1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

HBO Is Coming to Amazon Prime

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Johncv, Apr 23, 2014.

  1. zalusky

    zalusky Active Member TCF Club

    5,040
    10
    Apr 5, 2002
    Cupertino, CA
    Yep just hide the channels you don't watch and your there. The bottom line is they care what you watch they just don't want you to pay less.
     
  2. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    That would be a worse world. A "meritocracy" is not automatically a good thing.

    You are getting *exactly* what you want for the same price now, basically you're advocating for "screw what other people watch"
     
  3. mr.unnatural

    mr.unnatural Active Member

    4,354
    5
    Feb 2, 2006
    Ellicott...
    This.
     
  4. magnus

    magnus Tivo User

    2,506
    0
    Nov 12, 2004
    Texas
    +1 I've been saying this for years. 200 channels of crap and only 5 that have something that I want to watch. The math never added up for me.
     
  5. mr.unnatural

    mr.unnatural Active Member

    4,354
    5
    Feb 2, 2006
    Ellicott...
    The math is quite simple. If a huge number of channels gets paid for by thousands of subscribers, the average cost per channel goes way down for each user. Many channels, such as the shopping and religious networks, are included for free to the provider and, in some cases, may actually pay the provider to air them. The channel sees a return in online sales and donations which offsets their cost and the end user gets a further discount on their overall channel package. Without these channels included in the package your cost would be much higher than it is now.

    If you subscribed to just a handful of channels, there would no longer be a bulk discount and the cost for those few channels would exceed what you're paying for the large bundle you currently receive.

    Just because the channels show up in your guide doesn't mean you have to watch them. I believe you can set up favorite channels lineups so that only the channels you prefer show up in the guide. I know this is the case for WMC and I believe I used to be able to do it on my Tivos as well.
     
  6. rainwater

    rainwater Active Member

    7,057
    1
    Sep 21, 2004
    I think this thread title is misleading.

    It should say "Old HBO Content Coming to Amazon Prime". If you want current HBO content, you will still have to subscribe to HBO through your cable company and use HBO Go.
     
  7. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,417
    3
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    The problem is that model doesn't allow for the hundreds of channels of garbage to die their death, instead locking them up in bundles. We need some serious channel pruning.
     
  8. MikeAndrews

    MikeAndrews Registered abuser

    14,222
    1
    Jan 17, 2002
    Northern...
    It looks like Netflix is good guys. Cancelling is easy. There's a link right on the account page.

    "We'll keep your account data for one year. Come back at anytime."

    As it is I can't even get through my recorded shows, much less Amazon Prime. Content overload.
     
  9. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    Why? Your price isn't going to go down, so why do those channels need to die? Someone watches them, just because it isn't you doesn't mean they should go away. Someone else could probably say the same thing about programming you like to watch.
     
  10. zalusky

    zalusky Active Member TCF Club

    5,040
    10
    Apr 5, 2002
    Cupertino, CA
    The one thing I would say on the other side is if we had less channels there would be room for better resolution. It will be interesting to see how the business model plays if we went totally OnDemand would the increased bandwidth by freeing up all the linear channels be more than enough to go onDemand. Now of course the traditional networks might suffer from the lack of watercooler moment as would this forum if everything essentially became Netflix. They would not know how to sell advertising in that space.
     
  11. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Active Member

    5,710
    11
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    I think the current video delivery systems needs to be blown up.

    If we all had access to reliable high speed Internet everywhere the concept of being limited to a few hundred choices of what to watch at any one time via a limited number of channels could die the death it deserves.

    Services like Netflix, Hulu, & Amazon are a step in the right direction, but to get to where we should be the current delivery systems need to be destroyed (OTA, Cable, & solid media). The reality is that with the Internet we should have "access" to every TV show and movie every made all the time. Sports and local/national news could be available via live feeds along with recorded material.
     
  12. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    19,163
    21
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    Live feeds? I certainly don't want to go back to watching TV like I did in the 70's. I've been time shifting my TV watching since the mid 80's. The only way this would work is if I could still time shift everything. There is nothing out there that I need to watch live. Especially sports. That is the last thing I want to watch Live since there are two to three times as many ads as there is playtime in many sports. That is much worse than TV shows. And there is nothing in the news I need to see in real time. Anything that is very important locally will come over my cell phone with the emergency alert system.
     
  13. tarheelblue32

    tarheelblue32 Active Member

    3,644
    3
    Jan 12, 2014
    Raleigh, NC
    I am the exact opposite about sports. If I'm not watching sports live then I really don't see the point. If the game is already over then just get the score and highlights on espn.com
     
  14. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Active Member

    5,710
    11
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    I actually agree with you in regards to watching news/sports live, which is why I noted both live feeds and recorded material. Just wanted to point out there no reason to use the channel model of OTA/cable to deliver any type of content live or recorded if we built out robust Internet delivery systems.

