This will probably precipitate other services allowing a web-only subscription, and will hopefully begin the price war with cable!
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
Sure but the DVR is still only recording what's on the cable schedule. With AppleTV / Netflix / etc. you can watch an entire season (or seasons) on demand at any time IN ORDER from beginning to end without taking up any disk space because it's all streamed. Netflix has tons of older shows with every single episode of every season (or all but the latest season for current shows)... all at your finger tips. I had a DVR for over a decade. It was great, but I cut the cord 2 years ago and streaming is far better. The only problem with streaming right now is fragmentation... having to use multiple apps to access content. I imagine the "killer app" of the rumoured Apple Television (if it ever happens) would be to somehow get deals in place that allow them to offer EVERYTHING streamed from ONE central location (rather than multiple apps and services). In that sense, cable is better. But overall I would never go back. Plus I'm saving $1600 / year. Cable cost me a BOATLOAD of money! Way too expensive.
Very clever post... And asks the right questions
It is very true that Cable providers "Bundle" channels you do not need... I, for one, will be in line to subscribe and cut the cord so to speak...I am with TWC in Milwaukee, WI and I only use them for the Internet high seed (50 Mbs when in Europe they have 100 Mbs and above.)
Hopefully a wake up call for cable providers who are being cheap and do not improve their infrastructure while sucking the money out f their customers... Another "Dracula: the untold story" type of scenario...
You're only right if the cable subscription monthly fee is $10 like Spotify. Otherwise, apples to oranges comparison
Well,
I like the NBA, F1 and soccer. So basically will need TNT, ESPN, TW Sports Net, BeIn, NBC Sports and ABC. Add few more channels (6 to 8) for TV shows, I wonder if this is going to end up costing the same $70 p/month including DVR that I pay.
Even if ends up costing less, I don't see being a huge savings.
What really kills IMO is live sports. That's why I think Apple will have a huge issue trying to make
TV a feasible content distribution channel. The major leagues and international sports organizations make billions on broadcast rights. Hard to brake this model.We do??? What Apple did with iTunes starting in 2002 or so suggests exactly the opposite. Plenty of us are happy buying songs a la carte. It's a million times better than being forced to buy a whole album with 1 good song and 11 junk songs for $15.99 as was the case in the 1990's. What we really want is the option. Let people have the choice to go a la carte or flat rate. That's better than the one size fits all approach that, so far, has only benefitted cable and satellite providers and not consumers.
But in those cases you don't get anything that's airing now. Sure, might be fine for some, but not so much for others.
It's finally happening. But I can't wait until cable companies start throttling the hell out of these streaming services. Oh wait, some of them already are. We need to somehow move away from cable companies providing us internet access. Too bad Google and their anti-privacy goons are leading the way on that front.
I don't have to imagine that; I had DishTV when they offered any 10 channels for $15/month (not including some channels like HBO, which was extra). Although that was still about 7 channels too many for me. But I don't watch channels, I watch shows, and very few at that, so these days I get them from iTunes.
--Eric
Yeah they do, but it will take a company with enough money and enough potential subscribers to keep the price low (Apple), especially if Apple wants to break into the TV market. What better than an Apple television set that comes with all your favorite channels? That's why Apple needs to go after NFL Sunday Ticket. Can you imagine even, the Apple TV with these capabilities, and not even a full-fledged television.
Everyone is greedy, I got that, but you make more money selling 10 million people something for $30 than selling something for $100 to a 1 million people. If Apple doesn't do it, Google, Microsoft, Amazon are in a great place to revolutionize television as we know it.
This would elminate more than half of the shopping and infomercial channels that I get on Directv. Tiers like you mentioned would be sweet.
Only problem with your analogy is that the buffet is really: pay $10 and you can get dessert and bread. But if you want meat and potatoes with that dessert and bread, that will be $20. Now if you want a premium dessert, that will be $5 more or $25 total.
The only variable-price buffet I've ever seen is a Chinese buffet where you have to pay extra for crab legs.
Otherwise... all 50+ buffet items are included in your purchase... whether you like them or not.
You hate okra? Too bad... you're still paying for it in the price of the buffet.
You don't get to pay less for fewer buffet items. That was the point I was making.
And that's why people are upset with cable. They're paying for channels they'll never watch... much like they're paying for buffet items they'll never eat. It's the same general concept.
Yeah... what you want is Basic cable... with the ability to choose 10 channels from the Expanded cable lineup.
I just don't think you would save any money doing it that way.
Time Warner Cable has a "Starter TV" package with 20+ channels including local channels for $20 a month*
But for $40 a month... you can get their "Standard TV" package which includes 70+ channels. That's not too bad, is it?
Now imagine if they offered you a plan like you described... where you could get the Starter package but you also get to choose 10 additional cable channels.
Do you think it would cost less than the $40 they charge for the next package with all those extra channels included?
If not... then why not just go ahead and get the next plan and simply ignore all the extra channels?
That's where these ideas fall apart.
Yeah bundling sucks... but that's what the entire cable industry is based on.
(* These are the first year prices just as a frame of reference)
Howdy, well the beauty of a la carte is that channels can't stand on the shoulders of others. If you think a channel has become terrible, you can just cancel your subscription. That incentivizes content creators to keep their quality high. I prefer that kind of honest relationship between an artist or content provider and their customers. As for pricing, well I guess that remains to be seen. But HBO will certainly do some market research and figure out what will attract the cord-cutters.
You assume we all want 100+ channels. I'm pretty happy with the 4 broadcast networks ever since I cut the cord. (no, I don't count the CW) I wouldn't mind adding a few other shows, but I'm not going after 10 different cable groups at $10 each.
Nope. I watch one show on HBO (GoT). Never watch Showtime, AMC, Comedy Central, etc.
Besides, it looks like the cable model will also be available, for those who want it. Would be nice to pay less for fewer channels though... I watch maybe 5 out of the 100s I receive.
It's not an exact analogy, but for the purposes of this argument it is close enough. And you know that, or you wouldn't have removed the part of my post that drew the context before you quoted it.
----------
Screwed up their business model? WTF are you talking about? If you mean digital music they saved their business. Any music industry executive will tell you that if they're honest. Piracy in the digital age was going to destroy the record industry.
Video media companies can be more oppressive than the music industry has been, because they saw some of this coming ahead of time, and did what they could to slow the tide. But the water is trickling over the levee now, and they will have to either build a boat or drown. Because the water is coming.
What you don't seem to understand is that the numbers are inflated, and the beauty of the market is that it will eventually adjust the market to fit the demand. The days of actors getting $20-$40 million for a movie are coming to an end.
----------
Actually, when I can watch my LOCAL team on mlb.tv...
What you are describing is what basic cable already is. You pay for tiers, and extra for add-ons. Except you get a bunch of other crap for "free." You really pay for what you want, except you can't choose what else is included.
Now, if commercials were cut out, then you'd have something there.
Its starting - finally
Cable TV is so outdated, we all just need an internet connection and stream everything, nice to see this.
Cable TV is so outdated, we all just need an internet connection and stream everything, nice to see this.