What country are you in currently? I can watch Game of Thrones on HBOgo at the exact same time its airing on tv. My Wife did the same with True Blood. We aren't always home when they air, but we can still watch them at the exact same time. I never have any problems with the app and I've been using it since it came out I believe. Also all of there big shows air on Sunday. What shows are you watching that air on Friday?
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 and Apple in Talks for $15/Month Apple TV Streaming Service Launching in April
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What country are you in currently? I can watch Game of Thrones on HBOgo at the exact same time its airing on tv. My Wife did the same with True Blood. We aren't always home when they air, but we can still watch them at the exact same time. I never have any problems with the app and I've been using it since it came out I believe. Also all of there big shows air on Sunday. What shows are you watching that air on Friday?
What I see the internet providers doing is stop having unlimited internet. They'll start having 100GB service for $30 a month and do something like charge a $1 for every 5GB over. Or get the $60 a month package for 300GB a month (with a $1 for every 10GB over). I'm totally estimating numbers.
The point is, by charging more for more data they'll get more money from the cord cutters.
Why am I paying as much as someone who checks e-mail and Facebook? Most people pay more for using more data on their cell phone. I'm happy they don't, I just never understood why they don't.
They used to have a 250GB cap at Comcast, but stopped enforcing it, I thought it was just because they were calling it "unlimited", just stop calling it "unlimited" and charge different for different limits.
By charging this way, you're paying just as much for bit of gmail as you are for bits of HBO and other streaming services....
Gary
$15 a month is far lower than most people were predicting. HBO is like Netflix, but with better original content and a better movie selection.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'm one of the people who didn't say "no way" but did expect pricing to be higher than this. However, that was within the idea of people believing they would be getting a full replacement for cable's version of HBO. I'm not yet sure if this is that or better or worse. But I did expect pricing to start at about $25/month at the low end so this is amazing for those who can find value here.
Does it say somewhere that the "entire back catalog" will be in this offering? I'm skeptical but if that is true, again, relatively amazing value vs. my own expectations of what this would be and how it would be priced.
Because we consumers are the only link in the entire chain that wants to get a "new model" for a lot less than we pay now. HBO or a Comcast or an Apple has nill interest in turning an average of about $75/month per household into an average of $25/month or $10/month or $5/month for some kind of al-a-carte fantasy.
They like their revenues "as is". What they would like more than "as is" is a change that would yield more money. We consumers are the source of that "more money". They can't get what they want if we are only interested if the new model includes a fat discount.
Right. See above. All of the other players in the chain have zero motivations to deliver the huge discounts we imagine in some kind of al-a-carte model. In other words, "as is" for 200 channels with 190 channels "I never watch" the average cable cost is about $75/month per household.
If they had to offer al-a-carte, it's pricing model would revolve around making at least $75/month but probably more than that... else why change?
We think the cost of channels is some kind of static number: 200 channels at $100/monbth = 50 cents per channel. I only want 10 channels so I should be able to get them for $5/month.
In some kind of al-a-carte implementation, the old 200 channels at $100/month would be compared to those favorite 10 channels at $130/month. That's even implied somewhat here: $15/month for "one" channel, 10 "channels" like this one would be $150/month. CBS has suggested $6/month for a CBS al-a-carte channel vs. "free*" CBS over the air. If the big 4 followed that lead, the big 4 that are often viewed as "free*" would cost $24/month for just them.
Nobody- except us dreamers- wants to roll out an al-a-carte model where the average revenue drops from $75/month to some tiny fraction of that. It's likely the whole thing would crumble if it went from $75 to the usual "what I want to pay" numbers tossed about of $5 or $8 or $20 or $29.99.
Apple has already taken a good crack at al-a-carte, commercial-free in iTunes (for years now). What's wrong with that? We want all that for next to nothing. But nobody else- Apple included- has any reason to try to deliver all that for next to nothing. And that's a fundamental flaw in the dream.
I'd like to buy MacBook Pros for $100 instead of what Apple wants for them. I'd like iPhones with unlimited service for $10/month instead of what cellular providers charge. I'd like to buy my next car for half of what the dealership wants for it. That's all the same. Sure, we all want anything we want for dirt cheap. But nobody else in the chain wants to sell the stuff we want for dirt cheap. Their goal- like Apple's goal- is to make more money next year than they make this year. They don't do that but cutting their average revenue-per-customer by 50% or 75% or 90% (and neither would Apple).
I like the concept as much as the next guy. But it falls apart as soon as you think it through. If we end up with dirt-cheap pricing, we end up with YouTube quality programming. Else, if we could all get over the idea of everything-for-nearly-nothing, showing sellers how to make more money (not less) is a tremendous motivator to get them to change existing business models.
