CNN+ on Roku

There has been some coverage this week about CNN+, the subscription service that launched last month. Some of the news is good, and some of the news is bad. Maybe "bad" isn't the correct word. Perhaps "horrible" is a better word.

First, the good news for CNN+. The app finally launched on Roku. For the first two weeks following the service launch, the app was not available for the largest streaming platform. But that has been remedied. The app launched this week, according to Roku Blog.

The CNN channel (available now in the Roku Channel Store) will offer access to both CNN+ and live TV experiences, with easy navigation between the two. Existing pay TV customers can also enjoy the live TV experience that they’ve known for years, including access to CNN, CNN International, and HLN.

The service is $6/month or $60/year.

So, why did it take so long to get an app on Roku? Roku doesn't say. And CNN doesn't say. But you must remember that the four major streaming platforms all have different operating systems. That means you can't just take an app from one and expect it to work on another. And some of the other platforms have an advantage.

For Apple TV, for instance, tvOS is based on iOS and is similar to iPadOS, meaning they may be able to code the same app for iPhone, iPad, and Apple TV. And if not, the differences would be relatively minor.

With Fire TV, it's different. It's a different OS. But, as it's similar to Android, there isn't quite the learning curve necessary switching between coding for Android and Fire OS. They did manage to get an app out there for Fire OS, but interestingly enough, not for Android TV.

Roku is also different. It is totally different, and anything coded for Roku is pretty much limited to Roku. So, it may have taken the coding teams longer to complete.

And, of course, there are the agreements needed to have an app in the Channel Store. There is a process. And now that process is complete, and CNN+ is on Roku. That's the good news.

The bad news? Besides still not being available for Android TV? Well, it seems not many people are subscribing to the service, according to CNBC.

Fewer than 10,000 people are using CNN+ on a daily basis two weeks into its existence, according to people familiar with the matter.

The people spoke with CNBC on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss nonpublic data.

There were reports within days of launch about layoffs being planned. I didn't link those because I'm not certain how accurate those might be. The new head of CNN isn't even on the job yet, so I think talk like that is premature. That doesn't mean they won't happen after the new boss is in place, just that talk is premature.

I don't plan to subscribe to the service. I don't plan to even do a free trial. When I cut cable back in January 2011, TV news was one of the reasons I held out as long as I did. But after a few days, I found I didn't miss it. So any report of a news service being launched doesn't mean much to me. I can do without them. If I want to watch a bunch of noisy clowns on TV, I'll subscribe to the Circus Channel, not CNN+, Fox News, NBC-anything, or whatever. I'm so over TV news and the whole culture they exhibit.

I'm not saying I hope CNN+ fails. If someone wants it in their Streaming Life, they now have another option with the Roku app launch. But I won't be helping it survive.

Time to try YouTube TV again

I'm going to start with stuff I say all the time. I don't need a year-round live streaming service. I'll subscribe to live streaming services during college football season in order to get the sports channels I want, and use that time to also catch up with anything else on the live-streaming service. While I'll often use Sling TV, I may switch to another service for a month if there is some content with which I want to play catchup on that other service. But, I don't always have time to do a proper evaluation of the service, since I'm really focusing on something specific, and that's my priority.

The rest of the year, I'll drop the live streaming services and rotate on-demand services. Paramount+ one month, Disney+ another, HBO Max another, and so on. But, I'll occasionally subscribe to a live streaming service just to check it out. And I'm doing that with YouTube TV.

For the next four weeks, I'll have a subscription to YouTube TV, simply to check out the service. It's been a while since I used the service, and I want to see if it's gotten better, worse, or about the same. And the only way to know is to actually try. Plus, it helps me get an better understanding of why people think they need a live streaming service. I think I know why they think that, but actually doing it for a month helps me stay connected to their mindset, at least a little.

Will I keep YouTube TV for more than a month? Nope. No way. I've been doing this long enough to know that I absolutely do not need a live streaming service. I know what it brings to the table -- it's like having cable -- and it's not that important to me. If I want to watch something specific, I am already able to do that. I can buy the shows cheaper than spending $65/month or $744/year. I can buy a lot of TV for $744, and keep it more than a year. And if I want to just put the TV on and let it play, there's Pluto TV, Xumo, Roku Channel, and others. Those are free. And so is over the air TV. I've already purchased the antenna, and can stream live over the air TV to any device in the house. Or one of my 1,748 movies I have on Plex.

And if I wasn't happy with the older content as background noise, there are cheaper ways to get live streaming content that is okay to be on in the background. Frndly.TV is only $7/month.

All that to say I won't keep YouTube TV for more than a month. But I'm going to give it another look, just to keep myself up to speed on what it offers and how well it works. While it won't be a regular part of my Streaming Life, I'll better understand why you might want it as part of yours.

