I also think that 2 Tier subscription model would be very attractive. I only watch news from major networks from OTA, if the basic Tier could be priced at $3 to $4, I would definitely pay for it. $8 is just too steep for some of the basic users like me.
As much as Iām hugely impressed with the progress and stability of Channels, I too had to reluctantly cancel my DVR service. I simply donāt watch enough TV to justify the monthly cost. Iām OTA only, so I use the service for occasionally recording the evening news, Saturday Night Live on the weekends, and some late night shows.
What I truly donāt understand, and Iām trying to be as constructive as possible with thisā¦why does it cost $8/month? Is it because itās āboutiqueā software, and needs to have a higher cost because there wonāt be a large enough pool of users to generate the revenue necessary to support this type of development?
I know there is a monthly cost to get access to guide data. But itās MY local server that is running and storing the recordings, not yours, so I wouldnāt think there are high monthly bandwidth/storage/hosting fees on your end, and there is no streaming. How much of that $8 is for guide data?
Iām a big proponent of supporting the development community, especially when the end result is a product that runs and smoothly as Channels. But I find it hard to fund software development on a monthly basis when Iām not paying for content.
Thatās where I donāt understand how this could be compared to any other streaming service. Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etcā¦the majority of that monthly fee goes towards licensing, creating, and funding content that you watch. Huge sums of money. But againā¦there is an issue of scaleā¦comparing a few thousand of DVR subscribers to millions of Netflix subscribers isnāt a fair comparison. But their costs (and $10 monthly fee) include that fact that they have to support a tremendous infrastructure to develop original content, license existing, and then stream it all out to consumers.
So please, tell me where Iām wrong, and what Iām missing here. I would be more than happy to pay a monthly fee for the guide data only, and a one-time fee for the software itself. But selfishly, I canāt see the need for $8/month for my needs.
1 Like
Iām sure you read the whole thread.
I think I got your 2 points.
- When subscription cost is broken down, it seems expensive.
- Services like Hulu and Netflix are the same cost, but you think they give more value.
My comments:
- When you go buy an existing house, do you actually sit down and try to figure out what the value is every door and toilet is? In all the houses I bought in my life, I thought: is this where I want to live and raise my kids, and if so, am I willing to pay the price?
Here is what the subscription gets you:
The getchannels subscription allows you, utilizing your hardware, to record tv for playback at your convenience. There is a web interface to allow you to control it from your pc and on the road. In a pinch, it even has a web viewer. For 8/mo.
If that isnāt worth it, there are other solutions.
- Netflix/Hulu. These are bleeding money since their inception. Netflix finally thinks they will be profitable in 2017. Hulu is owned by Disney, Fox, NBC, Turner.
They can afford to operate a a loss, and arenāt even getting close yet. Unfortunately, not everyone can. Maybe that makes it āBoutiqueā.
I donāt know these developers enough to just give them the money, if I have money to burn I give it to charity.
Fortunately, I love it and see a value. Despite being OTA. As an OTA viewer, sports and speciality events arenāt on the streaming services, without additional cost. So I get all the functionality of Hulu and CBS for less and I can skip commercials and see things they wonāt stream.
To me itās the Best Buy for the money, and I have a couple bucks left over for redbox, or iTunes movies.
1 Like
What most seem to be forgetting is that the developers are not being backed by VCs or anything like that. That means that for a business to run (with a future) they have to correctly account for several fixed costs that would need to be accounted for no matter if OTA with 10 channels or cable with 600.
- Cost of service (web server and AWS access for the dvr update servers) and the community site and payment services.
- Licensing for the Guide Data (the guide provider charges the same no
matter how many channels are āusedā). - Licensing any third party toolkits needed to provide the product. Many may be open-source; but there is still a cost associated with getting the permissions needed and payment if needed (many open-source items are not free for commercial use).
- Business and other tax liability (LLC and required state licensing to run a business).
- Legal team on retainer for any issues. This may also include intellectual property and copywriting their methods/code to prevent it from being stolen.
- Insurance (legal and otherwise). This is the US ā¦ They WILL get sued at some pointā¦
- Their time to develop (this may be their full time job and hopefully not a side project).
