# Peacock - NBCU's streaming service outlined



## phrelin

For whatever reason, NBCU announced that it's streaming service will be named "Peacock." Ignoring all the obvious jokes one can make about the name, it looks like it will be loaded with content, will be rolled out to take advantage of the 2020 Summer Olympics.

What I find disturbing is the first words in the description by The Hollywood Reporter:

The ad-supported, direct-to-consumer platform will be called Peacock and launch in April 2020 with a lineup of more than 15,000 hours of content, including exclusive library titles like Parks and Recreation and originals including reboots of Battlestar Galactica, Saved by the Bell and Punky Brewster. Peacock will take center stage during NBC's coverage of the Summer Olympics in 2020 when the entire NBCUniversal fold will get behind the platform with a massive marketing push promoting the service, with originals set to launch after the Games.​
"Ad-supported"???? In the interview in the article, further down we have this exchange:

*What's the pricing strategy? It's free to Comcast subscribers, with one price point for ad-free and another for non-Comcast subscribers. Is that still the case?*

There will be conversations about pricing down the road. But the strategy is still the same.​
Well, that's some hope for a no-ads version.


----------



## Rich

phrelin said:


> For whatever reason, NBCU announced that it's streaming service will be named "Peacock." Ignoring all the obvious jokes one can make about the name, it looks like it will be loaded with content, will be rolled out to take advantage of the 2020 Summer Olympics.
> 
> What I find disturbing is the first words in the description by The Hollywood Reporter:
> 
> The ad-supported, direct-to-consumer platform will be called Peacock and launch in April 2020 with a lineup of more than 15,000 hours of content, including exclusive library titles like Parks and Recreation and originals including reboots of Battlestar Galactica, Saved by the Bell and Punky Brewster. Peacock will take center stage during NBC's coverage of the Summer Olympics in 2020 when the entire NBCUniversal fold will get behind the platform with a massive marketing push promoting the service, with originals set to launch after the Games.​
> "Ad-supported"???? In the interview in the article, further down we have this exchange:
> 
> *What's the pricing strategy? It's free to Comcast subscribers, with one price point for ad-free and another for non-Comcast subscribers. Is that still the case?*
> 
> There will be conversations about pricing down the road. But the strategy is still the same.​
> Well, that's some hope for a no-ads version.


Ad-supported means commercials you can't skip thru. Let's hope they have the good sense to have that no ads version.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

An article I read somewhere today said both an ad supported and no ad version would be available at different price points.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## phrelin

My concern is the potential cost to streamers over the long term. Peacock has invested heavily in buying rights to old content.

I guess I'm getting a gnawing feeling in my gut since the _LA Times_ article appeared last week The end of the backend? Disney wants to limit profit participation on its new TV shows. That article tell us:

As of this summer, Disney is pressing TV producers and other profit participants in its shows to accept a new formula offering profits sooner in exchange for complete control of any future licensing revenue, the Los Angeles Times has learned from conversations with Hollywood agents, attorneys and union representatives. ...Disney wants its payment system in place as it approaches the launch of its streaming service Disney +, scheduled for November.

It's a way to bypass the situation NBCUniversal and WarnerMedia recently faced when they had to outbid Netflix to get the rights for their properties - classic TV hits like "The Office" and "Friends" - to run on their own upcoming direct-to-consumer video services.​
Disney, of course, is made a huge profits increase last year. NBCU is doing well, although its parent company Comcast not as much overall. While streaming is still competitive, overall the number of serious players is shrinking.


----------



## B. Shoe

I'll be interested to see if they to make any of the Olympics coverage Peacock-exclusive. Throw any of the swimming, gymnastics, basketball, or track & field events in there, and people will make some choices pretty quick.


----------



## the2130

Rich said:


> Ad-supported means commercials you can't skip thru. Let's hope they have the good sense to have that no ads version.
> 
> Rich


Yeah, unskippable commercials would be a nonstarter for me.


----------



## phrelin

OK, so now we have information. Here's links to articles at _Deadline Hollywood_:

Peacock Programming: List Of NBCUniversal Streaming Service's Series, Films, Sports, News & More
'Two And A Half Men': NBCU's Peacock Acquires SVOD Rights To Chuck Lorre Sitcom & 'George Lopez'
NBCU's Peacock Lands Dick Wolf Library Of 'Law & Order' And 'Chicago' Franchises In Non-Exclusive Deal
NBC's 'Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon' & 'Late Night With Seth Meyers' Get Early Streamings On Peacock Premium
Peacock Reveals Launch Date, Pricing And Exclusive Olympic Programming
The first four articles, along with a 15,000-pound shrubbery and lights tower bird, make it clear the huge investment in content that is being made by NBCU, The fifth article outlines the service and pricing strategy which includes three tiers that will be made available:

Peacock Free (with commercials)
Peacock Premium (with commercials)
Peacock Premium Commercial-Free
Peacock Free will be free to everyone. It will offer 7,500± hours of programming with commercials, including a selection of classic TV series and movies, next-day streaming of some broadcast shows, Spanish-language content and a curated collection of news and sports programming.

Peacock Premium will be free to Comcast and Cox cable TV subscribers and $5/mo for everyone else. It will offer 15,000± hours of programming with commercials and early access to late night talk shows.

Peacock Premium Commercial-Free will cost $5/mo for Comcast and Cox cable TV subscribers and $10/mo for everyone else. Content will be the same 15,000± hours of programming and early access to late night talk shows, but all without commercials.

Regarding the rollout associated with the Olympics, the fifth article says:

"Peacock will offer extensive coverage of the Tokyo Olympics, some of it exclusive. Peacock will feature live coverage of the Opening and Closing Ceremonies before they air on NBC in primetime. It will also stream three daily Olympic shows. That lineup includes Tokyo Live, with live coverage of one particularly compelling event from the day; Tokyo Daily Digest, with midday highlights; and Tokyo Tonight, a complement to the primetime show that is designed to help audiences catch up on the day's events."​
This Comcast-owned NBCU creature can't be ignored and should not be taken lightly. Scroll carefully through the lists in the first article linked above. Not only will they have all the old "Law and Order" shows and the Paramount Network hit "Yellowstone," they will be offering new versions of "Saved by the Bell" and "Battlestar Galactica," the true crime "Dr. Death," featuring the actors Jamie Dornan and Alec Baldwin, and an adaptation of "Brave New World" with Demi Moore.

How this mixes in over the next decade with Netflix, Amazon Prime,Disney+, Apple+, HBO Max, Acorn TV, CW Seed, YouTube TV and the gazillion other streaming services out there is going to be interesting.


----------



## NR4P

This is an improvement over CBS's streaming. With All Access you have to pay to watch anything, ad or not. I refuse to subscribe.

I think Comcast is doing the right thing. 

Cable subs get preference vs non customers.
AT&T does the same thing with Directv and wireless.


----------



## b4pjoe

phrelin said:


> Peacock Premium Commercial-Free will cost $5/mo for Comcast and Cox cable TV subscribers and $10/mo for everyone else. Content will be the same 15,000± hours of programming with commercials and early access to late night talk shows, but without commercials.


I don't consider that "Commercial-Free" with "15,000± hours of programming with commercials" and the only commercial-free content is "early access to late night talk shows, but without commercials".

Edit: Original quoted post corrected that it is all ad free.


----------



## phrelin

NR4P said:


> This is an improvement over CBS's streaming. With All Access you have to pay to watch anything, ad or not. I refuse to subscribe.
> 
> I think Comcast is doing the right thing.
> 
> Cable subs get preference vs non customers.
> AT&T does the same thing with Directv and wireless.


Right now that is true for the Peacock Free offering. But for the Premium, to get it free you have to be among the 21.4 million Xfinity or 2.9 million Cox cable TV subscribers. That leaves about 115 million TV households not eligible for the Premium content for free.

The thing about CBS All Access is that you get your local CBS station streaming live so you don't have to pay for either cable or satellite TV.

The question for me is that I'd really like to do without a cable or satellite subscription. I'm comfortable with Hulu and All Access giving me most of the prime time programming for CBS, ABC, Fox and NBC. With Peacock coming I expect to lose NBC shows soon.


----------



## phrelin

b4pjoe said:


> I don't consider that "Commercial-Free" with "15,000± hours of programming with commercials" and the only commercial-free content is "early access to late night talk shows, but without commercials".


Oops. My error. It's all without commercials. I've corrected that. Cutting and pasting requires more diligence on my part.


----------



## b4pjoe

phrelin said:


> Oops. My error. It's all without commercials. I've corrected that. Cutting and pasting requires more diligence on my part.


OK thanks for clarifying that as it didn't sound right.


----------



## techguy88

NR4P said:


> This is an improvement over CBS's streaming. With All Access you have to pay to watch anything, ad or not. I refuse to subscribe.
> 
> I think Comcast is doing the right thing.
> 
> Cable subs get preference vs non customers.
> AT&T does the same thing with Directv and wireless.





phrelin said:


> Right now that is true for the Peacock Free offering. But for the Premium, to get it free you have to be among the 21.4 million Xfinity or 2.9 million Cox cable TV subscribers. That leaves about 115 million TV households not eligible for the Premium content for free.
> 
> The thing about CBS All Access is that you get your local CBS station streaming live so you don't have to pay for either cable or satellite TV.
> 
> The question for me is that I'd really like to do without a cable or satellite subscription. I'm comfortable with Hulu and All Access giving me most of the prime time programming for CBS, ABC, Fox and NBC. With Peacock coming I expect to lose NBC shows soon.


We're gonna need a veen diagram soon to figure out who gets which streaming service for free with which company. 

Interesting for non-Comcast/Cox customers they are launching a completely Free AVOD service even if it has half the content as the Premium AVOD/SVOD services.  I will have to wait and see what's on the Free AVOD service but sounds like something I would defiantly pick up.

Shocked that WB's Two and a Half Men is headed to Peacock (along with George Lopez b/c it is also owned by WB). It looks like AT&T's Warner Bros. isn't opposed to sharing but it seems to be keeping the better rated series for themselves (The Big Bang Theory, Friends).

This caught my eye from this article:


> Additional distribution deals are in the works, the company said.


Will be interesting to see who Comcast brings on board. We know AT&T is also working on distribution deals for HBO Max outside of its various services.

I hope the "Live coverage of the Opening and Closing Ceremonies before they air on NBC in primetime" is unedited with nothing missing _please Comcast don't screw this up!_


----------



## phrelin

_Deadline Hollywood_ offered one last summary article Peacock Investors Day Review: A Lot Of 'SNL' Alums, Dick Wolf, & Lessons Learned From Apple, Disney & HBO Max which offers some good observations including these:

The name may suck, but NBCU's entry into the streaming wars really took flight in a solid show & tell today. The surprising result, in the increasingly crowded digital environment, was a near Gold medal exertion for the Comcast-owned entity that's set to launch nationally on July 15 - nine days before the behemoth of the Olympics open in Japan.

Clearly having learned a lesson or two from the past and sometimes problematic presentations by AppleTV+, Disney+ and the sprawling HBO Max affair the past few months, the Matt Strauss run streamer brought in some real producers to make sure it all hung together, front loaded this afternoon with lots of details and math, Olympic promises and a plethora of talent where its competitors unfortunately went for executive overload.

It can't be stated enough that Peacock has a terrible and deserving of censorship name. Yet, unlike some of the other plus-ing or max-ing newbies to the revolutionary world Netflix built, the service appears to have a realpolitik strategy for revenue growth based more on real numbers than hopes, brand desires and a fear of missing the streaming boat.​
Senior Writer Dominic Patten realizes that Comcast/NBCU is in this for the money and has the depth to make it work. It's not that Netflix, All Access, AppleTV+, Disney+, and HBO Max won't survive the next decade. But the advertising center of Peacock beginning with the Olympics will keep the service up in far more households when times get tough.

Not surprisingly, IMHO it's all beginnng to look a lot like TV, just with more options and flexibility.


----------



## James Long

The early streams of Fallon and Meyers will tighten the production schedule. Fallon is usually taped at 5pm, Meyers at 6:30pm. Fallon will stream at 8pm and Meyers at 9pm. Fortunately both shows have been in production long enough that the producers can handle the schedule.

As for the "Peacock" name ... I like it. It is colloquial.

I appreciate the next day free view of current programs. From time to time I have problems with a recording (usually extreme weather) and want to watch a missed show online. I don't want to pay a subscription for a missed delivery. I note above that the premium level is included for Comcast TV subscribers - I subscribe Comcast internet only so I assume I'm not included. The price of Xfinity TV is high enough it should include Peacock on demand.

It should be a decent service.


----------



## evotz

I haven't read any of the articles and really just skimmed through this thread, but hoping someone has an answer...

What is the difference between Peacock Free and Peacock Premium?

Will the Olympic exclusive content be on Peacock Free or will you have to buy Peacock Premium? (Probably a stupid question... "of course you have to buy something!")

I'm assuming the exclusive shows like Battlestar Galactica will only be on Peacock Premium?

Will the Peacock Free just have old content?


----------



## SamC

Old content seems like the theme here. Saw what of all this I wanted to when it was on originally, or on the many dozens of reruns on regular linear channels. 

Olympics is 2 weeks every 4 years and is about as interesting as watching paint dry, IMHO.

Pass.


----------



## James Long

Peacock Free includes next-day access to current seasons of freshman broadcast series, a range of film and TV titles but only select episodes of marquee Peacock originals and tentpole series. It will also feature curated Peacock streaming genre channels like "SNL Vault," "Family Movie Night" and "Olympic Profiles."

Peacock Premium, meanwhile, adds full-season Peacock originals and tentpole series and next-day access to current seasons of returning broadcast shows. It also throws in early access to late night titles like the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon and sports attractions like exclusive Premier League soccer matches, Olympic programming.​
Free will probably work for most people. Those that want "everything" in the library could go to premium. The downside of "free" is curated choices. If the content is what the viewer wants then there is no issue. But if you're looking for every episode offered (all content available) the $5 isn't too bad.

After launch we will see how bad the commercials are. Hopefully less than the standard broadcast commercial breaks. People won't watch (and won't see the ads) if there are too many commercials.


----------



## B. Shoe

As a regular in-depth viewer of the Olympics, I'm intrigued to see how which events are "Peacock exclusive", as basically everything is streamed live, for free, on NBCOlympics.com. I really enjoy the Olympic basketball tournament, and I'll watch a lot of the signature events.

In terms of the initial content list made available, it's nothing enticing enough for me to pay for premium services. I know others are hardcore fans of the Chicago series of shows, Law & Order franchise, etc., so there's definitely an audience for this. But I like how there's a free version to at least dip your toes in the water with.


----------



## Rich

B. Shoe said:


> As a regular in-depth viewer of the Olympics, I'm intrigued to see how which events are "Peacock exclusive", as basically everything is streamed live, for free, on NBCOlympics.com. I really enjoy the Olympic basketball tournament, and I'll watch a lot of the signature events.
> 
> In terms of the initial content list made available, it's nothing enticing enough for me to pay for premium services. I know others are hardcore fans of the Chicago series of shows, Law & Order franchise, etc., so there's definitely an audience for this. But I like how there's a free version to at least dip your toes in the water with.


I didn't see anything that interested me but I'm sure the app will improve. Gotta give these things time to get their stuff together.

Rich


----------



## NR4P

phrelin said:


> Right now that is true for the Peacock Free offering. But for the Premium, to get it free you have to be among the 21.4 million Xfinity or 2.9 million Cox cable TV subscribers. *That leaves about 115 million TV households not eligible for the Premium content for free.*
> 
> The thing about CBS All Access is that you get your local CBS station streaming live so you don't have to pay for either cable or satellite TV.


With respect to the highlighted copy above, why should the other 115M HH's get Premium content for free? Keyword = Premium

and with CBS AA, nothing is free, Even with CATV or Sat subscription. I think CBS is the greedy one, Comcast is trying to find the middle ground, IMO.


----------



## espaeth

One of the biggest frustrations I have with NBC Sports, in particular, is that they cut their 1080i broadcast down to a 1080p30 stream through their app. For the sports they cover that involve lots of left/right panning (NASCAR, Soccer, Hockey) it’s a nightmare to watch through their app. I wonder if they are going to finally stream 60 frames per second with their new service.


----------



## phrelin

Today from CNBC came this analysis NBCUniversal revealed a critical number about Peacock that shows why media companies are walking slowly into streaming.


----------



## evotz

phrelin said:


> Today from CNBC came this analysis NBCUniversal revealed a critical number about Peacock that shows why media companies are walking slowly into streaming.


I think what CNBC forgets is that cable is bleeding customers.

They may only be making $6 to $7 per customer with streaming. Say they're making $15 per customer with cable (probably not this high, but for argument's sake). Those cable customers are paying upwards of $100 a month for a lot of content that they never watch. As customers get smarter (people do get smarter... don't they?) and start to streamline their viewing content - why pay for content you never watch? Paying $5/mo or $10/mo for this package + whatever other streaming content they want all of that amounts to less than $100/mo they were paying with cable. When that happens, NBC's cost per customer with cable is going to dip to a lot less than $15/mo.

This is the ESPN problem. ESPN likes to boast that they have a ton of subscribers. And they do... because they force it on them through cable and satellite subscriptions. But how many of those subscribers actually watch ESPN? (I do, I'm a sports fan, but I understand this argument). And now as cable and satellite continues to bleed customers, ESPN is realizing that they aren't nearly as popular as they thought they were.


----------



## James Long

"Comcast’s NBCUniversal estimates its streaming service will generate average revenue per user (ARPU) per month of $6 to $7. This is an aggregate total for NBCUniversal’s three tiers of Peacock -- the free tier that will make money solely from advertising, a $4.99 per month tier that will have a more robust content offering but still include some ads, and a $9.99 tier with no advertising.

That $6 to $7 is less than what the company generates today from selling its products to cable networks."

(The article estimates $10 ARPU including advertising revenue for Comcast channels via cable.)

"Peacock ... won’t break even for NBCUniversal until 2024, executives estimate."
"Disney said the same during its investor day for Disney+, targeting 2024 as a break-even date."


All of the investment in streaming so they can make 40% less off of each customer?
The reality is that they are building a safety net so they don't lose all $10 of revenue when a customer moves away from cable to streaming. $6 is better than $0.


----------



## evotz

And as they lose customers on cable, that $10 ARPU isn't going up.


----------



## mjwagner

evotz said:


> And as they lose customers on cable, that $10 ARPU isn't going up.


A shakeup in this industry has been building for years. Many of these companies are clearly in denial. The next few years will be interesting in deed...


----------



## James Long

evotz said:


> And as they lose customers on cable, that $10 ARPU isn't going up.


How does that work? Their total revenue would be higher with more customers, but the average should adjust with the customers. I'd expect the average to go up with the price increases per customer that Comcast charges carriers for their channels. The only down I see is if the subscriber loss affects advertising ... but the point of Peacock streaming is to capture people who leave traditional distribution. As stated above, $6 is better than $0.


----------



## inkahauts

James Long said:


> "Comcast's NBCUniversal estimates its streaming service will generate average revenue per user (ARPU) per month of $6 to $7. This is an aggregate total for NBCUniversal's three tiers of Peacock -- the free tier that will make money solely from advertising, a $4.99 per month tier that will have a more robust content offering but still include some ads, and a $9.99 tier with no advertising.
> 
> That $6 to $7 is less than what the company generates today from selling its products to cable networks."
> 
> (The article estimates $10 ARPU including advertising revenue for Comcast channels via cable.)
> 
> "Peacock ... won't break even for NBCUniversal until 2024, executives estimate."
> "Disney said the same during its investor day for Disney+, targeting 2024 as a break-even date."
> 
> All of the investment in streaming so they can make 40% less off of each customer?
> The reality is that they are building a safety net so they don't lose all $10 of revenue when a customer moves away from cable to streaming. $6 is better than $0.


Don't confuse what they expect now vs what the expect in four years.


----------



## inkahauts

mjwagner said:


> A shakeup in this industry has been building for years. Many of these companies are clearly in denial. The next few years will be interesting in deed...


Everyone who keeps saying it'll be cheaper with streaming isn't paying attention. The shakeup
Maybe coming in how you get your programing but if you think it'll cost less in five years than it does today going with dish or DIRECTV you will be mistaken.

Every time we turn around these new streaming offerings have new content that you have to pay more for than ever if you look at it from a price per show standpoint.


----------



## MysteryMan

inkahauts said:


> Everyone who keeps saying it'll be cheaper with streaming isn't paying attention. The shakeup
> Maybe coming in how you get your programing but if you think it'll cost less in five years than it does today going with dish or DIRECTV you will be mistaken.
> 
> Every time we turn around these new streaming offerings have new content that you have to pay more for than ever if you look at it from a price per show standpoint.


I totally agree.


----------



## mjwagner

inkahauts said:


> Everyone who keeps saying it'll be cheaper with streaming isn't paying attention. The shakeup
> Maybe coming in how you get your programing but if you think it'll cost less in five years than it does today going with dish or DIRECTV you will be mistaken.
> 
> Every time we turn around these new streaming offerings have new content that you have to pay more for than ever if you look at it from a price per show standpoint.


Prices for streaming are going up. So are prices for traditional providers. It will be a long time, if ever before those two line connect or cross particularly for folks like me that have 7+ TVs (only a max of 2 or very rarely 3 are ever used simultaneously). I didn't switch because of price but my monthly bill for streaming is less now than when switched a little over 3 years ago...LOL.


----------



## evotz

James Long said:


> How does that work? Their total revenue would be higher with more customers, but the average should adjust with the customers. I'd expect the average to go up with the price increases per customer that Comcast charges carriers for their channels. The only down I see is if the subscriber loss affects advertising ... but the point of Peacock streaming is to capture people who leave traditional distribution. As stated above, $6 is better than $0.


I should have said total. When they're making $10 per customer on cable, with 6 million subscribers that's $60 million, but as the number of subscribers decreases to say 3 million, they either have to charge $20 per customer to get that $60 million or live with $30 million.

The point was... they're losing customers on cable because the customers are having to pay too much - and they're not watching their content. By streaming... I'm assuming customers wouldn't pay $5/mo if they don't want to watch the content they offer? So the $6 or $7 they are bringing in with those customers is much more sustainable than the customers that are forced to pay for the content on cable.



inkahauts said:


> Everyone who keeps saying it'll be cheaper with streaming isn't paying attention. The shakeup
> Maybe coming in how you get your programing but if you think it'll cost less in five years than it does today going with dish or DIRECTV you will be mistaken.
> 
> Every time we turn around these new streaming offerings have new content that you have to pay more for than ever if you look at it from a price per show standpoint.


It's true... if you want the exact same content that you get with cable or satellite with all of these streaming services... yes, it's probably going to cost you the same if not more.

BUT... if you're only interested in a handful of these content offerings - then you can save a lot of money by picking and choosing what you want to watch.

This is essentially the a la carte programming people have been screaming for in cable for years.


----------



## wmb

inkahauts said:


> Everyone who keeps saying it'll be cheaper with streaming isn't paying attention. The shakeup
> Maybe coming in how you get your programing but if you think it'll cost less in five years than it does today going with dish or DIRECTV you will be mistaken.
> 
> Every time we turn around these new streaming offerings have new content that you have to pay more for than ever if you look at it from a price per show standpoint.


In a way, I disagree. Quite honestly, people aren't going to dig deeper into their pockets for streamed content than they have been paying for content delivered via traditional MVPDs. People are going to cut the cord, and find the content they want via some other mechanism

People will sign up for a streaming service for a month or two, watch what they want, and then move to the next one canceling the first. Rinse and repeat. I'll do that in the next month or two with CBS All Access to watch Picard. I'll get a 7 day free trial, watch the series for free, and cancel the service when I'm done.

Sure, you may be paying more per show, but what you pay per show is irrelevant because you watch a fraction of the shows you are paying for under the MVPD model. And, BTW, there are plenty of streaming options out there that have little I'm interested that you may be interested in. Those services aren't getting my money.

