# DirecTV Not Providing HBO GO for Roku



## oakwcj

I've been eagerly anticipating getting HBO GO on my Roku. Today I learned that DirecTV is not providing it. This is from a help FAQ at hbogo.com:

HBO Go is only available through participating television providers. On Roku devices, the following television providers offer HBO GO free as part of your HBO subscription: AT&T U-verse TV, Charter, Cox, DISH Network, Massillon Cable/CPI, Suddenlink, Verizon FIOS, and WOW!

If you want HBO GO on your Roku, I hope you'll contact DirecTV and let them know.


----------



## davring

HBOgo is not available on a Roku to anyown yet, they(D*) may have it by the time it goes live.


----------



## oakwcj

davring said:


> HBOgo is not available on a Roku to anyown yet, they(D*) may have it by the time it goes live.


It wasn't in the Channel Store yet the last time I checked, but the HBO GO website says it's available and that DirecTV isn't carrying it. There's a discussion of this issue on the Roku forums:

http://forums.roku.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=44374&start=60


----------



## dualsub2006

"davring" said:


> HBOgo is not available on a Roku to anyown yet, they(D*) may have it by the time it goes live.


HBO Go was supposed to hit the channel store on Thursday but didn't. It could go live any time.

A rumor floated about the delay involved DirecTV. HBO wants Go to be available to any subscriber from any provider on as many devices as possible.


----------



## oakwcj

From the Roku website:

I subscribe to HBO through my cable company. How can I access HBO GO on my Roku?

Roku Support
posted this on Oct-25 15:09

HBO GO is an authenticated channel, which means you must have a current HBO subscription and a television provider that supports HBO GO on Roku.

The following is a list of television providers who have authorized HBO GO on Roku:

ATT Uverse
Charter
Cox
Dish
Massillon Cable/CPI
RCN
Suddenlink
Verizon FiOS
WOW

If you do not see your television provider listed then they are currently not supporting HBO GO on Roku. We encourage you to reach out to your television company and request that they add Roku. We will update this list as often as possible.


----------



## hodula1

I found this out a couple of days also. This is very disappointing as I have been looking forward to be able to watch HBO Go when on trips.

And for those who don't believe, feel free to go to hbogo.com/activate to confirm.

I am still hoping this changes by the time it is officially released.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

oakwcj said:


> From the Roku website:
> 
> I subscribe to HBO through my cable company. How can I access HBO GO on my Roku?
> 
> Roku Support
> posted this on Oct-25 15:09
> 
> HBO GO is an authenticated channel, which means you must have a current HBO subscription and a television provider that supports HBO GO on Roku.
> 
> The following is a list of television providers who have authorized HBO GO on Roku:
> 
> ATT Uverse
> Charter
> Cox
> Dish
> Massillon Cable/CPI
> RCN
> Suddenlink
> Verizon FiOS
> WOW
> 
> If you do not see your television provider listed then they are currently not supporting HBO GO on Roku. We encourage you to reach out to your television company and request that they add Roku. We will update this list as often as possible.


I see Comcast, Time Warner Cable and a few others aren't on there either.

Not sure I blame DTV on this one. Seems to me HBO at some point is going to try and sell their service directly to the customer and by putting it directly on the television via Roku, internet connected television or even a game console only brings that action closer to reality.


----------



## tonyd79

"hodula1" said:


> I found this out a couple of days also. This is very disappointing as I have been looking forward to be able to watch HBO Go when on trips.
> 
> And for those who don't believe, feel free to go to hbogo.com/activate to confirm.
> 
> I am still hoping this changes by the time it is officially released.


You take a roku on trips? HBO go works fine on other devices.


----------



## dualsub2006

"tonyd79" said:


> You take a roku on trips? HBO go works fine on other devices.


I've taken a Roku or Apple TV on trips a few times. Depends on where we are going and what we are planning to do, but much nicer to watch a movie on the TV than it is to crowd 4 people around an iPad.


----------



## RickD_99

I noticed this morning that Roku has added HBOGO to their channel store. Unfortunately DirecTV is not being supported at launch. Who would be best to contact at DirecTV to request this service be added?

Also I'm not sure why DirecTV would object to this....one obviously has to have an active HBO sub through DirecTV to be able to utilize this service. Long as D* is getting their HBO money why would they care how we view HBO content?


----------



## harsh

RickD_99 said:


> Also I'm not sure why DirecTV would object to this....one obviously has to have an active HBO sub through DirecTV to be able to utilize this service. Long as D* is getting their HBO money why would they care how we view HBO content?


DIRECTV seems to trail the industry in TV Everywhere. Perhaps they haven't implemented a proper TV Everywhere authentication portal yet.


----------



## oakwcj

FWIW, here's the rather incoherent and content-free response I got from Customer Service:

Thanks for writing and for letting us know your about HBO go. I see you are one of our loyal customers and I would like to let you know that we truly appreciate your business. I understand that you would like to have HBO GO on Roku. I appreciate being given the chance to look into this matter for you and would be glad to assist.

I understand that this is an important topic for you. Rest assure that I have forwarded your request to DIRECTV management. While DIRECTV Management can not follow up with each customer individually, rest assured every suggestion and inquiry from our most important customers is reviewed to determine what changes should be considered for future offers.


----------



## oakwcj

harsh said:


> DIRECTV seems to trail the industry in TV Everywhere. Perhaps they haven't implemented a proper TV Everywhere authentication portal yet.


I find this hard to believe. DirecTV already handles HBO GO authentication on computers, tablets, and mobiles. Roku authentication isn't particularly difficult. It's the same as adding any other subscription channel. A code is presented on the TV screen. You go to hbogo.com/activate, enter the code, the provider confirms the subscription, the Roku is linked to the subscription, and you're done.


----------



## MikeW

oakwcj said:


> FWIW, here's the rather incoherent and content-free response I got from Customer Service:
> 
> Thanks for writing and for letting us know your about HBO go. I see you are one of our loyal customers and I would like to let you know that we truly appreciate your business. I understand that you would like to have HBO GO on Roku. I appreciate being given the chance to look into this matter for you and would be glad to assist.
> 
> I understand that this is an important topic for you. Rest assure that I have forwarded your request to DIRECTV management. While DIRECTV Management can not follow up with each customer individually, rest assured every suggestion and inquiry from our most important customers is reviewed to determine what changes should be considered for future offers.


