A&E, History Channel, and Lifetime Channels Added to Apple TV

[Tech198]

oh man, you lot are soo dam lucky

Apple adds channels that "outsiders" can't watch because the cable companies are too greedy..

If Apple really understood people, they would only add these channels for US Apple TV devices only

Thanks Apple for filling up my Home screen with useless content.

Someone should think up of an easy way to get round this.... That will be really great, and stick the cable companies where their mouth is.

This is exactly why i pirate and always glad to do so.

 

[rlu929s]

I don't really get this TBH! Why keep adding all these that require a paid cable service.

If I had cable, I'd have no need for an Apple TV! Seems like a waste.

At least until each cable channel will let you subscribe individually that is. That is the future!

 

[Ed217]

Really!? Just like their iPad apps? If that's the case, what's the point! Wow. I don't think Apple should even allow those crappy apps on AppleTV. You need a cable subscription and even THEN you don't get full episodes of everything?! Useless. It's basically just a marketing app to entice you to subscribe to their cable TV channel... as if we're all still living in the past. I'm about as likely to subscribe to cable TV as I am to buy a Sony Walkman (maybe the Dollar store still sells them). And I'm in my 40's! Anyone in their teens / 20's is about as likely to subscribe to cable TV when they move into their own place as they are to get a landline. Ain't gonna happen.

While it still has value, its reduced considerably given the high percentage of clips vs episodes.

ATV can be used remotely where you have no access to regular cable/sat service. It can also be used in rooms where you don't have access.

Apps like HBO and PBS have mostly episodes and full length items. These new ones don't. These do add new content, but just less than the PR sounds like it does.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Why do you keep making up obstacles? No one said anything about paying for HBO GO separately.

I'm not making up obstacles. I'm pointing out existing obstacles. Every time this topic comes up people are like, "Why doesn't channel XYZ just sell directly to consumers and skip the cable/sat provider middle man?" and they seem genuinely confused because they aren't familiar with how the industry functions. Many times the music industry is brought up as an example but the movie/TV industry is much more complex and doesn't even use the same business model that the music industry does.

I'm not an expert, but I do know a bit about it and I just try to use that knowledge to shed light on it for others. The movie/tv distribution system today is something that's been evolving for nearly a century and it's become very convoluted and entangled along the way which is why change doesn't happen at the drop of a hat. It's a bit like a Rube Goldberg machine in that it works (and it's kinda amazing in how it works) but if you make a minor tweak it could cause a ripple effect and bring the whole thing down. Not to mention the billions of dollars flying around and anytime there's that much money people are cautious to rock the boat.

With that being said, I actually think the industry as a hole is moving at an okay pace. They are certainly doing better than the music labels did. I mean, I haven't had cable for nearly four years and between OTA TV, Amazon and Netflix I rarely have trouble watching the shows I want to watch. HBO's content is really the only one I have trouble with so I would love it if they made HBO GO available to non-cable/sat subscribers. I think they will eventually.

Pay once to either cable or Apple or whoever. Play anywhere. Of course, you do lose access to the cable channels if you don't pay through cable.

My point about cable subscribers vs non subscribers is the size of the potential audience for selling HBO GO directly to consumers. For people that already have cable/sat service there's no compelling reason for them to pay, say, $16 for HBO GO instead of paying $16 for HBO from their cable/sat provider and getting HBO GO for free.

So who is the target audience HBO would sell HBO GO to? It's pretty much non-cable/sat subscribers that want HBO, can afford HBO and have fast enough broadband Internet for quality streaming. Considering cable/sat penetration is something like 80% or 85% of America there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of potential in that segment right now. The number of cord cutters will continue to go grow but it's still a chicken/egg problem. Companies won't move into a new market unless there is a big audience but there won't be a big audience until companies move in.

Again, it is disruptive to the cable industry. How is that a problem for HBO? Again, they would have more leverage when they are not dealing with local monopolies.

Right now HBO is valuable because they get people to sign up for cable+HBO which makes the cable/sat providers happy. If HBO starts offering a way for non-cable/sat subscribers to see HBO content then HBO becomes much less valuable to cable/sat providers because the exclusivity disappears. The moment HBO launches HBO GO for non-subscribers they enter into more direct competition with Netflix, they turn cable/sat providers from partners into competitors (taking a pay cut in the process) and they shoulder many new operating costs that they didn't previously have. There's no doubt that there's risk involved. If there was no risk HBO would already have done it (barring any pre-existing contractual obligations that would prevent it).

