Comcast To Launch Peacock, Netflix and Apple TV+ Bundle (variety.com) 53
Later this month, Comcast will launch a three-way bundle with Peacock, Netflix and Apple TV+. It will "come at a vastly reduced price to anything in the market today," said. Comcast chief Brian Roberts. Variety reports: The goal is to "add value to consumers" and at the same time "take some of the dollars out of" other companies' streaming businesses, he added, while reinforcing Comcast's broadband service offerings. Comcast's impending launch of the StreamSaver bundle come as other media companies have been assembling similar offerings. [...] Like the other streaming bundling strategies, Comcast's forthcoming Peacock, Netflix and Apple TV+ package is an effort to reduce cancelation rates (aka "churn") and provide a more efficient means of subscriber acquisition -- coming as the traditional cable TV business continues to deteriorate. Last week, Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery announced a three-way bundle comprising of Max, Disney+ and Hulu.
Meet the new boss... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, cable is back! Now with more bundling.. yay!
Still cheaper than cable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't they used to make you rent the cable box?
Anyway, in principle this could be a good thing. We just want a legal, reasonably priced way to watch everything, right? Of course it depends how they implement it.
- Will it work on my device? If it needs you special app or browser DRM my OS doesn't support, sorry but your competitors don't have those barriers.
- Will it be reasonably priced?
Re: (Score:3)
You may want to amend the last question, given the track record of cable television operators:
Will it be reasonably priced, long term? Or will it be an "introductory" offer where the price skyrockets after X months, and I'm locked in for Y months, where Y > X?
Re: (Score:2)
I used to pay extra for Internet without a cable box since I figured I'd just lose the cable box and it'd be a liability when I moved and had to return it.
This was maybe 8 years ago, but the first cable box was effectively -$10/month rent.
Re: (Score:2)
"But I need to gigabit package to stream" if that's your response, don't, because no, you don't. I used to stream Netflix and other services just fine on an 18/1 connection. Even 4K streams are usually 15.3mb/s from most of the streaming providers (Yes, we know Youtube can go higher). Depending on the size of your family m
Re: (Score:3)
And these days you'd be paying $100+month just for crap-tier Internet.
So glad competitive fiber moved into our neighborhood so I could get 20x the download and 200x the upload for $30 less/month compared to Comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Must be nice. I'm in the city limits of a top-25 metro area by population, and the only services I have access to is Comcast, or a satellite provider. Even LTE is a non-starter because of the terrain and tower placement in relation to my house - I have to use wifi calling 100% of the time in my home.
I saw a contractor running fiber a few weeks back and asked them who they're working for, and it was for the city; they were stringing municipal fiber to the fire station at the top of the hill. That was a sa
Re:Still cheaper than cable (Score:4, Insightful)
For now, for now... But rejoice, I'm sure ESPN will soon join and you can enjoy all the sports you never wanted to see again, just for 50 bucks more to the bundle price. No, you can't have it without.
And anything you want to see still costs a low, low extra fee.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither am I. Sling TV with OTA channels was the solution for me for quite a while. Then, as the cable channels migrated to various streaming apps, I just moved there and canceled Sling. Now I am all streaming and OTA. My current monthly bill for all streaming subs and Internet is still cheaper than my 2018 cable bill was.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems that just like the T-1000 Terminator, the cable companies are able to reconstitute themselves from a bunch of little fragments.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been predicting this for years and am entirely unsurprised it's arriving. Actually kind of shocked Roku hasn't tried to be the lynchpin but ... they seem like a great idea turned dysfunctional.
4K? bandwidth? (Score:3)
How much of this content will be in 4K? I don't want 8K. I looked at an 8K display, once, and I had to be way up too close to get any more detail than 4K given my aging eyes. And will it take video out from my computer's 4K card and put it on the big screen without other wiring?
And what up/down bandwidth will I get concurrently with this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you pissed that real life is practically infinite K and that you can get an electron microscope but still know there is further detail you can't see?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm pissed that real life has a better resolution than TV now, but with TV content getting worse and worse, real life is already on par with the boredom I get from TV now.
Re:4K? bandwidth? (Score:5, Interesting)
True 8k isn't just a resolution bump. It's 120Hz true frame rate (not interpolated) progressive scan (not interlaced), with 12 bit colour. The colour space is now Rec 2020, which is better than even digital cinema, and covers 76% of the visible spectrum. For comparison, 4k BluRay is about 50% of the visible spectrum.
It compares well to 77mm IMAX, in terms of resolution and colour space.
If you ever get to see proper 8k video you will see that it's not just resolution, it is also much clearer motion and more accurate colours. Of course, you need a pretty expensive display to get the full benefits of it, but even the cheaper ones can do 120Hz, if not the expanded colour gamut.
