# Discovery +



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Coming January 4, 2021. $4.99 per month for the basic ad supported version. $6.99 for the premium ad free version.

Stream What You Love


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Was about to comment on the press release, as a good chunk of the Discovery networks are missing from most/all of the 'cable replacement' streamers since the death of psvue (youtube tv etc.).

Of course the presser leads off not with a listing of the included channels but with "x thousands of whatever" statement; I would suggest those thinking of perhaps subscribing to any of the levels to scroll down to the actual channel list, and tick off not the included channels but the missing ones. I won't drag folks through that but suffice it to say that once I reached at least three channels that were missing (that I might add are in Philo's lineup) I scratched their new offering off my list of maybe.

So why are they missing? I'll wait until this truncated 'service' is launched and confirm those channels/content is missing, and try and figure out if adding Philo fits my budget to get those channels. Nice try, Discovery. Interesting fail.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Serious question...what all is missing?


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

b4pjoe said:


> Serious question...what all is missing?


Archives of past and present series episodes of Science and History channels are not mentioned. After their glossy focus on reality, daytime shows and various actors, there's only a mention of, "and more across documentaries, science, tech,...".

Those 3 are the ONLY ones of interest to me. But I do recall execs' blurbs in the past about not wanting to disrupt what Discovery has with their TV providers.

I honestly don't know what this service has to offer without disrupting current TV providers. Unless it offers an avenue to avoid DVR and on-demand without ads, I'm not interested.

If the focus is reality tv and daytime TV, I'm not interested. Discovery already has part ownership of Philo. How will this differ? Exclusivity? Try again, Discovery! It's what they don't say that discourages me.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

armchair said:


> It's what they don't say that discourages me


Bingo. There are so many channels in their total Discovery lineup and so much content, everyone needs to go through it and decide what gives. There's really no other way, sorry for folks who think that there's some golden nugget that tells you all you need to know. I was simply hoping for a streaming package of all the channels, with maybe some add-on content from wherever to sweeten the deal, for low cost. It appears it's trying to be a sweets with minimal meat.


----------



## boukengreen (Sep 22, 2009)

I wonder who the next company to throw their hat into the let’s put all our content online and charge for it is gonna be.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

It looks to me as though Discovery is throwing content from all their underlying brands, even second-tier ones like Science, DIY and The Dodo, into their new discovery+ service. I knew that Discovery had struck a deal to be the exclusive US streamer of BBC natural history docs (e.g. Planet Earth) but I was surprised to see that they're also licensing content from A+E Networks too (A&E, History, Lifetime) for inclusion in discovery+. (That makes sense, though, since A+E has no streaming outlet of its own. In fact, I've said before that Discovery ought to buy A+E and then spin off Lifetime to ViacomCBS, keeping just the factual/reality content that fits in with the Discovery library.)

The question I have is whether Discovery is being bold here and cannibalizing their linear cable nets by putting all of those channels' current, fresh content on d+ at the same time it premieres on the linear channels or if they're only going to put past seasons of those channels' shows on d+. I haven't seen anything specifically stating that new seasons will stream on d+ concurrent with their linear broadcasts, so I bet they won't.

If that's the case, then I think d+ will have a rough go of it. Because it won't serve as a replacement for the linear channels but as more of a complement to it with its line of d+ Originals exclusive to the service.

IMO, they should include their live linear channels inside the app, plus current and past seasons of those channels' shows -- in other words, all the stuff that can now be found in their various TV everywhere apps for their different channels, but all combined in one app. And then add to that some additional content exclusive to d+: the new d+ Originals, plus BBC/Planet Earth stuff, and library content from A+E Networks.

The target audience would be cord-cutters plus Discovery super-fans who already have cable TV. Additionally, Discovery could try to get cable operators to include a subscription to d+ as part of their standard channel bundle (as part of their carriage agreement for the Discovery linear channels), in which case the app would simply replace all the individual TV everywhere apps for cable TV subscribers via that operator.


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

All true, I'd be a target audience, Nash. And the announcement would be just a fail touting reality, do it yourself and daytime TV; maybe that's where most of their ad revenue comes from. But I have doubts based on what they've said in the past and the lack of clarity on the announcement.