HBO is hugely popular right now and if I had to guess I would say that HBO uses that popularity as leverage to get a better deal from the cable/sat providers (*that* is a low risk way to make more money). They'll then stash that money into a war chest for when they do decide to start offering HBO GO as a stand alone service to everyone.

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm not making up obstacles. I'm pointing out existing obstacles. Every time this topic comes up people are like, "Why doesn't channel XYZ just sell directly to consumers and skip the cable/sat provider middle man?" and they seem genuinely confused because they aren't familiar with how the industry functions.

I think that you are trying to shoehorn an argument that works (and I completely agree with) for a standard cable channel like ESPN into the argument for HBO. As a premium channel, it doesn't have the same issues that ESPN does.

Why does HBO care if you subscribe through the cable company or someone else for their service as long as they are getting the same (or more) amount of money?

My point about cable subscribers vs non subscribers is the size of the potential audience for selling HBO GO directly to consumers. For people that already have cable/sat service there's no compelling reason for them to pay, say, $16 for HBO GO instead of paying $16 for HBO from their cable/sat provider and getting HBO GO for free.

Why does it matter how many there are? If there are 100 people that want to pay $16 for HBO GO on its own, that's just extra revenue. If they drop their cable HBO subscription, that's break even (or make slightly more depening on the cut that Apple, etc. takes.)

If HBO starts offering a way for non-cable/sat subscribers to see HBO content then HBO becomes much less valuable to cable/sat providers because the exclusivity disappears.

Again, why is that bad for HBO. They potentially make more money from HBO GO direct subscribers! And they have more leverage to increase their cut from cable/sat providers.

The moment HBO launches HBO GO for non-subscribers they enter into more direct competition with Netflix, they turn cable/sat providers from partners into competitors (taking a pay cut in the process) and they shoulder many new operating costs that they didn't previously have.

Didn't seem to matter when HBO moved to satellite providers!

(barring any pre-existing contractual obligations that would prevent it).

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

[Daremo]

UFC Fight Pass, PLEASE.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Why does HBO care if you subscribe through the cable company or someone else for their service as long as they are getting the same (or more) amount of money?

HBO wouldn't, but I doubt the cut they get via cable/sat would stay the same. HBO selling direct to customers means it is less valuable to cable/sat providers. If HBO is less valuable to cable/sat providers then they will get paid less by cable/sat providers. If HBO gets paid less money they will care.

Why does it matter how many there are? If there are 100 people that want to pay $16 for HBO GO on its own, that's just extra revenue. If they drop their cable HBO subscription, that's break even (or make slightly more depening on the cut that Apple, etc. takes.)

First off, its not 'extra' money. Selling HBO GO directly to customers will cause HBO to:
1. most likely get a smaller piece of the pie from cable/sat providers.
2. spend more money on administrative costs (as billing, customer service, etc., will have to be done in house).
3. spend money advertising HBO GO as a new service.
4. spend more money on advertising in general since they can no longer count on their cable/sat partners for helping shoulder that cost.
5. spend money on building out their streaming infrastructure (because right now it's pretty fragile and crash happy).
6. prepare to eventually spend Netflix-level of cash (if not more) on bandwidth (which includes dealing with some of the same companies they just burned by selling HBO GO direct to consumers).
7. Other misc costs that I don't know about because I don't do this sort of thing for a living.

Secondly, the size of the customer base most certainly factors into the decision making process and cord cutters aren't a very big demographic yet.

Again, why is that bad for HBO. They potentially make more money from HBO GO direct subscribers! And they have more leverage to increase their cut from cable/sat providers.

HBO selling direct to customers gives them LESS leverage and LESS value with cable/sat providers, not more.

I'm glad you used the word "potentially" because that is a key word here since nothing is guaranteed. There is risk. HBO is weighing the risk of how much profit they are making now vs how much profit they could potentially make by selling HBO GO direct to consumers. Once that potential starts becoming worth the risk in the eyes Time Warner (HBO's parent company) then HBO will move forward with that plan. Three things can happen and only one of them is good (they make less money, they make the same amount of money or they make more money) . Some would say a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Didn't seem to matter when HBO moved to satellite providers!