In other words...delete.

What a bummer! I cut off Netflix and looked forward to this coming to ROKU. I can't believe that we waited so long for a complete suite of HBO channels and now this becomes a sticking point. Why would DirecTV care which device I watch HBO GO on? Why does HBO care? I can still hook up my laptop with an HDMI connection and view this stuff, but why make it so difficult for the customer. I am so tired of these pissing matches between content providers and service providers.


----------



## DBSooner

This stinks. I recently bought a Roku 2 with the thought HBO GO was coming and now I'm out of luck.


----------



## oakwcj

DBSooner said:


> This stinks. I recently bought a Roku 2 with the thought HBO GO was coming and now I'm out of luck.


I sent an email to DirecTV's Office of the President. Some say this may be more effective than contacting Customer Service. It certainly couldn't be any less effective:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageIFnorail.jsp?assetId=P4960016#h:609.941


----------



## TBoneit

oakwcj said:


> I've been eagerly anticipating getting HBO GO on my Roku. Today I learned that DirecTV is not providing it. This is from a help FAQ at hbogo.com:
> 
> HBO Go is only available through participating television providers. On Roku devices, the following television providers offer HBO GO free as part of your HBO subscription: AT&T U-verse TV, Charter, Cox, DISH Network, Massillon Cable/CPI, Suddenlink, Verizon FIOS, and WOW!
> 
> If you want HBO GO on your Roku, I hope you'll contact DirecTV and let them know.


I have four TV providers available to me in my area.
Fios 
DirecTV
Dishnetwork 
And Cablevision

1/2 have it available and the other 1/2 do not. There has been discussion on a Cablevision forum that it is a cost thing.



RickD_99 said:


> I noticed this morning that Roku has added HBOGO to their channel store. Unfortunately DirecTV is not being supported at launch. Who would be best to contact at DirecTV to request this service be added?
> 
> Also I'm not sure why DirecTV would object to this....one obviously has to have an active HBO sub through DirecTV to be able to utilize this service. Long as D* is getting their HBO money why would they care how we view HBO content?


Probably a money thing. Plus since the DirecTV figures looked good why should they rush into things. Just Guessing.

Not a biggie to me since I stopped traveling in the 90's, A work thing.


----------



## Snickering Hound

I sent an email to Directv customer service and got the same canned reply


----------



## dualsub2006

"TBoneit" said:


> Probably a money thing. Plus since the DirecTV figures looked good why should they rush into things. Just Guessing.


I really don't want to hear about money given what I pay DirecTV for service.


----------



## harsh

oakwcj said:


> I find this hard to believe.


Yet there's some reason this thread exists.


----------



## RickD_99

oakwcj said:


> I sent an email to DirecTV's Office of the President. Some say this may be more effective than contacting Customer Service. It certainly couldn't be any less effective:
> 
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageIFnorail.jsp?assetId=P4960016#h:609.941


Thanks for the link. Sharply worded message to Ellen sent!


----------



## oakwcj

harsh said:


> Yet there's some reason this thread exists.


So that you can provide an unfounded theory for DirecTV's refusal? DirecTV is part of TV Everywhere. You can't do HBO GO on any device without it. As with everything else corporate, money is undoubtedly at the bottom of this.

BTW, I did get another content-free response from the Office of the President:

"As you already know, we do not currently allow HBO streaming on Roku. We confirmed your previous request was forwarded to DIRECTV Management for review. Your feedback is important to us and we often make changes based on our viewer's comments." I had asked WHY I wasn't "allowed" to access a service I'm paying for. Unsurprisingly, I got no answer to that question, although I have asked it yet again.


----------



## MikeW

oakwcj said:


> So that you can provide an unfounded theory for DirecTV's refusal? DirecTV is part of TV Everywhere. You can't do HBO GO on any device without it. As with everything else corporate, money is undoubtedly at the bottom of this.
> 
> BTW, I did get another content-free response from the Office of the President:
> 
> "As you already know, we do not currently allow HBO streaming on Roku. We confirmed your previous request was forwarded to DIRECTV Management for review. Your feedback is important to us and we often make changes based on our viewer's comments." I had asked WHY I wasn't "allowed" to access a service I'm paying for. Unsurprisingly, I got no answer to that question, although I have asked it yet again.


Hopefully, the keyword in the reponse is "currently".


----------



## RickD_99

oakwcj said:


> So that you can provide an unfounded theory for DirecTV's refusal? DirecTV is part of TV Everywhere. You can't do HBO GO on any device without it. As with everything else corporate, money is undoubtedly at the bottom of this.
> 
> BTW, I did get another content-free response from the Office of the President:
> 
> "As you already know, we do not currently allow HBO streaming on Roku. We confirmed your previous request was forwarded to DIRECTV Management for review. Your feedback is important to us and we often make changes based on our viewer's comments." I had asked WHY I wasn't "allowed" to access a service I'm paying for. Unsurprisingly, I got no answer to that question, although I have asked it yet again.


If money is the issue then why the hell not just out and out tell us that? They certainly had no qualms about mentioning to us that News Corp wanted a 40% raise for carriage of their channels!


----------



## inkahauts

"harsh" said:


> DIRECTV seems to trail the industry in TV Everywhere. Perhaps they haven't implemented a proper TV Everywhere authentication portal yet.


More likely, they don't want to give customers a way to watch their programs on a tv without a receiver hooked up to it.

Directv is not at all trailing the industry into everywhere. No one has everything, and not allowing for this on the roku does not at all mean they are missing anything. I'd make the argument that allowing this on a roku is simply a duplication of the services they already provide, and if anything would allow people to cheat the system so they don't have to pay for the services, which is a big no no. I wonder how the other companies are limiting this service to the house the channels service is in, so they aren't simply loaning out their boxes to their neighbors so they dont all have to pay for hbo, and also how they are thinking they will recoup the money lost from not forcing the customer to have a cable box connected to all the tvs that they can charge for. That is a big source of revenue for all providers. Tv everywhere is meant to let people take their programing with them on portable devices that have their own screens, not to supplant their current distribution system to customers tvs.

