# What will DirecTV do to compete with Apple and others ?



## ajiuO (Jun 17, 2006)

I am curious how DirecTV plans on competing with all of the IP cable services and equipment that are starting to become available. And how the DirecTV apologist will continue to justify some of DirecTV's outrageous equipment costs and fees. With the AppleTV announcement less than two weeks away... I will use that as a comparison... But there are other options such as the Sony playstation. Even Dish can see the direction that things are going and are offering their own IP service... It's all a bit limited right now... But Apple has a tendency to heat things up and really put things into motion... Creating lots of competition. So the next few months will be interesting.

As it stands right now I'm already considering dropping DirecTV. The current Apple TV equipment is cheap, there's no lease required, you don't have to pay fees for HD and other random stuff that should be standard in this day and age. It's true that I can't get all of the live content that I can get on DirecTV... But after looking at things I really don't care about 90% of it. I can get most of my network programming from Hulu, HBO is now available on Apple TV, there is also Netflix, and the other shows that I watch I can just purchase on iTunes and not even have to deal with commercials or DVRing ... And still I would save a lot of money over what I spend with DTV.... And this is all before Apple's announcement... Cord cutting is becoming a real possibility for a lot of people... If Apple doesn't change everything somebody else soon will... I just wonder how DirecTV is going to deal with the fact that their style of doing things... Is over. 

I'm just glad that my contract is long past expired 

Let's compare the two using a three room setup.

DIRECTV:
- Cost: $497 (1 genie + 2 clients) This is an up front payment on a lease.
- Lease: $13 ($6.50 per additional device)
- Contract: 2 years
- HD Service: $10 (DirecTV still considers HD a premium service)
- DVR Service: $10 (I have to pay DirecTV for work that my leased equipment does?)
- Condition: New/Used (customer has no choice in the matter and may receive old outdated equipment)
- Internet: Required for on demand service.
- Required Connections: Power, HDMI, Wi-Fi/Ethernet, Coax
- Equipment Size: Genie is large / clients are reasonably sized.
- Equipment Noise: Fan, Hard Disk
- Interface: Slow and clunky. Guide is easy to use but on demand is very difficult to brows content
- Outside Content: None
- Media Streaming: limited, complicated, confusing, unintuitive
- Music: DirecTV live broadcast
- Premium Service: HBO, Showtime, Starz, sports, other
- Other Content: PPV events, limited movie rentals.
- Focus: Live and on demand cable TV, Live and on demand Local TV, PPV events, limited movie rentals, premium Service, DVR recording.

AppleTV
- Cost: $297 (3 x Apple TV)
- Lease: N/A (You own your equipment)
- Contract: N/A
- HD Service: N/A (HD is Standard)
- DVR Service: N/A (Streaming On Demand)
- Condition: New
- Internet: Required
- Required Connections: Power, HDMI, Wi-Fi/Ethernet
- Equipment Size: Very Compact
- Equipment Noise: Silent
- Interface: Fast and responsive. Easy to use
- Outside Content: Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, lots more, Open App Store coming soon so pretty much anything will be available.
- Media Streaming: iTunes, iCloud, AirPlay, Handoff (coming soon) easy to use
- Music: iTunes Radio, Radio streaming, iTunes purchases and beats service, open app market. (Coming soon), AirPlay (mobile device streaming)
- Premium Service: HBO, Showtime (coming soon), Limited sports, Other
- Other Content: Huge library of movie Rentals, Purchase and view movies/TV/music directly on device, view photo library, AirPlay, limited PPV events, App Store will make possibilities endless. 
- Focus: On Demand content, Streaming Content, App Market, Purchasable content, Live/streaming and on demand local TV (coming soon), Limited live/streaming and on demand cable TV (coming soon), USER EXPERIENCE

Note: Apples TV service will be priced somewhere between $20 and $40 a month. It will not include the hundreds of channels that DirecTV offers... But will probably include the ones that most people watch.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Unless and until Apple's service moves from rumor to reality and pricing is announced you can't make a comparison between it and Directv. But if Apple's service meets your needs, then drop Directv. I don't see why anyone should try to talk you out of it, it is your money.

However, giving the full list price of the Genie + clients is rather disingenuous since Directv generally offers a free Genie and three clients to new subscribers, but like everyone with an axe to grind I guess you are trying to make your point by slanting the facts.

Once AT&T takes over they may have some different offerings. AT&T already have six million IPTV customers (U-verse) so they clearly know how to deliver that. Directv would be wasting their time building something up from scratch.


----------



## ajiuO (Jun 17, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Unless and until Apple's service moves from rumor to reality and pricing is announced you can't make a comparison between it and Directv. But if Apple's service meets your needs, then drop Directv. I don't see why anyone should try to talk you out of it, it is your money.
> 
> However, giving the full list price of the Genie + clients is rather disingenuous since Directv generally offers a free Genie and three clients to new subscribers, but like everyone with an axe to grind I guess you are trying to make your point by slanting the facts.
> 
> Once AT&T takes over they may have some different offerings. AT&T already have six million IPTV customers (U-verse) so they clearly know how to deliver that. Directv would be wasting their time building something up from scratch.


Most of the comparisons that I have made are current.... The TV service rumor is a rumor but it's a very strong rumor... Even if they don't do it dish network could offer their app on the Apple TV.

And yes DirecTV does offer discounts to new customers and sometimes to existing customers... But that's only a small part of my gripe. You still don't own the equipment and have to pay for it every month..... You have to agree to a two-year contract... And you have to pay extra for stuff like HD and DVR. Pay for HD... Are you kidding me? My grandma doesn't even have a SDTV anymore... And now we have 4K. Why don't they just charge for color TV as well?

And I don't want anyone to talk me out of anything... I wanted to start a discussion on what DirecTV is going to do to compete in a changing market...

And to be fair I didn't list apples current discounted price either... If you really want a fair comparison I can list what DirecTV charges to own equipment... And they don't offer any discounts on that. You will be able to avoid a two-year contract... But your equipment fees will still be there... They will just be called something else.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

They don't charge for HD on newer accounts. However on those, the first receiver fee isn't credited back. I think I figured that under the newest terms, I'd be paying about $1.50 less than I am now for my two boxes, as I pay $2 less essentially for Whole Home.


----------



## ajiuO (Jun 17, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> They don't charge for HD on newer accounts. However on those, the first receiver fee isn't credited back. I think I figured that under the newest terms, I'd be paying about $1.50 less than I am now for my two boxes, as I pay $2 less essentially for Whole Home.


Oh yeah I forgot about the whole Home fee... That's another thing you won't find on Apple TV.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

ajiuO said:


> . . . It's true that I can't get all of the live content that I can get on DirecTV... But after looking at things I really don't care about 90% of it. . . .
> Note: Apples TV service will be priced somewhere between $20 and $40 a month. It will not include the hundreds of channels that DirecTV offers... But will probably include the ones that most people watch.


You have your answer right there DirecTV will survive on the customers who do care about live TV (especially sports) and the niche channels that Apple T does not carry. If I did not care about live sports, I would pick Roku over anything that Apple comes up with.


----------



## prushing (Feb 14, 2007)

You forgot to include internet price increase for all the data streaming you will be doing. If you have more than 1 stream or "TV" active, as in don't live alone, have kids, etc, your internet company isn't going to let you use their bandwidth up without paying.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

ajiuO said:


> Oh yeah I forgot about the whole Home fee... That's another thing you won't find on Apple TV.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Since the Apple TV doesn't actually do anything but stream from the 'net and/or your iTunes library, it isn't really a 'whole home' solution either.

And another poster responded about the cost for internet to support all those streams for all those hours. THAT is a serious concern and has to be added to the cost of streaming only. Most comparisons, yours included, try to dodge that issue.

I had to switch to a higher level on my internet service to not have data caps hit me in the butt. I'm now on a plan that has 1Tb data cap and I usually use a bit more than 500Gb. And that is for a single user, not multiple.

Finally, as has been said, you can't make a comparison of an existing product to a rumored one. Even assuming that it does turn out the way you think it will, there will be gaping holes in programming just as there are with all the other streaming only services.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

ajiuO said:


> Oh yeah I forgot about the whole Home fee... That's another thing you won't find on Apple TV.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, no but we're talking apples and oranges.

Apple isn't exactly historically immune to bs fees.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

And you have to add in all the fees for all those services, netflx, hulu, HBO etc. etc. We need to see what all those cost in comparison to package prices from people such as DirecTV. Plus, unless something is also announced, you don't have a DVR type service which maybe you won't need if you truly can get anything anytime but that is also to be seen.
I suspect to get all you get from packages such as DirecTV you'll end up having to subscribe to a whole bunch of different packages from different companies. 
I have all Apple computer type stuff but I haven't seen anything is any of the rumors that I've read that would make me really think about switching.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Hulu $7.99 only one simultaneous stream allowed

Netflix $7.99 one screen on SD
$8.99 two screens plus HD
$11.99 4 screens plus HD

HBONow $14.99 There is a limit but is not disclosed. Sold as a "family" plan

So a two room set up $39.96 only on just these 3 services. Hmmm, not sure cord cutting sounds enticing at this point


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

Without sports, streaming is a non-starter for me. Sure, I could subscribe to all the internet packages (NHL Gamecenter, MLB TV) but no NFL? Not interested.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

CTJon said:


> And you have to add in all the fees for all those services, netflx, hulu, HBO etc. etc. We need to see what all those cost in comparison to package prices from people such as DirecTV. Plus, unless something is also announced, you don't have a DVR type service which maybe you won't need if you truly can get anything anytime but that is also to be seen.
> I suspect to get all you get from packages such as DirecTV you'll end up having to subscribe to a whole bunch of different packages from different companies.
> I have all Apple computer type stuff but I haven't seen anything is any of the rumors that I've read that would make me really think about switching.





peds48 said:


> Hulu $7.99 only one simultaneous stream allowed
> 
> Netflix $7.99 one screen on SD
> $8.99 two screens plus HD
> ...


Bingo!

By the time I get all the content I watch, to "cut the cord" I end up replacing the one cordless (satellite) with several cordless (internet--which really is corded too.) And at this point, I'd need more devices to keep near-live ability--ie trickplay on live sports that I get over the air.

So each TV would need an Apple/Roku/Amazon Fire device, plus a Tivo device, plus... to replace one DIRECTV device. No sale. 