Philo is basically already a rehash of linear channels and TV everywhere for much of those services, if not all, as I understand it. But for a paid service, it fails badly with forced ads So maybe there's hope that is something many cord cutters would want.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> IMO, they should include their live linear channels inside the app, plus current and past seasons of those channels' shows -- in other words, all the stuff that can now be found in their various TV everywhere apps for their different channels, but all combined in one app. And then add to that some additional content exclusive to d+: the new d+ Originals, plus BBC/Planet Earth stuff, and library content from A+E


Again, bingo; when they first announced this (over a year ago?) That's what I thought they were talking about, bundle things all together linear+everywhere plus throw in some icing.

Okay, this as spelled out in the presser is a non-starter.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

discovery+ Won't Include Linear Feeds of Channels like Discovery, HGTV, and Food Network


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

b4pjoe said:


> discovery+ Won't Include Linear Feeds of Channels like Discovery, HGTV, and Food Network


They own part of Philo which has all their networks plus the A+E Networks. Most likely they will promote Philo & discovery+ as the best bundle in da world.

I'm waiting to see if there will be 4K HDR content and if it doesn't wait to see people criticize it just because it lacks 4K HDR. Although I rarely watch Discovery's networks (if I do it is usually Science) I do like the BBC content and some A&E and History content. Just my first thoughts but I foresee I may subscribe to the $4.99 ad-supported tier for one or two months out of a year. Until we see what is actually on this thing it is hard for me to get excited. I only try to keep their linear channels like HGTV & Food Network for when grandma comes to visit.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

1948GG said:


> Again, bingo; when they first announced this (over a year ago?) That's what I thought they were talking about, bundle things all together linear+everywhere plus throw in some icing.
> 
> Okay, this as spelled out in the presser is a non-starter.


Yeah. Well, that's what I had *hoped* it might be. And Discovery's CEO has repeatedly talked about the need for distributing his content/channels via super-skinny, sub-$10 bundles. So there was reason to believe that whatever they ultimately rolled out would offer all of the company's fresh, new content (regardless whether it was only on-demand or maybe also included the live linear channels).

But it looks like they've chickened out. Who knows, maybe they can't due to their various carriage contracts with cable distributors? Or maybe they could but they know that when it comes time for them to renew those cable carriage contracts, distributors would insist on putting all the Discovery channels into their own separate a la carte bundle, i.e. simply reselling Discovery's streaming service as an optional add-on to the bundle as they do now with HBO Max. And that would obviously be a very risky proposition for Discovery because a good chunk of cable TV subscribers -- maybe half? -- wouldn't opt to take their content if it was optional.

I think we can all see where TV is heading: a la carte bundles/services offered by each of the major media groups (Disney's Hulu, Disney+ and ESPN+; Warner's HBO Max; ViacomCBS's Paramount+ and Showtime; NBCU's Peacock; Discovery's discovery+) rather than bundles of channels that commingle content from all of them. But it's taking awhile to get there because, to an extent, these media groups are afraid to jump off the sinking ship of cable TV and fully commit to their streaming lifeboats.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Most of the discovery apps out there now also have the linear channel(s) but you need to authorize with your cable/sat/liveTV provider. It would have been nice if they would have still had that. Comes in handy if the sat channels go out with rain fade. Fox, ABC, and the NBC apps all allow you to view their linear feed with the same authorization, and it has come in handy more than a few times. Right now while I lost the NBC local out of St. Louis on DirecTV I can get the Paducah, KY NBC local through the NBC app. Of course none of that helps if you are trying to get away from sat/cable/LiveTV providers. CBS is the only streaming service that gives you the local CBS without that authorization.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> CBS is the only streaming service that gives you the local CBS without that authorization.


Yeah. I expect that eventually Peacock's $5/mo Premium tier will automatically include live local NBC stations and Hulu's $6/mo base tier will automatically include live local ABC stations.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

b4pjoe said:


> CBS is the only streaming service that gives you the local CBS without that authorization.


Don't forget the standalone Showtime streaming service includes the East and West feeds of the main Showtime channel at least. And you can get Apple TV+, CBS All Access (No Commericals) & Showtime for $14.98/mo which is cheaper than getting CBS All Access & Showtime as standalones.

HBO Max doesn't even have linear feeds of HBO channels.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. Well, that's what I had *hoped* it might be. And Discovery's CEO has repeatedly talked about the need for distributing his content/channels via super-skinny, sub-$10 bundles. So there was reason to believe that whatever they ultimately rolled out would offer all of the company's fresh, new content (regardless whether it was only on-demand or maybe also included the live linear channels).


I imagine that conversations went like this:
Pay TV Companies: You want a $10 skinny bundle eh? We want a price reduction!
Discovery CEO: Say no more we won't offer a $10 skinny bundle. We like cash.

