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 Added to 'Apple TV Channels' in Latest iOS 12.3 and tvOS 12.3 Betas
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My favorite part of the current tvOS TV app is at the top where it says 'continue [show name] on HBO Now'. I click on it and it starts from the beginning / removing the saved spot where I left off.
Keep up the great work!
Keep up the great work!
This article from 9to5mac has more information then provided by Macrumors:
https://9to5mac.com/2019/05/01/apple-tv-channels-hbo/
https://9to5mac.com/2019/05/01/apple-tv-channels-hbo/
The same content sliced and diced by different providers through different content delivery apps. What a mess.
The "new" tv app will simply stream the show within itself rather than opening another app; which in my experience will be much better because more often than not the app switching doesn't work in the current iteration of the app.
Well that will be pretty crappy if you can only use the Apple TV app to watch HBO if you sign up for it there. Does that also mean if you already have an HBO Now subscription that app won’t work?
Absolutely not. Making original content is literally a matter of survival for Netflix.
Many years ago Netflix was getting great content for pennies on the dollar. Netflix could afford to be cheap, so they were. Then the content owners wised up to streaming, and starting charging Netflix appropriate rates. Netflix had to raise rates. This is part of the higher price.
But here's the important bit.
The content owners started to refuse to put their premium content on Netflix. Why let someone else make money off of your content when you can make that money yourself? We see this with HBO, Showtime, AMC, Hulu, even CBS.
Some content owners are keeping not just premium content, but all content for themselves. Disney for example is planning on doing exactly this whenever and wherever their contracts expire.
So once all content owners are keeping their best content (or all content) for their own exclusive channels, what exactly is Netflix supposed to show? Without their own content, Netflix would be relegated to leftovers that all the content owners don't care about. Netflix would be screwed and become the next Blockbuster.
Netflix, of course, is well aware of this trend. Their plan, started many years ago, was to become the next HBO. In other words, make their own original content that would attract and keep subscribers, and then bulk up the catalog with whatever revolving third party offerings they can get at the moment.
I can understand why some might feel that way. Personally, I don’t. In my opinion, the streaming service industry is a mess. It’s fragmented and each service is completely isolated from the rest. While services like Netflix used to be great at servicing as the go-to platform of TV and movies, there are so many players now that it can be quite the headache to follow what’s available across so many different platforms. Add to that the very different user interfaces to embrace and navigate around. What steaming services are also missing is the understanding that some people enjoy having their own library of stuff to watch. You know - one place that’s organised to your taste and independent of which TV-show belongs to whatever streaming service. Any service, perfect or not, that tries to fix all this, is much welcomed. So personally, I’m very much looking forward to the revamped TV app.
I agree with and/or can appreciate most of what you said, especially about the importance of integrating people's home/local libraries into the experience. But unless I missed something, that's still a major shortcoming of the TV app. Does it show/return results from your Home Shared library? I don't think it does. And if it does, does it clearly identify whether or not the results or content you're about to watch is going to be streamed (and from where/whom) or served over your local network?
I'd say a solid 60-70% of the media I view through the Apple TV is from my Home Shared Library. I suppose that's why it makes more sense to me to keep the streaming "channels" as separate sources/apps in relation to my local content. I'd like to know WHERE the video is coming from before pressing Play. I also want to know it gave preferential treatment to the content served locally. I don't think the TV app, current or beta, does that.
I also don't like the idea of an app that makes a lot of assumptions about what I might like to watch next, or as I'm sure will happen, start giving shows and movies preferential treatment and prime placement for the Benjamins, effectively turning the TV app into a dynamic advertisement and spoon feeding the masses "popular" shows/movies.
I'd love if Plex integrated in there as a 1st class citizen of the TV app.
I use WatchAid which also includes TV Shows from PLEX (besides all of the others like HULU, CBS ALL ACCESS, NETFLIX, HBO, SHOWTIME, and more)
[doublepost=1556745239][/doublepost]
As I just replied to someone else. I use WatchAid and it does include TV Shows from PLEX. For TV Shows (not movies) WatchAid is much better than the TV App from Apple.
As you pointed out, Netflix was once at the mercy of studios and networks, many of which are competitors. So Netflix had little choice but to follow HBO's playbook -- producing original programmings.