All that said, I do like Roku (and likely could like Apple/Amazon) for somethings. I'd love a Roku/DIRECTV/Blu-ray single device someday.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

Streaming TV, at least the current forms like Sling and Sony's, have terrible quality at times even on great connections.

Another thing, you give up your DVR capabilities for many if not most of the channels with certain providers.

Third, when you add up, Hulu, Netflix, HBOgo, SlingTV together you get really close to some of the base packages of Directv which include most of the channels and more. Cable has some other packages with HBO and smaller subets of channels as well as internet.

The people that can deal with not having DVR functions, limited channels and the like can get by. So can the people that just torrent their shows and pay nothing but its a pretty small subset of the population overall. I know one thing, I won't use a service without DVR functions and I'm not going to deal with blocky movement artifacts on high compression feeds. 

Regardless, IP delivery is on the way from cable co's. I'll gladly stick with Directv, I prefer to keep my DVR and my ability to time shift because if on demand is any indication advertisers and content provider want to remove that asap and they are going to win in the end when all the companies that can start delivering content via IP.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Coupling these two thoughts together, try to watch multiple games simultaneously via internet. Even some cable companies can't deliver multiple HD games.

Thankfully, satellite can. (Where you can subscribe to them, that is.) 

Peace,
Tom


FLWingNut said:


> Without sports, streaming is a non-starter for me. Sure, I could subscribe to all the internet packages (NHL Gamecenter, MLB TV) but no NFL? Not interested.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk





Aridon said:


> Streaming TV, at least the current forms like Sling and Sony's, have terrible quality at times even on great connections.
> 
> Another thing, you give up your DVR capabilities for many if not most of the channels with certain providers.
> 
> ...


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

peds48 said:


> Hulu $7.99 only one simultaneous stream allowed
> 
> Netflix $7.99 one screen on SD
> $8.99 two screens plus HD
> ...


You are assuming those are incremental costs to the cord cutter. Likely, Netflix at the very least, is not (ie they already subscribe to it) and HBO is a wash. If they want HBO, they likely already subscribe to it through the service provider. Cord cutters likely aren't your families anyway, they are younger, single and likely staying single far longer than you and I.

Cord cutting is real. I know many in the industry try to pretend its not, but all one has to do is look at the overall pay tv market to see that it is.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

prushing said:


> You forgot to include internet price increase for all the data streaming you will be doing. If you have more than 1 stream or "TV" active, as in don't live alone, have kids, etc, your internet company isn't going to let you use their bandwidth up without paying.


Yea, where's the pricing for internet service that can support 5 HD streams at one time and doesn't have bandwidth caps that might cost you more.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

raott said:


> You are assuming those are incremental costs to the cord cutter. Likely, Netflix at the very least, is not (ie they already subscribe to it) and HBO is a wash. If they want HBO, they likely already subscribe to it through the service provider. Cord cutters likely aren't your families anyway, they are younger, single and likely staying single far longer than you and I.
> 
> Cord cutting is real. I know many in the industry try to pretend its not, but all one has to do is look at the overall pay tv market to see that it is.


Though honestly, at least the cord cutters I know, supplement the services they do have like Netflix with less than reputable sources. That's one of the problems.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

raott said:


> You are assuming those are incremental costs to the cord cutter. Likely, Netflix at the very least, is not (ie they already subscribe to it) and HBO is a wash. If they want HBO, they likely already subscribe to it through the service provider. Cord cutters likely aren't your families anyway, they are younger, single and likely staying single far longer than you and I.
> 
> Cord cutting is real. I know many in the industry try to pretend its not, but all one has to do is look at the overall pay tv market to see that it is.


I don't believe anyone is saying that cord cutting isn't real. What some of us are saying is it might not be that big of a deal at certain points of view. Sure, every fewer customer hurts, yet I don't see cord cutting completely replacing the current broadcast systems we have in place. The math only works for some people.

The other aspect intriguing me: what happens when the cord cutters have families? When they want to watch (record) more content simultaneously than the internet can deliver? On screens bigger than a phablet? Will those families retie the cord? 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

raott said:


> You are assuming those are incremental costs to the cord cutter.


No I did not. I was NOT making a comparison but rather and overall cost with the services mentioned if one were to cut the cord.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Your right about that. I know of one that does and I would say the bulk of his content comes from less than reputable sources.



dpeters11 said:


> Though honestly, at least the cord cutters I know, supplement the services they do have like Netflix with less than reputable sources. That's one of the problems.


----------



## LCollett (Oct 24, 2007)

RAD said:


> Yea, where's the pricing for internet service that can support 5 HD streams at one time and doesn't have bandwidth caps that might cost you more.


Mine is $70.00 per month for gigabit fiber to home. No bandwidth caps. In NC using NorthState.net.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Here's an alternative that many could find adequate. Assume:

3 person household, variety of streamed screens (TV * 4, computer, phone, tablet, etc)

Configuration:

TV set top box - Roku, 1 time cost $75 (average depending on which model is purchased) * 4 TVs
OTA DVR - Simple.TV dual tuner, Premier Lifetime - 1 time cost $350. Serves up to 5 concurrent streams
HDD for OTA DVR - 2 TB USB 3.0 $100
PlayOn/PlayLater LifeTime - $50
Plex Media Server - free
Net startup cost: $800

Content sources:
Netflix - $8.99/month for 2 concurrent streams
Hulu (not Hulu Plus) - free via PlayOn
OTA - free
DVD/BlueRay - free, served via Plex
Lots of other free Roku hosted channels
Net monthly cost: $8.99 (I am considering HS internet a sunk cost due to its requirement/usage for other purposes as well)

Obviously this would be inadequate for those demanding specific sports coverage. In my case I live in NFC North territory (SE MN) so already get at least half of my desired Chicago Bears games. I would miss out on MN Twins (Fox Sports North) and Purdue (Big Ten Network) games although I do have hopes that the Big 10 will eventually have a subscription streaming solution that doesn't require a TV provider subscription. Because so many channels do now have streamed versions (that require a TV provider subscription) I have been able to reduce the number of D* DVRs as I've increased my Rokus (1 time cost). Ideally what I would like is a D* server that streamed content like the Simple.TV thus allowing me to have any number of devices attached viewing a stream. Oh, and don't charge me for each stream (TV).


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

LCollett said:


> Mine is $70.00 per month for gigabit fiber to home. No bandwidth caps. In NC using NorthState.net.


Don't know where you are in NC but you're probably less than .01 PER CENT of the NC population with that plan. Consider yourself VERY lucky.

Their website lets you check availability but has no service map.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

Tubaman-Z said:


> I do have hopes that the Big 10 will eventually have a subscription streaming solution that doesn't require a TV provider subscription.


I do not think that is likely to happen or else the Big 10 would be undermining all of the TV providers who are paying them big money to carry the network. My guess is that the current contracts with the providers have some sort of a clause that would protect their exclusivity to the network. If it did happen, when it comes time to renew the contract, the providers will want a lower cost.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I agree, everyone who wishes for streaming as a way to lower their cost for TV is ignoring the fact that those benefiting from the status quo are not going to take a pay cut willingly. Simply changing the delivery model isn't going to do that. Yes, maybe eventually you can cut out the middleman like Directv or Comcast if you stream directly from the networks, but they're going to look at that as an opportunity to keep more for themselves, rather than giving the viewer a price cut.

A lot of cord cutters are able to do it only because they're getting away with stuff like sharing the streaming login/password of a friend or relative who has a subscription to a provider like Directv. When they start locking those subscriptions to particular devices that have to maintain an association with the device providing the TV service (there are plenty of patents for this already, it is coming) that game will be over.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

LCollett said:


> Mine is $70.00 per month for gigabit fiber to home. No bandwidth caps. In NC using NorthState.net.





dennisj00 said:


> Don't know where you are in NC but you're probably less than .01 PER CENT of the NC population with that plan. Consider yourself VERY lucky.
> 
> Their website lets you check availability but has no service map.


I have a friend that has had it available since November of last year, don't think they have switched yet but they got the notification about it being available. They are in the High Point/Jamestown, NC area. NorthState is continuing to expand the FTTH service throughout the greater Triad region this year.

http://pr.northstate.net/north-state-has-launched-gigabit-internet-service-to-areas-of-the-piedmont-triad-region-of-north-carolina/

http://myfox8.com/2015/03/12/fiber-internet-tv-continues-to-expand-throught-piedmont-triad/

http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2015/03/02/north-state-sets-sights-on-greensboro-winston.html


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

coolman302003 said:


> I have a friend that has had it available since November of last year, don't think they have switched yet but they got the notification about it being available. They are in the High Point/Jamestown, NC area. NorthState is continuing to expand the FTTH service throughout the greater Triad region this year.
> 
> http://pr.northstate.net/north-state-has-launched-gigabit-internet-service-to-areas-of-the-piedmont-triad-region-of-north-carolina/
> 
> ...


Y, after that post I realized that NorthState was the CLEC or traditional telephone provider in the HighPoint / Jamestown area. A couple of cities / Clecs in NC have expanded to internet service and Google has announced Gigabit service in Charlotte and Raleigh to come.

I'm in somewhat of a no man's land on the edge of Mecklenburg county (Charlotte)- a mile (that will never happen) away from Uverse or Time Warner in the other direction on a local cable company (leftover Adelphia) that is losing money in big buckets.

They do offer 60/10 for over $100 a month but I'm happy with 15/5 for $85. Well, not really happy!


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

fleckrj said:


> I do not think that is likely to happen or else the Big 10 would be undermining all of the TV providers who are paying them big money to carry the network. My guess is that the current contracts with the providers have some sort of a clause that would protect their exclusivity to the network. If it did happen, when it comes time to renew the contract, the providers will want a lower cost.


The same was probably once said about HBO and Showtime. Time will tell.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> I agree, everyone who wishes for streaming as a way to lower their cost for TV is ignoring the fact that those benefiting from the status quo are not going to take a pay cut willingly. Simply changing the delivery model isn't going to do that. Yes, maybe eventually you can cut out the middleman like Directv or Comcast if you stream directly from the networks, but they're going to look at that as an opportunity to keep more for themselves, rather than giving the viewer a price cut.
> 
> A lot of cord cutters are able to do it only because they're getting away with stuff like sharing the streaming login/password of a friend or relative who has a subscription to a provider like Directv. When they start locking those subscriptions to particular devices that have to maintain an association with the device providing the TV service (there are plenty of patents for this already, it is coming) that game will be over.


