6 ms·

HBO’s New Streaming Service, HBO Now, Exclusive to Apple at Launch

48 points by blhack 12y ago

sergers 12y ago
3 month exclusive for signups through the HBO iOS app only for HBO standalone service. can also access via the hbo now website on pc or mac
laluser 12y ago
This is huge for HBO. Although it will be a difficult battle, it seems that they are fully committed to breaking ties with traditional TV cable providers.
- function_seven 12y ago
  I have a feeling we'll find out that the cable companies need HBO more than HBO needs the cable companies. The cord-cutting trend has barely just begun. Television five years from now will be a completely different landscape than it is today, and the change from now to then will make what has happened over the past five years look like barely a movement.
- a_c_s 12y ago
  I was poking around when this was first announced, and if I remember correctly it seems like HBO only gets $4-$6 per cable subscriber. So even with the administrative overhead, the per-subscriber profits will almost certainly be significantly higher.
pbreit 12y ago
So this is what the a la carte advocates want? Two channels (HBO & ESPN) for $35? Bundling seems so obviously the better way to approach this (180 channels for $65).
- andymoe 12y ago
  No, I just want HBO and don't want to pay for the expensive base cable packages required to get it at all... Happy to pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus too since it adds value to me where as incrementally more cable channels do not.
- urda 12y ago
  You mean 180 channels, where 160-170 are just absolute trash? So you're really paying $65 bucks for 10-20 channels at best. Not much of a deal there. I'm very welcome to this pick what you want idea. I'm ready for cable to die as a cord cutter.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    Yeah, because $3.25-$6.50/channel is totally not a deal, compared to $17.5/channel. At all.
    - IanCal 12y ago
      That depends entirely on what you want to watch, surely. It's still $30 more, so if those extra channels aren't worth $30 to you then it's much better. Besides, I'm not sure what you get if you have a larger cable package. The HBO $14.99 appears to be for a big back-catalogue.
      - diminoten 12y ago
        I'm commenting solely on the factual incorrectness of saying the above was not a deal, when it very clearly was, assuming "deal" means a more economical choice. That's all.
        IanCal 12y ago
        > I'm commenting solely on the factual incorrectness of saying the above was not a deal, when it very clearly was, assuming "deal" means a more economical choice. And again, this assumes that all channels are equally valuable to you. Spending more money on things you do not want is not more economical.
        diminoten 12y ago
        Person I replied to said 10-20 "valuable" channels.
- narrowrail 12y ago
  A la carte shows not channels. The TV people want it to be a discussion about channels, but the concept of channels doesn't make sense when one looks at the idea from a distance. Sports watching seems to be its own world due to the live nature of the content.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    Shows? That's even sillier. You'd be paying 10x for a fraction of the content. TV would never work if stations had such a hard time getting folks to sample. Just pretend you're only paying for your shows and everything else is free. You would not be paying less money a la carte.
- qq66 12y ago
  Bundling is better for some consumers, unbundled is better for some consumers, depending on their preferences. An incomplete analysis can be found here: https://livingeconomics.org/article.asp?docId=288 https://livingeconomics.org/article.asp?docId=288 , incomplete because it doesn't reflect that when moving from a pure bundling to mixed-bundling regime, the bundle prices should theoretically increase, and also because it's an analysis of markets where marginal costs are positive. Furthermore, for TV in particular, there's the effect that an unbundled channel will get lower viewership than a bundled channel, and thus will receive lower advertising revenues, so the unbundled price will be driven up considerably higher. In short, people who are crazy about one or two channels/content sources will love unbundling, people who watch a lot of channels will hate the (inexorable) advent of unbundling.
- __david__ 12y ago
  > Bundling seems so obviously the better way to approach this (180 channels for $65). 180 basic channels, not including HBO. HBO is $15/month on top of your basic cable package, at least from my cable provider. Oh Showtime, too? That's another $15. Oh, Cinemax? Yup, another $15.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    Plus, at least in Redwood City, CA, Comcast wouldn't give us HBO on our $63/basic cable, they wanted us to purchase a Digital Cable Box (~ $90), and then pay $85/month for Digital Cable. And then, and only then, would they give us the 6 month $15/month HBO promo. Between Amazon Prime (Which I have already for free shipping), Netflix ($8/month), and HBO ($15/month) - I have pretty much all the entertainment I'm really interested in for $23/month. Every so often something good will pop up that Netflix doesn't have - at which point I'll go to ITunes for $20-25 to pick up a season. On an annual basis, way, way, way less than I would have paid for cable. My only concern is that I don't know if I'll be able to watch HBO on the road, or whether I'll need an Apple TV.