And, by the way, what I'm not paying for with YTTV is equipment, which cost almost as much with D* as the YTTV subscription per month.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

evotz said:


> I should have said total. When they're making $10 per customer on cable, with 6 million subscribers that's $60 million, but as the number of subscribers decreases to say 3 million, they either have to charge $20 per customer to get that $60 million or live with $30 million.
> 
> The point was... they're losing customers on cable because the customers are having to pay too much - and they're not watching their content. By streaming... I'm assuming customers wouldn't pay $5/mo if they don't want to watch the content they offer? So the $6 or $7 they are bringing in with those customers is much more sustainable than the customers that are forced to pay for the content on cable.
> 
> It's true... if you want the exact same content that you get with cable or satellite with all of these streaming services... yes, it's probably going to cost you the same if not more.
> 
> BUT... if you're only interested in a handful of these content offerings - then you can save a lot of money by picking and choosing what you want to watch.
> 
> This is essentially the a la carte programming people have been screaming for in cable for years.


No you'll end up paying the same for the same content you watch, but less access to other content you rarely or never watch...

The prices of streaming don't have to skyrocket as much as people seem to think for prices to align. The key is all the major players will kick out the little players and horde their own content, so you won't find Warner brothers stuff and Disney stuff on one platform in the future. You'll have to subscribe to both.... Netflix is very very fast heading toward a cliff where it will depend almost solely on its own content rather than its own and others... things are changing faster and faster towards that end...


----------



## evotz

But what if I care nothing about any Warner Brothers content?

Isn't that a win for me? I no longer have to pay for something I won't use.


----------



## inkahauts

wmb said:


> In a way, I disagree. Quite honestly, people aren't going to dig deeper into their pockets for streamed content than they have been paying for content delivered via traditional MVPDs. People are going to cut the cord, and find the content they want via some other mechanism
> 
> People will sign up for a streaming service for a month or two, watch what they want, and then move to the next one canceling the first. Rinse and repeat. I'll do that in the next month or two with CBS All Access to watch Picard. I'll get a 7 day free trial, watch the series for free, and cancel the service when I'm done.
> 
> Sure, you may be paying more per show, but what you pay per show is irrelevant because you watch a fraction of the shows you are paying for under the MVPD model. And, BTW, there are plenty of streaming options out there that have little I'm interested that you may be interested in. Those services aren't getting my money.
> 
> And, by the way, what I'm not paying for with YTTV is equipment, which cost almost as much with D* as the YTTV subscription per month.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There's several things here. DIRECTV and YouTube and such. Those will be equal in pricing sooner than people think. And it amazes me people still disregard how much their internet bill is when contemplating how much their streaming is. If it weren't for video your internet cost would probably be half or less than what you pay today. But youtube isn't going to run on razor or negative margins forever. And their deals with stations will become very complex in the next few years... more so than today's for sure.

The separate providers like HBO max and peacock, those are the ones that will also add up very fast. And commercials? You think NBC will be the only one offering their stuff that way. Wait till everyone follows suit.


----------



## wmb

inkahauts said:


> There's several things here. DIRECTV and YouTube and such. Those will be equal in pricing sooner than people think. And it amazes me people still disregard how much their internet bill is when contemplating how much their streaming is. If it weren't for video your internet cost would probably be half or less than what you pay today. But youtube isn't going to run on razor or negative margins forever. And their deals with stations will become very complex in the next few years... more so than today's for sure.
> 
> The separate providers like HBO max and peacock, those are the ones that will also add up very fast. And commercials? You think NBC will be the only one offering their stuff that way. Wait till everyone follows suit.


Well, there is a price point where if YouTube hits it, I may drop it. It depends. But what I don't have right now with YTTV vs. D* I don't miss. I expect I'll adjust just as easily when I move on to a smaller package.

As for the internet, I paid $50 per month for 10 mbps cable in 1999. That was about $15 more than having a second phone line for dial up. Today, I pay $90 for 1 Gbps plus landline. No data caps. O, the bundle includes basic TV service (no ESPN). As I think about it, my phone/internet/TV and YTTV cost today is probably the same as I paid in 1999 for cable, internet and landline. And, on the whole, the channel packages are basically the same teir.

As an aside, my $40 per line T-mobile service includes Netflix. I'd hate to research my cell bill from then.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mjwagner

inkahauts said:


> There's several things here. DIRECTV and YouTube and such. Those will be equal in pricing sooner than people think. And it amazes me people still disregard how much their internet bill is when contemplating how much their streaming is. If it weren't for video your internet cost would probably be half or less than what you pay today. But youtube isn't going to run on razor or negative margins forever. And their deals with stations will become very complex in the next few years... more so than today's for sure.
> 
> The separate providers like HBO max and peacock, those are the ones that will also add up very fast. And commercials? You think NBC will be the only one offering their stuff that way. Wait till everyone follows suit.


The only way you would have to add the cost of the internet connection to the equation is if you would eliminate or change your internet connection if you would switch from streaming back to D. I use my internet connect for lots of things other than streaming (and had before I ever started streaming) so for me that cost would not change so its a wash. And I've seen the claim that the cost for live tv streaming and D will somehow end up the same for three years now. So far the difference has not only not gotten closer it has increased. I'm sure the delta will get closer at some point in the future but so far I haven't seen it in my case.


----------



## Rich

evotz said:


> *It's true... if you want the exact same content that you get with cable or satellite with all of these streaming services... yes, it's probably going to cost you the same if not more.*
> 
> BUT... if you're only interested in a handful of these content offerings - then you can save a lot of money by picking and choosing what you want to watch.
> 
> This is essentially the a la carte programming people have been screaming for in cable for years.


This isn't really about money, this is about people not wanting change and not understanding what that change can mean. Of course replicating cable or sat service is gonna end up costing as much as folks are paying now. The point of streaming is you don't have to replicate cable or sat service. Once you get that thru your head it's easy to see how much you can save if that really matters to you. Drop the cable replacement service and watch no more than two video services at a time. If folks are truly concerned with saving money that's the thing to do. Your cost? No more than 30 bucks a month...with more content than sat or cable can give you.

Good post, BTW.

Rich


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> No you'll end up paying the same for the same content you watch, but less access to other content you rarely or never watch...
> 
> The prices of streaming don't have to skyrocket as much as people seem to think for prices to align. The key is all the major players will kick out the little players and horde their own content, so you won't find Warner brothers stuff and Disney stuff on one platform in the future. You'll have to subscribe to both.... Netflix is very very fast heading toward a cliff where it will depend almost solely on its own content rather than its own and others... things are changing faster and faster towards that end...


Been hearing that song about NF for years and it just keeps rolling along.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts

mjwagner said:


> The only way you would have to add the cost of the internet connection to the equation is if you would eliminate or change your internet connection if you would switch from streaming back to D. I use my internet connect for lots of things other than streaming (and had before I ever started streaming) so for me that cost would not change so its a wash. And I've seen the claim that the cost for live tv streaming and D will somehow end up the same for three years now. So far the difference has not only not gotten closer it has increased. I'm sure the delta will get closer at some point in the future but so far I haven't seen it in my case.


I think a better way to look at it is... your internet costs as much as it does because of everyone streaming. Internet would be cheaper to supply if it wasn't for all the video bandwidth requires... Honesty, if you don't do any streaming you are helping support others streaming.... similar to how channels are sold in packages so everyone helps pay for channels they don't watch if the channel is in your package...


----------



## inkahauts

Rich said:


> Been hearing that song about NF for years and it just keeps rolling along.
> 
> Rich


Yeah but they finally are losing stuff, and spending 17 billion on programming this year. I'm not saying they can't make it though, I'm saying the content is getting spread around more and more to different services. So you need more services to get what you used to get just from Netflix. And if people don't want to buy all the services, who are they going to drop?


----------



## techguy88

James Long said:


> "Peacock ... won't break even for NBCUniversal until 2024, executives estimate."
> "Disney said the same during its investor day for Disney+, targeting 2024 as a break-even date."


AT&T also estimates that HBO Max will break even in 2024 then see a profit in 2025. They announced that during their WarerMedia Day event in October.



inkahauts said:


> There's several things here. DIRECTV and YouTube and such. Those will be equal in pricing sooner than people think. And it amazes me people still disregard how much their internet bill is when contemplating how much their streaming is. If it weren't for video your internet cost would probably be half or less than what you pay today. But youtube isn't going to run on razor or negative margins forever. And their deals with stations will become very complex in the next few years... more so than today's for sure.
> 
> The separate providers like HBO max and peacock, those are the ones that will also add up very fast. And commercials? You think NBC will be the only one offering their stuff that way. Wait till everyone follows suit.


To be fair in a lot of cases people already had a traditional MVPD provider along with their Internet service. In most cases standalone Internet is like est $10/mo more with the major providers. In some cases the price doesn't change regardless if you have their pay-TV service or not. In my area Armstrong charges the same for Internet regardless if you have their TV service or not. My plan includes a 2TB data cap and I have never hit that during a month of intense gaming and streaming. So for me I don't have to factor in my Internet anytime I do a comparison when I think about cutting the cord. I would drop down to their Zoom (100Mbps, 1TB data allowance) plan however I do exceed 1TB on occasion so its not an option for me.

Well HBO Max already said they will have an AVOD version launching in 2021. I doubt Disney+ will launch an AVOD version but I wouldn't put it past them if they think they will get more $$$. Hell would freeze over before HBO Max and Disney+ offer a free AVOD version like Peacock with less content.



inkahauts said:


> I think a better way to look at it is... your internet costs as much as it does because of everyone streaming. Internet would be cheaper to supply if it wasn't for all the video bandwidth requires... Honesty, if you don't do any streaming you are helping support others streaming.... similar to how channels are sold in packages so everyone helps pay for channels they don't watch if the channel is in your package...


As far as the actual cost of Internet goes it depends on your ISP. Like with Comcast and AT&T, for example, the cost of going to standalone Internet isn't that much more. AT&T provides a 1TB data allowance which for most will be enough. Depending on the area Comcast either has a 1TB data allowance in place or no data allowance. Only those who have a noticeable increase is the few customers who will need to pay for unlimited data.

If your ISP is like Suddenlink then your already in a plan with unlimited data in most cases cause they force you. Any plan up to their Internet 200Mbps plan comes with a pitiful 250GB data cap. (Starting in February this plan costs $103.49/mo. $99.99 for the plan itself plus $3.50 for a Network Enhancement Fee.) If you want unlimited data you need at minimal the Internet 400Mbps plan which will be $123.49/mo ($119.99 for the plan, $3.50 for the Network Enhancement Fee.) (Altice USA treats their American customers as cash cows that they can squeeze.)

The main reason American prices are so high is there is virtually no competition in most areas. The high prices not because of network upgrades to handle increased streaming. A prime example of this is how Altice USA runs its two cable systems. Most Optimum cable systems faces competition from Verizon FiOS so the Optimum customers don't have a data cap. In most Suddenlink areas no one really competes with Suddenlink so its a data cap minefield.


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> Yeah but they finally are losing stuff, and spending 17 billion on programming this year. I'm not saying they can't make it though, I'm saying the content is getting spread around more and more to different services. So you need more services to get what you used to get just from Netflix. And if people don't want to buy all the services, who are they going to drop?


They seem to be doing better than ever. Just got thru watching _The Two Popes_ and _The Irishman_, both NF Originals and can't say enough good things about both of them. I wouldn't focus on what they are losing, look at what they are coming out with. Gotta remember, you don't have to keep all the video services active all the time.

Rich


----------



## phrelin

I fear there will come a time in the next decade when the Disney/ABC, Comcast/NBCU, and ViacomCBS streaming service subscriptions will require a minimum number of months.

Apple, Amazon, and Google (owner of YouTube) are selling other stuff, so their income goals would not result in them initiating such a radical change in the streaming community. Other services are too small to risk the loss of the in-and-out streamers.

I'm probably paranoid, but the big 3 own a lot of content and having subscribers that stay for a couple of months to watch a few shows that have accumulated episodes just doesn't allow for comfortable shareholder meeting prsentations.


----------



## b4pjoe

If AT&T TV prove they can get away with it others will follow.


----------



## James Long

I expect either minimum subscription lengths or discounts for annual subscriptions. They need to encourage people to remain subscribers year round and not keep adding and dropping the service.


----------



## techguy88

b4pjoe said:


> If AT&T TV prove they can get away with it others will follow.


Oh lordt... that will make them the Apple of the streaming industry if that happens.



James Long said:


> I expect either minimum subscription lengths or discounts for annual subscriptions. They need to encourage people to remain subscribers year round and not keep adding and dropping the service.


Well for some that will work would depend on the content. I'm a huge anime fan so as far as FunimationNow goes that holds true for me. Prior to last year they only had two tiers "Basic" (free w/ads) and "Premium" (full access, no ads, 5 streams, offline viewing) for $5.99/mo or $59.99/year. I would usually cancel FunimationNow periodically and subscribe when there was something I wanted to watch that was exclusive to the Premium tier or needed offline viewing.

However when they announced their new "three tier premium memberships" in 2019 I took advantage of their offer to lock-in my rate by switching my then monthly Premium membership to an annual Premium membership. So now I'm on their "Premium Plus" membership but I pay the grandfathered rate of $59.99/year rate instead of the new regular rate of $79.99/year (a $20 savings) which is like getting 2.5 months for free. I also subscribe to VRV.co for $9.99/mo because it has both Crunchyroll (normally $7.99/mo) and HiDive (normally $4.99/mo) included and is cheaper. Plus it has other services included as well that I will check out once in a while.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> I expect either minimum subscription lengths or discounts for annual subscriptions. They need to encourage people to remain subscribers year round and not keep adding and dropping the service.


CBS All Access now offers a discounted yearly plan. The commercial free plan is $9.99 per month ($119.88 per year) but you can opt for the yearly subscription fee of $99.99. Limited Commercials plan is 5.99 per month ($71.88 per year) or the yearly plan is $59.99 per year.


----------



## the2130

phrelin said:


> I fear there will come a time in the next decade when the Disney/ABC, Comcast/NBCU, and ViacomCBS streaming service subscriptions will require a minimum number of months.
> 
> Apple, Amazon, and Google (owner of YouTube) are selling other stuff, so their income goals would not result in them initiating such a radical change in the streaming community. Other services are too small to risk the loss of the in-and-out streamers.
> 
> I'm probably paranoid, but the big 3 own a lot of content and having subscribers that stay for a couple of months to watch a few shows that have accumulated episodes just doesn't allow for comfortable shareholder meeting prsentations.


There is already a minimum of one month. The problem with lengthening that to multiple months is that people will be reluctant to sign up at all, or they will only sign up when there is enough content they want to watch to justify the minimum subscription. Someone who now signs up for a month to watch one series and then cancels will wait until there are 3 or 4 shows they want to see and then cancel after they finish watching them.


----------



## Rich

phrelin said:


> I fear there will come a time in the next decade when the Disney/ABC, Comcast/NBCU, and ViacomCBS streaming service subscriptions will require a minimum number of months.


I have always wondered if that would happen. I would not be surprised.

Rich


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> CBS All Access now offers a discounted yearly plan. The commercial free plan is $9.99 per month ($119.88 per year) but you can opt for the yearly subscription fee of $99.99. Limited Commercials plan is 5.99 per month ($71.88 per year) or the yearly plan is $59.99 per year.


You have to look at how much content each of these apps have that interests you. CBSAA is one app that we can usually activate for a month, binge and then deactivate. Same thing with apps like Starz and Showtime, even HBO Now.

Rich


----------



## the2130

Rich said:


> I have always wondered if that would happen. I would not be surprised.
> 
> Rich


Remember, there is already a minimum number of months - one. If they could increase revenue by requiring longer subscriptions, why do you suppose they aren't doing so?


----------



## lparsons21

the2130 said:


> Remember, there is already a minimum number of months - one. If they could increase revenue by requiring longer subscriptions, why do you suppose they aren't doing so?


Pretty simple. They do it since they don't refund. Pay for a month and cancel the next day and the subscription stays live until the month is over. Less hassle for them and maybe even saves them money.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## phrelin

the2130 said:


> Remember, there is already a minimum number of months - one. If they could increase revenue by requiring longer subscriptions, why do you suppose they aren't doing so?


You make a good point. Maybe I'm overstating the possibility of a mandatory mult-month subscription. I suppose even cable and satellite is month-to-month beyond the first year or two subscription which involves equipment and installation. However, it is complicated as multi-month subscriptions are usually cheaper for corporate financial reasons.

The month-to-month subscription pattern was set by cable premium channels beginning with HBO. Netflix along with many smaller streamers followed that pattern. Hulu and CBS All Access chose to follow that pattern, but then again most of their new content was available on their broadcast channels which ironically you can watch on cable/satellite or for free if you live in the right place..

Pricing patterns involve

a desire to attract a subscriber and

a desire to get a commitment to aid financial planning.
Now that Comcast-owned NBCU is going to pull away from Hulu and CBS has merged back with Viacom (with its plethora of cable channels we cable/satellite subscribers all pay for whether we want them or not), there's bound to be some corporate preference for the multi-month model.

And we have to think about AT&T's acquisition of WarnerMedia which owns HBO, Cinemax, TBS, TNT, TruTV, CNN, Turner Sports, Bleacher Report, AT&T SportsNet, MLB Network, and NBA TV. News & Sports mixes DirecTV and its "cable" services into management thinking for the upcoming HBO Max.

Disney+ pricing started off with 6.99/mo. or $69.99/yr _prepaid_. The yearly price gives you two months for free. No big deal. Or is it. Disney-owned Hulu does not have an annual price. But then again, their live-TV cable-like package monthly cost is as much as Disney+ annual cost.

Apple TV Plus costs $5 a month. They charge $50 for an annual subscription _prepaid_, again giving you two months for free.

Then again Acorn TV costs $4.99/month but an annual subscription is $49.99/year _prepaid_, also giving you two months free.

It is all speculative at this time. It may be that the only choice for the big corporations will be to offer a meaningful discount for a multi-month commitment.


----------



## the2130

The point I was making is that if the companies offering these streaming services could increase revenue by requiring multi-month subscriptions, they would be doing it now. They offer discounts for those willing to commit for a year, month-to-month for everyone else. That model isn't likely to change.


----------



## b4pjoe

Rich said:


> You have to look at how much content each of these apps have that interests you. CBSAA is one app that we can usually activate for a month, binge and then deactivate. Same thing with apps like Starz and Showtime, even HBO Now.
> 
> Rich


I keep CBSAA permanently. I watch it more than anything else.


----------



## techguy88

Rich said:


> You have to look at how much content each of these apps have that interests you. CBSAA is one app that we can usually activate for a month, binge and then deactivate. Same thing with apps like Starz and Showtime, even HBO Now.
> 
> Rich





b4pjoe said:


> I keep CBSAA permanently. I watch it more than anything else.


That's the glorious thing about streaming services they can be subscribed to when needed and then deactivated when not in use and you can keep the ones that you watch the most.

In my case I stream anime a lot so I keep the anime streamers year round. 

FunimationNow - Premium Plus - My price is locked in at $59.99/year after they changed their membership tiers and increased the price on their old Premium tier now called Premium Plus. The current price is $7.99/mo or $79.99/year but I keep my grandfathered price of $59.99/year as long as I don't cancel my subscription.
VRV.co - Premium - Price $9.99/mo (Cheaper than buying Crunchyroll ($79.99/year) and HiDive ($47.99/year) individually. Also includes Boomerang, Cartoon Hangover, Mondo, NickRewind, Rooster Teeth First and VRV Selects. So this service more than pays for itself.) 
HBO - HBO is included with my AT&T Wireless Plan
Epix - I would still pay $5.99/mo for Epix Now even if I didn't have D* so far the originals and movies keep me watching. 
Disney + - Price $69.99/year (Still evaluating not sure if I will renew for another year after November 2020)
Streamers I rotate during the year

Netflix - I usually subscribe to NF for 1-2 months out of a year and binge watch what I want. I typically wait until they send me a come back email where I get a month of their Standard plan for the Basic $8.99 rate. 
Hulu - I usually keep this for about 6 months when they offer me a 6 month deal @ $2.99/mo. 
CBS All Access - late June - late September - I'm a sucker for Big Brother and like the live feeds so I will sub to CBS AA during this time and watch their other shows I'm interested in. Sometimes they will give me a free month when I first attempt to cancel which extends its life to late October before I pull the plug for the year. The past 2 years they actually got an extra paid month out of me with Celebrity Big Brother but not in 2020 since it didn't return. 
Starz - I cancelled by D* subscription to Starz and plan on rotating Starz from now on by singing up for a month or two to watch the originals I like then cancelling it.
Showtime - Same reason as Starz


----------



## MysteryMan

techguy88 said:


> That's the glorious thing about streaming services they can be subscribed to when needed and then deactivated when not in use and you can keep the ones that you watch the most.


Enjoy the honeymoon. I'm sure that will change in the future.


----------



## wmb

MysteryMan said:


> Enjoy the honeymoon. I'm sure that will change in the future.


Your certainty balances my uncertainty. The come-and-go customers are undoubtedly a pain for the streaming services, but they're also revenue that they might not have if they forced a minimum number of months.

How do you do that anyway? Charge for 3 months of service on start up? That means your $10 service has a sign up cost of $30. I'm not sure I'm paying $30 for a show or two. The better plan is to have someone sign up for a month and then forget to cancel on time, and you get a second (or more) month of fees.

I'll add that for the most part, we are seeing the term and pricing for streaming services. Tell me this, how much has the price of Spotify or Pandora changed over the past decade? That's right, same price. That will happen with streaming.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MysteryMan

wmb said:


> Your certainty balances my uncertainty. The come-and-go customers are undoubtedly a pain for the streaming services, but they're also revenue that they might not have if they forced a minimum number of months.
> 
> How do you do that anyway? Charge for 3 months of service on start up? That means your $10 service has a sign up cost of $30. I'm not sure I'm paying $30 for a show or two. The better plan is to have someone sign up for a month and then forget to cancel on time, and you get a second (or more) month of fees.
> 
> I'll add that for the most part, we are seeing the term and pricing for streaming services. Tell me this, how much has the price of Spotify or Pandora changed over the past decade? That's right, same price. That will happen with streaming.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're comparing apples with oranges. Pandora and Spotify are music content streaming services. Netflix, Hulu, ect. are video content streaming services. Big difference. Regardless, in business the name of the game is profits. Always was, always will be. Adding customers increases profits. Customer churn decreases profits. Do the math. Keep the customers, increase profits. There are three ways of keeping customers, lower service rates, contracts or a combination of both. Also keep in mind the same content providers that drive up our cable and satellite bills are going to do the same with streaming providers. That said, to allow customers to freely come and go will be suicidal.


----------



## James Long

There is an argument to be made for not making the initial purchase so high that customers are scared off. $10 per month no commitment is a lot easier to accept than $30 for three months or $10 per month for a year. If a provider wants a commitment they need to give the customer something in exchange - such as a discount or free equipment. New customers commit to two months of Sling TV and get a Fire Stick. Any customer who commits to a year of Amazon Prime gets a discount.

Commitment without benefits will drive away customers.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> Pretty simple. They do it since they don't refund. Pay for a month and cancel the next day and the subscription stays live until the month is over. Less hassle for them and maybe even saves them money.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Seems too good to be true.

Rich


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> I keep CBSAA permanently. I watch it more than anything else.


Another YMMV moment.

Rich


----------



## Rich

wmb said:


> Your certainty balances my uncertainty. The come-and-go customers are undoubtedly a pain for the streaming services, but they're also revenue that they might not have if they forced a minimum number of months.
> 
> How do you do that anyway? Charge for 3 months of service on start up? That means your $10 service has a sign up cost of $30. I'm not sure I'm paying $30 for a show or two. The better plan is to have someone sign up for a month and then forget to cancel on time, and you get a second (or more) month of fees.
> 
> I'll add that for the most part, we are seeing the term and pricing for streaming services. Tell me this, how much has the price of Spotify or Pandora changed over the past decade? That's right, same price. That will happen with streaming.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I hope you're right. I like the way things are now. But, I expect to see some changes one of these days.

Rich


----------



## evotz

phrelin said:


> I fear there will come a time in the next decade when the Disney/ABC, Comcast/NBCU, and ViacomCBS streaming service subscriptions will require a minimum number of months.


I fear this as well (fear is kind of a strong word, isn't it?). But I didn't want to say anything less it comes back to me that my comment started this downward spiral. Now everybody will be blaming you when minimum contracts start becoming the norm!