One cost factor that is often overlooked in pricing comparisons between Channels OTA to streaming services (Netflix, Hulu) is the monthly cost of internet service. If cost is a primary driver, then this must be considered.
Internet requirements for Channels OTA are minimal. Yes you need service, but a very basic plan is all that is required for DVR guide data and server and application updates. Any low cost cable or DSL package that is acceptable for basic web browsing is enough for Channels. With this we can watch live television on as many devices as we have tuners. Recorded shows donāt require a tuner so we could have 5, 8 or more Apple TVs or iOS devices watching at the same time without touching the internet at all.
Streaming, on the other hand, requires internet bandwidth. I pay for and get the highest rate DSL available and there is no way we could stream more then two shows at once. Depending on the streaming service and what else is competing for internet bandwidth we occasionally have lockups or poor video quality when watching a single streaming service.
If you have to pay $50+ a month for internet service with high enough bandwidth for streaming, then donāt forget to factor that cost into the evaluation. Channels would perform on the lowest cost internet package or would work on a cellular data plan as it requires so little internet data.
Also, the price of hardware and maintenance should be included. If considering the cost of internet as an add-on to Hulu/Netflix, then the initial hardware costs of HDHRs, a DVR server, high capacity drives, operating systems, and the chances for component failure should be added to the cost of Channelsā¦ none of these are requirements to run Netflix.
Despite these extra costs, there are clearly benefits to running Channels, including local channel availability, immediate access to the latest broadcasts, and full control over the available content. I also have Netflix. I donāt actually mind the cost of Channels (I donāt even think about it really), but I donāt think that the Channels subscription has a cost advantage, even when the cost of internet is factored into the Netflix subscription.
1 Like
djastaldo, I agree that hardware. setup and maintenance should be included in an overall comparison between Channels and other options. I think most factor in those costs.
Interesting when I think about how little time and effort Iāve put into Channels. Iāve been a Channels customer from the beginning and a DVR customer from alpha and it is amazing how little time Iāve put into it from an install and support perspective. A majority of my time has been optional time that Iāve put in testing alpha or beta features that I look at as an investment to help create a better product. Being part of the alpha and beta programs has been rewarding as you get to see the results quickly in general releases.
When I compare this against other options for recording or streaming such as Tablo, SlingTV, Directv Now, etc. Iāve had less rewarding experiences. Iāve frequently invested time trying to research and work around bugs or increase usability to a family friendly level and ended up frustrated. Bugs are slow to get resolved and new features roll at a snails pace.
Channels and Netflix are the two services that have come through to this point. Directv Now has some promise but still has bugs and errors all over.
I was also a user of DirecTV Now. I signed up for that on day 1 for the $35 for 100+ channels. And recently cancelled it. It was glitchy for the first few months during prime tv hours. And the most important local channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) were on-demand only. And the on-demand was not reliable. Sometimes it would take weeks for episodes to show up and often it would skip an episode of some series here and there. Support was abysmal. The chat reps and forum admins would refer any customer question to meaningless FAQ web pages that didnāt have anything to do with the user inquiries.
Which is why Channels OTA is better. I am in control of it. I decide how long content is available. I donāt need to sort through 100+ channels of stuff that I will never watch. I donāt need to think about how many simultaneous streams I am running. I donāt need to worry about the cable company or DRM usage or anything like that. I am in control of my media. And the programmers respond to customer ideas and suggestions for the program. Its almost like a ābuild-your-own DVRā, except two other guys are doing all the programming for you. The users have no idea sometimes of the kind of things they are asking, but the programmers seem to dive in and find a way anyway. I have never seen anything like it. What a great solution.
So Channels OTA is better because of the continually added features, the better available channels, the full control of content, and the support. But it doesnāt beat most streaming services based solely on price. It would be nice if cheaper plans were possible, but even at the current price, Channels wins on value.
1 Like
Bet youāll be back, I was with Plex although their TV guide puts me in Anglia and Iām in Hertfordshire, should be getting the Crystal Palace mast, so any and all channels were terrible, paused, pixelated, went off completely, it was a joke. Iām on a Channels trial at the moment, & will be keeping it too, as before I was hiring a seed box with Plex, this cost me Ā£16 a month and as it was remote. I couldnāt add a HDHomeRun.