Although seriously if AMC+ is able to have linear AMC, AMC+, BBC America, IFC & SundanceTV channels along with Shudder, IFC Films Unlimited & SundanceNow at $8.99/mo then they could have made a $11.99/mo Discovery+ tier with all their linear channels.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

techguy88 said:


> I imagine that conversations went like this:
> Pay TV Companies: You want a $10 skinny bundle eh? We want a price reduction!
> Discovery CEO: Say no more we won't offer a $10 skinny bundle. We like cash.


I'd say the convo went more like this:

Pay TV Companies: "You want to sell your bundle of linear channels plus all their new content on-demand in a $5 OTT service? OK, we'd love to yank all your channels out of our main bundles so we can lower their prices and then give our customers the option of whether or not to add them back via your new $5 service."
Discovery CEO: "Never mind, we'd lose a ton of lucrative cable subscribers and make less money that way."



techguy88 said:


> Although seriously if AMC+ is able to have linear AMC, AMC+, BBC America, IFC & SundanceTV channels along with Shudder, IFC Films Unlimited & SundanceNow at $8.99/mo then they could have made a $11.99/mo Discovery+ tier with all their linear channels.


Does AMC+ contain those linear channels though? Maybe it does but nothing on their website indicates that. It looks to me like AMC+ is just an on-demand library along with a new AMC+ linear channel that features "the best from AMC, BBC America, IFC and SundanceTV." Although I doubt you're really missing out on anything but not having the actual full linear channels for AMC, BBC America, IFC and SundanceTV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

techguy88 said:


> HBO Max doesn't even have linear feeds of HBO channels.


Yeah. Although I expect that we'll see at least the main HBO linear channel included in the HBO Max app next year when they begin offering add-on packages of linear cable channels (as Hulu does now). Because it would be really odd for the HBO Max app to offer a way to watch linear NBC, ESPN and CNN but not linear HBO.

I also think we'll see some of those HBO linear channels fall by the wayside in the next few years as the overall service shifts more and more toward streaming via the HBO Max app. With everything available on-demand, is there a need for HBO 2 or HBO Signature or HBO Zone to exist?

Beyond that, I also expect we'll see the HBO OnDemand platform disappear from MVPD devices, such as Comcast's X1, once they also host the HBO Max app. It's duplicative and maybe a bit confusing for viewers to have the choice to watch the same HBO title from both HBO OnDemand and the HBO Max app on the same TV box. So when you say "The Undoing" in your X1 remote, the results page may come up in the native X1 UI but if you click to watch, it will probably take you directly into the HBO Max app.

AT&T's desire is going to be for an increasing amount of HBO viewing to happen inside their own HBO Max app, not via linear channels or on-demand platforms that exist in their distributors' native UIs. Perhaps eventually whatever HBO linear channels that still exist won't even be able to be recorded to MVPDs' cloud DVRs.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> Does AMC+ contain those linear channels though? Maybe it does but nothing on their website indicates that. It looks to me like AMC+ is just an on-demand library along with a new AMC+ linear channel that features "the best from AMC, BBC America, IFC and SundanceTV." Although I doubt you're really missing out on anything but not having the actual full linear channels for AMC, BBC America, IFC and SundanceTV.


Yup when you subscribe to AMC+ on Apple TV Channels, Prime Video Channels or The Roku Channel (for $8.99/mo) you get the linear AMC, AMC+ [commercial free], BBC America, IFC & Sundance TV in addition to all VOD/SVOD content from AMC [commercial-free], IFC Films Unlimited, Shudder & SundanceNow. It is a very cheap bundle for AMC's channels and seperate streaming services.



NashGuy said:


> AT&T's desire is going to be for an increasing amount of HBO viewing to happen inside their own HBO Max app, not via linear channels or on-demand platforms that exist in their distributors' native UIs. Perhaps eventually whatever HBO linear channels that still exist won't even be able to be recorded to MVPDs' cloud DVRs.


Wouldn't hurt to have at least HBO East & West feeds inside the HBO Max app since some HBO Originals are added to HBO Max a few hours after their linear premiere. You don't need linear Showtime East & West in a standalone Showtime subscription and the TVE version Showtime Anytime but it is nice to know you can watch Showtime Originals as they air instead of waiting for them to be added to the app hours later. The main linear channel included is like an added useful benefit.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

techguy88 said:


> Wouldn't hurt to have at least HBO East & West feeds inside the HBO Max app since some HBO Originals are added to HBO Max a few hours after their linear premiere. You don't need linear Showtime East & West in a standalone Showtime subscription and the TVE version Showtime Anytime but it is nice to know you can watch Showtime Originals as they air instead of waiting for them to be added to the app hours later. The main linear channel included is like an added useful benefit.


