# Well now ("C71KW-400" Client)



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

DirecTV to Launch Android TV-Based OTT Set-Top Box (EXCLUSIVE)

I have zero interest in this but hey


----------



## KoRn (Oct 21, 2008)

I have PLENTY of interest in this. Its the only way I would come back to Directv. I dropped Directv for Playstation Vue over a year ago. Vue is very solid and we have kept it ever since. But I know Directv would have more/better channel offerings. Next question will Directv sell it for customers like myself can buy it on their own. I want nothing to do with a contract and if Directv will be playing like that. We wont be getting it and will keep Vue.


----------



## DishCSR (Jan 14, 2004)

KoRn said:


> I have PLENTY of interest in this. Its the only way I would come back to Directv. I dropped Directv for Playstation Vue over a year ago. Vue is very solid and we have kept it ever since. But I know Directv would have more/better channel offerings. Next question will Directv sell it for customers like myself can buy it on their own. I want nothing to do with a contract and if Directv will be playing like that. We wont be getting it and will keep Vue.


Directv already has an ott service, directvnow.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


----------



## KoRn (Oct 21, 2008)

I know. But, I want that box with remote/dvr. That is not offered right now just yet. This would be perfect for me.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Eh, sounds like this is all about a hs17 DVR for dtv now and it’s client...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

This is the next generation of Directv client, the follow on for the C61KW wireless 4K client (which is not yet released) not sure why they are referring to it as an "OTT client" in the article as if that's what it is designed for. It is designed for Directv's satellite offering just like any other client, but has some additional OTT streaming features because it runs Android TV. Variety's writers are stupid.

Sounds like this C71KW and the HS27 are designed specifically for each other - this client will not work with HR* or HS17. It comes with a Bluetooth voice remote, and won't work with existing RC* remotes. Looks like the C71KW can only be controlled via Bluetooth (and I'm sure IP) though the new VRC81 remote also does IR and RF to control other devices.

It has no coax port (which you'd expect for a wireless client) but has an ethernet port (so I guess it doesn't require wireless, or maybe it is wireless to the HS27 and the ethernet is for other services)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Uses Broadcom's BCM7271 SoC designed for Ultra HD set tops.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Why don’t you think the hs27 won’t be the streaming DVR they have mentioned that does nothing with satelite?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

DishCSR said:


> Directv already has an ott service, directvnow.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


Nowhere near the same thing.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Why don't you think the hs27 won't be the streaming DVR they have mentioned that does nothing with satelite?


Because they aren't doing a streaming DVR for Directv Now, they're doing a cloud DVR.

Do you really think they'd use the same product naming for their satellite and non satellite lines, and deliberately confuse the heck out of everyone?


----------



## DishCSR (Jan 14, 2004)

Rich said:


> Nowhere near the same thing.
> 
> Rich


Never said it was, j think my reply confused you

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

Seems like AT&T/DirecTV have some product positioning to work out. This sure looks like it would be more appropriate for DirecTV Now to provide local DVR capability for their steaming service.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Because they aren't doing a streaming DVR for Directv Now, they're doing a cloud DVR.
> 
> Do you really think they'd use the same product naming for their satellite and non satellite lines, and deliberately confuse the heck out of everyone?


This is att. If they can confuse you by creating ten different things and using similar model numbers they will in a heart beat.

And besides, this may be for their new over the top service which is evidently different than DIRECTV now. That's according to a att exec announcing it on earnings calls. So yeah... att is going to confuse you if they can.

And no, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they offered a hardware DVR for sale in addition to a cloud DVR. Why? Because then customers could always skip commercials, etc... not sure if they will be allowed to on all channels with the cloud DVR.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Because they aren't doing a streaming DVR for Directv Now, they're doing a cloud DVR.
> 
> Do you really think they'd use the same product naming for their satellite and non satellite lines, and deliberately confuse the heck out of everyone?


Isn't that cloud DVR for D* Now? I haven't seen any reports of a cloud DVR for "normal" D*. I have read rumors but nothing from D*.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

DishCSR said:


> Never said it was, j think my reply confused you
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


I just reread the thread up to that point to get the context right. The OP was about a box, thought that was what you meant. Don't think I've ever heard D*Now mentioned as a STB, that's where the confusion came from.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

litzdog911 said:


> Seems like AT&T/DirecTV have some product positioning to work out. This sure looks like it would be more appropriate for DirecTV Now to provide local DVR capability *for their steaming service*.


I'd be happy with a cloud DVR for D* content but I haven't seen any firm plans for D* to institute it. I have seen D* Now speculation that seems like it might happen on Now.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> This is att. If they can confuse you by creating ten different things and using similar model numbers they will in a heart beat.
> 
> And besides, this may be for their new over the top service which is evidently different than DIRECTV now. That's according to a att exec announcing it on earnings calls. So yeah... att is going to confuse you if they can.
> 
> And no, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they offered a hardware DVR for sale in addition to a cloud DVR. Why? Because then customers could always skip commercials, etc... *not sure if they will be allowed to on all channels with the cloud DVR.*


Think they'd be dumb enough to do that...stupid question. Of course they would. That defeats the purpose of a DVR, I think.

Rich


----------



## DishCSR (Jan 14, 2004)

Rich said:


> I just reread the thread up to that point to get the context right. The OP was about a box, thought that was what you meant. Don't think I've ever heard D*Now mentioned as a STB, that's where the confusion came from.
> 
> Rich


The poster I was responding to was mentioning other ott streaming services, so I was just saying that directv also has an ott service, the android box that was being referred to was for directv now, I myself saw the article on cord cutters but didn't actually read it myself, I hope this clears my reply up

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

DishCSR said:


> The poster I was responding to was mentioning other ott streaming services, so I was just saying that directv also has an ott service, the android box that was being referred to was for directv now, I myself saw the article on cord cutters but didn't actually read it myself, I hope this clears my reply up
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


Yup.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> Isn't that cloud DVR for D* Now? I haven't seen any reports of a cloud DVR for "normal" D*. I have read rumors but nothing from D*.
> 
> Rich


Yes, a cloud DVR for Directv Now. It has been in beta testing for a few months.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> And no, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they offered a hardware DVR for sale in addition to a cloud DVR. Why? Because then customers could always skip commercials, etc... not sure if they will be allowed to on all channels with the cloud DVR.


If commercial skipping is not allowed on current streamed feeds I would not expect them to be available on feeds buffered by a "streaming DVR". It is easy to set DRM on "On Demand" content to prevent commercial skipping. The storage location is irrelevant to whether or not skipping would be allowed.

If you want commercial skipping look at the source. Ask if the source will allow skipping.

That being said, for users with a slow or limited internet connection a local DVR for streaming would come in handy. Pre-buffered content could be downloaded slowly and played back in higher quality and no pauses for buffering. Or downloaded during off peak times. Plus one download could be replayed multiple times (within the limits set by DRM).

(And no, I do not believe that the C71KW-400 is a DVR.)


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Maybe I'm confused, but the manual itself (included in the FCC filing) refers to this box as an OTT client. Why blame the Variety writer?

ATTC71KW Wireless STB User Manual Wistron NeWeb Corporation



slice1900 said:


> This is the next generation of Directv client, the follow on for the C61KW wireless 4K client (which is not yet released)* not sure why they are referring to it as an "OTT client" *in the article as if that's what it is designed for. It is designed for Directv's satellite offering just like any other client, but has some additional OTT streaming features because it runs Android TV. Variety's writers are stupid.
> 
> Sounds like this C71KW and the HS27 are designed specifically for each other - this client will not work with HR* or HS17. It comes with a Bluetooth voice remote, and won't work with existing RC* remotes. Looks like the C71KW can only be controlled via Bluetooth (and I'm sure IP) though the new VRC81 remote also does IR and RF to control other devices.
> 
> It has no coax port (which you'd expect for a wireless client) but has an ethernet port (so I guess it doesn't require wireless, or maybe it is wireless to the HS27 and the ethernet is for other services)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

raott said:


> Maybe I'm confused, but the manual itself (included in the FCC filing) refers to this box as an OTT client. Why blame the Variety writer?
> 
> ATTC71KW Wireless STB User Manual Wistron NeWeb Corporation


OTT client is one of its functions, not the sole function. It also supports RVU, think about why that would be if it is only an OTT client.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I wish the manual was clearer. Terminology defined but then not used (except for OTT). "RUI"? Errors and omissions that leave a lot of room for speculation.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

No idea. I was simply responding to the point I put in bold, that you didn't know why the "stupid" Variety writer called it an OTT unit.....that is what the manufacturer called it in the manual,

The manual also makes no mention of RVU.....unless RUI is a new name for RVU. I think there are many questions, more than answers about what this does.



slice1900 said:


> OTT client is one of its functions, not the sole function. It also supports RVU, think about why that would be if it is only an OTT client.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

raott said:


> unless RUI is a new name for RVU


"The *RVU protocol* (RVU, a pseudo-acronym pronounced "R-view"[1]) is an Application Layer protocol, that combines the pre-existing Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) standards and a new Remote User Interface (RUI) protocol, which works similar to Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). The RVU RUI protocol is intended to allow an RVU-enabled client, such as a TV, to receive a pixel-accurate display of the user interface available on an RVU server."
RVU protocol - Wikipedia


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> If commercial skipping is not allowed on current streamed feeds I would not expect them to be available on feeds buffered by a "streaming DVR". It is easy to set DRM on "On Demand" content to prevent commercial skipping. The storage location is irrelevant to whether or not skipping would be allowed.
> 
> If you want commercial skipping look at the source. Ask if the source will allow skipping.
> 
> ...


Big big difference. First I'm not talking on demand, I'm talking about live str am being recorded. And there's all sorts of issues as we know as to what companies can do with cloud DVRs and how they store programs versus someone's home DVR. Cloud DVR has time limits usually, where as my home DVR only time limit is when it dies. We have seen how DIRECTV's likes to prefer on demand versions of programs rather than the version recorded to your DVR when streaming something you have r corded on your DVR. So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if anything streamed from a cloud DVR had a better chance of being locked down and no commercial skipping vs one that records a live stream in your home.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I just read the manual. Who knows... I still have reservations thinking this is a new genie system for satelite though. But maybe it is. It almost sounds like it can do 4 Hi Definition pictures on screen like dish does too.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> I just read the manual. Who knows... I still have reservations thinking this is a new genie system for satelite though. But maybe it is. It almost sounds like it can do 4 Hi Definition pictures on screen like dish does too.


Yeah, you're right, it does say it supports single dual or quad display - its the "super client" I suggested way back when Directv could introduce to compete with Hopper's sports bar mode! Should also bring back PiP for those who missed it. Do you really think they'd introduce an OTT only box able to do PiP and quad display, when their more expensive satellite product only supports a single screen? That seems highly unlikely to me.

I'll draw your attention to a couple other things since I looked at the manual in more detail. It says it won't work with _existing_ Genie systems...why say "existing" if it isn't designed to work with any Genie systems? Especially when they mention the "future HS27" in the very next sentence! If this thing was designed to be able to grab four streams from the server, it makes sense it isn't going to work with just any Genie, but need one that was designed to serve four streams to one client.

There's also something else I noticed in another document when this was originally posted that I didn't really think about until now. There are two products that are identical, the C71KW and C71KWBP. The C71KW fits in with Directv's naming scheme for Genie clients, but I wonder what 'BP' indicates. Broadband Product? Who knows.

The manual is obviously missing a lot of detail, such as how to configure the ethernet, or why a wireless client even has ethernet. Interestingly it says it is 10/100, when almost all PHYs sold today are gigabit. Talk about penny pinching!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Well why would a client ever need more than 100? It will never need more than that...

And yeah I’ve wondered about it having two model numbers as well. Maybe two different things. And sometimes manuals aren’t accurate...

What puzzles me most is if it is a RVU capable device then there is zero reason it shouldn’t work with existing genies. RVU is simply a standard of showing a GUI on a remote device. So there has to be more to this.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> RVU is simply a standard of showing a GUI on a remote device.


nope
not that simple as you "knew"
I did a quote in post#26, seems to me you missed it ... well then again:


> ...that combines the pre-existing Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) standards and a new Remote User Interface (RUI) protocol, which works similar to Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). The RVU RUI protocol is intended to allow an RVU-enabled client, such as a TV, to receive a pixel-accurate display of the user interface available on an RVU server.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Well why would a client ever need more than 100? It will never need more than that...
> 
> And yeah I've wondered about it having two model numbers as well. Maybe two different things. And sometimes manuals aren't accurate...
> 
> What puzzles me most is if it is a RVU capable device then there is zero reason it shouldn't work with existing genies. RVU is simply a standard of showing a GUI on a remote device. So there has to be more to this.


I agree it will never need more than 100, I'm sure surprised anyone is even still making 10/100 only PHYs.

It is RVU capable but it will work differently than existing clients if it doesn't support having apps served from the server, but rather handling them itself, so there would be a support cost in making it happen. It isn't that it CAN'T work with older Genies, it is just Directv's decision similar to how they decided if you get an HS17 you can't have any other receivers. Zero technical reason, it is that way because that's how they want it.

And RVU isn't really and never was a "standard", because Directv is the only one using it. The RVU Alliance is over, the site says that "having fulfilled its mission" it is dissolving and transitioned certification operations to the Consumer Technology Association. If you go to the CTA site and look for RVU, the RVU group has had no meetings, produced no documents, done nothing at all.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Big big difference. First I'm not talking on demand, I'm talking about live str am being recorded. And there's all sorts of issues as we know as to what companies can do with cloud DVRs and how they store programs versus someone's home DVR. Cloud DVR has time limits usually, where as my home DVR only time limit is when it dies.


You are not paying attention. DRM, digital rights management, allows DIRECTV and other providers to place restrictions on programs that go beyond your expectations of "if it is saved on the DVR in my home I can watch it forever". It doesn't matter if the source is a satellite channel, an on demand forced download via satellite, a requested on demand download, streaming or if DIRECTV delivered the content via carrier pigeon on a USB drive. The rights can be set.

Do not expect the rights to be any more lenient for streamed to an in home DVR than streamed to a cloud DVR. And certainly do not expect DIRECTV to design and deliver an in home "streaming DVR" for the purpose of allowing customers to skip commercials in streamed content where commercial skipping is not allowed.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> You are not paying attention. DRM, digital rights management, allows DIRECTV and other providers to place restrictions on programs that go beyond your expectations of "if it is saved on the DVR in my home I can watch it forever". It doesn't matter if the source is a satellite channel, an on demand forced download via satellite, a requested on demand download, streaming or if DIRECTV delivered the content via carrier pigeon on a USB drive. The rights can be set.
> 
> Do not expect the rights to be any more lenient for streamed to an in home DVR than streamed to a cloud DVR. And certainly do not expect DIRECTV to design and deliver an in home "streaming DVR" for the purpose of allowing customers to skip commercials in streamed content where commercial skipping is not allowed.


I dont care about drm in this instance. If they wanted they could lock out the ability to skip commercials right now on all DVRs, even live recordings, I'm not discussing their ability to do things, I am discussing what they are doing now with their iPad app and how it can be looked at as a road map for their cloud DVR down the line.

No there is a huge difference. For one look up what happened in New York for some background in what they have to do for a cloud DVR for cable. No one copy fits all. Do you really think they want to not have one copy instead of having to store millions of copies of the same thing? This begets a big issue... on the contracts side anyway between providers and producers, and who knows where it will end up, it's constantly in flux right now.

But the real issue is they could easily be cutting deals that say if someone records something on the cloud DVR, it will simply be the on demand version, not a copy of the live stream, which forces commercials. But if you allow a live streaming channel to be recorded in the home, go ahead and do with it what you will on a Home DVR as long as it protects our content like your sat DVR does.

Nothing is written in stone either way. There is no guarantee either way. But based on how they work their iPad app with remote recordings and defaulting to an on demand version first when it's available it's something I suspect is in the offing for their cloud DVR.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> And no, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they offered a hardware DVR for sale in addition to a cloud DVR. Why? Because then customers could always skip commercials, etc...


This is what I am talking about. The claim that with a hardware DVR one could ALWAYS skip commercials. Not "more likely to be able to" skip but some expectation that a DVR in the home means always skipable commercials.

Since one cannot always skip commercials on current hardware DVRs I do not see that restriction lifted in the future.

One will pay for content through subscription or advertising. The way the industry is going I expect both will be required for most content worth watching ... With only premium services delivering content without interruptions. Perhaps with lead in advertising that cannot be skipped if the distributor wants the extra income.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> If they wanted they could lock out the ability to skip commercials right now on all DVRs, even live recordings


Technically they could, but they can't as a practical manner because if they did then they'd lose tons of customers to other providers who permit commercial skipping. Once customers get used to something, it is difficult to take it away.

Streaming is a new service - still in its infancy really - and currently it is cheaper than traditional delivery. One of the ways it may be able to remain cheaper forever is to not permit commercial skipping, or charge a fee for it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Technically they could, but they can't as a practical manner because if they did then they'd lose tons of customers to other providers who permit commercial skipping. Once customers get used to something, it is difficult to take it away.
> 
> Streaming is a new service - still in its infancy really - and currently it is cheaper than traditional delivery. One of the ways it may be able to remain cheaper forever is to not permit commercial skipping, or charge a fee for it.


Personally the biggest issue to me with their current on demand offerings at DIRECTV is you can't ffwd at all. A lot of streaming let's you ffwd except through commercials. That tells me there's a software and technology issue to create that kind of environment and until they can fix that I'm not concerned with DVR loosing its ability to ffwd.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Personally the biggest issue to me with their current on demand offerings at DIRECTV is you can't ffwd at all. A lot of streaming let's you ffwd except through commercials. That tells me there's a software and technology issue to create that kind of environment and until they can fix that I'm not concerned with DVR loosing its ability to ffwd.


They would need to encode the file with "skip/don't skip" markers or have a separate file marking the skipable segments. When in doubt "fail safe" and don't allow any skipping. 

When streaming the service knows where you are in the file and may even stream commercials from a separate server so they can make the commercials more relevant to the streamer and when the content is viewed. It is easier for the system to know if you are watching skipable content or those all important commercials.

I agree that not being able to skip forward at all (not even during program content) is annoying. Sometimes I will get an on demand version of a show if I have missed the original airing due to weather or other problems (late running football leading to half recordings). If I cannot skip the parts that I have already seen it wastes my time.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I agree it will never need more than 100, I'm sure surprised anyone is even still making 10/100 only PHYs.


The biggest factor is probably more for power savings to meet Energy Star thresholds. You can shave ~2 watts from the device power consumption by using 100mbps instead of 1000mbps. (it's only energizing 2 of the 4 pair in the Ethernet cable, and lower clock rates allow for more power save cycles)


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

espaeth said:


> The biggest factor is probably more for power savings to meet Energy Star thresholds. You can shave ~2 watts from the device power consumption by using 100mbps instead of 1000mbps. (it's only energizing 2 of the 4 pair in the Ethernet cable, and lower clock rates allow for more power save cycles)


I'm not convinced at all, as Ethernet using voltage signaling around 5V DC and 100 Ohm impedance - in term of power, it has low power consumption ; 
I would start thinking about real power consumption if you're using PoE with max current.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

espaeth said:


> The biggest factor is probably more for power savings to meet Energy Star thresholds. You can shave ~2 watts from the device power consumption by using 100mbps instead of 1000mbps. (it's only energizing 2 of the 4 pair in the Ethernet cable, and lower clock rates allow for more power save cycles)


Yeah, it could be a gigabit PHY that's limited in software to 100 Mbit since there's no scenario where it would ever need more than that.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

seriously? - you cannot base such power consumption increase just counting TWISTED PAIRS !!!

Nay, it's red herring posing here


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> seriously? - you cannot base such power consumption increase just counting *TWISTED PAIRS* !!!
> 
> Nay, it's red herring posing here


I've measured the draw on the HRs and it's not enough to worry about, "on" or "off". They're never "off". More technobabble. Real world, they just don't draw enough to worry about.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I did some checking, you can get gigabit PHYs that require as little as a quarter watt at full bandwidth in both directions, and support 802.3az energy efficient ethernet which puts the port into low power state when not used and sets the power level depending on the cable distance to the receiver.

That may be lower than any 100 Mbit PHY manages (excluding gigabit PHYs running at 100 Mbit) since newer gigabit PHYs would be fabbed in a smaller process.

So not really much point in Directv worrying about this - I'm sure the port on this C71KW-400 uses more because they aren't going to pay more to save less than a watt.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

Rich said:


> I've measured the draw on the HRs and it's not enough to worry about, "on" or "off". They're never "off". More technobabble. Real world, they just don't draw enough to worry about.
> 
> Rich


Correct Rich- I put a WEMO smart device on one of my HR24's for a couple months. It uses 30 watts continuously regardless of power light on or off, whether or not connected to internet.

On the other hand, my Packer neon uses 104 watts continuously, and my Pepsi vending machine in the garage uses just under 400 watts when running.....