Thanks a lot phrelin!

[/sarcasm]


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> I hope you're right. I like the way things are now. But, I expect to see some changes one of these days.
> 
> Rich


Yep, I'm sure there will be changes going forward, just as the cost of subscriptions will rise too. The good part is that if streaming gets as expensive as cable/sat then they will see losses of subscribers, so that is the pressure they will feel as they adjust. Currently it seems that the ad-supported free ones are financially doing better and are seeing good growth in subscribers. Assuming that is so, some of the pay versions may take a look at bringing ads on. The bottom line for all of them is the bottom line, regardless of what it takes to fatten it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## phrelin

Rich said:


> b4pjoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep CBSAA permanently. I watch it more than anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> Another YMMV moment.
> 
> Rich
Click to expand...

I suppose I could be saving a lot of money if I weren't so attached to the traditional (old-fashioned) style of viewing TV. But I pretty much like to watch four or five scripted series a night - a sort of two "30" minute sitcoms and three "60" minute dramas pattern mostly without repeating during the week.

To do this I continuously subscribe to Acorn TV, CBSAA, HBO, Hulu, and Netflix, along with "free" Amazon Prime Video. I will add-then-drop a Britbox or Showtime for a season of a specific show that I will add to the schedule over a month.

Maintaining the schedule is a pain.


----------



## phrelin

evotz said:


> I fear this as well (fear is kind of a strong word, isn't it?). But I didn't want to say anything less it comes back to me that my comment started this downward spiral. Now everybody will be blaming you when minimum contracts start becoming the norm!
> 
> Thanks a lot phrelin!
> 
> [/sarcasm]


I'll have no problem accepting the blame. I have an advantage. I'm old, so I don't expect to see this kind of change in my lifetime. But I thought that about streaming and I'm still here. So who knows...?

I just can't figure out how ad-supported services will sell their product if they have a sizeable subscription shuffle.

There's a _Cnet_ article today Netflix viewership stats just got more meaningless which discusses in some detail how the Nielsen system that measures the "average minute audience" differs from the Netflix system that measures you as a viewer of the show if you accidentally select the wrong show and don't back out immediately. They call comparing the two systems "apples-to-peppercorns, or ice-cream sprinkles, or grains of salt" which is right.

When Netflix blathers about the number of viewers of a show it is simply Netflix advertising itself. They don't sell commercials. Their meaningful measurement is number of subscribers. I think of it along the lines of Amazon Prime Video. They have one important viewer - Jeff Bezos - and then the rest of us.

That isn't true for Hulu and CBSAA ad-supported subscriptions nor will it be for Peacock. They need to take into account how they can sell to advertisers who are used to Nielsen stats that indicate how many were tuned in to the 30 seconds their commercial appeared.

Streaming is truly a different market with different viewer habits. Netflix and subsequently a number of other ad-free streaming services created the binge-watching viewer. I don't see how ad-supported streaming is going to sell to advertisers particularly when it gets mixed into shows airing on broadcast and cable TV.

So my initial guess is they will have to lock in subscribers to be successful. But I have a poor record of guessing what the future of TV will be like.


----------



## wmb

phrelin said:


> That isn't true for Hulu and CBSAA ad-supported subscriptions nor will it be for Peacock. They need to take into account how they can sell to advertisers who are used to Nielsen stats that indicate how many were tuned in to the 30 seconds their commercial appeared.


Um, that's exactly what stream allows, an actual count of how many people actually had the ad on their screen during which so. They can get some pretty specific demographic information and correlations for the type of programming that demographic tends to watch.

Thus type of information is what Nielsen aspires to provide.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb

MysteryMan said:


> You're comparing apples with oranges. Pandora and Spotify are music content streaming services. Netflix, Hulu, ect. are video content streaming services. Big difference. Regardless, in business the name of the game is profits. Always was, always will be. Adding customers increases profits. Customer churn decreases profits. Do the math. Keep the customers, increase profits. There are three ways of keeping customers, lower service rates, contracts or a combination of both. Also keep in mind the same content providers that drive up our cable and satellite bills are going to do the same with streaming providers. That said, to allow customers to freely come and go will be suicidal.


Well, you miss the difference between the streaming providers and MVPD like DirecTV... The streamers can stick at almost no cost a small notice on a show its available on such and such a service.

DirecTV's customer acquisition cost was $750 in 2015.

DIRECTV reports subscriber gains | informitv

Netflix? $35-$45.
https://www.quora.com/How-much-is-the-acquisition-cost-of-a-new-client-for-Netflix

Im sure the customer acquisition cost for churning customers for something like CBS All Access is even less.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## phrelin

wmb said:


> Um, that's exactly what stream allows, an actual count of how many people actually had the ad on their screen during which so. They can get some pretty specific demographic information and correlations for the type of programming that demographic tends to watch.
> 
> Thus type of information is what Nielsen aspires to provide.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, I assume they can do that, though I don't know if they do that. But my puzzlement expressed above was



phrelin said:


> I just can't figure out how ad-supported services will sell their product if they have a sizeable subscription shuffle.


Up to now, there wasn't a significant share of ad-supported viewership in streaming. Most of it was still cable/satellite. Now we have streaming GenZ and Millennials.

If 40% of streaming subscribers were to bounce in and out statistically at random it would be difficult to make any promises about the minimum number of eyes viewing an ad that would appear four months from now.

They could charge for the ad based on the number of eyes, but that would eliminate any secure revenue base to fund a show.

And while I know that 40% number is high by today's standards, my guess is that what we called "churn" in the cable/satellite business is much higher among streaming GenZ and Millennials.


----------



## wmb

I'll also throw something else out there...

Traditional video services have gross margins of about ~45%.

This chart shows how tiny the margins will be on AT&T's new $35 streaming TV service

Even at initial release, directv now had a positive gross profit margin, but probably single digit, up to 15% with ad sales. But because of low capital costs, it has great return on capital.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## techguy88

wmb said:


> Tell me this, how much has the price of Spotify or Pandora changed over the past decade? That's right, same price. That will happen with streaming.


You really can't compare one group of streamers to another as each model is different. However *competition and innovation* will often dictate the prices.

The main reason the music streaming services have kept a consistent price is competition and no exclusives. None of the music streamers are willing to increase their prices at the moment because if one has a higher price while a competitor is still at $9.99/mo then most likely the consumer will gravitate to the cheaper service as long as it meets their needs. Tidal offers a traditional $9.99/mo tier for example but for those audiophiles that have to have the highest quality possible they offer an optional $19.99/mo HiFi tier.

The video game industry just started to create their own "Netflix for Gaming" style services with this generation. However this industry is a prime example of how effective competition drives lower prices for streaming services:

Sony's PlayStation 4 is the best selling console of the current generation often outselling Microsoft's Xbox One 2 to 1. (Key thing to keep in mind here.)
Sony launches PlayStation Now in 2014 which allows PS4 and PC gamers the ability to stream and play a catalog of 800+ PS2, PS3 and PS4 games. Sony priced the service at *$19.99/mo, $44.99/quarter or $99.99/year*. PlayStation Plus not required to use online multiplayer features while playing a game via PS Now. This is also the only way to play some Sony produced PlayStation exclusives on PC.
Microsoft launches Xbox Game Pass for Console in 2017 which allows Xbox One gamers the ability to download and play a catalog of 100+ Xbox, Xbox 360 and Xbox One games. Microsoft prices this service at *$9.99/mo, $24.99/quarter or $59.99/year*. Xbox Live Gold required to use online multiplayer features.
In 2018 Microsoft announces all of its first party studio games will be added to Game Pass on the same day as its retail launch date.
May 2019 they launch their separate Game Pass for PC service which will have the same pricing model as the Console edition however while in beta it's $4.99/mo. 
June 2019 Microsoft launches Game Pass Ultimate subscription tier for $14.99/mo or $44.99/quarter. It combines Xbox Live Gold, Game Pass for Console and Game Pass for PC into one bundle package. 

In 2018 Sony makes its first fundamental change to PlayStation Now by allowing PlayStation 4 users the option to download the PS2 and PS4 games. PS3 games are streaming only. PC gamers still required to stream.
By April 2019 Sony reports PlayStation Now only has 700k subscribers despite being on the market for 5 years. Most of their gamers are now taking advantage of the download options versus streaming. Microsoft hasn't revealed exact subscription numbers but says Game Pass has "millions" with one source putting it at 9.5 million. Microsoft however judges the success of the service on the high user engagement and the fact Game Pass subscribers are buying more games. 
In October 2019 Sony makes its second fundamental change to PlayStation Now. Speculated as a defensive move Sony *cuts *PlayStation Now's price in half bringing it in line with Microsoft's Game Pass for Console. The service now costs *$9.99/mo, $24.99/quarter or $59.99/year*.
Sony also adds a rotating selection of "marquee" games to the service which includes more recent releases. This was headlined with the 2018 PS4 exclusive God of War and Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto V. 

Live streaming TV services are trying to avoid the model of traditional MVPDs as much as possible while pricing the service as low as possible with smaller profit margins. One thing they can't escape is the tradition of price increases. Except for Hulu Live TV the only thing that distinguishes most of these services from the other is interface, Cloud DVR storage/retention and channel selection. None of these services has a complete offering of the top live channels requiring some customers to have multiple services (like Hulu Live TV + AT&T Watch TV or YouTube TV + Philo) to get all the channels they want. Hulu Live TV has one bonus that the others don't have and that's the inclusion of the ad-supported SVOD Hulu service with its exclusive programming.



phrelin said:


> I just can't figure out how ad-supported services will sell their product if they have a sizeable subscription shuffle. ... They need to take into account how they can sell to advertisers who are used to Nielsen stats that indicate how many were tuned in to the 30 seconds their commercial appeared.


Hulu has been in the ad-supported game since 2007 and most likely has developed a good grasp on how to account for who actually sees the ads. CBS All Access has been going since 2014 and with the re-merger of CBS and Viacom there is probably things ViacomCBS can take from PlutoTV and apply to CBS All Access' limited commercial plan. NBCUniversal is about ready to launch its advertising platform called One Platform that was just announced. AT&T already owns its own advertising platform Xandr which will be a big part of HBO Max's AVOD component when it launches in 2021 and is already used by non-AT&T platforms like Tubi.

Subscription shuffling may/may-not be as big as many thinks. If you subscribe to every SVOD service that has at least 1 show you watch and stay subscribed to them year round then you are wasting money. Most people who use streaming services have a particular group of streaming services they subscribe to on a regular basis and others they rotate in and out because of certain content.

NBCUniversal actually has a good idea with Peacock Free in that consumers can still enjoy certain content with ads without a subscription. For them this will help address any potential subscription shuffling in the crowded SVOD space. If it is very successful I wouldn't be surprised if Hulu follows suit and brings back their free ad-supported option.



phrelin said:


> Streaming is truly a different market with different viewer habits. Netflix and subsequently a number of other ad-free streaming services created the binge-watching viewer. I don't see how ad-supported streaming is going to sell to advertisers particularly when it gets mixed into shows airing on broadcast and cable TV.


Well broadcasting and cable TV's live viewership has been in a constant decline to the point the Big 4 (ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC) are now renewing shows that fall within 5-6 million live viewers with a 1.0-1.8 rating in the Adults 18-49 ad-favorite demo. Ten years ago shows falling into this range would have been considered "on the bubble" or moved to Friday nights to die a slow and painful death. Fifteen years ago the Cancellation Bear would have eaten them for breakfast. Broadcast and cable networks now look at Live +7 ratings (i.e. how many people has viewed a show via DVR within 7 days of airing), how the show performs on TVE streaming apps and how they perform on Hulu (ABC, Fox and NBC) or CBS All Access (CBS).

In fact _Big Brother_ despite its controversies often gets renewed by CBS because of its younger skewing demographics and the fact it performs well on digital platforms like CBS All Access. Similarly, _Love Island_ managed 2.2 million viewers with a 0.5 rating in the adults 18-49 demo on its initial airings (half of _Big Brother_). Normally this would automatically get a show cancelled on CBS. However _Love Island_ outperformed both _Big Brother_ and _Survivor_ in streaming numbers on CBS All Access, had high social media engagement and helped CBS draw in younger women (CBS struggles with drawing in younger audiences in general) which is why they renewed it.

The CW has never done "well" on broadcast when compared to the Big 4 as its shows are skew towards younger demographics however when The CW signed a $1 billion output deal with Netflix in 2011 (which was renewed in 2016) and its shows are noted as strong performers for Netflix. It is worth noting CBS and Warner Bros. did not renew the deal in 2019. Warner Bros. is taking the streaming rights for the shows it produces and distributes to HBO Max. No news on the CBS produced/distributed shows as of yet but it is speculated Netflix (and others) could bid for each individual show.

The only content that generates high level of viewers who watch live are sports (like the NFL and Olympics) and certain award ceremonies like the Grammy Awards and even the award ceremonies are declining.


----------



## wmb

techguy88 said:


> The main reason the music streaming services have kept a consistent price is competition and no exclusives. None of the music streamers are willing to increase their prices at the moment because if one has a higher price while a competitor is still at $9.99/mo then most likely the consumer will gravitate to the cheaper service as long as it meets their needs. Tidal offers a traditional $9.99/mo tier for example but for those audiophiles that have to have the highest quality possible they offer an optional $19.99/mo HiFi tier.


While content isn't exclusive, to some extent it is interchangeable, or in the least services are interchangeable.

But, I think your video game example demonstrates the potential pressure to provide more for less, particularly for existing items that you have rights to. There is very little cost to to produce another showing of Game of Thrones.

I'll add, the start up costs for a new service is almost nothing, provided you have low cost access to compelling content.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## phrelin

techguy88 said:


> Hulu has been in the ad-supported game since 2007 and most likely has developed a good grasp on how to account for who actually sees the ads. CBS All Access has been going since 2014 and with the re-merger of CBS and Viacom there is probably things ViacomCBS can take from PlutoTV and apply to CBS All Access' limited commercial plan.


In my mind PlutoTV is akin to a cable company providing access to content from outside sources.

The model I'm struggling with in the streaming environment is the broadcast networks' model of ordering pilots and full seasons from content production companies. The network then sells ad time to pay for the show and hopefully make a profit. They also sell retransmission rights to cable companies which adds to that profit. In some, but not all, cases they will own the syndication rights which may be the edge that actually earns them a profit. That is the entire economic model.

Hulu and CBS All Access have offered "new" content mostly from their broadcast counterparts while they've experimented. Both have produced relatively little new content of their own (yes, some of it is very good).

This is all a numbers game. Using past guidelines, advertisers supporting broadcast network content want to reach an audience of consumers in a country with 121+ million TV homes. But that's not the numbers game as it is going to be played in the future.

I think I may have gained some insight into part of the future in the article I linked in the post here Quibi - short form streaming powerhouse launching April 6 which has this quote from Meg Whitman:

"You leave the house every morning with a little TV in your pocket. It's called your smart phone," Whitman said in 2018. "During the day, you have these in-between moments. Ten minutes here, 15 minutes there, where you want to see something great."​
The people doing Quibi are not some unknown players in the game. What they are telling this old guy is that the viewing devices are mobile, as is the audience which may have or is only allowed a short attention span. On the streaming video original content spectrum they may be at one end while Netflix offering a three hour movie like _The Irishman_ is on the other. No clear economic model for this stands out. But they are going to be available for $4.99 with ads, $7.99 without.

NBC's Peacock streaming video original content is going to be...well...everything there is from the Olympics to new NBC broadcast shows to exclusive original series to what we used to call "syndicated" reruns. It boggles my mind to consider how they are going to price advertising - what's the guy over in the other office going to be explaining to the Pampers folks that would make them say "ok, sign me up."

But I'm not leaving "the house every morning with a little TV" in my pocket. My life cannot even relate to having "ten minutes here, 15 minutes there." The last work cell phone I had was a brick and not at all smart. And admittedly I don't understand the economic model for advertising on the internet. I keep thinking somebody is buying a pig in a poke.

In other words, I have no real idea how this is going to work economically. So I have to believe this new stuff will all work out.


----------



## phrelin

And now maybe I understand I'm not the only one with doubts. From Comcast plans price hikes for cable customers as it looks ahead to streaming Peacock launch:

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts said that the company is now looking ahead to the July launch of its own streaming service, Peacock. "We needed to pivot the whole company to the streaming world and I think what's exciting is how well our cable company has done that," he said. "Peacock will go right back for the advertisers and get you in a growing market, taking advantage of streaming with a free product as well."

The company's cable division lost 149,000 subscribers in the fourth quarter of 2019, even though it delayed its planned rate increases to 2020. Comcast added 442,000 broadband subscribers in Q4, which is way ahead of the 378,000 Wall Street was expecting.​


----------



## billsharpe

I'm certainly not ready to watch a 10-minute TV show on my iPhone's small screen at any time.


----------



## phrelin

billsharpe said:


> I'm certainly not ready to watch a 10-minute TV show on my iPhone's small screen at any time.


I also won't be doing that. We will be able to watch it on our 6 foot TVs, but I don't plan on shelling out $8/mo for that either. Still the lineup of stars/shows is impressive.


----------



## Davenlr

B. Shoe said:


> I'll be interested to see if they to make any of the Olympics coverage Peacock-exclusive. Throw any of the swimming, gymnastics, basketball, or track & field events in there, and people will make some choices pretty quick.


Might pay for it if its in 4K


----------



## the2130

b4pjoe said:


> CBS All Access now offers a discounted yearly plan. The commercial free plan is $9.99 per month ($119.88 per year) but you can opt for the yearly subscription fee of $99.99. Limited Commercials plan is 5.99 per month ($71.88 per year) or the yearly plan is $59.99 per year.


That has been the case for some time. I took the $99 annual subscription almost 2 years ago, but I dropped it last year in favor of a month-to-month subscription through Amazon. The CBS All Access app doesn't work reliably on all platforms and has annoying features like auto-play that can't be disabled. Accessing it through Amazon Channels is a much better viewing experience.


----------



## the2130

MysteryMan said:


> Enjoy the honeymoon. I'm sure that will change in the future.


It's hardly a honeymoon. The month-to-month pricing model has been the standard since Netflix established it in 2007 and it isn't likely to change.


----------



## wmb

Silly question... Does anyone know where to watch episodes 1-5 of Blacklist season 7?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe

On my Amazon Cube if I do a search Amazon has those episodes but they are $1.99 per episode in SD and $2.99 for HD. There is one search result that says you can watch The Blacklist for free with a Telemundo app but I don't have that to see if they have those episodes.


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> On my Amazon Cube if I do a search Amazon has those episodes but they are $1.99 per episode in SD and $2.99 for HD. There is one search result that says you can watch The Blacklist for free with a Telemundo app but I don't have that to see if they have those episodes.


Isn't _Blacklist _on Netflix? Or is that a newer series?

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe

Just seasons 1 - 6.


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> Just seasons 1 - 6.


Then we have to have patience til it comes to NF, which it will. When you stream as we do you get used to waiting. I just got thru with _Criminal Minds_ and _NCIS_ and now I have to wait for the newest seasons to appear. This has become normal for us. Something to look forward to.

Rich


----------



## wmb

Rich said:


> Then we have to have patience til it comes to NF, which it will. When you stream as we do you get used to waiting. I just got thru with _Criminal Minds_ and _NCIS_ and now I have to wait for the newest seasons to appear. This has become normal for us. Something to look forward to.
> 
> Rich


The odd part is that Season 7, episodes 6 through 10 are available through You Tube TV and NBC app, but episodes 1 through 5 aren't. Hence, the question.

Hulu tells me the show isn't included in my subscription... I have the no-commercials version without live TV. I'm thinking it's only included with Live TV.

Basically, I don't want to watch the later episodes before the earlier ones.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich

wmb said:


> The odd part is that Season 7, episodes 6 through 10 are available through You Tube TV and NBC app, but episodes 1 through 5 aren't. Hence, the question.
> 
> Hulu tells me the show isn't included in my subscription... I have the no-commercials version without live TV. I'm thinking it's only included with Live TV.
> 
> Basically, I don't want to watch the later episodes before the earlier ones.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Pretty sure you can find the first six seasons on Netflix and that's where season 7 will appear. I think.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe

Rich said:


> Pretty sure you can find the first six seasons on Netflix and that's where season 7 will appear. I think.
> 
> Rich


Yes it will eventually be there unless Sony gives it to Peacock and pulls it from Netflix.


----------



## phrelin

"The Blacklist" distribution has always seemed odd to me. NBC bought the broadcast rights to "The Blacklist" from Sony Pictures Television in August 2012. In 2014 Netflix acquired streaming rights from Sony Pictures TV supposedly for about about $2 million per episode. But since then what U.S. streaming rights are owned by who is not very clear.


----------



## the2130

Rich said:


> Then we have to have patience til it comes to NF, which it will. When you stream as we do you get used to waiting. I just got thru with _Criminal Minds_ and _NCIS_ and now I have to wait for the newest seasons to appear. This has become normal for us. Something to look forward to.
> 
> Rich


Rich, you mentioned in another thread that you never record shows on your DVR anymore. Do you stream every show you watch?


----------



## the2130

b4pjoe said:


> Yes it will eventually be there unless Sony gives it to Peacock and pulls it from Netflix.


It's a pretty good bet that Netflix's deal includes the current an future seasons of The Blacklist.


----------



## the2130

phrelin said:


> "The Blacklist" distribution has always seemed odd to me. NBC bought the broadcast rights to "The Blacklist" from Sony Pictures Television in August 2012. In 2014 Netflix acquired streaming rights from Sony Pictures TV supposedly for about about $2 million per episode. But since then what U.S. streaming rights are owned by who is not very clear.


Yes, it's one of the few NBC shows (and the only one I watch) that doesn't have episodes from the current season on Hulu.


----------



## lparsons21

the2130 said:


> Yes, it's one of the few NBC shows (and the only one I watch) that doesn't have episodes from the current season on Hulu.


Actually there are quite a few current NBC shows not on Hulu these days. Instead pushing towards their OTT add on service.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## b4pjoe

the2130 said:


> It's a pretty good bet that Netflix's deal includes the current an future seasons of The Blacklist.


Probably so as Netflix is paying Sony $2 milion per episode.


----------



## Rich

the2130 said:


> Rich, you mentioned in another thread that you never record shows on your DVR anymore. Do you stream every show you watch?


The only content I record on my DVRs is sports. Aside from _The Late Show_ and _Jeopardy_. I record _Jeopardy _on every HR, makes it easy to see if one of the HRs has dropped out of MRV. Rarely watch _Jeopardy_. I do, religiously, watch _The Late Show_ because of Stephen Colbert's monologues. I know I can get that online, but it's simpler to use D*. I think.

Yup, every single show. My son is the same way. I gave up on D* content a couple years ago. Many reasons. Can't beat D* for sports tho. I think. Believe me, I have looked.

Rich


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> Probably so as Netflix is paying Sony $2 milion per episode.


It's that good a show? I really enjoy James Spader's work but for some reason I never tried _Blacklist_. I do plan to watch that next. Six seasons? That will keep me occupied for a few weeks.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe

It got off to a great start in season one. Highly rated by critics with good viewing numbers. Then seasons 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 happened. The story line is just bordering on ridiculous now. But Spader makes it entertaining.


----------



## the2130

lparsons21 said:


> Actually there are quite a few current NBC shows not on Hulu these days. Instead pushing towards their OTT add on service.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Which shows are you referring to? I just went through the NBC primetime lineup for this week and next and every one of those shows is on Hulu.

I watch watch a number of NBC shows, all of which are available for next-day viewing on Hulu:

This is Us
New Amsterdam
Chicago Med
Chicago Fire
Chicago PD
Manifest
Brooklyn 99

And as I said, I'm not seeing any current NBC primetime shows that are not on Hulu, other than Blacklist, which isn't on again until March.


----------



## lparsons21

Oops! My bad. Not sure what the heck I was thinking when I posted that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## the2130

lparsons21 said:


> Oops! My bad. Not sure what the heck I was thinking when I posted that.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


It's understandable, because there is a lot of confusion since Disney took control of Hulu and NBC started its own service. I've heard that NBC shows will continue to appear on Hulu until 2024, but I don't know if that includes the entire lineup, current shows, or a subset of shows. Does anyone know?