Last edited:
He may have been saying that they crop everything to fit the 16:9 HD ratio. I can't confirm that HBO does that, but it's a perfectly valid complaint if true.
----------
What are you honestly expecting? Connectivity issues are valid concerns, but content? You get access to their entire library of original material. And as others have mentioned, you don't need to wait days for new shows to stream. The movie library is rather limited, but it's no different than the crap they air on their channels.
Net neutrality doesn't have huge short and mid term benefits for the consumers, some who use more data, want more throughput will probably pay more.
The advantage is mainly to prevent incumbents from using their economic clout to prevent other content providers from being able to serve their users at a competitive price (without neutrality, a lot of what we got since 2001 would not be possible). By keeping the diversity of offer and competition high, you pay less for the actual content.
The disadvantage for the internet providers is that they can't really diversify what they offer beyond throughput and data cap. They can offer for example Netflix special in which all Netflix traffic is very cheap, because netflix is paying them money to do so. They're stuck in dumb pipe mode; all traffic is created equal. Netflix itself though could partially subsidize the user so they can use a higher level of service over the internet.
So, you may pay a bit more for your internet, especially if you are a big user, but pay a lot less for the actual content. I think its a fair trade.
Excellent points. Most customers totally miss the point about how the market works. They believe that they should just pay a small portion for the content THEY like and assume that content will be supported/produced by the people who have similar tastes.
Channels are bundled right now so that the total cost covers a wide variety of programming. If we move to an ala carte model, content providers are going to quickly move to the lowest common denominator and provide programming that gives their biggest bang for the buck. Companies will be more reluctant to take risks because everything has to 'pay their own way.'
I also think the cable/sat companies take a lot of flak while the networks skate by. The content providers/networks are the ones pushing for ever increasing rates and to bundle programming as much as possible. (See how much the ESPN conglomerate gets in subscription fees.)
A lot of time it's the cable/satellite companies trying to fight the battle on prices/bundling. Yes, it's for the ulterior motive of keeping their customers happy - but often time it's the networks/content providers pushing for price increases with the cable/satellite companies taking the PR hit.
I also agree with many posters that true a la carte will never work.
I am currently checking offers in my area and I can get 200+ channels, 50mbps internet, HBO, streampix, on demand, X1 cable box for $99 for 2 years deal. Internet alone is $50 when on promotion, otherwise it is $79 which is what I pay. In other words, for mere $20+ more a month, I can get not only HBO, but 200 other channels and few other perks when I bundle two services together. Also, with that service, I can add other premium channels for only $10 per channel bundle per month, which is cheaper than standalone HBO. With the way how this is priced, I do not see how a la carte would be even remotely compelling offer.
I am currently checking offers in my area and I can get 200+ channels, 50mbps internet, HBO, streampix, on demand, X1 cable box for $99 for 2 years deal. Internet alone is $50 when on promotion, otherwise it is $79 which is what I pay. In other words, for mere $20+ more a month, I can get not only HBO, but 200 other channels and few other perks when I bundle two services together. Also, with that service, I can add other premium channels for only $10 per channel bundle per month, which is cheaper than standalone HBO. With the way how this is priced, I do not see how a la carte would be even remotely compelling offer.
Cool, I didn't remember. FWIW, I did agree (at the time) that the specific content would be a major consideration.
If it's equivalent to HBOGO, it's pretty outstanding, not too mention, that is pretty much HBO via cable as far as I could tell when we had them overlapping for a several months (I mean, I didn't sit down and do a detailed assessment or anything
). GO has a good 300+ movies every month with a good chunk of them rotating through, with a few major titles, some mid-tier, and lots of filler (like cable!). Plus all the original programming, including the back catalog of series that have ended, and shows like GOT pretty much get GO'ed immediately in "real air time". No idea about sports, that could be a major differentiator (I guess that would mostly be boxing).The additional cool thing is you basically get a "built in" DVR, everything is available whenever in terms of original programming, and movies get a good long window to catch them.
It's funny, I've been thinking of costs in terms of $3/EP (HD), even assuming some discount for season pass type buys (TWD was $2.69/EP as a season) vs. the cost of various cable/premium subscription models. $15/month is like 5 episodes through iTunes or Amazon, if we watch GOT, True Detective, Silicon Valley, that's potentially 3 EPs a week, x 4, for 12 EPs needed to cover the shows - but then it gets tricky since they're not on all the time, they have staggered schedules, mid-season hiatus.