    - pbreit 12y ago
      Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, The Americans, Justified, Walking Dead, Daily Show, Broadchurch, Downton Abbey (not sure which of these you're able to view)? I'll cut you some slack on not getting any of the major networks since the cheap digital antennas can work very well. In San Francisco we get 180 channels + HBO + DVR + 50mbps internet for $100 month. That includes being able to watch TV/DVR/OnDemand on pretty much any device, from anywhere.
      - ghshephard 12y ago
        You have good taste. I've actually purchased Some of those from iTunes (Mad Men), if I want to talk about them with others. Otherwise I usually can wait a few years for them to come out on Netflix (Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Downton Abbey). Perhaps I just got so used to not having a TV (last time around 2003), that I've adjusted my behavior and expectations such that I don't miss it. If I was a sports junky, this would probably be different - that seems to be the last bastion of Cable TV - once that goes, it will be a good thing that the major cable companies are also the major internet suppliers.
- yAnonymous 12y ago
  1800 channels for $650 would be even better.
- a_c_s 12y ago
  I don't watch sports, so what I want is only $15. Big sports fans might only pay for ESPN, and those who watch a lot of both will pay $35. (Where I am, HBO is an extra $21/month, so $15/month is actually a discount!)
- yazaddaruvala 12y ago
  Previously, it wasn't just that TV channels were bundled. Rather, the prices for each individual channel weren't known. How could you even decide if the bundle is a good deal without knowing the price of its components? So, even for the subset of people who would prefer bundling, this is a great thing! Now we can actually tell if a bundle is being competitive.
blhack 12y ago
After some digging, it sounds like "exclusive" is used pretty loosely here. You can log in with a browser, its just registration that requires and apple device, and that includes osx.
rodgerd 12y ago
Nope. It means HBO will be getting money exclusively from Apple users. Everyone else will be getting the service for free.
spdy 12y ago
Even with AppleTV this is US only? Any guesses if this will be usable via VPN like Netflix?
- cjg_ 12y ago
  Well, depends where you live, HBO Nordic is available in some nordic countries (at ~$10). However not on AppleTV I believe.
  - tolle 12y ago
    Yeah, but you have to airplay it to the Apple TV. No app on the actual Apple TV Device. The iOS app could also use some love.
fuligo 12y ago
What I want entertainment companies to give me is exactly equivalent to the result of downloading episodes from illegal Bittorrent sites plus the ability to actually pay for them. I want a DRM-less HD video file that I can play on any computer, when I want. I want to be able to download it from anywhere I might be in the world, and my nationality should not have an effect on the availability of the content. Heck, if HBO had a web-based tip jar, I would just pay something for every Game of Thrones episode and otherwise go straight ahead and torrent it. You know, HBO, don't "offer" me anything, just give me an option to pay you which makes my download quasi-legal, and I'll take care of the rest myself.
- sebkomianos 12y ago
  Thing is, what would be the numbers behind that? Would HBO make more money if they sold each episode separately to everyone all around the globe than it does now (= licensing the series to individual networks in every country)? Because, an extra cost, for example, would be the subtitling. Right now it's done either from the networks that HBO sells the show rights to or from the torrent scene. HBO would have to hire people to do this job per episode, per show, etc.
  - fuligo 12y ago
    > Would HBO make more money if they sold each episode separately to everyone all around the globe They would make more than they make now, that's for sure. Because right now, there is no way for me to pay them. > Because, an extra cost, for example, would be the subtitling. I don't want subtitling, just because I'm from a foreign country. What little legal content consumption options I have, they always and mandatorily come with either dubbing or subtitles. > HBO would have to hire people to do this job per episode, per show, etc. Like I said, that's what they (or in this case you, if you work for them) think, but that's not what I asked for. I want the show, within a few days after it aired, in an open format, with none of that internationalization crap or any added "value". People who want those extra things can use any of the existing sales channels. I want what I can have right now illegally and conveniently, made legal by paying for it. This might not cover or replace the existing subscriber base, but it would be an opportunity to bring additional customers on board at next-to zero cost. Just by shutting up and taking my money.