Of course those benefiting from the status quo won't change willingly - but they must needs change or lose relevance. The American auto industry learned this lesson. Disruptive industry changes drive many things, including pricing model changes. Existing industries will be forced to adapt or lose relevance. Netflix has become such a disruptive change, moving from a simple DVD rental by mail service to developing and delivering compelling, award winning programming coupled with a large variety of previously available content - for $8.99/month. It fundamentally comes down to what content a consumer desires and what they (the market) will pay for it. Anything I have never seen is "new" content to me - be it from today, last month, last year, or 1975. I do not feel compelled to necessarily be viewing the latest programming to be viewing something "new" (I may be in the minority, I understand). I'm also willing to sit through commercials to enjoy free content (Crackle, TubiTV). It has admittedly forced me to rediscover my commercial coping mechanisms  My daughter is not a sports fan and will likely never pay for more than Netflix and perhaps Hulu. These are the realities that the industry must adapt to.

BTW - there is no illegal user id sharing being done within or by my household although I recognize the validity of your point.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

Tubaman-Z said:


> The same was probably once said about HBO and Showtime. Time will tell.


The difference is HBO and Showtime are a la carte everywhere. Big 10 is not. When the Big 10 contacts are up for renewal, if they go a la cart, then they can offer a streaming version. If it remains as part of a base package, then it most likely cannot compete with a streaming version.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dennisj00 said:


> Y, after that post I realized that NorthState was the CLEC or traditional telephone provider in the HighPoint / Jamestown area.


ILEC Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier - Original telephone company for that area.
CLEC Competitive Local Exchange Carrier - Competition for the ILEC ... either reselling ILEC lines at a discount, providing their own service over ILEC lines or (less often) installing their own lines to serve customers.
LEC Local Exchange Carrier - Any phone company serving the local exchange.
(There are variations - but that is the basic categories.)


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Personnly I'd have to save a "lot" for the hastle of managing a whole bunch of sources for my TV entertainment trying to remember what is where, having no one GUIDE that would tell me what is on and with the press of 1 button to be able to record etc. That plus maintining multiple accounts, etc.
The current model using DirecTV, etc. would be so much easier...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Tubaman-Z said:


> Of course those benefiting from the status quo won't change willingly - but they must needs change or lose relevance. The American auto industry learned this lesson. Disruptive industry changes drive many things, including pricing model changes. Existing industries will be forced to adapt or lose relevance. Netflix has become such a disruptive change, moving from a simple DVD rental by mail service to developing and delivering compelling, award winning programming coupled with a large variety of previously available content - for $8.99/month. It fundamentally comes down to what content a consumer desires and what they (the market) will pay for it. Anything I have never seen is "new" content to me - be it from today, last month, last year, or 1975. I do not feel compelled to necessarily be viewing the latest programming to be viewing something "new" (I may be in the minority, I understand). I'm also willing to sit through commercials to enjoy free content (Crackle, TubiTV). It has admittedly forced me to rediscover my commercial coping mechanisms  My daughter is not a sports fan and will likely never pay for more than Netflix and perhaps Hulu. These are the realities that the industry must adapt to.
> 
> BTW - there is no illegal user id sharing being done within or by my household although I recognize the validity of your point.


The auto industry changed because new competition entered that was able to produce higher quality products that cost less. That's not what is happening with TV, only the delivery method is changing. It is the same sports leagues, same networks, same actors, there is no higher quality or lower cost of production because it is streamed. It is more like the difference between buying a car via old school haggling local dealer versus internet shopping all dealers nationwide for the best price.

Your point about new content versus "new to you" content is well taken though. The only thing where "new" really matters is sports, outside of that there's no reason to prefer movies made in the last year versus movies made 20 or 50 years ago, ditto for dramas/sitcoms. A newly produced sitcom not only has to beat other sitcoms, reality shows, etc. on other networks to get people to watch, but also Gilligan's Island and Seinfeld. Eventually that will lead to less and less new content being made as there are fewer shows that can turn a profit. We're already seeing the effect in all the reality shows and gameshow like stuff like Dancing with the Stars that are cheap to make.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CTJon said:


> Personnly I'd have to save a "lot" for the hastle of managing a whole bunch of sources for my TV entertainment trying to remember what is where, having no one GUIDE that would tell me what is on and with the press of 1 button to be able to record etc. That plus maintining multiple accounts, etc.
> The current model using DirecTV, etc. would be so much easier...


It's really not as complicated as you think. Yeah, there's a little bit of a learning curve with each device or app, but once you get thru that it's pretty easy.

Rich


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Rich said:


> It's really not as complicated as you think. Yeah, there's a little bit of a learning curve with each device or app, but once you get thru that it's pretty easy.
> 
> Rich


And with Roku's cross-source search (not all sources, but several) it is becoming easier to find what you're looking for across multiple streaming sources.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

CTJon said:


> Personnly I'd have to save a "lot" for the hastle of managing a whole bunch of sources for my TV entertainment trying to remember what is where, having no one GUIDE that would tell me what is on and with the press of 1 button to be able to record etc. That plus maintining multiple accounts, etc.
> The current model using DirecTV, etc. would be so much easier...


I'm with you. I'm not in favor of having to remember several sets of conventions for control, deciding what services I need to subscribe to, coping with multiple bills. This is just not I want from TV -- my life is complicated enough already. My TV is not near the center of my life -- it's just an appliance. I don't want to cope with details.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Rich, I'm with CTJon. While there is a small learning curve, I find it a hassle to find content on 20 Roku channels, 10 OTA channels, 250ish DIRECTV channels, youtube, vimeo, 3 DVRs, etc. Oh, I can find content. But finding the content I'm seeking takes too much time flipping inputs, switching channels, looking at guides/guides/guides, multiple searches with really bad remote control interfaces, etc.

And then describe all this to Wife, grandkids, great grandkids, etc. "Just grab the DIRECTV remote, hit the TV input button, then the switch/AVR remote, hit the input button, then grab the Roku remote, hit the home button, select search, but then you might have to try the channel directly, no we don't get vudu but we do get hulu free, sorry, not the hulu premium, and if you don't find it there try DIRECTV search on the other DVR, more input switching, give up exhausted."

Yes, grandkids and great grandkids can learn this stuff faster--but they don't come often enough to learn how it is setup in the first place...

Yes, there are remotes that can help. Since they cost more than a genie receiver itself, I don't see the value proposition...

So breaking up DIRECTV to individual content libraries doesn't work very well for me. Hey, I love my Roku. So I want it seamlessly built into my content device. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Tubaman-Z said:


> And with Roku's cross-source search (not all sources, but several) it is becoming easier to find what you're looking for across multiple streaming sources.


The cross source search is a big help. But still a lousy remote control interface to use it.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> The cross source search is a big help. But still a lousy remote control interface to use it.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


I've moved almost entirely to controlling my Rokus via iPhone/Android apps - where I have a keyboard. But yeah, in general you're right - still a ways to go.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Rich, I'm with CTJon. While there is a small learning curve, I find it a hassle to find content on 20 Roku channels, 10 OTA channels, 250ish DIRECTV channels, youtube, vimeo, 3 DVRs, etc. Oh, I can find content. But finding the content I'm seeking takes too much time flipping inputs, switching channels, looking at guides/guides/guides, multiple searches with really bad remote control interfaces, etc.
> 
> And then describe all this to Wife, grandkids, great grandkids, etc. "Just grab the DIRECTV remote, hit the TV input button, then the switch/AVR remote, hit the input button, then grab the Roku remote, hit the home button, select search, but then you might have to try the channel directly, no we don't get vudu but we do get hulu free, sorry, not the hulu premium, and if you don't find it there try DIRECTV search on the other DVR, more input switching, give up exhausted."
> 
> ...


For a step in the content consolidation direction (at least the viewing aspect), try a Roku TV. Coupled with a Harmony 650 ($80) you'd have a pretty good solution. Still lacking in cross-content search as it would not search across D*. In my case searching for streaming content is a mixed blessing. I often find content I was otherwise unaware of that I enjoy. Kind of like the old channel surfing days. Great that I find the new content but a problem in that I add more stuff to my backlog of stuff that I don't have time to watch.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I'm with Tom on this one. While we have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Apple TV - No Roku - I consider those as 'extraneous' to Directv and the DVRs. Switch inputs, grab a different remote, do the hokey-pokey and maybe you find what you can watch.

And there's only 2 of us, but I do have to 'teach' the mother-in-law while she house sits for a week or so. I'm only teaching Directv and she understands that.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I have a Tivo Roamio Plus with cable these days. One of the best things about it is for all the streamers I subscribe to that it has, all searches can be made to those streaming services. IOW, it just appears similar to the playlists on D* and E* DVRs with an icon beside the title of the episode/show indicating it is a streamer. Handy as can be, but of course many streaming places aren't there.
I have an AppleTV which I seldom use these days since it is just so convenient to not switch around between devices.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> <snip>It is the same sports leagues, same networks, same actors, there is no higher quality or lower cost of production because it is streamed.</snip>


Yes and no. I would argue that Netflix is a new network as are Crackle and TubiTV (think of these last 2 as the "MeTV"s of the internet). Admittedly only Netflix has "new" content - but then we're back to the value of "new". These "networks" become the new competition. They may not be delivering higher quality (eye of the beholder compared to established network offerings) but if they can deliver a comparable product at a lower cost, that can be a compelling marketing argument. It will be interesting to see what happens as a new generation grows up which has drastically different expectations. We quickly went from time-driven OTA content funded by ads (my mom) to paid cable/satellite (me) which you pay for and still get ads to time-shifted/non-linear (VCR/DVR) viewing to a generation that wants non-linear anywhere access and doesn't want to both pay for the content and see ads. I fear you're correct re: the rise of semi-reality TV and shows like DWTS.

I get your point on my flawed auto industry analogy, fair comments.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> I'm with Tom on this one. While we have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Apple TV - No Roku - I consider those as 'extraneous' to Directv and the DVRs. Switch inputs, grab a different remote, do the hokey-pokey and maybe you find what you can watch.
> 
> And there's only 2 of us, but I do have to 'teach' the mother-in-law while she house sits for a week or so. I'm only teaching Directv and she understands that.