Apples to pears comparison. Satellite was never a competitor to the entire distribution system like Internet streaming is plus HBO signed a big contract knowing exactly how much money it would make. Selling HBO GO directly to consumers is more akin being a door to door salesman vs having an office job with a fat, guaranteed salary. Sure, the salesman potentially can make more than the guy on salary but the salesman also takes on a lot more risk as well. And, like I keep saying, once the projected potential is worth the risk in the eyes of HBO/TW they'll make their move.

 

[BaldiMac]

HBO wouldn't, but I doubt the cut they get via cable/sat would stay the same. HBO selling direct to customers means it is less valuable to cable/sat providers. If HBO is less valuable to cable/sat providers then they will get paid less by cable/sat providers. If HBO gets paid less money they will care.

Again, they would have more leverage to negotiate with cable, not less.

First off, its not 'extra' money. Selling HBO GO directly to customers will cause HBO to:
1. most likely get a smaller piece of the pie from cable/sat providers.

See above.

2. spend more money on administrative costs (as billing, customer service, etc., will have to be done in house).

Or through Apple, etc.

3. spend money advertising HBO GO as a new service.

As they do now.

4. spend more money on advertising in general since they can no longer count on their cable/sat partners for helping shoulder that cost.

How much do cable/sat partners pay/subsidize HBO advertising?

5. spend money on building out their streaming infrastructure (because right now it's pretty fragile and crash happy).
6. prepare to eventually spend Netflix-level of cash (if not more) on bandwidth (which includes dealing with some of the same companies they just burned by selling HBO GO direct to consumers).

Yep. Unless we can get some net neutrality laws in place!

7. Other misc costs that I don't know about because I don't do this sort of thing for a living.

But are any of these potential costs significant enough that 20% more per subscriber wouldn't cover it?

Secondly, the size of the customer base most certainly factors into the decision making process and cord cutters aren't a very big demographic yet.

But non-cable/sat customers are the demographic that they are not currently reaching! Companies want to grow. You keep saying it's not very big and dismissing it as "cord cutters" but you are ignoring everyone else. College students could be huge. Impulse buyers from water cooler talk about their latest show. It could also allow them to expand internationally without having to deal with every single little local provider.

And then there is just the distrust of cable companies and the overall size of the cable bill.

HBO selling direct to customers gives them LESS leverage and LESS value with cable/sat providers, not more.

Again, I keep asking you why. You keep saying that it will be less valuable to cable companies without any sort of reason. Why would cable companies want to give up a $5 billion revenue stream?

I'm glad you used the word "potentially" because that is a key word here since nothing is guaranteed. There is risk. HBO is weighing the risk of how much profit they are making now vs how much profit they could potentially make by selling HBO GO direct to consumers. Once that potential starts becoming worth the risk in the eyes Time Warner (HBO's parent company) then HBO will move forward with that plan. Three things can happen and only one of them is good (they make less money, they make the same amount of money or they make more money) . Some would say a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

There is absolutely some risk, I just disagree with the magnitude of the risks that you brought up.

Apples to pears comparison. Satellite was never a competitor to the entire distribution system like Internet streaming is plus HBO signed a big contract knowing exactly how much money it would make.

There is nothing apples to pears about it in the context that I brought it up. You said that an alternate distribution would devalue HBO for cable providers. There is no evidence that satellite had any negative impact on HBO's cut when they made deals to compete with cable.

Selling HBO GO directly to consumers is more akin being a door to door salesman vs having an office job with a fat, guaranteed salary. Sure, the salesman potentially can make more than the guy on salary but the salesman also takes on a lot more risk as well.

Except that he gets to keep the office job while he sells door to door. And his door to door job doesn't become a threat to the office job until it is big enough so support him. My point exactly!

 

[Lepton]

Actually, i really like the apple remote. Sorry.
It does what it needs to with only a few buttons, and it works better than all the other remotes in my lineup.

The next Apple remote: Add Bluetooth low power, add a microphone, keep it the same size and buttons, and now you can ask Siri to change the channel and so on.

 

[Mockenrue]

I'd rather seem them put some effort into making 5.1 audio work again in Neftlix...

 

[Mockenrue]

Why does HBO care if you subscribe through the cable company or someone else for their service as long as they are getting the same (or more) amount of money?

When I've read "insider" articles on this debate, the biggest factor is often the the free advertising and marketing that HBO gets from the cable and satellite providers. Practically every provider print ad and commercial you see has some reference to HBO, Game of Thrones, etc. It's worth a FORTUNE in marketing budget - especially when you consider that ads from 3rd parties are subconsciously more credible to consumers than those from the company itself. From what I've heard, it gives HBO a lot of incentive to cater to them.

