Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

HBO Moved Development In-House to Speed Apple TV Project

jamescobalt said:
and like all bullies, most of their power is an illusion they concoct. HBO is more powerful than they realize. Comcast is just scared. They know as soon as one content provider realizes they don't *need* them, the floodgates will open. Even if Comcast threatened to stop offering HBO entirely, it wouldn't last long. Consumers wouldn't stand for it. Comcast would eventually have to relent... or refund substantial amounts for unused HBO subscriptions, lose many customers, and see major drops in their stock price (and Comcast LIVES for short term stock performance...).
Click to expand...

The Cable companies have contracts with the content providers. Content providers can't just cut the cord without huge expense. The simple question content providers ask themselves is: Can we make more money with cable or without cable? When the answer is "without Cable" we will get ala carte programing on ATV and all other choices. Cable companies are running scared. If they get dumped by content providers they will only have income as ISP's. ;)
 
GoCubsGo said:
Your complaint is just like anyone else's and I agree. However, I quite like that I can get it on my ATV now because that is what is in my office. I watch HBO on demand in my family room and HBO Go on my iPad sometimes in my room. Sure, who the **** cares, but I'm happy it's part of ATV.
Click to expand...

This, and because I can't watch On Demand using my TIVO Series 3 on Comcast. This will let me watch whatever is in HBO's catalog, anytime I want.
 
Everybody wants to cut the cord and wants to be able to subscribe to channels on a per channel basis or even per show. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If that does happen I can see it being more expensive than what we have now. I can easily see each channel charging $20-$30 per month. How many channels do you think you may want? 10 to 20 maybe? You can easily get to $200-$300 per month and that doesn't include Internet which you would have to pay separately for. In my case Verizon would charge me $85 per month for Internet alone (50/25).

Be careful what you wish for.
 
TXCherokee said:
If you need a cable subscription to get HBO Go, wouldn't you have a set-top box already hooked up to the same TV as the AppleTV? This seems redundent. Does the app allow you to watch whatever HBO offers on-demand?
Click to expand...

You could use it in another room on another TV that has no cable box, or, take it on the road with you.
 
The only way Apple is ever going to break the cable monopoly is if they go out and make or buy the content directly.

They could do this by simply buying The Disney Company which owns the ABC Television Network and ESPN in the US.

Simple. They get Disney Channel, ABC TV, ESPN Sports, Films, Original TV content. All these channels could be rolled out internationally and they could add local variants to buy/broadcast UK sports for example.

Disney market cap is around $110bn so they could afford it and The Steve Jobs Trust is already the largest shareholder in Disney. Sell off the theme parks, etc and it probably wouldn't cost Apple all that much.

Alternatively buy a strategic stake in Disney and create a partnership to the same effect.

Alternatively follow Netflix and create their own original content and buy up sports broadcasting rights around the world.

Seriously it's the only way.
 
vrDrew said:
HBO's cable-based catalog of on-demand content is fairly limited. Game of Thrones, for instance, only has the current season's episodes available on-demand (at present.) The Sopranos currently has no episodes available through my cable-tv subscription.

Via the AppleTV app, however, virtually the entire back catalog of HBO material is available. All eight seasons of The Sopranos; previous seasons of Game of Thrones, Generation Kill; etc. etc.

Yes, the AppleTV version is 720 versus 1080; but its hard to complain about the quality. And if you feel the need for a binge-fix to get you up to speed on a show you didn't catch the first time around, the HBO AppleTV app is thing of beauty indeed.
Click to expand...

Apple TV 3 is 1080p. Looks great.

By the way, for whatever reason, though I was expecting that I'd have to fill in my Dish password, etc., I just launched it and there it was.
 
Shaun said:
The only way Apple is ever going to break the cable monopoly is if they go out and make or buy the content directly.

They could do this by simply buying The Disney Company which owns the ABC Television Network and ESPN in the US.

Simple. They get Disney Channel, ABC TV, ESPN Sports, Films, Original TV content. All these channels could be rolled out internationally and they could add local variants to buy/broadcast UK sports for example.

Disney market cap is around $110bn so they could afford it and The Steve Jobs Trust is already the largest shareholder in Disney. Sell off the theme parks, etc and it probably wouldn't cost Apple all that much.

Alternatively buy a strategic stake in Disney and create a partnership to the same effect.

Alternatively follow Netflix and create their own original content and buy up sports broadcasting rights around the world.

Seriously it's the only way.
Click to expand...

It's not the only way. These exclusive deals are anti-consumer. I understand where they come from historically but this model needs a rethink. I can buy The same brands in thousands of supermarkets. Why do I have to go to NBC for football, Cable/sat for HBO and Hulu for The Daily Show?