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There's now also a Samsung manufactured version of it, the C71KW-200. No user manual for this one unfortunately so no further info other than what was already there for the WNC model. Still no indication why they have both 802.11ac and 10/100 ethernet other than adding the ethernet is very cheap - though if there is a C71K no "W" model it shouldn't need much FCC testing...

FCC ID A3LC71KW-200 Set top box by Samsung Electronics Co Ltd


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I found this news could this be what DTV is doing with this box and the HS-27? I wonder if their will be a C71K wired client with Android TV?

Your next cable box could run Android TV


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Well yes we know the C71KW will be running Android from the user manual that was posted with the WNC model. There might be a C71K and/or C71 model also, but without wireless transmission capability they may not end up on the FCC site.

Using Android makes sense if you want to cut costs since it is free, someone else maintains the apps and there'd be a wider selection if they let you grab them from the play store. If I had to guess, I'd say it won't use the play store though - they probably want to strip out all the Google licensed software so Google isn't able to collect information on viewing habits that Directv/AT&T will want to keep for itself. But doing so means they can't use the play store, and Directv probably wants to exercise some control over what apps are available.

Directv would only have to worry about maintaining the software above the base level OS - i.e. their own GUI, plus support for their own features like whole home etc.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Could the reason they are using Android TV is that they are replacing the RVU APP with a do-it-all DTV APP that will run DTV, DTV NOW and DTV Mobile?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Could the reason they are using Android TV is that they are replacing the RVU APP with a do-it-all DTV APP that will run DTV, DTV NOW and DTV Mobile?


I don't think there will be an "app" for Directv on those Android based clients, any more than there is an RVU app on the current clients. The Directv GUI will be presented on startup and you'll go to apps for other stuff. No way will you be presented with a bunch of icons when you start up the client giving Netflix equal billing with Directv!

Assuming they even want to use clients for a streaming product I would have to think the eventual goal would be the "Directv" UI you see when it boots up works the same regardless of whether your source is satellite or internet. But that might not be the case from day one, it could take them a little time to integrate both seamlessly.

Not sure what you are talking about with "DTV mobile"...the clients don't/won't support that, that's a server function (either Directv's servers or your Genie)


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Not sure what you are talking about with "DTV mobile"...the clients don't/won't support that, that's a server function (either Directv's servers or your Genie)


Sorry, that's what I meant by DTV Mobile.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Well yes we know the C71KW will be running Android from the user manual that was posted with the WNC model. There might be a C71K and/or C71 model also, but without wireless transmission capability they may not end up on the FCC site.
> 
> Using Android makes sense if you want to cut costs since it is free, someone else maintains the apps and there'd be a wider selection if they let you grab them from the play store. If I had to guess, I'd say it won't use the play store though - they probably want to strip out all the Google licensed software so Google isn't able to collect information on viewing habits that Directv/AT&T will want to keep for itself. But doing so means they can't use the play store, and Directv probably wants to exercise some control over what apps are available.
> 
> Directv would only have to worry about maintaining the software above the base level OS - i.e. their own GUI, plus support for their own features like whole home etc.


Eh, if you take away the Google Play Store, then it isn't Android TV. Android TV is a Google's own version of Android customized for TV screens that must conform to certain Google-specified UI guidelines, must include Google-powered search, and must include the Google Play Store. I believe it also requires the user to enter a Google account (e.g. Gmail address) and connect to the internet upon initial set-up; that's the case with every retail Android TV device I've seen. Perhaps that's not required for Android TV boxes deployed by pay TV partners (which are allowed a greater degree of UI flexibility). It's strange to think that DirecTV may be deploying Android TV boxes for use by satellite TV customers who may not have home internet service. How would they get past the set-up screen?

If they wanted, AT&T could go the same route that Amazon did with their Fire TV OS, which is to take open-source Android and develop their own TV-centric UI for it, without licensing anything from Google. Of course, that would also mean having to maintain their own app store, which would probably defeat the whole purpose for AT&T.

Bottom line is that it appears that this box uses Android TV from Google. It therefore must include an app for the Google Play Store, even if it has no other apps pre-installed. I don't think a hardware provider (AT&T) is able to block the installation of anything from the Play Store on their own device. I do fully expect that the box will boot up/wake up within the DirecTV UI by default, by that can be exited somehow to the regular Android TV UI where the user sees their installed apps, including the Play Store. The voice search button on the box's remote will invoke Google search, probably powered by the Google Assistant.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Why would having to use their own app store "defeat the whole purpose for AT&T"? Assuming the purpose is to reduce their development/support costs to support apps like WatchESPN and so forth, cutting Google out of it and using their own app store sounds perfectly logical.

As it is today they have to develop the apps or convince e.g. ESPN to develop apps for their proprietary platform. If they use Android, they just have to ask ESPN "hey, can we make your existing app available in our app store" which is far easier/cheaper for both sides.

IMHO there is zero chance AT&T will deploy a platform where people need a Google account login, and Google collects all the viewing information that AT&T considers their own property. Why would they simply give away that valuable information, when the only thing they have to do to avoid it is to remove the Google linkage from Android TV? Then they have the best of both worlds - reduced development costs, a platform where the apps they want already exist, and they get to keep customer information proprietary to themselves.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Why would having to use their own app store "defeat the whole purpose for AT&T"? Assuming the purpose is to reduce their development/support costs to support apps like WatchESPN and so forth, cutting Google out of it and using their own app store sounds perfectly logical.
> 
> As it is today they have to develop the apps or convince e.g. ESPN to develop apps for their proprietary platform. If they use Android, they just have to ask ESPN "hey, can we make your existing app available in our app store" which is far easier/cheaper for both sides.
> 
> IMHO there is zero chance AT&T will deploy a platform where people need a Google account login, and Google collects all the viewing information that AT&T considers their own property. Why would they simply give away that valuable information, when the only thing they have to do to avoid it is to remove the Google linkage from Android TV? Then they have the best of both worlds - reduced development costs, a platform where the apps they want already exist, and they get to keep customer information proprietary to themselves.


Well, it doesn't entirely defeat the purpose but it does to an extent, since they wouldn't have access to an existing robust app platform on the Google Play Store. AT&T would have to get app authors to take their existing apps for either Android TV or Fire TV (which both use the same underlying AOSP Android code base) and then agree to specifically deploy them on their DirecTV hardware, which would likely require a slight bit of tweaking to work just right with the AT&T STB's own remote control. But it's more about the hassle of getting those app owners on board and the business negotiations involved. You may notice that there are a number of apps that are available for either Fire TV but not Android TV, or vice versa, despite the fact that it would take very, very little development time to make an app on one platform work on the other. It would be the same situation here if AT&T went with their own custom version of Android (like Amazon did with Fire TV).

The idea of AT&T deploying an Android TV box that requires a Google login doesn't seem crazy to me if it's for DirecTV OTT streaming service but it does seem a bit odd in a box that's primarily meant to be used with satellite service. Which is why I think the C71 will be used with DirecTV OTT, or possibly with both OTT and satellite. I don't know that just because a box uses Android TV means that everything done on it is tracked by Google. That may be something that is negotiable when Android TV is deployed by a pay TV partner. (Lots of European pay TV providers have already deployed Android TV STBs.) Is Google able to track everything you watch in the Netflix app on an Android TV box? Is Apple able to track everything you watch in Hulu on an Apple TV box? I don't think so. So I don't know why Google would be able to track what you watch from DirecTV, unless that viewing started as a result of a Google search.

I realize that the C71 user manual that AT&T submitted to the FCC in October is an early, incomplete version but check out Step 4 in the manual: "Sign-in your Google account".


----------



## MrWindows (Oct 12, 2010)

P Smith said:


> I'm not convinced at all, as Ethernet using voltage signaling around 5V DC and 100 Ohm impedance - in term of power, it has low power consumption ;
> I would start thinking about real power consumption if you're using PoE with max current.


I think you may have hit the nail on the head - perhaps some models of the C71 will utilize PoE, to eliminate the external powerbrick, especially for commercial venues.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> But it's more about the hassle of getting those app owners on board and the business negotiations involved. You may notice that there are a number of apps that are available for either Fire TV but not Android TV, or vice versa, despite the fact that it would take very, very little development time to make an app on one platform work on the other. It would be the same situation here if AT&T went with their own custom version of Android (like Amazon did with Fire TV).


They're already negotiating with them today to either write apps for Directv's current platform or get access to APIs, logos and so forth for Directv to write it themselves. Quite a bit easier to say "hey, can we get your app on our app store?" And they don't need them all, they only need a few dozen apps from providers like ESPN and HBO, and those providers have every incentive to do the work so they can get access to Directv's millions of customers.

Pretty much the entire Chinese Android phone market is running Android with all the Google stuff removed, and they get along just fine. Just because Amazon Fire has failed in the marketplace doesn't mean the concept is wrong, just that circumstances matter. Amazon wants ALL the apps, not just a small number, and compete in a much wider field than Directv does.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

MrWindows said:


> I think you may have hit the nail on the head - perhaps some models of the C71 will utilize PoE, to eliminate the external powerbrick, especially for commercial venues.


That would make sense, but still doesn't explain why a wireless model would include ethernet, let alone support PoE?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> They're already negotiating with them today to either write apps for Directv's current platform or get access to APIs, logos and so forth for Directv to write it themselves. Quite a bit easier to say "hey, can we get your app on our app store?" And they don't need them all, they only need a few dozen apps from providers like ESPN and HBO, and those providers have every incentive to do the work so they can get access to Directv's millions of customers.
> 
> Pretty much the entire Chinese Android phone market is running Android with all the Google stuff removed, and they get along just fine. Just because Amazon Fire has failed in the marketplace doesn't mean the concept is wrong, just that circumstances matter. Amazon wants ALL the apps, not just a small number, and compete in a much wider field than Directv does.


I disagree but this back-and-forth is really moot. The info that AT&T submitted to the FCC makes it clear that the C71 uses Google's "Android TV" OS (which necessarily includes the Google Play Store), not some AT&T homebrew version of open-source Android. In fact, I'd venture that the reason that there is no DirecTV Now app available for Android TV is because they don't want there to be retail devices on the market (such as the Nvidia Shield TV or Sony smart TVs) that can more-or-less replicate the experience that AT&T will provide with the C71.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There wouldn't be any need for AT&T to create a "homebrew" version, Google separates the open source part of Android from the proprietary Google parts (Google apps like search, data collection, branding, etc.) It would still be "Android TV" just not Google's version.

If it does make you login with a Google ID/password then you're right it would support the play store, but it just seems like it would be a really poor business decision to link their products so closely with Google, and hurt AT&T's/Directv's branding.

I guess we'll see what it is when it comes out, with so little information to go on there's a lot of unknowns.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> There wouldn't be any need for AT&T to create a "homebrew" version, Google separates the open source part of Android from the proprietary Google parts (Google apps like search, data collection, branding, etc.) It would still be "Android TV" just not Google's version.
> 
> If it does make you login with a Google ID/password then you're right it would support the play store, but it just seems like it would be a really poor business decision to link their products so closely with Google, and hurt AT&T's/Directv's branding.
> 
> I guess we'll see what it is when it comes out, with so little information to go on there's a lot of unknowns.


I don't think you understand what "Android TV" is. It's a Google trademarked and licensed version of Android with a Google-mandated UI that includes Google search and/or Google Assistant and the Google Play Store. Currently, it is licensed for use as the smart OS for TVs from Sony and Philips, as well as the Nvidia Shield TV and Mi Box streaming boxes. It's also licensed for use in various pay TV STBs, such as the TIMVISION box in Italy (among several others around the world).

It's not open-source Android with a custom TV UI, like Amazon Fire TV. And it's not the mobile version of Android slapped into a box with an HDMI port, even if it includes Google apps and services, including the Play Store. There are a lot of Chinese "Kodi boxes" which are that. So no, if the C71 doesn't include the proprietary Google parts, IT. IS. NOT. ANDROID TV.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

HS17 is the reason - All Older remotes and Current Receivers are DONE - going forward the "Home SERVER" will be king -eveything you have now will no longer be supported so get ready to feel the pain or embrace the world


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I don't think you understand what "Android TV" is. It's a Google trademarked and licensed version of Android with a Google-mandated UI that includes Google search and/or Google Assistant and the Google Play Store. Currently, it is licensed for use as the smart OS for TVs from Sony and Philips, as well as the Nvidia Shield TV and Mi Box streaming boxes. It's also licensed for use in various pay TV STBs, such as the TIMVISION box in Italy (among several others around the world).
> 
> It's not open-source Android with a custom TV UI, like Amazon Fire TV. And it's not the mobile version of Android slapped into a box with an HDMI port, even if it includes Google apps and services, including the Play Store. There are a lot of Chinese "Kodi boxes" which are that. So no, if the C71 doesn't include the proprietary Google parts, IT. IS. NOT. ANDROID TV.


OK, if it works as shown in the manual - having the Android TV branding and asking for a Google login - then it will be running full Android TV. That manual includes codenames like 'Osprey' and has minimal instructions so it is obviously very pre-release and doesn't necessarily reflect what the end product will be.

If they were building something on the AOSP base without the proprietary Android TV stuff (good comparison of what's included and not included: Android TV VS Android Open Source Platform (AOSP)) their software wouldn't be ready right away so the initial testing of the hardware would have to use full Android TV.

Maybe you're right, but the ONLY reference to it using Android TV is in that prerelease manual, which can't be taken as gospel.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

According to the manual for this device. You sign into your google account


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I wonder if the HS-27 will have Android TV built in? Imagine if you have a Sony Android TV and the HS-27 will stream to that with WIFI and Ethernet? I also wonder if the Android will run both DTV and DTV NOW? Also if they have Android TV on both the wired and wireless clients then that way you could get the latest Android TV box. Maybe that could be why the manual just says DTV/OTT and not DTV/DTV NOW/OTT? Also it looked to me in that Android TV screen shot it showed the Google Play Store.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Wouldn't new three *WVB2-700 *models related to the new line of STB* ? *redH begin listed it


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

P Smith said:


> Wouldn't new three *WVB2-700 *models related to the new line of STB* ? *redH begin listed it


Directv has used 'WVB' names for wireless video bridge - the new ones may be able to update their firmware. So I doubt these are receivers.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> I wonder if the HS-27 will have Android TV built in? Imagine if you have a Sony Android TV and the HS-27 will stream to that with WIFI and Ethernet? I also wonder if the Android will run both DTV and DTV NOW? Also if they have Android TV on both the wired and wireless clients then that way you could get the latest Android TV box. Maybe that could be why the manual just says DTV/OTT and not DTV/DTV NOW/OTT? Also it looked to me in that Android TV screen shot it showed the Google Play Store.


What would be the point of running Android TV on the server if the clients were running it?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> OK, if it works as shown in the manual - having the Android TV branding and asking for a Google login - then it will be running full Android TV. That manual includes codenames like 'Osprey' and has minimal instructions so it is obviously very pre-release and doesn't necessarily reflect what the end product will be.
> 
> If they were building something on the AOSP base without the proprietary Android TV stuff (good comparison of what's included and not included: Android TV VS Android Open Source Platform (AOSP)) their software wouldn't be ready right away so the initial testing of the hardware would have to use full Android TV.
> 
> Maybe you're right, but the ONLY reference to it using Android TV is in that prerelease manual, which can't be taken as gospel.


I agree that the prerelease manual should be taken with a grain of salt, although it would be weird for AT&T to specifically include all of that stuff -- "Android TV," "Sign in to your Google account," an actual screenshot of the Android TV 6.0 home screen, etc. -- if they had no intention of actually using Google's Android TV as the OS. (Why intentionally mislead the FCC? Is that even legal?) And the manual isn't the only reference to Android TV -- there's been chatter from various media and online sources for months that AT&T had been cooking up their own box running Android TV.

At any rate, come spring 2018, we should have a clearer picture not only of what exactly the C71 is, but also of AT&T's broader plans for TV services and the DirecTV brand.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

WestDC said:


> HS17 is the reason - All Older remotes and Current Receivers are DONE - going forward the "Home SERVER" will be king -eveything you have now will no longer be supported so get ready to feel the pain or embrace the world


I suspect you're right. Currently, DirecTV satellite offers a traditional set-up with the HR-44 and HR-54 Genies, as well as the newer server + client set-up with the HS17 server and C61 Genie Mini. My guess is that the next generation of hardware will be server + client only, i.e. HS27 and C71. Regardless of the branding/marketing specifics involved (including channel packages, pricing, etc.), it seems very plausible to me that the C71 will be available to subscribers who get AT&T video service by either satellite or OTT streaming. In the former case, the C71 would have to be paired with the HS27 server, which contains the satellite tuners and DVR hard drive. In the latter case, each C71 could stand alone, connecting via internet to the AT&T video cloud serving up all live, recorded and on-demand TV. There appear to be different versions of the C71, which may correspond to whether that model is intended for use with a satellite or OTT source.

That's speculation, of course. Maybe the C71 will only be for satellite customers, despite the fact that there's been lots of talk, including from AT&T's own CEO, about having a dedicated thin-client STB for use with OTT streaming. OTOH, maybe the C71 will only be for OTT streaming customers, although if that's the case, it's a little odd that the manual submitted to the FCC for the C71 mentions that it can work in conjunction with the future HS27. And clearly, C71 and HS27 are model numbers consistent with the next generation of DirecTV satellite hardware for the Genie Mini and home server.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> I agree that the prerelease manual should be taken with a grain of salt, although it would be weird for AT&T to specifically include all of that stuff -- "Android TV," "Sign in to your Google account," an actual screenshot of the Android TV 6.0 home screen, etc. -- if they had no intention of actually using Google's Android TV as the OS. (Why intentionally mislead the FCC? Is that even legal?) And the manual isn't the only reference to Android TV -- there's been chatter from various media and online sources for months that AT&T had been cooking up their own box running Android TV.
> 
> At any rate, come spring 2018, we should have a clearer picture not only of what exactly the C71 is, but also of AT&T's broader plans for TV services and the DirecTV brand.


The FCC doesn't care about what OS it is running, they don't even have to include a manual or details like that. All they care about is that it doesn't radiate RF outside of the permitted bands.

The manual could have been what was distributed with prerelease hardware to early testers. If they were planning on using an AOSP build of Android TV for the real product that software wouldn't be ready at this early stage. So the prerelease models would be forced to use the full version.

I haven't heard any chatter other than what came about after this thing appeared on the FCC site - everyone saw the Android TV stuff in the manual and that's what the headline said. Do you have any links that predate its appearance on the FCC site claiming AT&T would be developing a product using Android TV?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> The FCC doesn't care about what OS it is running, they don't even have to include a manual or details like that. All they care about is that it doesn't radiate RF outside of the permitted bands.
> 
> The manual could have been what was distributed with prerelease hardware to early testers. If they were planning on using an AOSP build of Android TV for the real product that software wouldn't be ready at this early stage. So the prerelease models would be forced to use the full version.
> 
> I haven't heard any chatter other than what came about after this thing appeared on the FCC site - everyone saw the Android TV stuff in the manual and that's what the headline said. Do you have any links that predate its appearance on the FCC site claiming AT&T would be developing a product using Android TV?


Yeah, I remember seeing a report over on the Android TV Reddit about six months ago that AT&T was going to use a Technicolor-sourced STB running Android TV, customized for DTV Now. I think there was other reports floating around on the web too about this.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252FAndroidTV%252Fcomments%252F6fteym%252F


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I remember seeing a report over on the Android TV Reddit about six months ago that AT&T was going to use a Technicolor-sourced STB running Android TV, customized for DTV Now. I think there was other reports floating around on the web too about this.
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252FAndroidTV%252Fcomments%252F6fteym%252F


Interesting. That sounds more like a branded device to give away instead of the giveaways of Apple TV and Roku they've been doing to help sell Directv Now. Makes sense they would prefer to give away an AT&T branded device instead of an Apple or Roku branded device.

Different code name (Indigo) than the Osprey this manual refers to though, so not necessarily the same thing as this, though I suppose code names can change throughout a project, or they could have one variation designed for Directv Now and cousin designed to be also be capable of acting as a Directv client.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> Directv has used 'WVB' names for wireless video bridge - the new ones may be able to update their firmware. So I doubt these are receivers.


or it's targeting internal WVB of HS17 ...


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Interesting. That sounds more like a branded device to give away instead of the giveaways of Apple TV and Roku they've been doing to help sell Directv Now. Makes sense they would prefer to give away an AT&T branded device instead of an Apple or Roku branded device.
> 
> Different code name (Indigo) than the Osprey this manual refers to though, so not necessarily the same thing as this, though I suppose code names can change throughout a project, or they could have one variation designed for Directv Now and cousin designed to be also be capable of acting as a Directv client.


Yeah, I don't think the Indigo box is the same hardware as Osprey. But it does indicate that AT&T has been thinking of using Google Android TV for awhile now. Perhaps both Indigo and Opsrey will get released next year for different purposes (Indigo for DTVN and Osprey for DTV) or maybe after first planning to release Indigo, they switched gears and decided to go with Osprey as their sole Android TV box.