----------



## lparsons21

the2130 said:


> It's understandable, because there is a lot of confusion since Disney took control of Hulu and NBC started its own service. I've heard that NBC shows will continue to appear on Hulu until 2024, but I don't know if that includes the entire lineup, current shows, or a subset of shows. Does anyone know?


Yeah, it is hard to keep up with what is where these days. And with Peacock just what is included in the 3 tiers?

But all this got me to thinking. If you want to cut the cord and do it cheaply, there is at least one combo that does a fair job of it today.

With ads:
CBS+Hulu = $12/month
Without ads:
CBS+Hulu = $22/month

That covers quite a few of the cable channels and all of the broadcast channels I think. And you can reduce that cost a couple of dollars by paying for CBS annually. Of course no sports or at least not much.

Add in a few ad-supported free services and you'd have more to watch than you could ever hope to see.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## the2130

Rich said:


> The only content I record on my DVRs is sports. Aside from _The Late Show_ and _Jeopardy_. I record _Jeopardy _on every HR, makes it easy to see if one of the HRs has dropped out of MRV. Rarely watch _Jeopardy_. I do, religiously, watch _The Late Show_ because of Stephen Colbert's monologues. I know I can get that online, but it's simpler to use D*. I think.
> 
> Yup, every single show. My son is the same way. I gave up on D* content a couple years ago. Many reasons. Can't beat D* for sports tho. I think. Believe me, I have looked.
> 
> Rich


I agree, Colbert is worth watching just for the monologue. Do you mainly binge-watch shows, or do you also watch shows week-to-week, like the latest episodes on Hulu or CBS-AA?

As to DVRing sports events, it's really the only way to watch anymore. With Sunday Ticket and a DVR, I sometimes watch as many as 6 games on a Sunday. And baseball games have gotten so slow over the years that it would be hard to watch without a DVR.


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> It got off to a great start in season one. Highly rated by critics with good viewing numbers. Then seasons 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 happened. The story line is just bordering on ridiculous now. But Spader makes it entertaining.


Started watching it last night. Seems interesting. I might muddle thru the whole thing just because Spader's in it. Thanks.

Rich


----------



## Rich

the2130 said:


> I agree, Colbert is worth watching just for the monologue. Do you mainly binge-watch shows, or do you also watch shows week-to-week, like the latest episodes on Hulu or CBS-AA?
> 
> As to DVRing sports events, it's really the only way to watch anymore. With Sunday Ticket and a DVR, I sometimes watch as many as 6 games on a Sunday. And baseball games have gotten so slow over the years that it would be hard to watch without a DVR.


Oh goody, a kindred spirit. I stumbled upon Colbert one night. I had no idea who he was. Never heard of him. Hadn't watched any of the late night talk shows in years. What talent! Made me check out all the late night talk shows. Recorded every one of them...and the rest of them aren't nearly as good. That 15 minute monologue is worth the price of admission. Even Sadie watches it with me. And laughs.

I started time-shifting sometime in the late 80s. I had cable at the time and 12 VCRs. Bins full of empty tapes and racks full of tapes with recordings. Had to maintain a large logbook. Lot of work but it was worth it. Tried all kinds of VCRs and settled on Sonys. Best PQ. Problem with them, they weren't reliable. Had to keep a couple new VCRs just in case of a failure. We recorded damn near everything on the locals in prime time and somewhere in that time frame I found I could do something with all those tapes that I had never thought of...I could wait until a series ended then watch the whole season. There wasn't a name for doing that at the time. Now we know it as "binging". I had no idea but I sure liked the concept.

Got the wife hooked on binging and everything was better than I could have hoped for. Then Dolan screwed everything up. I'm writing this from memory, if I screw this up please correct me. I know Dolan owned MSG, still does. I think he owned our cable company too. In any event he did something to the YES network and YES was dropped from the channel lineup. This was in 2002. I have to have access to the Yankee games so I searched for an answer and there it was on D*. Dropped the cable company and signed up with D* Got a bunch of plain receivers and hooked up my 12 VCRs and was back in business.

So, there I sit with a couple thousand dollars worth of VCRs and...I find out what a DVR is. Long story short, the VCRs disappeared and a whole bunch of DVRs took their place. No more tapes to worry about, no more logs. Life got easier. Binging became a whole lot easier and our summers were filled with the previous seasons new series. Yeah, you lose the whole "water cooler conversation" thing but that didn't matter all that much. Wonderful, all I have to do is set a series to record, back that up on other DVRs and I'm good to go. What could be better?

Streaming. Streaming blows away cable or sat when it comes to binging. Makes it so simple it's almost ridiculous. We just binge on one series at a time. Most good series aren't more than 10 episodes these days and watching a season only takes a few days. No, we never go back to watching new episodes when they come out. We wait until the whole season is available and then binge it. We have no need for a Guide (other than to find sports) anymore. Don't worry about shows getting canceled or get worked up for new shows. We have become patient bingers. I can't imagine a better TV experience. But I felt the same way about the VCR method and that was shot down by the DVRs which fell to the streaming devices. Is there something better out there lurking in the near future? I hope so. If it's better than what I do today, I want it!

Football and television were made for each other. I've been to enough football games to know I'd much rather watch it on TV. I can't imagine watching a live baseball game on TV. I'd be bored to death. I do enjoy going to Yankee Stadium but rarely go these days.

Sorry for the overly long post.

Rich


----------



## mjwagner

Rich said:


> ...Football and television were made for each other. I've been to enough football games to know I'd much rather watch it on TV. I can't imagine watching a live baseball game on TV. I'd be bored to death. I do enjoy going to Yankee Stadium but rarely go these days...


Agree 100%! To me football translates very well to tv in fact TV coverage enhances my enjoyment of watching a game. Baseball is a whole other story. For me it just does not translate well to tv. I enjoy watching a baseball game live at the stadium much more than watching on tv, football is the exact opposite for me.


----------



## wmb

mjwagner said:


> [QUOTE="Rich, post: 3556695, member: 450171...Football and television were made for each other. I've been to enough football games to know I'd much rather watch it on TV. I can't imagine watching a live baseball game on TV. I'd be bored to death. I do enjoy going to Yankee Stadium but rarely go these days...


Agree 100%! To me football translates very well to tv in fact TV coverage enhances my enjoyment of watching a game. Baseball is a whole other story. For me it just does not translate well to tv. I enjoy watching a baseball game live at the stadium much more than watching on tv, football is the exact opposite for me.[/QUOTE]

The problem with football at the stadium is the commercial breaks where they blast AC/DC while the rest of the world gets a chance to go to the fridge to get a beer. Last major college game I was at, I hated the guy on the field who told them when they could resume play.

Baseball has natural breaks in play like between innings. It changes expectations of about use of your time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

I've been watching Colbert since before his last gig (The Colbert Report) when he was on The Daily Show with Steve Carell (and host Jon Stewart).
I didn't watch every Late Show the first couple of years, but once he hit his stride (more like his former shows than a "safe" late night host) he has become popular. Not bad for broadcast TV.

How does this relate to Peacock? Jimmy Fallon remained "safe" for the Tonight Show and Seth Meyers gets edgy on Late Night. Colbert is the highest rated show by a good margin. Apparently he provides what people want. I wonder if the early release via Peacock of Jimmy and Seth will help their ratings?


----------



## Rich

James Long said:


> I've been watching Colbert since before his last gig (The Colbert Report) when he was on The Daily Show with Steve Carell (and host Jon Stewart).
> I didn't watch every Late Show the first couple of years, but once he hit his stride (more like his former shows than a "safe" late night host) he has become popular. Not bad for broadcast TV.
> 
> How does this relate to Peacock? Jimmy Fallon remained "safe" for the Tonight Show and Seth Meyers gets edgy on Late Night. Colbert is the highest rated show by a good margin. Apparently he provides what people want. I wonder if the early release via Peacock of Jimmy and Seth will help their ratings?


They'd have to improve their shows dramatically to catch up to Colbert. I wanted their shows to be at least as good and I was disappointed.

Rich


----------



## the2130

Rich said:


> Oh goody, a kindred spirit. I stumbled upon Colbert one night. I had no idea who he was. Never heard of him. Hadn't watched any of the late night talk shows in years. What talent! Made me check out all the late night talk shows. Recorded every one of them...and the rest of them aren't nearly as good. That 15 minute monologue is worth the price of admission. Even Sadie watches it with me. And laughs.
> 
> I started time-shifting sometime in the late 80s. I had cable at the time and 12 VCRs. Bins full of empty tapes and racks full of tapes with recordings. Had to maintain a large logbook. Lot of work but it was worth it. Tried all kinds of VCRs and settled on Sonys. Best PQ. Problem with them, they weren't reliable. Had to keep a couple new VCRs just in case of a failure. We recorded damn near everything on the locals in prime time and somewhere in that time frame I found I could do something with all those tapes that I had never thought of...I could wait until a series ended then watch the whole season. There wasn't a name for doing that at the time. Now we know it as "binging". I had no idea but I sure liked the concept.
> 
> Got the wife hooked on binging and everything was better than I could have hoped for. Then Dolan screwed everything up. I'm writing this from memory, if I screw this up please correct me. I know Dolan owned MSG, still does. I think he owned our cable company too. In any event he did something to the YES network and YES was dropped from the channel lineup. This was in 2002. I have to have access to the Yankee games so I searched for an answer and there it was on D*. Dropped the cable company and signed up with D* Got a bunch of plain receivers and hooked up my 12 VCRs and was back in business.
> 
> So, there I sit with a couple thousand dollars worth of VCRs and...I find out what a DVR is. Long story short, the VCRs disappeared and a whole bunch of DVRs took their place. No more tapes to worry about, no more logs. Life got easier. Binging became a whole lot easier and our summers were filled with the previous seasons new series. Yeah, you lose the whole "water cooler conversation" thing but that didn't matter all that much. Wonderful, all I have to do is set a series to record, back that up on other DVRs and I'm good to go. What could be better?
> 
> Streaming. Streaming blows away cable or sat when it comes to binging. Makes it so simple it's almost ridiculous. We just binge on one series at a time. Most good series aren't more than 10 episodes these days and watching a season only takes a few days. No, we never go back to watching new episodes when they come out. We wait until the whole season is available and then binge it. We have no need for a Guide (other than to find sports) anymore. Don't worry about shows getting canceled or get worked up for new shows. We have become patient bingers. I can't imagine a better TV experience. But I felt the same way about the VCR method and that was shot down by the DVRs which fell to the streaming devices. Is there something better out there lurking in the near future? I hope so. If it's better than what I do today, I want it!
> 
> Football and television were made for each other. I've been to enough football games to know I'd much rather watch it on TV. I can't imagine watching a live baseball game on TV. I'd be bored to death. I do enjoy going to Yankee Stadium but rarely go these days.
> 
> Sorry for the overly long post.
> 
> Rich


Thanks for the detailed reply, Rich. I agree there are a lot of advantages to binge-watching. It's a lot easier to remember what's going on in a show if you watch the episodes one after another. Unfortunately I've never been able to get my wife acclimated to it. The DVR is her whole world when it comes to TV-watching. Even with a new smart TV that has all the streaming services on it, getting her to watch any of it is like asking her to cross over into a parallel universe. So the shows we watch together are recorded on the DVR and we watch them week by week. The only exception is shows like "The Good Fight" or "Star Trek Discovery", which are only available on streaming services. Even then, I usually have to control the remote. I do stream a lot of shows on my own, however. I always have a backlog of streaming shows to watch, in addition to shows stored on my Plex servers for future viewing.


----------



## Rich

the2130 said:


> Thanks for the detailed reply, Rich. I agree there are a lot of advantages to binge-watching. It's a lot easier to remember what's going on in a show if you watch the episodes one after another. Unfortunately I've never been able to get my wife acclimated to it. The DVR is her whole world when it comes to TV-watching. Even with a new smart TV that has all the streaming services on it, getting her to watch any of it is like asking her to cross over into a parallel universe. So the shows we watch together are recorded on the DVR and we watch them week by week. The only exception is shows like "The Good Fight" or "Star Trek Discovery", which are only available on streaming services. Even then, I usually have to control the remote. I do stream a lot of shows on my own, however. I always have a backlog of streaming shows to watch, in addition to shows stored on my Plex servers for future viewing.


I'm surprised you read that overly long post. Yeah, getting someone to buy into the way you want to watch TV can be difficult. My wife finally came around a couple years ago and now we both enjoy binging. Took many years to get to this point. And many arguments.

Rich


----------



## James Long

There are some shows I can binge - other shows are just not as good if I watch more than a couple at a time. While I understand the problem of forgetting older episode content, binging makes the shows run together in my mind - no time to process one episode before seeing the next. With the more complicated shows I want time between episodes to let the story sink in. (Consider reading a novel. If I speed read I might as well not bother.)


----------



## billsharpe

We don't binge, but we do a lot more streaming than DVR'ing. My DVR is less than 10% full. Netflix, Prime and Acorn are enough services for us.


----------



## Rich

billsharpe said:


> We don't binge, but we do a lot more streaming than DVR'ing. My DVR is less than 10% full. Netflix, Prime and Acorn are enough services for us.


Mine are almost empty most of the time, kinda sad when you think about how important to us they used to be. Oh well, pitchers and catchers in a couple weeks and then I'll have a use for them. I thought about suspending service for a couple months this year but I'm afraid that would get royally screwed up too.

Rich


----------



## wmb

the2130 said:


> Unfortunately I've never been able to get my wife acclimated to it. The DVR is her whole world when it comes to TV-watching.


One thing that I found helped was showing her the DirecTV Bill, which was over $130 per month at the time, and the DirecTV Now charge of $45. That was a long time ago. It didn't help that she had to learn both the new provider UI and change devices to the Apple TV from the DirecTV DVR.

There was some adjustment to YTTV when AT&T Now increased their cost to over $75, but it lasted only a few days.

The current complaint us that when we shut down the TV by sleeping the Apple TV while watching a show in YTTV, the show is essentially paused and comes up where we left off when the TV comes back on.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

the2130 said:


> It's understandable, because there is a lot of confusion since Disney took control of Hulu and NBC started its own service. I've heard that NBC shows will continue to appear on Hulu until 2024, but I don't know if that includes the entire lineup, current shows, or a subset of shows. Does anyone know?


Quote from this story at Variety:

_Under the deal, Comcast's NBCUniversal will continue to license content to Hulu through late 2024. However, as soon as next year, NBCU will have the right to pull back programming previously licensed exclusively to Hulu (continuing to make it available to Hulu on a nonexclusive basis for a reduced licensing fee). And by 2022, NBCUniversal will have the right to cancel most of its content-licensing agreements with Hulu.
_​It's not clear what NBCU content could be yanked away from Hulu as early as 2022 and what will have to stick around through late 2024. My guess is that it's the next-day access to the most recent five episodes of NBC series that will remain on Hulu through 2024. But prior to that, you'll see past seasons and full current seasons of NBC shows moving from Hulu to Peacock.

Either Disney or Comcast can compel the other party to execute the sale of Comcast's 33% share of Hulu to Disney as early as Jan. 2024. Seems likely that it happens that year and then next-day access to NBC shows goes away as soon as possible thereafter late that year. Comcast is hoping that Peacock will be strong enough by then to be a full-fledged competitor to Hulu.

(Related Q: I wonder how long Fox is bound to provide next-day access to their recent episodes on Hulu? I'm sure that was negotiated as part of the overall mega-deal between Fox and Disney.)


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, that’s the article I read. So it is still a bit of guesswork about what will happen with NBCUniversal on Hulu. 

Same goes for ATT’s stuff, though I’ve not seen any stories that weren’t pretty vague.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Same goes for ATT's stuff, though I've not seen any stories that weren't pretty vague.


AT&T has said that much of their WarnerMedia content will continue to be shopped around to different services, although they want to retain their "crown jewels" -- series like Friends -- for their own HBO Max. I was a little surprised that they licensed Seinfeld to Netflix after its current stint with Hulu ends but I guess they decided they'd rather take the cash.


----------



## the2130

NashGuy said:


> Quote from this story at Variety:
> 
> _Under the deal, Comcast's NBCUniversal will continue to license content to Hulu through late 2024. However, as soon as next year, NBCU will have the right to pull back programming previously licensed exclusively to Hulu (continuing to make it available to Hulu on a nonexclusive basis for a reduced licensing fee). And by 2022, NBCUniversal will have the right to cancel most of its content-licensing agreements with Hulu.
> _​It's not clear what NBCU content could be yanked away from Hulu as early as 2022 and what will have to stick around through late 2024. My guess is that it's the next-day access to the most recent five episodes of NBC series that will remain on Hulu through 2024. But prior to that, you'll see past seasons and full current seasons of NBC shows moving from Hulu to Peacock.
> 
> Either Disney or Comcast can compel the other party to execute the sale of Comcast's 33% share of Hulu to Disney as early as Jan. 2024. Seems likely that it happens that year and then next-day access to NBC shows goes away as soon as possible thereafter late that year. Comcast is hoping that Peacock will be strong enough by then to be a full-fledged competitor to Hulu.
> 
> (Related Q: I wonder how long Fox is bound to provide next-day access to their recent episodes on Hulu? I'm sure that was negotiated as part of the overall mega-deal between Fox and Disney.)


Thanks for the info from Variety. Sounds like we could start seeing NBC content disappear from Hulu as soon as 2 years from now. And it's anyone's guess what happens with Fox content.


----------



## the2130

wmb said:


> One thing that I found helped was showing her the DirecTV Bill, which was over $130 per month at the time, and the DirecTV Now charge of $45. That was a long time ago. It didn't help that she had to learn both the new provider UI and change devices to the Apple TV from the DirecTV DVR.
> 
> There was some adjustment to YTTV when AT&T Now increased their cost to over $75, but it lasted only a few days.
> 
> The current complaint us that when we shut down the TV by sleeping the Apple TV while watching a show in YTTV, the show is essentially paused and comes up where we left off when the TV comes back on.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


We could definitely save money by switching from DTV to streaming only, but as long as DirecTV has exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket, they've got me. I just enjoy feasting on football on Sunday afternoons too much to give it up. And while I probably spend more money than most people on TV, it's worth it to me. As a retiree who is at home most of the time, watching TV is mostly what I do these days.


----------



## the2130

Rich said:


> Mine are almost empty most of the time, kinda sad when you think about how important to us they used to be. Oh well, pitchers and catchers in a couple weeks and then I'll have a use for them. I thought about suspending service for a couple months this year but I'm afraid that would get royally screwed up too.
> 
> Rich


Yes, pitchers and catchers this week and the first preseason games less than 2 weeks away. DirecTV DVRs do make it easier to watch sports. One of my pet peeves about baseball is that the telecasts are loaded with in-game interviews. Instead of just watching the game, you get a split screen with the announcer jabbering back and forth with some guy standing in the dugout. It's maddening. ESPN and Fox are the worst, but the RSNs do it as well. With Extra Innings and a DVR, you can record both feeds and switch to the other team's feed for an inning or two and bypass the interviews.


----------



## Rich

the2130 said:


> We could definitely save money by switching from DTV to streaming only, but as long as DirecTV has exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket, they've got me. I just enjoy feasting on football on Sunday afternoons too much to give it up. And while I probably spend more money than most people on TV, it's worth it to me. As a retiree who is at home most of the time, watching TV is mostly what I do these days.


Yeah, I'm in the same situation. I can't imagine Sundays without the ST. Can't imagine watching MLB games on any other platform either. I hope that changes. And, like you, I could care less how much all this costs.

Rich


----------



## Rich

the2130 said:


> Yes, pitchers and catchers this week and the first preseason games less than 2 weeks away. DirecTV DVRs do make it easier to watch sports. One of my pet peeves about baseball is that the telecasts are loaded with in-game interviews. Instead of just watching the game, you get a split screen with the announcer jabbering back and forth with some guy standing in the dugout. It's maddening. ESPN and Fox are the worst, but the RSNs do it as well. With Extra Innings and a DVR, you can record both feeds and switch to the other team's feed for an inning or two and bypass the interviews.


ESPN's screen is far too busy and Fox consistently puts out a dismal picture. I watched the first XFL game Saturday, IIRC it was on CBS, and the picture was stunning. Next game was on Fox and it wasn't stunning. And yet, the Super Bowl had a great picture and that was on Fox. Yup, maddening.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy

Rich said:


> ESPN's screen is far too busy and Fox consistently puts out a dismal picture. I watched the first XFL game Saturday, IIRC it was on CBS, and the picture was stunning. Next game was on Fox and it wasn't stunning. And yet, the Super Bowl had a great picture and that was on Fox. Yup, maddening.


CBS has, far and away, the best PQ of the major nets via my local OTA stations.

As for the Super Bowl, I streamed it in 4K via the Fox Now app on my Apple TV. The stream only pooped out on me once during the whole game (plus The Masked Singer, also in 4K, afterward). At that point (about 45 minutes into the game), I briefly switched over to my local Fox station. Big difference in PQ between 720p and 4K! I quickly went back to the 4K stream with no more problems.


----------



## Rich

NashGuy said:


> CBS has, far and away, the best PQ of the major nets via my local OTA stations.
> 
> As for the Super Bowl, I streamed it in 4K via the Fox Now app on my Apple TV. The stream only pooped out on me once during the whole game (plus The Masked Singer, also in 4K, afterward). At that point (about 45 minutes into the game), I briefly switched over to my local Fox station. Big difference in PQ between 720p and 4K! I quickly went back to the 4K stream with no more problems.


The first XFL game I saw last weekend was on CBS (NYC local) and the picture was truly stunning. The second game was on Fox and the PQ truly sucked, as usual. We watched the SB on the Fox local and the PQ was great. Shows you what Fox can do if they have a reason to do it.

Rich


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

The obvious question is, why does FOX not do something to improve their PQ? Do they care at all or do they just take us for granted that we'll just accept whatever they feed us? How about NBC and ABC? Isn't ABC 720p and NBC 1080i?


----------



## wmb

Rich said:


> Yeah, I'm in the same situation. I can't imagine Sundays without the ST. Can't imagine watching MLB games on any other platform either. I hope that changes. And, like you, I could care less how much all this costs.
> 
> Rich


I decided that there were other things I enjoyed more than sitting in front of the TV on a beautiful fall afternoon watching pointy ball games. First it was watching the kids play soccer and lacrosse. Later I started refereeing soccer. Now I ref Saturday and Sunday mornings and get home early enough to spend the money I made reffing and some quality time with my wife at a wine tasting at a local wine shop.

Now, my sport of choice is the variety of football played with a round ball. I have season tickets to the local team, have ESPN+ for out of market MLS, and watch EPL weekend mornings. I also go to the local sports bar and join the local Gooners a few times a year.

No, it doesnt save me any money, but I enjoy my choice more.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mjwagner

wmb said:


> I decided that there were other things I enjoyed more than sitting in front of the TV on a beautiful fall afternoon watching pointy ball games. First it was watching the kids play soccer and lacrosse. Later I started refereeing soccer. Now I ref Saturday and Sunday mornings and get home early enough to spend the money I made reffing and some quality time with my wife at a wine tasting at a local wine shop.
> 
> Now, my sport of choice is the variety of football played with a round ball. I have season tickets to the local team, have ESPN+ for out of market MLS, and watch EPL weekend mornings. I also go to the local sports bar and join the local Gooners a few times a year.
> 
> No, it doesnt save me any money, but I enjoy my choice more.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Different strokes for different folks as they say. Everyone has different ways they like to spend their time...


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

That's so true. When you get older your entertainment desires tend to change. No more bar hopping and partying. These days, with the multitude of offerings TV provides, almost everything is at your fingertips. From movies to 30 and 60 minutes TV shows to documentaries to dozens of sporting events. TV sets up to 85 inches and relatively affordable give us an incredible in home entertainment smorgasbord. Life is good.


----------



## Rich

Andrew Sullivan said:


> The obvious question is, why does FOX not do something to improve their PQ? Do they care at all or do they just take us for granted that we'll just accept whatever they feed us? How about NBC and ABC? Isn't ABC 720p and NBC 1080i?