I'd love to have it, but I don't know that it will happen.


----------



## inkahauts

"oakwcj" said:


> So that you can provide an unfounded theory for DirecTV's refusal? DirecTV is part of TV Everywhere. You can't do HBO GO on any device without it. As with everything else corporate, money is undoubtedly at the bottom of this.
> 
> BTW, I did get another content-free response from the Office of the President:
> 
> "As you already know, we do not currently allow HBO streaming on Roku. We confirmed your previous request was forwarded to DIRECTV Management for review. Your feedback is important to us and we often make changes based on our viewer's comments." I had asked WHY I wasn't "allowed" to access a service I'm paying for. Unsurprisingly, I got no answer to that question, although I have asked it yet again.


You are being allowed to access you content. You have receivers to hook up to your tvs.


----------



## dualsub2006

"inkahauts" said:


> More likely, they don't want to give customers a way to watch their programs on a tv without a receiver hooked up to it.


I don't have a TV without a Roku and on the 19th I won't have a TV without a DirecTV receiver on it either. Having HBO Go alone is no substitute for a D* receiver and if this is actually a part of the reason why it's blocked its a stupid reason. I could order up a few more Logitech Revue boxes and have it where I want it.



"inkahauts" said:


> I'd make the argument that allowing this on a roku is simply a duplication of the services they already provide,


And you'd be on the wrong side of the arguement. I cannot turn on my D* receiver and watch any of the 1,400 programs on HBO Go at will. I can't even do it On Demand. No, it's a feature that I can only get on HBO Go.



"inkahauts" said:


> and if anything would allow people to cheat the system so they don't have to pay for the services, which is a big no no. I wonder how the other companies are limiting this service to the house the channels service is in, so they aren't simply loaning out their boxes to their neighbors so they dont all have to pay for hbo


It always comes back around to the assumption the customer has to be a thief, doesn't it.

There isn't a single person on this planet that I have ever, or ever would, "loan" one of my Roku's to. They can access ALL of my content with it and they could buy premium channels on my card without my knowledge.

Besides that, I could hand my login and password to whomever I want and allow them to log in and use the service through the web browser. Blocking the Roku makes no sense.

There's also the little issue of the fact that HBO themselves and 8 of the 11 carriers that provide access to HBO Go (including E*) allow access on the Roku. I guess not everyone is as worried about theft or returned boxes as you think D* is.

And I'd prefer if you let me define TV everywhere for myself. Your definition works for you, but quite often when I travel I take a Roku with me. Am I not "everywhere" because I don't meet your rigid, self serving definition of the term?


----------



## dualsub2006

"inkahauts" said:


> You are being allowed to access you content. You have receivers to hook up to your tvs.


Now you're just being a shill. You don't have an actual point of view, you just want to defend what D* is doing.

Part of the increase in HBO fees was to cover the HBO Go service. I'm paying for it and should be allowed to access it anywhere that HBO sees fit to make it available.

A stupid comment like "hook up a receiver" simply doesn't help defend D*'s position on this because that receiver is very limited in the HBO content that it can access.


----------



## Shades228

dualsub2006 said:


> Part of the increase in HBO fees was to cover the HBO Go service. I'm paying for it and should be allowed to access it anywhere that HBO sees fit to make it available.
> 
> A stupid comment like "hook up a receiver" simply doesn't help defend D*'s position on this because that receiver is very limited in the HBO content that it can access.


You're making some assumptions about why there was a price increase. Considering the amount of channels that were added as well that had something to do with it.

You're not going to get a satisfactory answer no matter who you email. What ever the reason for it is they're not going to state it publicly. They'll just give blanket responses without a reason why. Like it or not, yes I know it's not, they aren't obligated to explain their decisions to you.

You're paying for DIRECTV programming that is provided to you through DIRECTV and that is all. Anything outside of that is complimentary. Read the TOS and that's ultimately where they will point to if you keep stating that this is something that you pay for. Just because something is available doesn't mean that it's your right to have it.

Now we can get into tons of speculation here such as, it's not something DIRECTV cares enough about at this point to put resources into, or that roku is a private company started by the founder of replay which DIRECTV purchased the pantent portfolio on only and not the rest of the company. So speculate away but really nothing will be satisfactory to you until they just add it. It's easier to say that than to try to state you have a right to something you don't.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Shades228" said:


> You're making some assumptions about why there was a price increase. Considering the amount of channels that were added as well that had something to do with it.


Actually, it's no assumption. I'm on the Premier package now, but 8 months or so ago I had HBO in my previous package. It was $14.99. Today, 8 months or so later, it's $16.99 if you add it on. The price for HBO went up, and recently. I would even make the point that the cost of all movie channels went up because D* doesn't offer the dollar discount on each subsequent movie channel that you add to your package.

Beyond that, I'm assuming that Time Warner didn't invest in the infrastructure needed to provide HBO Go, only to give it away for free. I'm further assuming that DirecTV didn't eat the increased cost of HBO Go, instead passing that cost along to their HBO subscribers.

Further, I'm assuming that the availability of HBO Go on such a limited number of providers is proof that it isn't given at no extra cost. I mean, if HBO weren't charging extra for Go why wouldn't every cable company offer it? Time Warner Cable doesn't even have it. I would think if it were free they would offer it given their corporate lineage.



"Shades228" said:


> You're paying for DIRECTV programming that is provided to you through DIRECTV and that is all. Anything outside of that is complimentary.


Right after trying to school me on making assumptions you're going to make one of your own? D* is a for profit company and NOTHING that they provide is complimentary. Every "free" PPV or discount that they hand out is paid for. Every time they give away a free DVR upgrade, it's paid for. Even the cost of the "free" iPad streaming is being recouped through the fees that you pay. Nothing that they do is "complimentary" and never will be. Your assumption that it is won't change that.

The price that D* charges for HBO went up. Of course providing HBO Go was a part of that increase. I AM paying for it and as such I should be able to access it wherever HBO chooses to make it available.