 

[BaldiMac]

When I've read "insider" articles on this debate, the biggest factor is often the the free advertising and marketing that HBO gets from the cable and satellite providers. Practically every provider print ad and commercial you see has some reference to HBO, Game of Thrones, etc. It's worth a FORTUNE in marketing budget - especially when you consider that ads from 3rd parties are subconsciously more credible to consumers than those from the company itself. From what I've heard, it gives HBO a lot of incentive to cater to them.

1) How much is a "FORTUNE"?
2) Why would cable companies stop advertising HBO?

 

[Bayshun]

Why does HBO care if you subscribe through the cable company or someone else for their service as long as they are getting the same (or more) amount of money?

Cable/satellite companies are able to offer free HBO as a method of retaining customers who want to drop or downgrade their TV plans, as well as offer it as an incentive to people to convince them to sign up for said plans. Because of this, HBO and the other premium channels (but especially HBO) become valuable tools to the cable/satellite companies, who are willing to pay big bucks to these networks for this method.

If HBO were to sell direct, then the pay TV providers lose this tool. There's a lot less incentive to keep your $60+ a month cable/satellite plan just because you get free HBO if you can get HBO alone for $10ish a month.

 

[Takeo]

Not available in Canada, no doubt!!

Sign up for unblock-us. You'd be crazy not to.

----------

No, just no. I'm used to this UI and Apple doesn't have a good history of designing new UI's lately. If it's too cluttered for you just hide the stations you don't watch. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

The point is that you have to keep drilling down into apps and back out constantly to find what you want rather than having one unified favourites list or guide. It really is a pain actually.

----------

I'm watching a full episode of something on history channel and it didn't make me log in to cable provider (I don't have cable.)

Yah. They give away a handful of full episodes. Just like the iOS apps have done for years. But to unlock everything you need a cable subscription. Even then though, not all shows in the app have full episodes. A lot just have clips. So the app is kind of useless. It's just a marketing tool for them to try to force people to sign up for their cable channel.

 

[Mockenrue]

1) How much is a "FORTUNE"?
2) Why would cable companies stop advertising HBO?

#1 - I don't know the exact amount, but even if it were zero, the math still doesn't work out. This article from Forbes explains some of the many reasons why (with real data):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2...subscribers-to-subscribe-to-hbo-go-a-la-hulu/

Reasons include: Stability, lower churn, subsidized distribution, marketing support from MSO partners, sales support, distribution support, etc.

Not only that, but HBO pays nothing to distribute high-def feeds on cable and the quality is excellent. Just ask Netflix how much trouble they're having with providers, peering agreements, and poor quality streams. HBO Go is seen as a supplement and they don't mind too much if it slows down or crashes (as proven by recent Game of Thrones and True Detective outages). But when you have paid "internet only" subscribers, your distribution and support costs go up, your brand image goes down, and you get a bunch of headaches for very little return as compared to the $1Billion in affiliate fees from the cable and satellite companies.

#2 - As the Forbes article points out, its all about leverage. Cable companies could start showing Showtime and Dexter more often in their ads instead of HBO and Game of Thrones. That lack of leverage would also could hurt the bottom line. From the article: "When the time comes to renegotiate the affiliate fees that HBO currently relies upon, you can bet that HBO will have lost a tremendous amount of leverage, and will have trouble trying to command such high prices from their MSO partners [6]."

 

[BaldiMac]

Cable/satellite companies are able to offer free HBO as a method of retaining customers who want to drop or downgrade their TV plans, as well as offer it as an incentive to people to convince them to sign up for said plans. Because of this, HBO and the other premium channels (but especially HBO) become valuable tools to the cable/satellite companies, who are willing to pay big bucks to these networks for this method.

Why would this change?

If HBO were to sell direct, then the pay TV providers lose this tool. There's a lot less incentive to keep your $60+ a month cable/satellite plan just because you get free HBO if you can get HBO alone for $10ish a month.

Why do they lose anything? Cable didn't seem to lose when satellite added HBO.

#1 - I don't know the exact amount, but even if it were zero, the math still doesn't work out. This article from Forbes explains some of the many reasons why (with real data):

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2...subscribers-to-subscribe-to-hbo-go-a-la-hulu/

Reasons include: Stability, lower churn, subsidized distribution, marketing support from MSO partners, sales support, distribution support, etc.

