + as well. It's worth it to me and I assume millions of others.

Streaming is all about choice. I fully expect more choices in the future, not less.
Of course we will continue to have ad-free streaming choices. Ad-free programming has been aound since HBO launched in 1972 and it isn't going away. The streaming services see an opportunity to gain customers they aren't getting now - people who want cheaper prices and are willing to watch ads. They aren't looking to lose customers they already have.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
As I said, you all may be right, no-ad tiers might continue to exist, but at what price? What are you willing to pay? If Netflix is $20 a month for the highest tier now with no-ads, what if it went to $30? Or $40? Have four or five of those and now you're in cable TV / DirecTV territory for 5-6 streamers. That's what everyone who's leaving traditional TV is trying to avoid, right?
Ad-free tiers will be priced in accordance with what customers are willing to pay. Simple economics.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Yea those streaming/OTT things have price increases too. I think netflix like $20 now with another pending increase its ridiculous

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Netflix is the only service charging extra for 4K, which is the reason for that $20 monthly charge. I really don't see enough difference to make it worth paying extra for 4k, which is why I'm paying $15.47 per month for Netflix, in line with what HBO Max charges. When I watch 4k programming on Amazon or HBO Max, I can't tell it's 4k unless I get close to the screen. When I watched a 4k movie in my Vudu collection last week, I tried switching back and forth between HDX and UHD, and HDX actually looked better. I will gladly pay a few extra bucks for ad-free programming, but I would not pay extra for 4k.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Interesting read from Mike Florio. If any is interested, he has a podcast called Pro Football Talk that he touches occasionally on this subject as well. He's on vacation right now but still does a quick daily update on various NFL news. I haven't listened in a couple of days, so I'm not sure if he's addressed this article or not.

As usual, Florio reports what he reads in other blogs and websites.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
I beg to differ. HDR/WCG is a game changer no matter how large your display.
And as I pointed out, I have a 75" Samsung TV with HDR. It has a great picture. Even some videos from DVDs look like HD. And actual HD looks fabulous. We were watching "No Time to Die" on Vudu last week, so I had a chance to switch back and forth between HDX and UHD to see how they compared. I asked my wife which she thought was better, and we both thought the HDX picture was noticeably better. It was a brighter, more vibrant image. That's why I haven't bothered to upgrade my DirecTV equipment to 4k and I don't pay extra to get 4k from Netflix.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
I think as the technology improves, streaming feeds will have less of a delay than the DirecTV feed or OTA feed. Just like PQ from streaming has improved over the years.
There will always be a delay compared to other feeds, but it will become less pronounced over time.
That is already happening. As I have pointed out previously, the MLB.TV feed is only a couple of seconds behind the DirecTV feed. What I don't understand is why their audio feeds are so much farther behind. When I'm stuck watching a Fox or ESPN MLB telecast, I've tried muting the sound and listening to the audio feed, but the audio is usually a couple of minutes behind. It's too much trouble to get them in sync.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
They will be priced at a price that a company will make a profit that's at or more than they can make by selling only an ad-supported tier. If the company can make more money by selling you ads than they can by selling you an ad-free tier that's what they will do. They will figure in churn in that equation anticipating losing a certain number of people like you who would refuse to watch anything with ads. If they feel that selling ad-free tiers are still offer them enough profit to maintain, then they will continue to do that, and with that, at what price point will that be, and if it's more than most will be willing to pay, then it would will be gone.

But again, I'll ask you, how much would you be willing to pay? Still never got that answer.
If what you are saying made sense, the streaming companies would be doing it now. And as I already stated, I can afford whatever streaming services I choose to buy. If you can't, then the cheaper tiers are for you.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
HDX to me is a Home Depot house brand so I had to look it up.

HDX in the context of Vudu is an in-house "secret sauce" compression scheme for HD probably not unlike DIRECTV's secret sauce (bumping contrast/gamma and saturation?).

The fact that it is only utilized by Vudu on their HD content makes it an apples and anvils comparison and doesn't reflect on the relative goodness of proper HDR/WCG. Further, since you're using a TV that doesn't support Dolby Vision, you're not afforded the full glory of dynamic HDR/WCG that Vudu offers in many of its UHD movies and instead are relegated to old school HDR10.
I can only go by how it looks to me. The fact that the HDX video looked significantly better than the UHD video indicates HDX is a pretty good format.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
I installed tvOS 15.6 on my ATV and can confirm that that the above does work on MLB games.
Are you able to able to do what a number of us have described in this thread for watching NFL games - i.e., watch 2 or 3 games in the same the same time slot, switching back and forth and skipping commercials and other breaks in the action to catch up?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Well the only place I can check this right now is MLB-TV and yes if I start three games and switch between them my options for each one are “Watch Live”, Resume”, and “Start From The Beginning”. If I pick “Resume” it goes to where I left off and I can FF/RW from that point.

Edit: it did let me FF through commercials.
Well that's encouraging. Once the games are complete and archived, do they still resume where you left off?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
More silly hypotheticals. If it happens, I'll address it.

Now for my question, since you're so insistent that ad-free is going to disappear...how much advertising would you tolerate?

The current network standard is about 17 minutes per hour. Would you tolerate 20? 30? 40? Would you be okay with what is now a one hour show being stretched to three hours as you're pummeled with commercials?

Do you see how stupid this sounds after spewing some silly "$100 a month ad free tier."
Silly is right - the notion that streaming services will charge so much for ad-free programming that nobody would pay it is simply laughable. Pricing is based on what the market will bear, which is why ad-free tiers are priced a few dollars higher than the ad-free tiers. There has been a market for ad-free programming since HBO launched 50 years ago, and there always will be. It exists because there are millions of people who are willing to pay for it, and that isn't going to change.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
It’s also laughable that streaming services would sell an ad-free package for less than the ad-supported service + the ad revenue they would get for ads in shows the viewers watched. Basically, they aren’t going to lose money on the ad free service compared with the ad-supported service.

If their up charge for an ad-free service is $3, figure they would have gotten less than that if they had ads in the shows.

Otherwise, why offer an ad-free version if it’s going to cost you money?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are assuming that they wouldn't lose customers who want ad-free programming, which is not a valid assumption. Sorry, but your analysis doesn't hold water.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
People actually cared about ads between innings? It’s a natural break in the game, and now the time between innings is limited. What else do you show during that time? A wide stadium shot?
If there weren't ads between innings, the announcers would spend the time jabbering with each other and doing interviews, which is just as annoying as ads.
 
21 - 40 of 103 Posts
Top