I believe that D* is toward the front of the pack in the TV Everywhere crowd. They offer more access than most, but the other providers will close the gap over time. D* might well never answer why they blocked Roku access, but they'll also never be stupid enough to tell me that I don't have a right to ***** about their "complimentary" features.


----------



## Shades228

dualsub2006 said:


> Actually, it's no assumption. I'm on the Premier package now, but 8 months or so ago I had HBO in my previous package. It was $14.99. Today, 8 months or so later, it's $16.99 if you add it on. The price for HBO went up, and recently. I would even make the point that the cost of all movie channels went up because D* doesn't offer the dollar discount on each subsequent movie channel that you add to your package.
> 
> Beyond that, I'm assuming that Time Warner didn't invest in the infrastructure needed to provide HBO Go, only to give it away for free. I'm further assuming that DirecTV didn't eat the increased cost of HBO Go, instead passing that cost along to their HBO subscribers.
> 
> Further, I'm assuming that the availability of HBO Go on such a limited number of providers is proof that it isn't given at no extra cost. I mean, if HBO weren't charging extra for Go why wouldn't every cable company offer it? Time Warner Cable doesn't even have it. I would think if it were free they would offer it given their corporate lineage.
> 
> Right after trying to school me on making assumptions you're going to make one of your own? D* is a for profit company and NOTHING that they provide is complimentary. Every "free" PPV or discount that they hand out is paid for. Every time they give away a free DVR upgrade, it's paid for. Even the cost of the "free" iPad streaming is being recouped through the fees that you pay. Nothing that they do is "complimentary" and never will be. Your assumption that it is won't change that.
> 
> The price that D* charges for HBO went up. Of course providing HBO Go was a part of that increase. I AM paying for it and as such I should be able to access it wherever HBO chooses to make it available.
> 
> I believe that D* is toward the front of the pack in the TV Everywhere crowd. They offer more access than most, but the other providers will close the gap over time. D* might well never answer why they blocked Roku access, but they'll also never be stupid enough to tell me that I don't have a right to ***** about their "complimentary" features.


HBO is $15.99 Cinemax is $12.99, if Cinemax is stand alone, both of them have To Go. Who knows if HBO is charging the content providers for on demand. That's an assumption as well.

Just because a company turns a profit doesn't mean that they can't have something that is complimentary. All that means is that they don't charge for that service. So there is no assumption unless you can show me a charge for To Go, On Demand, Nascar Hot Pass, and I'm sure there are others that could be brought up. So yes we get things complimentary from companies we do business with even though they still make money. So in a nutshell if you don't pay for it they technically don't have to give it to you.

So you can ***** all you want on here but like I said if you demand to people in the company that you're paying for it and that then they'll just tell you to pound sand in a nice way. You keep saying that you should be able to watch HBO anywhere HBO allows you to but you don't pay HBO you pay DIRECTV. So you get watch HBO wherever DIRECTV sees fit to allow you to.

As a side note notice Comcast is not on that list as well. Interesting to see the top 2 providers not on there. However Xfinity and HBO To Go didn't start off well either.


----------



## oakwcj

inkahauts said:


> You are being allowed to access you content. You have receivers to hook up to your tvs.


How do I access HBO GO content on the Roku through my DirecTV receiver? I can get HBO, but not the thousands of programs and movies available on HBO GO. I'm "allowed" to watch it on my computer, but I have absolutely no interest in watching an HD movie on a small screen with poor audio. I'm paying for HBO. HBO GO is now an important part of the HBO service. HBO wants me to be able to watch their stuff on the Roku. Roku wants me to be able to watch it. DirecTV has decided, in its full arrogance mode, that I won't be "allowed" to and that I have no right to an explanation. Maybe you don't mind being treated in this imperious way, but I do.


----------



## Casey21

RickD_99 said:


> Thanks for the link. Sharply worded message to Ellen sent!


I just sent a "sternly" worded message as well to Ellen. Why do I think my message is now stuck in a "series of tubes" and won't make it to Ellen. I encourage everyone to please send a message to DTV. If Bank of America backs down from their $5 bank card fee because of consumer outrage hopefully this can work in other areas of business as well.


----------



## dualsub2006

Shades228 said:


> HBO is $15.99 Cinemax is $12.99, if Cinemax is stand alone, both of them have To Go.


Yep, you're right. I wasn't paying $14.99, I was paying $13.99. The price did go up $2 a month, I just misremembered the starting price.



Shades228 said:


> You keep saying that you should be able to watch HBO anywhere HBO allows you to but you don't pay HBO you pay DIRECTV. So you get watch HBO wherever DIRECTV sees fit to allow you to.


Just to cover your comment about "where ever DirecTV sees fit", there's no way that D* would ever dare me (or anyone else) with a statement like that.

Now, I realize that not many would be in a position to do what I am about to float, but some are. Go with me here for a second. I am obligated to D* for the next 9 months (new equipment coming the 19th to kick me back to 2 years), but I can dial my package back. Way back.

What if, instead of adding a D* account at the vacation house I added E* instead? I'd get HBO Go on my Roku. Or, get U-verse Internet, TV and HBO Go on Roku. If it's going to cost me money why wouldn't I go with the low intro rate of a new provider and add HBO to the deal?

Would I actually dial back my D* package at home? No, it's not likely that I would. Is E* or U-verse with HBO good enough for a second home? In a word, yes. With either, I'd actually be able to watch where I see fit.


----------



## AlanSaysYo

I also found my way to ol' Ellen's comment section and left her a message. I currently subscribe to Showtime and just yesterday subscribed to HBO specifically so I could use HBO Go on my Roku. When I found out that wasn't possible, I called back immediately and canceled HBO. I think I was subscribed for about 20 minutes. Amazing that a computer can sign me up for HBO but it takes a real person to cancel it (and I have to wait 15 minutes to talk to that real person). 

The rep I talked to started in on the "why are you canceling?" script and didn't get past the first question before I explained to him what my problem was. Once he knew I was calling about the HBO Go on Roku, he immediately canceled HBO without asking any more questions or attempting to persuade me to keep it. When I canceled Starz last year, it took five minutes of saying no to the rep's wheeling and dealing to get it canceled. This time, they didn't even try. That tells me many others had called before me for a similar reason, and the rep knew he couldn't do anything to change my mind. That ought to send up a huge red flag for whoever answers for all the premium cancellations at DirecTV.

