But Is It on Netflix? - Streaming Video Service Thread: Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, Disney+, Peacock, YouTube TV, AT+T Watch, Philo, Playstation Vue, HBO Max, HBO Now, Facebook Live and many more

I use Prime, Netflix, Disney, All 4 and BBC iPlayer on my PS4 and it's simple and straightforward imo. So much easier than any smart TV setup I've used.
I assume it's not so simple for less popular apps?

We use the apps for Netflix and Prime on our 5 yr old Samsung TV and have never had any problems with them

We do Netflix, Prime, HBOMax, Hulu & YouTubeTV

no problems here except keeping track of shows

.. oops, we have all those on AppleTV

Oh, PS4 is super simple. But for the rest of the family it entails switching the connection on the Roku menu to the PlayStation, turning the PlayStation on, and then using the PlayStation controller as a remote, which they are not familiar with. And then remembering to turn it all off afterwards, so the PlayStation doesn't just stay on and more importantly the PlayStation controller doesn't stay connected and run out of charge.

A lot of tv remotes can be used as ps4 remotes fwiw

https://support.playstation.com/s/article/How-to-Control-Your-PlayStation-4-with-a-Remote?language=en_US

Tracer, is that the case there? I guess i didn't read it that way.

Prime is compatible with chromecast, as of very recently.

how do you mean ulysses?

this chart seems to be saying that 7-20% of people who watch video on demand do it with an “SMP” i.e. streaming media player, and the rest get it from their tv, set top box, console, or just plugging in a laptop

https://i2.wp.com/www.broadbandtvnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Devices-suded-for-viewing-OTT-video.jpg

that’s three years old, and isn’t from the US, but my understanding is that smart tv usage is only increasing as people ditch their older TVs. and many of them reason, why get a roku or whatever if my tv’s got netflix built in. in ant case when big media companies are prioritising platform development i think a lot of them are targeting big swathes of the smart tv market first, then consoles, then moving on to streaming sticks.

(obviously the exact order is going to be determined by what they reckon their audience is using)

hm. i may have been skipping a step. just spent a half hour looking for numbers as to modern means of delivery and you're right that seems to be purposely obfuscated. i'm sure some polling agencies consider that proprietary info and are holding onto it.
colloquially, it seems to me that most boomers don't upgrade their tv, they get a $50 roku instead. But maybe that's not the key hbo demo anyway?

Distant xpost, but because we have a Roku TV our TV remote is just one of those little Roku remote. No way that thing is controlling my PlayStation. It's barely useful for the Roku TV.

i haven't had a smarttv yet, but need to buy a new tv soon and it seems to me that about 90% of them are smart tvs now. My assumption is that they all use some kind of Android OS, but don't know.

they all have different ones. i can’t keep up. people used to like the LG one for awhile.

many of them reason, why get a roku or whatever if my tv’s got netflix built in

AIUI, the big issue with HBO Max and Peacock is that TVs where the "built in" aspect is Roku are more significant than people using a plug-in Roku device

worlds within worlds..

tvs piss me off, frankly. i mainly use my 11 year old one without any of that shit; it looks fine, but more importantly, the sound on it is great. all the other tvs I bought since have shitty sound because they assume you're paying extra for a soundbar or surround system which I do not.

The LG smart tv interface is pretty good, although ours is now several years old, it’s still updated. We tend to watch Netflix and the tv network streaming services on the TV (ABC, SBS etc.). I think the newer LGs have some version of AppleTV built in.

Interface is pretty straightforward you get a strip of buttons along the bottom of the screen for various apps and inputs (live TV, DVD player etc.) launch the app and away you go. Once you get into the individual apps YMMV wrt to interfaces, but that’s the fault of the app developers not the TV.

We’ve got an Apple TV as well, it’s definitely more versatile, in that we can install apps from other countries, and airplay streaming from the Mac/iPhone is useful. We could easily do without it though especially if the AppleTV functionality on newer TVs is half decent.

Feel like someone in Disney animation should read this discussion and get on a new 'How to Watch TV' Goofy cartoon asap.

I’d imagine the lg has the Apple TV app which is not the same thing as using and AppleTV. In any case I have multiple appleTVs and love them. Love that they’re synced and that I can move them too.

pro-tip, Fear of a Black Hat is on Amazon Prime!

Was pleasantly surprised to find "Vertigo" on Peacock. Was unpleasantly surprised at the seemingly random places they popped in their disruptive mandatory ads, "free," but at the cost of a degraded experience. Looks like Peacock does have two premium tiers, but if Peacock Premium Plus promises "without the ads," but with the caveat that "due to streaming rights, a small amount of programming will still contain ads (Peacock channels, events and a few shows and movies)," then I assume that means just plain Peacock Premium has ads, too.

In other news, not sure what to make of Disney+ charging a $30 premium on top of subscription for "continuous access" to the live action "Mulan" in September. That could be the way things go in the near future for high profile new titles, Disney or otherwise.

They announced the same thing for Black Widow, $30 too. Seems really steep for me, but it seems like that Trolls movie did really well at $20 a pop, so I can't say I'm shocked they are trying.

