Disappointed business practice

Channels iOS
#1

I just found out about the iOS version of the Channels app, which I’ve been using the tvOS version on my AppleTV for a few months now. I’ve also been trying out a competing app called InstaTV Pro, on both iOS and tvOS which I only paid “once” for the Dolby license. I went to the Apple App Store on my iPad just a few moments ago to find the app and that if I wanted that, I would have to pay yet another $15. This is a no sell for me, InstaTV Pro is looking more I will probably be using instead in the future. Most other apps offered through the Apple App Store covers fees (etc.) for the two different os’s, which I am disappointed you decided to go the opposite route here.

Also consider that I’ve already purchased InstaTV Pro for my iOS (and tvOS) devices, I have no use for the Channels app on the former. Add to that, they have HDHomeRun DVR support in their latest release, with the DVR component available by Silicondust, I see no need or desire for a Channels App DVR at this time, nor in the foreseeable future.

2 Likes
#2

Most cable box rentals are >$10 a month. $15 is a drop in the bucket.

1 Like
#3

My issue with cable boxes or satellite receivers wasn’t just the monthly fee but that I needed one box per television. I had 4 Directv receivers and would have had more if there wasn’t a monthly charge per receiver. With Channels App I have paid once for ATV and iOS version and have it installed on 3 4th Gen AppleTVs, 5 iOS devices and can airplay to 4 3rd Gen AppleTVs.

So monthly charge for my Directv receivers covered purchase price of Channels for both platforms.

1 Like
#4

I’m actually in the other boat. InstaTV has chosen to use an in-app purchase to pay for their program. For a family with multiple users, I would pay their in-app purchase for each device. I know that in-app purchase is for codecs, perhaps in part covering licensing fees. Not sure if the Channels folks are in the same boat or not, but their solution was cheaper for my family than InstaTV. I can’t say I’m “disappointed” by either business practice; to me there are pros and cons to each.

1 Like
#5

If you don’t feel it’s worth your dollars, don’t pay for it.

I can remember pre-App Store when a great Mac utility was $20-$30 dollars and we happily paid it, now we expect everything to be .99c or Universal.

3 Likes
#6

Tired of hearing these complainers. “Let me mention the rival app so I can get a heard of others to follow me there” :thinking:. Trash.

http://youtu.be/bz4F55TBsuE

1 Like
#7

This is a two man team churning out TV/DVR solutions for iOS and tvOS. You don’t think they should be paid for their work?

Seriously. It’s a $40 one time expense for Channels on all your iOS and tvOS devices. How cheap can you get?

3 Likes
#8

I have 8 TV’s. Before ATV Channels I only had 4 STB’s (2 x DVR and 2 x client boxes) that had all of my channels. So 4 of my TV’s could only use other TV Apps and also QAM unscrambled TV channels. Now all 8 are exactly the same. The 4 are not used that much so decided to not rent 4 extra boxes. We also have multiple iPads and iPhones for the iOS Version where I can get everything that is on my ATV’s. 2 of the iPads are the 12" Pro which work well for watching TV.

My point is the price of Channels is a bargain for me and probably many others.

#9

The point of the topic was to remind the people making this app that there are other options, not to get attention by other users. I decided to do it publicly, it’s yours and others choice to read and/or sharing your own thoughts.

#10

Apple offers “Family Sharing”, which other iCloud accounts can be added and any purchases made by any of the linked accounts will have access to, including services like Apple Music. You can find out more information about it at: http://www.apple.com/icloud/family-sharing/

#11

Price isn’t the issue for me here. I would probably have considered $30 fair when originally purchasing it.

My issue is, other companies are developing apps for the Apple ecosystems as universal (mind you, tvOS is simply iOS, which is simply macOS but with subtle differences. Apple TV is simply iOS for your tv, but you’re using a remote instead of using a touch screen.).

Other developers are going the universal route. Apple is pushing for that as well, which would explain why they’ve given users an option (although on by default), to automatically install an app purchased on one device onto another. Example: I buy the XYZ app on my iPhone, I come home later and find it’s also installed on my Apple TV as well.