    Regarding the commercials issues, this is where I see the current system finally failing. Right now advertisers are still willing to pay unbelievable amounts of money for adds that I really doubt many people watch. The current systems die when advertisers stop paying. I think there will still be a place for people to choice some adds versus no adds, something like Hulu. But many other people will want add free options. Honestly if I didn't have a DVR I wouldn't be able to stand watching OTA TV, when advertiser decide too many people are doing what most of us on these forums do something is going to have to change.
     
  15. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,417
    3
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    The problem is, channels other than HBO and the other premiums are isolated from market forces by giant, bloated packages. Why does HBO have such amazing content? Because you can add/drop HBO alone without affecting any other channels (other than the 17 other HBOs that they throw in, but no one really cares about), so they have to compete for the consumer dollar. If other channels had to do that, some would die off, because no one really wants them, and others would provide far higher quality content.

    That too. Full 19mbps MPEG-2 streams. The "watercooler", i.e. bullsh*tting in our cube now on Monday is all about HBO's Sunday night lineup. I don't watch GoT, but I do chime in when they get to Silicon Valley.

    Otherwise, NO! OnDemand is horrible. They don't let you FF anything, they just delete stuff from the library whenever they feel like it. Linear TV is here to stay. Also, what about live events?

    Most of the US would disagree, especially on sports. I enjoy the commercials for a bit, until they start repeating (the March Madness ones repeated so much that they drove me NUTS after about the 10th game, and by game 20 or 30, it was really bad). But really, I want to watch the sport, so I'm going to watch live. I'm a huge advocate of time shifting, I've never really watched live my entire life, but sports are sports... Basketball isn't that bad, as there is a lot of play time.

    We don't have the bandwidth to do that. Imagine if everyone tried to stream stuff at the same time! Yes, any individual house that's getting 50-100mbps has plenty of bandwidth on its own (my roommates and I combined had HBO Go and 2 Netflix HD streams, plus some donwloads going all at the same time the other day), but if all of them stream at once, even if you shift TV QAMs over to streaming, the core of the network would still have a complete meltdown. "Broadcast", i.e. cable still has a technologically relevant role to play. Yes, it's online MPEG-2 encoding, so it's way less efficient than offline MPEG-4, but I probably suck down 100-150GB per week of content from cable without any impact on my internet connection, much of which I don't even watch, but I still have it locally to watch what I want when I want. And during the Olympics, that was at 1TB/week of video, during the beginning of March Madness that was upwards of 200-300GB over the course of a long weekend... Those numbers don't scale over streaming.

    They still have live events, i.e. sports to tie commercials to. And a surprising number of people still watch TV live, even though they have DVRs. A lot of people still view the DVR as something that they record a show on if they're going to be out that night, not something to use full-time like TiVo users do.
     
  16. Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,417
    3
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    To make a conclusion to all that discursive babbling, I envision the ideal system being a linear model using linear channels over QAM or satellite, but de-bundling the channels, with a massive "die-off" of channels with a few channels, maybe even some new ones, providing high-quality content, far fewer re-runs, and the like, and then maybe a really cheap bundle (~$10/mo) of crappy channels with low-value content or old re-runs.
     
  17. mattack

    mattack Active Member

    20,734
    4
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    But they *aren't* caring what I watch, because I *HAVE TO HIDE THE CHANNELS*. I do NOT want to have to hide the channels, I want to pay for exactly the right channels.
     
  18. mattack

    mattack Active Member

    20,734
    4
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. You make that sound like it's a bad thing.

    I should not be subsidizing other people's channels.
     
  19. zalusky

    zalusky Active Member TCF Club

    5,040
    10
    Apr 5, 2002
    Cupertino, CA
    Except what you really want is to pay less and the cable company does not want that to happen so even if you get Alacarte they will configure it so you pay the same.

    They might say there is a base fee which is high then you can add non premium channels in packs of 5 and in the end it will wind up being the same price.

    Cell phone companies do this all the time. They do not want you to pay less period. They don't care what you watch!

    Now play nice!
     
  20. tenthplanet

    tenthplanet Member

    577
    2
    Mar 5, 2004
    That a recipe for internet slog, streaming needs it's own network before it chokes out all the edu.. the org., the internet was never intended to be a video distribution network, cable networks are actually a better idea for moving just video content, a closed controlled system.
    That being said you may get what you want, and you are going to hate what it's going to cost.
     

Share This Page