The inlaws gave up trying to figure out my remote, which is funny because it's just a simple Harmony, something like a 620, but when I go to their house there are 2-3 remotes to deal with.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> I'm with Tom on this one. While we have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Apple TV - No Roku - I consider those as 'extraneous' to Directv and the DVRs. Switch inputs, grab a different remote, do the hokey-pokey and maybe you find what you can watch.
> 
> And there's only 2 of us, but I do have to 'teach' the mother-in-law while she house sits for a week or so. I'm only teaching Directv and she understands that.


I completely understand and am glad that we each have a choice in this. If I sound like I'm trying to convince anyone that my way is the "right" way, that was not my intention. I'm merely sharing what works for me as another option. For example I have a Harmony 670 remote and with it it's one button push to "Watch DirecTV", "Watch Roku", "Watch DVD", etc. Admittedly my step-father gets it better than my mom.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Tubaman-Z said:


> I've moved almost entirely to controlling my Rokus via iPhone/Android apps - where I have a keyboard. But yeah, in general you're right - still a ways to go.


I'd be happier if Roku's windows app could be used on the desktop. Who in the world though the same UI could be used on phones with 800x600 resolution and 43" monitors at 3840x2160 was on some really bad crack... (And had no clue how the work environment might require 5 apps open simultaneously to get the job done. Maybe Windows 10...)

Sorry for the rant. You're being helpful and here I am ranting about something tangential to your help.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

CTJon said:


> Personnly I'd have to save a "lot" for the hastle of managing a whole bunch of sources for my TV entertainment trying to remember what is where, having no one GUIDE that would tell me what is on and with the press of 1 button to be able to record etc. That plus maintining multiple accounts, etc.
> The current model using DirecTV, etc. would be so much easier...


The only way it saves you a lot is if you use Netflix streaming and especially discs and get a lot of series on disc that aren't available on Netflix via streaming. Otherwise you are piling up all kinds of different services... As you point out.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Tubaman-Z said:


> For a step in the content consolidation direction (at least the viewing aspect), try a Roku TV. Coupled with a Harmony 650 ($80) you'd have a pretty good solution. Still lacking in cross-content search as it would not search across D*. In my case searching for streaming content is a mixed blessing. I often find content I was otherwise unaware of that I enjoy. Kind of like the old channel surfing days. Great that I find the new content but a problem in that I add more stuff to my backlog of stuff that I don't have time to watch.


Thanks for the thoughts. I have considered Roku TV and will give it much more thought in the next purchase cycle. 

I'll also look at the Harmony 650. That price point is still too high (I remember some nice macro/learning remotes in the $20-$30 range from Radio Shack and Walmart) yet it might be acceptable. 

Thanks again,
Tom


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> I'd be happier if Roku's windows app could be used on the desktop. Who in the world though the same UI could be used on phones with 800x600 resolution and 43" monitors at 3840x2160 was on some really bad crack... (And had no clue how the work environment might require 5 apps open simultaneously to get the job done. Maybe Windows 10...)
> 
> Sorry for the rant. You're being helpful and here I am ranting about something tangential to your help.
> 
> ...


I haven't used the Roku Windows app so I can't comment. Looking at it just now it seems that (1) it requires Windows 8.1. I'm running 7 so won't be able to try it and (2) it's not a Roku produced app. It's from "TreeTen". Admittedly if Roku is going to allow their name on this they should have exercised more quality control.

As for who thought such an app was portable across different screen sizes, it's likely the same people who haven't created mobile versions of their websites. Go there and scroll.....and scroll....and scroll...left..right...left....right... 

As for your ranting, I can tolerate that better than your avatar. Go Bears!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Tubaman-Z said:


> I haven't used the Roku Windows app so I can't comment. Looking at it just now it seems that (1) it requires Windows 8.1. I'm running 7 so won't be able to try it and (2) it's not a Roku produced app. It's from "TreeTen". Admittedly if Roku is going to allow their name on this they should have exercised more quality control.
> 
> As for who thought such an app was portable across different screen sizes, it's likely the same people who haven't created mobile versions of their websites. Go there and scroll.....and scroll....and scroll...left..right...left....right...
> 
> As for your ranting, I can tolerate that better than your avatar. Go Bears!


 !rolling Thanks for the laugh! 

How about this thought: May the bears lose only three games this season--all to the Packers (as they then win SuperBowl L) 

Aha on the Roku app. Might have known that at one point. Love your comparison to websites. Spot on.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> <snip>I'll also look at the Harmony 650. That price point is still too high (I remember some nice macro/learning remotes in the $20-$30 range from Radio Shack and Walmart) yet it might be acceptable. </snip>


The Harmony 350 ($50) may suffice. It is effectively the same remote as the 650 without the LCD screen and it's configurable buttons, interactive help, and backlit controls. I really like the screen/configurable buttons on my 670 (I can make very obvious several functions that would otherwise be non-obvious) but the interactive help is meh and the backlit controls are only rarely important. If/when you get to the point of looking at a new remote and have questions about the Harmonys I would be happy to share my experience with mine.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> I'd be happier if Roku's windows app could be used on the desktop. Who in the world though the same UI could be used on phones with 800x600 resolution and 43" monitors at 3840x2160 was on some really bad crack... (And had no clue how the work environment might require 5 apps open simultaneously to get the job done. Maybe Windows 10...)
> 
> Sorry for the rant. You're being helpful and here I am ranting about something tangential to your help.
> 
> ...


I use this via a browser and it works great - http://help.remoku.tv/


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Remotes are also a big deal. I had Sony Tivos and loved the remote for many SD years. Hated the Tivo peanut.

RC6x remotes are great for me. Works fine in the dark. RC71 not so much. I hate it.

Apple remote, love it for it's minimal approach. Barely use it.

TV / AVR remotes. . . use them but so infrequently never learn the buttons / functions. Have to look at them.

And when friends hand me their TimeWarner remote, I freeze!


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> I use this via a browser and it works great - http://help.remoku.tv/


Quite slick! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

raott said:


> You are assuming those are incremental costs to the cord cutter. Likely, Netflix at the very least, is not (ie they already subscribe to it) and HBO is a wash. If they want HBO, they likely already subscribe to it through the service provider. Cord cutters likely aren't your families anyway, they are younger, single and likely staying single far longer than you and I.
> 
> Cord cutting is real. I know many in the industry try to pretend its not, but all one has to do is look at the overall pay tv market to see that it is.


I'm going to say that cutting the cord is only "real" because people survive off using other people's logins. Generally kids (age not relevant) using their parents logins for service the parents pay for. As things progress there will be pros and cons like always. However the big "pro" is usually people saying it's cheaper because it's either being gotten illegally or because someone else is paying for it. When companies start to crack down on that, as they're showing signs of doing, then you're going to see less of this movement.

The pay tv market is very aware of a shift in viewing habits and is addressing that as you see almost every contract now includes streaming rights. Don't confuse how it's being consumed with why it's being consumed. The only thing stopping MMVPD's from offering the same packages as online packages are deals with content creator's. In 2-3 years you'll see these "online offers" expand and go up in cost until they become the same offerings that are offered to set top customer's.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tubaman-Z said:


> And with Roku's cross-source search (not all sources, but several) it is becoming easier to find what you're looking for across multiple streaming sources.


I use Fire TV boxes and their voice search was limited to only Amazon content. They seem to be fixing that.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tubaman-Z said:


> I've moved almost entirely to controlling my Rokus via iPhone/Android apps - where I have a keyboard. But yeah, in general you're right - still a ways to go.


I've bought so many Rokus over the years that I've lost count. I still find old units in odd places. I've really tried to like them, but my router has had problems with them and the last one I bought, the Roku 3 wanted me to sign in each time I used it. That one went right back to Amazon.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> The inlaws gave up trying to figure out my remote, which is funny because it's just a simple Harmony, something like a 620, but when I go to their house there are 2-3 remotes to deal with.


I don't really mind remote clutter. I've been time shifting for so long it seems natural to have multiple remotes in each room.

Rich


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Rich said:


> I don't really mind remote clutter. I've been time shifting for so long it seems natural to have multiple remotes in each room.
> 
> Rich


Sure, but it's confusing when it's not your system. I just find it funny that they think it's easier to use three remotes to watch TV instead of press Watch TV on mine. They probably could streamline theirs even with their remotes, but there are times where I know not to go messing with things.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Thanks for the thoughts. I have considered Roku TV and will give it much more thought in the next purchase cycle.
> 
> I'll also look at the Harmony 650. That price point is still too high (I remember some nice macro/learning remotes in the $20-$30 range from Radio Shack and Walmart) yet it might be acceptable.
> 
> ...


I've tried some of the cheaper learning remotes. Not worth the money. The Harmony 650 refurbished can be had on Amazon for fifty bucks. I'd buy that one before a lesser known brand. Here's the _*link*_.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Sure, but it's confusing when it's not your system. I just find it funny that they think it's easier to use three remotes to watch TV instead of press Watch TV on mine. They probably could streamline theirs even with their remotes, but there are times where I know not to go messing with things.


I've got so many HRs, BD players, streamers and TVs (9 now) that if I bought one and it was liked by the family, I'd be buying several. And I know there's a learning curve, and I'm sooooo lazy...it's just too much to even contemplate.

Rich


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> I use this via a browser and it works great - http://help.remoku.tv/


Installed the chrome extension on my PC. I likie! 

Which could lead to an explosion of chrome buttons in my address bar. Hmmm.... 

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

Tubaman-Z said:


> We quickly went from time-driven OTA content funded by ads (my mom) to paid cable/satellite (me) which you pay for and still get ads to time-shifted/non-linear (VCR/DVR) viewing to a generation that wants non-linear anywhere access and doesn't want to both pay for the content and see ads. I fear you're correct re: the rise of semi-reality TV and shows like DWTS.


And also another thing you don't tend to think much of that we already see a ton of - on screen product placements. I can think back to the pilot episode for "Smallville" which featured Clark Kent opening his fridge which had a long paused shot of a bunch of cans of Pepsi and Mountain Dew. If that's not obvious paid for product placement then what is?

Let alone an season 4 episode of same series that had an entire scene with Clark Kent in a locker room slowly putting on some deodorant (forgot the brand) with the company's logo in clear view nearly the entire time.