Oh nevermind, I'm seeing now that was a rumor that Disney is now walking back, at least as far as Black Widow is concerned.

hadn't heard that about Black Widow but I believe Mulan is still being released this way. To me this just means "movie available on torrent sites within three hours"

Yeah, I guess there was a call yesterday where they quashed the Black Widow rumors and said Mulan is a "one off" and Black Widow is still scheduled for a theatrical release only in November. I have a feeling that the numbers Mulan does in September may change things, especially given how unlikely it is that theaters are in any better position by then.

Speaking as a Disney+ subscriber, if Disney+ decides to tack on a premium for Disney+ content I'd like to see but which won't available as part of the general Disney+ subscription I already have, you'd better believe I will be acquiring that shit via other means. Fuck that nonsense.

Eh, I think brand new theatrical releases fall into a different category. I'd imagine that 3-4 months after Mulan's "release date" it will quietly show up for regular Disney+ subscribers that didn't pony up for it initially.

these "pay $30 to see a theatrical release rn" would actually be good deals if I lived with anybody I gave a fuck about that could watch it with me.

however, right now one of my local movie theaters is advertisin the ability to rent their theaters out for $120 for up to 20 people. and choose a classic movie to show like Raiders of the Lost Ark.

my god they must be desperate.

They are betting on quarantine boredom to get parents to pony up $30 for "early access", essentially. And I have a feeling it's going to work really well for them.

I mean it's cheaper than going to a theater if a family of four watches it.

Just not a good deal for me alone

thirty dollar rentals are a ridiculously premium price point imo but i'm sure they've worked the numbers relentlessly.

To me this just means "movie available on torrent sites within three hours"

I mean it's cheaper than going to a theater if a family of four watches it.

Setting prices for "group watching" during a quarantine is fucked tho

the model is pay-per-view sports, right? like you get a bunch of people over, someone orders pizza and wings, and the big fight is on the TV... those are like $50 right?

Just did some quick googling, apparently UFC matches are now up to $64.99 for PPV.

And it seems the average WWE show is $54.99.

you get a bunch of people over

my guess would be a 30-45 day exclusive as PPV and then a free release on the same channel for everyone else.

i woulda thought a one-time $100 a year premium tier price bump for any account that wants a yearly bundle of 3-6 premium releases is the way to go but these guys are fairly good at their jobs so i guess i'm likely wrong

i'm sensing a flaw in this pandemic-based incentive

Yeah, but this is squarely aimed at families. I mean, we only have one kid, but even then seeing a first run movie at our nearest theater is going to cost us a minimum of $35 for tickets + parking for the three of us, even if we don't buy any snacks.

The Mulan thing is not a rental/one-off, as such. You essentially "own" it, though only as long as you're a Disney subscriber.

Those scare quotes are doing some heeeaaavy lifting, there.

recently upgraded to the apple tv 4, and while the expanded options are great, it's exposed me to the shitty new interfaces of the streaming services i use most--prime n netflix. i cannot stand endlessly scrolling right to browse. bring back the grid, plz. tubi, thankfully, still uses the grid. for now.

maybe i'm being a dope... i mean ordinarily i'm right there with criticizing disney's role in the media oligopoly and their various dick movies and extortions (ex. the shutdown of the Fox library for repertory theaters - fucking awful, heinous bullshit).

but like... this is a $200 million movie that was supposed to recoup its costs through a major theatrical release, a release which is now in limbo if it ever happens at all. families who promised their kid they'd be going to see this movie now get to do so for $30, instead of $35 or $50 or $75 or whatever it costs for your number of kids and your local theater prices. they could also not put it out at all, and wait til theaters reopen. it's not like you need the new 'mulan' to survive, and if the kids are going crazy for lack of new entertainment, you can make a real 'movie night' of it for $30 plus the price of a pack of Orville Redenbacher.

that's really expensive versus renting a catalog title from other streaming services. but you're already playing for disney plus, and if you just want to watch something you can put on countless other programs. it's just if you want to watch Mulan (2020) specifically, before it comes out on physical media, you gotta pay extra. if you want to own Mulan (2020) forever, you just gotta wait for it to come out on physical media. and that will probably cost you about.... $30, based on the MSRP of the blu-ray/DVD combo pack for Onward, which came out just in time for the pandemic to gut its theatrical take. what's the gouge here?

the gouge is if you only have one kid i guess.
correct me if i'm wrong but i think mulan was expected to make more in the asian market than in the us in any case?

B-b-but if I “own” it, where is the FILE? A ha!

Hated the $20 price, really hate the $30 price.
Afraid this will do well enough that they'll just keep it going. But is Mulan THAT popular and anticipated? My bias is that all the animated Disney films post-Lion King were subpar.

yeah, I have one kid and I used to take him to saturday matinees with $6 tickets, so $30 for a movie is more than double what we paid. I'd have to invite over three of his friends to make it make sense. Thus this is shitty deal for anyone a) without a lot of kids or b) who wants to socially distance.

not to mention that we are supplying the screen/sound system etc.

they're charging 30 bucks and the new mulan probably doesn't even include that donny osmond 'make a man out of you' song