Leads me to wonder if this will require a year (or more) commitment, or can we go month-to-month? Maybe a discount if you do go a full year, like $144 (20%). That's the first thing that jumped out at me about Sling TV, no contract. That's part of the "Cord Cutting" mantra in my book, no long term commitment, no contract, no leasing equipment.
Our cords are cut by the way, it's been awesome so far. Speaking of equipment, DTV didn't even want theirs back, just the access cards ...
The opposite can also be true. A few channels in the bundle offer '1st tier' programming but that programming is more expensive to make and it might note have a great profit margin. The rest of the bundled channels could be '2nd tier' programing which is significantly less expensive to produce so it might have a better profit margin. I think this is a big reason why content producers (like Viacom) sell bundles of channels to cable/sat providers. It's more cost effective, and less risky, than selling individual channels.
i suspect it might be just for their TV stuff, not movies which I believe are in HBOGo.
but so long as it's all the shows and all the seasons and we aren't treated to tons of ads like Hulu Plus has, and we can also watch it on iPads etc, I'm in. I'm still saving $50 a month for basic cable that I don't watch
I don't.
But yea... geofencing and $15 for one channel... yikes!
Somehow I don't think this is the "TV solution" Steve talked about in his biography.
Personally, apart from Bill Maher there's nothing on HBO that interests me.
AMC's another matter.
$15/month for a selection of channels or customized content I would consider, but not with the current restrictions in place.
Spoken like a true corporate believer.
"How the market works" ? You mean how corporate media is trying to milk the consumer for increasingly diluted crappy content ?
True consumer choice would allow crappy content to die sooner and excellent content to succeed faster. Increased bundling and price jacking is a desperate attempt to keep increasing profits for shareholders.
Furthermore, the conflict of interest between internet traffic and cable content offered by the same provider was just addressed in the net neutrality decision by the FCC that is drawing much flak from "industry experts" like you.
Same way how the insurance game is rigged. Trying to sell you on the solidarity model, when it's competing investor profitability that drives everything.
What we need is a Napster style revolution that worked well for the music industry resulting in the iTunes model, but so far Movie & TV media moguls have resisted this.
Back in 2011 we had a brief period of $0.99 TV show rentals, but the industry pulled that from Apple. Now the only "a-la-carte" option is the $2.99 purchase for a 43min. show or $40-50 season pass purchases.
I don't know about you, but back then I was spending a lot more on rentals and none on purchases today.
Lots of ways over and under the fence,
I would have to see what the total content is first.
While I tend to agree, that's what they charge with a cable/dish subscription. It's a step in the right direction.
Yeah, but only 3 or 4 of those "200 channels" are actually worth watching.
The remainder just get in the way.
(I got rid of cable 18 years ago.)
Sure, semi-legal ways, and then there's torrents
In Canada the CEO of Rogers just came down on VPNs and asking the government to ban them, now that they're offering a Netflix competitor (ie. Shomi) and knowing that a large % of Canadian Netflix subscribers are using services like "unblock-us" to watch US content.
I'm just hoping for a time when consumers have the same global access that corporations enjoy for themselves.
this sounds ok, but if i'm paying $15 a month, i want to be able to access it anywhere, not just on my apple tv
Yeah, well, if there is no competition, this will happen. But if there is, it will just get faster, or cheaper, or more likely both.
US internet providers are pretty pricey in general, compared with most advanced countries. There is only a handful of providers, which is ridiculous for a country this large. If Comcast ends up adding TWC to its portfolio, we might as well start calling broadband "Comcastnet" in the US....
A main issue is that Comcast owns or controls not only the pipes, but also the large bits of popular content: stuff like NBC, Universal, sports franchises like the NHL, as well as shares in a myriad of tech and content companies. Without Net Neutrality, competing entities would have been at a significant disadvantage.
I personally don't feel any regrets that the Comcast monopoly was regulated a bit. When one company owns the pipes and the content, we might as well nationalize the whole thing: at least then you can vote the bums out.
And speaking of government, Comcast is very savvy at fostering beneficial relations with local officials, often by rather crass methods, like employing their family members.... Kind of like the mob.
Half the price ?
I pay 7.99 a month for NetFlix.
And Pay 15.00 HBO Reruns after you watch the maybe 5 movies added per month. HBO Is 10.99 with cable. I don't get these prices. Time will tell.
I pay 7.99 a month for NetFlix.
And Pay 15.00 HBO Reruns after you watch the maybe 5 movies added per month. HBO Is 10.99 with cable. I don't get these prices. Time will tell.