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 to Introduce Standalone Web-Only Subscriptions in 2015
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except that Cable TV sucks because the channels are all "appointment viewing", whereas with AppleTV everything is "on demand". When you can watch what you want, when you want, on your schedule, you won't go back to the former.
Cord Cutter since May 2009.
Got it, thanks.
I am listening to the NPR podcast right now. Very informational.
----------
I don't disagree. On-demand is clearly superior. However, I'm not sure you can fight all battles on all fronts at the same time.
Between huge on demand collections and DVR use there's practically almost no "appointment viewing" with cable/satellite/etc. TV providers.
So you think that you should support the music artists with more than a 'couple of cents' (and I happen to agree with you). But shouldn't you also want to support the artists that make the content of the channels you want with more than a couple of cents?
The way the current model works is that people watch different channels. You may watch CBS and TNT the most but I prefer tpThe History Channel and Discovery. When we both subscribe to a package that contains all four channels all four receive proceeds from both of us, thus keeping their programming going. If they are split up to an ala carte menu then in order to continue making those wonderful programs we like they must increase their revenue. So each of us will actually need to pay more just to stay even.
Now multiply that by many channels. Ala carte pricing per channel will have to be many times higher in order for each channel to continue.
I don't think people who want ala carte pricing really understand how the industry works. Yes, I really dislike seeing 10 shopping channels and 15 religious channels that I will never watch but some people do watch them and the revenue those channels provide helps fund the channels and programs I do like.
Ala carte sounds really nice but it will be just as expensive as the bundles, or, most likely more expensive. Either that or the programming will go down and all we will get is stupid reality cr@p.
That's just what the cable companies are hoping!!! You'll be dropping $10.00 per channel. HBO GO may charge $19.99/mo as a stand alone, who knows.
What NEEDS to happen, is after all these channels go direct to customer, Apple needs to visit each one, throw them money, and offer us a $30/mo subscription for up to 10 channels, live streaming via Apple TV or actual TV. I'd pay Apple $30/mo to get to choose my 10 channels. Even better, let me choose the actual shows I want to watch, much like season passes. I don't even want to buy channels, I just want to buy shows. I only watch about 5-7 shows, so I would never pay more then $30/mo for 10 channels of MY choosing, live tv included.
I will never pay for a bundle of 200 channels again. Right now, I live off free streams and iTunes season passes.
Sounds great!!!
IMO.....In other news; the major internet service provider companies that are losing money on HBO doing this will most likely be raising the costs of internet to compensate therefore anyone streaming HBO by itself on another device without cable will be eating the cost. Because the ISP's can...
IMO.....In other news; the major internet service provider companies that are losing money on HBO doing this will most likely be raising the costs of internet to compensate therefore anyone streaming HBO by itself on another device without cable will be eating the cost. Because the ISP's can...
No one said you wouldnt be able to do that. HBO is just adding another option for those that want it
Any company that can do away with those cable box rentals, that will be alright by me. It's 2014, our computers have computers. Why do we need stand-alone cable boxes. We all have the hardware needed, just do it via software.
HBO could easily do $19.99/mo to start, but if all popular channels try doing the same, nobody will pay, and the prices will come down. Hell, I'd drop $5/mo for the few networks/studios I watch content from.
Imagine having a cable subscription via Apple. No additional hardware to rent except buying the $99 Apple TV. Buy channels directly from the Apple TV with a click. Charges right to your iTunes account. I'd buy HBO, AMC, Comedy Central, CNN, and maybe a couple others.
No renting cable boxes, so hidden HD fees, etc.
But guess what Comcast then raises your internet to $99/mo for 3Mbps service. LOL You can't win against these devils.
HBO could easily do $19.99/mo to start, but if all popular channels try doing the same, nobody will pay, and the prices will come down. Hell, I'd drop $5/mo for the few networks/studios I watch content from.
Imagine having a cable subscription via Apple. No additional hardware to rent except buying the $99 Apple TV. Buy channels directly from the Apple TV with a click. Charges right to your iTunes account. I'd buy HBO, AMC, Comedy Central, CNN, and maybe a couple others.
No renting cable boxes, so hidden HD fees, etc.
But guess what Comcast then raises your internet to $99/mo for 3Mbps service. LOL You can't win against these devils.
Apple could sell the iPhone for $449 instead of $649 too. I'm guessing HBO wants to make as much money as possible, just like Apple does.
Hey Apple why cant I still not get HBO Go with Charter Communications? Oh wait people will tell me it is my cable company and my cable company will tell me it is Apple. STOP LYING AND GIVE ME MY HBO GO!
And then the internet service providers jack up the rates due to all the streaming.
True. Hell, I don't even know why we're talking about options. In another 3-4 years, Comcast is going to own everything, and we'll all end up having to work in the salt mines to pay our mandatory cable bills.
