If you have an HBO subscription on Dish you can watch all HBOGO content on their current hopper receivers. It's on Demand but it's Free.
It's how I got current with Game of Thrones before I got my Roku3.
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.
Apple Adds WatchESPN, HBO GO, Sky News, and More to Apple TV
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you have an HBO subscription on Dish you can watch all HBOGO content on their current hopper receivers. It's on Demand but it's Free.
It's how I got current with Game of Thrones before I got my Roku3.
I have OPTIK TV (Telus), which is essentially one of our cable TV provider here (Canada) and I'm an HBO subscriber. We already have HBO On Demand built into every set top box and also have an iOS app which does the same for HBO and Movie Central.
I'm guessing you guys who subscribe to HBO in the US, your providers don't already give you HBO On Demand with your subscription?
I assume it's a long term contract w/ the providers. But yes, I would pay for HBO a la cart if they offered it. I'm sure there are others that would too.
I got excited about this news until I remembered I don't subscribe to cable or sat tv any longer.
It took some arm twisting, but I was able to add HBO to my Verizon FiOS Internet only plan for $10 a month.
(Technically they had to add a 'SD local channels' package to my plan, but this actually lowered the total package cost of my plan by $15 and did not require a hardware rental. The net cost to add HBO was actually -$5)
I think maybe you responded to the wrong person? I didn't say anything about any of that.
My question was: Why do you need 2 boxes to do the same task?
And the answer people gave me was: Because HBOGo lets you play stuff on demand.
Returning to Over the Air days as I type. My Apple TV 3 should be here any day now. So with that, my Mohu Leaf antenna, & my Obi100 w/ Google Voice, I'll just pay for Internet service saving at least 100/month.
Happy camper here.
I'm a cable cutter too but I hope everyone else stays with cable. Once cable companies start losing revenue on cable they will up the price on internet. In most places cable providers are the internet providers, right? You still have to pay for internet to stream....
I forsee tiered 100, 200, 300GB home internet plans just like cell phones in our future.
Canada
After installing the update, I get a "What's new?" page telling me that Qello and Crunchyroll were added, but I'm stuck on that page because no matter which button I click on the remote the "continue" button won't work.
edit: never mind, it seems to have unstuck itself to the usual main menu now. Bad interface bug there, Apple. If the system is working, at least remove the "Continue" button and show me some "processing" bar or something.
After installing the update, I get a "What's new?" page telling me that Qello and Crunchyroll were added, but I'm stuck on that page because no matter which button I click on the remote the "continue" button won't work.
edit: never mind, it seems to have unstuck itself to the usual main menu now. Bad interface bug there, Apple. If the system is working, at least remove the "Continue" button and show me some "processing" bar or something.
Pac12 NCAA football network plus a reasonable monthly fee (<$50/month) and I can dump Comcast ($100/month). PaLLLEEEEASE!!!
UK members. Place you hand on your screen so I can high five it.
Why? If I'm not very much mistaken, all we got was Sky News - a channel nobody really sits and watches for more than 20 minutes at a time unless its the lobby of a hotel.
Still a glorified iTunes playback device for the UK, that is until you jailbreak it and put XBMC and Plex on it - it becomes a whole lot more useful then.
Because if HBO began selling customer direct subscriptions, they will piss off all the third party cable companies that have essentially built up the network for the past decades. You can't just one day decide to screw your largest distribution partner. How do you think they will react? Besides, they would need an "all in" solution. Meaning that they would have to migrate the customer base to that model entirely (like Netflix is set up). Otherwise they are going to have to have difficulties with all the contracts in place with cable companies.
We all know cable companies will have to re organize their soon to be obsolete business model. However, that transition has to be met with baby steps, and HBO knows that better than anyone.
The shameful thing is, its piss easy to get working. I got it working on an old Humax freeview box a while back, the controller mapping via a javascript inject file is all that has to be done, and even then all you're doing is mapping up,down, left, right to their keyboard counterparts, and 'menu' to 'backspace' and then 'play' to 'enter'.