And I mentioned all of that in my message to Ellen Whatshername. I don't realistically expect anything to happen for at least a couple months, if ever. But I wanted to make sure they knew exactly why they weren't getting my money, and how easy it would have been to change that.


----------



## Shades228

Casey21 said:


> I just sent a "sternly" worded message as well to Ellen. Why do I think my message is now stuck in a "series of tubes" and won't make it to Ellen. I encourage everyone to please send a message to DTV. If Bank of America backs down from their $5 bank card fee because of consumer outrage hopefully this can work in other areas of business as well.


Comparing the BoA debit card fee to HBO To Go is a little extreme. Considering that it if every single Roku sold was sold to a DIRECTV customer that would be less than 7% of their base. Then add in how many would have HBO. I bet you're looking at less than 1% tops realistically. How many of those are really going to care enough? Not that many. Ellen's job isn't to read email sent in by customers. She has a whole department for that. I'm not going to say that once in awhile she doesn't involve herself in one personally but I can say that I bet most of the time it's forward to her group if it even gets to her email.



dualsub2006 said:


> Yep, you're right. I wasn't paying $14.99, I was paying $13.99. The price did go up $2 a month, I just misremembered the starting price.
> 
> Just to cover your comment about "where ever DirecTV sees fit", there's no way that D* would ever dare me (or anyone else) with a statement like that.
> 
> Now, I realize that not many would be in a position to do what I am about to float, but some are. Go with me here for a second. I am obligated to D* for the next 9 months (new equipment coming the 19th to kick me back to 2 years), but I can dial my package back. Way back.
> 
> What if, instead of adding a D* account at the vacation house I added E* instead? I'd get HBO Go on my Roku. Or, get U-verse Internet, TV and HBO Go on Roku. If it's going to cost me money why wouldn't I go with the low intro rate of a new provider and add HBO to the deal?
> 
> Would I actually dial back my D* package at home? No, it's not likely that I would. Is E* or U-verse with HBO good enough for a second home? In a word, yes. With either, I'd actually be able to watch where I see fit.


It would be cheaper just to cancel the service than to reduce the programming. Family is the cheapest at $29.99 that's not including anything else. DIRECTV doesn't have to dare you because they're already doing it. You're watching HBO where they have determined they want you to watch HBO. It's not like the people who would be in charge of this are going to get an email from someone in Ellen's office and go "Hey Bob did you know that Roku can do HBO To Go now?". They've known and have made a decision. That decision we won't know until something changes but the current decision is not supported.

Now this could all change in an hour as DIRECTV is known to do. My point is people keep stating that they're sending strongly worded emails to Ellen's office. If it makes you feel better great but if you expect them to explain a decision they have or haven't made to you then you're going to be in to some disappointment.

Now to put some things in perspective DIRECTV is soft launching the new receiver of the future, they're launching a HD GUI, and dealing with mobile apps. I'm sure there are other projects as well that are going on prior to ROKU coming up. My bet is that they are working on a complete TV Anywhere setup similar to other companies and once the entire portal is done the ROKU part would fit in there. We have seen some movement lately with the TV Anywhere so it could be closer than we think or it could be far off.


----------



## Casey21

Shades228 said:


> Comparing the BoA debit card fee to HBO To Go is a little extreme. Considering that it if every single Roku sold was sold to a DIRECTV customer that would be less than 7% of their base. Then add in how many would have HBO. I bet you're looking at less than 1% tops realistically. How many of those are really going to care enough? Not that many. Ellen's job isn't to read email sent in by customers. She has a whole department for that. I'm not going to say that once in awhile she doesn't involve herself in one personally but I can say that I bet most of the time it's forward to her group if it even gets to her email.][/I]


Obviously, it's an extreme example. My point is if enough people become involved and demand change sometimes that change will occur. Not in every case but it can make a difference. Again, obviously, Ellen isn't reading the messages. I'm not an idiot I know how corporate america works. I believe it's important to let companies, politicians, and whomever else needs to hear it how I feel by exercising my right to vote, cancel or not buy a company's product or simply state my opinion. I'm certainly not what you would call an 100% optimist but I'd rather not live my life in complete cynicism.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Shades228" said:


> It would be cheaper just to cancel the service than to reduce the programming. Family is the cheapest at $29.99 that's not including anything else. DIRECTV doesn't have to dare you because they're already doing it. You're watching HBO where they have determined they want you to watch HBO.


Well, I would need TV in two places so I'm not canceling, but you're right. They are daring me.

I canceled my appointment for the equipment add on the 19th and I'll call and downgrade my package before my next statement date. My contract with D* will now expire in May of 2012.

Dish is going to hook me up on the 3rd. Having D* in one place and E* in another isn't how I thought this would work out, but whatever.


----------



## t_h

What a disappointment. I'm glad I didnt buy the extra Roku box for this only to find out it wasnt supported.

Like netflix and amazon video on demand, this is simply competition with directv for your viewing time, and unless directv can make extra money from it, they arent going to support it.

I can see some of the issues with the cable companies since there are a lot of them. But HBO GO works with directv already, and they singly represent a lot of viewers.

Geez, even Dish has it...so I'm guessing major costs and infrastructure requirements arent that big of a hurdle.

Guess I'll have to resurrect my old htpc and hook it up if I'm going to watch all of that HBO GO goodness. Its a little inconvenient but...

If they'd at least offer all of the HBO GO content through on-demand, that'd be one thing...but they arent even close.


----------



## inkahauts

"dualsub2006" said:


> Now you're just being a shill. You don't have an actual point of view, you just want to defend what D* is doing.
> 
> Part of the increase in HBO fees was to cover the HBO Go service. I'm paying for it and should be allowed to access it anywhere that HBO sees fit to make it available.
> 
> A stupid comment like "hook up a receiver" simply doesn't help defend D*'s position on this because that receiver is very limited in the HBO content that it can access.