More thoughts on HBO Max

I saw an article this week stating that HBO Max was now the third place streaming service, behind only Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. The service had moved past Disney+ and Hulu (all forms) and taken hold of the number three spot. This is according to data from JustWatch.

This doesn't really surprise me. HBO Max is a good streaming service. I don't like the fact that I can't turn off autoplay, but that's an app thing, not really a service thing. The content of HBO Max is really good.

But here is what it all boils down to. I will subscribe to it. I'll spend my money on it. That is the way that any of us can say we like it or don't like it. I like it.

Now, you may recall that I won't subscribe to services year-round. I don't need a live TV service year-round, so I don't keep a subscription 12 months out of the year. I'll subscribe to Sling TV (or another service that's running a special price) during college football season, but apart from that, I won't subscribe to a live streaming service.

For on-demand services such as HBO Max, I'll subscribe to one a month, cancel, then subscribe to a different one. I don't need any service year-round, and with the amount of time I watch TV, I can focus on content from one service a month. Maybe two if they are really cheap.

HBO Max is one of those on-demand services I subscribe to during the year. It is one I'll watch, binge a few things, then cancel at the end of a month, but will come back to later.

That may not sound like a ringing endorsement for HBO Max, but it really is. There are services I won't use at all, or if I do, once every year or two for a month. HBO Max gets on regular rotation since it's one of the best services.

So, no I'm not surprised that HBO Max has climbed to the number three spot.

I actually watch it more than I do Netflix (because I don't subscribe to Netflix). And Amazon Prime Video too. It may be my most-watched service of those in rotation. It's that good, to me at least.

HBO Max will continue to be a part of my Streaming Life -- on a rotational basis -- for some time to come. And if it's not part of yours, I'd suggest giving it a try for a month. Who knows? You may like it. You may also find the idea of subscribing to a single service each month saves you some money, and keep you entertained.

Even more hope for baseball

I mentioned recently that some services are streaming games in areas that MLB.TV would black out the team. Specifically, I mentioned that Amazon will be carrying some Yankees games in market. I only mentioned that service, as it specifically targets a team whose fans can't otherwise watch in-market games via MLB.TV.

All teams are blacked out in market by MLB.TV. This gives Yankees fans some relief. But there are other ways of watching games, though not specifically for a specific team.

For example, ESPN+ is carrying one game a day this month. Well, nearly every day.

Nearly every MLB Club – 24 out of 30 – will be in action on ESPN+ during April, including two appearances by the defending World Series Champion Atlanta Braves and appearances by expected season contenders including the Los Angeles Dodgers, Toronto Blue Jays, Tampa Bay Rays and Houston Astros.

As you can see, many clubs will get streaming time during the month.

Peacock TV will carry several Sunday games this season, starting next month.

The first game on Peacock will feature a match-up between the Chicago White Sox vs. Boston Red Sox from Fenway Park on May 8 at 11:30 a.m. ET. The game will also be available on the NBC broadcast network. However, the remaining 17 games will be available exclusively on Peacock’s premium service.

The service will have other baseball related content, but it's the live games that excites me. I'm an Xfinity Internet customer and get Peacock TV Premium free with my service. For others, it's $5/month, which isn't a bad deal. And no, games won't be on the free tier.

Apple TV+ will also carry games on Friday nights.

Fans will be able to watch marquee games on Friday nights, free from local broadcast restrictions, across devices where Apple TV+ can be found, including on the Apple TV app on iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple TV 4K and HD, and on tv.apple.com, along with select smart TVs, gaming consoles, and cable set-top boxes. “Friday Night Baseball” will be available on Apple TV+ — and, for a limited time, without the need for a subscription.

So, there's more than just Amazon carrying games. These are "game of the week" or "game of the day" schedules and cover the entire lineup of teams. Amazon's in-market schedule is just for the Yankees, and just in-market.

If more in-market options are available, perhaps MLB.TV will relent once that dam is breached. But in the meantime, there are some streaming options. Just not 162 of any team. Still, that's better than nothing. And if you're wanting baseball in your Streaming Life, you can get some baseball, just not all baseball. Not yet.

Baseball's streaming issue: Amazon provides an opening

I've spoken many times about how Major League Baseball isn't very streamer friendly, despite being involved in streaming for over a decade. MLB.TV won't stream in-market games live. I'm a Braves fan, and can't watch live Braves games through MLB.TV. Nobody can watch the live games of any team in which they are in-market via the MLB.TV app.

However, this past week, we got a glimmer of hope. Amazon is going to be live streaming games for Yankees fans in that market.

Now, I'm not a Yankees fan, so this doesn't impact me. But if they did this for the Braves, or other teams, then I and others would be in a better situation.