Yes, having the live linear Showtime channel inside their apps is nice. Always wondered why the HBO Now app didn't do the same. That said, both Showtime and HBO typically add new content to their apps for on-demand streaming at exactly the same time they premiere on linear. The few exceptions would be live shows (e.g. Bill Mahr) and maybe The Circus (which I think is sometimes still in editing right up until it airs).


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

I see D+ as a possible antitrust situation because they are utilizing their large market power to promote this service. They are heavily promoting this on all of their platforms, even during their shows. I barely see any promos for any of their non D+ shows. You can’t get away from D+ promotion when you are looking at any of their platforms.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

So the new service has launched. I am on the free 7 day trial of the ad free version at the moment. As mentioned previously there are no linear channels. The current shows that are on the linear channels are not up to date on the streaming service. For example Gold Rush on the linear channel has already aired Season 11 Episode 12. The most recent on the streaming service is Season 11 Episode 5. On the non-Discovery shows, for example Alone which is on the History channel, has seasons 1, 4, 5, and 6. Season 7 aired this past year on the History linear channel and ended in August 2020 and is not on the streaming service yet. Not sure why seasons 2 and 3 are not on the streaming service. Contract details most likely.


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

b4pjoe said:


> So the new service has launched. I am on the free 7 day trial of the ad free version at the moment. As mentioned previously there are no linear channels. The current shows that are on the linear channels are not up to date on the streaming service. For example Gold Rush on the linear channel has already aired Season 11 Episode 12. The most recent on the streaming service is Season 11 Episode 5. On the non-Discovery shows, for example Alone which is on the History channel, has seasons 1, 4, 5, and 6. Season 7 aired this past year on the History linear channel and ended in August 2020 and is not on the streaming service yet. Not sure why seasons 2 and 3 are not on the streaming service. Contract details most likely.


That's not getting my interest up to subscribe but thanks for sharing and confirming that much.

Unrealistic to think I'm willing to pay for linear TV service that includes discovery and A&E channels. And then pay for this too. How long before this model fails?

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

armchair said:


> That's not getting my interest up to subscribe but thanks for sharing and confirming that much.
> 
> Unrealistic to think I'm willing to pay for linear TV service that includes discovery and A&E channels. And then pay for this too. How long before this model fails?
> 
> Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


The business model of these "+" channels is one of the possible future models to survive IMO. The current live streamers are kind of a stepping stone away from linear TV. 
Think about this. Hulu does next day ABC, Fox, NBC and some others. CBS:All Access does the same for CBS. Others are coming along too, AMC+, Disney+ for instance. Expect more of that and less of live TV.


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

lparsons21 said:


> The business model of these "+" channels is one of the possible future models to survive IMO. The current live streamers are kind of a stepping stone away from linear TV.
> Think about this. Hulu does next day ABC, Fox, NBC and some others. CBS:All Access does the same for CBS. Others are coming along too, AMC+, Disney+ for instance. Expect more of that and less of live TV.


I like over the top services but need linear TV for sports. I just wouldn't choose to pay twice for discovery.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

armchair said:


> I like over the top services but need linear TV for sports. I just wouldn't choose to pay twice for discovery.
> 
> Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


Yep, sports is the bugaboo right now. That's changing going forward. Sinclair is supposedly going to offer a direct to consumer app for their RSN's. If that works out, expect others to follow suit soon thereafter.

IMO, blackout rules are going to continue to be a problem. They need to go away.


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, sports is the bugaboo right now. That's changing going forward. Sinclair is supposedly going to offer a direct to consumer app for their RSN's. If that works out, expect others to follow suit soon thereafter.
> 
> IMO, blackout rules are going to continue to be a problem. They need to go away.


Sports may be changing going forward. I agree. But Sinclair is such an outlier that personally I wouldn't use it as an example of what others may do. Sinclair is already dabbing with over the top with Tennis Channel+ and I hate that they won't improve the VOD layout. If you look at titles of matches, they're clearly sorted by player and round. What's wrong with that? Catching up leaves nothing to the imagination how the tournament is progressing with the draw elimination. It's like you already know who won before watching a match. And they publish covered TV tournaments as tournaments that will air on TC+. But many of those won't be added to VOD until the tournament is over, by contractual obligations which they don't seem to share with their viewers, particularly when trying to decide to subscribe or not.