Thanks for reading all my first post, including the end where I said I'd like to have it available on the roku as well. Also thanks for realizing that what I said are arguments for why directv may not be offering it on roku, including wondering how other providers are viewing certain aspects of the system. I guess pointing out facts and asking questions that are legitimate must look to you like i agree with them, which i don't. I do have a point of view, and if you had taken the time to understand my post, maybe you'd see it. I don't think in any way it's not there because of technical issues. I think it's money. Possibly because they don't want to compete with a roku for a box on say, your third tv on your house, and partly because they may be afraid of theft. It's also completely possible that they didn't have to pay hbo as much as other carriers or will avoid one future increase because they opted not to allow for people to use the roku for it, although i seriously doubt that one. We don't know. I wish I did, Like I said I'd like to have it as well, it'd be a nice addition. My point of view is simple, we are being screwed for any number of reasons, all of which boil down to money.

Of course, I'd like to see directv add all hbo go content to on demand too. And live streaming of the hbo channels on the iPad app. And sling box like ability from dvrs in the home and outside the home. But I don't recall anyone calling me shrill when they said i don't get to do that when I asked for it because I wouldn't be at my service address and they could have theft issues or concerns. Especially knowing that directv has always seemingly been held to a higher standard than other companies by Hollywood for closing any and all possible theft issues.

But, I don't think that your increase in costs are directly related to hbogo. I think hbo go is a product of hbo being concerned about controlling their content in a mobile world, and they feel it's better to offer this option than allow providers to come up with their own. Bt they are leaving it up to the providers on what devices they can use it on.

As for your comment on everywhere tv, it's been outright said by the industry it's about portable devices. Last time I checked, roku has no battery and no screen, and isn't considered a true portable device video device by the industry. I love that it can be fairly portable, but the industry doesn't really see it as one, from anything I have ever read or seen from a provider. You may see things as cut and dry, but they aren't. I hope someday directv will allow access to it, I really do.


----------



## oakwcj

I think that DirecTV has heard our complaints. The last email I got from Ellen's office said that they were focusing on improving HBO on demand. I wrote back yet again and said that On Demand was an inferior service and in no way a substitute for HBO GO and that I thought DirecTV was big enough to chew gum, launch satellites, and deal with HBO GO and on demand all at the same time. I also said that if HBO was the bad guy in this I'd be happy to complain to them instead if they'd provide me with some actual information.

I just received a phone call from a nice, somewhat flustered, man in the Customer Advocate office. He, of course, had no information either, but didn't hide behind any particular excuse, and broadly hinted that they were working on it. At least I know that we have their attention.


----------



## AlanSaysYo

oakwcj said:


> I wrote back yet again and said that On Demand was an inferior service and in no way a substitute for HBO GO and that I thought DirecTV was big enough to chew gum, launch satellites, and deal with HBO GO and on demand all at the same time.


That, sir, is excellent. I would have included that in mine if I'd read it here first.

Edit: I just received the same canned response that others have received, and reading it again, I fixated on something:

"Although we don't currently *allow* HBO streaming on the Roku..."

Quite the interesting word choice. If you don't support something, you don't tell people that it's not allowed - you say it isn't supported. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference at the end of the day, but still. Using the word "allow" over "support" gives me a little hope that it can be changed.


----------



## inkahauts

Here's an interesting little article about it... Seems directv ain't the only one. In fact, it basically looks like the rivals to the bigger guys are the ones allowing it. Interesting...

http://gigaom.com/video/hbo-go-for-roku-comcast-directv/


----------



## oakwcj

inkahauts said:


> Here's an interesting little article about it... Seems directv ain't the only one. In fact, it basically looks like the rivals to the bigger guys are the ones allowing it. Interesting...
> 
> http://gigaom.com/video/hbo-go-for-roku-comcast-directv/


If the article is accurate, it would seem to rule out money as an obstacle:

Furthermore, there's no contractual reason Comcast or DirecTV users can't access the Roku app. A person with knowledge of the situation told us there are no amendments needed for those companies to authenticate with one device or another, and the decision to support different devices - or not - is up to the operator.


----------



## DBSooner

If you think people are mad about this now just wait until the HBO GO app is released on the Xbox 360 and PS3.


----------



## dualsub2006

"inkahauts" said:


> As for your comment on everywhere tv, it's been outright said by the industry it's about portable devices. Last time I checked, roku has no battery and no screen, and isn't considered a true portable device video device by the industry. I love that it can be fairly portable, but the industry doesn't really see it as one, from anything I have ever read or seen from a provider. You may see things as cut and dry, but they aren't. I hope someday directv will allow access to it, I really do.


Actually, every definition of TV Everywhere that I have ever seen simply describes it as a method that allows a user to authenticate as a pay TV subscriber. Your phone, your tablet, your laptop, your desktop and even your Roku. All potential TV Everywhere devices.

HBO has stated that they are rolling out to Roku and other connected devices as a part of their TV Everywhere strategy. Again, you might to narrow down the concept to being simply about phones and tablets but that's incorrect. Go to http://www.timewarner.com/our-innovations/content-everywhere and see how they define TV Everywhere.

And it isn't that I ignored the line where you wanted Roku streaming too, I just got wrapped up in the fact that you said it was about cheating the system, loaning Roku devices out, duplicative service, removing the need for a receiver and all of the D* defense lines that you posted. Oh yeah, there was also the line about telling one upset user to hook a receiver up to his TV if he wanted HBO on it.


----------



## Bryan_J_T

HBOGo and Roku have both pointed fingers at the service providers on twitter, while there have only been canned responses from DirecTV. It's pretty obvious who is preventing us from using this service


----------



## McCoyRJ

What a disappointment. Just tried to activate GO on the Roku, found out D* doesn't provide it, then came here and read all these posts. Anyone have the email address to the person I should raise hell to?


----------



## TBoneit

oakwcj said:


> How do I access HBO GO content on the Roku through my DirecTV receiver? I can get HBO, but not the thousands of programs and movies available on HBO GO. I'm "allowed" to watch it on my computer, but I have absolutely no interest in watching an HD movie on a small screen with poor audio. I'm paying for HBO. HBO GO is now an important part of the HBO service. HBO wants me to be able to watch their stuff on the Roku. Roku wants me to be able to watch it. DirecTV has decided, in its full arrogance mode, that I won't be "allowed" to and that I have no right to an explanation. Maybe you don't mind being treated in this imperious way, but I do.


