• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Cutting the Cord (Ditching TV, not having a baby)

Demonwolverine said:
The real problem I had with watching the Notre Dame game on Peacock was that you can't easily flip back and forth to any other game. Thus, I stopped watching the Notre Dame game.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is the problem - customers don't want this. Everyone hated paying $100+/month for a massive bundle of channels they didn't want. Direct streaming services like Peacock, Universal, HBO, etc. - they exist to let you out of the bundled channels live TV world if you so desire. Then aggregators like YTTV fill the traditional bundled channel role.

It makes no sense to force customers of a YTTV/Sling provider to buy and subscribe to a direct streaming service as well. But Peacock is a huge failure, so they're picking on the most successful provider and trying to strong-arm them into essentially forcing their customers to subscribe to Peacock.

Google's response - we'll save you $10 a month and feel free to use half of it to sign up for Peacock - is pretty hard to find issue with. I really hope they don't cave, and also hope customers understand what's going on and continue to support YTTV and ignore Peacock like they've been doing.
 
Home network question: I have an AT&T modem that is hard wired to one of the nodes of an Eero mesh router system. All home devices, laptops, cell phones, etc connect to the Eero network. Is there any reason for me to broadcast wifi from the AT&T modem?
 
Nope, disable it. Another thing you may want to check is one of the free apps that shows all the WiFi frequencies in use. Then you can switch the Eero system to channels in each spectrum that have no interference.
 
We had cable for years and people complained about paying for channels they didn't want. Now the other extreme is close to "a la carte" pricing but each $9.99 to $14.99 subscription still comes with plenty of content people don't want. I think what people want is the most flexibility possible. That includes some live TV option that they can easily access and streaming options that are easy to buy and cancel.

I feel like there is space for someone out there to come up with a streaming bundle for $30 that allows subscribers to watch anything from any streamer on-demand. The logistics would be tough, but I think that's what people want.
 
Bluff called, Youtube wins. All NBC channels stay, no price change.
 
DCDeac said:
I really hope they don't cave, and also hope customers understand what's going on and continue to support YTTV and ignore Peacock like they've been doing.
Click to expand...

My biggest issue with the possible loss was MSNBC. There’s no other way to watch that.

I’m all for a la carte pricing though. There are so many channels I never watch and I sure as heck don’t want to subscribe to Peacock. I’m I’ll that they’re getting rid of NBCSN and moving EPL to peacock.
 
DCDeac said:
Yeah this is the problem - customers don't want this. Everyone hated paying $100+/month for a massive bundle of channels they didn't want. Direct streaming services like Peacock, Universal, HBO, etc. - they exist to let you out of the bundled channels live TV world if you so desire. Then aggregators like YTTV fill the traditional bundled channel role.

It makes no sense to force customers of a YTTV/Sling provider to buy and subscribe to a direct streaming service as well. But Peacock is a huge failure, so they're picking on the most successful provider and trying to strong-arm them into essentially forcing their customers to subscribe to Peacock.

Google's response - we'll save you $10 a month and feel free to use half of it to sign up for Peacock - is pretty hard to find issue with. I really hope they don't cave, and also hope customers understand what's going on and continue to support YTTV and ignore Peacock like they've been doing.
Click to expand...

What constitutes peacock being a huge failure? What's the subscriber number that's success vs failure?
 
It depends on the service and the pricing obviously, but the rumored magic number for Peacock to be even remotely justifiable cost-wise is 15 million subscribers. While all the numbers aren’t disclosed, estimates are that almost nobody pays for the higher tier, and the vast majority of the paid lower tier are on free deals. The laughable effort to try to strong arm Google (of all companies) to inflate subscriptions is being viewed by most as a sign of desperation.
 
Most of these streaming services are trying to compete with or unseat Netflix. Most of them got in late to the game. Disney+ has been very successful because they are anchored by exceptionally strong IPs like Disney animation, Pixar, Star Wars, Marvel, and The Simpsons.

What does Peacock have? The Office?
 
DCDeac said:
It depends on the service and the pricing obviously, but the rumored magic number for Peacock to be even remotely justifiable cost-wise is 15 million subscribers. While all the numbers aren’t disclosed, estimates are that almost nobody pays for the higher tier, and the vast majority of the paid lower tier are on free deals. The laughable effort to try to strong arm Google (of all companies) to inflate subscriptions is being viewed by most as a sign of desperation.
Click to expand...

like for AMEX one of the things they offer is just complete reimbursement of peacock. I'm imaginging peacock is paying for that.
 
