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.
WSJ on Apple's Video Service: Starz, Showtime, and HBO to Cost $9.99 Per Month, Roku May Gain Apple TV App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You mean $10 for the month (or two) that the new episodes of Game of Thrones is aired, or $10/mo for the whole year? Seems dumb to pay $120/yr for 6 weeks of GoT and 46 weeks of junk.
Not that we watch it, but if we did, just wait for one of the free weekends and watch it then. FOR FREE! Same for Showtime and Starz. Even on free weekends, there ain't nothin' worth watching.
No way it will be that cheap. Anybody noticed a trend with Apple lately in every product line and service? It certainly is not "affordable".
My guess is for the TV app to be an aggregator of programs, not networks, with the content providers being paid for each viewing. So in that case HBO et al. would decide to include whatever programming they wanted, and there would be one flat monthly fee paid to Apple by the customer.
Siri sucks. Apple Music is the worst of them all (including Deezer). Apple Maps is complete and utter garbage. We'll only use iCloud because it's literally the only option.
Funny how the most incompetent division will lead the way for the future...
It will be super hard for Apple to compete in this market, with Netflix and Hulu having such a huge head start. I can't believe the great content both providers have, but if Apple can do it also, I will pay for it. I dumped DirecTV over three years ago and have been lovin' it ever since.
What I don't like, is paying for HBO and STARZ, to get their content. (True Detective, Ray Donovan, GoT, etc)
What I don't like, is paying for HBO and STARZ, to get their content. (True Detective, Ray Donovan, GoT, etc)
Funny! It's like me saying the only sports worth watching on TV is Curling.
Well you asked why no other company has hired him. It's because he's busy being an award-winning Broadway director which shows his level of creativity, leadership and ability to succeed in both tech (Apple) and liberal arts (live theater). That kind of skill set can come in handy in leading a company like Apple that lives at the "intersection of technology and liberal arts" as Steve Jobs once put it.
its typically a $15 add on IF your service offers it. Even the revamped directv now packages are jumping in price and rearranging some of this. My guess is apple will have a base VOD streaming package you subscribe to and you can add premium content such as HBO similar to amazon prime video. $10 per premium channel is a very good deal, given our lack of details.
This is what I want. One fee to watch whatever I want. Just like Apple Music.
Except when they gave away 4K for free to people who previously purchased the movies and any new movies you got 4K for “free” unlike Vudu which charges a premium (they since matched Apple). Like that?
I don’t watch sports. Which sucks since all the sports people are the reason TV in general costs so much.
You can already do all of these things with Roku. It is only Apple only people that are in the dark. I subscribe to Netflix, HBO, Starz, and CBS and all I need is a Roku stick. There are over a hundred channels on offer. You can get all the major channels through Amazon Prime as well. Apple is late to the party, but if you only live in an Apple world then this is news to you.
[doublepost=1553525637][/doublepost]
Ohh. Burn, but unfortunately very probably true.
[doublepost=1553525637][/doublepost]
Ohh. Burn, but unfortunately very probably true.
Last edited:
And I hope fairies and unicorns bring me my morning coffee and breakfast every morning.
So because he and his wife were co-producers on one broadway play that means he should be running Apple and no one else has hired him because only Apple cares about liberal arts?
I agree 100%. ESPN is "popular" mainly because it's parent company (ABC Disney) insists on mandating all carriers bundle ESPN into their packages if they want to carry ABC, Disney, A&E, Lifetime, etc. at all. The cable/satellite companies then have to pay a per-subscriber fee for ESPN even though there are many that don't watch sports.
All that artificially inflated ESPN's revenue and the consumers' costs. It finally caught up to them in the last few years as cord-cutting became possible and people signed up for services that didn't include ESPN. Now ESPN has nowhere near the revenue they did because they simply can't compete on their own and on-air talent is being scaled back in favor of more actual sports. ESPN is a perfect example of what can happen when the revenue stream is not dependent on the quality of the product.
That is exactly why I think a la carte pricing should be standard with certain groups of similar programming offered as bundles. The media companies are preventing consumers from having the choices they want.
I don't think so. More and more people own smart TV's and all of these services are on offer. Most people I know prefer watching their 4k 50 plus inch TV than a tiny (by comparison) tablet or computer screen. There is nothing "futuristic" about stating at an tiny iPhone screen. Why do you think Apple needs to make deals to get AirPlay going?
[doublepost=1553527291][/doublepost]
I only pay $10 for HBO through Amazon, but this might be because I also have Amazon Prime.
[doublepost=1553527497][/doublepost]
No he is right. There is a difference between HBO Now, which is limited and subscribing to the channel. Having done both I can tell you that the above poster is correct. This is Apple copying what has already been done by Amazon.
Huh. Autoplay is the first thing I turn off in any streaming app. I can't stand it, and I'm quite capable of hitting a button to get the next episode going when I am ready.