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

Tom Robertson said:


> Thanks for the thoughts. I have considered Roku TV and will give it much more thought in the next purchase cycle.
> 
> I'll also look at the Harmony 650. That price point is still too high (I remember some nice macro/learning remotes in the $20-$30 range from Radio Shack and Walmart) yet it might be acceptable.


If you shop around well enough you can find the Harmony 650 within the $50-60 range on eBay and Amazon. I just replaced my aging Harmony 880 that's nearly a decade old and so far the Harmony 650 in many ways is a huge upgrade over the Harmony 880. Namely the 650 d-pad has softer keys compared to the 880 hard plastic d-pad. Not to mention having the red, blue, yellow, and green buttons which is nice for some of the functions those buttons are used for on DirecTV. The only thing I will say the 880 has better is having two more buttons for us with the remote's screen and a rechargeable battery. But to be fair since I'm now using Eneloop rechargeable batteries with my 650 that's become a null point at best to me.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

Rich said:


> I've bought so many Rokus over the years that I've lost count. I still find old units in odd places. I've really tried to like them, but my router has had problems with them and the last one I bought, the Roku 3 wanted me to sign in each time I used it. That one went right back to Amazon.
> 
> Rich


Rich, I've got 4 Rokus in my household (1 is a Roku 3) and I've...placed 3 more into good homes.  None that I'm aware of have had the router problems you've described. Definitely something strange going on.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

AngryManMLS said:


> And also another thing you don't tend to think much of that we already see a ton of - on screen product placements. I can think back to the pilot episode for "Smallville" which featured Clark Kent opening his fridge which had a long paused shot of a bunch of cans of Pepsi and Mountain Dew. If that's not obvious paid for product placement then what is?
> 
> Let alone an season 4 episode of same series that had an entire scene with Clark Kent in a locker room slowly putting on some deodorant (forgot the brand) with the company's logo in clear view nearly the entire time.


Great point - I've seen shows (Warehouse 13 comes to mind) that are so obviously car ads. "Hey have you checked out this car's Entunes™ system? It's got Bing and Pandora&#8230;" That was really painful. But again, if that would pay for the show so I don't have to, great.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hawaii Five-O did a long commercial for Subway during an episode. There are also a lot of glamor shots of the cars in car chases on Hawaii Five-O ... it seems they have car car chases just to demonstrate the vehicles. The old TV series "Chuck" also mentioned Subway enough to be obnoxious. Nothing new ... but "promotional consideration" should be more clearly announced. And NOT alter the storyline.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> Hawaii Five-O did a long commercial for Subway during an episode. There are also a lot of glamor shots of the cars in car chases on Hawaii Five-O ... it seems they have car car chases just to demonstrate the vehicles. The old TV series "Chuck" also mentioned Subway enough to be obnoxious. Nothing new ... but "promotional consideration" should be more clearly announced. And NOT alter the storyline.


Exactly. There is a balance between having the characters exist in a real world and the real world advertising needs impact the characters, the story, the flow.

The art is in integrating product placements in ways that feel natural, add to the character development, or otherwise punctuate the dialog. "Got any Beemans?" "Everybody who reads comic books knows that the Kirby Silver Surfer is the only true Silver Surfer." 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

James Long said:


> Hawaii Five-O did a long commercial for Subway during an episode. There are also a lot of glamor shots of the cars in car chases on Hawaii Five-O ... it seems they have car car chases just to demonstrate the vehicles. The old TV series "Chuck" also mentioned Subway enough to be obnoxious. Nothing new ... but "promotional consideration" should be more clearly announced. And NOT alter the storyline.


I gave Chuck a bit of a pass for that as it was clear that if it weren't for Subway, the series would have been cancelled. The Pawn Stars doing Skype, or the type of thing that was done on Warehouse 13 or Bones was really bad.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Tubaman-Z said:


> Yes and no. I would argue that Netflix is a new network as are Crackle and TubiTV (think of these last 2 as the "MeTV"s of the internet). Admittedly only Netflix has "new" content - but then we're back to the value of "new".


Well yes Netflix has new content, but their new content is more of the same. House of Cards uses expensive stars, has high production values, etc. so it is basically a network program that is on a new "network". This makes Netflix a more attractive subscription, but it doesn't change the game in terms of allowing lower cost production of content where the savings can be passed onto the viewer. Kevin Spacey isn't getting paid less because House of Cards is on Netflix rather than CBS, AMC or HBO, nor is anyone else associated with the production.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Tubaman-Z said:


> Great point - I've seen shows (Warehouse 13 comes to mind) that are so obviously car ads. "Hey have you checked out this car's Entunes™ system? It's got Bing and Pandora&#8230;" That was really painful. But again, if that would pay for the show so I don't have to, great.


I don't mind product placement in terms of seeing the Pepsi logo, the Dell logo, the Mercedes logo, etc. But man that crap with Warehouse 13 was painful to see, you are absolutely right. If I was watching a new show and that happened, I'd quit watching right then and never get engaged. I guess that's why they waited until the last season to do those blatant car ads.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Tubaman-Z said:


> Rich, I've got 4 Rokus in my household (1 is a Roku 3) and I've...placed 3 more into good homes.  None that I'm aware of have had the router problems you've described. Definitely something strange going on.


I don't know how many of my posts you've read, but I have no luck at all. If one thing is gonna happen to one person on this site, it's probably gonna be me. I really doubt it's the router, I have no other problems with it and my Fire TV boxes run well on it. I'm waiting to see if the Fire boxes get HBO NOW. I bought 3 Fire TV boxes and immediately had problems with the batteries on the remotes going dead in a week or less. I posted about it, was gonna send all 3 of them back, but I was assured by some members that their batteries were lasting so I stuck with the Fire boxes. No more problems with the batteries. It was like a test of my patience.

I just read a post by a member that has a 10 year old HR20-100. I've had every model of HRs ending in 100 and none of them worked except for the 24-100s. I don't know how many of those other 100s I had, but it was a lot. And here is someone posting about a 20-100 that he's been using for 10 years...my God how does this happen?

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> I don't know how many of my posts you've read, but I have no luck at all. If one thing is gonna happen to one person on this site, it's probably gonna be me. I really doubt it's the router, I have no other problems with it and my Fire TV boxes run well on it. I'm waiting to see if the Fire boxes get HBO NOW. I bought 3 Fire TV boxes and immediately had problems with the batteries on the remotes going dead in a week or less. I posted about it, was gonna send all 3 of them back, but I was assured by some members that their batteries were lasting so I stuck with the Fire boxes. No more problems with the batteries. It was like a test of my patience.


Did they ship with batteries? Maybe they save a few pennies by using ultra cheap batteries that can only last a short time.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Did they ship with batteries? Maybe they save a few pennies by using ultra cheap batteries that can only last a short time.


Yeah, those quit after a couple days. I put new Duracells in them and they didn't last long either. Then they stopped toying with me and I haven't had to change a battery in the remotes since. It's really like they're playing with me just to see how long I'll hold onto them. Sounds a bit like thinking dogs think like people, which I think they do. Now I'm adding sentience to devices...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> I don't mind product placement in terms of seeing the Pepsi logo, the Dell logo, the Mercedes logo, etc. But man that crap with Warehouse 13 was painful to see, you are absolutely right. If I was watching a new show and that happened, I'd quit watching right then and never get engaged. I guess that's why they waited until the last season to do those blatant car ads.


I'd rather see product placement regarding cars than cars with their logos removed.

Rich


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

James Long said:


> Hawaii Five-O did a long commercial for Subway during an episode.


My favorite was when Chevy was promoting the redesigned Camaro while the main characters on the show were still driving the previous year's version. Predictably, the they got into an accident with the Camaro (the other guys fault, of course) and the character upgraded to the new model.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bill Broderick said:


> My favorite was when Chevy was promoting the redesigned Camaro while the main characters on the show were still driving the previous year's version. Predictably, the they got into an accident with the Camaro (the other guys fault, of course) and the character upgraded to the new model.


Was it simple, like "oh hey I see you upgraded to the new model since your old one was totalled" or was it painful to watch like "check out my 2015 Camaro, it has <insert lengthy list of features and specs as they zoom in on them for no reason>" and maybe add something about being able to get the new one to replace his old car because of his great insurance coverage and thrown in an insurance ad as a bonus.

I'd _much_ rather see cars with the Audi logo removed or whatever than see crap like that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The car is practically a character in the show ... it gets more screen time than many of the billed actors. Changing cars, just like any other character change, is a major plot point.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Was it simple, like "oh hey I see you upgraded to the new model since your old one was totalled" or was it painful to watch like "check out my 2015 Camaro, it has <insert lengthy list of features and specs as they zoom in on them for no reason>" and maybe add something about being able to get the new one to replace his old car because of his great insurance coverage and thrown in an insurance ad as a bonus.
> 
> I'd _much_ rather see cars with the Audi logo removed or whatever than see crap like that.


It was a combination of the two, but leaning more toward the "simple" one. What was painfully obvious was that, with all of the Camaro "bumpers" ("Hawaii Five-O is brought to you by the new Camaro") in and out of the commercials, you just knew that, by the end of the episode, they were going to be driving that same "new Camaro".


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> I'm going to say that cutting the cord is only "real" because people survive off using other people's logins. Generally kids (age not relevant) using their parents logins for service the parents pay for. As things progress there will be pros and cons like always. However the big "pro" is usually people saying it's cheaper because it's either being gotten illegally or because someone else is paying for it. When companies start to crack down on that, as they're showing signs of doing, then you're going to see less of this movement.


There's a fair amount of truth to this right now. Do a Twitter search of your local pro baseball team on game night, or even a Sunday NFL game. You'll usually get a few results from cord cutters asking "Where can I find a link for (Insert game here)?" Or even better, do a Sunday night search during "Game of Thrones." There are two factions of cord cutters -- those paying for streaming services, and those not paying for anything at all.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

B. Shoe said:


> There's a fair amount of truth to this right now. Do a Twitter search of your local pro baseball team on game night, or even a Sunday NFL game. You'll usually get a few results from cord cutters asking "Where can I find a link for (Insert game here)?" Or even better, do a Sunday night search during "Game of Thrones." There are two factions of cord cutters -- those paying for streaming services, and those not paying for anything at all.