The competing product to Channels already has that. I originally purchased InstaTV Pro on my iPad, just had to do the restore purchase on Apple TV for it to work on that as well.

For me, it was… Cool! Channels finally is available on my iPad. Oh, I have to pay again? Especially since when I wanted an iPad version, there was nothing from channels! I found something else, and hey, it also works on my Apple TV. Leaving the DVR stuff out of the equation, both products do the “same” thing. Do I not have the right to be disappointed? Is it wrong for me to voice my/have an opinion?

#12

Family sharing does not work for in-app purchases

1 Like
#13

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I apologize for being dismissive or rude in my response.

From my perspective, there have certainly been occasions with other apps where I felt like the app developers were being unreasonable with their pricing model. In this case, I just happen to find a tremendous amount of value in the Channels app. Compared to my investment in two HDHR primes (and my return of cable boxes that were costing me > $50 / month), I consider the $40 I have spent on Channels apps to be a bargain.

2 Likes
#14

I stand corrected. Thanks for sharing that piece of information I missed whilst looking it up.

#15

I think I agree with you on the HDHomeRun side. I believe it was actually learning about the Channels app that led me to the former (or the other way around, I don’t have the best of memory).

After trying the Prime out and some further research which led me to their developer documentation, I began working on coding some stuff up as well. Previously, I used a TiVo premiere and mini. I remember having access to content from the many different broadcasters online back in the UK and finding really nothing here in the US (Hulu and Netflix where still in their infancy after my return to the us in the late 2000s). I never understood the us model, requiring a CATV subscription for OTA, or to a degree the different CATV channels as their revenue comes from advertising, which boggles me more that CBS not only charges for their content, but with advertisements as well.

Long term, I think broadcast TV (aside from live events, news, etc.) is dead. YouTube has contributed to this and I can see a future where the dominance many of the national broadcasters here in the us have enjoyed going away even further. DVRs will end up joining the VHS. Optical media has already begun declining.

HBO can now be subscribed to directly, add Hulu, Netflix, Apple (and others) stores and now the various broadcasters content available online (hopefully we get rid of the 24 hour thing away with soooon, never noticed that in the U.K.), we have more choices.

Although I see the HDHomeRun being a temporary stopgap measure in the long run, I think it’s awesome in splitting up some of the functionality seen in cable boxes. Instead of only having one choice in what I see/get, I can choose between different apps/programs and be able to access that on both TV and other devices like my iPad.

The only complaint I have with HDHomeRun is that a single Prime only has 3 tuners, although a single CableCard has the ability to decode up to six.

#16

I have to agree that this is a disappointing pricing approach. I do think Channels is a great app and great value, but it feels a bit greedy to me to charge separately for the iOS version (especially given Channels is listed as one of the top grossing apps on Apple TV).

#17

If the iOS version of Channels was nothing more than a direct port (i.e. Universal app) of the tvOS app, I would completely agree with you. Granted, I have no access to the underlying code, so I can’t tell you how much is shared between the two platforms, but the two apps feel very different and appear to leverage the best attributes of the two platforms. If development cycles and coding are different for the two platforms, in an effort to make each the best experience they can be, then I have no problem paying twice. Given the amount of time my family uses these apps, paying and ensuring these apps continue to be developed seems like a small price to pay.

2 Likes
#18

I guess my username tells the story, but I was happy to pay for it on both stores. Coming from a Tivo background where I was paying per month per device, buying both for my iOS & ATVs separately was an easy call. Different functionality, different type of devices. $40 as a one-time payment when SD is charging $60 just for access to a beta DVR software? Done.

Just makes me want a DVR solution that ties into Channels all the more though.

1 Like
#19

I find the pricing model completely fair. Please consider that the money you spend directly supports their work.

#20

cost for the ATV app and IOS app are fair compared to the effort of the developers as well as the overall usefulness of the App. this is really an excellent app.

1 Like