Re: 4K? bandwidth? (Score:2)
Sounds lovely. What will it be like after a few years of the streaming provider gradually reducing bandwidth to increase profits?
Re: (Score:2)
Now only if these 8k displays had other inputs besides wifi, right? Oh wait, they do. Like, all of them.
Now only if there was a way for you to stream media in any quality you like, from a local source on your home network... Oh wait, there already is, and has been for at least a decade.
Re: 4K? bandwidth? (Score:2)
But what if comcast don't want to install and run a higher bandwidth streaming server on my Lan? Even if they do, who will pay for the electricity?
Re: (Score:2)
But what if there's another way to do this, without involving Comcast at all?
If you haven't noticed, I might be leading somewhere with these questions.
Re: (Score:2)
How much of this content will be in 4K? I don't want 8K. I looked at an 8K display, once, and I had to be way up too close to get any more detail than 4K given my aging eyes. And will it take video out from my computer's 4K card and put it on the big screen without other wiring?
And what up/down bandwidth will I get concurrently with this?
I honestly feel the same about 4K... at the distances your average lounge room TV is watched at, it provides very little benefit over 1080p.
Plus the content is still terrible, doesn't matter if I can make out the mole on the arse of the latest reality TV sing-a-long "performer"... it doesn't make it any less crap.
How Many Ads Will Be Shown? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not paying a sub that has ads. Period.
Re: (Score:3)
That's exactly it. 100% guaranteed this is ad-supported (just like T-Mobile's "Netflix on Us"), except maybe the Apple TV+ component, and standard HD across the board.
Re:How Many Ads Will Be Shown? (Score:4, Funny)
How many ads will be shown? *All* of them. And you're going to like it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier to slice ads out of streamed content than it was with cable.
My streaming providers still think I watch their ads while actually, I'm buffering at least 5 minutes of their stream to ensure I can cut them out.
Yes, it is kinda bad for the bandwidth that I basically stream hours of content I never watch, but hey, what can I do?
Cable has become irrelevant (Score:2)
Cable is dying and they did it to themselves. Get a few streaming subscriptions and enjoy MORE content when you want it for a third of the price.
What's the point of bundling streaming with cable? That's like finally getting the puppy house trained and then hiring someone to randomly pour piss on the carpet.
Re:Cable has become irrelevant (Score:4, Funny)
If you want piss, I know a good piss guy, he can hook you up for free...
Re: (Score:2)
Only problem is, while he's pissing all over you, he will tell you about Amway and Tupperware.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want piss, I know a good piss guy, he can hook you up for free...
Hey! That rug really tied the room together.
Re: (Score:3)
I get why they might like to offer that, the question is, why would the consumer? Adding another middle man seems like an unlikely way to get a better price.
Re: (Score:2)
As with all things, the details matter.
It's conceivable that they've worked a deal with Apple and Netflix to sign up people at a discounted rate, and then they pass on less of a discount to the subscriber. They get to pocket a bit of cash for something the subscriber is doing anyway, while delivering a few bucks off to the subscriber. Netflix and Apple get more subscriptions to crow about.
Or it could be a laugher where you're restricted to 480p and get throttled to hell and back if you have the audacity t
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the latter. Otherwise, the streaming providers could just discount to the amount the consumer would pay and keep the part Comcast would profit on.
Re: (Score:2)
They are including it as an option on internet-only service, which is the right move for them to target people like me that want internet access, and do not want anything to do with their linear programming bullshit.
Circle Game (Score:1)
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We're captive on the carousel of time...
Too little, too late (Score:1)
The real question (Score:4, Informative)
That is, does the bundle *without ads* cost less than the sum of the three individual packages, without ads and at equivalent resolution?
I'm guessing the answer is "no". Comcast may have said the bundle is "cheaper" but they haven't revealed enough other details. I wouldn't be surprised if they were comparing the bundle price to the prices of the ad-free services being bungled, while having ads in the final bundle.
Either that, or they're willing to subsidize your Netflix subscription for the privilege of slurping up your viewing habits of a third-party service. For comparison: I was in a media ratings program once, and they were willing to pay $20/mo for your viewing habits. It went up to $30/mo if you wore the sampling device more than N hours per week (regardless of how much or how little media you consumed).
Re: (Score:2)
"Either that, or they're willing to subsidize your Netflix subscription"
The part you're missing is that the services in the bundle reduce their marginal cost for reacquiring customers would have churned services month by month. To an actual capitalist maximum efficiency occurs at maximum *profit*, not maximum revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps Comcast, Netflix, Apple, NBC see Disney as a big enough threat to work on this bundle together (Apple maybe not so much as seeing them as a threat, but trying to make money on Apple TV).
Well, not paying, haven't for over 11 years. (Score:3)
Fuck (Score:2)
And so it begins.
Weâ(TM)re back to bundling everything together so we have to pay hundreds to get access to the few things we want to watch.