Sinclair is terrible. They don't deserve my patronage with their tc+ plus service and how they've made it difficult to contact with streaming TV services. After months of complaining, they finally sent an email agreeing others have the same complaint; please be patient. Gee, can't they fix anything during the off season? Not yet.

ESPN and NFL are better examples, IMO. There is some inertia there.

ESPN+ wasn't a good match for me. I spoke to their customer service a few months back and cancelled ESPN+ based on their feedback; they pretty much agreed I shouldn't be paying for it based on my viewing. I can still use my TV credentials to get replays of what I'm interested in. And rates are increasing but I hear a rumor that Disney is mulling another bundle or integration of services like Hulu on-demand and ESPN. But will we like the outcome?

The way I prefer to watch out of market NFL games, NFL Gamepass works for me as long as I can avoid spoilers and catch up quickly. It's a cheap alternative to Sunday Ticket. Much like Sinclair, they need to improve the app for TV streaming devices. When I first tried Gamepass, nothing wrong with the app. Then they weren't and added auto play to the TV streaming devices and ruined it. Then they went and moved the highlights to free to everyone with ads. Ruined that too. The app wasn't so annoying until they looked for opportunities; that's the difference between customers and marketing execs. They'll continue making annoying decisions like that until the revenue or subscriber numbers fall. I could just watch on my PC and goto YouTube for highlights to avoid the annoyances.

So yes, there's some inertia there. But we may not like the outcome. Not just inconvenient but annoying. Some may say we asked for this but we're not the ones making the business decisions. Could be costlier in the end.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

armchair said:


> I like over the top services but need linear TV for sports. I just wouldn't choose to pay twice for discovery.


Discovery+ is an optional service. While it would be nice to have it included (free) with one's linear subscription it is being sold as a separate package. If one gets enough content with a linear subscription one does not have to subscribe to Discovery+.

(There are a lot of things that "would be nice". Free access to all content forever "would be nice". That is not the offer the content owners are making.)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> Sinclair is supposedly going to offer a direct to consumer app for their RSN's. If that works out, expect others to follow suit soon thereafter.


I believe Sinclair is going to hit a wall that many companies have hit ... separate streaming rights. Sinclair has purchased limited rights from the leagues that may not allow them to do everything they want to do. The good news (for Sinclair) is that OTT is being seen as being the same as traditional MVPD delivery - so that would (in theory) allow Sinclair to start an OTT company to deliver the content they license over their channels within each channel's defined market. The bad news is that licensing likely would not allow for VOD streaming and would not allow for out of market delivery.



lparsons21 said:


> IMO, blackout rules are going to continue to be a problem. They need to go away.


The leagues have reserved out of market delivery of their content -usually for their own out of market packages. No blackouts could lead to worse problems than viewers have today.

Yes it "would be nice" to have full access to all content without needing to pay a league (out of market) or Sinclair (in market) and figure out who you need to pay for what. It "would be nice" not to have situations where the company who holds the rights for delivery of content to your area can refuse to deliver it. But that is not how the industry makes their money. If the industry isn't making money there isn't a point to them delivering content to anyone.


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

James Long said:


> Discovery+ is an optional service. While it would be nice to have it included (free) with one's linear subscription it is being sold as a separate package. If one gets enough content with a linear subscription one does not have to subscribe to Discovery+.
> 
> (There are a lot of things that "would be nice". Free access to all content forever "would be nice". That is not the offer the content owners are making.)


Curious you imply that I'm looking for something free or inclusive? When I say I choose not to pay for both, I fully realize it's an option. And being that it's nearly redundant of linear channels plus DVR and VOD that I have, I'd prefer to just stick with the linear service since I need it for sports. Based on that, I shared my opinion.

I thought I implied that with less words. But maybe not clear enough. Not all the skinny bundles in streaming TV services have all the programming and channels. The OTT Discovery+ could be more inclusive but chooses not to compete with linear TV plans that include some or all the channels. Sure Discovery+ offers some original programming and subscribing is optional. However, it's still not compelling enough for me because it's more redundant than a replacement with full library. It's the type of model I wish not to succeed because it's not a replacement of linear TV.