48 points by blhack 12y ago

3 month exclusive for signups through the HBO iOS app only for HBO standalone service. can also access via the hbo now website on pc or mac

laluser 12y ago

This is huge for HBO. Although it will be a difficult battle, it seems that they are fully committed to breaking ties with traditional TV cable providers.

function_seven 12y ago
I have a feeling we'll find out that the cable companies need HBO more than HBO needs the cable companies. The cord-cutting trend has barely just begun. Television five years from now will be a completely different landscape than it is today, and the change from now to then will make what has happened over the past five years look like barely a movement.
a_c_s 12y ago
I was poking around when this was first announced, and if I remember correctly it seems like HBO only gets $4-$6 per cable subscriber. So even with the administrative overhead, the per-subscriber profits will almost certainly be significantly higher.

pbreit 12y ago

So this is what the a la carte advocates want? Two channels (HBO & ESPN) for $35? Bundling seems so obviously the better way to approach this (180 channels for $65).

andymoe 12y ago
No, I just want HBO and don't want to pay for the expensive base cable packages required to get it at all... Happy to pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus too since it adds value to me where as incrementally more cable channels do not.
urda 12y ago
You mean 180 channels, where 160-170 are just absolute trash? So you're really paying $65 bucks for 10-20 channels at best. Not much of a deal there. I'm very welcome to this pick what you want idea. I'm ready for cable to die as a cord cutter.
- diminoten 12y ago
  Yeah, because $3.25-$6.50/channel is totally not a deal, compared to $17.5/channel. At all.
  - IanCal 12y ago
    That depends entirely on what you want to watch, surely. It's still $30 more, so if those extra channels aren't worth $30 to you then it's much better. Besides, I'm not sure what you get if you have a larger cable package. The HBO $14.99 appears to be for a big back-catalogue.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      I'm commenting solely on the factual incorrectness of saying the above was not a deal, when it very clearly was, assuming "deal" means a more economical choice. That's all.
      - IanCal 12y ago
        > I'm commenting solely on the factual incorrectness of saying the above was not a deal, when it very clearly was, assuming "deal" means a more economical choice. And again, this assumes that all channels are equally valuable to you. Spending more money on things you do not want is not more economical.
        diminoten 12y ago
        Person I replied to said 10-20 "valuable" channels.
narrowrail 12y ago
A la carte shows not channels. The TV people want it to be a discussion about channels, but the concept of channels doesn't make sense when one looks at the idea from a distance. Sports watching seems to be its own world due to the live nature of the content.
- pbreit 12y ago
  Shows? That's even sillier. You'd be paying 10x for a fraction of the content. TV would never work if stations had such a hard time getting folks to sample. Just pretend you're only paying for your shows and everything else is free. You would not be paying less money a la carte.
qq66 12y ago
Bundling is better for some consumers, unbundled is better for some consumers, depending on their preferences. An incomplete analysis can be found here: https://livingeconomics.org/article.asp?docId=288 https://livingeconomics.org/article.asp?docId=288 , incomplete because it doesn't reflect that when moving from a pure bundling to mixed-bundling regime, the bundle prices should theoretically increase, and also because it's an analysis of markets where marginal costs are positive. Furthermore, for TV in particular, there's the effect that an unbundled channel will get lower viewership than a bundled channel, and thus will receive lower advertising revenues, so the unbundled price will be driven up considerably higher. In short, people who are crazy about one or two channels/content sources will love unbundling, people who watch a lot of channels will hate the (inexorable) advent of unbundling.
__david__ 12y ago
> Bundling seems so obviously the better way to approach this (180 channels for $65). 180 basic channels, not including HBO. HBO is $15/month on top of your basic cable package, at least from my cable provider. Oh Showtime, too? That's another $15. Oh, Cinemax? Yup, another $15.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  Plus, at least in Redwood City, CA, Comcast wouldn't give us HBO on our $63/basic cable, they wanted us to purchase a Digital Cable Box (~ $90), and then pay $85/month for Digital Cable. And then, and only then, would they give us the 6 month $15/month HBO promo. Between Amazon Prime (Which I have already for free shipping), Netflix ($8/month), and HBO ($15/month) - I have pretty much all the entertainment I'm really interested in for $23/month. Every so often something good will pop up that Netflix doesn't have - at which point I'll go to ITunes for $20-25 to pick up a season. On an annual basis, way, way, way less than I would have paid for cable. My only concern is that I don't know if I'll be able to watch HBO on the road, or whether I'll need an Apple TV.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, The Americans, Justified, Walking Dead, Daily Show, Broadchurch, Downton Abbey (not sure which of these you're able to view)? I'll cut you some slack on not getting any of the major networks since the cheap digital antennas can work very well. In San Francisco we get 180 channels + HBO + DVR + 50mbps internet for $100 month. That includes being able to watch TV/DVR/OnDemand on pretty much any device, from anywhere.
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      You have good taste. I've actually purchased Some of those from iTunes (Mad Men), if I want to talk about them with others. Otherwise I usually can wait a few years for them to come out on Netflix (Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Downton Abbey). Perhaps I just got so used to not having a TV (last time around 2003), that I've adjusted my behavior and expectations such that I don't miss it. If I was a sports junky, this would probably be different - that seems to be the last bastion of Cable TV - once that goes, it will be a good thing that the major cable companies are also the major internet suppliers.
yAnonymous 12y ago
1800 channels for $650 would be even better.
a_c_s 12y ago
I don't watch sports, so what I want is only $15. Big sports fans might only pay for ESPN, and those who watch a lot of both will pay $35. (Where I am, HBO is an extra $21/month, so $15/month is actually a discount!)
yazaddaruvala 12y ago
Previously, it wasn't just that TV channels were bundled. Rather, the prices for each individual channel weren't known. How could you even decide if the bundle is a good deal without knowing the price of its components? So, even for the subset of people who would prefer bundling, this is a great thing! Now we can actually tell if a bundle is being competitive.