It's not a perfect solution to that team from the Bronx. The Yankees have 162 games, and Amazon will be carrying 25. That still leaves 137 games not able to be streamed live by in-market fans, but it's a start.

Will this lead to more games available live streaming for teams in market? I have no idea, but I certainly want that to happen. I would really like live baseball for my team as a part of my Streaming Life. Maybe one day this will come to pass.

True Crime TV

I've never watched True Crime TV. That's not a cable channel -- I don't think it's a cable channel, and I'm too lazy to check -- but a genre, a type of show. There are comedies, mysteries, drama, "reality" (which is as real as professional wrestling), westerns, teen, romance, and a whole slew of others. And of of those others is True Crime.

Why have I never watched it? Because I have no interest in it. I remember how popular Unsolved Mysteries was, and how popular many other shows such as 48 Hours, America's Most Wanted, The People vs. O. J. Simpson, Forensic Files, New Detectives, and so many more were and are. But I don't get it.

Some of the shows actually served a good purpose. America's Most Wanted and Unsolved Mysteries did bring some crimes to the attention of the public, and some led to arrests. So good for them. But, and I could be wrong, my impression is that many of the shows today are simply sensational versions of the truth. The truth may not be front and center. The truth may not even be in the room. The truth may not even be in the same state. TV networks lie about news, so I have no doubt they lie about "true" crime shows.

And maybe "lie" is a strong word. Perhaps exaggeration, omissions, and such aren't really lies. But here's the secret. They are. A lie is a lie no matter how it's executed.

So, True Crime isn't something I've cared about watching. If they fictionalized the stories -- which I just said they already do -- then maybe I'd watch it. Like professional wrestling, they aren't fully straight and truthful, but use their talents in storytelling to be entertaining. If they get it right, it's totally by accident. Oh, and I'm not talking about wrestling with that last sentence. I suspect wrestling is closer to the truth than most True Crime TV.

Some people really love it. They are True Crime junkies. And I am not going to criticize them for that. I was a TV news junkie at one time. And like True Crime junkies, I believed a lot of what I saw on TV. But now I know better. It's not real, and I'm not going to pretend it is.

If you're a True Crime TV junkie, that's fine. You have lots of options when it comes to watching those kind of shows. But keep in mind that it's entertainment first, and truth when it's convenient. And if you enjoy those shows and make them a part of your Streaming Life, then you're living in the right era.

Too many streaming services

A study by a group called Interpret says that one in five streaming subscribers think they subscribe to too many services. The main focus of the report is actually talking about something we touched on this week: aggregation of content.

We touched on OneFlix and Plex promoting aggregation with new apps or updates to apps. In that article, I thought that the Plex offering is better for streamers, because it's available on streaming devices, while OneFlix is limited to mobile devices, at least for now.

Well, this study by Interpret says that one in three streamers want better aggregation.

Among subscribers to streaming services, fully one-third express an interest in being able to manage and search for their available content from one place. Consumers want aggregation services to help remove pain points from the subscription process. They also expect bundled offerings to deliver greater value, as well as to improve account management, discovery, and content recommendation functionality.

And while I understand that, and how that would be the focus because anyone that can do that can get more eyeballs, and more ad revenue. But the thing that is of interest to me is that one in five think they are already spending too much money on too many streaming services.

Interpret’s study, The Future of OTT Aggregation, reveals that US viewers subscribe to an average of 4-5 SVOD services, and the majority also access multiple ad-supported or ad-funded on-demand services. That’s a lot of content to navigate and manage, and over 20% of US consumers agree that they “subscribe to too many video streaming services.”

I think that simply means that 20% realize it, and that up to 80% are doing it but not yet realizing it. I truly think most people can do better with how they subscribe to services.

And this isn't new. There have been studies in past years about the same thing, with similar results.

For a while, I've said streamers need to question if they really need a live streaming service, and if they really want one, if they are getting the best value for their money.

Now, to be sure, a number of streamers are getting exactly what they want, whether they spend a little, like me, or if they spend a lot, like I used to. I'm fully aware that what works for me doesn't mean it works for someone else. But the study does show that a good number think they spend too much.

If you want to spend less, check and see if that live streaming service is really providing you the content you want. Can you get the same or similar content cheaper?

And these smaller on-demand packages? Apple TV+, Disney+, HBO Max -- all the Plus and Max services -- may have what you want, but do you really need to subscribe all year to all services? Can you skip around? Can you get by subscribing to just one this month, and another one next month, and a still different one the following month, and so on? I have settled on doing it that way, and still get to watch what I want, but pay a fraction of what others pay for the same services. I just don't have them all at the same time.

If you have too many streaming services, you are not alone. More people think they have too many, and if you can find a way to save some money, that's a very good thing. I enjoy my Streaming Life better knowing I'm saving money. And you can too.