I tried Sling TV at CES 2015, and now I'm cancelling cable
- Thread starter Poke
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 143
- Views 14K
And, yeah, I'm sure Steve Jobs said, "Let's try and sell as few of these as possible."
Considering that Netflix was founded in 1997 and started as a DVD by mail rental service and didn't offer streaming until much much later, I'd say it proves the point made by dalyew.
Or, exactly the opposite, as they did what was hugely popular at the time - rented DVD's. Coming out of the gate with huge freebies, such as 10 free rentals, and a standard plan of FOUR discs at a time.
And, when moving into the streaming space, allowed multiple concurrent logins from the get-go, as Dish should be doing.
I'll tell you. Being right about everything can be such a curse. I'm always having to explain stuff to all those people who are wrong all the time.
I can't fine subscriber numbers all the way back to the 1990s, but it looks to me like they were very much a niche service until about 10 years after being founded. Unless you want to make the argument that 1-5 million subs in the early 2000s reflected a hugely popular product targeted and accepted by the mainstream... Don't believe me?please see here: http://fromedome.com/w/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/netflix-10yrs.gif
I'm not so sure it's contractual. It may be. But, I think a bigger issue is the possibility of account stacking. If Dish offered extra streams for say $5/month, what's to stop me and two friends from sharing an account for $30/month instead of $60/month for three individual accounts. There's no hardware to limit usage and it's meant to be available in and out of the home so I don't see any practical way to ensure that a single account isn't being shared by multiple households or people.
Just because it started with a small number of subs, then got bigger over time did not mean it wasn't targeted to the mainstream DVD audience - the same market that were renting from Blockbuster, Hollywood, et al. In fact, it proves that they were actively going after that market.
And, with their streaming service, they allowed multiple concurrent logins from day one. They were going for as large an audience as possible. They even funded Roku to get STB's into homes to capture traditional TV viewers, not just tech savvy PC viewers.
???At the time, streaming services were new and unexplored territory. Content owners got wise to the multiple streams pretty quick, since the majority of the money for the streaming services went back to the content owners. Now you will find no service that allows multiple streams/tv outlets without an additional fee. The commonality in all of these is the licensing of the content.
The main Netflix package offers 2 active streams at a time. I pay $7.99 for it. The only package that doesn't is the basic one that doesn't include HD.
News to me. I had Netflix DVD service recently and had to pay more for more than 1 at a time and thought that the streaming service did the same, just like Amazon and Hulu do. So Netflix is ahead of the curve.
SlingTV is not intended to compete with the other streaming services, it is basically the only game in town with no other competition yet (streaming live TV channels). Perhaps when other competing services come into the fray, the multiple stream limitation will be relaxed as a competitive incentive. If not, then my assertion of the channel owners controlling the monies charged for additional streams would hold.
SlingTV is not intended to compete with the other streaming services, it is basically the only game in town with no other competition yet (streaming live TV channels). Perhaps when other competing services come into the fray, the multiple stream limitation will be relaxed as a competitive incentive. If not, then my assertion of the channel owners controlling the monies charged for additional streams would hold.
Agree but for one point. Sling TV could force only one IP address at a time, but allow multiple streams to that IP. Now I can see ways around that too, but that would be way too difficult for the average consumer. At only $20/mo, there's not much wiggle room for account stackers to be clever; and even less if Dish/Sling charges extra for each stream. Obviously at $20/stream, there is zero wiggle room.
TV has/will become personal, it will go with you everywhere you/your device goes. I say we get multi-stream package for the home in the near future after Dish/Sling becomes a MVPD.
Will the native FF>, <RR, Pause, on Roku work for Sling TV? Is Sling TV compatible with Chromecast?
several companies have expressed interest in becoming online M.V.P.D.s, including Dish, Sony, DirecTV and Verizon.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/...uld-allow-a-la-carte-internet-video-services/
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Artic...Proposes-Changing-MVPD-Definition-101247.aspx
Will the native FF>, <RR, Pause, on Roku work for Sling TV? Is Sling TV compatible with Chromecast?
several companies have expressed interest in becoming online M.V.P.D.s, including Dish, Sony, DirecTV and Verizon.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/...uld-allow-a-la-carte-internet-video-services/
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Artic...Proposes-Changing-MVPD-Definition-101247.aspx
Last edited:
There will be other options soon enough. Sony announced their version of this quite a while before Dish did. It's not exactly the same because it is expected to have around 70 channels and I'm sure it will cost more. Their service is called Playstation Vue.
Which sounds like it will be limited to just the Playstation as a client, which would have the service costs supplemented by sales of the PS3/4. So it may not be a direct competitor with such a limiting factor.
For me, I don't see a use for it. With DA and the right tablet(which I have) I can connect the tablet to a tv's hdmi port and watch anything of my HWS's.
From what I've read it will be on the various playstation platforms as well as other devices.