Simply not offering enough. I also realize execs don't want to mess with deals they get from providers to carry their channels. They never made such promises either. But I recall what they've said and think it's relevant to point out what's missing; I was also agreeing with the OP. I also shared why I'm not interested. And what would interest me. I'd also keep my options open if the model changed to more of a replacement service. But I understand also, business decisions aren't necessarily subscriber friendly. That's what I'm choosing to discuss.

But I absolutely do look to this thread to hear about subscriber feedback and first impressions. I thanked the OP accordingly; I appreciated the comment. I said in advance what I expected and the rollout appears to be the disappointment I expected. And that's all the negativity I'll say about the service on this thread.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

armchair said:


> But I absolutely do look to this thread to hear about subscriber feedback and first impressions. I thanked the OP accordingly; I appreciated the comment. I said in advance what I expected and the rollout appears to be the disappointment I expected. And that's all the negativity I'll say about the service on this thread.


That why I came here... learn something about the service. My wife asked about it.

What makes me curious about it is that the shows are ones that are somewhat entertaining and informative, light fare, but not "must see TV." Rather, filler material when we don't want to watch a show or are waiting for something to start at the next hour on a linear channel. Definitely not something I'd DVR, or VOD. I would describe them as targets of opportunity viewing.

We get these channels through our streaming provider, YTTV. So I guess we have VOD access to the shows along with linear channels. The OTT service isn't something I find value added given current circumstances.

Yet, therein lies the rub. I can't say there isn't a use case to this type of service, particularly if I am able to move away from YTTV. Let's face it, at $65 a month, it's getting pricey and I'd be interested in alternatives that offer interesting content packaged in a way we consume it.

One of the big issues I have with streaming a la Netflix is choice overload. Linear channels and favorite lists help with that. It would be great if someone would find a way to configure a streaming service in such a way that some equivalent of linear channels. I don't necessarily want to binge three episodes of a show one evening. Maybe this is just nostalgia for old school prime time viewing.

Anyhow, on to sports... I thought one of the issues with in-market v. out-of-market is that teams own their games in-market, but leagues control out-of-market. In-market, MLB games are often the most viewed shows in prime time.

How Popular Is Baseball, Really? (Published 2019)

MLB Sees Local TV And Streaming Viewership Up Over 4% For 2020

National prime time MLB games on ESPN or Fox can get over 1 million viewers. I'm not sure how many people subscribe to the out-of-market package. But, I could see a benefit to both the league and someone like ESPN+ to use that as the out-of-market provider, like MLS does.

Anyhow, I'm curious to see what happens with AT&T and the NFL when it comes to Sunday Ticket. They renew in 2022.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

jsk said:


> I see D+ as a possible antitrust situation because they are utilizing their large market power to promote this service. They are heavily promoting this on all of their platforms, even during their shows. I barely see any promos for any of their non D+ shows. You can't get away from D+ promotion when you are looking at any of their platforms.


There isn't an anti-trust issue with the way Discovery, Inc. is promoting discovery+. The way they are promoting it is very similar to how other streaming services are promoted:

Hulu, ESPN+ and Disney+ are heavily promoted on ABC-ESPN-FX-Disney channels. 
Disney actually moved a good chunk of content from DisneyNow (their TV Everywhere app) to Disney+. 
Comcast (who currently owns a 33% stake in Hulu) used to promote Hulu heavily until they started promoting Peacock.
Fox Corporation still promotes Hulu heavily for Fox shows just as they did when they owned a 33% share. 

NBCUniversal's properties heavily promote Peacock
Comcast, who owns the controlling/operating 70% stake of FandangoMedia, has a Peacock Freeview on Vudu. They also have the same Freeview on their TV Everywhere apps. [AT&T/WarnerMedia own the remaining 30% stake of FandangoMedia] 

AT&T is using the Turner networks and their various services (i.e. DirecTV, Mobility, Internet) to promote HBO Max. 
Not to mention Comcast & AT&T are using customer's bills as an advertising vehicle for Peacock & HBO Max respectively.
AT&T included 30 day free trial codes for new/returning subscribers in new major video games it releases/distributes through WB Games.
The most recent instance of this was at Best Buy where Cyberpunk 2077 came with a 30 day trial code.

AT&T has been giving 14 day trial codes for HBO Max with physical movie purchases
Best Buy was the participating retailer during their holiday sales. 