I can't think of a channel that has worse PQ on sports than Fox. They obviously cared about the Super Bowl's PQ. And I think it's pretty obvious they don't care about PQ the rest of the time.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Andrew Sullivan said:


> That's so true. When you get older your entertainment desires tend to change. No more bar hopping and partying. These days, with the multitude of offerings TV provides, almost everything is at your fingertips. From movies to 30 and 60 minutes TV shows to documentaries to dozens of sporting events. TV sets up to 85 inches and relatively affordable give us an incredible in home entertainment smorgasbord. Life is good.


Amen, brother!

Rich


----------



## the2130

Rich said:


> I can't think of a channel that has worse PQ on sports than Fox. They obviously cared about the Super Bowl's PQ. And I think it's pretty obvious they don't care about PQ the rest of the time.
> 
> Rich


Yes, the PQ of NFL games on Fox is noticeably softer than other networks, especially CBS. That's unfortunate for those of us who follow NFC teams.


----------



## phrelin

Today's scoop is Peacock Inks Massive Licensing Deal With A+E Networks (Exclusive) which tells us:

NBCUniversal's forthcoming streaming platform Peacock is bulking up on unscripted library content.

The SVOD service has signed a sizable licensing deal with A+E Networks that will see libraries for unscripted series including Storage Wars, Cold Case Files and several others be available later this year after Peacock's spring launch.

The pact covers hundreds of hours of episodes from A&E series including Cold Case Files, First 48 and Storage Wars and History's American Pickers, Ancient Aliens, Curse of Oak Island, Pawn Stars and the scripted drama Project Blue Book. A date for Peacock's formal debut as well as when the A&E and History content will be available have not yet been determined.​
None of that was of any interest to me through my Dish subscription, but I suppose it will make it more attractive to someone who like reruns.


----------



## inkahauts

Interesting... going a little outside the company footprint on this and that makes me wonder how much further out they may go with some of the other channels of that nature.


----------



## phrelin

As noted in NBC Awaits Olympics Final Decision On Likely 2020 Tokyo Games Delay the conglomerate Comcast/NBCU tied the timing of its launch of its upcoming streaming service Peacock to the Olympics in Tokyo which wereto start on July 24.

As noted this morning:

Canada and Australia will not send athletes to the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo because of the risks associated with the coronavirus outbreak, the Olympic committees for both countries said in separate statements.

Both countries' Olympic committees also are calling for the Games to be postponed until 2021.​
Perhaps Comcast/NBCU will consider launching Peacock before the current announced date of July 15th given the number of folks housebound because of the pandemic. Or not.


----------



## Rich

phrelin said:


> As noted in NBC Awaits Olympics Final Decision On Likely 2020 Tokyo Games Delay the conglomerate Comcast/NBCU tied the timing of its launch of its upcoming streaming service Peacock to the Olympics in Tokyo which wereto start on July 24.
> 
> As noted this morning:
> 
> Canada and Australia will not send athletes to the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo because of the risks associated with the coronavirus outbreak, the Olympic committees for both countries said in separate statements.
> 
> Both countries' Olympic committees also are calling for the Games to be postponed until 2021.​
> Perhaps Comcast/NBCU will consider launching Peacock before the current announced date of July 15th given the number of folks housebound because of the pandemic. Or not.


While you were writing the Olympics were postponed till 2021.

Rich


----------



## Nick

Rich said:


> While you were writing the Olympics were postponed till *2020*.
> 
> Rich


Heh heh, Rich -- at least you didn't say 2019, or even worse, 1920!


----------



## Rich

Nick said:


> Heh heh, Rich -- at least you didn't say 2019, or even worse, 1920!


And I read every post I write at least once before I post it...geez.

Rich


----------



## phrelin

Ok, so now that a few hours have gone by since the Olympics was officially postponed to 2021, I expected to see some indication from Comcast/NBCU that Peacock would be up and running soon.

At a minimum I thought maybe they'd change the April 15 premier date for Xfinity Flex (and cable TV) customers only to a broader audience. No such announcement yet.

So I thought maybe I should order that free Flex box, which is simply another streaming box like Roku or Amazon Fire Cube or.... Can't seem to order one right at this moment.

Well, it is a big unwieldy corporation that takes no risks without dozens of meetings. But maybe we'll see an announcement before April 15.


----------



## Rich

phrelin said:


> Ok, so now that a few hours have gone by since the Olympics was officially postponed to 2021, I expected to see some indication from Comcast/NBCU that Peacock would be up and running soon.
> 
> At a minimum I thought maybe they'd change the April 15 premier date for Xfinity Flex (and cable TV) customers only to a broader audience. No such announcement yet.
> 
> So I thought maybe I should order that free Flex box, which is simply another streaming box like Roku or Amazon Fire Cube or.... Can't seem to order one right at this moment.
> 
> Well, it is a big unwieldy corporation that takes no risks without dozens of meetings. But maybe we'll see an announcement before April 15.


If this helps you: I've been using Cubes for the last few weeks and they work damn near as well as an Apple TV box. And they cost less.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> If this helps you: I've been using Cubes for the last few weeks and they work damn near as well as an Apple TV box. And they cost less.
> 
> Rich


Well as long as you don't worry about how slow they are and how the video isn't quite as good as the AppleTV's. And of course, their UI is among the worst out there.


----------



## phrelin

Rich said:


> If this helps you: I've been using Cubes for the last few weeks and they work damn near as well as an Apple TV box. And they cost less.
> 
> Rich


I wasn't really looking for something for my TV's other than the 2nd gen Amazon Fire TV Cube and the old Roku 3 we use now. I was trying to see if I could get an Xfinity Flex box sent to me so we would be eligible for the Peacock service limited roll-out on April 15 should Comcast not try to serve a broader customer base before July.



lparsons21 said:


> Well as long as you don't worry about how slow they are and how the video isn't quite as good as the AppleTV's. And of course, their UI is among the worst out there.


One of my TV's is a 2003 Panasonic Plasma 720p, the other is a Samsung 1080p. So I don't need better video from my streaming boxes. Both the Fire TV Cube and the old Roku 3 seem to have adequate speed. And regarding UI, I've seen the Apple TV when visiting my youngest son. I don't see any big difference once I learned the Cube and the Roku UI's, though they do change them now and then. The big problem I have is with the various Apps UI's. And the box differences don't seem to offer real solutions to that problem IMHO.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> Well as long as you don't worry about how slow they are and how the video isn't quite as good as the AppleTV's. And of course, their UI is among the worst out there.


They are a bit slower but I haven't been bothered by the PQ at all. I like the UI in the Amazon environment a lot better than using the AP app on the ATVs. I tend to use a Cube when using the Amazon site. Of course, YMMV.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> They are a bit slower but I haven't been bothered by the PQ at all. I like the UI in the Amazon environment a lot better than using the AP app on the ATVs. I tend to use a Cube when using the Amazon site. Of course, YMMV.
> 
> Rich


I get a slight jerkiness with my Cube. Just enough to be irritating as hell. I could deal with the UI and the general sluggishness, but that jerky video just bugs me.

With the AppleTV the PQ and SQ is better overall and it is definitely speedy.

The XboxOne would be ideal if the Dolby Experience app worked differently with stereo audio. The DE fakes Atmos for 5.1+ sources but doesn't do diddly with stereo sources.


----------



## Rich

phrelin said:


> I wasn't really looking for something for my TV's other than the 2nd gen Amazon Fire TV Cube and the old Roku 3 we use now. I was trying to see if I could get an Xfinity Flex box sent to me so we would be eligible for the Peacock service limited roll-out on April 15 should Comcast not try to serve a broader customer base before July.
> 
> One of my TV's is a 2003 Panasonic Plasma 720p, the other is a Samsung 1080p. So I don't need better video from my streaming boxes. Both the Fire TV Cube and the old Roku 3 seem to have adequate speed. And regarding UI, I've seen the Apple TV when visiting my youngest son. I don't see any big difference once I learned the Cube and the Roku UI's, though they do change them now and then. *The big problem I have is with the various Apps UI's. And the box differences don't seem to offer real solutions to that problem IMHO*.


Right, if all the apps would emulate Netflix...well, that would solve the problem with the various UIs. But that's never gonna happen and you will get used to the UIs on the apps. They are the problem.

BTW. I have one second generation Cube and five first gen Cubes. I have yet to see any difference between the first gen and the second. Must be some difference, I just haven't found it.

Rich


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> I get a slight jerkiness with my Cube. Just enough to be irritating as hell. I could deal with the UI and the general sluggishness, but that jerky video just bugs me.
> 
> With the AppleTV the PQ and SQ is better overall and it is definitely speedy.
> 
> The XboxOne would be ideal if the Dolby Experience app worked differently with stereo audio. The DE fakes Atmos for 5.1+ sources but doesn't do diddly with stereo sources.


I haven't seen any jerkiness (juddering, perhaps?) on any of my Cubes. For the most part, I don't see much difference between the Cube and an ATV. This is new to me, Amazon must have done something to update the Cubes. There was a time I wouldn't use any Fire TV device just because of the PQ.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> I haven't seen any jerkiness (juddering, perhaps?) on any of my Cubes. For the most part, I don't see much difference between the Cube and an ATV. This is new to me, Amazon must have done something to update the Cubes. There was a time I wouldn't use any Fire TV device just because of the PQ.
> 
> Rich


It isn't juddering, it is when you see someone walking for instance, and the steps speed up for just a very short period of time. Almost not noticeable, but for me I do notice and it irritates.

Tried doing a menu restart and then I did a power pull restart. No help, still there, still sluggish. I've been seeking a one box for all solution for a mix of streaming and OTA. Was going to get a Recast for OTA and use it with the Cube. But that's off the table because of the way my Cube performs.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> It isn't juddering, it is when you see someone walking for instance, and the steps speed up for just a very short period of time. Almost not noticeable, but for me I do notice and it irritates.
> 
> Tried doing a menu restart and then I did a power pull restart. No help, still there, still sluggish. I've been seeking a one box for all solution for a mix of streaming and OTA. Was going to get a Recast for OTA and use it with the Cube. But that's off the table because of the way my Cube performs.


Haven't seen anything like that. The Cubes could use an Ethernet port, I'd much rather have a hardwired box. Did you reboot your Cube in this manner: _Press and hold the Select and the Play/Pause buttons at the same time for five seconds. _Might help, might not. I've never had to reboot a Cube. Can't say that about my ATVs. Seems like I'm always rebooting them.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe

Rich said:


> Haven't seen anything like that. *The Cubes could use an Ethernet port, I'd much rather have a hardwired box.* Did you reboot your Cube in this manner: _Press and hold the Select and the Play/Pause buttons at the same time for five seconds. _Might help, might not. I've never had to reboot a Cube. Can't say that about my ATVs. Seems like I'm always rebooting them.
> 
> Rich


My 1st gen Cube came with an Ethernet adapter. Looks like the new ones still do too.


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> My 1st gen Cube came with an Ethernet adapter. Looks like the new ones still do too.


Forgot about that. As usual. I must have them lying around somewhere. I'm gonna find one and see if it makes a difference. Thanks.

Rich


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> My 1st gen Cube came with an Ethernet adapter. Looks like the new ones still do too.


Must have thrown them all out for some ungodly reason. Off to Amazon.

Rich


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> My 1st gen Cube came with an Ethernet adapter. Looks like the new ones still do too.


Bought three adapters. I'll come back after I get them, see if it makes a difference. I've been using CBSAA for a few weeks and the slowness on that app is troubling. Good app aside from that, lots of good shows. And a good picture.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> Bought three adapters. I'll come back after I get them, see if it makes a difference. I've been using CBSAA for a few weeks and the slowness on that app is troubling. Good app aside from that, lots of good shows. And a good picture.
> 
> Rich


That app is just bit slow on everything I've tried it on.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> That app is just bit slow on everything I've tried it on.


Kinda figured that since I don't see the buffering on any other apps. I'd rather have the Cubes hardwired, glad I was reminded about the adapters.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> Kinda figured that since I don't see the buffering on any other apps. I'd rather have the Cubes hardwired, glad I was reminded about the adapters.
> 
> Rich


I don't get buffering with it, not on any device. Just a bit sluggish operation.


----------



## phrelin

Well, according to Peacock Loses Olympics But Its Vast Library Provides Timely Launchpad Comcast/NBCU intends to follow its schedule of a limited launch "for certain Comcast subscribers on April 15, offering a limited version of the service that just has library programming" and then will become available July 15 for everyone with its planned full offering.

IMHO reruns have a limited attraction. But what do I know?


----------



## James Long

NBC has the Indy 500 this year ... which will be in August instead of Memorial Day (thanks COVID!).


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> NBC has the Indy 500 this year ... which will be in August instead of Memorial Day (thanks COVID!).


Upper 80s and humid. Great time to not be in Indianapolis. I hope the drivers prepare for the heat.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe

wmb said:


> Upper 80s and humid. Great time to not be in Indianapolis. I hope the drivers prepare for the heat.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In August it could be in the high 90's or low 100's and humid.


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> I don't get buffering with it, not on any device. Just a bit sluggish operation.


Only see it on CBSAA. Have no idea why but I see it on every Cube I use. Haven't tried that app on an ATV, soon as we activate it on our ATVs I'll try it.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> Only see it on CBSAA. Have no idea why but I see it on every Cube I use. Haven't tried that app on an ATV, soon as we activate it on our ATVs I'll try it.
> 
> Rich


When you get your Ethernet adapters for the Cube it may make a difference. I use them on my Cube as I found the WiFi on the FireTV Cube and stick to be a bit on the weak side. Don't use the stick at all because of that.

BTW, using the Cube today and found out I had some settings wrong for an unknown reason. Set audio to 'best available', improved sound quality quite a bit. And changed video to 'match frame rate', which really improved the video. No idea why I didn't have those set that way to begin with.

Now using YouTubeTV with family sharing so my son has TV at his house here in town. Love those profiles! But the video jerkiness seems to be only in the YTTV app on the Cube, not horrible but there nevertheless.


----------



## James Long

NBCU has made the middle level of Peacock (Peacock Premium) free to Xfinity subscribers - that includes non-TV subscribers who have the free Xfinity Flex box. Flex is basically a gateway to other services (some free and some subscription) similar to other gateway boxes. There is a considerable amount of free content and when one searches the Flex gateway will show the various services where the content found can be purchased (or viewed if part of the free content).

Peacock Premium, listed at $4.99, is free with Flex. For $5 more I can go ad free.

When the app is started "Trending" short videos play. One can choose "Channels" and "Browse".
"Channels" separate content into one live channel per show. SNL Vault, Fallon Tonight, Office Shorts, Seth Meyers Now - 21 theme channels. Most are full length shows joined in progress as if you were watching regular TV channels. (The Office Shorts is a collection of clips from various shows. Full episodes start in January.)
"Browse" lets you look through the library and select programs and episodes. Ads cannot be skipped (unless ad free) and are current. Captioning is available but the app does not remember that captioning was turned on in a previous session.

I don't like the Xfinity remote ... not comfortable. But the service is interesting. I'm glad the "Premium" level is free for Internet only subscribers. Once Peacock expands beyond Xfinity devices I'll see if an app is made available for my TV (and if it recognizes my subscription).


----------



## techguy88

So looking at various sources like this one not much as changed on the Peacock front.

*Confirmed carriage deals*: Comcast Xfinity, Cox Contour
*Confirmed devices/storefronts*: Xfinity X1, Xfinity Flex, Apple (iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and both the Apple TV 4K and Apple TV HD, Apple App Store) [with full integration with the Apple TV app], Microsoft (Xbox One, Xbox One S, Xbox One X)

*Unconfirmed devices/storefronts* (As of May 29, 2020): Amazon Fire devices, Android phones and tablets, Android TV OS devices, Google Play Store, Sony (PlayStation 4, PlayStation 4 Slim, PlayStation 4 Pro), Roku devices and Smart TVs

Based on Amazon's dispute with Disney over Disney+ over ad-revenue sharing I wonder if Comcast/NBCUniversal will have a similar dispute? Seems extremely likely since Peacock will have ads on two of its three tiers plus NBCUniversal has a plethora of TV Everywhere apps (more than Disney) that I'm sure Amazon would love some increased ad-space on.

I don't think it will have to worry too much about being forced on Prime Video Channels integration since NBCUniversal doesn't have anything I'm aware of using that service (unlike the HBO / HBO Max situation.)

Would be interesting to see if Amazon feels frisky to anger a third streaming upstart since they already have angered Disney and now AT&T might as well upset Comcast to complete the trifecta so they can claim they have the complete set.

With less than two months to go let's hope this service isn't plagued by the technical issues Disney+ had or the negotiations for device support on Amazon/Roku devices HBO Max is going through #fingerscrossed


----------



## techguy88

Peacock announcements might be starting soon. The "free as a bird" streaming service just updated the home page with some pre-order offers and a new promo that launched on May 4, 2020.






They are going the HBO Max route with a stronger focus on the library/classics side given the circumstances. As of 4:00 AM ET nothing has changed from the post above according to this guide that was updated May 14, 2020 from CNET.

Both ad-supported tiers will feature 5 minutes of ads/hour. The free tier will *not* include 4K/HDR but both Premium tiers will.

*Peacock Free*
Cost: $0.00/month | $0.00/annually

*Peacock Premium w/Ads*
Cost (Regular): $4.99/month | $49.99/annually
Cost (Comcast Xfinity / Cox Contour) : $0.00/month | $0.00/annually


*Peacock Premium* *- Ad-Free *(Disclaimer: Due to streaming rights, Peacock channels, events and a few shows and movies will still contain ads.)
Cost (Regular): $9.99/month | $99.99/annually
Cost (Comcast Xfinity / Cox Contour) : $5.00/month


The pre-order offer is valid until 7/14/20. Both offers auto-renews in 2nd year at the non-promotional rate. Here are the details of the pre-order offer:

*Peacock Premium w/Ads*
Early Sign Up offer Price: Get your first year for *$29.99* + tax (Savings of $20 off the regular price. Equal to $2.50/mo) 

*Peacock Premium - Ad-Free*
Early Sign Up offer Price: Get your first year for *$79.99* + tax (Savings of $20 off the regular price. Equal to $6.67/mo)

Offer available at the official website. According to the T&C they will charge 2 days before the launch of Peacock.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

So why should I get Peacock since I have no provider. Is it similar to CBS All Access? I already get NBC off my antenna.


----------



## techguy88

Andrew Sullivan said:


> So why should I get Peacock since I have no provider. Is it similar to CBS All Access? I already get NBC off my antenna.


Peacock is NBCUniversal's streaming service similar to Disney+ and HBO Max. You don't need a specific provider to use the service. Peacock gives you next-day access to NBC content plus so much more (tiers described below.)

It is CBS All Access-like in the fact if you want to pay for the service you can chose from a limited commercials plan or a no commercials plan. The only benefits of a TV/Internet provider select providers have distribution deals that allow them to include Peacock Premium w/ads in certain packages (similar to HBO Max in that regard). For customers who have a TV/Internet provider that includes Peacock Premium w/ads as part of their plan then they can pay $5/mo to upgrade to Peacock Premium Ad-Free. Other than that they get no extra benefits, no extra/exclusive programming.

There are 3 tiers:

*Peacock Free* - This tier includes 7,500 hours of programming, next-day access to current seasons of new NBC series; full runs of older series, movies, daily news, and sports programming (including the Olympics); Spanish-language content; and select content of Peacock original programming (select episodes, not full seasons). It will also include access to curated genre channels like SNL Vault, Family Movie Night, and Olympic Profiles. There will be 5 minutes of ads/hour and no 4K HDR content with this tier.
*Peacock Premium* (w/ads) - Includes everything in Peacock Free, expands the amount of programming up to 15,000 of live and on demand content. Includes next-day access to current seasons of returning NBC broadcast shows, early access to NBC's late-night talk shows, additional sports content, full access to Peacock Originals (TV shows and films) as they are released. There will be 5 minutes of ads/hour and content will be available in 4K HDR content with this tier. 
*Peacock Premium - Ad-Free *- Includes everything in the previous tier except it removes the ads. However due to streaming rights, Peacock channels, events and a few shows and movies will still contain ads.


----------



## b4pjoe

Will NBC Peacock have live NBC channels like CBS AA has live CBS channels?


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> Will NBC Peacock have live NBC channels like CBS AA has live CBS channels?


That's a good question, but I haven't seen any articles describing actual use of the service by Comcast customers that have it now, so hard to tell.


----------



## James Long

lparsons21 said:


> That's a good question, but I haven't seen any articles describing actual use of the service by Comcast customers that have it now, so hard to tell.


As noted in my post, Peacock presents its content as channels and on demand.

The "channels" are not the same as any satellite or terrestrial broadcast - they are genre based theme channels where when you change to a channel a program will be in progress and you can watch it as a live broadcast. The "on demand" is as expected, search for content, find it and play it. When you first open the app "popular" clips begin to play. This may be from NBC News or the late night shows or other short features.

The service has the feel of watching traditional TV, except you are not seeing the same channels that you get on an MVPD or OTA.

I have Comcast Internet, so I am getting Peacock Premium via their free Flex service. Flex is also a gateway to other paid and free services and content. I do not subscribe to Comcast/Xfinity cable or X1 services.


----------



## techguy88

b4pjoe said:


> Will NBC Peacock have live NBC channels like CBS AA has live CBS channels?





lparsons21 said:


> That's a good question, but I haven't seen any articles describing actual use of the service by Comcast customers that have it now, so hard to tell.


I haven't seen anything about Peacock including live NBC local channels like CBS All Access does.



James Long said:


> As noted in my post, Peacock presents its content as channels and on demand.
> 
> The "channels" are not the same as any satellite or terrestrial broadcast - they are genre based theme channels where when you change to a channel a program will be in progress and you can watch it as a live broadcast. The "on demand" is as expected, search for content, find it and play it. When you first open the app "popular" clips begin to play. This may be from NBC News or the late night shows or other short features.
> 
> The service has the feel of watching traditional TV, except you are not seeing the same channels that you get on an MVPD or OTA.
> 
> I have Comcast Internet, so I am getting Peacock Premium via their free Flex service. Flex is also a gateway to other paid and free services and content. I do not subscribe to Comcast/Xfinity cable or X1 services.


Pretty much the "channels" are similar to Pluto TV channels. To compare VH1 RuPaul's Drag Race on Pluto TV shows all episodes of that show on a continuous loop with ads as if it was a live channel. SNL Vault on Peacock would be a similar situation showing episodes from that show with ads. That's how I understand the Peacock "channels" will work.


----------



## B. Shoe

I'll buy in on the promotional Premium plan of $30/yr with ads. Five minutes of ads per hour is less than a regular hour of broadcast TV, and I can tolerate the ads than others can. Will be interested to see how the service and offerings develop over the next 12 months.


----------



## techguy88

B. Shoe said:


> I'll buy in on the promotional Premium plan of $30/yr with ads. Five minutes of ads per hour is less than a regular hour of broadcast TV, and I can tolerate the ads than others can. Will be interested to see how the service and offerings develop over the next 12 months.


According to some Reddit users who have access to the service through Xfinity Flex on movies they will load about 120 seconds worth of ads upfront so the movie will play uninterrupted. @James Long is this true?


----------



## James Long

techguy88 said:


> According to some Reddit users who have access to the service through Xfinity Flex on movies they will load about 120 seconds worth of ads upfront so the movie will play uninterrupted. @James Long is this true?


I just started "Fast and Furious". I was asked to watch 180 seconds of ads and then "enjoy my movie ad free". About 30 of that was promotional for Peacock. There is a countdown timer on screen so one can see how long they have to go get popcorn, etc.


----------



## billsharpe

That sounds like what you get when you see a movie in a theatre. Several minutes of ads before the film. That's one reason, besides the ridiculous price, I seldom see movies there.
(Perhaps I should say "saw" since the theatres are still closed.


----------



## James Long

See .. saw ... same for me. I probably go to a movie theater once a year. Usually for something big like Star Wars. Nothing big enough to get me in to the theater since the last Star Wars movie.

I would probably go to more movies if the actual film started at the advertised time (or a consistent time no more than five minutes later). There are far too many movie advertisements before each feature presentation - plus other product advertisements. I'm not paying for excessive advertising.