At any rate, there's credible evidence to believe that AT&T will join the many other pay TV providers around the world using Android TV. Here's a site that lists all the devices running it, including STBs from pay TV providers:
Android TV


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Interesting, that site you linked attributes the C71KW to Directv, and a UIW4010TCH manufactured by Technicolor as being for Directv Now.

Almost all of these are in other countries. If the C71KW is used for Directv and runs full Android TV, they'll be the only provider in the US to use it for their cable/satellite offering.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Interesting, that site you linked attributes the C71KW to Directv, and a UIW4010TCH manufactured by Technicolor as being for Directv Now.
> 
> Almost all of these are in other countries. If the C71KW is used for Directv and runs full Android TV, they'll be the only provider in the US to use it for their cable/satellite offering.


What if DTV is doing something like this with this box and that is why it doesn't say DTV NOW in the manual?

Comcast's Xfinity app will be available on Sony smart TVs in 2018


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> What if DTV is doing something like this with this box and that is why it doesn't say DTV NOW in the manual?
> 
> Comcast's Xfinity app will be available on Sony smart TVs in 2018


Directv isn't going to make people get a special client just to support an app. That's the whole reason they built GenieGo functionality into the Genie and dropped the GenieGo product.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Interesting, that site you linked attributes the C71KW to Directv, and a UIW4010TCH manufactured by Technicolor as being for Directv Now.
> 
> Almost all of these are in other countries. If the C71KW is used for Directv and runs full Android TV, they'll be the only provider in the US to use it for their cable/satellite offering.


Well, DISH has Android TV-powered STBs for use in hotel rooms. And they sell their Air TV box, running a customized Android TV UI for combining their Sling TV OTT service with local OTA TV. But I'm not aware of any US pay TV provider currently using Android TV in their regular in-home STBs.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Was curious what you meant by "customized Android TV UI" so I checked out a review. This is sort of along the lines I was thinking - sounds like it puts the Sling TV UI front and center and makes the rest of the apps take a back seat and the play store "difficult to get to".

Depending on how much freedom Google extends to them to make the play store "difficult to get to" they can make it easy to use their favored apps, but still let people download other stuff if they really want to. So maybe they can work with Android TV rather than AOSP. Making it go to a Directv UI as the home page would mean no one would want to try to use this device as a generic Android TV set top because you'd always have to go through that to get to any other app.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Was curious what you meant by "customized Android TV UI" so I checked out a review. This is sort of along the lines I was thinking - sounds like it puts the Sling TV UI front and center and makes the rest of the apps take a back seat and the play store "difficult to get to".
> 
> Depending on how much freedom Google extends to them to make the play store "difficult to get to" they can make it easy to use their favored apps, but still let people download other stuff if they really want to. So maybe they can work with Android TV rather than AOSP. Making it go to a Directv UI as the home page would mean no one would want to try to use this device as a generic Android TV set top because you'd always have to go through that to get to any other app.


Right. Well, it's not that hard to get to other apps. But the standard Android TV UI, with its rows of app tiles, isn't typically the default home screen on boxes that are customized for pay TV partners. As I posted somewhere earlier, I'm sure that the C71 will boot up/wake up within the DirecTV UI. Essentially, the DirecTV "app" will be the home screen. But it won't appear to the user as a discrete app since you never click a little app tile to enter it, as you typically do with apps on a Roku, Apple TV, etc. You'll be able to click a menu in the DirecTV UI -- "Apps & Games" or some such -- and then go to the regular Android TV UI where you have the Google Play Store, Netflix, YouTube, etc. Or maybe if you just scroll all the way down on any DirecTV screen, underneath that is the regular Android TV stuff. And the remote will have a voice search button too, which will invoke Google Assistant; the results of that search could take the user to an app outside of DirecTV.

Arris is one of the manufacturers of Android TV STBs for use by pay TV providers. Go to this video and start watching at 1:00 for a demo:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Right. Well, it's not that hard to get to other apps. But the standard Android TV UI, with its rows of app tiles, isn't typically the default home screen on boxes that are customized for pay TV partners. As I posted somewhere earlier, I'm sure that the C71 will boot up/wake up within the DirecTV UI. Essentially, the DirecTV "app" will be the home screen.


That is a good point. Google's home screen can easily be hidden or replaced. The phones and devices where I work have such restrictions set (Androids and iPhones).


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Sky Q is doing something similar to what AT&T announced in 2018. They have SatelliteTV and Sky NOW their Internet streaming service. In this article it says their latest Sky Q box will run their full TV service and not SKY NOW. This got me thinking what if the HS-27 will run the full version of DTV over SatelliteTV and the Internet and this is why the C71KW will only work with the HS-27? Maybe this is also what they meant by a hybrid server?

Sky to offer television without dish | informitv


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> Sky Q is doing something similar to what AT&T announced in 2018. They have SatelliteTV and Sky NOW their Internet streaming service. In this article it says their latest Sky Q box will run their full TV service and not SKY NOW. This got me thinking what if the HS-27 will run the full version of DTV over SatelliteTV and the Internet and this is why the C71KW will only work with the HS-27? Maybe this is also what they meant by a hybrid server?
> 
> Sky to offer television without dish | informitv


Yeah, I think the big picture road map of where DirecTV is going is similar to what Sky is doing. For both, their legacy service is satellite. Then they launched a lower-cost, skinnier, no-contract OTT "Now" service. Then they're moving to offer a streaming version of their full-blown service too, so that it can be accessed either by satellite or by internet.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I think the big picture road map of where DirecTV is going is similar to what Sky is doing. For both, their legacy service is satellite. Then they launched a lower-cost, skinnier, no-contract OTT "Now" service. Then they're moving to offer a streaming version of their full-blown service too, so that it can be accessed either by satellite or by internet.


Do you think the HS-27 will run both the full version of DTV over SatelliteTV and internet streaming? I forgot to add in that article it said their latest Sky Q will run their full Sky Q service over SatelliteTV and the Internet.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

CraigerM said:


> Do you think the HS-27 will run both the full version of DTV over SatelliteTV and internet streaming? I forgot to add in that article it said their latest Sky Q will run their full Sky Q service over SatelliteTV and the Internet.


No. I think the HS-27 will be satellite-only. Like the current HS-17, it will contain the satellite tuners as well as a hard drive for DVR. The C71 boxes will communicate with the HS-27 for both live and recorded TV.

Whatever future streaming version(s) of DirecTV appear, it doesn't look like they will rely on a hard drive in the home for DVR. AT&T's CEO has described the future streaming service as having thin clients (something like the C71) that will use cloud DVR. If the C71 is used for a streaming version of DirecTV, it won't need the HS-27 to go with it.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> No. I think the HS-27 will be satellite-only. Like the current HS-17, it will contain the satellite tuners as well as a hard drive for DVR. The C71 boxes will communicate with the HS-27 for both live and recorded TV.
> 
> Whatever future streaming version(s) of DirecTV appear, it doesn't look like they will rely on a hard drive in the home for DVR. AT&T's CEO has described the future streaming service as having thin clients (something like the C71) that will use cloud DVR. If the C71 is used for a streaming version of DirecTV, it won't need the HS-27 to go with it.


what about there multi cast IPTV system (it scales better then the non muilt cast one and has more local ad's like cable) With loads of over flows live 24/7 as well stuff like CSN/NBCSN CHI + live 24/7 and few other RSN Plus feeds that live 24/7 with filler on local cable systems.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> what about there multi cast IPTV system (it scales better then the non muilt cast one and has more local ad's like cable) With loads of over flows live 24/7 as well stuff like CSN/NBCSN CHI + live 24/7 and few other RSN Plus feeds that live 24/7 with filler on local cable systems.


What you're talking about doesn't exist yet. AT&T has apparently made statements indicating something like that is coming but there are no specifics and we don't know for sure if it will ever even arrive. It would probably make more sense to equip a system like that with cloud DVR as well.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

The problem with some of this like cloud DVR - a few weeks ago we lost internet service for a couple of days due to storm outages (some people lost if for over a week) - since we had DTV with dvr we could watch as normal - no on demand but we rarely use that. If we had cloud DRV we wouldn't have had that service for days I like having it all here and under my control . I watch almost nothing live - sports most of the time and news. I would have not been able to record shows as well as watch older ones. Not what I want.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I found a brochure on that new DTV voice remote. It doesn't refer to DTV NOW only DTV's Android DFW Media Platform. Not sure what DFW means.

5601 AT&T; VRC81 DFW Remote 2016 User Manual Universal Electronics Inc


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Nobody knows what DFW stands for but it is interesting they include that. The blurb that was posted by west99999 earlier this year from an internal Directv document regarding new OTA modules stated "Note – HS 27/ HS37 support for the OTA Dongle will be supported under the DFW project."

Since the DFW acronym was unknown when he posted it, I think the skepticism some have for the provenance of that information is shown to be unfounded. I think we can piece together the evidence:

1) There will be an HS27
2) The C71KW is designed to work with the HS27
3) There will be a two tuner ATSC dongle which will connect to the HS27 (and apparently will work with the HR44 & HR54 as well, and one would assume the HS17 also)
4) There will be a new VRC81 remote that uses Bluetooth instead of 433 MHz like previous Directv compatible RF remotes that works with the C71KW (that RF format change is why the VRC81 was listed as incompatible with older equipment in the C71KW manual - presumably it would work with them in IR mode unless they are changing all the IR codes as well)


----------



## Z513 (Dec 19, 2017)

5) 2 C71KW exist, the 200 (manufactured by Samsung) and the 400 (by WNC / Wistron NeWeb Corporation).


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Z513 said:


> 5) 2 C71KW exist, the 200 (manufactured by Samsung) and the 400 (by WNC / Wistron NeWeb Corporation).


pictures ?
what then DFW means ?
why no FW spooling ?


----------



## Z513 (Dec 19, 2017)

P Smith said:


> pictures ?
> what then DFW means ?
> why no FW spooling ?


I don't have pictures as a confidential request has been made to the FCC.
But here is the FCC link: FCC ID A3LC71KW-200 Set top box by Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
Bluetooth certification: Launch Studio - Listing Details
Wi-Fi certification: Product Finder Results | Wi-Fi Alliance (Firmware Version: Android 7.1.1)


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

hope they will publish some documents in 6 months after the Grant eg in May'18


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

P Smith said:


> pictures ?
> what then DFW means ?
> why no FW spooling ?


DFW probably means something with FirmWare, guessing Downloadable or Dynamic or blah blah blah. if it's internet-delivered, it would explain no spooling, too...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

hancox said:


> DFW probably means something with FirmWare, guessing Downloadable or Dynamic or blah blah blah. if it's internet-delivered, it would explain no spooling, too...


Clients have always had "internet delivered" firmware, they get it from the Genie. The C71KW might be able to download it directly without going through the Genie, but it will still have to support going through the Genie for customers who don't have internet or don't choose to connect their Directv to the internet.

We don't see it spooling yet either because they aren't out in the field at all yet, or all the ones that are are limited to Directv employees or CE people who have internet. They won't need satellite delivery for firmware until they are released.

There's also a lag time between when something shows up on the FCC site and when it is actually released. There may be a document somewhere in there with a prospective release date - there often is, I haven't gone through them to look though.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Nobody knows what DFW stands for but it is interesting they include that. The blurb that was posted by west99999 earlier this year from an internal Directv document regarding new OTA modules stated "Note - HS 27/ HS37 support for the OTA Dongle will be supported under the DFW project."


The user manual for the VRC81 remote control says its for use with "DIRECTV's Android DFW media platform," which I think is just internal AT&T-speak for "our own customized version of Android TV that our next-gen STBs will run on". If you look at the picture of the remote, you'll see that the voice input button has Google's trademark microphone icon on it; clearly, the remote was designed for use with Android TV (which is the only TV system that employs Google voice search or Google Assistant).

Still seems weird to me that AT&T might deploy these boxes -- which would appear to require an internet connection for critical parts of their functionality -- to all satellite TV customers. Maybe they'll pre-screen customers and only send the C71 to those with in-home internet that they can connect to it, while other customers will continue to get current-gen STBs like the HR54, HS17 and C61.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

They've had various functionality that depends on the internet for a decade and sell it to people without an internet connection. If someone says "hey why doesn't this ESPN app on my Genie work?" Directv will tell them they need to connect it to the internet for that to work. They probably have a disclaimer like "certain functionality requires an internet connection" somewhere in the fine print.

It isn't as if the C71 wouldn't work perfectly well as a client and the VRC81 as a remote if you didn't have an internet connection. You just don't get all the features.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> They've had various functionality that depends on the internet for a decade and sell it to people without an internet connection. If someone says "hey why doesn't this ESPN app on my Genie work?" Directv will tell them they need to connect it to the internet for that to work. They probably have a disclaimer like "certain functionality requires an internet connection" somewhere in the fine print.
> 
> It isn't as if the C71 wouldn't work perfectly well as a client and the VRC81 as a remote if you didn't have an internet connection. You just don't get all the features.


Yeah, but that's different than shipping a customer a box that, upon startup, requires you to connect to the internet before it can do anything else. That's how Android TV devices work. And the C71 will have a remote with a voice search button that is useless without an internet connection.

Perhaps Google is allowing AT&T to configure the box so that the user can avoid connecting to wi-fi or ethernet during initial set-up and the UI falls back to a version without apps, without Google search, without YouTube, without the Google Play Store. But I kinda doubt it. That would be a very un-Google thing to do. This is a company that envisions everyone being connected to the internet at all times (for obvious reasons).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I find it hard to believe that if I bought a TV that included Android TV that it would REQUIRE me to connect to Google before I could use it as a TV. If it worked that way I would return it immediately, because there's no way I'd let Google collect information about what I watch.

If they allow TVs to not be connected to the internet to use them as a TV, why not allow a Directv client to be used as a Directv client without being connected to the internet?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Android tvs do not require internet to work.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> Android tvs do not require internet to work.


well, how you will setup it ? it's need to download apps at least


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

P Smith said:


> well, how you will setup it ? it's need to download apps at least


No, if you don't want to use the apps, you don't need it connected to the internet. The tv still does all its functions just fine.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I find it hard to believe that if I bought a TV that included Android TV that it would REQUIRE me to connect to Google before I could use it as a TV. If it worked that way I would return it immediately, because there's no way I'd let Google collect information about what I watch.
> 
> If they allow TVs to not be connected to the internet to use them as a TV, why not allow a Directv client to be used as a Directv client without being connected to the internet?


Well, a STB isn't the same thing as a TV. It's true that you don't need to connect a smart TV, including those running Android TV, to the internet in order to use the core TV functionality. But with retail Android TV STBs, such as the Nvidia Shield TV or the Mi Box, you must connect it to the internet during set-up, which makes sense, because the box would be useless without an internet connection. As for operator-tier Android TV STBs -- those provided by pay TV providers -- I honestly don't know. Perhaps Google allows those STBs to operate in a limited fashion, to show only the content provided directly by the pay TV provider, if the box isn't connected to the internet. I don't know. But Google voice search from the remote control, even within the pay TV provider's own content, would not work.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Google voice search not working isn't any more of a problem that Directv's own 'search' not working if you don't connect your H2x/HR2x/Genie to the internet. They can't make their equipment dependent on the internet because they have many customers who either don't have internet at all or who would refuse to connect their Directv gear to the internet (because their internet costs a lot, or they have privacy concerns, or they just don't see any value in doing so)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Nobody knows what DFW stands for but it is interesting they include that. The blurb that was posted by west99999 earlier this year from an internal Directv document regarding new OTA modules stated "Note - HS 27/ HS37 support for the OTA Dongle will be supported under the DFW project."


Another tidbit I uncovered just now regarding "DFW". I just signed up for 4 months of DirecTV Now to score a free Apple TV 4K (at a savings of $40 versus what it would cost to just buy one at retail). Started poking around to see if I could access the beta of the upcoming DTVN app with the new UI and cloud DVR and came across this link:
https://cdn.directv.com/content/dam/dtv/dfw/assets/DirecTV Now Beta_tvOS Instructions.pdf

Note that the acronyms used to classify the doc in AT&T's internal file system include "dfw" and "dtv". So whatever exactly DWF means to them, it seems to include both traditional DirecTV (since it reportedly involves an OTA tuner for the upcoming HS27/37) as well as DirecTV Now, since the next-gen DTVN beta app is classified under that term. So maybe DWF refers to the next-gen UI that will eventually span all their consumer video services, or even more broadly, to the entire project of their next-gen unified video platform.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Since we've seen mentions of DFW in connection with both the satellite and streaming products it must be a project to either unify them in some way or add something new to both, whether that's just the GUI or something bigger, who knows.

Maybe the project is being run out of AT&T's Dallas HQ so the Directv side calls it the "DFW project" because they have to keep flying to Dallas (airport code DFW)


----------



## justin may (May 20, 2018)

And we now know what this is for. AT&T looks to replace DirecTV satellite with $80-$90 'premium' streaming service | FierceCable

"Think about our traditional DirecTV product at a much lower cost point, meaning you don't have satellites on roofs," Stephenson explained. "You don't have truck rolls. In fact, to provision this, the only truck roll required is going to be a UPS truck to deliver a very thin piece of hardware that you plug into your TV and your broadband outlet&#8230; The subscriber acquisition costs are literally 1/4 of what you see today."


----------



## HuskerHarley (Feb 8, 2012)

This sounds Great!


----------



## justin may (May 20, 2018)

HuskerHarley said:


> This sounds Great!


The biggest problem is that this Android TV STB is jaw droppingly slow, a *lot* slower than a typical prepaid, $50 Android phone. samsung c71kw_200_dev - Geekbench Browser


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

justin may said:


> And we now know what this is for. AT&T looks to replace DirecTV satellite with $80-$90 'premium' streaming service | FierceCable
> 
> "Think about our traditional DirecTV product at a much lower cost point, meaning you don't have satellites on roofs," Stephenson explained. "You don't have truck rolls. In fact, to provision this, the only truck roll required is going to be a UPS truck to deliver a very thin piece of hardware that you plug into your TV and your broadband outlet&#8230; The subscriber acquisition costs are literally 1/4 of what you see today."


I would rather have AT&T just give DirecTV satellite back to DirecTV the way it was three years ago, and AT&T can move on and screw something else up. I'm sick of giving up software, hardware, programming items/features we liked, as this AT&T "service" has gone backwards for the last three years!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Terrible reporting since no where have they ever said they plan to replace all their sat customers with streaming. They don’t even have the ability to do that! They flat out said they are launching this in between DIRECTV now and the sat service...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

justin may said:


> The biggest problem is that this Android TV STB is jaw droppingly slow, a *lot* slower than a typical prepaid, $50 Android phone. samsung c71kw_200_dev - Geekbench Browser


What difference does the CPU make? Video decode happens in hardware, I suppose it may suck if you try to run games on it or other demanding apps but that's not what it is intended for.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> What difference does the CPU make? Video decode happens in hardware, I suppose it may suck if you try to run games on it or other demanding apps but that's not what it is intended for.


Well it runs the interface guide and everything else. People constantly complain about how slow every single directv box in. You don't hear that about recent Tivo hardware for example which have some snappy CPUS


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

justin may said:


> And we now know what this is for. AT&T looks to replace DirecTV satellite with $80-$90 'premium' streaming service | FierceCable
> 
> "Think about our traditional DirecTV product at a much lower cost point, meaning you don't have satellites on roofs," Stephenson explained. "You don't have truck rolls. In fact, to provision this, the only truck roll required is going to be a UPS truck to deliver a very thin piece of hardware that you plug into your TV and your broadband outlet&#8230; The subscriber acquisition costs are literally 1/4 of what you see today."


No sports. No Rich.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

compnurd said:


> Well it runs the interface guide and everything else. People constantly complain about how slow every single directv box in. You don't hear that about recent Tivo hardware for example which have some snappy CPUS


If you could run Geekbench on the Bolt I think you'd be very disappointed as to its score. Phones except on the very bottom end have CPUs much faster than set tops. The only set tops anywhere near the same class are the latest NVidia Shield (a little slower than the latest Android phones, and roughly comparable to the iPhone 6) or the latest Apple TV (much faster than all Androids, and faster than iPhones except the 7/8/X)

The BCM7271 in the C71KW is about the same speed as the one in the Hopper 3 and Bolt, and faster than the one in the HS17.


----------



## justin may (May 20, 2018)

Rich said:


> No sports. No Rich.
> 
> Rich


Sports will be offered....DirecTV Now offers sports. The no-sports offering is a separate thing. That is a value-add for AT&T wireless. Time Warner content packaged together into a product, offered to AT&T wireless customers at minimal to no charge.


----------



## justin may (May 20, 2018)

slice1900 said:


> What difference does the CPU make? Video decode happens in hardware, I suppose it may suck if you try to run games on it or other demanding apps but that's not what it is intended for.


All of the difference in the world. Android TV is heavy. It's not like TiVo's stack or the DTV 'os'. It needs power fed to it in order for the experience to be remotely snappy. Everything will be slow with that level of performance - updating apps will cause the whole system to slow to a crawl, moving between different apps will be painful, invoking Assistant while playing video will be no fun, etc. Try Android TV on a (faster) Sony TV to see what I mean - Android TV needs non-terrible hardware in order to be non-frustrating.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

justin may said:


> the DTV 'os'


it's well known Linux !


