I really hope PBS is working with other service providers (Apple? Google Play?) to bring the same programming. I don't want to pay Amazon tax (additional $10 per month prime fees) to be able to use this service.
I hope so, too. I wonder if PBS is going strategic with this to build wealth.
I know that they're also putting useful free content on YouTube. They have a channel called "PBS Space Time", which I've seen HN folks here sharing to engage in physics discussions (i.e., especially quantum).
It seems similar to what they did with HBO and Sesame Street. It's revenue stream since they know they can't depend on government funding. I don't think PBS has gotten greedy; they're just looking for ways to survive.
IIRC, PBS already has their own “Passport” streaming option. This is just a play to expand their potential audience. But if you don’t want to deal with Amazon, you’re free to deal with PBS directly.
Per their FAQ[0], this doesn't apply to every member station. It's also notably cheaper than other streaming options ($5/mo or $60/yr minimum donation) for ad-free content.
If this one makes it clear what is and isn't available if I pay for the service, isn't full of useless "clips" crowding out real content, and lets me filter out stuff that's just Youtube videos, I'll take it over Passport (assuming the "what is available" suffices).
Then again the Amazon Prime app has similar problems so probably it won't be any better.
Check and see if your local PBS station has implemented Passport. Passport is a streaming service specific to PBS and there is no tax aside from the $60 or more annual donation to your local station. Public media needs your help.
I don't want to pay Amazon tax (additional $10 per month prime fees) to be able to use this service.
If your kids want to watch new episodes of Sesame Street, you already have to pay an HBO tax (varies by geography).
Since 2016, children whose parents can afford HBO get to watch current Sesame Street. Poor kids have to wait for nine months for sloppy seconds on their local PBS station.
Meanwhile, PBS and Sesame Workshop wonder why there are people who don't like how corporate "public" television has become.
Side note - parents whose kids have Hulu also get to stream hundreds of episodes of old Sesame Street. I consider this format (streaming, rather than over-the-air HBO or PBS) an advantage, not a disadvantage.
There are no commercials, it can be started or paused on my kid's schedule, and the content is basically the same: there are still the same 26 letters in the alphabet, and The Count only uses 21 numbers, and the developmental subjects are largely the same for kids today as they were 10 or 20 years ago...no need to re-write the textbook each year. True, parents don't get to enjoy visits present-day celebrities, but on the other hand, they might prefer a bit of 90s nostalgia.
I agree that it would be far better if this streaming service were available to everyone for free just as broadcast TV is available.
I've found PBS' scattershot streaming strategy really frustrating. There are a few new things I'd like access to, and some of the older programing that's still unmatched (pre-Elmo-takeover Sesame Street, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood) but it's hard to figure out where to get all of it. They have Passport but seem to go out of their way to make it hard to figure out WTF I'd actually get paying for that. Full back-catalog, no BS, PBS streaming would be an easy $Netflix/month from me.
Their day-to-day OTA schedule doesn't appeal to me very much, but streaming the handful of current things I want on my own schedule, and access to their killer back-catalog, would be a no-brainer addition to my monthly media spending.
> If your kids want to watch new episodes of Sesame Street, you already have to pay an HBO tax (varies by geography).
You specified "new" so you're not wrong per se, but it's worth clarifying: new Sesame Street episodes are exclusive to HBO for six months[1], after which they become available on PBS.
I don't think this is a big deal. Sesame Street content isn't particularly timely, so why should a child care if he/she is six months behind? To be honest, I'm pretty surprised HBO agreed to it in the first place—it feels like they're getting the short end of the stick—although I of course don't know the financial details of the agreement.
Why does PBS need to be "working with other service providers", which mostly do not pursue the public interest, in order to bring their programming online? If they have content on catalog that's fully paid for and controlled by them (and I do understand that this is not the case for some nominally-"PBS" content), they should just throw it up on the Internet Archive and link to it from their website. The video-publishing monopoly of Google/Apple is not something that we should be encouraging, IMHO.
If they have content on catalog that's fully paid for and controlled by them... they should just throw it up on the Internet Archive and link to it from their website.
There's already a PBS streaming app on AppleTV and other platforms. I'm not sure why/if PBS is doing this.
If the current PBS app dies because of the Amazon deal, it'll be at least the second streaming app PBS has killed.
Chances are, they're doing what HBO, Showtime, et al. have already done -- they're offering their content on multiple storefronts, as well as their own. It's relatively hard to get a customer to add their credit card to your page, but Apple, Amazon, Google, etc., already have your payment info and eyeballs.
Yes, they are. Two years ago I worked on a project to open up their catalog to streaming services. It was an interesting project. Python 3/Django/Postgres/Redis.
I know that they're also putting useful free content on YouTube. They have a channel called "PBS Space Time", which I've seen HN folks here sharing to engage in physics discussions (i.e., especially quantum).