What will Dish do about HBO?

[T134]

You really should have done a little googling...

As of 9/2014, Roku had sold 10M units and Apple has an installed base of 20M and had $1B in revenues from it. So if only one was going to get it, Apple was the right choice.
Here's a nice article about it:
http://variety.com/2014/digital/new...-roku-apple-tv-fire-tv-chromecast-1201303129/

If we assume the "variety" numbers are correct...

....Apple TV had reached a global installed base of 20 million

http://variety.com/2014/digital/new...ion-apple-tv-set-tops-to-date-ceo-1201162424/

....Roku Tuesday, which disclosed reaching the 10-million-unit sales mark in the U.S.

The purple box served an aggregate 37 million hours of video streamed per week compared to Apple TV at 15 million hours, Chromecast at 12 million hours and Amazon Fire TV at six million hours.

There is a big difference between global and US sales numbers. If 15 million of those Apples were in Europe and Asia and the service is US only like Sling TV's new service, those units are effectively worthless for HBO. Apple TV has been around for quite awhile in one form or another. Many of the early units were dumpstered when people found out they were pretty worthless. There was even a conversion to Boxee for the early Apples for because of the lack of content. The old ones are not being used so if they are part of Apple's 20 million number it is inflating the installed base.

Variety's numbers for hours streamed shows Roku at over twice the number as Apple. That seems to support that Roku owners actually use the product. They are the ones most likely to buy the HBO OTT service.

If you throw in the ever increasing popularity of Fire TV and Chromecast, Apple really is on the losing end of the numbers game. And we're not even talking about the millions of low cost Android devices in use such as tablets with HDMI that are very easy to hook to TV and take on the go.

There also seems to be the idea that Apple owners are the more affluent types. I'd venture a guess that many of this type also have their cable tv or satellite and are going to keep it. Many "affluent" Apple owners also happen to be technology dumb and aren't as likely to do something that requires thought, research and work such as putting together a real cord cutting package on their own. HBO or Netflix are just one part in doing it.

It is fine by me if HBO wants to limit itself to Apple. It saves me $15 a month and is one less thing I have to support on the A3's or help my less affluent friends and family with Android and Roku to make work.

 

[cryptotech]

During the Apple dog and pony show of March 9, the HBO CEO said HBO Now will be exclusively available on Apple TV and Apple devices "at launch". Various reports indicate that after 3 months it will be made widely available on other platforms like Roku etc.

 

[MikeD-C05]

So does this mean that HBO Go is being re-branded HBO Now or is HBO Go going away all together to promote HBO Now ? I can't really find any information. I hope things stay the same for current subscribers who like their current set up.

I believe that you will have both HBO Go for current cable /satellite subs with a subscription and HBO NOW for streaming only subs with no subscriptions.

 

[Yespage]

Incredibly odd choice by HBO to do this, just Apple? Roku is globally accessible and you don't have to join a cult to use it. Apple is nothing short of a cult and while their products are shiny, they are overpriced and can't be customized very well.

And in theory, this would help Dish as those who would be cord cutters, at least as far as I would presume, may not likely crossover into the Apple product market seeing how overpriced Apple products are.

 

[CK SatGuy]

I believe that you will have both HBO Go for current cable /satellite subs with a subscription and HBO NOW for streaming only subs with no subscriptions.

Why couldn't they just stick with the HBO GO name for both services?

 

[jegrant]

Apple cut the price of its TV box to $69 and considering it includes a free month of HBO NOW, I think that's pretty reasonable compared to the overall market.
And, I bet the reason that the new service is HBO NOW instead of HBO GO, is that contracts with existing HBO distributors probably say that HBO cannot offer the same exact service directly to the consumer. This way, HBO can offer a version of its product to the consumer directly but it is not offering the same exact product, and therefore is probably on safer ground. A distributor could not claim that HBO is undercutting their franchise. At least not directly.

 

[lparsons21]

Incredibly odd choice by HBO to do this, just Apple? Roku is globally accessible and you don't have to join a cult to use it. Apple is nothing short of a cult and while their products are shiny, they are overpriced and can't be customized very well.

And in theory, this would help Dish as those who would be cord cutters, at least as far as I would presume, may not likely crossover into the Apple product market seeing how overpriced Apple products are.

If you are bringing a product to market like this new one from HBO, who do you want to get at that outset? Answer, those that have the money and are willing to spend it. And that makes Apple the ideal choice at the beginning. A hot name in marketing, a client base that is willing to spend money and a box that is dead simple to set up. It nearly installs itself with almost no user intervention.

And at $69 it is darned will not overpriced!

As to the 'customization', well so what? Tech twiddlers aren't what they are after.