Netflix is closing in on 100,000 hours of original and exclusive programmings, or more than 850 titles. Netflix is currently producing more than 50 shows, nearly double that of Apple TV+, Disney+, and HBO. Netflix no longer needs to go after quantity.
Also... do not offer the entire season at once. Offer one new episode per week, allow people to digest and discuss, spreading production cost over longer span. Lower production cost can help Netflix from raising price every 2 years. As long as average subscriber has a choice of 2-3 beloved shows a week, they will pay.
That does look interesting. I use JustWatch for similar purposes (except for movies, not TV) but it doesn't have Plex integration. However, I only watch a few shows and my main use case is movies so it looks less useful for me than it might be for many.
Sorry if that was confusing. For Amazon if you subscribe to HBO through Amazon you can watch it via the Prime app or HBO now. However, if you subscribe through HBO Now you cannot watch through the Prime app.
I would think Apples channel app would be the same way. If you subscribe through Apple you could use the channel app or HBO Now. However, HBO Now subscribers could not watch via the channel app.
Do you get a new free trial? Or because you already subscribed once to hbo now you don’t qualify anymore?
I have the free trial. It happens to work out that I will be charged for the new Apple HBO on the day before my HBO Now sub expires.
Lately I’ve been using the TV app to keep up with things and I’ve come to like it. Perhaps that’s in part due to the new UI. Previously I thought the TV app was pointless, I almost only watched things in Plex, Crunchyroll, and then Netflix. So there wasn’t much use for me, and the only time I used the TV app was to remove the shows I already watched via Crunchyroll, because it was kind of annoying seeing it suggest things i’ve already seen.
But now, I realize how much content is on my Hulu and Amazon Prime subscriptions. It’s gone very far for me with discovery. Shows I was completely unaware of I’ve started watching. Before my Hulu and Amazon subscriptions collected dust, the former only existing for family use, but I hadn’t personally used it in years.
I do wish things were more seamless though, and that Plex was included, but I understand why it’s not on both counts.
It’s because you are subscribed to HBO Now through another source than being directly subscribed through the TV App. If you for example have HBO in Hulu, but don’t use the HBO Go or Now app, it’ll redirect to Hulu. But if you typically watch through the HBO Now app, then it’ll redirect there.
The only way to play directly in the TV app, is if you subscribe to the service through the TV app.
To many (even me) it would seem that all should have that seamless experience, but Apple made that seamless experience exclusive; either by choice or by agreement. Perhaps the sources of these subscriptions want Apple to make it clear to their users “this is not an Apple service, this is Hulu, so launch the Hulu app.”
In a roundabout way it seems confusing, but it’s actually very clear. The way you are subscribed, is how your video is sent. Apple has no control over the handling of another service’s subscribers or affecting their subscriber’s experience.
But now, I realize how much content is on my Hulu and Amazon Prime subscriptions. It’s gone very far for me with discovery. Shows I was completely unaware of I’ve started watching. Before my Hulu and Amazon subscriptions collected dust, the former only existing for family use, but I hadn’t personally used it in years.
I do wish things were more seamless though, and that Plex was included, but I understand why it’s not on both counts.
It’s because you are subscribed to HBO Now through another source than being directly subscribed through the TV App. If you for example have HBO in Hulu, but don’t use the HBO Go or Now app, it’ll redirect to Hulu. But if you typically watch through the HBO Now app, then it’ll redirect there.
The only way to play directly in the TV app, is if you subscribe to the service through the TV app.
To many (even me) it would seem that all should have that seamless experience, but Apple made that seamless experience exclusive; either by choice or by agreement. Perhaps the sources of these subscriptions want Apple to make it clear to their users “this is not an Apple service, this is Hulu, so launch the Hulu app.”
In a roundabout way it seems confusing, but it’s actually very clear. The way you are subscribed, is how your video is sent. Apple has no control over the handling of another service’s subscribers or affecting their subscriber’s experience.
That being said, I'd like to clarify something for those that consider this an Apple TV+ versus others matter.