----------



## justin may (May 20, 2018)

P Smith said:


> it's well known Linux !


Lots of things are based upon Linux (as in they run the kernel) but most people do not define operating system as the kernel ran. TiVO runs the Linux kernel too. What is built on top of Linux is what matters here, in terms of performance.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

at least it's the "os" in your recent post


----------



## justin may (May 20, 2018)

P Smith said:


> at least it's the "os" in your recent post


I refer you back to the post I made prior. Well now ("C71KW-400" Client)


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

OK.
Then "Linux-based" should satisfy most people here


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

There are substantial parts of the country with no high speed internet so for them? Also is there DVR function - assume it is cloud based. I'll bet the 80-90 ends up more than 150 + internet service for most customers.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

justin may said:


> All of the difference in the world. Android TV is heavy. It's not like TiVo's stack or the DTV 'os'. It needs power fed to it in order for the experience to be remotely snappy. Everything will be slow with that level of performance - updating apps will cause the whole system to slow to a crawl, moving between different apps will be painful, invoking Assistant while playing video will be no fun, etc. Try Android TV on a (faster) Sony TV to see what I mean - Android TV needs non-terrible hardware in order to be non-frustrating.


Then Directv should have used something that doesn't suck, since there's no reason a GUI should require a lot of CPU to render. NeXT machines had a great GUI on a 25 MHz CPU in the 90s, and they couldn't come close to triple digits in Geekbench (if they had enough RAM to run it, which they didn't)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

justin may said:


> All of the difference in the world. Android TV is heavy. It's not like TiVo's stack or the DTV 'os'. It needs power fed to it in order for the experience to be remotely snappy. Everything will be slow with that level of performance - updating apps will cause the whole system to slow to a crawl, moving between different apps will be painful, invoking Assistant while playing video will be no fun, etc. Try Android TV on a (faster) Sony TV to see what I mean - Android TV needs non-terrible hardware in order to be non-frustrating.


There's some truth in what you say here. But I've tried Android TV 6.0 on the Mi Box from Xiaomi ($69 at Walmart) and the UI ran fine. As the linked review states, the UI is snappy. You can quickly scroll through items. Apps launch quickly. Voice search is responsive. I'm not sure what the deal is with those Sony TVs running Android TV but, yes, the OS appears to be underpowered there. I think the forthcoming C71 box from DirecTV will be at least as powerful (probably more powerful) than the Mi Box which debuted in fall 2016.

It's also worth noting that Google's main agenda with regard to Android TV right now is to optimize the OS to run better on lower-powered hardware. They're building that optimization into the upcoming version 8.0 and will also look to backport those optimizations into the current version 7.0. I'm pretty sure that the C71 was submitted to the FCC last fall running Android TV 6.0 but hopefully it will be upgraded to an optimized version 7.0 (if not 8.0) before AT&T releases it this fall.


----------



## Z513 (Dec 19, 2017)

justin may said:


> All of the difference in the world. Android TV is heavy. It's not like TiVo's stack or the DTV 'os'. It needs power fed to it in order for the experience to be remotely snappy. Everything will be slow with that level of performance - updating apps will cause the whole system to slow to a crawl, moving between different apps will be painful, invoking Assistant while playing video will be no fun, etc. Try Android TV on a (faster) Sony TV to see what I mean - Android TV needs non-terrible hardware in order to be non-frustrating.


Do you at least know which SoC are available to Android TV Set-to-box OEM ?
Basically you choose between Synaptics (Marvell), Broadcom, Amlogic and HiSilicon.

The BCM7271 is currently the best one from Broadcom so it should run fine on Android TV.
Amlogic offers the S905 and S912 and they match the Broadcom's performances.
Other SoC are also more or less the same.


----------



## justin may (May 20, 2018)

NashGuy said:


> There's some truth in what you say here. But I've tried Android TV 6.0 on the Mi Box from Xiaomi ($69 at Walmart) and the UI ran fine. As the linked review states, the UI is snappy. You can quickly scroll through items. Apps launch quickly. Voice search is responsive. I'm not sure what the deal is with those Sony TVs running Android TV but, yes, the OS appears to be underpowered there. I think the forthcoming C71 box from DirecTV will be at least as powerful (probably more powerful) than the Mi Box which debuted in fall 2016.
> 
> It's also worth noting that Google's main agenda with regard to Android TV right now is to optimize the OS to run better on lower-powered hardware. They're building that optimization into the upcoming version 8.0 and will also look to backport those optimizations into the current version 7.0. I'm pretty sure that the C71 was submitted to the FCC last fall running Android TV 6.0 but hopefully it will be upgraded to an optimized version 7.0 (if not 8.0) before AT&T releases it this fall.


The Mi Box* is not terribly performant (it's sluggish as hell) but is substantially faster in every benchmark than this DTV thing. Critically, it has more ram.

*Xiaomi makes many boxes that are all called the Mi Box. The US market 'Mi Box' runs garbage tier hardware and runs like ****, but it has more ram than this DTV thing.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

justin may said:


> The Mi Box* is not terribly performant (it's sluggish as hell) but is substantially faster in every benchmark than this DTV thing. Critically, it has more ram.
> 
> *Xiaomi makes many boxes that are all called the Mi Box. The US market 'Mi Box' runs garbage tier hardware and runs like ****, but it has more ram than this DTV thing.


That wasn't my experience with with the US Mi Box. The UI seemed about as responsive as my old Apple TV 3. Fluid scrolling through rows of apps and other UI elements. Fairly quick app launch times -- it was maybe slower there than the ATV3, maybe more on par there with the current Fire TV Stick.

However, the Mi Box I bought did have some sort of weird glitch that would cause it to stutter every so often when playing back video streams in certain apps like Hulu, so I returned it. (Based on comments I read on reddit, I think at least the initial batch of the US Mi Box had higher defect rates than such devices typically do. Poor quality control, I suppose. Lots of other users, though, confirmed that their unit did not show the video glitch that mine did.)


----------



## justin may (May 20, 2018)

NashGuy said:


> That wasn't my experience with with the US Mi Box. The UI seemed about as responsive as my old Apple TV 3. Fluid scrolling through rows of apps and other UI elements. Fairly quick app launch times -- it was maybe slower there than the ATV3, maybe more on par there with the current Fire TV Stick.
> 
> However, the Mi Box I bought did have some sort of weird glitch that would cause it to stutter every so often when playing back video streams in certain apps like Hulu, so I returned it. (Based on comments I read on reddit, I think at least the initial batch of the US Mi Box had higher defect rates than such devices typically do. Poor quality control, I suppose. Lots of other users, though, confirmed that their unit did not show the video glitch that mine did.)


You are the only person I am aware of who found the ultra slow Mi Box to be responsive.


----------



## electrowiz64 (Mar 15, 2015)

I think I have an idea of what they are doing.
I believe it will just be called DirecTV or something but yea it would be unified like they planned. I assume you could use any streaming device you want.

I assume they’ll be limited to 2 (maybe 3) streams over the internet only due to bandwidth limitations. They could rely on the HS27 which has a satellite tuner to deliver more TV streams. The HS17 can already deliver 8 TV streams at once. The HS27 could also be used if the customer is remote and their internet sucks or if they have UVerse/DSL which already has low bandwidth.

Assuming they could just do network discovery, I don’t see why either fire TVs or the C71 Could work but the c71 could give the customer more options.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

electrowiz64 said:


> I think I have an idea of what they are doing.
> I believe it will just be called DirecTV or something but yea it would be unified like they planned. I assume you could use any streaming device you want.
> 
> I assume they'll be limited to 2 (maybe 3) streams over the internet only due to bandwidth limitations. They could rely on the HS27 which has a satellite tuner to deliver more TV streams. The HS17 can already deliver 8 TV streams at once. The HS27 could also be used if the customer is remote and their internet sucks or if they have UVerse/DSL which already has low bandwidth.
> ...


When you compare what a D* remote can do against and FTV or an ATV the D* remotes do more. Watching sports without a 30 Second click forward would be a loss. The ATV's only jump back or forward 10 seconds. About the same on the FTVs. The ATVs have a touchpad that might work on sports, might. For regular programming the 10 second forward and back is enough for me. No commercials, no need for a longer period of time.

Streaming is so simple you don't really need a complicated remote for watching normal programs, sports programming and using an Apple remote...I dunno. I like the D* remotes for that, but I suppose I could adapt. Put simply, you don't need a remote with a bzillion buttons on it to watch a streaming GoTs episode.

But for sports...where trickplay comes into its own, I like the D* remotes. YMMV.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

electrowiz64 said:


> I think I have an idea of what they are doing.
> I believe it will just be called DirecTV or something but yea it would be unified like they planned. I assume you could use any streaming device you want.


I actually doubt that last part. I think you will have to use Directv provided equipment. If you want to bring your own equipment there is already a product for you, Directv Now.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> I actually doubt that last part. *I think you will have to use Directv provided equipment.* If you want to bring your own equipment there is already a product for you, Directv Now.


Oh yeah, that's what's gonna happen. Monthly payments on each box. Another money stream.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Eh, actually I wonder.. I think they may simply offer a box but not require it. They can charge you by the number of streams you want either way.. just like Netflix and others already do.


----------



## electrowiz64 (Mar 15, 2015)

Rich said:


> Oh yeah, that's what's gonna happen. Monthly payments on each box. Another money stream.
> 
> Rich


They could just scrap that idea. And then charge a flat fee for the HS27 for maybe $20 or $30 more cuz it's obviously gonna be used for more TVs


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It would be simple to charge a fee for "up to" X number of clients connected - charging whether the clients are connected or not. It would fit with the current concept of "up to" X streams on streaming providers.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

electrowiz64 said:


> They could just scrap that idea. And then charge a flat fee for the HS27 for maybe $20 or $30 more cuz it's obviously gonna be used for more TVs


There won't be an HS27 or any sort of Genie server for the 'Directv over IP' product. That, and the lack of a dish, are what will make this product cheaper for Directv to install than satellite.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Eh, actually I wonder.. I think they may simply offer a box but not require it. They can charge you by the number of streams you want either way.. just like Netflix and others already do.


I doubt all their contracts consider video streamed to customer devices the same as video streamed to Directv owned/controlled devices. Otherwise why create this new product at all when it would be identical to Directv Now other than the package selection - they'd just add new package choices to Directv Now.


----------



## electrowiz64 (Mar 15, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> There won't be an HS27 or any sort of Genie server for the 'Directv over IP' product. That, and the lack of a dish, are what will make this product cheaper for Directv to install than satellite.


The HS27 is for those who need more streams or cannot get a fast enough connection. You really think they're just gonna alienate rural customers or UVerse and DSL customers? And like cmon you really think they have the capacity to have that many streams over the internet at once? Only PlayStation Vue has a 5 stream limit but they're expensive. What about people with 100mbit cable internet?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Eh, actually I wonder.. I think they may simply offer a box but not require it. They can charge you by the number of streams you want either way.. just like Netflix and others already do.


I don't think they'd lose out on the money stream that would exist if each box had a monthly fee. I think Altice does that with their box. Not sure. And calling Optimum for info has become an ordeal...but they answer quickly if you want a "new service". The Altice 1 box system starts with a main box that costs $20 a month. That box contains the modem and router. For each TV a box is needed and is called a mini. No modem and they act as wireless extenders...at $10 a box. And the CSR said you pay for each box, the first one is not without charge. So, that would elevate the equipment charges for our home to $80 a month. Do you really think D* will miss out on doing something similar to this?

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

electrowiz64 said:


> The HS27 is for those who need more streams or cannot get a fast enough connection.


Satellite customers. Being able to serve satellite customers via satellite or OTT. DISH has some OTT channels on the Hopper 3. They appear as normal channels in the guide but start a stream when selected.

(And no, that doesn't mean DISH will be throwing away their rural customers who cannot get OTT any more than DIRECTV plans to end satellite. It is an option. Satellite remains the best way to reach millions of subscribers simultaneously.)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

electrowiz64 said:


> The HS27 is for those who need more streams or cannot get a fast enough connection. You really think they're just gonna alienate rural customers or UVerse and DSL customers? And like cmon you really think they have the capacity to have that many streams over the internet at once? Only PlayStation Vue has a 5 stream limit but they're expensive. What about people with 100mbit cable internet?


The HS27 will be for satellite, not IP customers. If you don't have fast enough internet for the number of streams you want, then you should stick with satellite.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I doubt all their contracts consider video streamed to customer devices the same as video streamed to Directv owned/controlled devices. Otherwise why create this new product at all when it would be identical to Directv Now other than the package selection - they'd just add new package choices to Directv Now.


Yeah, that may be true about the contracts. But still, from a consumer perspective, as Rich points out with his sports-watching, live channel-based TV is just better with a fuller featured traditional remote control as opposed to the very simple remotes that come with retail streamers like Roku, etc. And there's a convenience for consumers not to have to pick out and buy their own box but to simply rely (as they've always done) on getting one delivered to them from the TV provider (whose responsibility it will be to replace if it craps out). Also, the fact that the box will make DTV the "main thing" in the home UI rather than just another separate app is important too.

And besides the included hardware and different channel packages, I would imagine that the streaming version of "full DirecTV" will offer a better cloud DVR than you get with DTV Now, which only comes with 20 hrs of storage and a 30-day time limit. That can be upgraded for a fee -- to 100 hrs and 90 days, I think -- but that still falls well short of the DVR experience of the current Genies on DTV satellite. If they're serious about converting DTV satellite customers (not to mention Dish satellite and cable customers) over to the new streaming DTV, they should offer 200 hrs of storage with no time-base auto-deletions for no extra charge.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Eh, actually I wonder.. I think they may simply offer a box but not require it. They can charge you by the number of streams you want either way.. just like Netflix and others already do.


I don't think comparing streaming video services (NF, AP, Hulu, etc.) to cable replacement services (Slingbox, D*Now, PSVue, etc.) is valid. The streaming video services will never have dedicated boxes or remotes. I'd expect to see dedicated boxes and remotes on cable replacement services. I also expect those boxes will carry monthly fees. BTW, I realize that AP does have the FTV devices and accompanying remotes. I don't think of them as dedicated to Amazon content.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, that may be true about the contracts. But still, from a consumer perspective, as Rich points out with his sports-watching, live channel-based TV is just better with a fuller featured traditional remote control as opposed to the very simple remotes that come with retail streamers like Roku, etc. And there's a convenience for consumers not to have to pick out and buy their own box but to simply rely (as they've always done) on getting one delivered to them from the TV provider (whose responsibility it will be to replace if it craps out). *Also, the fact that the box will make DTV the "main thing" in the home UI rather than just another separate app is important too.*
> 
> And besides the included hardware and different channel packages, I would imagine that the streaming version of "full DirecTV" will offer a better cloud DVR than you get with DTV Now, which only comes with 20 hrs of storage and a 30-day time limit. That can be upgraded for a fee -- to 100 hrs and 90 days, I think -- but that still falls well short of the DVR experience of the current Genies on DTV satellite. If they're serious about converting DTV satellite customers (not to mention Dish satellite and cable customers) over to the new streaming DTV, they should offer 200 hrs of storage with no time-base auto-deletions for no extra charge.


I think that's important. All the cable replacement services are like that. What they are doing is replicating the cable/satellite experience. They think everyone wants to see the weekly schedule and plan their viewing from that. I never want to go back to that paradigm. But if everybody watched TV as I do...it would be very disruptive, I think. I'd like to see the cable replacement services be wildly successful so I can keep on doing what I do.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> I don't think comparing streaming video services (NF, AP, Hulu, etc.) to cable replacement services (Slingbox, D*Now, PSVue, etc.) is valid. The streaming video services will never have dedicated boxes or remotes. I'd expect to see dedicated boxes and remotes on cable replacement services. I also expect those boxes will carry monthly fees. BTW, I realize that AP does have the FTV devices and accompanying remotes. I don't think of them as dedicated to Amazon content.
> 
> Rich


Around here spectrum now has a streaming offering of their service. One of their big advertising plots is no need for a cable box. Kind of the same with directv now. They push the fact you don't need a streaming box.

I think they don't want to have to produce hardware at all if they can go that route eventually.

I mean then they can charge per stream similar
to per box and not even have to build a box...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Around here spectrum now has a streaming offering of their service. One of their big advertising plots is no need for a cable box. Kind of the same with directv now. They push the fact you don't need a streaming box.
> 
> I think they don't want to have to produce hardware at all if they can go that route eventually.
> 
> ...


Only thing I have to compare it to is what Altice 1 has. A box that has a modem and router built in and the box can be used as a STB to replace normal cable service. It's a Cable Replacement Service, not to be confused with streaming services such as NetFlix or Amazon Prime. If I wanted the Altice 1 boxes in my home each TV set would have to have one in order to get the whole service which replicates normal cable. Naturally, they want a monthly fee of $10 per box and, IIRC, the first box costs $20. Big money stream, think D* is gonna miss out on that? I just read today on Cordcutters D* is gonna raise the monthly fee of D* Now again. Folks seem to dropping subscriptions to sat and cable companies in droves.

Maybe you're right and the folks at D* won't nickle and dime subs to death with these new services...I'll stick with history.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

inkahauts said:


> Around here spectrum now has a streaming offering of their service. One of their big advertising plots is no need for a cable box. Kind of the same with directv now. They push the fact you don't need a streaming box.
> 
> I think they don't want to have to produce hardware at all if they can go that route eventually.
> 
> ...


Yeah. Charging per "TV-connected device" is basically what Comcast is going to do (may already be doing?) with regard to their new Xfinity Stream app on devices like Roku, smart TVs, etc. (The Stream app has full access to whatever live channels, cloud DVR, and on-demand content that is included in whatever TV package you're subscribed to.) Right now, I think that program is still in beta but once it exits beta, their stated plan is to charge the same for each Roku as they charge for each additional Comcast-issued STB, except that the user gets a $2.50 discount for "consumer-owned hardware" (which is the same discount that they've always given for using your own CableCARD device, e.g. TiVo, in lieu of a Comcast STB). Perhaps when you spread the cost that Comcast pays to acquire, deploy and support their own STBs over the useable life of the unit, it averages out to $2.50 a month?

I don't know if the big boys -- Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Cox, Altice -- ever want to fully get away from offering their own STBs. I think they just realize that it's in their interests to cater to different consumer tastes, and some consumers prefer to use their own hardware. (TiVo was really the only mainstream option for such consumers in the past but it never really was that popular for a number of reasons; Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV and smart TVs are playing that role now, to a far larger number of users.) So the plan is to offer that option but do so in a way that's revenue-neutral, i.e. make just as much money overall regardless of what portion of their customer base uses the provider's own STBs vs. retail devices. And, of course, the MVPDs are much happier with this scenario than with TiVo because in this new era, the MVPDs create and control their own app and its UI (as well as which devices they choose to deploy the app on), whereas on a TiVo, TiVo controlled the UI, with the MVPD playing the role of a dump pipe of linear channels.

Speaking of Charter Spectrum, did you see the announcement that Apple made a few months back that Spectrum is going to fully support the Apple TV as a client for their regular cable TV service (not this new streaming service that you mentioned)? They'll be the first US cable company to do so. If you have both internet and cable TV service from Spectrum, the Apple TV will automatically recognize that fact when it connects to your home network -- a feature they call "zero sign-on" -- and instantly authenticate access to all of the content in your Spectrum TV package. The Spectrum TV app will be "tightly integrated" into the Apple TV. Charter is even going to be offering the Apple TV 4K directly to their customers. Charter to Pitch Apple TV 4K Box to Subs


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

I think the only value a local box would have is having a local DVR to avoid pitfalls of cloud DVR. None offer a live buffer that could expand to 90 minutes, if paused that long like physical DVRs do. And commercial skip can be a gotcha with recorded content in the cloud but even downloaded on-demand isn't immune from that on Directv.

If Directv wants to call this service a premium service tiered one, I'd hope they also consider there's at least one service provider out there that betters Directv on-demand content. When I had PlayStation Vue and took advantage of adding everything I thought I'd want to watch to my DVR, on-demand and catch-up episodes added to my DVR automatically and duplicates too, where available. 

Surprisingly, many of these on-demand and catch-up episodes in my DVR, when compared to what recorded, played without commercial interruption or had limited commercials, like 1 per break, not 5 commercials! Xfinity/NBC seemed to be odd one out but I had the option to watch recording and manually skip commercials, at least. 

And no worries of filling my cloud DVR to capacity and losing recordings. PlayStation Vue support told me if that was a capacity concern, use the 9 profiles to split recordings up but I didn't see that as an issue.

And charging extra for streams? PlayStation Vue gives you 5 if you resister a home streaming device. And you can travel with it, even a TV streaming device as long as only one location streams at any given moment. Mobile devices aren't limited to one location.

I'm just saying, if you look at the competition, you gotta compete. Charging for extras just to pad a bill against the consumer with no true value is not competing.