From here http://gigaom.com/video/hbo-go-for-roku-comcast-directv/ I see the reason for no HBO GO.

"Roku expects to have sold 3 million streaming boxes by year-end, and CEO Anthony Wood told us last fall that about 12 percent of Roku users go on to cut the cord or cancel their pay TV subscriptions."

"Meanwhile, DirecTV is betting big on its Nomad set-top box for streaming pre-recorded DVR programs on laptops and connected devices."

Why help someone cut the cord? And give a reason to buy a competitors product and not buy your product instead.

I'm sorry but to me this is much ado over something of no value.

I look at the HBO GO content periodically and see nothing of interest.

In your case I'd do what I do. I don't keep beating my head against the wall. I go around it.

If it were me IOWs and I did want HBO I'd go to a provider that offers what I want. Life is to short.


----------



## t_h

TBoneit said:


> Why help someone cut the cord? And give a reason to buy a competitors product and not buy your product instead.


Because the more stuff that I want that Directv doesnt give me, and the less stuff they allow to stream from their box, the more I want to cut the cord. I can get this capability by simply connecting a PC or a tablet/phone with an hdmi connection to my tv. So they're simply making it hard for me to have what I want, and make me go away from directv to get it. If I'm watching netflix and hulu+ and hbogo on my tv with my computer, I might decide that since my directv box does none of this, at I dont need the directv box.



> I'm sorry but to me this is much ado over something of no value.


Eh, how about every episode of every series that HBO has ever run? There are at least 3-4 that I havent seen and would like to. And I will, just not with a directv receiver or a roku player, which is stupid because I already have those attached.

Historically protectionism never works. Directv works hard to not offer things like netflix, hulu and hbo go on a roku player because they dont sell the $6 pay per views that I'm not ever going to buy anyhow. This is a strong pattern I've seen with Directv management...prevent the customer from doing what they want without ever figuring out how to embrace and profit from what the customer wants.

In my opinion, crap like this is what pushes people to cut the cord.

Theres no cost or complexity here, its a simple activation capability for the roku device. Directv already has the authentication done for pc's, android and ios. They've just elected to not do it for roku.


----------



## inkahauts

Its all a game of who jumps first and so on. At some point, streaming only options will have the same costs to consumers as traditional vehicles do today. We are in a flux period. Once theses fees all balance out, then everything will truly be available everywhere, if you subscribe to any one carrier. Till then, we have this mess.

A minimalist solution is for Directv to add all the go shows to on demand. That would be the best solution, short of actually allowing it on the roku. But here is what gets me, who is limiting the go content from airplay on my ipad to my apple tv? The screen shot I get when trying implicates its HBO, not directv? To me, that is totally contradictory to them allowing it on the roku. Whats up with that?


----------



## dualsub2006

"inkahauts" said:


> But here is what gets me, who is limiting the go content from airplay on my ipad to my apple tv? The screen shot I get when trying implicates its HBO, not directv?


That is HBO blocking AirPlay. AirPlay has been cracked and a person with the proper setup can steal that stream. Until the encryption is strengthened you won't see HBO allow AirPlay streaming. The help section of their HBO Go website talks about it.


----------



## Satelliteracer

dualsub2006 said:


> Actually, it's no assumption. I'm on the Premier package now, but 8 months or so ago I had HBO in my previous package. It was $14.99. Today, 8 months or so later, it's $16.99 if you add it on. The price for HBO went up, and recently. I would even make the point that the cost of all movie channels went up because D* doesn't offer the dollar discount on each subsequent movie channel that you add to your package.



HBO is $15.99 and has been since February 10, 2011. 
Prior to that is was $14.99 for almost two years. 
March 4, 2009 the price went from $14.00 to $14.99.

If you take the Premier package, you sign up for all 5 premiums but you save a few bucks rather buying them incrementally

HBO $15.99
Starz $11.01 (discounted)
Showtime $10 (discounted)
Cinemax $8 (discounted)
Sports Pack $7 (discounted)

$52 total incrementally.

With Premier, you save $3 per month by having all the Premiums. Premier is the same as CHOICE XTRA + the 5 premiums. CHOICE XTRA + 5 premiums = $117.99. Premier = $114.99. Savings of $3


----------



## oakwcj

When I saw a post from Satelliteracer, the most knowledgeable and credible voice from DirecTV, I was hoping it would be about HBO GO. Nothing to say about the the thread topic, SR?


----------



## Shades228

oakwcj said:


> When I saw a post from Satelliteracer, the most knowledgeable and credible voice from DirecTV, I was hoping it would be about HBO GO. Nothing to say about the the thread topic, SR?


Well since he posted and didn't say anything on the subject I think that would be obvious that he doesn't have anything to say about it. If he had something to post about it he would have. Trying to call him out on it, while possibly making you feel better, won't do anything else.

If there was any information to give you would have gotten it by now. You're getting canned responses because there's nothing to say about it. Read that article that was posted 50% of pay TV customers cannot access it on their ROKU. ROKU has expected to sell 3 million devices by years end, but that doesn't say how many unique customers. People on here have reported they have 2-3. This is a small niche market similar to TiVo. You have a specialized device that's not going to really do anything to help a company so why bother supporting it.

To put it in perspective look at the amount of unique posters to this thread who have said they have an issue with this. Then look at the total number of page views. If you do a Google search you get linked to this thread quickly.

If it's even in the works, given the history of what happened last time, don't expect DIRECTV to make an announcement about HBO stuff until it's done. Chances are however if they're putting the time in anywhere in anywhere it would be the game consoles and even then I wouldn't be surprised if DIRECTV didn't support it.


----------



## MikeW

I disagree with the notion that DirecTV is blocking ROKU because they are afraid of cord-cutters. You can't get HBO_GO without a subscription to somebody.

Unfortunately, but their implementation of HBO ON Demand is poor and NOMAD is a joke.

They really should quit with these anti-consumer initiatives and deliver on products like ROKU when the opportunitiy arises.