blhack 12y ago

After some digging, it sounds like "exclusive" is used pretty loosely here. You can log in with a browser, its just registration that requires and apple device, and that includes osx.

rodgerd 12y ago

Nope. It means HBO will be getting money exclusively from Apple users. Everyone else will be getting the service for free.

spdy 12y ago

Even with AppleTV this is US only? Any guesses if this will be usable via VPN like Netflix?

cjg_ 12y ago
Well, depends where you live, HBO Nordic is available in some nordic countries (at ~$10). However not on AppleTV I believe.
- tolle 12y ago
  Yeah, but you have to airplay it to the Apple TV. No app on the actual Apple TV Device. The iOS app could also use some love.

fuligo 12y ago

What I want entertainment companies to give me is exactly equivalent to the result of downloading episodes from illegal Bittorrent sites plus the ability to actually pay for them. I want a DRM-less HD video file that I can play on any computer, when I want. I want to be able to download it from anywhere I might be in the world, and my nationality should not have an effect on the availability of the content. Heck, if HBO had a web-based tip jar, I would just pay something for every Game of Thrones episode and otherwise go straight ahead and torrent it. You know, HBO, don't "offer" me anything, just give me an option to pay you which makes my download quasi-legal, and I'll take care of the rest myself.

sebkomianos 12y ago
Thing is, what would be the numbers behind that? Would HBO make more money if they sold each episode separately to everyone all around the globe than it does now (= licensing the series to individual networks in every country)? Because, an extra cost, for example, would be the subtitling. Right now it's done either from the networks that HBO sells the show rights to or from the torrent scene. HBO would have to hire people to do this job per episode, per show, etc.
- fuligo 12y ago
  > Would HBO make more money if they sold each episode separately to everyone all around the globe They would make more than they make now, that's for sure. Because right now, there is no way for me to pay them. > Because, an extra cost, for example, would be the subtitling. I don't want subtitling, just because I'm from a foreign country. What little legal content consumption options I have, they always and mandatorily come with either dubbing or subtitles. > HBO would have to hire people to do this job per episode, per show, etc. Like I said, that's what they (or in this case you, if you work for them) think, but that's not what I asked for. I want the show, within a few days after it aired, in an open format, with none of that internationalization crap or any added "value". People who want those extra things can use any of the existing sales channels. I want what I can have right now illegally and conveniently, made legal by paying for it. This might not cover or replace the existing subscriber base, but it would be an opportunity to bring additional customers on board at next-to zero cost. Just by shutting up and taking my money.