If you consider that Directv reconnections took extreme measures to bring me back to Directv for 12 months, Directv is at least eyeing PlayStation Vue as a threat. I was never successful at negotiating a monthly discount above $50 before with loyalty/retention before PlayStation Vue subscription and cancelling Directv.

I'd prefer Directv compete directly with strategy, apples to apples, where possible. If cloud DVR, expand to same capacity and streams. If 5 minutes is best cloud DVR live buffer, expand it. Don't charge extra for simultaneous streams. If boxes are necessary, give them a purpose other than a monthly lease rate. And if they have no added value, don't require them but allow user to bring their own device without a fee.

If not, then I can go back to PlayStation Vue next year. Hope the short term Directv discounts aren't hurting them too badly. But I was out off by the rate increases that OTT TV services added this year.

PlayStation Vue has issues they could solve or have avoided. I think they could be more popular with a Sony name so subscribers don't feel they need a gaming station to watch TV. Not losing channels and locals could have helped too. But it likely takes subscribers resolute to take the losses and rate increases to help sustain the service. Or play the long game like Netflix and Hulu and take some losses like an investment in the future. Invest more more despite the losses of revenue to increase subscriber number.

I feel Directv is willing to do that but don't seem to be serious about making Directv Now DVR competitive with PlayStation Vue. My wife wanted to return to Directv or keep Directv Now despite its shortcomings for channels not offered in Hulu, PlayStation Vue and YouTube TV (Viacom, I think). 

I'm not a fan of many stations holding out or suspending privilege for more money so my viewing can be limited to save money. I loved PlayStation Vue but having Directv Now along for the ride was too redundant and Directv made a short term offer to come back and pay one bill. 

I'm here but 12 months go fast. I can't help but watch the TV industry go through changes, hoping competition increases and rates don't continue to rise. It would be sad if Directv pockets potential savings of going TV over web and doesn't share that with their subscribers.

I'm hoping for more from Directv streaming but willing to go back to PlayStation Vue if they survive the momentary rate reductions to avoid subscriber loss short term. Sony had said there's no plans to abandon streaming TV so maybe they see the long and short game playing out to some needed patience and improving their strategy.



Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> Only thing I have to compare it to is what Altice 1 has. A box that has a modem and router built in and the box can be used as a STB to replace normal cable service. It's a Cable Replacement Service, not to be confused with streaming services such as NetFlix or Amazon Prime. If I wanted the Altice 1 boxes in my home each TV set would have to have one in order to get the whole service which replicates normal cable. Naturally, they want a monthly fee of $10 per box and, IIRC, the first box costs $20. Big money stream, think D* is gonna miss out on that? I just read today on Cordcutters D* is gonna raise the monthly fee of D* Now again. Folks seem to dropping subscriptions to sat and cable companies in droves.
> 
> Maybe you're right and the folks at D* won't nickle and dime subs to death with these new services...I'll stick with history.
> 
> Rich


Dtv basically charges by the stream now. It's one charge per box. But that's really per tv when you consider RVU. They are going to give people a price for a couple streams and if they want more they will charge more. Heck DIRECTV now does that today or soon will.. plus they are going to charge for cloud DVR service and have different levels of that as well! They won't lose anything not having a box in the house. Except the extra costs of the boxes... and the csr dealing with the boxes when something isn't right. With an appletv you call Apple not DIRECTV for a problem with the hardware...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I don't know if the big boys -- Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Cox, *Altice* -- ever want to fully get away from offering their own STBs. I think they just realize that it's in their interests to cater to different consumer tastes, and some consumers prefer to use their own hardware.


IIRC, Altice 1 box is gonna cost $20 for the first box and $10 for every other box. So, for a house with 7 TV sets it would be $80 a month for equipment charges. I cannot see why any cable/sat provider would pass up an opportunity like this.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

armchair said:


> I think the only value a local box would have is having a local DVR to avoid pitfalls of cloud DVR. None offer a live buffer that could expand to 90 minutes, if paused that long like physical DVRs do. And commercial skip can be a gotcha with recorded content in the cloud but even downloaded on-demand isn't immune from that on Directv.
> 
> If Directv wants to call this service a premium service tiered one, I'd hope they also consider there's at least one service provider out there that betters Directv on-demand content. When I had PlayStation Vue and took advantage of adding everything I thought I'd want to watch to my DVR, on-demand and catch-up episodes added to my DVR automatically and duplicates too, where available.
> 
> ...


Just a thought: I keep reading articles that say it looks like PS Vue might not last much longer due to low subscriptions. Last one I read said PSV doesn't even have a million subs. I tried it, I liked it, I hope it sticks around.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Dtv basically charges by the stream now. It's one charge per box. But that's really per tv when you consider RVU. They are going to give people a price for a couple streams and if they want more they will charge more. Heck DIRECTV now does that today or soon will.. plus they are going to charge for cloud DVR service and have different levels of that as well! They won't lose anything not having a box in the house. Except the extra costs of the boxes... and the csr dealing with the boxes when something isn't right. With an appletv you call Apple not DIRECTV for a problem with the hardware...


We will obviously have to wait and see what happens. I hope you're right.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> IIRC, Altice 1 box is gonna cost $20 for the first box and $10 for every other box. So, for a house with 7 TV sets it would be $80 a month for equipment charges. I cannot see why any cable/sat provider would pass up an opportunity like this.


Those Altice One boxes do more than just provide TV service. The main box also contains the DOCSIS modem and wifi router and I think the secondary small boxes act as wifi extenders.

But couldn't you imagine Altice requiring the customer to take the initial $20 box for their first TV (as well as broadband service) and then offering to let you extend service to additional TVs, at a charge of $8 per TV, by using your own Apple TV, Roku or Fire TV box/stick that would use an Altice One app?

That's what I'm getting at. It's not really about renting "boxes," it's about the number of TVs that can access the service. You're right that the MVPDs aren't going to forego that money. They'll still get your money whether a TV is served by their own box or by a box/stick that you own.


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

Rich said:


> Just a thought: I keep reading articles that say it looks like PS Vue might not last much longer due to low subscriptions. Last one I read said PSV doesn't even have a million subs. I tried it, I liked it, I hope it sticks around.
> 
> Rich


Many have speculated but publicly Sony has said they're not folding. Many of these services are losing money but goal is to increase subscribers. Sony needs to add numbers to justify their business so I can understand the speculation.

When I was with PlayStation Vue and noting major functional differences between Roku and Apple TV device ability to skip commercials in various content in my DVR (note that adding a series to DVR will add all the previous available on-demand and catch-up episodes to DVR series folder to catch-up, if needed). Support was telling me that Roku was behind on updates, the better result is likely the intent because PlayStation Vue wants to continually improve the customer experience.

In some ways, even Directv doesn't stack up to PlayStation Vue. Most of the popular channels are in the lowest plan and all plans include virtually unlimited DVR with 9 profiles and 5 home simultaneous streams for TV devices. No delete recording button in PSV? That wasn't an issue with folder queuing latest recording at open but recordings don't last but 28 days. That could be an issue.

Little to no advertising, PlayStation Vue must rely on customers to get the word out about the service. There is an annual Days of PlayStation promos to take advantage of and the Access plan users may get bumped up a tier temporarily to try it for free. I think many would-be subscribers are still confused with the use of PlayStation in the name, thinking it's for game console only.

It's a different experience for sure. They need a slogan. "TV that makes cents" wouldn't do the DVR or included services at no added cost justice but maybe that works? Use it. With exception of a few missing channels and live buffer limited to just under 5 minutes, it's a premium service. Almost but a lot of potential, IMO. I miss it some but the wife wouldn't use it for missing channels; sadly, there's that flip side. Maybe it's more like TV done Sony's way; try it, Mikey likes it.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> *Those Altice One boxes do more than just provide TV service. The main box also contains the DOCSIS modem and wifi router and I think the secondary small boxes act as wifi extenders.*
> 
> But couldn't you imagine Altice requiring the customer to take the initial $20 box for their first TV (as well as broadband service) and then offering to let you extend service to additional TVs, at a charge of $8 per TV, by using your own Apple TV, Roku or Fire TV box/stick that would use an Altice One app?
> 
> That's what I'm getting at. It's not really about renting "boxes," it's about the number of TVs that can access the service. You're right that the MVPDs aren't going to forego that money. They'll still get your money whether a TV is served by their own box or by a box/stick that you own.


Yup, that's what I've been told. I told the CSR I have one of their modems and didn't think the box's router would be any better than my Netgear Nighthawk setup and he said I could keep my present Wifi setup. I've had a couple Optimum routers, thought they were rather cruel jokes.

I didn't go any further with the CSR. I have no interest in a cable replacement service. Not sure what my D* monthly bill will be now. Might be as low as ~ $50 a month. I'm not gonna replace D* with something else similar to it.

Rich


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

armchair said:


> I think many would-be subscribers are still confused with the use of PlayStation in the name, thinking it's for game console


Me! I seriously thought PlayStation Vue required a PlayStation. I thought that was one of their perks or selling points to choose PlayStation over Xbox. Low cost TV.

They really need to change the name.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Rich said:


> Yup, that's what I've been told. I told the CSR I have one of their modems and didn't think the box's router would be any better than my Netgear Nighthawk setup and he said I could keep my present Wifi setup. I've had a couple Optimum routers, thought they were rather cruel jokes.


You probably also know that Altice has begun converting their network in the greater NYC region from traditional cable (hybrid fiber/coax) over to full fiber-to-the-home (FTTH). When homes get changed over, an ONT will be installed (like Verizon FiOS) and users will get a new in-home gateway that acts as a wireless router for all internet and TV service, which will switch from the current QAM format over to IPTV. So I would guess that the larger Altice One boxes (the ones with DOCSIS modems built-in) won't be deployed in FTTH homes. I guess each TV will just get the smaller Altice One Mini box, or something similar, acting as both TV STB and wifi mesh router. Altice has said they won't be using MoCA or any other coax-based in-home distribution system for TV since faults in such systems currently account for a large percentage of their service calls. Sounds like their IPTV service will be fully routed through the home via wifi. From what I can gather, I predict that their TV service will basically look and work the same via IPTV as it does now via QAM except that DVR service will probably be totally cloud-based. And, of course, TiVos will no longer be compatible.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

armchair said:


> Many have speculated but publicly Sony has said they're not folding. Many of these services are losing money but goal is to increase subscribers. Sony needs to add numbers to justify their business so I can understand the speculation.


What else can Sony do but deny it's gonna drop PSV? They could rename it and get rid of the confusion, I'd think that would make folks more likely to try the service. Sony does some really strange things, look at how they botched the Betamax recorders.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

cypherx said:


> Me! I seriously thought PlayStation Vue required a PlayStation. I thought that was one of their perks or selling points to choose PlayStation over Xbox. Low cost TV.
> 
> They really need to change the name.


Everybody I've talked thought the same thing. Dopey name. Easy assumption to make.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> You probably also know that Altice has begun converting their network in the greater NYC region from traditional cable (hybrid fiber/coax) over to full fiber-to-the-home (FTTH). When homes get changed over, an ONT will be installed (like Verizon FiOS) and users will get a new in-home gateway that acts as a wireless router for all internet and TV service, which will switch from the current QAM format over to IPTV. So I would guess that the larger Altice One boxes (the ones with DOCSIS modems built-in) won't be deployed in FTTH homes. I guess each TV will just get the smaller Altice One Mini box, or something similar, acting as both TV STB and wifi mesh router. Altice has said they won't be using MoCA or any other coax-based in-home distribution system for TV since faults in such systems currently account for a large percentage of their service calls. Sounds like their IPTV service will be fully routed through the home via wifi. From what I can gather, I predict that their TV service will basically look and work the same via IPTV as it does now via QAM except that DVR service will probably be totally cloud-based. And, of course, TiVos will no longer be compatible.


Yes, they've got fiber to the pole across the street. I know it's gonna be like Verizon's service. I have seen the Verizon boxes in homes. I have no idea what will happen if/when they finally implement the fiber service. I'll adapt.

Rich


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

No debate on above PSV comments. Sony needs better strategy but hopefully it still improves and stays competitive. And doesn't fail.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Back in the 80s and 90s everyone knew Sony because everyone had a Walkman or Discman, and/or knew a bunch of people who did, and everyone knew they made the best TVs. They had a terrific reputation for making quality products, and if they had played their cards right, they could have built on that and been where Apple is today. The loyalty some people felt to Sony's products is pretty similar to the loyalty people have with Apple products today.

The problem is Sony has always wanted to invent their own technology, and the market passes them by. Happened with Betamax, happened with MiniDisc, happened with Memory Stick, etc. It isn't that it is impossible to do proprietary standards and be successful, Apple is proof that you can, and Sony was able to do it with Playstation. But you have to provide compelling value to the consumer - Sony's proprietary standards were more about providing compelling value to Sony.

I think where it all went wrong for them was when music and later movies went digital, due to their ownership of a movie studio and music publishing business. Sony was too concerned about protecting their intellectual property, and saw the consumer as the enemy. They didn't like that CDs were copyable, so they thought making a "better" CD standard that had higher quality audio and couldn't be copied would sell to consumers. They introduced it in 1999, after Napster had been a thing for several years and it was obvious people 1) didn't care about physical media and 2) didn't didn't care about improved audio quality.

They could never have come up with the solution Apple did with the iPod. In their minds, why should they make a device that in addition to their own music format is also capable of playing MP3 files that people have downloaded for free? Why should they switch from the profitable solution of selling people an entire CD for $15 to get the few songs they want, and start selling individual songs for only 99 cents? If they had split the consumer electrics division from the movie/music arm back in the 80s, they wouldn't have thought like that and maybe they would have invented the digital music player everyone wanted before Apple could introduce the iPod. Had they beat iPod to market, Apple might not have survived to 2018. They certainly wouldn't have had the wide recognition and reputation for making quality easy to use products from the hundreds of millions who owned an iPod that gave them a leg up in trying to sell consumers on the idea that a smartphone should be owned by everyone, and not just geeks and middle managers.

The only reason they've been successful in games consoles is that their main competition is Microsoft, who is even more inept in giving consumers what they want than Sony, but without its success I wonder if they'd still be in the consumer electronics market today? Its a sad thing that Sony's name has been so devalued and forgotten by consumers that when they introduced a TV platform they felt the Playstation name had better recognition and a better reputation among consumers than the Sony name. That's why they call it "Playstation Vue", instead of "Sony Vue" like those of us old enough to remember when Sony's name was gold think they should.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> That's why they call it "Playstation Vue", instead of "Sony Vue" like those of us old enough to remember when Sony's name was gold think they should.


Yep, good recap. The main theme I see there is that it's the upstarts with the least to lose in a given market who are best positioned to be the disruptors. Sony had too much of an interest in maintaining the status quo in terms of how music was licensed and distributed to disrupt that business with a more consumer-friendly paradigm. Apple had nothing to lose and everything to gain by replacing CDs and retail "record stores" with the iPod and iTunes.

I think Sony's original thinking -- and this is similar to what Microsoft wanted to do with Xbox -- was that they would position the PlayStation as a central hub of the living room, not just a gaming device but a hub for all sorts of media consumption. So PlayStation Vue was a part of that plan, hence the PlayStation branding. But the problem for Sony is that lots of us don't care about video games (at least not enough to shell out $300 or more for a game system) but DO care about watching TV, so we'll happily pay far less for a Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV or Android TV streaming box or stick. So for PS Vue to survive, Sony really had no choice but to scale it to those cheaper hardware platforms.

A year or two ago, I remember posting somewhere that I thought Sony ought to put out a relatively inexpensive streaming box (less than or equal to the cost of the Apple TV or Nvidia Shield TV) called the SonyStream. It would be powered by Google's Android TV and have a built-in OTA TV tuner that uses the PlayStation Vue UI for live TV, with free DVR service if you connected a USB hard drive. Add a Vue subscription and you'd also have cable channels with cloud DVR service. It could also prominently feature Sony's streaming video game service PlayStation Now, as well as their on-demand video rental store.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Yep, good recap. The main theme I see there is that it's the upstarts with the least to lose in a given market who are best positioned to be the disruptors. Sony had too much of an interest in maintaining the status quo in terms of how music was licensed and distributed to disrupt that business with a more consumer-friendly paradigm. Apple had nothing to lose and everything to gain by replacing CDs and retail "record stores" with the iPod and iTunes.


I don't think it is so much the "upstarts", but the companies that are able to successfully balance/overcome competing interests. Apple is a trillion dollar company, but unlike most other large companies it is very focused on a handful of markets. Despite that focus they still have had situations with competing interests - the iPhone pretty much killed the iPod market. Larger iPhones pretty much killed the market for the small iPad. They were willing to make those trades to give customers what they wanted. If they make the iPad Pro too capable it will cut into the market for Mac laptops, and as the Mac is already a niche with ~5% of the worldwide PC market it can't afford to lose much market share or it will no longer be viable as a platform. What has helped though is that the choices Apple has had to make don't involve hurting their customers

Companies that depend almost exclusively on advertising for their revenue, like Google and Facebook, have even more difficult competing interests in the form of their business/shareholder interest in making more profit and the interest of their users in terms of privacy, quality of search results vs what results make Google more advertising money etc. That type of conflict is what took Sony down in the long run, their customers become an adversary to overcome, while before when their interests were aligned giving customers what they want meant more profit for Sony. Already you see that mentality in Facebook, constantly making excuses for the things they do that further erode customer privacy and choice. They know they can do it because the barriers to creating a true competitor to Facebook are massive. Google is following in their footsteps on that front, and their "don't be evil" credo is just a memory, because the barriers to creating a true competitor to Google Search or Android are massive.

Amazon has been the exception in large cap tech companies that have avoided such conflicts (instead they create such conflicts for their third party affiliates) but with Alexa they are bringing many of the same competing interests into play that will put them on the same path where the customers are no longer valued as they have been in the past, as their interests will no longer be aligned with Amazon's interests.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

The thread is continue drifting out the subj, so perhaps it's time to split it ?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I don't think it is so much the "upstarts", but the companies that are able to successfully balance/overcome competing interests. Apple is a trillion dollar company, but unlike most other large companies it is very focused on a handful of markets. Despite that focus they still have had situations with competing interests - the iPhone pretty much killed the iPod market. Larger iPhones pretty much killed the market for the small iPad. They were willing to make those trades to give customers what they wanted.


What you're talking about here is a different situation than Apple getting into music, where it had no presence and definitely was an upstart (regardless of how successful they were in other markets). You're talking about a company's willingness and ability to cannibalize its own successful products and transition to something new that consumers want. And my point is that is harder to do and less common. Netflix, for instance, was not created by the titans of traditional TV.

Too often, successful, entrenched players in a market try to deny that the "new thing" is a threat rather than admitting that it's the future and an approach they should co-opt at the risk of hurting the products that made them successful in the first place. At some point, they realize they have to respond, but it may be too late. Traditional TV players, for instance, realized that a desire for on-demand streaming was something they needed to address, so they banded together to form Hulu, which will likely never be as popular or powerful as Netflix.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Netflix was basically a more convenient Blockbuster, that morphed into a "renting" movies via streaming, that realized they'd eventually lose rights to all the Hollywood movies so they needed to make their own content. It isn't like they started with the goal of becoming what they are now. They've been successful at reacting when they see their old market disappearing and finding a new one.

It remains to be seen whether it remains as popular in a couple more years once their original content is all they have left. There won't be any new market for them to turn to if that happens, and if they start losing subscribers the stock will lose 90% of its value if the market believes it has peaked and no longer sees continued fast growth as far as the eye can see. They have a much more precarious position than the other three 'FANG' stocks.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Posted "unboxing" of C71KW-200 here
DTV Now Beta Hardware Tests


----------



## Tim J (Jun 14, 2019)

DFW= Don't Fear the Web.

Flies away


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Netflix was basically a more convenient Blockbuster, that morphed into a "renting" movies via streaming, that realized they'd eventually lose rights to all the Hollywood movies so they needed to make their own content. It isn't like they started with the goal of becoming what they are now. They've been successful at reacting when they see their old market disappearing and finding a new one.
> 
> It remains to be seen whether it remains as popular in a couple more years once their original content is all they have left. There won't be any new market for them to turn to if that happens, and if they start losing subscribers the stock will lose 90% of its value if the market believes it has peaked and no longer sees continued fast growth as far as the eye can see. They have a much more precarious position than the other three 'FANG' stocks.


Netflix isn't "renting" movies via streaming. Netflix is all you can eat. Amazon Prime rents movies. In fact, they have very little free content. Most of their stuff is premium.

I did actually sell my Netflix stock this week, and I'm pretty happy with my locked in 130% of long term capital gains in less then 2 yrs. Would have been nicer to sell it closer to $420, but oh well... still good enough to be one of my best stocks ever. Not #1, but #2.

I didn't and still don't consider Amazon Prime, Hulu, YouTube, ESPN, HBO, etc. streaming services to be competition to Netflix.