There aren't any new numbers there. Under my proposal, HBO sells HBO GO for the same 16.99 a month that consumers are charged through the cable company, but they get a larger share of the pie. At Apple's standard 30%, HBO would get 40% more revenue from non-cable sales (if we believe the WSJ claim that it's a 50-50 split with cable.) That's a lot to make up in all these "extra" costs that keep being brought up.

And the thing is, they can keep their cable subscriber business too! They would have more leverage to negotiate a better percentage and better advertising.

Not only that, but HBO pays nothing to distribute high-def feeds on cable and the quality is excellent. Just ask Netflix how much trouble they're having with providers, peering agreements, and poor quality streams. HBO Go is seen as a supplement and they don't mind too much if it slows down or crashes (as proven by recent Game of Thrones and True Detective outages). But when you have paid "internet only" subscribers, your distribution and support costs go up, your brand image goes down, and you get a bunch of headaches for very little return as compared to the $1Billion in affiliate fees from the cable and satellite companies.

Absolutely, as I said, net neutrality laws are essential. Or at least an increase in competition for internet delivery. Wireless and fiber will make a big difference in major markets.

#2 - As the Forbes article points out, its all about leverage. Cable companies could start showing Showtime and Dexter more often in their ads instead of HBO and Game of Thrones. That lack of leverage would also could hurt the bottom line. From the article: "When the time comes to renegotiate the affiliate fees that HBO currently relies upon, you can bet that HBO will have lost a tremendous amount of leverage, and will have trouble trying to command such high prices from their MSO partners [6]."

I disagree. As long as HBO can maintain its brand, they will have more leverage with the cable companies.

 

[LethalWolfe]

We are just swimming in circles here but I'm going to hit some of the more pointed questions.

Or through Apple, etc.

If I have a problem with my HBO GO bill or service why does it make sense to call the hardware manufacture of the device I'm using for streaming? HBO GO is available on Xbox 360, PS3, Roku, various iOS and Android devices so if I had a question about my HBO GO bill or service why would I call Google or Microsoft or Sony? When I have questions about my Netflix service I contact Netflix. When I have questions about my Amazon streaming service I contact Amazon. Sure, if the service is working on one device but not the other I'll contact that device manufacturer but for a general question I'm going to the streaming service itself.

But non-cable/sat customers are the demographic that they are not currently reaching! Companies want to grow. You keep saying it's not very big and dismissing it as "cord cutters" but you are ignoring everyone else. College students could be huge. Impulse buyers from water cooler talk about their latest show. It could also allow them to expand internationally without having to deal with every single little local provider.

Cord cutters, of which I'm one of, isn't a very big group right now. That's not dismissing that's just a fact. Over 80% of the households in the US are signed up with cable/sat companies for TV (which means HBO GO is already available to them if they want it). About 6% of households in the US are people trying to replace cable via streaming (i.e. "cord cutters). That number is going to need to get much higher before we see outfits like HBO selling direct to consumers. The larger the non-cable/sat subscriber market grows the more attractive it becomes in terms of HBO selling HBO GO direct to consumers.

With regards to expanding internationally, distribution rights (including streaming distribution rights) have to be secured for each territory regardless of medium (and the same distribution SNAFU that's here exists the world over). It's a tedious process regardless of medium and for what it's worth HBO already has a large international presence (114 million subscribers outside the US compared to about 7 million for Netflix).

Again, I keep asking you why. You keep saying that it will be less valuable to cable companies without any sort of reason. Why would cable companies want to give up a $5 billion revenue stream?

Lots of people want to watch HBO and you need cable/sat in order to get HBO. This makes HBO valuable to cable/cat providers. If HBO starts selling direct to customers that makes them less valuable to cable/sat providers because it's one less reason to sign up for cable/sat service. Cable/sat providers are on the losing end of the situation if HBO GO becomes available to the general public (unless HBO agrees to kick back money to cable/sat providers).

There is absolutely some risk, I just disagree with the magnitude of the risks that you brought up.

If there was little to no risk more 'traditional media companies' would already be selling direct to customers and these channel/apps wouldn't require an existing cable/sat subscription.

There is nothing apples to pears about it in the context that I brought it up. You said that an alternate distribution would devalue HBO for cable providers. There is no evidence that satellite had any negative impact on HBO's cut when they made deals to compete with cable.