The technology has been in place for years to switch this up, it's only the dinosaur mentality of the various corporations involved that stops this. In the meantime, they continue to lose revenue to TPB which often offers a better product for free.
 
This is great and about time!

For those asking why is it a big deal if you already have a cable box. I use a TiVO, which does not... well it did not support On Demand from the cable company.

It finally does support On Demand, including HBO in our area now, but some areas do not. So if they do not have a Cable Company box and a APple TV they can watch the HBO. Though as someone mentioned I believe the HBO app supports more than what is on the HBO On Demand channel from the cable company.

Either way it a good thing to finally show up on the Apple TV. Makes the device more useful. Now if HBO will do something like the NFL ticket does and provide an online only package without paying as much that would be a great thing and people could look at dropping cable.

Some day...
 
You don't get it. But get it for the long run.

First off, make sure you understand that you cannot watch HBO Go on apple tv unless you have a login for a user that has cable TV *and* subscribes to HBO! Got it. You gotta have both. Now, if that person happens to be Mom or Dad or your best friend and they give you a login on their account you win.

This is huge but not for that reason.

What this does is make Apple TV a set-top-box without the RF cable in the back. Yes, the writer of the article is correct; there are dragons here for both HBO (and ESPN) and the cable companies. A new dance has begun which will shake out over the next decade or so. Factor in the possibility that the FCC may force cable providers to unbundle and that would push the providers (HBO, ESPN, etc.) to make deals with Apple, Roku, Hulu, and Amazon. At that point the flood gates would open and Comcast, TW, etc. would then become simply a commodity pipe to your home and they would lose the monopoly they have had for years on delivering content to your home. But, at that point I suspect the gloves would come off, and the peering agreement (non compete) that the cable companies have would vanish. You would then be able to order Comcast video content over the internet even if you happened not to be in a Comcast area for the traditional RF cable! (Have you ever wondered why you could not do that today; there is no technical reason but the cable companies have agreed for years not to compete with each other.)

This is every bit as disruptive as what occurred in the phone industry when AT&T and the Bells were disbanded and suddenly you could buy phones and phone service from anyone. Twenty years later does anyone pay for long distance? What has happened to the traditional hard wired phone system?

Stay tuned. It's going to be a fun ride.
 
Comcast sucks the big one

I fully did not expect Comcast to allow this since they still don't allow it on the Roku.... and of course, they don't.

Screw you comcast!
 
WhoDaKat said:
Um, first who cares. Great HBO is available on the Apple TV.... so? Since you already have cable, you have access to all of HBOs catalog via the cable you already pay for. Gee shall I watch GOT on the HBO GO channel on my cable box, or shall I watch it on HBO GO the AppleTV channel. Um, again, who cares?

And I'm so glad they took the entire project in house and did it themselves, it looks... just like every other AppleTV app. Way to go HBO!

Sorry HBO, we will gladly pay for the content we want, but if you force us to spend a $100 a month on cable to get your shows.... don't be surprised when we find a better way. :)
Click to expand...

Not everyone has cable. I have DISH. Guess what - DISH doesn't authenticate HBO Go on the web. They do on their Anywhere apps for iPhone and iPad, but not the web. Really stupid. So I can't hook a laptop up to my TV and watch HBO Go, but I can now use Apple TV without the need to forward my iPad display via AirPlay. That's a win.

Granted, I have Google TV as well, but it's first gen and Flash ALWAYS crashes on that damn thing.
 
rocknblogger said:
Everybody wants to cut the cord and wants to be able to subscribe to channels on a per channel basis or even per show. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If that does happen I can see it being more expensive than what we have now. I can easily see each channel charging $20-$30 per month. How many channels do you think you may want? 10 to 20 maybe? You can easily get to $200-$300 per month and that doesn't include Internet which you would have to pay separately for. In my case Verizon would charge me $85 per month for Internet alone (50/25).

Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

Yes, i've thought the same and this is a real possibility. The other thing you potentially lose is all of the channels you only occasionally watch but do enjoy, because they are underwritten by the profitable channels. The providers do this in order to lump as much value into their ever increasing prices.

I can see popular content providers going for $30 per month and a fair amount of others in the $5-10 range. Suddenly AMC jumps from $7 a month to $15 because of the popularity of Mad Men etc.
 
robanga said:
Yes, i've thought the same and this is a real possibility. The other thing you potentially lose is all of the channels you only occasionally watch but do enjoy, because they are underwritten by the profitable channels. The providers do this in order to lump as much value into their ever increasing prices.

I can see popular content providers going for $30 per month and a fair amount of others in the $5-10 range. Suddenly AMC jumps from $7 a month to $15 because of the popularity of Mad Men etc.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right. I'm sure there's a percentage of users who would be okay with that because they may not watch a lot of TV, but I think for a larger majority it wouldn't make economic sense. There's also the matter of convenience. If you have to have multiple sources like ATV, Roku, XBOX, Internet or any number of other options, it becomes a hassle to continually change sources to watch what you want.

