What's the big deal? What does it cost HBO and the studios to allow iTunes users who have already paid for said content to make it available to re-download or stream from the iTunes service? The situation is different with Netflix, etc. because their customers haven't paid for the movies.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
HBO Confirms Negotiations to Allow Fox and Universal to Participate in iCloud for Movies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah. That was fast. Clearly HBO realizes that they don't want to be left in the dust here. Smart move on their part. It doesn't cost them anything to let customers stream previously purchased content, but it pressures others to being to work with apple.
Wow. That's great! I had no idea that HBO offered a la carte pricing!! How much is Game of Thrones? True Blood? Perhaps I can get those for around $0.50-0.75 per month each! That'll be great!
Of course, HBO does NOT offer "a la carte" pricing. Cable companies offer "premium channels" a la carte. That is, you can purchase ALL the programming on HBO or Cinemax or Showtime individually as a channel. The phrase "a la carte" pricing in reference to a supposed new television content delivery model refers to the ability to purchase OTHER channels (e.g. CNN or SyFy or Animal Planet) individually. Some people talk about a la carte pricing of individual series (a la iTunes "Season Pass") But, in either case, you can't say that HBO offers a la carte service - they are offered by cable companies as an a la carte channel, and they DO NOT offer a la carte pricing themselves.
Sorry, I meant commercial free and by a la carte I meant as a channel, as opposed to OTA networks such as CBS/NBC/ABC that make their revenue with advertising.
And Apple can do the same thing - they can pay for streaming exclusivity. Apple needs to start the dominos in motion, and this might cost them some money initially, but it will come back to them in more Apple TV hardware sales and more income from selling the content when it becomes successful.
It might take time to wait for current contracts to end, but the change from cable companies to streaming will happen soon.
But its affect would be the same... now, companies that refuse to work with apple will have to reconsider. HBO is a big name in entertainment.
Yes, good on them for agreeing to sort this out, but it's rather outrageous that it was ever an issue in the first place. Only in the film industry would a clause exist that prevents customers from re-downloading content they already paid for because some third party bought up the viewing rights of said content.
If this means that with Apple products you can view GLOBALLY these TV networks, it sounds good idea.
But if this is US-Only that would be another issue then.. iCloud is global now, but if they start restricting it randomly it should be called iCould (but iCant)
But if this is US-Only that would be another issue then.. iCloud is global now, but if they start restricting it randomly it should be called iCould (but iCant)
It doesn't, but contract wording can be an issue. HBO's contract with Universal and Fox may say something along the lines that "HBO has exclusive streaming and over the air download on these titles". iCloud, while not streaming per se, could be viewed as a violation of that contract. However, as you said, HBO has nothing to loose by reworking the contract to allow for iCloud and similar services.
Also, in response to some of the other conversations, I never once got HBO, but if they gave me the option to download an app and subscribe to them directly (not going through a cable company) I would hop on it! I've already dropped cable for Netflix Streaming, Hulu Plus and iTunes. Add HBO Go and I would be a happy panda!
While I'd be first in line for ala carte HBO, it seriously doubt that they'd charge only $12/mo. I'd guess more like 25-30.
Please, no. Exclusivity rights symbolizes everything that's wrong with the film and tv industry, and the very reason a decent streaming service can't get off the ground.
Just give me the shows and movies I want, including live broadcasts, without any stupid bundling, at a reasonable price, released simultaneously with broadcast, and I'll pay for it! Gagh! Until then, ahoy mateys!
I agree, but as I said before, I think this is an unintended consequence of a contract written before one could anticipate this issue.
And since Apple doesn't pre announce, who knows how long HBO had to move on this.
I think it's a lot of people's knee jerk reaction to get angry at stuff like this, because we (the end users) have been burned so many times by cable companies and the ilk. This seems like a rare case where everybody wins.
You're probably right. Although, Paramount, Warner Bros and Disney were able to get their ducks in a row prior to the announcement.
Maybe. Cable companies pay them a percentage of what they charge for a subscription to HBO, which from my cable company, is $20 a month to the subscriber. If HBO were to start streaming directly, rather than streaming via the ISP, it's conceivable that the cable companies might lose (not loose) some HBO subs, but unless the number fell dramatically, it's unlikely that the ISPs would stop offering HBO.
While it's still easier to subscribe to cable than it is to surf the web to find the shows you want to watch, more and more people are doing the latter and of course both Apple and Netflix are trying to acquire as much content as possible.
The cable networks have been extremely reluctant to let the ISPs move towards an ala-carte system, but I think they're going to have to. This would be a combination of picking just the channels that you want plus the ability to stream just about any already-broadcast show you want. VOD already does some of the latter, but the cable company interfaces are so bad, no one wants to use it.
But they'll probably stupidly wait until the level of cable cancellations have reached the point of no return and then cry how Apple and Netflix have stolen their business.
I always wonder if a model like this would work - instead of exclusivity charge a initial high price and drop it as time goes on.
Offer a full blown 1080P version the day the movie / TV show is out in theaters or on the network - charge something like $30 for the movie or $4~5 dollars for the episode.
Then start dropping the price as time goes on (like two dollar per week for movies or 1 dollar or something per day for tv shows) to a base price ($9.99 for movies / 99 cents for TV episodes).
You give the ability to fans to see it the day it comes out while still not really harming the other outlets.
Offer a full blown 1080P version the day the movie / TV show is out in theaters or on the network - charge something like $30 for the movie or $4~5 dollars for the episode.
Then start dropping the price as time goes on (like two dollar per week for movies or 1 dollar or something per day for tv shows) to a base price ($9.99 for movies / 99 cents for TV episodes).
You give the ability to fans to see it the day it comes out while still not really harming the other outlets.
Warner and HBO are both Time Warner companies. No negations necessary. The others have no contracts with HBO to worry about.
It is interesting that Showtime and Starz seem to have less restrictive contracts.
The problem, of course, is that the studios can't control how many people are watching that movie for $30 in total. Get 7 people huddled in a living room, and that's a lot of lost revenue compared to, say, $10 per person at the theater. I'm sympathetic to their plight. I certainly want to be able to watch a movie at home on opening night, but there needs to be a way to tie the price to the number of viewers at one location.
TV is broadcast, of course, so there is no reason not to make it available immediately, at a fixed price.
You are getting quite a deal. I dropped HBO two years ago when they raised the price to $18 monthly.
I believe mine is $16.95. HBO and Cinemax combo is $24.95 or close to that. Of course no reason they could not allow HBO Go and Max Go to the Apple TV like they have on the iPad. I think they should just allow all iPad Channels on the Apple TV like Roku and the Smart TV's.Don't they charge about $12 now?
You can display anything on your desktop via Air Play on ML. I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to.
If Apple can get 2 or maybe 3 major networks on board, CBS is really not necessary.
Now since all the other networks are not saying they turned down Apple's offer, I think they are either still negotiating or ready to make a deal... hopefully.