Hulu and Netflix are more like low price cable companies that allow you to watch general TV and movies for a single subscription price (hence Hulu isn't that different from cable). Those "non-cable cable companies" then started making their own content to differentiate themselves from each other, and add incentive for subscribers. It would be like Comcast making it's own content for their users, for free. -- That is not Apple's business model, nor would it ever be until their actual business model of "pay per movie", "pay per rental", "pay per episode" takes a serious hit, which I don't see happening any time soon (within the next 3 years, because for now people are still fine with renting movies, especially if they can get it while the movie is still in theaters). However, Apple's real business model reflects that they are not in direct competition with the other companies' business models, at all.
They merely overlap in two regards:
1. each of the companies mentioned, have created their own studio that produces original content. Apple TV+ is also a studio, and therefore "Apple Studio" competes with Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Studios, the same way that they all compete with every other studio in existence. That's normal for content creators (even for Youtubers), and is nothing special.
2. the Apple TV app (not Plus) allows you to subscribe to premium channels the way that the platforms allow. There is no real differentiator in this regard, because each service allows you to seamlessly stream the premium channel through their app, for about the same price. Therefore, there's no actual competition in that regard, they all offer the same thing. The only competition possible in that regard are the number of premium channels offered and a potential premium channel price war. But for the premium channels that have their own platforms / apps, the prices will pretty much be the same across the board (unless they offer lower prices within their own relative apps).
----
When you pay for Netflix, Hulu, and even Amazon Video, you're primarily paying for an all you can eat entertainment "platform" (which includes the things they each could exclusively license, and distribute / brand), with their additional original "studio" productions (but studio productions are low priority compared to their core business of establishing streaming rights with other's content for their base membership price). For Apple TV+ original content "is" their business model and all that matters, so when you pay for Apple TV+ you're only paying for that studio's productions. That is like having an exclusive membership to a small boutique studio or playhouse.
To people that understand / appreciate the value of a playhouse subscription, they would understand the value of having a direct subscription to a studio. Those that do not, care more about quantity. I for one will subscribe to Apple TV+, the same way that I subscribe to membership at the Met Opera, Hulu, and Netflix.
It is more accurate to perceive Apple TV+ as a premium channel subscription, than perceiving it as "versus" Hulu, Netflix, etc. Apple TV+ is more akin to an HBO subscription, than a Hulu subscription. The Apple TV app will essentially aggregate the TV+ premium channel, the same way it allows HBO, and Showtime (granted, TV+ might have a dedicated section, but it's basically another premium channel aggregated). Such is why, TV+ isn't really in competition with Hulu and Netflix, and why Hulu can be aggregated in the TV app too (Netflix could be aggregated too if they weren’t so stubborn). Similarly, Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon down the line may want to offer Apple Studio shows and movies, like they do other premium channels (if Apple cares to reach more people / capitalize from subscriptions on other platforms eventually).
I believe at some point in time Apple TV+ will cease to be a driver for hardware sales, and will become a driver for the brand. Meaning, it’ll stop being an Apple device exclusive, and will become a channel that others can watch so long as they pay the subscription cost (even potentially becoming a cable TV premium channel, though this is less likely). If the shows / movies are numerous and good enough TV+ has the potential to outgrow Apple users. Similar to how Apple Music is no longer limited to Apple devices, because Apple will care more about subscribers since it no longer really drives hardware sales. Apple will employ whatever they can to get people into their services.
----
In summary, Apple TV+ is a premium channel, not a streaming platform subscription, and the TV app is a free aggregator for streaming platforms / channels not a platform itself.
Hulu and Netflix are more like low price cable companies that allow you to watch general TV and movies for a single subscription price (hence Hulu isn't that different from cable). Those "non-cable cable companies" then started making their own content to differentiate themselves from each other, and add incentive for subscribers. It would be like Comcast making it's own content for their users, for free. -- That is not Apple's business model, nor would it ever be until their actual business model of "pay per movie", "pay per rental", "pay per episode" takes a serious hit, which I don't see happening any time soon (within the next 3 years, because for now people are still fine with renting movies, especially if they can get it while the movie is still in theaters). However, Apple's real business model reflects that they are not in direct competition with the other companies' business models, at all.
They merely overlap in two regards:
1. each of the companies mentioned, have created their own studio that produces original content. Apple TV+ is also a studio, and therefore "Apple Studio" competes with Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Studios, the same way that they all compete with every other studio in existence. That's normal for content creators (even for Youtubers), and is nothing special.