----------



## inkahauts

I have recently found out the USA networks on DIRECTV is similar to this on at least some shows. I watched the on demand version of a few ncis Los Angeles episodes and it had about 60 seconds of commercials then showed the entire episode comerical free. 

If that’s how they do all their shows it’ll be a pretty nice service imho.


----------



## techguy88

I'm leaning very heavily on getting the $29.99 special for Peacock Premium now. I can deal with them loading all the ads upfront for a movie and for everything else having 5 minutes of ads/hr which is way less than other services like CBS All Access and Hulu (although Hulu is not that bad.) It will at least work with my Apple TV and Xbox One X so that's good lol.


----------



## billsharpe

I like watching CBS Sunday Morning on CBS All Access Adfree. 1 1/2-hour show takes 1:02 to view. I used to DVR this show but still couldn't get through in less than ! 1/4 hours when fast-forwarding through the commercials. They also have a couple decent ad-free older movies, although I haven't seen the ones they are showing on Sunday nights now in their list yet.


----------



## AngryManMLS

Just for simply having access to all Chelsea English Premiere League games that are not on TV makes Peacock worth it. And since I already have Comcast for my internet that basically makes getting those games free.


----------



## techguy88

NBCUniversal's Peacock lands distribution deal with Google

Peacock will be available on Android mobile devices (smartphones, tablets), Android TV devices, Chromecast (standalone and built-in) and support in-app purchases. One unique feature of this deal not present in the Apple or Microsoft deal is Android mobile and Android TV users will get complimentary access to *Peacock Premium w/ads* until October 15, 2020 (3 months free) then they can chose to subscribe to the service. All platforms will have access to *Peacock Free w/ads*.

This leaves the following platforms without a distribution deal as of this post:

Amazon - Fire devices (Fire tablets, Fire TV, Fire TV Cube, Fire TV Stick, in app purchases via Amazon Appstore)
Roku - Roku devices and in app purchases via Roku Channels Store
Sony - PlayStation 4 family of consoles, non-Android TV smart TVs (if HBO Max is anything to go by their Android TV smart TVs are covered)
TLC - Their Roku Smart TVs (their new line of Android TVs are now covered under the Android TV deal.)
LG - Smart TVs
Vizio - Smart TVs
On the traditional provider front no other providers except for Cox Communications have signed a distribution deal.

These distribution announcements are starting to follow HBO Max. I predict we will see Sony's PlayStation platform next. Less than a month to go and no Amazon or Roku ekkk! Not a good sign there especially considering Amazon held out on a Disney+ deal 5 days before launch and no deal from Amazon and Roku for HBO Max.


----------



## techguy88

Peacock will stream on LG and Vizio TVs at launch

LG and Vizio Smart TVs are confirmed.

Remaining gaps

Amazon - Fire devices (Fire tablets, Fire TV, Fire TV Cube, Fire TV Stick, in app purchases via Amazon Appstore)
Roku - Roku devices and in app purchases via Roku Channels Store
Sony - PlayStation 4 family of consoles, non-Android TV smart TVs (if HBO Max is anything to go by their Android TV smart TVs are covered)
TLC - Roku Smart TVs
Samsung Smart TVs
I'm surprised PlayStation support hasn't been confirmed yet since they were early supporters for both Disney+ and HBO Max.


----------



## techguy88

This does not look good for Amazon & Roku... the top exec of the service has apparently told CNET that its fine.



> "When it comes to Peacock, we've got a very long-term strategy and vision for what we're bringing to market," said Matt Strauss, chairman of Peacock and NBCUniversal's Digital Enterprises. "It's not a sprint, it's a marathon for us.
> 
> "Our launch date on July 15, is our launch date," he continued. "We're in discussions with everybody ... we would like to have the app available on all platforms, but we're committed to launching on the date that we set forth."


Although this article from FierceVideo does a good job summarizing everything so far for Peacock:



> With Peacock - which has no installed base to account for - the negotiations are likely centered on advertising. Keys said Roku is asking Peacock for viewership data and the ability to insert a limited number of ads. NBCU has reportedly offered up some data but has pushed back against Roku inserting ads in Peacock shows and movies, which will be focused on addressable ads and lighter ad loads.


FierceVideo is also referencing this article from The Desk's Matthew Keys about Peacock which also has some tidbits about HBO Max's situation:

In the article a Roku employee with knowledge spoke to The Desk on anonymous basis (because they are not authorized to speak to the media about negotiations) and explained HBO Max's issues:
AT&T/WarnerMedia is wanting to go direct to consumer and prefers not having "channel" arrangements. They offered Roku a deal similar to the one Apple accepted for their Apple TV platform which was to stop selling HBO subscription through The Roku Channel instead use in-app purchases for HBO Max and grandfather existing HBO-Roku Channel subscribers in (similar to how HBO Max works on Apple TV) - Roku declined this 
WarnerMedia then countered and offered Roku the deal Hulu had accepted: Continue selling HBO subscriptions through The Roku Channel with the HBO content integrated into The Roku Channel, Max content exclusive to the HBO Max app & website, commission reduced per subscription from 30% to 15%. -- Roku declined this as well. 

Peacock's main issues with Roku apprently is centered around advertising and viewership data:

Roku wants viewership data - Comcast is willing to share _some _viewership data (but not all)
Roku wants to insert a limited amount of its own ads into Peacock - Comcast is very opposed to this request due to Peacock's already light ad load and the fact they are using an addressable ad model.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> This does not look good for Amazon & Roku... the top exec of the service has apparently told CNET that its fine.
> 
> Although this article from FierceVideo does a good job summarizing everything so far for Peacock:
> 
> FierceVideo is also referencing this article from The Desk's Matthew Keys about Peacock which also has some tidbits about HBO Max's situation:
> 
> In the article a Roku employee with knowledge spoke to The Desk on anonymous basis (because they are not authorized to speak to the media about negotiations) and explained HBO Max's issues:
> AT&T/WarnerMedia is wanting to go direct to consumer and prefers not having "channel" arrangements. They offered Roku a deal similar to the one Apple accepted for their Apple TV platform which was to stop selling HBO subscription through The Roku Channel instead use in-app purchases for HBO Max and grandfather existing HBO-Roku Channel subscribers in (similar to how HBO Max works on Apple TV) - Roku declined this
> WarnerMedia then countered and offered Roku the deal Hulu had accepted: Continue selling HBO subscriptions through The Roku Channel with the HBO content integrated into The Roku Channel, Max content exclusive to the HBO Max app & website, commission reduced per subscription from 30% to 15%. -- Roku declined this as well.
> 
> Peacock's main issues with Roku apprently is centered around advertising and viewership data:
> 
> Roku wants viewership data - Comcast is willing to share _some _viewership data (but not all)
> Roku wants to insert a limited amount of its own ads into Peacock - Comcast is very opposed to this request due to Peacock's already light ad load and the fact they are using an addressable ad model.


Nice post. Only bit I'd add is that Warner has publicly stated that they're offering to share at least some viewership data from HBO Max with their distribution partners too, as NBCU is reportedly offering to Roku for Peacock.

Many folks seem to be blaming Warner/AT&T on the failure so far to get the HBO Max app on Roku and Amazon Fire TV. But I think the situation with Peacock is showing that it's more on Roku and Amazon. When all the other distributors are able to agree with HBO Max and Peacock but Roku and Amazon can't agree with either, it looks to me like Roku and Amazon are the children who can't play nicely with others on the playground.

Or, to quote the CNet article you linked above:

_Roku and Amazon Fire TV streaming devices and smart TVs are incredibly popular, with a combined 70% of the streaming player market and roughly 80 million active users between them. But rather than act as neutral platforms offering up channels, companies like Roku and Amazon have grown more aggressive in their negotiations with new streaming services, leading to impasses that have kept high-profile services from launching on their devices._​


----------



## Getteau

I was changing my Internet package with Xfinity the other day and they sent me one of their Flex boxes that had the Peacock app on it. Got it hooked up yesterday and played with the app last night. Since I have Xfinity, I have Peacock at the Premium level. All I can say is that it's almost as bad as using the SyFy app on my Roku as far as ads are concerned. I tried to watch the first episode of Yellowstone and I swear it felt like I was getting 30 seconds to 1 minute commercial breaks every 5 to 10 minutes (basically at the end of every scene). I made it about 45 minutes through the episode before I quit. I tried playing The Bourne Supremacy and didn't even get past the 3 minute set of ads that had to run before the movie even started. Flipped over to the first episode of Law and Order SVU to see if the adds would be there and yep, it looked like there would have been 4 or 5 commercial breaks during that show. None of the ads were skip-able and you had to sit there while the little 60 second or 30 second clock on the screen wound down.

Since it's free with my Internet package, we'll probably keep it around just in case I really need to watch something. However, unless I want to shell out another $5 a month for add-free, it won't be a big feature in our house. Based on what I read, I'm not even sure if the extra $5 bump would even get rid of the ads.


----------



## Rich

Getteau said:


> I was changing my Internet package with Xfinity the other day and they sent me one of their Flex boxes that had the Peacock app on it. Got it hooked up yesterday and played with the app last night. Since I have Xfinity, I have Peacock at the Premium level. All I can say is that it's almost as bad as using the SyFy app on my Roku as far as ads are concerned. I tried to watch the first episode of Yellowstone and I swear it felt like I was getting 30 seconds to 1 minute commercial breaks every 5 to 10 minutes (basically at the end of every scene). I made it about 45 minutes through the episode before I quit. I tried playing The Bourne Supremacy and didn't even get past the 3 minute set of ads that had to run before the movie even started. Flipped over to the first episode of Law and Order SVU to see if the adds would be there and yep, it looked like there would have been 4 or 5 commercial breaks during that show. None of the ads were skip-able and you had to sit there while the little 60 second or 30 second clock on the screen wound down.
> 
> Since it's free with my Internet package, we'll probably keep it around just in case I really need to watch something. However, unless I want to shell out another $5 a month for add-free, it won't be a big feature in our house. Based on what I read, I'm not even sure if the extra $5 bump would even get rid of the ads.


I can't imagine using an app that isn't ad-free. These apps are bad enough without having to deal with ads. I happily pay the price to be ad-free.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy

Getteau said:


> I was changing my Internet package with Xfinity the other day and they sent me one of their Flex boxes that had the Peacock app on it. Got it hooked up yesterday and played with the app last night. Since I have Xfinity, I have Peacock at the Premium level. All I can say is that it's almost as bad as using the SyFy app on my Roku as far as ads are concerned. I tried to watch the first episode of Yellowstone and I swear it felt like I was getting 30 seconds to 1 minute commercial breaks every 5 to 10 minutes (basically at the end of every scene). I made it about 45 minutes through the episode before I quit. I tried playing The Bourne Supremacy and didn't even get past the 3 minute set of ads that had to run before the movie even started. Flipped over to the first episode of Law and Order SVU to see if the adds would be there and yep, it looked like there would have been 4 or 5 commercial breaks during that show. None of the ads were skip-able and you had to sit there while the little 60 second or 30 second clock on the screen wound down.


I've only watched two things on Peacock so far on my Flex box. Very light ad load that didn't bother me at all. First thing was a movie, which ran its full 3-minute ad load up front. Rest of the movie was uninterrupted. Even when I stopped the movie and returned to it the next day. As I recall, I just went to the kitchen and/or bathroom during that initial 3-minute ad break.

Other thing I watched was a half-hour (OK, 22-minute) sitcom episode. There were only 2 ad breaks, one about 1/3 of the way through and the other about 2/3 through. Each break was 45 seconds: a 30-sec spot and a 15-sec spot. That's it. A total of 1.5 minutes of ads. I found it no worse than using YouTube (which usually only makes you watch the first few seconds of an ad but sometimes makes you watch a full ad).

I can't really see paying $5/mo to avoid so few ads. IDK, maybe if I found myself watching Peacock a ton, I would. But my guess is that it'll just be a nice little supplement to my main sources. We'll see.


----------



## James Long

My experience matched NashGuy's. Minimal ads that were not intrusive. I can see where the front loaded ads on a movie might be considered excessive. But when they are done they are done.

I started a Law & Order Episode and it started with a promo that said "stream this episode with one ad". One dot showed on the timeline.


----------



## armchair

How frequent are ads on Yellowstone, actually? I never heard of Yellowstone until the season 3 promos started... haven't watched it since I can't catch-up without buying full seasons. I'm considering preorder on the mid tier for that alone and sample the rest. Not much time left to decide.

Any difference in the tiers, regarding Yellowstone?

TIA

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

armchair said:


> How frequent are ads on Yellowstone, actually? I never heard of Yellowstone until the season 3 promos started... haven't watched it since I can't catch-up without buying full seasons. I'm considering preorder on the mid tier for that alone and sample the rest. Not much time left to decide.
> 
> Any difference in the tiers, regarding Yellowstone?
> 
> TIA


As a Comcast broadband customer, I have access to the Premium tier for free. Yellowstone is available for me. Don't know for sure whether it's available on the free tier but this article suggests that it _probably_ is. It lists Yellowstone as a "back-catalog title" and above there says that "complete classic series and movies" are part of the free tier. The stuff they list that's exclusive to the paid Premium tier only looks like stuff from NBCU themselves (e.g. Peacock Originals, returning current NBC series, early access to late-night talkies, etc.). So if I had to guess, I'd say Yellowstone will be in the free tier.


----------



## Getteau

armchair said:


> How frequent are ads on Yellowstone, actually? I never heard of Yellowstone until the season 3 promos started... haven't watched it since I can't catch-up without buying full seasons. I'm considering preorder on the mid tier for that alone and sample the rest. Not much time left to decide.
> Any difference in the tiers, regarding Yellowstone?
> TIA
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


I just went back and looked on my TV and it's really weird. when I was watching episode 1 a couple of nights ago, the 93 minute episode probably had 10 or so dots that show you when there will be commercials. I only got about 1/2 way through the episode before I quit watching. I went back in today and there were only 2 dots. The one at the very beginning that played an add and said something along the lines of watch this episode with only 1 commercial interruption (similar to what James posted above for the L&O episode) and one about the 30-40 minute mark. I started playing episode 2 to look at it and I believe there were 4 dots pretty evenly spaced during the 53 minute show. Episode 3 had 4 dots for a 48 minute show. However, in episode 3, 3 of the dots were clumped together towards the middle of the program. I didn't actually FF through the program to see the exact times, but it roughly looked like you would go about 15 minutes, hit a commercial, then maybe 10 minutes, hit another commercial, another 10 minutes, commercial, then it would go to the end without a commercial. So I'd be willing to bet that they were showing a commercial about every scene change. So who knows what they are doing.

On a side note, my flex box wanted to me give it a room description again and also did the audio/video setup. No idea what's up with that, but I will say I hate the remote. For a device that is designed around a tile-like interface, you would have thought Xfinity would have given you easier arrow buttons to move around with. The arrow buttons on this remote are small and really stiff. I guess they think everyone is going to use the voice remote instead.


----------



## armchair

Thanks for the feedback guys. I think I'll just preorder the mid tier to see if peacock is of future interest. If nbcu hadn't purchased the rights to Yellowstone, I likely will have passed on that. Sly move on their part.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

armchair said:


> Thanks for the feedback guys. I think I'll just preorder the mid tier to see if peacock is of future interest. If nbcu hadn't purchased the rights to Yellowstone, I likely will have passed on that. Sly move on their part.


Along with Yellowstone, Peacock has also licensed from ViacomCBS a couple of great multi-season Showtime series, Ray Donovan and The Affair. I highly recommend both.


----------



## armchair

I'm still confused by the premium tier descriptions regarding ads. I usually go with no ad pricing so would likely trial the no ad premium. The T&C hardly mentions preorder. Billing occurs prior to launch; other sites indicate there's a trial with pre-order but peacock site is very scant on details.

Where's the actual facts? I'd be less concerned if I could confirm there's a trial period that would accommodate a full refund or partial refund on downgrade to premium with ads within the trial period. And yet I can't confirm pre-orders include a trial. So confusing.

Then there's the question of what ads the no ad premium tier will include. Peacock makes all this as clear as mud for me.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe

NBC's Peacock: Prices, devices, discounts, launch date, shows and movies



> Peacock will launch in the US nationwide next week with a seven-day free trial for its premium tiers, and preordering early unlocks a discount.


----------



## armchair

b4pjoe said:


> NBC's Peacock: Prices, devices, discounts, launch date, shows and movies


Ok so trial only after launch. Preorder nets a discount but no refund. That's how I read it now.

Edit: There's a chat service for peacock; I'll ask my questions there. Thanks.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## techguy88

Report: Peacock unlikely to land on Roku, Amazon on launch date

Peacock is set to most likely follow in HBO Max's footsteps of not being available on Amazon Fire & Roku devices at launch according to CNBC. 


> One person familiar with the talks described the likelihood of reaching an agreement with either party by July 15 as "less than 10%."


Some points from the CNBC article:

Apparently both Peacock and HBO Max are having issues with Amazon over Prime Video Channels integration. (We knew HBO Max is having this issue but a first for Peacock.)
AT&T and Comcast both want a deal similar to the Amazon-Disney deal where Disney+ is not part of Prime Video Channels.
AT&T is willing to compromise with Amazon and offer them a deal similar to Hulu that allows Amazon to continue selling HBO as a Prime Video Channel with the HBO channels & content part of Prime Video Channels but the "Max content" has to be viewed in the HBO Max app. --- Amazon declines this offer.
Comcast is 100% any integration of Peacock & Prime Video Channels.

Comcast is also battling Roku over ad-inventory sharing (we knew of this one) however there are more details here:
Roku's standard is to take 30% of the available ad inventory of an app for itself.
Comcast has reluctantly offered Roku 15% of Peacock's ad inventory -- Roku declines wanting 30%.
Comcast is exploring other options such as giving Roku more ad inventory on their TV Everywhere apps in order to keep Roku's % of ad inventory on Peacock low.
Another option they are considering is giving Roku more ad-inventory on less-popular content while Comcast keeps most of the ad inventory on the popular content.
Amazon wants some of Peacock's ad inventory for themselves. 

So... from this it maybe a while before both HBO Max and Peacock are officially on Amazon & Roku devices. However I think a deal with Roku would happen first before Amazon especially if Amazon is really aggressively pushing complete Prime Video Channel integration on both HBO Max and Peacock which they are apparently resisting.

Also CNET has updated its guide on Peacock and has revealed that the service will be missing some key features at launch (way more than HBO Max.)

For comparison: HBO Max launched with the ability to create up to 5 different profiles and offline downloads. Other features they showcased in 2019 that are supposed to come in updates after launch include the "co-viewing experience" (ability to select 2 profiles at once when 2 people want to watch something together) and Recommended By Humans. 4K, HDR & Dolby Atmos have been confirmed to be "on the roadmap" for HBO Max.

In the CNET article (updated 7/9/20) Peacock will be missing the following features at launch 

No profile support - Feature is high on the list to arrive after Peacock's launch. 
No mobile downloads - Coming "soon" this year for those who subscribe to the top tier according to Peacock.
No 4K, HDR and Dolby Atmos support at launch - Peacock says this on "their roadmap" (This was part of various articles early on as being a feature exclusive to Premium tiers.)
In all honestly this is a big trio of features to be missing from modern services. I'm okay for a service not having profiles if they prioritized 4K HDR or the other way around. Not sure how the mainstream folks will handle these features being missing that are not on Amazon & Roku devices.


----------



## phrelin

We have an Amazon Cube driving our main TV and a Roku box on our second TV. 

When HBO didn't cut a deal with either service, we continued with the regular HBO but loaded Max on a phone then "cast" Max content. We'll do the same with Peacock premium though I do hope they get downloading soon. Profile, 4K, HDR and Dolby Atmos support aren't of concern to us.

We signed up for a cheap year for both Max and Peacock mostly out of curiosity. For whatever reason Comcast can't give us a Flex box, grumble, grumble.


----------



## NashGuy

phrelin said:


> We signed up for a cheap year for both Max and Peacock mostly out of curiosity. For whatever reason Comcast can't give us a Flex box, grumble, grumble.


I got one of those free Flex boxes (I'm a Comcast broadband subscriber) and, trust me, you're not missing much. The UI is so/so but the remote is pretty awful. It's a 4K box and knows it's connected to a 4K TV but the UI always looks soft and fuzzy, like the box is doing a poor job of upscaling a 720p UI to 4K. And, at least in the app or two I used on it, there was no easy way to jump back 10-30 in a video, which is a must for me. Had to hit the rewind button and then immediately hit the play button and just guess as to how far back I went.

The Peacock app on the box keeps forgetting that I've logged in before (using the same email that's registered on my Comcast account, no less) and I'm just over having to manually enter a password every time. And when I turned on the Flex box yesterday, it couldn't find any wifi networks. I had to yank the power cord out the back of it and do a hard reset. When it powered back on, it connected to my wifi router (about four feet away) automatically.

So, yeah, I won't bother with Peacock again until it comes to my Apple TV 4K, which is just so, so, so much better than Flex. It's not even close. Free isn't good enough, Comcast would need to pay me to use Flex instead of my Apple TV.


----------



## NashGuy

phrelin said:


> We have an Amazon Cube driving our main TV and a Roku box on our second TV.
> 
> When HBO didn't cut a deal with either service, we continued with the regular HBO but loaded Max on a phone then "cast" Max content.


I know the HBO Max app supports casting to Chromecast/Android TV and maybe casting via AirPlay to Apple TV. But how are you casting from a phone to either a Fire TV or Roku device?


----------



## techguy88

I could never cast HBO Max to Roku the option never appeared. Some TVs like my Samsung TV supports casting while the Vizio in the bedroom supports AirPlay.


----------



## phrelin

NashGuy said:


> I know the HBO Max app supports casting to Chromecast/Android TV and maybe casting via AirPlay to Apple TV. But how are you casting from a phone to either a Fire TV or Roku device?


The Android phone I'm using has "MirrorShare" within its system. To connect to the Cube (2nd gen) go to Settings, Display & Sound, Screen Mirroring. Then connect the mirroring on the phone.

On the Roku the phone literally shows the connection. If I select it, it's automatic. Per Roku:

f your Roku device supports screen mirroring and is running Roku OS 7.7 or later, the feature is enabled automatically and there is no action required to enable it. To check the software version of your Roku device, go to *Settings* > *System* > *About*. If an older version is installed, connect your Roku device to the internet and have it manually check for a software update.​


----------



## NashGuy

phrelin said:


> The Android phone I'm using has "MirrorShare" within its system. To connect to the Cube (2nd gen) go to Settings, Display & Sound, Screen Mirroring. Then connect the mirroring on the phone.
> 
> On the Roku the phone literally shows the connection. If I select it, it's automatic. Per Roku:
> 
> f your Roku device supports screen mirroring and is running Roku OS 7.7 or later, the feature is enabled automatically and there is no action required to enable it. To check the software version of your Roku device, go to *Settings* > *System* > *About*. If an older version is installed, connect your Roku device to the internet and have it manually check for a software update.​


Ah, OK. Sounds like your phone is projecting the entire contents of its screen onto your TV, which is a little different from casting just the video stream (as Chromecast and AirPlay work).


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> Ah, OK. Sounds like your phone is projecting the entire contents of its screen onto your TV, which is a little different from casting just the video stream (as Chromecast and AirPlay work).


Yeah I couldn't deal with not using my phone at all. At least with the AT&T TV device I was able to cast content from Hulu & Prime Video to the Osprey box and have full use of my iPhone if needed. Like if my mom called me I could answer the call, make a call, text and use other apps.


----------



## armchair

b4pjoe said:


> NBC's Peacock: Prices, devices, discounts, launch date, shows and movies





armchair said:


> Ok so trial only after launch. Preorder nets a discount but no refund. That's how I read it now.
> 
> Edit: There's a chat service for peacock; I'll ask my questions there. Thanks.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


I had to register with peacock to get a message through. A day of messages sent back and forth, what I can do with a preorder is take up 72 hours to refund in full or upgrade from premium with ads to no ads. Or downgrade premium no ads with the refund on that ($50).

Basically, preorder either premium and have up to 72 hours after launch to change option without consequence. So preorders get a 72 hour window on the terms at least.