So grabbed a Plex Pass free trial, installed Plex Server on my Mac-Mini (upgraded to a TB SSD), and a HDHomeRun Quarto, and as already mentioned it was unwatchable (although still have Plex Server installed for downloaded movies and series), so now Iām screwed, Iāve saved myself some cash although cannot record live TV, so the HDHomeRun nearly went back to Amazon.
Luckily while trying out the HDHomeRun trial, which was also useless to me as there is no App for Apple TV, I found channels DVR.
NOW I can watch all around my home, on the Fire TV Stick in the bedroom, the Apple TV v4 in the front room, my iPad Air 2, iPhone 6s, an old android tablet, I use for listening to audio books at night, my Laptop, MacBook Pro and my misses can watch on her iPhone SE, or her iPad 2, even from work as Iāve port forwarded the Channels Server, which now sits nicely on the same machine as Plex and they play very well together, and I can now record stuff from my HDHomeRun box.
So after a steep learning curve (and not needing to hire a server as I saw mentioned somewhere above), and the cost for the channel guide & the development costs Iām keeping my subscription.
The OPs original premise makes little sense to me. Comparing Channels vs Hulu is apple and oranges.
If it's $8 or nothing, I'll take the $8 because the competitors (HDHR / Plex) software options are horrendous.
Plus with TVE, it resolves the DRM issue for me and given the overall savings I'm seeing by going with the HDHR Prime solution, $8 is nothing (cheaper if you pay by the year).
For anyone who has an issue with the price of Channels DVR, I'd invite you to try Plex Live TV/DVR. That's a more direct alternative than an internet streaming solution. A Plex Pass is "only $5" a month so it's more in line with your pricing. I put value on my time. Having software that 'just works' is so nice. I tried Plex's solution for over a year. Constantly had to watch and tweak and monkey with it. And still missed recordings. And I love Plex for what I use it for.
I've said it before, I wish that Channels and Plex could work together. Plex client support and the Channels DVR Engine would be killer.
I rather pay $80 Dollars a year just to get the support ... The developers need to be paid for their time and efforts. You ever try to get support in the Plex forums it is a disaster.
9 Likes
I've had Channels DVR for a little over a month and immediately decided to buy an annual sub (having had the base Channels app and Plex lifetime for many years, and a few years of YTTV all on my Apple TV). The silky smooth interface of Channels DVR over Plex DVR is easily worth it (even though I have Plex DVR free for life).
2 Likes
This x100. I also did a round with Plex and support was almost zero trying to work through the various bugs and fussiness that came with using that software. The support here is fantastic - seems like almost always people get a response from the developers within a few hours and they actually work with you to try to solve your problem, even incorporating unique fixes into nightly builds. Yes it is more expensive than competitors (would still love to see some sort of extra discounted lifetime subscription option), but oftentimes you get what you pay for...
1 Like
Plex is terrible nowadays. They're falling into the trap of trying to be all things to all people and the quality continues to slip. And yes, their support is useless.
1 Like
I also tried Plex and Channels DVR is a better product. Channels actually gets the job done, imagine that. Plex is hit or miss with me.
Channels integration with TVE puts it over the top in my book.
I just converted to an annual sub.
Channels gets the Wife Approval also! 
2 Likes
This is number 1 for me. Everything on 1 box, a FireTV Cube. No raspberry pi osmc clients, no dying sd cards, no network booting - the amount of moans and groans I used to get!
Me too!
They deserve to be paid and the price is more than fair.
I have only experienced two Channels related hiccups.
The longest time to receive an ANSWER to an problem that I was experiencing has been 15 minutes. These guys are nothing short of AMAZING!
4 Likes
And here's a slightly different angle... I bought a second-hand HDHR Prime so that I could use Channels DVR with my Xfinity subscription. Turned in my cable box which is saving me ~$15/month on my cable bill. So with the Channels subscription I'm coming out ahead. In about a year I will have recouped the cost of the HDHR Prime.