Direct to customer distribution via the Internet is not like DirecTV, for example, which is the same distribution model as cable TV just w/o the cable. And, again, when HBO signs cable/sat deals they know exactly what they are getting. The risk is low and the reward is spelled out in black and white.

Except that he gets to keep the office job while he sells door to door. And his door to door job doesn't become a threat to the office job until it is big enough so support him. My point exactly!

Office job becomes much less cushy when the boss finds out you are trying to steal his customer and go into business for yourself.

But are any of these potential costs significant enough that 20% more per subscriber wouldn't cover it?

Potential. Key word again. When HBO thinks the potential profits will outweigh the risks then they'll act and obviously they don't think now is the right time. That's been my fundamental point all along.

I'm sure there are analyst working for HBO crunching all the numbers from optimal HBO GO subscriber price points to projected market penetration to server costs to lost revenue from cable/sat and higher overhead from staff increases in order to build a giant matrix that allows them to make educated guesses about how things will play out based on different variables. It's much harder to move when you have things to lose.

 

[BaldiMac]

We are just swimming in circles here but I'm going to hit some of the more pointed questions.

You don't seem to be responding directly to my points, but rather repeating the same points you already made.

40% more revenue per subscriber and an increased growth potential makes up for a lot of the quibbles that you've brought up.

If there was little to no risk more 'traditional media companies' would already be selling direct to customers and these channel/apps wouldn't require an existing cable/sat subscription.

You already refuted this point yourself!

1. Existing contracts
2. Infrastructure build out
3. Net neutrality concerns

Direct to customer distribution via the Internet is not like DirecTV, for example, which is the same distribution model as cable TV just w/o the cable. And, again, when HBO signs cable/sat deals they know exactly what they are getting. The risk is low and the reward is spelled out in black and white.

Again, you are not responding to the point that I made at all.

Potential. Key word again. When HBO thinks the potential profits will outweigh the risks then they'll act and obviously they don't think now is the right time. That's been my fundamental point all along.

And not one that anyone is arguing with.

 

[Bayshun]

Why would this change?

You must not have read my whole post.

If HBO were to sell direct, then the pay TV providers lose this tool. There's a lot less incentive to keep your $60+ a month cable/satellite plan just because you get free HBO if you can get HBO alone for $10ish a month.

 

[BaldiMac]

You must not have read my whole post.

I did read your whole post. I never said anything about free HBO or even $10 a month. I was referring to your claim that cable companies offer free HBO for x months as incentives. They can continue to do that.

 

[Bayshun]

I did read your whole post. I never said anything about free HBO or even $10 a month. I was referring to your claim that cable companies offer free HBO for x months as incentives. They can continue to do that.

As I said in my original post: there is much less incentive to getting people to keep a $60 a month plan by offering HBO for free when they can get HBO by itself for $10ish a month if HBO were to sell direct.

 

[BaldiMac]

As I said in my original post: there is much less incentive to getting people to keep a $60 a month plan by offering HBO for free when they can get HBO by itself for $10ish a month if HBO were to sell direct.

How much less? I agree there is some issue there, but cable companies would still get additional revenue from selling HBO as a premium service as they do now. That's quite an incentive.

Until now, cable/sat is HBO's only option. If they are able to successfully expand to other delivery options, they will have more leverage to negotiate with cable/sat companies, not less. And again, I see the biggest obstacle as net neutrality. If the cable companies still get their cut, the economics are much more difficult.

I'm not arguing that the relationships won't change, but just that some obstacles like advertising aren't as big as some posters are painting them.

 

[ratigator]

Great, I just switched from DirectTV back to Charter, partly because most of the existing tv apps didn't activate with DirecTV. These new channels activate with DirecTV, not Charter. So stupid.

 

[Mockenrue]

There aren't any new numbers there.

That's the issue... the numbers haven't changed enough. The strategists within HBO and outside know the same thing that was referenced in the Forbes article: the non-cable population has to go up considerably to offset the costs even with the most optimistic buy rate.

It takes a LOT of $17 buyers to cover the network infrastructure, employee salaries, benefits, call center location cost, etc. to support a new service. The cost of each subscriber vastly outweighs the return until you reach a critical mass - especially when you have other companies providing the distribution, tech support, and infrastructure at no cost.

HBO likes money. I'm sure the logistics people, statisticians, and finance people are watching this very closely and have a plan to strike when the math does work.

 

[scott523]

Finally Apple fixed the home sharing connection issues with the remote.