Disney, NBCUniversal & WarnerMedia are taking back certain windows to their catalog content for their own services instead of allowing third parties to bid on those windows:

Disney's eventual plan is to have all Disney & 20th Century Studios content on Disney+ or Hulu.
NBCUniversal/Comcast decided to take back the Pay 2 Window for their films starting with 2020 releases for Peacock. (FX Networks used to have this window.) NBCU also took back _The Office_ after Netflix's contract ran out.
Comcast has said in a prior earnings call they see Peacock on the level of NBC/USA and most likely will license out the Pay 1 Window to Universal films to a premium service. Currently HBO/HBO Max has this Pay 1 Window for their films released through 2022. 

WarnerMedia/AT&T is planning on taking back rights for big franchises after current deals expire like _Harry Potter_ and DC. They also took back _Friends_ from Netflix and passed on offers from third party services for _The Big Bang Theory_ so HBO Max could have those shows. 
So if any media companies would face a potential anti-trust situation it would be Disney, Comcast/NBCUniversal and/or AT&T/WarnerMedia.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

techguy88 said:


> Wouldn't hurt to have at least HBO East & West feeds inside the HBO Max app since some HBO Originals are added to HBO Max a few hours after their linear premiere.


There's nothing physical that requires that the streaming release cannot be simultaneous with the first linear showing. HBO Max kinda did it with Wonder Woman 84 on streaming and in theaters. It isn't as if they're capturing the movies from the first airing to make them available for streaming.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> There's nothing physical that requires that the streaming release cannot be simultaneous with the first linear showing. HBO Max kinda did it with Wonder Woman 84 on streaming and in theaters. It isn't as if they're capturing the movies from the first airing to make them available for streaming.


Isn't the limit qualification for the Oscars? They require a film to open in a theatre, and run for 7 consecutive days.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

wmb said:


> Isn't the limit qualification for the Oscars? They require a film to open in a theatre, and run for 7 consecutive days.


The rules have been modified due to COVID-19
AWARDS RULES AND CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS APPROVED FOR 93RD OSCARS®

As far as I can tell there isn't a rule that would prohibit streaming release before or at the same time as theatrical release (even in a normal year). But in a normal year movies must be shown in theaters in LA for multiple screenings over a seven day period. This year (2020 for the ceremony in April 2021) movies can be released through a streaming platform that charges a fee. They can also be shown in alternate cities.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wmb said:


> Isn't the limit qualification for the Oscars? They require a film to open in a theatre, and run for 7 consecutive days.


There was an amendment to the eligibility rules in October but how hard can it be to run a film for a week at three showings a day. I would think they could rent a theater and accomplish that.

The amendment involves sending a digital copy of the film to the Academy Screening Review site for review.

I think the idea is that the movie just needs to be available such that a quorum of the members can shuffle their schedules to see it and I'd imagine that schedules in the film business are pretty light these days.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Film industry is sending out DVD streamers of some of 2020's films this year to Academy members.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

It seems that Discovery networks are "premiering" all-new episodes of their programming on Discovery+ _only_.

If you want to see those new eps on your traditional cable/sat, then you are SOL!

(Although I haven't personally checked this myself, it looks like _that's_ how they're *promoting* it on TV.)

I certainly hope this isn't the way it's gonna be for new eps from now on...


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

They have some new series that are streaming only such as Freddy Dodge's Mine Rescue but the regular Goldrush show on the linear channel are about 7 episodes ahead of the streaming service. I've seen from the ads on the linear channel there is a lot of the 90 days series content that is only available on the streaming service.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Thanks to that god-awful colorized logo in the top-right corner on all their channels my mother wouldn't quit asking me about this service. I had to set up her Roku account with a payment method so she could subscribe to discovery+. Although I do like the content from Science & History lol.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

So that god-awful colorized logo works!


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> Thanks to that god-awful colorized logo in the top-right corner on all their channels my mother wouldn't quit asking me about this service. I had to set up her Roku account with a payment method so she could subscribe to discovery+. Although I do like the content from Science & History lol.


Got the same thing from my wife. The D+ ads on the screen of the Discovery family of channels were particularly frequent and prominent during the week or so before D+ launched. Of course since I watch most everything via DVR recordings I didn't see them until later and feared this was the new normal. Seems to have at least pared back more recently.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

b4pjoe said:


> So the new service has launched. I am on the free 7 day trial of the ad free version at the moment. As mentioned previously there are no linear channels. The current shows that are on the linear channels are not up to date on the streaming service. For example Gold Rush on the linear channel has already aired Season 11 Episode 12. The most recent on the streaming service is Season 11 Episode 5. On the non-Discovery shows, for example Alone which is on the History channel, has seasons 1, 4, 5, and 6. Season 7 aired this past year on the History linear channel and ended in August 2020 and is not on the streaming service yet. Not sure why seasons 2 and 3 are not on the streaming service. Contract details most likely.