One email suggested preorder before launch then decide on preferred premium on launch day. Haha. A little clearer now.

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


----------



## techguy88

armchair said:


> I had to register with peacock to get a message through. A day of messages sent back and forth, what I can do with a preorder is take up 72 hours to refund in full or upgrade from premium with ads to no ads. Or downgrade premium no ads with the refund on that ($50).
> 
> Basically, preorder either premium and have up to 72 hours after launch to change option without consequence. So preorders get a 72 hour window on the terms at least.
> 
> One email suggested preorder before launch then decide on preferred premium on launch day. Haha. A little clearer now.
> 
> Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk


Oh wow! That's awesome news I was very hesitant to get the Ad-Free option at first which is why I pre-ordered the Premium w/ads glad they are giving a grace period


----------



## James Long

The pre-order prices are for the people who trust NBCU to have a worthwhile product.
Free trials are for people who need to see proof before they commit.

It is good to see a cancellation option.


----------



## phrelin

It's a little hard to imagine what it's like in the Comcast organization. Peacock was supposed to be rolled out with the Summer Olympics and some new content to be produced in late Spring. Presumably the organizational confidence was high in January. Consider this January 16 Vox report 6 things to know about Peacock, NBC's new (free) streaming service which precedes the pandemic impacts which by the end of March turned the rollout plans into a disaster. The heavy Comcast thinking is reflected in the observation "[Peacock] is a fitting name for NBC's entrée into the streaming wars, because Peacock is the one platform that actually resembles network television." And the question offered has a whole different meaning: "Will Peacock's later arrival be to its benefit or detriment?"

IMHO Comcast should make deals with Amazon and Roku just to shore up the Peacock initial subscription numbers. They'll need to smooth out the headlines.

Still, they do offer a lot of programming as described by Thursday's Cnet article.


----------



## armchair

If it's truly an intent to limit ads that keeps Amazon and Roku from making a deal, this reflects poorly on them rather than nbcu or peacock. All true? Then let Amazon and Roku sweat it out and smooth things. It's an embarrassing line to hold to the bitter end.

I think I'll be ok with this stance using Apple TV 4K. And I've seen suspicious data activity with Roku when using it. Has me questioning, is Roku data cap friendly for full time streaming users? 

I don't currently have a data cap, don't want it, don't think it should be an issue with current tech but who knows the direction the FCC will allow going forward? Peacock could highlight that in this argument and make them feel even more uncomfortable with their stance in negotiations.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## armchair

Comcast is not zeroing peacock data for its users.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## armchair

techguy88 said:


> Oh wow! That's awesome news I was very hesitant to get the Ad-Free option at first which is why I pre-ordered the Premium w/ads glad they are giving a grace period


I finally subscribed to the no ads premium. My confusions will likely exist throughout the year as programming comes online and sports are added to schedule.

Does not appear NBCsports gold will include anything beyond what's been announced. I'd like to see upcoming replays of NASCAR events, if missed recordings. Not interested in track pass but actual races. And US Open tennis match replays, if missed recordings. Match play can be scattered across multiple channels or time slots or individually where rights exist. I think I recall US Open inclusion and maybe some replays of sports aired but no idea what that means for peacock premium subscribers. Disappointing about the Olympics getting delayed until next year. That may even be tentatively postponed to next year or longer.

I'm just going with it for a year to see if worth another year. With Olympic viewing hopes dashed this year on peacock, peacock should have considered making the preorder offer continue into an optional second year to include the Olympics. I asked peacock to consider more NBCsports gold bundling with peacock premium and extend offer to include Olympics.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe

I preordered the same Premium No Ads for a year at the $29.99 for Premium and $50.00 for No Ads price. $79.99 is a good price for a year of the service. $69.99 off of the regular price. No way I'll know enough about it after 72 hours to cancel so I'll just keep it for a year at minimum.


----------



## b4pjoe

armchair said:


> If it's truly an intent to limit ads that keeps Amazon and Roku from making a deal, this reflects poorly on them rather than *nbcu or peacock*. All true? Then let Amazon and Roku sweat it out and smooth things. It's an embarrassing line to hold to the bitter end.


And HBO Max as well. I have Fire TV's on all TV's and only one Apple TV but that is going to change. Not only because of how Amazon and Roku have handled this with both HBO Max and NBC Peacock but because the Apple TV is a far superior streaming box.


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> And HBO Max as well. I have Fire TV's on all TV's and only one Apple TV but that is going to change. Not only because of how Amazon and Roku have handled this with both HBO Max and NBC Peacock but because the Apple TV is a far superior streaming box.


Yup, I have a Cube on each TV and all I use are my ATVs. I just use the Cubes as HDMI switches. I've tried most of the streaming boxes and haven't found any that work as well as the Apple boxes. And you get a better picture with the ATVs.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe

I still can't get comfortable talking to my device. Plus I think Alexa is hard hearing. I have to scream at her before she hears me. My biggest use of the Cube voice control is for setting a timer for my popcorn machine.  One button press on the DTV (Select), ATV (Menu), or FTV/Cube (Home) remote switches to the correct HDMI port for that control.


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> I still can't get comfortable talking to my device. Plus I think Alexa is hard hearing. I have to scream at her before she hears me. My biggest use of the Cube voice control is for setting a timer for my popcorn machine.  One button press on the DTV (Select), ATV (Menu), or FTV/Cube (Home) remote switches to the correct HDMI port for that control.


I get that. When I got my first Echo I couldn't figure out what to do with it. I kept it for a couple of days and sent it back. Thought it was useless. And I didn't like the idea of talking to them. Fast forward a few years and we have Echo devices in every room, our lights are voice-controlled, the thermostat is controlled by the Echo devices and we rarely have to touch it. All voice-controlled. I got over it when it dawned on me how easy it was to control things with the Echos. Clearly, YMMV, it's a choice.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe

Yeah I haven't invested in lights, thermostats, etc...


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah I haven't invested in lights, thermostats, etc...


Had to get a new HVAC unit a couple of years ago, the thermostat came with it. I invested in LEDs and we've been replacing them with smart LEDs. Another expensive mistake. Should have waited a bit longer.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe

Yeah I have looked at the smart LED's. Not thrilled with the price.


----------



## techguy88

I have an Amazon Echo Dot but haven't used it yet. When Walmart had a Black Friday special of the Chromecast + Google Nest Mini speaker for $35 I got that (still haven't used the Nest Mini either). I haven't used Siri on my iPhone XR as well. Now when it comes to the remotes like the Siri Remote, Android TV remotes and voice Roku Remotes I have used those ROFL. I really should give the Echo Dot and Nest Mini a try.

I converted to all ATVs in mid-June. I previously had in the Living Room a Shield TV + Roku Ultra (Roku Ultra for apps that Android TV doesn't have like Apple TV and some TVE apps), 2nd TV had the ATV HD (4th Gen) and the 3rd had a Roku Ultra. (The third TV only has 1 HDMI port and the C41W is connected via the 10-pin component cable.)

When HBO Max didn't launch on Roku I had to move the ATV HD to the 3rd TV in the bedroom and connect the TiVo Stream 4K + Roku Ultra to the 2nd TV in the hybrid office/2nd game room (I did not like this setup.) So in the middle of June I did the one thing I had been thinking of since January which was to simplify my setups and replace the Roku Ultras with ATV 4Ks.

I will admit the lack of HBO Max and Peacock on Roku speed up this decision. I got two Apple TV 4K 32GB units from Walmart because they were $10 cheaper there.

So now the Living Room TV has the Shield TV + ATV 4K because I still use the Shield TV for Steam Link & Nvidia GeForce Now so I can stream PC games to my TV. The ATV 4K is my primary streaming device in that room now. I put an ATV 4K on the 2nd TV in the hybrid office/2nd game room and left my good old trusty ATV HD (4th Gen) on my 3rd TV (bedroom).

Must say I'm a lot happier with having all ATVs now. I can use the iTunes Extra feature on all my digital movies that supports it. Comes in handy for the first two _Harry Potter_ films since I used Vudu's Disc to Digital program to convert the DVDs to HD digital at a discounted price. With iTunes Extra I can watch the extended editions of those films but everywhere else like in Vudu, MA, DirecTV, etc. I only get the theatrical cuts.

iTunes Extra comes in handy for _Batman v Superman Ultimate Edition_ and _Suicide Squad_ that I got on sale because I can view both the theatrical cuts and extended cuts of those films. Most other MA retailers requires you to buy each cut like Vudu and Prime Video.

On a side note I can also play _Sonic the Hedgehog_, _Sonic 2_ and _Sonic CD_ that I bought for my iPhone on the Apple TV with a DualShock 4


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah I have looked at the smart LEDs. Not thrilled with the price.


The prices have come down, they're not as bad as the LEDs when they came out. I spent a small fortune going from CFLs to LEDs. I've been taking my time with the smart LEDs. Thing is, my LEDs are burning out left and right. I just looked up at a four-light fixture above me and another LED is out.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe

I have switched to LED's. Just not smart LED's. And I think it is a myth that LED's last longer. Or maybe I'm just buying the wrong ones.


----------



## Rich

b4pjoe said:


> I have switched to LED's. Just not smart LED's. And I think it is a myth that LED's last longer. Or maybe I'm just buying the wrong ones.


The old light bulbs, the incandescents, were rated for 750 hours of usage. The LEDs last a lot longer than that but they do die. Sometimes in flames. I have all kinds of LEDs, ended up buying cheaper ones than the name brands. They all work well, I'm pleased with them, never liked the CFLs.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah I have looked at the smart LED's. Not thrilled with the price.


My personal opinion, if you ever dive into that realm, there's a couple things to consider...

If it's bulbs go with a brand (you won't have heard of them all) that isn't beyond cheap and seem to good to be true. It likely is.

Look on amazon prime day and at the holidays. Philips hue has big discounts then usually.

Also pay attention to the kind of bulb. Many are on off with dimming. Some don't dim. Some have ability to be different color temperature (kind of a thing if you have Apple HomeKit system after ios14 comes out) and some can be pretty much any actual color and temperature.

Also what it works with. Alexa, HomeKit, google etc. I prefer getting ones that work with Alexa and Apple
HomeKit.

And then other thing to consider is if you should just be getting bulbs in the first place rather than a smart switch if it's ceiling lights etc...


----------



## cmasia

For anyone who subscribed to NBC Sports Gold Premier League Pass at $59.99 per year, Peacock Premium is a no-brainer.

PLP is being folded into Peacock Premium for the 2020-2021 season.

175 Premier league games next season at either $29.99 with ads or $79.99 with no ads. All the added NBC stuff is a bonus.


----------



## inkahauts

cmasia said:


> For anyone who subscribed to NBC Sports Gold Premier League Pass at $59.99 per year, Peacock Premium is a no-brainer.
> 
> PLP is being folded into Peacock Premium for the 2020-2021 season.
> 
> 175 Premier league games next season at either $29.99 with ads or $79.99 with no ads. All the added NBC stuff is a bonus.


I'm not surprised they want to fold as much into the new plans as possible.


----------



## techguy88

Peacock App launched early for iOS & Apple TV not bad although I found where _The Matrix_ went to


----------



## techguy88

First impressions:

If a movie is going to expire the iOS app will let you know how many more days it will be available (Apple TV app does not). Like the Peacock iOS app says all 3 _Matrix_ films have 16 days left to watch but on Apple TV this indicator is not present.
When RR/FW during a TV show or movie there is no preview window (HBO Max has this feature.)
Similar to HBO Max there is no "Skip Intro" option for TV shows.


----------



## James Long

techguy88 said:


> First impressions:
> 
> If a movie is going to expire the iOS app will let you know how many more days it will be available (Apple TV app does not). Like the Peacock iOS app says all 3 _Matrix_ films have 16 days left to watch but on Apple TV this indicator is not present.
> When RR/FW during a TV show or movie there is no preview window (HBO Max has this feature.)
> Similar to HBO Max there is no "Skip Intro" option for TV shows.


The app on the Xfinity Flex box has the same features/flaws. (Expiration shown, no previews)

I plan on putting the app on my Android phone (included with the free Premium for Xfinity subscription).


----------



## techguy88

James Long said:


> The app on the Xfinity Flex box has the same features/flaws. (Expiration shown, no previews)
> 
> I plan on putting the app on my Android phone (included with the free Premium for Xfinity subscription).


I'll have to put Peacock on my Nvidia Shield TV and see how the Android TV app looks when it is available. Odd that the actual Apple TV app doesn't show expirations but the iOS & Xfinity Flex apps do.

Although on Apple TV I must say if the ad load stays the same as it is now I may just keep Premium w/ads LOL. I watched _Tyler Perry's Boo 2! A Madea Halloween_ and had like 30 seconds of ads at the start (1 for Peacock itself) and the movie played ad-free. I watched the first episode of _Law & Order: SVU_ and I had one 30 second ad before the episode started then two 15 second ads after the opening titles and the rest of the episode was ad-free.

Edit: Scratch that someone on Reddit found the link for Android on Google Play and I was able to go ahead and install it to my Shield TV.

Shocked only the Apple TV version so far doesn't show expiration Android TV app does


----------



## James Long

techguy88 said:


> Edit: Scratch that someone on Reddit found the link for Android on Google Play and I was able to go ahead and install it to my Shield TV.


Thanks. PeacockTV was not in the play store on my phone.
I was able to install it, log in and pick up playback right where I left off on the Flex box. I was also able to cast the video to a Google display.


----------



## b4pjoe

I download the APK from the Google Play store using the Chrome extension APKCombo and installed it on my FireTV Cube with adbLink and it did install. However when I tried to run it I got a message that said it wasn't supported on this device so no workaround that I know of yet for Peacock on the FireTV.


----------



## wmb

cmasia said:


> For anyone who subscribed to NBC Sports Gold Premier League Pass at $59.99 per year, Peacock Premium is a no-brainer.
> 
> PLP is being folded into Peacock Premium for the 2020-2021 season.
> 
> 175 Premier league games next season at either $29.99 with ads or $79.99 with no ads. All the added NBC stuff is a bonus.


Soccer is the sport least impacted by ads. The lack of breaks in play helps. Ads just mean less time with Rebecca Lowe. Now, on Fox soccer coverage, I'd pay for extra ads to cut into Alexi Lalas' screen time.

But, yeah, it's worth it for Premier League. ESPN+ as well for MLS, FA Cup, and Serie A, etc.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21

I signed up for the early bird w/ads special @$30. Got the app on my AppleTV and it works fine. HDPQ is very good, audio is DD5.1 where available but note that some of the old shows won’t have it.

Ad load is minimal on the 4 shows I watched. Brave New World has one ad at the beginning to tell you it will only have one ad and then the ad runs later in the episode.

Since I have HBO Max and now Peacock I’m strongly considering dropping Hulu.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> I signed up for the early bird w/ads special @$30. Got the app on my AppleTV and it works fine. HDPQ is very good, audio is DD5.1 where available but note that some of the old shows won't have it.
> 
> Ad load is minimal on the 4 shows I watched. Brave New World has one ad at the beginning to tell you it will only have one ad and then the ad runs later in the episode.
> 
> Since I have HBO Max and now Peacock I'm strongly considering dropping Hulu.


I'm sure this will be fixed but it seems there is a disparity between Android TV and Apple TV when it comes to the ad-load. I'm using my Nvidia Shield TV and Apple TV 4K to compare:

Watched _Fast and Furious_ on Android TV I get 170 seconds worth of ads at the beginning then the movie played ad-free.
Watched _The Matrix_ on Apple TV I get a 15 second add for Peacock Originals then the movie played ad-free. 
Watched _Law & Order: SVU_ Season 1 Episode 3 on Android TV and there are 4 ad-breaks.
Watched _Law & Order: SVU _Season 1 Episodes 1 & 2 on Apple TV and for both episodes there was one 15 second ad after the opening titles of both episodes again for Peacock Originals. 
Started to watch _Law & Order: SVU_ Season 1 Episode 4 on Android TV where there were 4 ad-breaks placed then switched mid-way through to Apple TV and the last two ad-breaks disappeared. 
So far on Apple TV I haven't seen any kind of "traditional ad" just ones for Peacock. Android TV I'm seeing your normal cable TV bouquet of ads. Although the ad-load isn't that bad on Android TV IMO. I'm thinking how the ads work on Android TV is supposed to be the way it works on all platforms and something may not be configured right on Apple TV.


----------



## lparsons21

Whatever is making it have fewer ads on AppleTV is just fine with me! 

My only AndroidTV devices are the AT&T Osprey box and Sony TV. No app for the Osprey and don’t care if there is one for the Sony TV because all apps on it are painfully slow to load and operate.


----------



## lparsons21

I gotta wonder why anyone would watch Law & Order SVU on Peacock since every episode has played ad nauseum on practically every channel known to man!

Ad load going forward is going to be interesting. If Peacock can be profitable with the ad load they are going to be using, which is very much less than most other ad supported streamers, then you have to question how a streamer like Pluto that has a very large ad load in their offerings, will survive. I even have to question how Hulu will do because their ad load is pretty high too!


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> Whatever is making it have fewer ads on AppleTV is just fine with me!
> 
> My only AndroidTV devices are the AT&T Osprey box and Sony TV. No app for the Osprey and don't care if there is one for the Sony TV because all apps on it are painfully slow to load and operate.


You sure about Osprey? I don't have active AT&T TV Now service anymore to check on the Osprey hardware itself but on the online Google Play Store it says Peacock TV is compatible with all my devices and this is what shows:

SEI Robotics TiVo Stream 4K
SDMC Jetstream AGT418
Samsung AT&T TV (aka Osprey)
Nvidia Shield TV



lparsons21 said:


> I gotta wonder why anyone would watch Law & Order SVU on Peacock since every episode has played ad nauseum on practically every channel known to man!
> 
> Ad load going forward is going to be interesting. If Peacock can be profitable with the ad load they are going to be using, which is very much less than most other ad supported streamers, then you have to question how a streamer like Pluto that has a very large ad load in their offerings, will survive. I even have to question how Hulu will do because their ad load is pretty high too!


It's good to test out devices also if I'm working on something and want something playing for background noise L&O SVU is perfect lol.


----------



## lparsons21

It wasn’t there earlier today, but now it is. Had to delete one of only two apps that can be deleted to make room for it. I guess the Osprey is painfully sparse with ram!


----------



## cmasia

Premier League games on Peacock through the app on my LG looks way better than the picture through my Roku on Sports Gold on the same TV.


----------



## lparsons21

The Peacock app on AppleTV has DD5.1 audio, on both my ATT Osprey and Sony TV it is only stereo.


----------



## NashGuy

armchair said:


> How frequent are ads on Yellowstone, actually? I never heard of Yellowstone until the season 3 promos started... haven't watched it since I can't catch-up without buying full seasons. I'm considering preorder on the mid tier for that alone and sample the rest. Not much time left to decide.
> 
> Any difference in the tiers, regarding Yellowstone?


After loading the Peacock app on my Apple TV last night, but before linking to my Comcast account to score the free upgrade to Premium, I noticed that season 1 of Yellowstone is in the free tier but season 2 has a little feather icon beside it, which indicates that it's only available on the Premium ($5) tier.

As for Peacock Originals, you only get the first episode on the free tier. Remainder is Premium.


----------



## James Long

The ad load seems to vary from viewing to viewing. Perhaps they put more in if you have watched more content recently?
I have not done a lot of testing but I have the Android App and Xfinity Flex.


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> Whatever is making it have fewer ads on AppleTV is just fine with me!


For people like me that just started watching S1E1 a couple of weeks ago. Now I can binge the rest of it ad free.


----------



## armchair

NashGuy said:


> After loading the Peacock app on my Apple TV last night, but before linking to my Comcast account to score the free upgrade to Premium, I noticed that season 1 of Yellowstone is in the free tier but season 2 has a little feather icon beside it, which indicates that it's only available on the Premium ($5) tier.
> 
> As for Peacock Originals, you only get the first episode on the free tier. Remainder is Premium.


Peacock has been decent so far. Thanks for the update. I'm looking at Yellowstone now. Anyone know when or if season 3 comes to peacock? I've got season recorded so far but may want to wait and catch-up that season on peacock too.

Watching the peacock originals did force 30 second peacock promo at beginning. Really don't get the forced part since they're promoting what I'm subscribed to anyway. Not every episode has done this though.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> It wasn't there earlier today, but now it is. Had to delete one of only two apps that can be deleted to make room for it. I guess the Osprey is painfully sparse with ram!


It's not a RAM issue actually. Osprey is pretty standard on the RAM at 2GB DDR4 which is what most Android TV devices are using including the very fluid and responsive TiVo Stream 4K. The Nvidia Shield TV (2019 model) has 2GB of RAM as well.

The issue is the memory. Osprey has 16GB flash memory but only around 6.2 GB is available to the end user (IIRC) the rest is used by the Android TV Operator Tier OS & AT&T TV software. Most Android TV devices come with 8GB of internal memory and typically have about 3.7GB - 4.5GB available for the end user to install apps depending on the quality of the device.

Sometimes the Google Play Store can use up a lot of cache that can take up space for apps.



James Long said:


> The ad load seems to vary from viewing to viewing. Perhaps they put more in if you have watched more content recently?
> I have not done a lot of testing but I have the Android App and Xfinity Flex.


Tried that worked 8 hours today at home and in the background I had Peacock play _The Matrix Reloaded_ and _The Bourne Identity _(audio muted, close caption on) not one single ad. Switched to the Nvidia Shield TV to play _The Bourne Supremacy _and there were six ad breaks scattered during the movie.

After work I switched back to the Apple TV to watch _The Bourne Ultimatum_ and not one single ad. I paused that movie and resumed it on Nvidia Shield TV and the ad breaks were there. Paused it again and resumed on my iPhone XR no ads, paused again and resumed from the website and the ads were back. So I ended up watching it on the Apple TV because of no ads LOL.

I'm not complaining about the lack of ads I just find it hilarious that Apple devices are getting a super less ad load than every other platform.


----------



## NashGuy

armchair said:


> Peacock has been decent so far. Thanks for the update. I'm looking at Yellowstone now. Anyone know when or if season 3 comes to peacock? I've got season recorded so far but may want to wait and catch-up that season on peacock too.
> 
> Watching the peacock originals did force 30 second peacock promo at beginning. Really don't get the forced part since they're promoting what I'm subscribed to anyway. Not every episode has done this though.


The way current series on broadcast or basic cable networks often do is to license their last season to a streaming service (e.g. Peacock, Hulu, Netflix, etc.) shortly before the next season premieres on their network. Season 3 of Yellowstone just started on Paramount Network in late June. So if I had to guess, I'd say we'll see season 3 come to Peacock in maybe May of next year, a few weeks before season 4 debuts on Paramount Network. It's a strategic move to help viewers catch up on past seasons and get them talking about the show just before the new season comes out, in the hope that folks will subscribe to their channel and watch it.

As for Peacock airing ads for their own content, that's normal. HBO and Showtime always do it (although they let you FF through their previews). Right now, Peacock is very concerned with making sure you don't just sample one or two things and then wander away. They want to give you reasons to get hooked on their app and keep coming back.


----------



## James Long

techguy88 said:


> After work I switched back to the Apple TV to watch _The Bourne Ultimatum_ and not one single ad. I paused that movie and resumed it on Nvidia Shield TV and the ad breaks were there. Paused it again and resumed on my iPhone XR no ads, paused again and resumed from the website and the ads were back. So I ended up watching it on the Apple TV because of no ads LOL.


That is a good test. Wow.


----------



## wmb

cmasia said:


> Premier League games on Peacock through the app on my LG looks way better than the picture through my Roku on Sports Gold on the same TV.


The stream locked up a number of times during Arsenal v Liverpool. Seemed like very 5-10 minutes. Real annoying. But that match would be a big stress. They failed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## techguy88

@NashGuy Some agreements have the new episodes available 24 hours after they premiere on TV. HBO Max's deal for _South Park_ has this arrangement.

FYI, Peacock now has its own space within the Apple TV app on Apple TVs, iPhones & iPads just like Disney+, HBO Max, Hulu, Puto TV & Prime Video.


----------



## Rich

I activated the ad-free version last night. Looks like a keeper, lots of good stuff. Also activated HBO Max last night. Impressive. 