 

[lparsons21]

If we assume the "variety" numbers are correct...

There is a big difference between global and US sales numbers. If 15 million of those Apples were in Europe and Asia and the service is US only like Sling TV's new service, those units are effectively worthless for HBO. Apple TV has been around for quite awhile in one form or another. Many of the early units were dumpstered when people found out they were pretty worthless. There was even a conversion to Boxee for the early Apples for because of the lack of content. The old ones are not being used so if they are part of Apple's 20 million number it is inflating the installed base.

Variety's numbers for hours streamed shows Roku at over twice the number as Apple. That seems to support that Roku owners actually use the product. They are the ones most likely to buy the HBO OTT service.

If you throw in the ever increasing popularity of Fire TV and Chromecast, Apple really is on the losing end of the numbers game. And we're not even talking about the millions of low cost Android devices in use such as tablets with HDMI that are very easy to hook to TV and take on the go.

There also seems to be the idea that Apple owners are the more affluent types. I'd venture a guess that many of this type also have their cable tv or satellite and are going to keep it. Many "affluent" Apple owners also happen to be technology dumb and aren't as likely to do something that requires thought, research and work such as putting together a real cord cutting package on their own. HBO or Netflix are just one part in doing it.

It is fine by me if HBO wants to limit itself to Apple. It saves me $15 a month and is one less thing I have to support on the A3's or help my less affluent friends and family with Android and Roku to make work.

No reason to doubt Variety's numbers as other reports show about the same breakdown. Feel free to do so if you like though.

And yes, the early ones weren't very good, but then they were nearly the only game in town back then. I doubt any of them are still in service. But those that bought them to use for exactly what Apple said they were for found them wonderful. But most wanted more than was offered. So I seriously doubt that the numbers reflect any of them. And keep in mind the numbers are installed base and since anyone with an AppleTV is also using iTunes, Apple has a pretty good source for the numbers and wouldn't by shy about saying so.

I feel certain that other devices will get the service. But for now HBO has partnered with the hottest brand in the business with an installed base that will and does spend money better than those on other devices do overall.

As to the technology, well Apple has never been the geeks friend and I don't see them becoming one soon. Yet they seem to be doing great. Remember if Apple had listened to the geeks and 'experts' the iPad would have never seen the light of day. And we know what a dismal failure that has been!!

 

[ChadT41]

For those of us who enjoy the tech, but don't want to have to do extra work to our tech... Apple is great. I love my iPhone, and couldn't care less about customizing it. I just want to be able to do the basic functions. Call, text, surf the web, and ease of use. iPhones have always offered that, and so has the iPads. I have never used a roku, FireStick, or Apple TV, but because of my positive experience with Apple so far, I'd go for Apple first, given the price tag was about right. And $69 being in line with other competitors, that would be pretty tempting if I was interested in this technology.

 

[dare2be]

But for now HBO has partnered with the hottest brand in the business with an installed base that will and does spend money better than those on other devices do overall.

I spend my money wisely. In the above context, it's "better" for Apple.

 

[lparsons21]

I spend my money wisely. In the above context, it's "better" for Apple.

Just as I do, what is 'better' for me is defined by me. But in that above context, it is 'better' for Apple and HBO.

Of course now I'll get the story about how Apple products are all so overpriced. But I've found that since I don't buy at the bottom end of the tech market that the 'Apple tax' isn't all the high and in some cases, non existent.

 

[Yespage]

If you are bringing a product to market like this new one from HBO, who do you want to get at that outset? Answer, those that have the money and are willing to spend it. And that makes Apple the ideal choice at the beginning.

Except that the target audience isn't people with money, it is people that are cutting the cord and either pirating their entertainment or want to only spend their money on specific forms of entertainment.

A hot name in marketing, a client base that is willing to spend money and a box that is dead simple to set up. It nearly installs itself with almost no user intervention.

And at $69 it is darned will not overpriced!

It may be one of the cheaper things, but it looks someone into a model, something that cord cutters don't like. Cord cutters want unfettered access to media (or free pirated access regardless how accessible one can make it).

No reason to doubt Variety's numbers as other reports show about the same breakdown. Feel free to do so if you like though.

You didn't read their point. The article is comparing the US Roku connections with the Global Apple connections. That is about as Apples to Oranges as it gets.

 

[dare2be]

I have first-hand knowledge of the Apple cult factor. My brother-in-law is all Apple products. Even his pre-teen kids talk down on other non-Apple products without even knowing what they are (they aren't Apple, duh!)

They also overspend on other (non-tech) products and have the mindset that more expensive always means better.

 

[harshness]

IF DISH keeps there HBO at $19.00 they will only lose more subs to cord cutting.