I still don't believe that come December, everybody is going to quit Netflix and move to Disney en mass. I still think Disney is going to get an initial onslaught of Disney fanboys/fangirls and then will have a slower ramp up. So why did I sell it? Well... Tbh, I never had the service beyond a trial or two and I've trialed other services as well. I'd say Amazon Prime has more classic TV shows, but Netflix has the most content obviously. I don't have a problem with them racking up mountains of debt either as that's playing the long game. Buy and own as much content as possible before other providers buy it up is a good strategy. Where they went wrong for me is spending money on useless junk like a billboard company and a physical theater that will never pay off. They're also buying up a lot of indy / straight to video / foreign junk.

While I don't watch much Disney content, obviously people do and unfortunately Netflix stock will continue to tank on Disney fears unless/until they prove they aren't going to shed customers. So get out while the getting is good .

That being said... Disney Proper has been a train wreck for YEARS. Ralph 2 = flop. Mary Poppins = flop. Dumbo & Aladdin = flops. Similar stories going years back. The only reason Disney is at the top of the charts anymore is because of companies they bought. Pixar, Lucas, 20th Century Fox, etc. Also, Disney movies tend to play poorly in foreign markets. Pretty much Disney is only successful cuz of Pixar / Star Wars / Marvel, none of which they came up with.


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> That being said... Disney Proper has been a train wreck for YEARS. Ralph 2 = flop. Mary Poppins = flop. Dumbo & Aladdin = flops.


So let's look at some actual numbers shall we.....

Aladdin (2019) (2019) - Box Office Mojo
$621 million so far on a budget of $183 million and it's still pulling money in. That's a good investment even if I personally thought the remake wasn't nearly as good as the cartoon version.

Dumbo (2019) (2019) - Box Office Mojo
$350 million total on a budget of $170 million is okay but not a flop as you put it. And I'm sure home video sales, PPV, on demand streaming, and TV rights will help as well so certainly not flop territory here.

Mary Poppins Returns (2018) - Box Office Mojo
$349 million on a budget of $130 million. Repeat Dumbo here.

Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018) - Box Office Mojo
$529 million on a budget of $175 million.

Looks like all these movies did very well especially Aladdin. No flops here as far as I can see.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

AngryManMLS said:


> So let's look at some actual numbers shall we.....
> 
> Aladdin (2019) (2019) - Box Office Mojo
> $621 million so far on a budget of $183 million and it's still pulling money in. That's a good investment even if I personally thought the remake wasn't nearly as good as the cartoon version.
> ...


Nowadays those numbers aren't that amazing. You're also quoting world wide numbers. Aladdin only did $246M domestic. Not sure if BOM "Production Budgets" include advertising, etc. Could have sworn I read somewhere they only include the actual production costs.

YUP... here we go (from Box Office Mojo's definition page):

*Production Budget* refers to the cost to make the movie and it does not include marketing or other expenditures.

Sooo&#8230; you can pretty much double all the quoted production budgets for marketing, etc. $621M on a real budget of $300M to $400M isn't as peachy sounding. That'd also put Dumbo, Mary Poppins and Ralph 2 close to break even points.

I'd say if a movie only made $100M to $200M in final, after the smoke clears, profit, it'd likely be considered a flop and not really justify any sequels, etc.

Consider Endgame. $2.7B world wide on a "Production Budget" of $356M... now, I did say you'd have to double the others, but not sure if I would double this one as it had a lot of CGI and multiple huge cast salaries where the other movies I mentioned didn't.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> Consider Endgame. $2.7B world wide on a "Production Budget" of $356M... now, I did say you'd have to double the others, but not sure if I would double this one as it had a lot of CGI and multiple huge cast salaries where the other movies I mentioned didn't.


Fortunately they were able to find an elephant who could fly for Dumbo and a magic carpet for Aladdin. That umbrella came in handy too.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

For anyone who pops into this thread and wants to see actual screenshots of AT&T's C71 "Osprey" box being beta-tested with DirecTV Now, you can see a lot at this link:
Android TV Guide - DirecTV NOW Android TV Set-top box interface

Note that when these screenshots were taken, the user didn't have an active channel playing, which is why the background is black. Normally, all of the menu items on the screen would be overlaid atop whatever live channel/video is playing.

This is the box that will be optionally offered to subscribers when DirecTV Now has it's "Grand Re-opening" later this summer, probably with a new brand name, AT&T TV. I expect that the user interface will be almost exactly the same as what you see in these screenshots, just with the DirecTV Now logo replaced with a new AT&T TV logo. Oh, and that "beta" banner will be gone.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> Fortunately they were able to find an elephant who could fly for Dumbo and a magic carpet for Aladdin. That umbrella came in handy too.


Lol... come on now. Dumbo didn't have anywhere near as much CGI as Endgame. It would have probably been cheaper to CGI in Robert Downey Jr then pay his huge salary though.

Aladin&#8230; grab a can of blue paint and paint Will Smith. No CGI needed . If they were able to do it with Ferrigno, I'm sure they could do it with Smith.

But let's see if they make a sequel to any of those. That was the original point . They make sequels when they get a nice ROI on the movie.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> C71 "Osprey" box


According Broadcom, main chip of the device does satellite:


> Dedicated interfaces to a range of Broadcom companion front-end cable, DOCSIS®, *satellite* and 802.11ac Wi-Fi devices


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

AngryManMLS said:


> So let's look at some actual numbers shall we.....
> 
> Aladdin (2019) (2019) - Box Office Mojo
> $621 million so far on a budget of $183 million and it's still pulling money in. That's a good investment even if I personally thought the remake wasn't nearly as good as the cartoon version.
> ...


As Sledgehammer pointed out your not seeing the real numbers.

1) All the Advanced advertising and promotion for the movie is a huge expense. Since those numbers are worldwide you have to remember that they have to pay for advertising in lots of different countries and edit the adds in a way that will fit in with that culture.

2) The production companies no longer own the the theater chains, so the theaters get about 50% yes 50% of the revenue from ticket sales.

3) PPV channels also get a big cut on each showing.

4) Blu-ray production companies also get a cut and distributors like Amazon get a huge cut.

5) Big stars in movies will also typically get a cut of the Net Gross (not net profit) and this can sometimes be huge bit of money but most of the time very small. A quick search showed that Sandra Bullock got 15% on every dollar made from the Movie "Gravity" on top of her set salary. That put $70 Million extra in her pocket. She seems to hold the record but I am sure Tom Cruise, Robert Downey and a few others also have very good deals.

If the Movie sucks like Aladdin did and most of the others that you quoted the pre release advertising budget will sometimes be huge. This is to offset any negative info that may be floating around before the release. You will notice that this chunk of money is so huge that movies like "End Game" did almost no advertising because it was not needed and they were able to pocket probably another 50-60 million.

Now that Disneys Marvel and Star Wars run is almost over it's hard to see the appeal of their streaming service. Unlike Netflix who takes chances on original programming and seems to get it right most of the time, Disney seems to stick to known stories and proceeds to milk them dry.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

P Smith said:


> According Broadcom, main chip of the device does satellite:


Hmm, interesting. Don't know if that aspect of the chip would matter or not, but I and others (including slice1900) have speculated that the C71 box might also serve as a next-gen Genie Mini to be used in place of the current C61. It certainly follows the numbering convention whereby DTV adds 10 to the current model number to come up with the next-gen model number. But if it is used that way, I don't think the C71 itself would require any DBS-specific technology; all that stuff would be left up to the HS17 (or next-gen HS27) server tower, which would send out live and recorded satellite TV as IP streams over wifi or ethernet to C71 units at each TV.

Given that the original C71 User Manual filed with the FCC back in Oct. 2017 did make reference to the fact that it might be used in conjunction with something called an HS27, I would guess that it was AT&T's original long-range plan to use this box both as a streaming TV box (as has been happening in the DTV Now beta test for awhile now) AND as a replacement to the current Genie Mini in DTV satellite installations.

So maybe we'll see some new hardware introduced for the DTV satellite customers in the coming months. Although if AT&T ends up actually talking to DISH in the next few months about a possible merger, they might want to hold off on any changes to their customer equipment for now.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> Now that Disneys Marvel and Star Wars run is almost over it's hard to see the appeal of their streaming service. Unlike Netflix who takes chances on original programming and seems to get it right most of the time, Disney seems to stick to known stories and proceeds to milk them dry.


I'm not a Marvel fan, but someone at work mentioned that they are finishing up the current "phase" or whatever you want to call it and will start the next phase?

I never saw the appeal of Marvel or Star Wars, but I know I'm in the minority there.

As a long time Netflix bull, I honestly can't agree they are getting it right "most of the time". For every Bird Box and Triple Frontier, there is a dozen or so Calibre, etc. I did another trial a few months ago and honestly ran out of stuff to watch. They DID have a few classics I re-watched like The Kingdom and Law Abiding Citizen, but they didn't have dozens of others I searched for. Amazon Prime has almost no content besides TV shows, so that's good if you want to watch Friends, Burn Notice and That 70s Show for the millionth time.

Bird Box I guess started out kind of decent, but I'd say I got bored about 60% through. Triple Frontier was good. Money Heist I got bored early in Season 2. I'm actually in the middle of Murder Mystery now and had to take a break lol. Not sure I'll make it through that. Rim of the World was ok, I made it through that. That stuff is hardly going to draw people. I liked Designated Survivor season 3 for the most part. That show was a flop on TV in the US. The only reason they bought it was because it was huge in some foreign market.

A few years ago, Netflix had all the big hits and mixed in the indy / foreign stuff. Now they are going mostly indy / foreign stuff and I'm not sure that's going to be sustainable.

I just think Hastings is overly cocky now and thinks the 3rd world direct-to-video stuff will keep bringing in the subs. He's been right so far... but based on the choices he's made lately, I didn't want to risk my profit lol.

I've still got plenty of skin in the streaming game, but in something more platform agnostic, so it doesn't really matter what service wins.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> I'm not a Marvel fan, but someone at work mentioned that they are finishing up the current "phase" or whatever you want to call it and will start the next phase?
> 
> I never saw the appeal of Marvel or Star Wars, but I know I'm in the minority there.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree with you about Netflix. I think their US sub number will peak soon, maybe early 2020, and then plateau there while other services -- Hulu, Disney+, WarnerMedia/HBO, etc. -- see growth here. Netflix will continue to add subs in foreign non-English-speaking markets (with lower ARPUs) and content made for those markets will constitute a growing percentage of Netflix originals too. I know some Americans watch that content but it's fairly niche here. Losing popular licensed content like Friends and The Office while a growing slice of your originals are non-English won't do Netflix any favors in the US. And after Mary Poppins Returns hits Netflix soon, there won't be *any* more theatrical films from any major studio on the way to Netflix. Just their own original movies.

Another problem I see for Netflix on the horizon is that so many of their most popular franchises are ending soon or already have. Final seasons of Stranger Things and Orange Is the New Black bow next month. Final season of The Crown is likely to hit in 2020. Final season of Fuller House hits end of this year. Black Mirror seems to be running out of gas. Jessica Jones, the last of all the Netflix Marvel series, is wrapping up soon. House of Cards is done (and let's not talk about that final season). Narcos, Santa Clarita Diet, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and Bloodline are all done.

What does that leave? 13 Reasons Why, Ozark, GLOW and BoJack Horseman? Netflix is undoubtedly cranking out a ton of content but, as you say, it's mostly mediocre and not that much of it seems to be finding a big audience. I think they've become a little too sidetracked on original movies lately and need to instead focus on formulating some quality new multi-season series that can break through the clutter and hook audiences for years to come. Because right now, it looks like they could be headed for a dry spell.


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> Nowadays those numbers aren't that amazing.


Not every movie is going to or needs to gross $2.7B world wide like Endgame has. If a film is still making a profit for the studio and all those involved that's better than taking a huge loss.



> You're also quoting world wide numbers. Aladdin only did $246M domestic.


Yes I am aware I quoted world wide numbers.



> Sooo&#8230; you can pretty much double all the quoted production budgets for marketing, etc. $621M on a real budget of $300M to $400M isn't as peachy sounding. That'd also put Dumbo, Mary Poppins and Ralph 2 close to break even points.
> 
> I'd say if a movie only made $100M to $200M in final, after the smoke clears, profit, it'd likely be considered a flop and not really justify any sequels, etc.


$100-$200 million in profit is still a good amount at the end of the day. And honestly that isn't a flop by any means. On the other hand look at Ghostbusters: Answer The Call or Ghostbusters 2016 or Ghostbusters: The Female One... or whatever it's called. Now that film flopped and lost Sony a ton of money

Ghostbusters (2016) (2016) - Box Office Mojo

Domestically alone it flopped. The overall box office including international numbers has it barely above budget but given how much Sony pumped into marketing the movie you and I both dang well know they lost tons of money on that film.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

P Smith said:


> According Broadcom, main chip of the device does satellite:


That sentence you quoted indicates the chip _interfaces_ with other Broadcom chips that do stuff including satellite, not that the chip included in the device does satellite. That would make no sense, since its a client not a receiver. They might pair it with a chip that does MoCA in a satellite version, but they aren't going to pair it with a satellite tuner chip.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> but they aren't going to pair it with a satellite tuner chip.


Knowing how scrutinized a procedure [R&D] of selecting chips for new device, I would oppose the opinion.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> Netflix isn't "renting" movies via streaming. Netflix is all you can eat.


There is a local car wash that sells unlimited (up to one wash every day) packages for $20-$45 per month depending on the level of wash. About the cost of two washes per month. "All you can eat" doesn't change the service offering from being a car wash, or a restaurant (since you can't eat data streams). "Renting" in quotes is accurate. The movies are not being purchased (the "rental" ends at the end of subscription or when the content is removed from the system). Having the word in quotes is sufficient to denote that it isn't a per movie or per viewing rental - but the service is closer to renting than any other model. One is just renting a library of content one month at a time.

Getting back to the C71 --- I don't see anything new since the last messages (and the linked "unboxing") was posted back in February. If there is any new information we can focus on what is new.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Knowing how scrutinized a procedure [R&D] of selecting chips for new device, I would oppose the opinion.


Hmmm .... "Dedicated interfaces to a range of Broadcom companion front-end cable, DOCSIS®, satellite and 802.11ac Wi-Fi devices"

Are you claiming that the C71 will work on cable systems? I'll agree with slice that the main chip can have capabilities that are not used in every device. I can see developers saving a few pennies if there is a "main chip" available that does less at the same quality for a lower price. But this may be a case where getting a "main chip" that has additional capabilities is cheaper and better than getting a specialized dumbed down chip.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

could be, knowing how Broadcom making many versions of one chip ...


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Hmm, interesting. Don't know if that aspect of the chip would matter or not, but I and others (including slice1900) have speculated that the C71 box might also serve as a next-gen Genie Mini to be used in place of the current C61. It certainly follows the numbering convention whereby DTV adds 10 to the current model number to come up with the next-gen model number. But if it is used that way, I don't think the C71 itself would require any DBS-specific technology; all that stuff would be left up to the HS17 (or next-gen HS27) server tower, which would send out live and recorded satellite TV as IP streams over wifi or ethernet to C71 units at each TV.
> 
> Given that the original C71 User Manual filed with the FCC back in Oct. 2017 did make reference to the fact that it might be used in conjunction with something called an HS27, I would guess that it was AT&T's original long-range plan to use this box both as a streaming TV box (as has been happening in the DTV Now beta test for awhile now) AND as a replacement to the current Genie Mini in DTV satellite installations.
> 
> So maybe we'll see some new hardware introduced for the DTV satellite customers in the coming months. Although if AT&T ends up actually talking to DISH in the next few months about a possible merger, they might want to hold off on any changes to their customer equipment for now.


If there was going to be some other new hardware we would know by now. It would need to have wireless and there would be a FCC document


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

compnurd said:


> If there was going to be some other new hardware we would know by now. It would need to have wireless and there would be a FCC document


or RF/WiFi remote, or BT link to a headset, or any other [say ZigBee] RF technology


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

compnurd said:


> If there was going to be some other new hardware we would know by now. It would need to have wireless and there would be a FCC document


True, although that doesn't mean that a filing couldn't hit the FCC next week for a new HS27 server that would be intended for deployment next year.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Another problem I see for Netflix on the horizon is that so many of their most popular franchises are ending soon or already have. Final seasons of Stranger Things and Orange Is the New Black bow next month. Final season of The Crown is likely to hit in 2020. Final season of Fuller House hits end of this year. Black Mirror seems to be running out of gas. Jessica Jones, the last of all the Netflix Marvel series, is wrapping up soon. House of Cards is done (and let's not talk about that final season). Narcos, Santa Clarita Diet, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and Bloodline are all done.
> 
> What does that leave? 13 Reasons Why, Ozark, GLOW and BoJack Horseman? Netflix is undoubtedly cranking out a ton of content but, as you say, it's mostly mediocre and not that much of it seems to be finding a big audience. I think they've become a little too sidetracked on original movies lately and need to instead focus on formulating some quality new multi-season series that can break through the clutter and hook audiences for years to come. Because right now, it looks like they could be headed for a dry spell.


Wow, they're cancelling Orange Is The New Black? Didn't hear that one. I tried watching Ozark since I like Bateman generally, but I just wasn't feeling him in that. Glow? Meh... Must have missed that Stranger Things was ending too. Fuller House was terrible once you get past the nostalgia factor. Plus, they probably don't want any fallout from the Louglin & Franklin incidents.

Seems like they've adopted a Disney mentality where they cancel hit shows after 3 - 4 seasons no matter what.

In debating Netflix with Slice a few months ago, I pointed out that they've been getting A-listers like Will Smith, Sandra Bullock, Jason Bateman, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston, Adam Sandler, etc.... in hindsight, I guess none of them are really A-listers anymore. Especially Sandler. You can tell Aniston is getting desperate now that she is starting to talk about a Friends reunion / reboot lol.

Netflix mgmt. has made it pretty clear they are focusing on the international market going forward. So far it hasn't lost them subscribers in the US as they are still adding a few million every quarter... but we'll wait and see. Also hasn't done anything terrible to the stock. It's not going to drop 90% like Slice predicts haha... its actually been stuck in a tight range all year 340 - 360 with occasional spikes / dips out of that range, but it quickly returns. Which is another reason I sold the stock... being in a tight range for 6 months isn't making me any (more) money.

On the other hand, self serving streaming services haven't exactly taken off. ESPN has what? 6M subs or so? I don't watch sports, but obviously everybody else does. So why only 6M? Other providers like WWE, HBO, etc. haven't exactly taken the world by storm either. Amazon doesn't split the numbers between AP numbers and those that use the video service. One report I read said the video service is actually pretty low around 26M. As much as all the content Disney owns, I still don't see Disney+ ramping up to 90M+ in a few years like some predict. I could be wrong, but so far, my small informal survey had people adding it rather then cancelling Netflix. But as we're discussing, as the popular US content dries up, people may head for the doors.

*shrug* everybody splitting off into their own service and having to deal with 20+ providers to get all you want is going to kill the streaming bubble in the longer term.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

When it comes to Netflix they cater to everyone but they spend the bulk of their money on shows that cater to the younger generation. The kids in most people’s homes have very little control over what service the household will use. The beauty of Netflix is that most kids can afford the $13 a month on their own and binge watch the kind of shows they like in their bedroom.
Thats one of the huge markets that Netflix cashes in on. All my nieces and nephews have their own Netflix accounts and my sons share mine.

If your not into ScFi then a lot of Netflix OP shows are not going to be on your favorites list, shows like Lost In Space which was excellently remade. They also spend a lot on Anime, this is another favorite for their bread and butter customers.

If you can tolerate a bit of ScFi in your diet I suggest you take a look at "Lucifer". In hind site it was probably a poorly named show but the character is interesting and funny. And BTW "Last Kingdom" is coming back as well as Ozark.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> True, although that doesn't mean that a filing couldn't hit the FCC next week for a new HS27 server that would be intended for deployment next year.


I've never figured out exactly what the point of a new HS17 would even be. The only thing they could improve would be allowing it to handle more than 2 4K streams, though the source of that limitation isn't even clear. If it has to do with software handling the transponder bonding the HS17 'revision' (which maybe was originally going to be called 'HS27' and they changed their minds?) should address that since its upgraded tuner handles DVB-S2X bonded transponders in hardware.

Eventually there's a need to update when parts get discontinued by the manufacturer, but they already did one HS17 revision, nothing stops them from doing more. We may never see an HS27, let alone an HS37, unless the hardware changes are big enough they think they deserve a new part number.

There's a bigger need for the C71KW, because they currently don't have a 4K wireless client, and the C61K is pretty long in the tooth with first gen 4K and HEVC chips. Perhaps they'll wait until they can integrate the necessary hardware (HDMI 2.1 etc.) to handle 4Kp120...so might skip the C71 for the C81 

Since there still aren't any real 4K channels in the US, they haven't had to be in any rush.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> When it comes to Netflix they cater to everyone but they spend the bulk of their money on shows that cater to the younger generation. The kids in most people's homes have very little control over what service the household will use. The beauty of Netflix is that most kids can afford the $13 a month on their own and binge watch the kind of shows they like in their bedroom.
> Thats one of the huge markets that Netflix cashes in on. All my nieces and nephews have their own Netflix accounts and my sons share mine.
> 
> If your not into ScFi then a lot of Netflix OP shows are not going to be on your favorites list, shows like Lost In Space which was excellently remade. They also spend a lot on Anime, this is another favorite for their bread and butter customers.
> ...