It's sad how simple it is, its already h.245 compatible, the iPlayer streams are the exact resolution needed, and there is no flash to get in the way of things as the BBC already made it fully compatible with any set top box running a very simple browser.
on Google TV.
Or get a Android HDMI stick (looks like a USB stick but with an HDMI port) - you can then run the android versions.
I'm in Japan and I have the Crunchyroll, Sky News and Qello apps on my AppleTV now - not tried them yet though.
What people don't understand is that you being subscribed to cable TV is what funds the television shows we all love.
I know it feels like the cable companies are just being greedy and that all that money is just flowing into their pockets (and trust me, I hate my cable company as much as the next guy) but the reason cable bills are so high are because of affiliate fees and retransmission fees.
Your cable company pays for every single network it offers you, and the money that the cable company pays to those networks is how they can afford to make the shows that we all love. A common question is then, how come we have to pay for all these random channels that nobody cares about? Why can't we just pay for the major channels that we want? The answer is that the companies that sell these channels (Viacom, NBCUniversal, Disney, News Corp, etc.) own like 15 or more channels each, and they'll be like "okay, we'll sell you FX, but only if you also buy FUEL TV." So in the process of obtaining rights to the channels you actually want, your cable company is forced to also get all these other channels that you may be less interested in (it sounds evil, but there are actually significant benefits to the consumer in this).
The moral of the story is that all this money that you feel like is being wasted on cable, is actually funding some of the best shows that have ever been on TV. Despite all the talk in the media and online, cable subscriptions have NOT taken a significant hit (less than 1% of American cable customers have cut the cord). But if more and more people do become cord cutters and switch to a service like Netflix that generates relatively little for the networks that create the content, it's the content itself that will suffer.
I know it feels like the cable companies are just being greedy and that all that money is just flowing into their pockets (and trust me, I hate my cable company as much as the next guy) but the reason cable bills are so high are because of affiliate fees and retransmission fees.
Your cable company pays for every single network it offers you, and the money that the cable company pays to those networks is how they can afford to make the shows that we all love. A common question is then, how come we have to pay for all these random channels that nobody cares about? Why can't we just pay for the major channels that we want? The answer is that the companies that sell these channels (Viacom, NBCUniversal, Disney, News Corp, etc.) own like 15 or more channels each, and they'll be like "okay, we'll sell you FX, but only if you also buy FUEL TV." So in the process of obtaining rights to the channels you actually want, your cable company is forced to also get all these other channels that you may be less interested in (it sounds evil, but there are actually significant benefits to the consumer in this).
The moral of the story is that all this money that you feel like is being wasted on cable, is actually funding some of the best shows that have ever been on TV. Despite all the talk in the media and online, cable subscriptions have NOT taken a significant hit (less than 1% of American cable customers have cut the cord). But if more and more people do become cord cutters and switch to a service like Netflix that generates relatively little for the networks that create the content, it's the content itself that will suffer.
I have it hooked up right now to a monitor in my kids room - but even on that the quality is great (I tested Game of Thrones and Dark Knight Returns).
It's definitely useful as I don't have to purchase a cable box for their room and pay that crazy monthly fee. As others have said, the HBO Go content has much, much more than even On Demand does, so it's more useful than the actual channel.
If it were to ever get to that stage, it'd be in the interests of places like Netflix to be funding new TV shows (after all, they would have a hell of a lot more income, so could afford to do so). So the quality wouldn't ever really suffer...theoretically anyway. It'd just be (finally) delivered in a better way.
TV should not even be about 'channels' in this day and age, it should literally be a file distribution where the episodes are delivered to a gui on your TV for you to watch whenever you like. It really makes zero sense to use the 'channel' method, other than for advertising (altho even thats a weak excuse as you can force people to watch a handfull of ads before being able to see the full show).
----------
Deffo no reason for owning an XboxOne now
Why were you only buying it so you could watch Sky News?Come on APPLE we want Amazon Prime and I will buy Apple TV tomorrow, well after you update the wireless card for Apple TV to Airport Extreme AC and than I will buy it. PLEASE!