I see two problems with this statement:

1. DISH subscribers probably aren't with DISH because of HBO. DISH charges as much as just about as much as anyone else and they've not been all that diligent about adding HBO HD channels.

2. HBO is becoming less and less relevant as a movie channel (and they're not bursting with original programming of late).

As pointed out above, hitching their wagon to iTunes will kill HBO for more than a few.

 

[Yespage]

I have first-hand knowledge of the Apple cult factor. My brother-in-law is all Apple products. Even his pre-teen kids talk down on other non-Apple products without even knowing what they are (they aren't Apple, duh!)

They also overspend on other (non-tech) products and have the mindset that more expensive always means better.

Apple perfected the process of getting people to buy something that works really well and shiny for much more than another product that works really well. Apple does automate the entire process for media, though, which some people like to have. Personally, I'd rather rip my music, DVD's, blu-rays so I can have the best access in a manner I choose to the media I pay for. And I think many cord cutters feel the same way... or worse... that they want unfettered and free access to all media ever made. There are people out there that think copyrights are unethical.

I see two problems with this statement:

1. DISH subscribers probably aren't with DISH because of HBO. DISH charges as much as just about as much as anyone else and they've not been all that diligent about adding HBO HD channels.

2. HBO is becoming less and less relevant as a movie channel (and they're not bursting with original programming of late).

As pointed out above, hitching their wagon to iTunes will kill HBO for more than a few.

Dish would only lose the people that only subscribe to Dish for HBO. I can't imagine that'd be a high number. Other Dish subs could just switch from subbing to HBO through Dish to directly to HBO.

 

[osu1991]

In 3 months it will be available on other platforms and no one will care

 

[lparsons21]

Except that the target audience isn't people with money, it is people that are cutting the cord and either pirating their entertainment or want to only spend their money on specific forms of entertainment.
It may be one of the cheaper things, but it looks someone into a model, something that cord cutters don't like. Cord cutters want unfettered access to media (or free pirated access regardless how accessible one can make it).
You didn't read their point. The article is comparing the US Roku connections with the Global Apple connections. That is about as Apples to Oranges as it gets.

The target audience is cord cutters with money that are willing to spend it. Why would HBO care about those that are mostly or only interested in 'free', HBO has never been about 'free'.
And the AppleTV numbers represent a very significant percentage of whichever market you'd like to mention that would have access to the new HBO service. Apple will do the billing from what I've read and you can bet like everything else offered on the AppleTV access to it will be dead simple.
But don't worry, it will be on other devices in a few months assuming it is successful.
While I've been in the middle of shifting things around for my TV needs, I got to thinking that if Apple would add Amazon Prime/Instant video to the AppleTV, they could take much more of the market. I know that if it was there now, I would be on the AppleTV much more than I am now.

 

[harshness]

As of 9/2014, Roku had sold 10M units and Apple has an installed base of 20M and had $1B in revenues from it. So if only one was going to get it, Apple was the right choice.

While this may have been true based on extrapolating statements from last year, Roku has been on a tear since then -- so much so that Apple has dropped their price by 30% (which likely caused Roku to offer a $20 off the Roku 3 promotion). Chromecast was a force to be reckoned with last year but it has been kind of a yawn more recently.

Another statistic from the Variety article that speaks loudly is the comparison of viewing hours on each platform. Roku devices showed 150% more programming hours than did Apple TV boxes. This suggests to me that the Roku plays a bigger part in active TV viewing than does the Apple TV and is probably the overwhelming preference of cord cutters.

 

[lparsons21]

While this may have been true based on extrapolating statements from last year, Roku has been on a tear since then -- so much so that Apple has dropped their price by 30% (which likely caused Roku to offer a $20 off the Roku 3 promotion). Chromecast was a force to be reckoned with last year but it has been kind of a yawn more recently.

Another statistic from the Variety article that speaks loudly is the comparison of viewing hours on each platform. Roku devices showed 150% more programming hours than did Apple TV boxes. This suggests to me that the Roku plays a bigger part in active TV viewing than does the Apple TV and is probably the overwhelming preference of cord cutters.

Note that I've denigrated the other platforms, only that the early money makes more sense of AppleTV if you are only going to come out on one at first. And with Apple doing the billing, it appears that maybe HBO hasn't quite figured out how they will handle paid subscriptions directly.

In that 150% more programming hours, I have to wonder how much of that was with paid for or subscriptions tied to other providers in comparison to the totally free services. AppleTV has fewer overall services offered and more of them are paid for or tied to cable/sat subscriptions.

 

[lparsons21]

Gack!!

I meant 'not denigrated'

My bad.