Rich


----------



## Getteau

After watching Yellowstone for the past few days on my Flex box, it seems like season 2 is pretty consistent with 4 ads per show (State Farm, Aparments.com and Peacock ads). Season 1 was all over the place with the number of ads per episode. The one annoying thing I am finding with the ads on the flex box is that they don't remember I've already watched the ad. So if you accidentally rewind past the ad marker, you are forced to watch the add again. Restart the show, you have to watch the ads again.


----------



## lparsons21

Rich said:


> I activated the ad-free version last night. Looks like a keeper, lots of good stuff. Also activated HBO Max last night. Impressive.
> 
> Rich


Make sure to watch The Capture on Peacock but start early enough to binge it all. Really great thriller!


----------



## Rich

lparsons21 said:


> Make sure to watch The Capture on Peacock but start early enough to binge it all. Really great thriller!


I will. Still gonna be on NF for a while.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> @NashGuy Some agreements have the new episodes available 24 hours after they premiere on TV. HBO Max's deal for _South Park_ has this arrangement.


Yes, there are various kinds of licensing deals in place but the type of deal I described above is the sort of classic arrangement we've seen for years with current broadcast and basic cable series licensing past seasons to Netflix. In the case of Yellowstone, we're not seeing any of the current season 3 episodes showing up on Peacock. Four or five eps of season 3 have already aired on Paramount Network. So it doesn't appear that Peacock made an in-season deal for the show as HBO Max did for South Park. That said, who knows, maybe we'll see season 3 of Yellowstone show up on Peacock within a few weeks after the conclusion of its linear airing, as many CW shows do on Netflix. But, having read nothing about the nature of the licensing deal between ViacomCBS and Peacock for this particular series, I wouldn't bet on it. My guess is that it doesn't come to Peacock until next year. We'll see...


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Make sure to watch The Capture on Peacock but start early enough to binge it all. Really great thriller!


The Capture is about the only Peacock Original I see so far that looks like something I'll likely watch.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> The Capture is about the only Peacock Original I see so far that looks like something I'll likely watch.


Brave New World is, well, interesting. Plenty of soft porn and not a bad story line. Not exactly must see, but good enough for a slow day or night.


----------



## techguy88

Rich said:


> I activated the ad-free version last night. Looks like a keeper, lots of good stuff. Also activated HBO Max last night. Impressive.
> 
> Rich


To me it seems like HBO Max & Peacock compliment each other rather than competing with each other. Even HBO Max + Peacock Free seem like natural compliments to each other.



Getteau said:


> After watching Yellowstone for the past few days on my Flex box, it seems like season 2 is pretty consistent with 4 ads per show (State Farm, Aparments.com and Peacock ads). Season 1 was all over the place with the number of ads per episode. The one annoying thing I am finding with the ads on the flex box is that they don't remember I've already watched the ad. So if you accidentally rewind past the ad marker, you are forced to watch the add again. Restart the show, you have to watch the ads again.


On my Android TV I got a good variety of ads ranging from new prescription drugs, Xfinity Internet, State Farm, Peacock, Target, Best Buy and so much more. On my Apple TV I _may_ get an ad for Xfinity Internet but I tend to get an ad for Peacock's other shows. So far on my Apple TVs the ad load is extremely light like I may get 1 ad after the opening credits then the rest is ad-free. For movies they are starting with no ads at all.

Only on my Nvidia Shield TV (Android TV) and the Peacock website do I see like 4 ad breaks in an hour long episode or sometimes it will pre-load 2-3 minutes of ads before a movie (other times a 90 minute to 2 hr movie will have six ad breaks inserted. I've actually been watching _Downton Abbey _on Peacock and not one single ad. (Once I'm done with the TV series I plan on watching the _Downton Abbey_ movie on HBO Max rofl.)



lparsons21 said:


> Make sure to watch The Capture on Peacock but start early enough to binge it all. Really great thriller!





NashGuy said:


> The Capture is about the only Peacock Original I see so far that looks like something I'll likely watch.


I started watching _Brave New World_ its not bad but not impressed ... (same feeling I had with HBO Max's _Love Life_) will have to try _The Capture_ I like thrillers.


----------



## b4pjoe

techguy88 said:


> On my Android TV I got a good variety of ads ranging from new prescription drugs, Xfinity Internet, State Farm, Peacock, Target, Best Buy and so much more. On my Apple TV I _may_ get an ad for Xfinity Internet *but I tend to get an ad for Peacock's other shows.* So far on my Apple TVs the ad load is extremely light like I may get 1 ad after the opening credits then the rest is ad-free. For movies they are starting with no ads at all.


I have Peacock Premium Plus and I get an ad for other shows at the beginning of watching something. When I started S1E1 of Everybody Loves Raymond it started with a 15 second ad for Punky Brewster airing on Peacock. I didn't think to see if I could FF through it.



> Peacock Premium Plus for an additional $5.00/month to watch without ads.*





> *Please note: due to streaming rights, a small amount of programming will still contain ads (Peacock channels, events and a limited number of shows and movies).


----------



## NYDutch

I side loaded the PeacockTV app on my Gen 2 Firestick to check it out and shortly after received an offer from Amazon Prime for a free 3 month Premium Peacock subscription. So far I'm finding much to like, but whether I'll keep the Premium subscription after the trial is still questionable. I do like the lighter ad load, but I'm not sure I like it well enough to pay for it.


----------



## mcaldero

Sorry if this is addressed somewhere else in this thread, but I am an Xfinity Internet customer (no TV plan). I just received my Flex (which I ordered specifically to get a free upgrade to Peacock Premium) and installed it. I logged in with my existing Peacock account and I appear to have access to Peacock Premium on my Flex, but not on any other devices (specifically, my iPad and iPhone don't show me as a Premium subscriber). Does the "free" upgrade to Premium for Xfinity Internet customers only apply when watching on the Flex device? Can I not also enjoy that perk on my iPad or iPhone? Thanks.


----------



## techguy88

mcaldero said:


> Sorry if this is addressed somewhere else in this thread, but I am an Xfinity Internet customer (no TV plan). I just received my Flex (which I ordered specifically to get a free upgrade to Peacock Premium) and installed it. I logged in with my existing Peacock account and I appear to have access to Peacock Premium on my Flex, but not on any other devices (specifically, my iPad and iPhone don't show me as a Premium subscriber). Does the "free" upgrade to Premium for Xfinity Internet customers only apply when watching on the Flex device? Can I not also enjoy that perk on my iPad or iPhone? Thanks.


Did you go into login to your existing Peacock account and link it with your Xfinity credentials? (Profile Icon > Account > Scroll to bottom where it says "Link Provider">Click "Xfinity")


----------



## b4pjoe

On my Apple TV it kept telling me it didn't recognize my user name or password that I created when I pre-ordered it a few weeks earlier. I had to log into my account on my PC and in my account settings where it says "Enhanced security is on. You must verify your identity to view or update your personal information." I clicked on the Unhide link and it sent an email with a code in it that I then had to enter at the website. Once I entered the code it said my email address had been verified. Then I went back to the Apple TV and closed out of the app. Started it back up again and the login worked. Not sure if that is your exact issue but that is what worked for me.


----------



## b4pjoe

NYDutch said:


> I side loaded the PeacockTV app on my Gen 2 Firestick to check it out and shortly after received an offer from Amazon Prime for a free 3 month Premium Peacock subscription. So far I'm finding much to like, but whether I'll keep the Premium subscription after the trial is still questionable. I do like the lighter ad load, but I'm not sure I like it well enough to pay for it.


Seems kind of weird to me that Amazon would offer you a free 3 month subscription when they don't even have a deal to put Peacock on their hardware unless I've missed some news that they inked a new deal today.

Also you are saying sideloading the app worked in a Fire TV device? I tried that on launch day and it started the app but then told me it wasn't compatible with my device (FireTV Cube) and then exited the app.


----------



## mcaldero

techguy88 said:


> Did you go into login to your existing Peacock account and link it with your Xfinity credentials? (Profile Icon > Account > Scroll to bottom where it says "Link Provider">Click "Xfinity")


Just tried this and received this message: "Sorry, your Xfinity service doesn't include Peacock Premium, but you still have a Free Peacock account."


----------



## NYDutch

b4pjoe said:


> Seems kind of weird to me that Amazon would offer you a free 3 month subscription when they don't even have a deal to put Peacock on their hardware unless I've missed some news that they inked a new deal today.
> 
> Also you are saying sideloading the app worked in a Fire TV device? I tried that on launch day and it started the app but then told me it wasn't compatible with my device (FireTV Cube) and then exited the app.


I thought the Prime offer was odd myself, but the code included in the message worked.

I followed the instructions at this link to do the side load:

How to install / sideload Peacock app by NBC on Amazon Fire TV or Firestick


----------



## NYDutch

NYDutch said:


> I thought the Prime offer was odd myself, but the code included in the message worked.
> 
> I followed the instructions at this link to do the side load:
> 
> How to install / sideload Peacock app by NBC on Amazon Fire TV or Firestick


My apologies to all for any confusion! I discovered this morning that I had mixed up two completely unrelated offers that arrived in the same batch of email. The free 3-month Peacock Premium offer did *NOT* come from Amazon, it came instead from GOOGLE.

When you sign up for Peacock using the Android app, they send you an email with the code for the 3-month trial offer. Once the code is entered on your account and activated, Premium is activated for all of your Peacock devices. You do need to supply credit card info since your account will automatically be charged $4.99 per month if you don't cancel Premium before the end of the trial.

Again, my apologies for the misinformation regarding Amazon!


----------



## b4pjoe

NYDutch said:


> I followed the instructions at this link to do the side load:
> 
> How to install / sideload Peacock app by NBC on Amazon Fire TV or Firestick


Thank you. That APK worked.


----------



## lparsons21

Thanks for the link! Works just fine.

I can’t remember if I posted this but the only device with DD5.1 for Peacock seems to be the AppleTV. All other devices only do stereo.

EDIT: Correction, it seems some shows that do DD5.1 on AppleTV don’t on the other boxes, but at least some shows do DD5.1 on other devices too. Bit hit or miss.


----------



## lparsons21

BTW, the only two streaming devices I have that have pretty much every streaming app available is AppleTV and FireTV. FireTV thanks to side loading for HBO Max and Peacock.


----------



## b4pjoe

LG made the Peacock app available for my TV's yesterday. Still nothing from HBO Max for LG TV's though. I don't care for the TV apps but the wife would rather use them then have to switch HDMI 1 to HDMI 2.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Is there a list of which shows are free versus which ones you have to pay for? I’ve looked and can’t find one.


----------



## lparsons21

TheRatPatrol said:


> Is there a list of which shows are free versus which ones you have to pay for? I've looked and can't find one.


I don't think one exists. But you can sign up for free and see what is there and in looking you'll see what is only available for paid subscriptions. Not perfect, but fair.


----------



## techguy88

TheRatPatrol said:


> Is there a list of which shows are free versus which ones you have to pay for? I've looked and can't find one.





lparsons21 said:


> I don't think one exists. But you can sign up for free and see what is there and in looking you'll see what is only available for paid subscriptions. Not perfect, but fair.


You can use JustWatch.com to see what is free vs premium. However when you filter for the free Peacock tier you will see some shows like _Yellowstone_ appear simply because S1 E1 is available on both tiers meanwhile all other episodes require Peacock Premium. You can select _Yellowstone_, Season 1 and click on the individual episodes to see what I mean.

JustWatch is good in most cases but it does have imperfections like sometimes it will show something available that was just removed from a platform (it takes it about 24 to 48 hours to update IIRC) or in Yellowstone's case it says the show is available on Smithsonian Channel Plus but it really isn't and clicking on Smithsonian Channel Plus' icon will take you to a documentary show about the Yellowstone Supervolcano.


----------



## lparsons21

After watch a slew of varying shows on Peacock I can’t help but notice that even though I’m on Premium w/ads, the ad load is substantially lower than anyone else’s ad supported service. If that continues to hold up it makes me wonder why the other ad-supported paid subscription services can justify their ad load. Just look at Hulu w/ads. To say irritating would be an understatement!


----------



## James Long

My local NBC Affiliate (WNDU South Bend) decided not to air the "30 Rock: A One-Time Special" on Thursday night (substituting a national political program produced by the owners). So I thought "streaming the next day" and watched the 30 Rock special via Peacock. When I started the program I noticed no dots for ads. As I watched the program I realized that it was one 60 minute long ad for NBC Universal. I'd like that hour of my life back.


----------



## techguy88

James Long said:


> My local NBC Affiliate (WNDU South Bend) decided not to air the "30 Rock: A One-Time Special" on Thursday night (substituting a national political program produced by the owners). So I thought "streaming the next day" and watched the 30 Rock special via Peacock. When I started the program I noticed no dots for ads. As I watched the program I realized that it was one 60 minute long ad for NBC Universal. I'd like that hour of my life back.


I'm guessing that program was _Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren_ and your NBC affiliate is owned by Gray Television. (I say that because my NBC affiliate WSAZ had that program on in place of _30 Rock_.)


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> I'm guessing that program was _Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren_ and your NBC affiliate is owned by Gray Television. (I say that because my NBC affiliate WSAZ had that program on in place of _30 Rock_.)


Several station groups refused to show the 30 Rock special on the NBC affiliates they own. Seems they weren't too keen to advertise a service which will eventually make their stations largely unnecessary other than for local news.

I've speculated before about how, many years down the road, the model of national networks and local affiliates may break down. Networks and local stations obviously needed each other when TV was OTA-only and they've found ways to keep the model alive and lucrative for both sides in the cable era too. But the big media groups that own the national networks are the ones with the far more valuable content and in this OTT streaming era, I'm not sure why they need those local affiliates any more. But perhaps the model will persist for no other reason than the networks also own their largest local affiliates.

At some point, I think it's likely that Peacock and Hulu will include live streams of their local NBC and ABC stations, respectively, as part of their base packages. CBS All Access has been doing that for years now. If that doesn't happen, the local media landscape might be a rough place in the 2030s. The same sad fate facing local newspapers could come to local TV newsrooms.


----------



## James Long

Blerg, Most NBC Stations Won't Air the 30 Rock Reunion

In a plot twist right out of 30 Rock, NBC's biggest local affiliate groups have decided not to broadcast the network's upcoming 30 Rock reunion special, meaning at least half the country won't be able to see it when it debuts Thursday night. Vulture has learned that Gray Television, Hearst, Nexstar, Tegna, and Sinclair Broadcast Group - huge TV-station groups whose NBC affiliates reach about half the country's TV homes - have told NBC that they are planning to preempt Thursday's remotely filmed hour.

Earlier this year, station owners pushed back at a decision to have Peacock stream episodes of The Tonight Show and Late Night a few hours before broadcast, though NBCU Television and Streaming chairman Mark Lazarus recently told Vulture that he had been working to address affiliate concerns of Peacock. "The affiliates, they definitely had a reaction to that," Lazarus said late last month, referring to the late-night early kerfuffle. "We've subsequently had many, many meetings and conversations around what Peacock is going to be. They have economic interest in our current season programming and we respect that economic interest. So we're working with them to make sure their contribution &#8230; is recognized. I feel very confident in that."

---
At first I was annoyed that the local station preempted network programming based on a show I watched a few years ago. But it really was a 60 minute commercial for NBC Universal and not just a promotion for the NBC broadcast network that carried it. I agree with the stations that decided to air something else. I do wish that I would have seen that it was airing on NBCU cable channels Friday so I didn't have to use my Internet bandwidth to watch it.

In general broadcast networks sell first run rights to their affiliates and cannot bypass their rights. Next day streaming gives people less reasons to watch tonight.

If I were an affiliate I would want local market ad slots in the next day streaming of NBC programming. Something where I can tell my advertisers that their ads will be seen as part of the program whether the viewer watches on the broadcast channel or online. Losing viewers to online cannot be helping local ad sales.


----------



## dhkinil

I have the problem mentioned above, I have the one flex box they give to their internet customers and can watch premium on it. If I go to the website and try to link it says my xfinity service does not include premium. I currently have att basic plan netflix, amazon, acorn, sundance now and HBO max for about 11 more months. I can't imagine I would be starved of tv if they don't let me have premium for free


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> If I were an affiliate I would want local market ad slots in the next day streaming of NBC programming. Something where I can tell my advertisers that their ads will be seen as part of the program whether the viewer watches on the broadcast channel or online. Losing viewers to online cannot be helping local ad sales.


Our redwood trees finally forced us to cut-the-cord and put our Wally in the closet last month. We stream using a TV tuner dial that might have looked like this in the 1950's...






...but with 14 "channels" that offer literally hundreds of thousands of episodes and movies. Within that "dial" CBS All Access gives us the local CBS affiliate live. But other than some emergency news that might affect a couple of our "kids", we will never watch it. And local ads are lost on us because we are so far outside the urban area.

The internet and even our Echos give us more local news. What we lose are syndicated daytime shows. Except, of course, those on our local CBS affiliate.

Which raises a possibility. If Peacock and Disney+ were to provide the local NBC and ABC affiliates live, the affiliates and their local advertisers would pick up viewers in the daytime that don't want to pay for cable channels on a live TV streamer. While I recognize that, unlike CBS, Disney and NBC have cable channels they want to prop up, the long term reality is that Netflix is the streaming model everyone has to create their variation on, not the 1996 cable TV model.

I believe that, while I won't live to see it, a time will come when a local channel will have to be available streaming on "devices" to survive.

NOTE: I succumbed to getting an Apple TV box to get Peacock and HBO Max when I realized I would be getting a year of Apple+ free. I had already subscribed. So it dropped the $149 price to $89 which was the price I paid for my Fire TV Cube making the price seem reasonable, sort of.


----------



## NashGuy

phrelin said:


> NOTE: I succumbed to getting an Apple TV box to get Peacock and HBO Max when I realized I would be getting a year of Apple+ free. I had already subscribed. So it dropped the $149 price to $89 which was the price I paid for my Fire TV Cube making the price seem reasonable, sort of.


Try using the Apple TV app on the Apple TV box as a sort of unified guide for all the various services you use (except Netflix). The Up Next watchlist is a great feature.

As for local TV news, you might try checking out the NewsOn app, which is available for Apple TV (and other devices). It features today's local newscasts from tons of locals across the country. Might be one or two from your neck of the woods. Aside from that, an increasing number of locals now have their own individual app for Apple TV. Among Nashville's four major local stations (affiliates for ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox), two of them are on NewsOn and the other two have their own apps.


----------



## techguy88

I love the Apple TV app on Apple TV hardware. I used the Up Next watchlist to binge watch all of the Studio Ghibli films in release order. This came in handy because I was able to put _Grave of the Fireflies_ from Hulu in the right spot.


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> I love the Apple TV app on Apple TV hardware. I used the Up Next watchlist to binge watch all of the Studio Ghibli films in release order. This came in handy because I was able to put _Grave of the Fireflies_ from Hulu in the right spot.


That's a handy feature of the AppleTV app, it is so handy to see what shows you are watching without trying to remember not only what show but where you found it.

At one time shows picked in Netflix worked with it but that didn't last long and it was a bit hit or miss anyway. I have noticed that sometimes a show that is on a couple services might not pick the right one, most often picking buying/renting from Apple.


----------



## b4pjoe

My Apple TV likes to change shows I started watching on Discovery GO to Hulu. I wonder if Hulu pays Apple a premium to switch them?


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> My Apple TV likes to change shows I started watching on Discovery GO to Hulu. I wonder if Hulu pays Apple a premium to switch them?


Good question, I've wondered that myself.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> My Apple TV likes to change shows I started watching on Discovery GO to Hulu. I wonder if Hulu pays Apple a premium to switch them?


Probably just a bug. Here lately, my Up Next watchlist in the TV app is very buggy. After I finish watching something, sometimes it's reflected (as normal) in Up Next but sometimes it's not and I have to manually mark it as watched. But then, either way, a few minutes later, Up Next reverts back to showing that I had only partially watched the episode. So then I'll manually mark it as watched and it will be fine for a bit, but then revert back *again*. This will happen maybe 3 or 4 times before Up Next will stay set to the correct episode!

This started happening to me a week or so ago. Very weird. Hope it clears up soon.


----------



## Rich

NashGuy said:


> Probably just a bug. Here lately, my Up Next watchlist in the TV app is very buggy. After I finish watching something, sometimes it's reflected (as normal) in Up Next but sometimes it's not and I have to manually mark it as watched. But then, either way, a few minutes later, Up Next reverts back to showing that I had only partially watched the episode. So then I'll manually mark it as watched and it will be fine for a bit, but then revert back *again*. This will happen maybe 3 or 4 times before Up Next will stay set to the correct episode!
> 
> This started happening to me a week or so ago. Very weird. Hope it clears up soon.


I have a feeling that the problems we are seeing on streaming sites are caused by more folks using the sites since the virus hit. I use 3 ATVs in the course of a day and I have to keep track of which episode I'm on and at what point I am in that episode when I jump from one to the other. This is new for me, I never had this problem before the pandemic.

Rich


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> Probably just a bug. Here lately, my Up Next watchlist in the TV app is very buggy. After I finish watching something, sometimes it's reflected (as normal) in Up Next but sometimes it's not and I have to manually mark it as watched. But then, either way, a few minutes later, Up Next reverts back to showing that I had only partially watched the episode. So then I'll manually mark it as watched and it will be fine for a bit, but then revert back *again*. This will happen maybe 3 or 4 times before Up Next will stay set to the correct episode!
> 
> This started happening to me a week or so ago. Very weird. Hope it clears up soon.


If it a bug it has been there since I bought my Apple TV. It never happened until I installed Hulu on it. And it only seems to affect shows that are on the Discovery Go app.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> If it a bug it has been there since I bought my Apple TV. It never happened until I installed Hulu on it. And it only seems to affect shows that are on the Discovery Go app.


Some kind of error in their metadata system probably. What I'm saying is I don't think it's intentional. I really doubt Apple has some kind of deal in place with Hulu to funnel viewers of Discovery content away from the Discovery Go app over to the Hulu app instead.

Maybe try going into the system settings, then the settings for the TV app, and de-link the Discovery Go app, then link it back again to the TV app.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> Some kind of error in their metadata system probably. What I'm saying is I don't think it's intentional. I really doubt Apple has some kind of deal in place with Hulu to funnel viewers of Discovery content away from the Discovery Go app over to the Hulu app instead.
> 
> Maybe try going into the system settings, then the settings for the TV app, and de-link the Discovery Go app, then link it back again to the TV app.


Thanks. I'll give that a try.


----------



## techguy88

I did not realize that was an issue with Apple TVs (although I haven't used the Discovery apps to watch something mainly A&E, AMC & FX apps are the ones I use.)


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> Some kind of error in their metadata system probably. What I'm saying is I don't think it's intentional. I really doubt Apple has some kind of deal in place with Hulu to funnel viewers of Discovery content away from the Discovery Go app over to the Hulu app instead.
> 
> Maybe try going into the system settings, then the settings for the TV app, and de-link the Discovery Go app, then link it back again to the TV app.


OK so I tried this and now it doesn't put any Discovery Shows in What's Next. It wants to use the AT&T TV app now which I do have installed but I don't use it because I'm not subscribed to it. I even de-linked the AT&T TV app but it still wants to use it.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> OK so I tried this and now it doesn't put any Discovery Shows in What's Next. It wants to use the AT&T TV app now which I do have installed but I don't use it because I'm not subscribed to it. I even de-linked the AT&T TV app but it still wants to use it.


Is the Discovery Go app re-linked to the TV app? Make sure it is. And I'd also completely uninstall the AT&T TV app if you're not using it. (You can always re-download it later if need be.)

An even more drastic step would be to unlink from the TV app and then uninstall any and all apps that feature Discovery content, including Hulu and Discovery Go. Then reboot the box. Then re-install just Discovery Go and link it to the TV app and make sure that's working right. Then re-install and re-link Hulu and whatever other apps.

Discovery Go is still listed as an officially supported partner app of the TV app. If the problem persists, you could contact Apple support.


----------



## b4pjoe

I did make sure to re-link the Discovery Go app. I'll have to try your suggestions this weekend.


----------