"We have charged you $345 for that pay per view you never ordered because we, in our infinite wisdom, have deemed it necessary for the betterment of The Company. Do not assume it was a mistake on our part. We do not make mistakes. Rather, we move in ways you cannot comprehend."
But our mercy is as infinite as our wisdom, and your tears have moved us. We have thus credited your account $5. Thank you for calling Comcast, there is no escape."
I cut the cord a while ago and reconciled it's far cheaper to wait and buy Blurays of Game of Thrones. HBO boldly going where no premium provider dare go before is highly welcome news at my house.
It's not all about price. I would pay more than cable, for fewer channels, if it meant I didn't have to deal with contracts, equipment rentals, installers, sales calls constantly trying to get me to install landline phone service, etc. Just let me buy my Apple TVs or whatever and leave me alone.
What "working with our current partners" means to me is that the cable companies are being assured that they won't lose money on standalone HBO subscribers. The cable companies will make sure they get paid either way.
This is so awesome! Hopefully it'll be A) cheaper than adding it to cable and 2) available on Apple TV.
I know it'd be cheaper for me (and I have Direct TV).
MLB $110 ($130 for Premium)
NBA $149-5 teams ($199 for all)
NFL $239 TV Only (329 for Max) - Only with Direct TV or in very specialized circumstances.
Direct TV package costs (rough estimates with tax, possible DVR fee etc, leaving out the one that includes the premium channels obviously YMMV) $70 - $100.
3 full sport packages $498-$659.
DirectTV packages $840-$1200.
Even at the insane full 3 sport packages (Sunday Ticket Max? That much to stream to a device? Really?), you'd have to have pretty much the cheapest plan not to be fairly equal or better off. And if you drop one of those sports, you're notably ahead.
Obviously there's plenty of caveats with the numbers above (you want to watch a local game that's only on cable, tough, we have no idea what a regular channel would charge with an OTT model, you can try to badger your provider yearly for a deal etc), but I know for the 6-8 channels I watch, and the two sports I pay for full access, I'd be saving a notable amount of money even if each of those non-premium channels charged 5x what they charge the cable/sat company to carry them right now, and I doubt that would actually end up being the case.
Hopefully the real solutions are offered.
Live TV only matters for news, some events and sports
mlb.tv sucks with the local blackout restriction
HBO will make a lot of money simply streaming to millions of new customers who don't have cable and not limited by the infrastructure, as soon as you pay them they make money, and then don't have to deal with the infrastructure, it's up to the ISP for you bandwidth.
The tiered approach for selecting which channels to have on demand will be the real deal.
Current streaming services with commercials are really annoying, so the business model is the same charge for the service plus get the commercials $$$$.
Amazon and Netflix are better in terms of not having annoying commercials.
Even with a paid subscription to cable the on demand and streaming have commercials.
Live TV only matters for news, some events and sports
mlb.tv sucks with the local blackout restriction
HBO will make a lot of money simply streaming to millions of new customers who don't have cable and not limited by the infrastructure, as soon as you pay them they make money, and then don't have to deal with the infrastructure, it's up to the ISP for you bandwidth.
The tiered approach for selecting which channels to have on demand will be the real deal.
Current streaming services with commercials are really annoying, so the business model is the same charge for the service plus get the commercials $$$$.
Amazon and Netflix are better in terms of not having annoying commercials.
Even with a paid subscription to cable the on demand and streaming have commercials.
I believe it will be the same as the current HBOGO for < $20/month.
That’s a little more than HBO as bundled through most cable/sat providers and it’s _only_ GO services which means limited movies and sporting events vs. cable based HBO (with or without GO), but all series including GOT There’s enough differentiation with GO vs. HBO-cable, plus the consideration of extra equipment, that there will still be a decent about of cable based HBO subs.
I also think some cable networks like AMC and FX will step up with the same option, using the same app interface as they currently offer, for ~$10/month.
I’d love to see AppleTV offer some kind of OTA/local integration into a single UI.
That’s a little more than HBO as bundled through most cable/sat providers and it’s _only_ GO services which means limited movies and sporting events vs. cable based HBO (with or without GO), but all series including GOT
There’s enough differentiation with GO vs. HBO-cable, plus the consideration of extra equipment, that there will still be a decent about of cable based HBO subs.I also think some cable networks like AMC and FX will step up with the same option, using the same app interface as they currently offer, for ~$10/month.
I’d love to see AppleTV offer some kind of OTA/local integration into a single UI.
I'm totally OK with some channels not continuing, I'm not sure how many channels we need that rerun Dateline NBC.
Additionally, if a program is of any actual popularity and/or quality, it'd should be able to find a home in a new place, it's not like there isn't plenty of room out there even if 2/3 of the cable channels disappeared.