People make it sound like there should be a simple solution. The fact of the matter is that it's very complicated and as I read many of the comments here I see that people don't understand that.
 
robanga said:
Yes I think can speculate on that. First, it would nullify their contracts with the providers so that would put them in breach, or require a cancelation and renegotiation.
Click to expand...

Why would it nullify their contracts with providers? Is that pure conjecture?
 
WhoDaKat said:
Sorry HBO, we will gladly pay for the content we want, but if you force us to spend a $100 a month on cable to get your shows.... don't be surprised when we find a better way. :)
Click to expand...
Better way rhymes with Pirate ___.

I see what you did there :D
 
mdelvecchio said:
Amazon Prime is a competing content store, so i doubt we will see that. would love to be wrong, but...

my question is -- why hasnt Amazon Prime allowed AirPlay out on their app? if they did that, problem solved.
Click to expand...

because they plan on putting their own box out.
 
rocknblogger said:
Everybody wants to cut the cord and wants to be able to subscribe to channels on a per channel basis or even per show. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If that does happen I can see it being more expensive than what we have now. I can easily see each channel charging $20-$30 per month. How many channels do you think you may want? 10 to 20 maybe? You can easily get to $200-$300 per month and that doesn't include Internet which you would have to pay separately for. In my case Verizon would charge me $85 per month for Internet alone (50/25).

Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

As an example, cable-type programming is available on C-band satellite in an ala carte version. Typical channels like IFC are available for $6/month, no minimum number of channels required.
http://www.skyvision.com/programming/alacarte.html

Small packages of ten channels are a little more and give some choice. The Pick 10 pack for $20/month gives a choice of ten channels of

∙ Centeric (BET Jazz) ∙ Biography/History International (2) ∙ Bloomberg
∙ Bravo E&W ∙ Chiller ∙ Cooking Channel ∙ Current TV
∙ Disney XD (Toon Disney) ∙ Fox Movie Channel
∙ Fox Soccer Channel ∙ FUSE ∙ G4 ∙ Game Show Network
∙ GAC ∙ Halogen (Inspirational Life)
∙ HGTV E&W ∙ History E&W ∙ IFC ∙ Lifetime Movie Network
∙ National Geographic ∙ OLN (Versus) ∙ Outdoor ∙ RFD ∙ Sci-Fi
∙ Shop NBC ∙ Sleuth ∙ Speed ∙ Sprout for Kids ∙ Style
∙ TBN ∙ Turner Classic Movies ∙ The Word
∙ TV Games ∙ WE

HBO and ESPN used to be included in these packages, but were dropped due to blackout restrictions.

http://www.skyvision.com/programming/dsr410pack.html#10pak

Something similar would happen to cable channels purchased ala carte.

I used to subscribe to a similar collection including ESPN, HBO, Cinemax, Starz (still available), and others, but the ones listed above are the only ones still available.

----------

If you have cable and a Silicon Dust Homerun Prime, you can use a cable card to record all of the channels including HBO, and watch them when you want on any device, including computers, tablets, smartphones, etc. Probably also the ATV with the Plex hack, since the files are just mpg files. This is all legal. Usenet files are mostly blocked by HBO since January. Torrents are still available, but also illegal.
 
MacDav said:
The Cable companies have contracts with the content providers. Content providers can't just cut the cord without huge expense. The simple question content providers ask themselves is: Can we make more money with cable or without cable? When the answer is "without Cable" we will get ala carte programing on ATV and all other choices. Cable companies are running scared. If they get dumped by content providers they will only have income as ISP's. ;)
Click to expand...

And that, unfortunately, is the day we start getting data caps or charged per GB on our in-home internet service.
 
Akuratyde said:
Why would it nullify their contracts with providers? Is that pure conjecture?
Click to expand...

I'm almost positive that any contract HBO holds with any of the major providers very much limit what they can do to sell direct. We do know for sure this was part of similar agreements at ESPN and the NFL.
 
I think the only institution with a lower satisfaction rating than the cable companies is the US Congress.

I cannot wait until the cable / satellite companie's grip on content is shattered, and consumers can pick and choose the channels they want to have, instead of having a 200 channel package for the 8-10 channels they actually care about.

And I hope all of the executives of those monopolistic practices lose all their bennies and golden parachutes.
 
robanga said:
I'm almost positive that any contract HBO holds with any of the major providers very much limit what they can do to sell direct. We do know for sure this was part of similar agreements at ESPN and the NFL.
Click to expand...

Okay, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for responding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back