I watch movies and TV shows. I did make it through Rim Of the World and Murder Mystery picked things up a bit when I finished it this morning. I wouldn't really recommend either to people. They were tolerable if you're bored. If I had paid money for either, I would have been disappointed.

With TBBT cancelled, my only 2 sitcoms are Will & Grace and Super Store. Will & Grace will likely be cancelled soon. Can't imagine Super Store lasting more then 1 or 2 more seasons either. I watch AGT & FBI. That pretty much leaves me with 20 - 30 cable shows that come and go at random times. I did notice that History is rebooting one of my old faves, Ax Men in a few weeks. Not sure how that will pan out since the main character of the show was killed in a car accident several years ago.

There have been a few Netflix / AP originals I liked recently. And there are some good indy things out there. I did enjoy Summer Of '84, Arizona, etc.

All in all, I'd say its pretty slim pickings. I miss the days where you could easily find shows to watch 8 - 10pm / 7 days a week.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> I've never figured out exactly what the point of a new HS17 would even be. The only thing they could improve would be allowing it to handle more than 2 4K streams, though the source of that limitation isn't even clear. If it has to do with software handling the transponder bonding the HS17 'revision' (which maybe was originally going to be called 'HS27' and they changed their minds?) should address that since its upgraded tuner handles DVB-S2X bonded transponders in hardware.
> 
> Eventually there's a need to update when parts get discontinued by the manufacturer, but they already did one HS17 revision, nothing stops them from doing more. We may never see an HS27, let alone an HS37, unless the hardware changes are big enough they think they deserve a new part number.
> 
> ...


I doubt DirecTV even cares, but they *could* fix some of the complaints people have had about it, but I suspect those complaints are from a small minority of people, so they don't care. I recently upgraded from my HR24 since DirecTV gave me a huge discount and I chose the HR54 over the HS17 due to my "complaints" lol.

I'd still like to see a 4K capable box that:

1) returns to a normal form factor
2) has direct HDMI output
3) built in OTA (back in the day when they removed it, the royalties were high, so I could see why they did it)... today, the royalties are almost nothing. Probably cost them less then the LCC they are developing and may never release to the masses.
4) apps for the streaming services... yes, my TV has them, or I can get a streaming device, but it'd just be nice to have TV + streaming on the same device.

Don't really see a need for HDMI 2.1 for a DVR at this point due to its location in the HDMI chain.

If they are shutting down the Sat service in 10 yrs or so, whats the point of developing a new sat box? No 4K channels have even been announced, so the HS17 is kind of a moot point. Why bother dealing with complaints 1&2 when the HR54 doesn't have them?

They should probably focus on the IP box instead and just band aid the HR54/HS17 if needed til the Sat service is gone.

Do you see any 4K channels coming? I sure as heck don't. The networks certainly won't do it until ASTC 3.0 comes out and that may land with a whimper since you can deliver 4K content over IP easily today and its still not that wide spread.

Main source for HQ 4K is still UHD BluRay and they don't seem to be developing that much anymore either, the last spec update I found was Jan 2018. In the DVD/Bluray days they were coming out with new features every year.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I've never figured out exactly what the point of a new HS17 would even be. The only thing they could improve would be allowing it to handle more than 2 4K streams, though the source of that limitation isn't even clear. If it has to do with software handling the transponder bonding the HS17 'revision' (which maybe was originally going to be called 'HS27' and they changed their minds?) should address that since its upgraded tuner handles DVB-S2X bonded transponders in hardware.
> 
> Eventually there's a need to update when parts get discontinued by the manufacturer, but they already did one HS17 revision, nothing stops them from doing more. We may never see an HS27, let alone an HS37, unless the hardware changes are big enough they think they deserve a new part number.
> 
> ...


All good points. But one big upgrade that the C71 would immediately offer over the C61 is that it would give those DTV customers who have home broadband the ability to stream Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, YouTube and other popular sources on the same box they use for satellite TV. Right now DTV Genie boxes can stream what? ESPN, Weather Channel and Music Choice?

Of course, you have to ask yourself if AT&T actually _wants_ to improve the DTV user experience in that way. If their long-term strategic goal is to shepherd their DTV customers with broadband access over to AT&T TV, then why not keep the C71 and its feature set exclusive to AT&T TV? It would be one more reason for satellite customers to willingly switch over.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> *shrug* everybody splitting off into their own service and having to deal with 20+ providers to get all you want is going to kill the streaming bubble in the longer term.


Ha. No, it's not going to kill streaming. And it's not a bubble. It's the new cable TV. You just don't realize it yet. Watch what unfolds in 2020-22.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Ha. No, it's not going to kill streaming. And it's not a bubble. It's the new cable TV. You just don't realize it yet. Watch what unfolds in 2020-22.


Ha. Yes, I realize what it is. When you have to get all of: Netflix, AP, Hulu, YoutubeTV, ESPN, HBO, Disney+ to get the content you want, you're going to end up paying more then you would on something like DirecTV.

Netflix 16, AP 9 - 10, Hulu is anywhere from $5 to $50 a month, Youtube 50, espn 5, hbo 15, disney+ 5ish.

Hulu @ 50 and Youtube @ 50 have overlap so you can probably eliminate one of those.. still that would come out to $100 a month if you got all the other stuff. Where's the value there? I pay $50 a month on DirecTV for a HR54 and Preferred Xtra.

If you eliminate espn, AP and Disney, you're still way over what you can get DirecTV for AND you end up with less content.

People who complain about cable prices are the folks that have a bunch of TVs and get Ultimate + Sunday Ticket cuz they sucker you in with ultra low teaser prices. Had a co-worker who was bragging about the deal he got on that set up. Then when the promo rates fell off, he started freaking out at the cost and started dropping options left & right lol...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Ha. Yes, I realize what it is. When you have to get all of: Netflix, AP, Hulu, YoutubeTV, ESPN, HBO, Disney+ to get the content you want, you're going to end up paying more then you would on something like DirecTV.
> 
> Netflix 16, AP 9 - 10, Hulu is anywhere from $5 to $50 a month, Youtube 50, espn 5, hbo 15, disney+ 5ish.


Which is why I think the future is people subscribe to Netflix for a month, binge their shows, drop it and subscribe to Hulu for a month, binge their shows, drop it and subscribe to HBO for a month, and so forth. The only service that will have subscription 12 months out of the year is Amazon Prime, because no one subscribes to it solely for streaming. If Apple doesn't build support for this directly into Apple TV, someone will create an app that to manage your subscriptions that lets you click a button to drop one and restart your subscription to the other.

If/when REAL sports (i.e. the high value stuff like NFL, P5 college football etc.) comes to ESPN streaming services, subscriptions will be seasonal based on the sports you watch. When the season's over (and maybe when the season is over for your team) you drop it until next year.

The model that streaming companies are using now assuming people will subscribe 12 months a year is going to seem wildly anachronistic in five years. Some may fight against it by giving discounts for yearly subscriptions to try to stem the losses, but the successful ones will find a way to embrace it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> Ha. Yes, I realize what it is. When you have to get all of: Netflix, AP, Hulu, YoutubeTV, ESPN, HBO, Disney+ to get the content you want, you're going to end up paying more then you would on something like DirecTV.
> 
> Netflix 16, AP 9 - 10, Hulu is anywhere from $5 to $50 a month, Youtube 50, espn 5, hbo 15, disney+ 5ish.
> 
> ...


First off, your analysis is flawed because you're including the prices for cable channel bundle services: Hulu with Live TV and YouTube TV. Those are just vestiges of the existing "TV 2.0" regime built around linear channels from a variety of content owners. You should only add up the prices of the direct-to-consumer content services ("TV 3.0"). Right now, there's still a lot of live sports missing from TV 3.0 but it'll get there eventually. As we transition to that future, we'll probably see an intermediate step in which live sports cable channels (plus maybe news and local channels) become available as truly skinny add-on bundles that can be added onto a direct-to-consumer TV 3.0 subscription such as Hulu (Disney SVOD), HBO Max (WarnerMedia SVOD), CBS All Access (or whatever it morphs into once Viacom and Pluto TV get blended in), and the forthcoming Comcast/NBCU SVOD.

And who ever said that it's the entertainment industry's goal to ultimately provide you with a better bargain via streaming? I don't see any reason to believe that if you subscribe to every major TV 3.0 streaming service that eventually develops that it would cost less than what one paid (adjusted for inflation) in the old TV 2.0 days for the fattest cable channel bundle with all of the premium and specialty sports channels included. But then how many Americans subscribed to that most expensive package? Likewise, I don't expect most American to feel that they MUST subscribe to all the major streaming services that will emerge. What IS emerging is a system in which consumers have more choice to put together just the content sources they want, along with the ability to easily switch between them.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> And who ever said that it's the entertainment industry's goal to ultimately provide you with a better bargain via streaming?


THIS!

Content owners want to make more money off their content, not less. Streaming is simply a different method of delivery, nothing more. Content costs are by far the large majority of a cable/satellite bill, so anything that approaches the choice of a cable/satellite subscription is going to approach the cost of a cable/satellite subscription. No way around it.

The only way to save money via streaming is to be willing to accept LESS CHOICE in content. i.e. if you only subscribe to Netflix then you can only watch content from Netflix or what they have licensed. If they have enough that you always have something to watch and don't care about the 95% of the content out there you can't watch on Netflix then you save money.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> THIS!
> 
> Content owners want to make more money off their content, not less. Streaming is simply a different method of delivery, nothing more. Content costs are by far the large majority of a cable/satellite bill, so anything that approaches the choice of a cable/satellite subscription is going to approach the cost of a cable/satellite subscription. No way around it.
> 
> The only way to save money via streaming is to be willing to accept LESS CHOICE in content. i.e. if you only subscribe to Netflix then you can only watch content from Netflix or what they have licensed. If they have enough that you always have something to watch and don't care about the 95% of the content out there you can't watch on Netflix then you save money.


Yeah, OK, but to play devil's advocate: You'll be able to subscribe to Netflix ($13), Hulu ($6), Disney+ ($7), ESPN+ ($5), HBO Max ($16) and CBS All Access ($6) for $53, and that's without getting a Disney bundle discount, which will likely bring the total to more like $50. That's a LOT of content. Show me a cable TV bundle service with a similarly rich content pool, HD access and DVR/on-demand features with a regular everyday price of $50.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Which is why I think the future is people subscribe to Netflix for a month, binge their shows, drop it and subscribe to Hulu for a month, binge their shows, drop it and subscribe to HBO for a month, and so forth. The only service that will have subscription 12 months out of the year is Amazon Prime, because no one subscribes to it solely for streaming.


You really think people will do that? The example where I gave of a co-worker who got lured into DirecTV Ultimate + Sunday Ticket and freaked out when his promos expired? Me and another co-worker told him to call retention and he could probably get back close to his original deal. He didn't want the hassle. And this was from a guy who goofed off all day doing everything BUT work.

Another co-worker who used to sub to DirecTV, I told him about retention when his bill went up and he called them up and was happy for the next 12 months and then when the promos fell off again, I told him he could keep calling back indefinitely and getting promos renewed, but he deemed it too much hassle and just switched to Dish.

The forum is filled of people who think calling retention is too big of a hassle and just cancel.

I doubt anybody is going to keep 10 providers on rotation and sub when the new seasons drop and then cancel. Not everybody has free time like us to hang out on forums all day .


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> The only way to save money via streaming is to be willing to accept LESS CHOICE in content. i.e. if you only subscribe to Netflix then you can only watch content from Netflix or what they have licensed. If they have enough that you always have something to watch and don't care about the 95% of the content out there you can't watch on Netflix then you save money.


Depends on your viewing habits. If you get TV soley for sports, sure, ESPN+ is your best bet. Likewise if you only get it for Disney then Disney+ would be your best bet.

If you start wanting to put together a package for locals + DIY + History + Discovery + USA + Science and a few other cable channels, it's going to cost you more then just subbing to a traditional provider.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, OK, but to play devil's advocate: You'll be able to subscribe to Netflix ($13), Hulu ($6), Disney+ ($7), ESPN+ ($5), HBO Max ($16) and CBS All Access ($6) for $53, and that's without getting a Disney bundle discount, which will likely bring the total to more like $50. That's a LOT of content. Show me a cable TV bundle service with a similarly rich content pool, HD access and DVR/on-demand features with a regular everyday price of $50.


Netflix is $16 to get 4K content. The $6 Hulu package is the base with ads. You'd be at $12 with no ads and $50 with live TV.

You also have to keep in mind the WAF/FAF factors. Are they really going to sign off on 10 different providers with completely different interfaces and ways to use them? Likely not. A poster on here, Rich, tried to go full streaming, but couldn't get past the WAF factor on one or two channels, so he kept his DirecTV pretty much just for those one or two channels.

Getting an aggregator device like a Roku eases up a few of the pain points, but definitely not all.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> Netflix is $16 to get 4K content. The $6 Hulu package is the base with ads. You'd be at $12 with no ads and $50 with live TV.
> 
> You also have to keep in mind the WAF/FAF factors. Are they really going to sign off on 10 different providers with completely different interfaces and ways to use them? Likely not. A poster on here, Rich, tried to go full streaming, but couldn't get past the WAF factor on one or two channels, so he kept his DirecTV pretty much just for those one or two channels.
> 
> Getting an aggregator device like a Roku eases up a few of the pain points, but definitely not all.


Yes, juggling different apps isn't ideal but that will work itself out in time. Look at what the Apple TV app already does to pull everything except Netflix together. We'll see more and more of such "umbrella UIs" with unified watchlists as time goes by, I think.

When I talk about "TV 3.0," I'm talking about a future that isn't fully realized yet. But we're evolving there. And, sure, there will always be a (shrinking) number of people born before a certain point in time that prefer the old TV 2.0 paradigm with linear channels sold in bundles, with time-based content that must be recorded for on-demand playback. Those folks' money is as green as anyone else's and I don't think Hollywood/Silicon Valley will want to turn their money away. Both paradigms will co-exist for many more years but you're going to see more and more content on TV 2.0 linear channels become available simultaneously in TV 3.0 apps (e.g. watch how a lot of FX's future stuff will be co-produced with Hulu). Meanwhile, you're going to see more and more new content (especially stuff aimed at younger audiences) debuting exclusively on 3.0 apps and never showing up on 2.0 linear channels at all. The overall content pool will gradually shift more and more toward TV 3.0.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

What was this thread about again?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If there is something new to say about the C71 please post it.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

James Long said:


> If there is something new to say about the C71 please post it.


Last I saw they reopened the beta to directvnow subscribers with the new remote. But they did send a bunch of existing beta users the updated remote separately


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Both paradigms will co-exist for many more years but you're going to see more and more content on TV 2.0 linear channels become available simultaneously in TV 3.0 apps (e.g. watch how a lot of FX's future stuff will be co-produced with Hulu). Meanwhile, you're going to see more and more new content (especially stuff aimed at younger audiences) debuting exclusively on 3.0 apps and never showing up on 2.0 linear channels at all. The overall content pool will gradually shift more and more toward TV 3.0.


I think you're giving streaming waaayy too much credit. Several months ago, when I was still bullish on Netflix, I got into a debate with Slice about how Netflix was getting all the A-listers like Will Smith, Jennifer Aniston, Adam Sandler and Sandra Bullock and no other streaming service had the same name value. In hindsight, are those really A-listers... anymore? Sandra Bullock hasn't had a hit in 7 yrs (Gravity) and Will Smith is even worse as his last hit (where HE is the main draw) sends you all the way back to Hancock in 2008. If you want to count Suicide Squad, I guess he's more current, but that's an ensemble movie where he is the lead, but it has a built in audience just from the subject matter. Aniston hasn't ever had a huge hit. She's had a few OK movies. Nothing huge where she was the lead. She's usually the leads wife. Sandler hasn't had a hit in years either. You'd probably have to go back to 1998/99 for his last big hit. His bar for a hit is lower then others since he usually does the dumb, low cost comedy stuff and thus their production budgets are a lot lower.

Point is, Hollywood hasn't embraced streaming yet, in fact, the big names are still trying to get streaming originals banned from awards. At this point, no actor in his right mind would pick a Netflix movie over a legit theater release. It'll take WAY more then 4 yrs to change that perception. You'd have to have *years* of blockbuster megahits streaming originals.

Your pricing argument is also flawed &#8230; you're assuming prices stay at today's "infancy" levels. They undoubtedly won't. Netflix's price has doubled. Amazon Prime has gone up about 30% so far. As more people move to streaming, the prices will ramp up quickly.

Cord cutters are cutting the cord due to the cost of cable/sat. Right now you are still seeing "infancy" pricing. 5 - 10 yrs from now, that pricing gap will close. When the price gaps close, there won't be much advantage to streaming, cost wise. By then, DirecTV will probably delivering TV over IP anyways.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Which is why I think the future is people subscribe to Netflix for a month, binge their shows, drop it and subscribe to Hulu for a month, binge their shows, drop it and subscribe to HBO for a month, and so forth. The only service that will have subscription 12 months out of the year is Amazon Prime, because no one subscribes to it solely for streaming.


From what I am reading it seems like a lot of you guys only like a few of the series on Netflix. Personally I watch about 15 or more series on Netflix, plus some documeteries etc. One or two of the series get new episodes released at least once a month. So the idea of dropping it and waiting is not an option and after all it's $13 versus the $265 that I pay for directv. I will admit some of them like Call Saul are already available to me via Directv but I can wait it out until they dump a whole season on Netflix and then binge watch it.



> *If Apple doesn't build support for this directly into Apple TV,* *someone will create an app that to manage your subscriptions* that lets you click a button to drop one and restart your subscription to the other.


Thats what I was saying in another post. Someone needs to create an interface wrapper that manages all these services into one with a unified guide. Now that would be a killer for all the other market players like comcrap and Satellite etc.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> Thats what I was saying in another post. Someone needs to create an interface wrapper that manages all these services into one with a unified guide. Now that would be a killer for all the other market players like comcrap and Satellite etc.


So let me see if I understand this... ...

We have an all in one service, wrapped into a generic, unified interface -- it's called DirecTV, cable, etc. . Next, everybody cut the cord so they could save money by doing a la carte streaming "packages" to suit themselves... now you want all the distinct streaming services with completely distinct interfaces with heavy branding and distinct experiences to all be rolled back into a single, unified, generic interface, DOH!!! sounds like you're like me and want DirecTV hahah...

Actually, they used to have what you want... a one stop streaming shop... it was called Netflix.

Then all the different brands decided they could make more money and differentiate themselves by breaking off from Netflix and more heavily brand themselves and their UIs and not give Netflix a piece of the pie.

NOBODY will agree to having their content rolled up into a generic / unbranded / unified interface. That defeats the whole purpose of breaking off from Netflix.

The closest thing you'll get is an aggregator device like a Roku, but that's just putting all the services on a single device so you don't need 10 devices.

Your idea is lovely, but its not up to a person or company to do it... its up to all the content owners to agree to it which they never would. They might as well go back to Netflix and let Netflix manage all the hardware and streaming stuff and just provide the content.

I'm a software engineer, and if I went and built an app like that without clearing it with Netflix and Disney, I would get the pants sued off of me.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, OK, but to play devil's advocate: You'll be able to subscribe to Netflix ($13), Hulu ($6), Disney+ ($7), ESPN+ ($5), HBO Max ($16) and CBS All Access ($6) for $53, and that's without getting a Disney bundle discount, which will likely bring the total to more like $50. That's a LOT of content. Show me a cable TV bundle service with a similarly rich content pool, HD access and DVR/on-demand features with a regular everyday price of $50.


There's zero sports in that bundle. That's most of the difference in your pricing. Like I've always said, cord cutting is all about people who don't like paying for sports getting away from packages that make them pay for them. And why high value live sports like NFL and college football will be the very last thing available via streaming.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> There's zero sports in that bundle. That's most of the difference in your pricing. Like I've always said, cord cutting is all about people who don't like paying for sports getting away from packages that make them pay for them. And why high value live sports like NFL and college football will be the very last thing available via streaming.


I got away from sports just fine on DirecTV. Preferred Xtra does away with the RSN fee. I think one of the folks I spoke to at DirecTV recently indicated that they aren't offering that any more. Smart. Why let people get away with paying $8 less a month for content they don't watch LOL...

WWE seems pretty high value based on what Fox paid for a show thats rating are in the toilet. I bet Fox is regretting that deal. 5 year / $1B deal for a show that does less then 2M viewers a week and they have their own streaming service.

I really wonder why NFL doesn't just start their own streaming service and cut out ESPN? Oh yeah.. that's right cuz TV is worth a lot more then streaming still... .


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Ha. No, it's not going to kill streaming. And it's not a bubble. It's the new cable TV. You just don't realize it yet. Watch what unfolds in 2020-22.