There have always been those 2 camps. The main issue is currently the industry is in a flux and hasn't really needed to deal with the situation because it hasn't been a huge impact to profits yet. Cable companies lose video subs but gain internet which makes them more money. DBS/Telco as an industry haven't started to lose customer's like cable has which just indicates a shift of where people are paying. DIRECTV for example doesn't have any system in place, yet, for family logins online. So it's just assumed that people are going to share logins to use service because that's the only option. No one is going to enforce this in their house because it doesn't make sense. Then you have those who help out a friend because what's the difference if a family of 4 uses a login or I'm single and give it to a roommate, partner, or friends to help them out? Without guidelines it's just going to be based on the person's comfort level of sharing a login. The illegal part will always be there. What won't always be there is the undefined rules of account login sharing and amount of users online at once. HBO/MAX state you can use the same login for up to 3 people. I've had more than 3 people using the same login at the same time and nothing happens. It's not worth it for them to enforce it at the moment. It's also not defined if that's for HBO GO or their new service. Until it starts impacting the bottom line of someone it won't really become an issue as it will be unpopular and MMVPD's aren't going to do more to push people away. It's the Netflix and Hulu's that will really have to start stopping this first as they increase costs to compete.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Not sure about Hulu, but Netflix does put a cap on simultaneous streams based on your plan. They let you create multiple profiles so people can have their own queues, but if they reach the cap on your plan, you can't watch until someone else stops watching. It really would have an impact the first weekend the new seasons of shows like House of Cards or Orange is the New Black come out and all of your friends try to bingewatch at the same time.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

KyL416 said:


> Not sure about Hulu, but Netflix does put a cap on simultaneous streams based on your plan.


From post #11

Hulu $7.99 only one simultaneous stream allowed

Netflix $7.99 one screen on SD
$8.99 two screens plus HD
$11.99 4 screens plus HD

HBONow $14.99 There is a limit but is not disclosed. Sold as a "family" plan


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Netflix - $11.99 4 screens plus HD and 4k.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

On my Hulu and Netflix accounts I'm able to have 4 different devices watching on those apps at the same time for $7.99 a month and in HD to


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> On my Hulu and Netflix accounts I'm able to have 4 different devices watching on those apps at the same time for $7.99 a month and in HD to


Can each of the four watch something different, or is it four devices watching the same thing simultaneously.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

They can watch different shows on those apps at the same time


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

fleckrj said:


> Can each of the four watch something different, or is it four devices watching the same thing simultaneously.


I have streamed the same content from NF using two different streamers. Not easy to do, but you can do it...or could do it, have only done it that one time to compare NF's PQ on my BD players and Fire TV boxes. Same room, same TV, no difference that I could see in PQ.

Rich


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Yes there are caps for at one time but the people who aren't paying for it really don't get bothered if they have to wait. Steam has family share and my kids all have my games library on their computers. Since I purchase the majority of the games they just use mine. However Steam doesn't allow anyone to play any game in my library if I'm on. They don't get upset they just wait until I'm not around. It's the same thing with these services. Again right now it's really not hurting their bottom line so it's not a huge priority. Netflix had to make changes because they're starting to spend a lot of money for original content and they're going to have to start competing with Hulu/networks for syndication agreements. I think it's just a matter of time before we see a major show not get syndicated to the typical USA/TNT channel but to Netflix or Hulu. When things like this happen then they'll have to start taking other measures to protect the bottom line. All it will take is a simple dual authentication system to stop the majority of sharing.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> Yes there are caps for at one time but the people who aren't paying for it really don't get bothered if they have to wait. Steam has family share and my kids all have my games library on their computers. Since I purchase the majority of the games they just use mine. However Steam doesn't allow anyone to play any game in my library if I'm on. They don't get upset they just wait until I'm not around. It's the same thing with these services. Again right now it's really not hurting their bottom line so it's not a huge priority. Netflix had to make changes because they're starting to spend a lot of money for original content and they're going to have to start competing with Hulu/networks for syndication agreements. I think it's just a matter of time before we see a major show not get syndicated to the typical USA/TNT channel but to Netflix or Hulu. When things like this happen then they'll have to start taking other measures to protect the bottom line. All it will take is a simple dual authentication system to stop the majority of sharing.


Well, I've been waiting for the commercials to appear on NF and Amazon and they're there now at the beginning of programs. Just the first step I think. It's been so good, no commercials, I knew it wouldn't last.

Rich


----------



## 7thton (Mar 16, 2005)

I find it a bit rude to assume that most "cord cutters" are leaching off of someone else's log-ins.

Most people I know are not like most people on these boards. Many people here have 3 + TVs in their home and have a very particular need for certain programing (sports, etc.).

Most people I know in real life have one or two TVs and use laptops and iPads as a supplement. These people can get by quite easily with streaming services.

Netflix, Hulu+, HBO Now, and Sling TV make a very attractive combination. And it costs about 50 dollars a month. No contracts and it is easy to cancel service at any time. In addition, most people have a Netflix subscription anyway, so it is not really an "added" cost. So, realistically, the cost per month could be looked at as closer to 40 dollars per month.

I myself have used the above mentioned combination for the past few months before resubbing to Directv. The only thing I missed from the above mentioned combo was a DVR functionality for the Sling TV service. If it had that, I may not have gone back to Directv.

Interesting sidenote: although I am back with Directv, I sub to the lowest TV package available. I get no sports. Part of what made going back to Directv attractive was that package, as I'm not paying for 100s of channels I'll never watch.



Shades228 said:


> I'm going to say that cutting the cord is only "real" because people survive off using other people's logins. Generally kids (age not relevant) using their parents logins for service the parents pay for. As things progress there will be pros and cons like always. However the big "pro" is usually people saying it's cheaper because it's either being gotten illegally or because someone else is paying for it. When companies start to crack down on that, as they're showing signs of doing, then you're going to see less of this movement.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 16, 2005)

fleckrj said:


> Can each of the four watch something different, or is it four devices watching the same thing simultaneously.


Different films/shows.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 16, 2005)

You are partly correct. Netflix airs some advertisements for *their own* content (e.g.: House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, etc.) prior to or after certain content. They have publicly stated that they are not currently interested in airing any other sort of ad.

BTW, HBO GO/NOW does the same thing.



Rich said:


> Well, I've been waiting for the commercials to appear on NF and Amazon and they're there now at the beginning of programs. Just the first step I think. It's been so good, no commercials, I knew it wouldn't last.
> 
> Rich


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

7thton said:


> I find it a bit rude to assume that most "cord cutters" are leaching off of someone else's log-ins.
> 
> Most people I know are not like most people on these boards. Many people here have 3 + TVs in their home and have a very particular need for certain programing (sports, etc.).
> 
> ...


Not sure why you find it rude, but it's still a fact. Everything is an added cost when talking about costs of entertainment. I'm not sure why you need to defend your views on what gives you good service as that wasn't the argument that was made. My point is very simple. If two factor authentication was made mandatory for these services you would see a huge decline in their use. Everyone knows this which is why it doesn't exist yet. Some day it will exist when they determine they will gain more customer's by adding it than doing another pay increase. DIRECTV operated in the red for years to build it's brand. This is their version of that as they stated in in their last quarterly earnings report that they don't expect material global profits until 2017.

You may want to use the MultiQuote button as it is easier to use.


----------



## Captain Spaulding (Jul 12, 2005)

I've begun a very gradual cutting of the cord, substituting streaming when its practical for me. For example, I called DirecTV a few days ago to cancel HBO. I do that occasionally when there aren't any HBO series running that I'm interested in. Later in the year, I will most likely resubscribe to HBO, but through the new HBO Now app rather than through DirecTV. It will be worth it to me not to have to waste time on the phone every time I want to cancel HBO for a while!

I can only assume that DirecTV is nervous about the HBO and upcoming Showtime streaming apps that do not require a satellite or cable subscription. After I said goodbye to the rep on the phone and was ready to hang up, he quickly told me to wait a minute because he could save me some more money by cutting my Showtime price in half for six months. Again, this was initiated by the rep, not me.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I obviously "live" in a different world - I know people who had netflix but dropped it - I actually don't think I know anyone currently has a netflx subscription.

My issue with all these are how do you really know what you want to watch until you look at a schedule and see what you want or look a few days ahead and think there is something and I set it to record.
I don't want to look at multiple schedules to determine what I want to watch and when. I have no issue paying somewhat more for the convenience I get from Directv.
Also, as I read in the press the unlimited download ability from ISP's will soon be gone. ISP's cost and charges will be going up if entertainment shifts to intenet only. On an individual basis sat feeds are cheeper bandwidth than internet to your house.
TIme will tell - I think there is room for both and will be plenty of users of both ways.

Apple seems to think that they will have a totally new way of TV - they have certainlhy changed the world in the past and I'll be eager to hear what they will come out with to change this industry also


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

If I ever cut the cord is probably go with just Netflix as if you do streaming and Dvd I think you can get just about everything. Maybe Amazon if they have a lot of what Netflix will never get but not sure what that would be. 

I'd use something like the futon critic to chose series and then add them to my ques and keep a list of what shows I want to get at some point. That's about the only good way I can think of that I wouldn't go nuts no way id want ten different sources.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I think the Apple television thing has been so over-hyped for so long it can't possibly be anything but a disappointment.

If I had to guess, what Apple wants to do is seamlessly integrate all the different ways you can get TV so the typical person doesn't know or care whether something they are watching is coming from cable/satellite, from antenna, streaming from the internet, streaming from their PC, streaming from their phone, etc. Stuff that is confusing to many like connecting all the difference devices, changing inputs, dealing with multiple remotes and so forth will be eliminated. It isn't going to interest people who frequent this forum because we're all "power users" who don't think these things are overly complicated and hard to deal with - we won't be the target market. I have a feeling Vidipath/CVP-2 is going to be a big part of this, but there is a lot more that would be required like integrating everything into a single simple guide/playlist.


While I think Apple wants to be able to offer a simple streaming platform for people with simpler entertainment needs, I don't that's the centerpiece of this like everyone is assuming. Cable/satellite providers are going to around for a long time, so they're going to want to be able to work with them. Now that the clunky cable card is on its way out, and cable providers have to move to a software only solution, that makes it easier to support. While Apple is probably talking to Dish & Directv to see if they can bring them into the fold, if they refuse Apple will treat them like they treated Verizon at the iPhone launch - just ignore them and wait for them to eventually come crawling if the product is successful and lack of supporting is hurting their revenue. Honestly the cable/satellite providers would be better off if they left the software side of things to companies who actually know what they're doing like Tivo and Apple, rather than inflicting their clunky designed-by-engineers-for-engineers interfaces on the world.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

7thton said:


> Different films/shows.