Update: I'm not sure about all of the shows that are currently running on the linear channels but in my example with the show Gold Rush above Discovery + is now airing episodes before they are airing on the linear channel. The latest episode for Gold Rush on the linear channel is S11 E12 while on Discovery + they already have S11 E13 up which will not air on the linear channel until next Friday.


----------



## lacubs (Sep 12, 2010)

does Directory Plus have all Episodes of undercover billionaire comeback city up? and is undercover billionaire moving to Directory Plus?


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

lacubs said:


> does Directory Plus have all Episodes of undercover billionaire comeback city up? and is undercover billionaire moving to Directory Plus?


There are six episodes of _Undercover Billionaire: Comeback City_ on Discovery+. For _Undercover Billionaire _it has all of Season 1 and the first two episodes of Season 2. It doesn't seem this show is going to Discovery+ on an exclusive basis.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

b4pjoe said:


> So that god-awful colorized logo works!


Ugghhhh I hate that damn logo.... trying to get my mom to use streaming services has been hell. Discovery+ should pay me for the customer support I provide my mother. It was hell teaching her how to use Disney+, HBO Max and Tubi.

My mother who calls every video game console a "Nintendo" except for the actual Nintendo Entertainment System she calls it "Atari" now adds "Plus" at the end of each streaming service. She called HBO Max "HBO Max Plus" the other day


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Undercover Billionaire is on Discovery +. It has episodes 1 - 8 of season 1 plus a Season 1 Episode 101 which is usually like a talk to the cast episode. They have Episodes 1 & 2 of season 2 with the air date of episode 2 being 01/13/21...8 days ago.

The also have one season of Undercover Billionaire Come Back.

Edit: Whoops...techguy88 posted this while I was posting.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

techguy88 said:


> Ugghhhh I hate that damn logo.... trying to get my mom to use streaming services has been hell. Discovery+ should pay me for the customer support I provide my mother. It was hell teaching her how to use Disney+, HBO Max and Tubi.
> 
> My mother who calls every video game console a "Nintendo" except for the actual Nintendo Entertainment System she calls it "Atari" now adds "Plus" at the end of each streaming service. She called HBO Max "HBO Max Plus" the other day


Don't let AT&T find out she calls it HBO Max Plus. They might rename it to "AT&T TV Plus HBO Max Plus Now". 

Funny about your Mom. I went through the same thing when my Mom got her first VCR. Enjoy it while you can. She won't be there forever. :sob:


----------



## lacubs (Sep 12, 2010)

techguy88 said:


> There are six episodes of _Undercover Billionaire: Comeback City_ on Discovery+. For _Undercover Billionaire _it has all of Season 1 and the first two episodes of Season 2. It doesn't seem this show is going to Discovery+ on an exclusive basis.


thanks , the first 2 Episodes of _Undercover Billionaire: Comeback City _about Erie and two episodes of Season 2 was getting good so it's better not go to Discovery+


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

b4pjoe said:


> Don't let AT&T find out she calls it HBO Max Plus. They might rename it to "AT&T TV Plus HBO Max Plus Now".


You forgot to add "Go" for the ultimate confusion ahahahaha.



b4pjoe said:


> Funny about your Mom. I went through the same thing when my Mom got her first VCR. Enjoy it while you can. She won't be there forever. :sob:


That is very true. raying:


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> Don't let AT&T find out she calls it HBO Max Plus. They might rename it to "AT&T TV Plus HBO Max Plus Now".
> 
> Funny about your Mom. I went through the same thing when my Mom got her first VCR. Enjoy it while you can. She won't be there forever. :sob:


My mom calls it Nobles and Barnes. She's 82.


----------



## lacubs (Sep 12, 2010)

techguy88 said:


> There are six episodes of _Undercover Billionaire: Comeback City_ on Discovery+. For _Undercover Billionaire _it has all of Season 1 and the first two episodes of Season 2. It doesn't seem this show is going to Discovery+ on an exclusive basis.


they did moved _Undercover Billionaire _over Discovery+ on an exclusive basis, disappointing


----------



## lacubs (Sep 12, 2010)

do anyone know when their sale end? where you get Discovery+ for $60?


----------