I agree with you 100%.
The only solution I see for cable and satellite is to start offering channels separately so people can build their own packages.

At some point the big players who own groups of channels are going to either loosen their grip and see how many of the crap channels can survive or take a risk on losing most of their customers to streaming services. I know that HBO and others have already gone this route but the prices they charge are simply not in line with reality. The younger generation are not TV addicted like most of us and are not willing to spend very much on TV.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> I agree with you 100%.
> The only solution I see for cable and satellite is to start offering channels separately so people can build their own packages.
> 
> At some point the big players who own groups of channels are going to either loosen their grip and see how many of the crap channels can survive or take a risk on losing most of their customers to streaming services. I know that HBO and others have already gone this route but the prices they charge are simply not in line with reality. The younger generation are not TV addicted like most of us and are not willing to spend very much on TV.


The content owners will never let you cherry pick channels. That'd be like DirecTV letting you buy a package without an RSN fee. Why would you want to let people pay less when you don't have to?

As I mentioned before, cord cutters are happy today for the prices, but they are still intro prices... streaming costs will ramp up over time.... probably more so then cable / sat until they close the gap. Why charge 75% less for streaming when you can only charge 50% less or 25% less?

Anybody who thinks Disney+ will remain $6/mo forever is kidding themselves. They are making it that low for the same reason Netflix made their original prices low and for the same reason DirecTV gives you intro pricing. To lure people in.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> Cord cutters are cutting the cord due to the cost of cable/sat. Right now you are still seeing "infancy" pricing. 5 - 10 yrs from now, that pricing gap will close. When the price gaps close, there won't be much advantage to streaming, cost wise. By then, DirecTV will probably delivering TV over IP anyways.


In 5-10 years, DTV will be delivering TV over IP? Hahaha. You're a bit out of touch with the news. More like 5-10 weeks! The head of AT&T's has stated that their new "OTT/IPTV" service is going to launch in 3Q (July - Sept) of this year and that it's the consumer product he's the most excited about since the iPhone. I doubt it's going to make as big as splash as the iPhone but it will mark a new era in AT&T's video distribution strategy as they begin their pivot away from DTV satellite and Uverse TV in favor of this new flagship product, AT&T TV.

AT&T Exec Said Telco's Ideas Will 'Radically Reshape' TV | Light Reading


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> There's zero sports in that bundle. That's most of the difference in your pricing. Like I've always said, cord cutting is all about people who don't like paying for sports getting away from packages that make them pay for them. And why high value live sports like NFL and college football will be the very last thing available via streaming.


Zero sports? What do you think streams in ESPN+, which is one of the services I listed? Granted, its $5 price only provides _some_ sports and not all of what the full set of ESPN cable channels offer. If all that was included (and one day, it will be), the price would probably be more like $15-20.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> The content owners will never let you cherry pick channels. That'd be like DirecTV letting you buy a package without an RSN fee. Why would you want to let people pay less when you don't have to?


Their new Plus package ($50 on DTV Now, soon to be AT&T TV) does not include RSNs and therefore doesn't charge for them. If you want your RSNs, you have to upgrade to the $70 Max package. (They're doing away with a separate RSN charge and just rolling it into the headline price, which is how it should have always been done. Consumers don't like those BS add-on fees that aren't optional.)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

dreadlk said:


> The only solution I see for cable and satellite is to start offering channels separately so people can build their own packages.


What is slowly happening (but it's picking up speed) is that each company that owns a group of cable channels is launching one or more direct-to-consumer on-demand streaming services that focuses on their own content.

Disney: Hulu, Disney+, ESPN+
CBS: CBS All Access, Showtime
AT&T (WarnerMedia): HBO Max (launching fall 2019)
Comcast (NBCUniversal): new service launching early 2020
Discovery: new service launching early 2020 (in partnership with BBC)
Viacom: purchased Pluto TV (using it to monetize old Viacom content through free ad-supported model), will soon merge with CBS (to get folded into CBS: All Access?)

Fox sold off almost all their assets, including cable channels like FX and Nat Geo, to Disney. Now they're just Fox, Fox Sports and Fox News. They have no plans to launch their own standalone streaming service, they say (but will likely make their channels available as an add-on bundle to any larger service that will sell them).

So who does that leave? A+E Networks, AMC Networks, and the Hallmark channels? As we move on from the old TV 2.0 linear channel bundle world to the TV 3.0 direct-to-consumer world, they'll have to find their way, likely as little add-ons distributed inside of the big boys' apps (those above, plus Amazon and Apple). Or they'll just have to transition to becoming content producers that sell and distribute shows through the various consumer-facing services.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> *From what I am reading it seems like a lot of you guys only like a few of the series on Netflix.* Personally I watch about 15 or more series on Netflix, plus some documeteries etc. One or two of the series get new episodes released at least once a month. So the idea of dropping it and waiting is not an option and after all it's $13 versus the $265 that I pay for directv. I will admit some of them like Call Saul are already available to me via Directv but I can wait it out until they dump a whole season on Netflix and then binge watch it.
> 
> Thats what I was saying in another post. Someone needs to create an interface wrapper that manages all these services into one with a unified guide. Now that would be a killer for all the other market players like comcrap and Satellite etc.


Yup and that should influence...who? There's so much on NF it's damn near ridiculous, especially for folks that are just getting started. Imagine having no idea what is available on NF and then finding out. I was overwhelmed when it finally dawned on me. Once I figured out what was really available I lost interest in "normal" programming. A few years ago I had almost everything on network TV programmed on my 12 HRs, now I have nothing but sports and the Hallmark channel on the DVRs. Add in the big streamers like AP and Hulu and there's more than folks realize at your fingertips. But, YMMV.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Zero sports? What do you think streams in ESPN+, which is one of the services I listed? Granted, its $5 price only provides _some_ sports and not all of what the full set of ESPN cable channels offer. If all that was included (and one day, it will be), the price would probably be more like $15-20.


ESPN+ carries all the stuff with too small an audience to deserve a slot on one of ESPN's real channels. If you're a fan of the NFL, or college football, or MLB, or etc. etc. ESPN+ is useless.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Their new Plus package ($50 on DTV Now, soon to be AT&T TV) does not include RSNs and therefore doesn't charge for them. If you want your RSNs, you have to upgrade to the $70 Max package. (They're doing away with a separate RSN charge and just rolling it into the headline price, which is how it should have always been done. Consumers don't like those BS add-on fees that aren't optional.)


The DirecTV Now Plus package for $50/mo also includes only about 40 channels. I would say about 99% of which I don't even watch. The $70 package doesn't include them either. Where's History, DIY, Discovery, Science, etc?

Yeah, I can see why DirecTV Now is such an awesome success!! Actually, most people consider it an epic disaster. Subs are falling off a cliff. I wouldn't expect it to be around much longer tbh.

Why would I pay $50/mo for that garbage package when I pay $50/mo (actually, it might be $55, I have to wait for the bill to stabilize, but it won't be much more then that) for a HR54 + Preferred Xtra that has 200+ channels, including the ones I actually watch, and no RSN fee? Plus, I don't have to worry about going over my data cap, don't have to worry about buffering, being able to FF and RW at will, being able to skip ads.

Re: the data cap... I have Cox Gigabit as an early adopter and it has a 1TB cap. I got kind of screwed on that. Now they are offering it for less then I'm paying with no data caps. I was able to get them to throw in the no data cap for free, but I think that's good for 1 yr.

If I went full streaming, I doubt a 1TB cap would be very useful.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> In 5-10 years, DTV will be delivering TV over IP? Hahaha. You're a bit out of touch with the news. More like 5-10 weeks! The head of AT&T's has stated that their new "OTT/IPTV" service is going to launch in 3Q (July - Sept) of this year and that it's the consumer product he's the most excited about since the iPhone. I doubt it's going to make as big as splash as the iPhone but it will mark a new era in AT&T's video distribution strategy as they begin their pivot away from DTV satellite and Uverse TV in favor of this new flagship product, AT&T TV.
> 
> AT&T Exec Said Telco's Ideas Will 'Radically Reshape' TV | Light Reading


Has anyone posted a beta review or early hands on? Can't say I've seen one... it's possible I missed it. I'd look at how the LCC is rolling out to see DirecTVs history of sticking to a schedule. Although, I'll grant you the IPTV is more important to them then the LCC lol.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> ESPN+ carries all the stuff with too small an audience to deserve a slot on one of ESPN's real channels. If you're a fan of the NFL, or college football, or MLB, or etc. etc. ESPN+ is useless.


Hey!!! Some people happen to enjoy Portuguese midget lesbian golf!!!


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> What is slowly happening (but it's picking up speed) is that each company that owns a group of cable channels is launching one or more direct-to-consumer on-demand streaming services that focuses on their own content.
> 
> Disney: Hulu, Disney+, ESPN+
> CBS: CBS All Access, Showtime
> ...


I just don't see a bunch of isolated streaming services working as a model. The cost will add up and theres lot of hassle involved juggling apps. But hey, it's working for me so far . DirecTV is desperate to keep people, so they offer folks like me steep discounts to stay and I get 200 channels for the same money streamers get 40 channels for. Plus its all in a unified interface. Thanks .


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> I just don't see a bunch of isolated streaming services working as a model. The cost will add up and theres lot of hassle involved juggling apps. But hey, it's working for me so far . DirecTV is desperate to keep people, so they offer folks like me steep discounts to stay and I get 200 channels for the same money streamers get 40 channels for. Plus its all in a unified interface. Thanks .


Enjoy those steeps discounts while you can. (I thought it sounded odd that you were getting the package you mentioned for such a low price.) AT&T has clearly signaled multiple times in recent months that they're looking to shed low-ARPU customers that they can only retain through the use of repeated discounts. I suspect that they needed to keep as many subs on board as possible until they got that latest round of carriage contracts done and were able to launch their shiny new streaming thing, AT&T TV. Let's see what tune you're singing about DTV satellite this time next year.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Enjoy those steeps discounts while you can. (I thought it sounded odd that you were getting the package you mentioned for such a low price.) AT&T has clearly signaled multiple times in recent months that they're looking to shed low-ARPU customers that they can only retain through the use of repeated discounts. I suspect that they needed to keep as many subs on board as possible until they got that latest round of carriage contracts done and were able to launch their shiny new streaming thing, AT&T TV. Let's see what tune you're singing about DTV satellite this time next year.


Actually, in Feb/March time frame, I think it was, some of my promos fell off, they were being super stingy (the whole get rid of leeches like me attitude ). At that time, I had to call in 5 times and threatened to cancel on the last call before they finally put them back on.

In the April/May time frame, another promo fell off and I wasn't going to do the 5 calls again, I was ready to go to Cox or TMobile, but after the dismal 1st quarter ER, they did a 180 with their attitudes. First call, no arguing or debate, didn't have to pull out my quotes from other providers, just said, hey this bill is too high and its out of wack with other providers and she gave me one of my biggest discounts ever. More then I was going for actually. So I decided to swing for the fences and said that price is great, but I need you to also comp me a HR54 (I don't have PP), this POS HR24 takes 30 seconds to respond to a button press... and she was like no problem. All I had to pay for was the $20 s&h.

Speaking of singing tunes , just to point out the obvious, Netflix recently jacked up prices 14% and AP recently jacked up prices 10%. I don't really follow Hulu or YouTube, etc. but you're going to be singing a different tune when you see how fast streaming prices rise . Hardware to support all the customers costs a lot, as does the bandwidth, so they're going to be passing on those costs to you.

Netflix can't really risk raising prices too fast now without all the licensed content, but Disney+? By 2024? I'd expect it to cost more then Netflix. NF usually raises $2 or so every 2 years, so that'd put them around $20 by 2024. I'd expect Disney+ to be AT LEAST $20 by then. If that happens, that's more then triple the infancy intro price.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Has anyone posted a beta review or early hands on? Can't say I've seen one... it's possible I missed it. I'd look at how the LCC is rolling out to see DirecTVs history of sticking to a schedule. Although, I'll grant you the IPTV is more important to them then the LCC lol.


When has Directv ever given a date for the release of the LCC? You can't claim it as an example for not sticking to a schedule when they never gave a schedule for it.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> Speaking of singing tunes , just to point out the obvious, Netflix recently jacked up prices 14% and AP recently jacked up prices 10%. I don't really follow Hulu or YouTube, etc. but you're going to be singing a different tune when you see how fast streaming prices rise . Hardware to support all the customers costs a lot, as does the bandwidth, so they're going to be passing on those costs to you.
> 
> Netflix can't really risk raising prices too fast now without all the licensed content, but Disney+? By 2024? I'd expect it to cost more then Netflix. NF usually raises $2 or so every 2 years, so that'd put them around $20 by 2024. I'd expect Disney+ to be AT LEAST $20 by then. If that happens, that's more then triple the infancy intro price.


Yeah, I'm sure that streaming prices will increase but I'm skeptical that the average overall increases will be any worse than what we've seen on the traditional cable bundle. (As for myself personally, I could care less what Disney+ charges because I doubt I'll ever subscribe but I would agree that they are intentionally coming into the market at an aggressive price point leaving them room to increase going forward. OTOH, I'd also point out that it's not going to be a service offering up a ton of fresh new content every month like the other DTC streamers. Disney+ will basically be a beloved library plus a modest stream of new stuff.)

And to provide a counter-example with regard to increasing streaming prices: Hulu _decreased_ their standard price by 25% recently, from $8 to $6 per month. Just for fun, I looked up what $6 in today's money was worth in 1985 dollars, when I was a kid getting "expanded basic" cable TV with probably twenty-something channels (including MTV, which I loved). Only $2.52! What sort of cable TV package could you have gotten in 1985 for only $2.52 with the variety, amount and quality of content available to watch at any time that Hulu's base package offers today? It's an incredible value. (Sure, there are ads on everything except movies and kids' shows, but the ad load is significantly less than what broadcast and cable TV had, even back in the '80s.)


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I'm sure that streaming prices will increase but I'm skeptical that the average overall increases will be any worse than what we've seen on the traditional cable bundle. (As for myself personally, I could care less what Disney+ charges because I doubt I'll ever subscribe but I would agree that they are intentionally coming into the market at an aggressive price point leaving them room to increase going forward. OTOH, I'd also point out that it's not going to be a service offering up a ton of fresh new content every month like the other DTC streamers. Disney+ will basically be a beloved library plus a modest stream of new stuff.)
> 
> And to provide a counter-example with regard to increasing streaming prices: Hulu _decreased_ their standard price by 25% recently, from $8 to $6 per month. Just for fun, I looked up what $6 in today's money was worth in 1985 dollars, when I was a kid getting "expanded basic" cable TV with probably twenty-something channels (including MTV, which I loved). Only $2.52! What sort of cable TV package could you have gotten in 1985 for only $2.52 with the variety, amount and quality of content available to watch at any time that Hulu's base package offers today? It's an incredible value. (Sure, there are ads on everything except movies and kids' shows, but the ad load is significantly less than what broadcast and cable TV had, even back in the '80s.)


Like you, I won't be subscribing to Disney+ and I'm honestly still skeptical that it'll pan out like people think. Disney Proper tried to be a premium service in the 80's and that flopped and I still don't believe there exists a casual Disney / Star Wars / Marvel fan. They are all diehards. I can't imagine that they don't have all the movies they like on DVD, BluRay, UHD, etc. If they do, why subscribe to the service? Plus, like you said, they aren't going to drop new content like Netflix. Otoh, a lot of what Netflix drops is junk.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> I still don't believe there exists a casual Disney / Star Wars / Marvel fan. They are all diehards. I can't imagine that they don't have all the movies they like on DVD, BluRay, UHD, etc. If they do, why subscribe to the service?


Do you know ANY millennials who own physical media? They don't own CDs, they don't own DVDs/BluRay. Many (if not most) of the diehard Marvel fans are millennials, they are perfect candidates for Disney+.

I think Disney+ will also be indispensable for parents and grandparents who have their grandchildren over regularly.

Now for Star Wars maybe I'd agree, because millennials just don't care about Star Wars the way my (Gen X) generation does, and we grew up with physical media so it isn't weird to us (though FWIW I haven't bought a DVD or CD for over 15 years, and don't own a BluRay player...)


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Do you know ANY millennials who own physical media? They don't own CDs, they don't own DVDs/BluRay. Many (if not most) of the diehard Marvel fans are millennials, they are perfect candidates for Disney+.
> 
> I think Disney+ will also be indispensable for parents and grandparents who have their grandchildren over regularly.
> 
> Now for Star Wars maybe I'd agree, because millennials just don't care about Star Wars the way my (Gen X) generation does, and we grew up with physical media so it isn't weird to us (though FWIW I haven't bought a DVD or CD for over 15 years, and don't own a BluRay player...)


There are 2 guys here who have huge physical collections. One of them is in his 30's/40's and the other in his 40's/50's. Yup, small sample set lol.

Music, I think most people of every age group have moved to MP3s or some form of that. If you are talking about 20 yr olds, then they usually have small 16:9 TVs set on stretch mode or just watch TV on their tiny phones.

The ones that want the best PQ available for their favorite movies are going to get UHD discs. Streaming at 15Mbps hardly compares to 108Mbps.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> The content owners will never let you cherry pick channels. That'd be like DirecTV letting you buy a package without an RSN fee. Why would you want to let people pay less when you don't have to?
> 
> As I mentioned before, cord cutters are happy today for the prices, but they are still intro prices... streaming costs will ramp up over time.... probably more so then cable / sat until they close the gap. Why charge 75% less for streaming when you can only charge 50% less or 25% less?
> 
> Anybody who thinks Disney+ will remain $6/mo forever is kidding themselves. They are making it that low for the same reason Netflix made their original prices low and for the same reason DirecTV gives you intro pricing. To lure people in.


Never say never! If they keep losing suscribers on these platforms at the current rate, something will have to change. I think most people's reasons for leaving the big boys for streaming is the basic price and then the need to add another $100 worth of extra channels just to get ten that are of any use.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Do you know ANY millennials who own physical media? They don't own CDs, they don't own DVDs/BluRay.


I am not a millennial. But about 10-15 years ago I stopped buying physical media. After a while it just takes up space and there is too much on the DVR to bother pulling out physical content, placing it in a physical player and figuring out how to make that show up on the TV. (Not impossible, but it sure is a lot easier to pick up the one true remote and watch whatever is delivered by my one true provider.)

In the past decade I have bought a couple of blu-rays. A blu-ray player so I can watch those two movies. And my wife bought me a third movie. We have bought physical media (CDs/DVDs) for family members who do not have cable/satellite/internet streaming. Yes - those people still exist.

My extended family cannot be put in a box. I have an older sister who will stream anything and nephews and nieces who want physical media. One brother inlaw family does not own a TV. Another sister inlaw family has TV but doesn't own a DVR. My father inlaw has Xfinity and it has taken more than a year for him to get used to talking to his TV. Fortunately he doens't watch enough TV for it to matter. He would be a good candidate for a streaming package that would deliver just the channels he cares about (no sports interest) - but the interface needs to be channel based.

Getting content to subscribers in a way that they can find it is important. Probably more important than having the content available. If you don't know the content exists you're not going to watch it and eventually you'll look at the bill and not know the value of what you are paying for. But a good UI will present the content in a way that makes even the most expensive programming package look like a bargain.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I am not a millennial. But about 10-15 years ago I stopped buying physical media. After a while it just takes up space and there is too much on the DVR to bother pulling out physical content, placing it in a physical player and figuring out how to make that show up on the TV. (Not impossible, but it sure is a lot easier to pick up the one true remote and watch whatever is delivered by my one true provider.
> 
> In the past decade I have bought a couple of blu-rays. A blu-ray player so I can watch those two movies. And my wife bought me a third movie. We have bought physical media (CDs/DVDs) for family members who do not have cable/satellite/internet streaming. Yes - those people still exist.
> 
> ...


My parents still get physical discs from NF still. They've been talking about getting on streaming for years. Once they upgrade their awesome N router I mean lol and get a smart TV.

My sisters family isn't high end, they don't do streaming either, just have some obscure foreign discs for the kids.

I have DirecTV and mostly just download stuff. If there was a streaming service that had the content, I'd probably do that, but there just isn't. AP has mostly classic TV shows. I did rewatch Burn Notice when I had a trial a few months ago and then couldn't find much else. NF trial I had a few months ago, I'd say I watched maybe 5 movies in the month? That's all I could find. I do watch (and occasionally enjoy) off the beaten path movies, but the majority of those 5 were older classics. For a movie I really want to see and where I want the best PQ possible, I'll get a UHD disc for the Oppo 203. They're $5 after a few months on eBay.

If you're after Friends, Seinfeld, That 70's Show, etc. Why sub to a service? They're shown on DirecTV like 30 times a day lol.

Then I have 2 co-workers who are massive media collectors. Both probably have at least 300 discs and always upgrade their movies to the latest formats. One of them gets a few UHD discs delivered every week from Best Buy. Don't even know why he buys them, he just buys every new release for some reason. The other guy is pickier, but he has all his discs cataloged, etc.


----------