As I said in an earlier post, I've done two streams of the same show and it worked. It wasn't easy, but I did it.

Rich


----------



## 7thton (Mar 16, 2005)

Shades228 said:


> Not sure why you find it rude, but it's still a fact.


Then I'd like to see some documentation for this "fact".

Please note, I don't deny that this goes on. But to say that it is the main thing that allows cord-cutters to get by seems hyperbolic to me.



CTJon said:


> I obviously "live" in a different world - I know people who had netflix but dropped it - I actually don't think I know anyone currently has a netflx subscription.
> 
> My issue with all these are how do you really know what you want to watch until you look at a schedule and see what you want or look a few days ahead and think there is something and I set it to record.


You need a schedule to find stuff to watch on Netflix? Also, Netflix has ~41 MILLION subscribers in the USA and you don't know any of them?

( http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/04/17/netflix-q1-earnings-the-stock-soars-as-subscriber-numbers-impress/ )



CTJon said:


> Also, as I read in the press the unlimited download ability from ISP's will soon be gone. ISP's cost and charges will be going up if entertainment shifts to intenet only. On an individual basis sat feeds are cheeper bandwidth than internet to your house.


How soon is "soon"?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

7thton said:


> You need a schedule to find stuff to watch on Netflix? Also, Netflix has ~41 MILLION subscribers in the USA and you don't know any of them?


Not necessarily a schedule, but with DIRECTV® usually every night I go through the guide to record the shows that I want to watch (the majority have a season pass). I then when I want to watch TV, press the LIST and depending on the mood select what ever I want to watch. With Netflix I have to "think" what I want to watch and search for it, and what I may want may not be there.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

7thton said:


> Then I'd like to see some documentation for this "fact".
> 
> Please note, I don't deny that this goes on. But to say that it is the main thing that allows cord-cutters to get by seems hyperbolic to me.


http://wtkr.com/2015/02/09/if-youre-using-your-friends-netflix-account-youll-want-to-read-this-one/

http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-and-hulu-sharing-password-numbers-2015-5

Here are some recent news articles. There are industry studies performed by content creators and ad groups which back it up as well however those are not free to public.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> http://wtkr.com/2015/02/09/if-youre-using-your-friends-netflix-account-youll-want-to-read-this-one/





> But for the time being, they appear to be more interested in creating streaming media addicts.


That makes complete sense. Let;s create an environment where folks get hooked on the service then we pass the bill! Wasn't this how illegal narcotics business started????? :rotfl:


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Other than Netflix no one is really making any money off streaming yet, so a little fraud in the system isn't worth worrying about. Once they have sufficient volumes to really make it profitable, and investors are watching the actual profit rather than valuing based on ridiculous pie in the sky future growth projections (see Netflix for a great example of that) then they'll have an incentive to invest the money required to lock things down.

Waiting to see what form things take technology-wise also insures they don't waste money developing a solution that won't work for the way the streaming market has evolved by 2020.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> I think the Apple television thing has been so over-hyped for so long it can't possibly be anything but a disappointment.
> 
> If I had to guess, what Apple wants to do is seamlessly integrate all the different ways you can get TV so the typical person doesn't know or care whether something they are watching is coming from cable/satellite, from antenna, streaming from the internet, streaming from their PC, streaming from their phone, etc. Stuff that is confusing to many like connecting all the difference devices, changing inputs, dealing with multiple remotes and so forth will be eliminated. It isn't going to interest people who frequent this forum because we're all "power users" who don't think these things are overly complicated and hard to deal with - we won't be the target market. I have a feeling Vidipath/CVP-2 is going to be a big part of this, but there is a lot more that would be required like integrating everything into a single simple guide/playlist.
> 
> While I think Apple wants to be able to offer a simple streaming platform for people with simpler entertainment needs, I don't that's the centerpiece of this like everyone is assuming. Cable/satellite providers are going to around for a long time, so they're going to want to be able to work with them. Now that the clunky cable card is on its way out, and cable providers have to move to a software only solution, that makes it easier to support. While Apple is probably talking to Dish & Directv to see if they can bring them into the fold, if they refuse Apple will treat them like they treated Verizon at the iPhone launch - just ignore them and wait for them to eventually come crawling if the product is successful and lack of supporting is hurting their revenue. Honestly the cable/satellite providers would be better off if they left the software side of things to companies who actually know what they're doing like Tivo and Apple, rather than inflicting their clunky designed-by-engineers-for-engineers interfaces on the world.


I agree that Apple Television is likely to be a disappointment. I have never known Apple to design any system that played well with others. Apple products are incompatible with anything that does not come from Apple. They are designed to be plug and play, and for the most part, they are good at what they do, as long as what they do is what you want them to do and you do not try to push the envelope, and do not try to get them to work with a third party component.

While I am not an engineer, I prefer systems that are designed-by-engineers-for-engineers to systems that try to think for me and limit my options. Recently I was in the market for a network extender, an Ethernet switch, and a NAS drive. When I looked at on-line reviews, they all tended to be fairly evenly split between 5 star and 1 star reviews, with 90% of the 1 star reviews coming from people who could not get their Apple product to work with the product they were reviewing. The remaining 10% of the 1 star reviews were from people who could not read and follow simple instructions or who bought a product thinking it would do something that it was not designed to do. I would never by an Apple product. Fortunately for Apple, most people do not want to take the time to read the manual and install the product correctly. They remind me of the people on this forum who are more concerned about what number is assigned to a channel than they are whether the channel is offered.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I would disagree with you on almost all points these days. Apple's product line pretty much work quite well with almost any 3rd party external devices, I've yet to find a single thing in the last 5+ years that Apple doesn't get along with. One very nice thing with Apple gear is you don't have to worry about how to set it up properly, it just does it automagically.

Now if you want to talk about putting different parts inside an Apple computer, well for the most part you just can't at all. And for the rest, the reason Apple gear gets such glowing reviews is because they control the whole widget and do it superbly. But then Apple gear is for those that want to use the computer to accomplish some tasks and don't care about the how and why it does it so well.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

People are always whining about Apple not being interoperable, but where they go their own way rather than following existing standards it is because they find those existing standards lacking in some way. Had the USB group had their act together and created USB-C a few years earlier, Apple likely would have used that instead of developing Lightning. Because the USB group has mismanaged their standards setting process over the years, with way too many standards all of which had serious shortcomings, Apple was forced to develop Firewire, work with Intel to develop Thunderbolt, and design two generations of docking connectors for iPod/iPhone/iPad to meet their needs.

Apple's current TV product implements many open standards like DLNA, standards which form the basis for CableCard's replacement, Vidipath. I think it is a no-brainer that Apple's future TV products (whether an actual TV or ancillary device as they currently have) will support that standard and therefore be capable of working with cable TV products in the future. Those same standards form the basis of Directv's RVU, so theoretically they could quite easily make their TV devices compatible - though I doubt they'd bother, given Directv already supplies clients to its subscribers. A TV that only worked with products and media from one company would go nowhere, and only a fool would suggest Apple would try to sell such a thing.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 16, 2005)

Shades228 said:


> http://wtkr.com/2015/02/09/if-youre-using-your-friends-netflix-account-youll-want-to-read-this-one/
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-and-hulu-sharing-password-numbers-2015-5
> 
> Here are some recent news articles. There are industry studies performed by content creators and ad groups which back it up as well however those are not free to public.


I thought you were referring to people using others' Directv or cable credentials to log in for TV Anywhere sort of content.

At any rate, the business insider article pegs the number of people using others' Netflix accounts at 10%, which really isn't much. Especially since Netflix allows this.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 16, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Apple's current TV product implements many open standards like DLNA, standards which form the basis for CableCard's replacement, Vidipath. I think it is a no-brainer that Apple's future TV products (whether an actual TV or ancillary device as they currently have) will support that standard and therefore be capable of working with cable TV products in the future. Those same standards form the basis of Directv's RVU, so theoretically they could quite easily make their TV devices compatible - though I doubt they'd bother, given Directv already supplies clients to its subscribers. A TV that only worked with products and media from one company would go nowhere, and only a fool would suggest Apple would try to sell such a thing.


I have to disagree.

The notion that the new Apple TV device will support some sort of cablecard-like device is extremely unlikely.

(if that is what you are suggesting...)

What you are going to see from Apple is an over the top service, similar to Sling TV, that streams content from a small-ish group of providers (likely ABC/Disney, NBC, Fox, Viacom, Scripts, etc.) for a fee of 30-40 dollars per month, no contract.

The only real question is what other options will be available in addition to that. For example, will there be some sort of DVR functionality (using iCloud to store the recordings in the cloud) or will there be a huge amount of VOD.

Also, will Apple offer a music/TV bundle, which would provide their TV service along with their Music service, at a slight discount to one or each?

Along with Apple's over the top TV service, I suspect they will continue to support services like Watch Disney, Watch ABC, HBO Go, FX Now, etc. so that cable/satellite subscribers can make use of the Apple TV device as well.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

7thton said:


> I have to disagree.
> 
> The notion that the new Apple TV device will support some sort of cablecard-like device is extremely unlikely.


Vidipath is not a device, it is software. Many TVs and other devices will support this down the road, so I think Apple TV will also use this for IP distribution (still offering HDMI of course, for now)


----------



## 7thton (Mar 16, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Vidipath is not a device, it is software. Many TVs and other devices will support this down the road, so I think Apple TV will also use this for IP distribution (still offering HDMI of course, for now)


I disagree.

Apple TV does not use DNLA now, it instead uses Air Play. And I just don't see any incentive for Apple to play so nice with the cable industry and to stop using Air Play, which has gotten rave reviews and has become a main selling point for the device itself (for some, anyhow).

I'm sure Apple will stick to it's app model. Especially considering that the new Apple TV OS is said to include an actual app store, something Apple TV currently does not to have.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

7thton said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Apple TV does not use DNLA now, it instead uses Air Play. And I just don't see any incentive for Apple to play so nice with the cable industry and to stop using Air Play, which has gotten rave reviews and has become a main selling point for the device itself (for some, anyhow).
> 
> I'm sure Apple will stick to it's app model. Especially considering that the new Apple TV OS is said to include an actual app store, something Apple TV currently does not to have.