2. the Apple TV app (not Plus) allows you to subscribe to premium channels the way that the platforms allow. There is no real differentiator in this regard, because each service allows you to seamlessly stream the premium channel through their app, for about the same price. Therefore, there's no actual competition in that regard, they all offer the same thing. The only competition possible in that regard are the number of premium channels offered and a potential premium channel price war. But for the premium channels that have their own platforms / apps, the prices will pretty much be the same across the board (unless they offer lower prices within their own relative apps).
----
When you pay for Netflix, Hulu, and even Amazon Video, you're primarily paying for an all you can eat entertainment "platform" (which includes the things they each could exclusively license, and distribute / brand), with their additional original "studio" productions (but studio productions are low priority compared to their core business of establishing streaming rights with other's content for their base membership price). For Apple TV+ original content "is" their business model and all that matters, so when you pay for Apple TV+ you're only paying for that studio's productions. That is like having an exclusive membership to a small boutique studio or playhouse.
To people that understand / appreciate the value of a playhouse subscription, they would understand the value of having a direct subscription to a studio. Those that do not, care more about quantity. I for one will subscribe to Apple TV+, the same way that I subscribe to membership at the Met Opera, Hulu, and Netflix.
It is more accurate to perceive Apple TV+ as a premium channel subscription, than perceiving it as "versus" Hulu, Netflix, etc. Apple TV+ is more akin to an HBO subscription, than a Hulu subscription. The Apple TV app will essentially aggregate the TV+ premium channel, the same way it allows HBO, and Showtime (granted, TV+ might have a dedicated section, but it's basically another premium channel aggregated). Such is why, TV+ isn't really in competition with Hulu and Netflix, and why Hulu can be aggregated in the TV app too (Netflix could be aggregated too if they weren’t so stubborn). Similarly, Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon down the line may want to offer Apple Studio shows and movies, like they do other premium channels (if Apple cares to reach more people / capitalize from subscriptions on other platforms eventually).
I believe at some point in time Apple TV+ will cease to be a driver for hardware sales, and will become a driver for the brand. Meaning, it’ll stop being an Apple device exclusive, and will become a channel that others can watch so long as they pay the subscription cost (even potentially becoming a cable TV premium channel, though this is less likely). If the shows / movies are numerous and good enough TV+ has the potential to outgrow Apple users. Similar to how Apple Music is no longer limited to Apple devices, because Apple will care more about subscribers since it no longer really drives hardware sales. Apple will employ whatever they can to get people into their services.
----
In summary, Apple TV+ is a premium channel, not a streaming platform subscription, and the TV app is a free aggregator for streaming platforms / channels not a platform itself.
Last edited:
https://www.macworld.com/article/33...like-hbo-now-showtime-and-cbs-all-access.html
Here's an article detailing known "channels" pricing vs native app pricing. After reading this, there's not much incentive to buy any channels through the tv app. In fact, it kinda reminds me of apple news+. Can you view the whole hbo library within the tv app? Because you won't have access to hbo's native apps. As in news+, apple will recommend what to watch. Perhaps you can search for what you want? How lame is that?
What am I missing here? Do most of you want one app that tries to integrate all these streaming services? It would seem to me that it LIMITS the experience of each service in terms of what you get with their native app..and it COSTS THE SAME or more considering there's no annual pricing for channels. It ends up being a mess...like the News app.
Here's an article detailing known "channels" pricing vs native app pricing. After reading this, there's not much incentive to buy any channels through the tv app. In fact, it kinda reminds me of apple news+. Can you view the whole hbo library within the tv app? Because you won't have access to hbo's native apps. As in news+, apple will recommend what to watch. Perhaps you can search for what you want? How lame is that?
What am I missing here? Do most of you want one app that tries to integrate all these streaming services? It would seem to me that it LIMITS the experience of each service in terms of what you get with their native app..and it COSTS THE SAME or more considering there's no annual pricing for channels. It ends up being a mess...like the News app.
This! I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Like, Game of Thrones is a big topic of discussion in the office every Monday, because we all saw the same episode Sunday night and are all on the same page. With Netflix releasing entire seasons at a time, it becomes a game of avoiding spoilers until you finish the season. I'd much rather get an episode per week!