PhDeac said:
Most of these streaming services are trying to compete with or unseat Netflix. Most of them got in late to the game. Disney+ has been very successful because they are anchored by exceptionally strong IPs like Disney animation, Pixar, Star Wars, Marvel, and The Simpsons.

What does Peacock have? The Office?
Click to expand...

There’s enough on there for me to have. Parks & rec, SNL, law and order, top chef would all be these I’d watch.
 
So reruns. Meanwhile Netflix and Disney+ offer tons of new content. I wonder if these new streaming companies are making more than they were making by just selling their content to Netflix.
 
stugotz said:
like for AMEX one of the things they offer is just complete reimbursement of peacock. I'm imaginging peacock is paying for that.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the notice on this. I didn’t know that credit existed and it’ll work with my XM sub.
 
bym051d said:
Thank you for the notice on this. I didn’t know that credit existed and it’ll work with my XM sub.
Click to expand...

yeah, using that and the uber credits mean you just need to use the $200 hotel credit or $200 incidental airline credit to completely pay for the annual fee. I'm about to sign up for sirius XM as a result of it.
 
PhDeac said:
So reruns. Meanwhile Netflix and Disney+ offer tons of new content. I wonder if these new streaming companies are making more than they were making by just selling their content to Netflix.
Click to expand...

As an example, Peacock paid $500M ($100M for 5 years) for exclusive rights to The Office. Since content like that has a ton of ownership considerations, they had to legitimately beat out a Netflix offer. For Friends they didn't shell out for the exclusivity, but instead are making something like $80M/year from Netflix and $70M/year from Peacock. That suggests the exclusivity angle costs them more than just the cost of the rights, so call it $150M/year. Peacock lost over $900M in 2020 as it was developed and released, and will continue losing money until 2025 at the very least (over $1B in 2021 minimum), as that is their first anticipated breakeven year. But that target is based on a model with something like double the subscribers currently, compounded by the fact that they should be paying subscribers not freeloading ones which are the vast majority currently. Comcast will hit like $120B this year in revenue but that's still not exactly chump change to them. The Olympics was supposed to be a slam dunk money-maker for NBC, but was instead described internally as a nightmare scenario.

At this rate I doubt Peacock will be around in 2023, much less 2025.
 
One thing that needs to be considered when discussing Peacock (and this NBCU/YTTV carriage battle) is the existing (and strained) Hulu partnership between Disney and Comcast (33% ownership stake).

I don't think Peacock is going away anytime soon... Especially with Comcast set to exit that Hulu ownership position over the next few years.
 
Netflix, Disney+, and (I think) HBOMax and AppleTV+ have figured out that you need a steady stream of exclusive new content to keep subscribers. And it shouldn't be just one or two things a week. It should be enough content for each type of customer to keep them hooked. Disney+ has new Marvel content almost every week. If you're a Marvel fan, you're probably not going to cancel your subscription because you could miss something. They'll be doing the same with Star Wars content next year. Netflix has a lot of foreign language shows. If that's your bag, there's always something to watch.

What does Peacock have besides old show? Reboots of old shows like Punky Brewster and Saved by the Bell?

I don't know too much about the Hulu deal. I do know that it looks like that's where Disney is going to put their rated R Marvel properties, so that's something on their end.
 
PhDeac said:
Netflix, Disney+, and (I think) HBOMax and AppleTV+ have figured out that you need a steady stream of exclusive new content to keep subscribers. And it shouldn't be just one or two things a week. It should be enough content for each type of customer to keep them hooked. Disney+ has new Marvel content almost every week. If you're a Marvel fan, you're probably not going to cancel your subscription because you could miss something. They'll be doing the same with Star Wars content next year. Netflix has a lot of foreign language shows. If that's your bag, there's always something to watch.

What does Peacock have besides old show? Reboots of old shows like Punky Brewster and Saved by the Bell?

I don't know too much about the Hulu deal. I do know that it looks like that's where Disney is going to put their rated R Marvel properties, so that's something on their end.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, the expectation is that Disney will own all of Hulu and merge it into Disney+.

Peacock clearly needs a lot more content. We wouldn't pay for it, but we get it through Comcast and use it a decent amount. Same goes for Paramount+.

AppleTV+ also has a long way to go.

I think eventually you'll see a lot more mergers... But that still feels a few years away.
 
I think Disney could own Hulu but it won't merge into Disney+ because they want to keep Disney+ kid-friendly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top