Got any idea what the resolution the new Apple TV box will have?

I'm pretty sure my Fire TV boxes will get the HBO and Showtime apps after the July deadline expires. Nothing against the Apple TVs, but I've had them and returned them for various reasons. I really like the Fire TV boxes. The remote looks kinda like an Apple TVs remote, but it does so much with so few buttons...it's just amazing. And the features keep getting updated frequently.

Rich


----------



## 7thton (Mar 16, 2005)

Rich said:


> Got any idea what the resolution the new Apple TV box will have?
> 
> I'm pretty sure my Fire TV boxes will get the HBO and Showtime apps after the July deadline expires. Nothing against the Apple TVs, but I've had them and returned them for various reasons. I really like the Fire TV boxes. The remote looks kinda like an Apple TVs remote, but it does so much with so few buttons...it's just amazing. And the features keep getting updated frequently.
> 
> Rich


I'm pretty sure the current Apple TV is 1080p. Could the next one be 4k? Maybe, but I haven't heard anything.

I have the current generation ATV and it is ok. It's great for Air Play....I mean super great. But, in terms of using apps, like Netflix or Hulu or HBO....my Roku 3 is better.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

7thton said:


> I'm pretty sure the current Apple TV is 1080p. Could the next one be 4k? Maybe, but I haven't heard anything.
> 
> I have the current generation ATV and it is ok. It's great for Air Play....I mean super great. But, in terms of using apps, like Netflix or Hulu or HBO....my Roku 3 is better.


The place we stayed at in MD last year had an Apple TV box, but none of the TVs had the proper remotes and there was no way to tell what the resolution was. Seemed like it was 1080p. And you're right about the apps, my BD players did the same apps much better, then I got the Fire TV boxes and they blew away the BD players as far as functionality went. Kinda steep learning curve on them, tho. Something I'm still going thru.

Rich


----------



## 7thton (Mar 16, 2005)

Rich said:


> The place we stayed at in MD last year had an Apple TV box, but none of the TVs had the proper remotes and there was no way to tell what the resolution was. Seemed like it was 1080p. And you're right about the apps, my BD players did the same apps much better, then I got the Fire TV boxes and they blew away the BD players as far as functionality went. Kinda steep learning curve on them, tho. Something I'm still going thru.
> 
> Rich


I have heard great things about the Fire streaming stick and boxes. I haven't used one myself though.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

AngryManMLS said:


> If you shop around well enough you can find the Harmony 650 within the $50-60 range on eBay and Amazon. I just replaced my aging Harmony 880 that's nearly a decade old and so far the Harmony 650 in many ways is a huge upgrade over the Harmony 880. Namely the 650 d-pad has softer keys compared to the 880 hard plastic d-pad. Not to mention having the red, blue, yellow, and green buttons which is nice for some of the functions those buttons are used for on DirecTV. The only thing I will say the 880 has better is having two more buttons for us with the remote's screen and a rechargeable battery. But to be fair since I'm now using Eneloop rechargeable batteries with my 650 that's become a null point at best to me.


I've been thinking about getting the Harmony 650, but I keep wondering how hard it is to program. Programming the DirecTV remotes just to control my TV is a challenge. Can the Harmony be programmed to automatically switch to the correct TV input and HDMI switch port when I want to watch a Roku or a Blu-ray player?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

the2130 said:


> Can the Harmony be programmed to automatically switch to the correct TV input and HDMI switch port when I want to watch a Roku or a Blu-ray player?


Yes. Harmony uses what is called "activities" and one is used it runs a macro to set every thing up. Example, TV comes on, sets input to HDMI 2 and could set the input on an AVR as well at the same time.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

the2130 said:


> I've been thinking about getting the Harmony 650, but I keep wondering how hard it is to program. Programming the DirecTV remotes just to control my TV is a challenge. Can the Harmony be programmed to automatically switch to the correct TV input and HDMI switch port when I want to watch a Roku or a Blu-ray player?


The whole point of a Harmony remote is to automatically switch to the corrects inputs of all devices when you want to watch or play something.

The basis is the Harmony is "Activities" rather then "Devices". You add your devices, but you initiate activities. Watch DVR, Watch Blu-ray, Watch Roku are examples of activities. When you setup an activity, you go through a questionnaire, with questions such as What TV input should be used for Watch DVR? What device do you want to control with the volume buttons for Watch DVR? etc...

The hardest part of setting up a Harmony is writing down the model numbers of all of your devices so you know exactly what to add and identifying what inputs all of your devices are using.

After you begin using a Harmony, you may want to go back and tweak it a little. But, overall, the setup is pretty simple.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

7thton said:


> I have heard great things about the Fire streaming stick and boxes. I haven't used one myself though.


I haven't tried a stick, but the box is really good. Considering that I've had just about every streaming box out there at one time or another and sent them all back or threw them away, the Fire TVs have been a welcome surprise. Gotta admit I was ready to send them all back a couple weeks after I got them because of battery failures, but that settled down and now I can't say enough good things about the Fire TV boxes. And their rather amazing remotes.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

the2130 said:


> I've been thinking about getting the Harmony 650, but I keep wondering how hard it is to program. Programming the DirecTV remotes just to control my TV is a challenge._* Can the Harmony be programmed to automatically switch to the correct TV input and HDMI switch port when I want to watch a Roku or a Blu-ray player?*_


My Sony AVRs do that automatically.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bill Broderick said:


> The whole point of a Harmony remote is to automatically switch to the corrects inputs of all devices when you want to watch or play something.
> 
> The basis is the Harmony is "Activities" rather then "Devices". You add your devices, but you initiate activities. Watch DVR, Watch Blu-ray, Watch Roku are examples of activities. When you setup an activity, you go through a questionnaire, with questions such as What TV input should be used for Watch DVR? What device do you want to control with the volume buttons for Watch DVR? etc...
> 
> ...


I don't mind remote clutter, but the Harmony remotes kinda intrigue me. What scares me about them is how many I might buy if I like them.

Rich


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

Rich said:


> I don't mind remote clutter, but the Harmony remotes kinda intrigue me. What scares me about them is how many I might buy if I like them.
> 
> Rich


You will not need more than one per room :grin:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

fleckrj said:


> You will not need more than one per room :grin:


I have 9 TVs in 9 rooms, suppose everyone that uses those TVs falls in love with the Harmony... :rolling:

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

!rolling


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Rich said:


> I don't mind remote clutter, but the Harmony remotes kinda intrigue me. What scares me about them is how many I might buy if I like them.
> 
> Rich


That is an issue. I have 3 TV's in 3 rooms (den, bedroom & guest room). I have identical Harmony's in the den & bedroom. After the one in the den broke a few years ago, I needed to upgrade it to a new model because the old one had been discontinued. Within a month or so, I also upgraded the bedroom one because I kept hitting the wrong buttons when operating it in the dark by feel.

It's the same as my computer keyboard. I bought an ergonomic keyboard for my home PC and, within a week realized that I needed to buy one for the PC in my office as well.


----------



## the2130 (Dec 18, 2014)

peds48:
Yes. Harmony uses what is called "activities" and one is used it runs a macro to set every thing up. Example, TV comes on, sets input to HDMI 2 and could set the input on an AVR as well at the same time.



Bill Broderick said:


> The whole point of a Harmony remote is to automatically switch to the corrects inputs of all devices when you want to watch or play something.
> 
> The basis is the Harmony is "Activities" rather then "Devices". You add your devices, but you initiate activities. Watch DVR, Watch Blu-ray, Watch Roku are examples of activities. When you setup an activity, you go through a questionnaire, with questions such as What TV input should be used for Watch DVR? What device do you want to control with the volume buttons for Watch DVR? etc...
> 
> ...


Thanks, that's what I'm looking for. My wife rarely watches anything but the DirecTV DVR or live TV because she can't remember how to get to the correct HDMI ports and TV inputs. I also don't have multiple remotes for anything but the DVR. It would be nice to just select the Blu-ray player or Roku and have it go to the correct ports automatically. I see the Harmony 650 on Amazon for $60, which isn't bad.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

the2130 said:


> Thanks, that's what I'm looking for. My wife rarely watches anything but the DirecTV DVR or live TV because she can't remember how to get to the correct HDMI ports and TV inputs. I also don't have multiple remotes for anything but the DVR. It would be nice to just select the Blu-ray player or Roku and have it go to the correct ports automatically. I see the Harmony 650 on Amazon for $60, which isn't bad.


Another nice thing about the Harmony is that it remembers the "state" of various components and utilizes discrete codes when available. Often, there are many remote codes available that don't physically exist on the remotes that come with a given component (separate codes for On & Off vs a power toggle for example). The Harmony "remembers" what it turned on and off, what input devices are set to, etc... This way, when you press an activity that, for example, requires the TV to be turned on, it doesn't execute that command again. This is especially important for devices that don't have Discrete codes for on and off. This also allows them to have a single "off" button that will turn off everything that was turned on, when you are done.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

7thton said:


> I thought you were referring to people using others' Directv or cable credentials to log in for TV Anywhere sort of content.
> 
> At any rate, the business insider article pegs the number of people using others' Netflix accounts at 10%, which really isn't much. Especially since Netflix allows this.


It's the same thing regardless of company. The same people are going to be using logins regardless of what it's for. I knew you'd take the 10% number but you're missing the larger picture. The 18-24 crowd are the bigger issue. 1 in 5 (rounded down) use someone else's login. If you don't think 22% is an alarming number than you're choosing to ignore it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bill Broderick said:


> That is an issue. I have 3 TV's in 3 rooms (den, bedroom & guest room). I have identical Harmony's in the den & bedroom. After the one in the den broke a few years ago, I needed to upgrade it to a new model because the old one had been discontinued. Within a month or so, I also upgraded the bedroom one because I kept hitting the wrong buttons when operating it in the dark by feel.
> 
> It's the same as my computer keyboard. I bought an ergonomic keyboard for my home PC and, within a week realized that I needed to buy one for the PC in my office as well.


And that's how these thing breed. I'm so used to my D* remotes that I rarely have to look at them to use them. I didn't like them at first, going from the "Peanut" to the D* remote wasn't pleasant, but I certainly like them now. Best remotes I've ever had for any device, I think.

Rich


----------