----------



## Shades228

MikeW said:


> I disagree with the notion that DirecTV is blocking ROKU because they are afraid of cord-cutters. You can't get HBO_GO without a subscription to somebody.
> 
> Unfortunately, but their implementation of HBO ON Demand is poor and NOMAD is a joke.
> 
> They really should quit with these anti-consumer initiatives and deliver on products like ROKU when the opportunitiy arises.


What you can do though is not help make a product that also has competitors products on there be less appealing when they connect to the TV.


----------



## MikeW

Shades228 said:


> What you can do though is not help make a product that also has competitors products on there be less appealing when they connect to the TV.


Or make your product far superior so that your customers aren't wanting for more.

A ROKU interface to browse movies would certainly be more appealing than the DirecTV interface.

The TIVO To GO interface and functionality is far superior to NOMAD.


----------



## oakwcj

Shades228 said:


> Well since he posted and didn't say anything on the subject I think that would be obvious that he doesn't have anything to say about it. If he had something to post about it he would have. Trying to call him out on it, while possibly making you feel better, won't do anything else.


I feel just fine, but thanks for caring. You sure do post a lot on a subject that you don't really seem to care about. I wasn't trying to call out Mr. Racer, just lighten things up a bit. I know full well that he'd say something about the subject if he had something to say. I'm sure he can take care of himself, and so can I. I just wonder what bothers you so much about customers trying to pressure their satellite provider to provide something they want.


----------



## Devo1237

Ugh, I've been dying for HBO Go to show up on my XBOX so I could power through eps of wire and curb, but now it sounds like DirecTV won't even authenticate it? What's the point? I won't subscribe to HBO without access to Go, so they're getting one less premium subscriber. I'm not gonna pretend it's enough to make me cancel DTV all together, but I am gonna look into some sort of ala carte option with my cable company. Its a slippery slope when they start denying these kind of simple features.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Satelliteracer" said:


> [*]HBO is $15.99 and has been since February 10, 2011.
> [*]Prior to that is was $14.99 for almost two years.


Thank you for confirming my own belief that I can't remember the price of anything.


----------



## tonyd79

"MikeW" said:


> Or make your product far superior so that your customers aren't wanting for more.
> 
> A ROKU interface to browse movies would certainly be more appealing than the DirecTV interface.
> 
> .


Really? Most roku lists consist of programs in no specific order and few have searching capability.


----------



## dualsub2006

"tonyd79" said:


> Really? Most roku lists consist of programs in no specific order and few have searching capability.


Few? Really? I just went through my 18 Roku channels and all but 2 had search.

Also, movies and shows are presented in the order that the channel owner chooses to present them. HBO Go on Roku is far better in appearance than HBO On Demand on DirecTV.


----------



## tonyd79

"dualsub2006" said:


> Few? Really? I just went through my 18 Roku channels and all but 2 had search.
> 
> Also, movies and shows are presented in the order that the channel owner chooses to present them. HBO Go on Roku is far better in appearance than HBO On Demand on DirecTV.


Of my channels only Netflix has search. There is no such thing as a roku standard anyway.


----------



## oakwcj

FYI:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/476231-Comcast_DirecTV_Say_No_Go_To_HBO_On_Roku.php


----------



## MikeW

tonyd79 said:


> Really? Most roku lists consist of programs in no specific order and few have searching capability.


Looks like the watchlist will carry over from your iPhone/iPad/PC to the ROKU. DirecTV has a few categories. When you select "All" the list is extremely cumbersome. In some of the HD categories, there are only 6 movies and a seventh that is a repeat of one of the other 6 in the same category.

I'll admit, I don't know what I'm talking about on this topic, but it seems DirecTV On Demand uses DirecTV bandwidth, while the ROKU application would not. This would also seem to be a benefit to DirecTV.

All I can say is...either give us a full blown On Demand experience, or allow users access to some of the easier methods of connection. Someone else argued that we are a small population of users who care about this topic. This only increases the reason for allowing it. How much could it possibly hurt if only 10 of us actually use it.


----------



## dualsub2006

"MikeW" said:


> How much could it possibly hurt if only 10 of us actually use it.


It's about blocking a threat more than it is about anything else. Every cord cutter that I know has a streaming box. Roku, Apple TV or one of the others.

It makes no sense to block HBO Go because you can't get it standalone, but D* is thumbing Roku, and us, in the eye.

I watched HBO Go last night on my Google TV. Not as convenient as the Roku channel, but it works flawlessly.


----------



## dualsub2006

"dualsub2006" said:


> Dish is going to hook me up on the 3rd. Having D* in one place and E* in another isn't how I thought this would work out, but whatever.


Canceled my E* appointment last night. Having another full TV package wasn't something I was going to do, at least not yet.

Still no D* appointment for new equipment though, so my contract runs until mid May. I'll decide then what to do.

Taking a Google TV over to the other place. Netflix, HBO Go and MAX Go.


----------



## tonyd79

"MikeW" said:


> Looks like the watchlist will carry over from your iPhone/iPad/PC to the ROKU. DirecTV has a few categories. When you select "All" the list is extremely cumbersome. In some of the HD categories, there are only 6 movies and a seventh that is a repeat of one of the other 6 in the same category.
> 
> I'll admit, I don't know what I'm talking about on this topic, but it seems DirecTV On Demand uses DirecTV bandwidth, while the ROKU application would not. This would also seem to be a benefit to DirecTV.
> 
> All I can say is...either give us a full blown On Demand experience, or allow users access to some of the easier methods of connection. Someone else argued that we are a small population of users who care about this topic. This only increases the reason for allowing it. How much could it possibly hurt if only 10 of us actually use it.


Both the on demand and go apps, including that on roku are determined by the channel. Neither interface is great as directv's is a bit clunky and rokus is limited by the abilities of the box and by what the channel wants to put into it. (speaking generally, not to hbo itself).

The big differences are that Go has more content and on demand tends to be better pic and sound quality though streaming is getting better. I recently compared Epix streaming to Epix on demand on fios. Big difference in quality.


----------



## Devo1237

dualsub2006 said:


> It's about blocking a threat more than it is about anything else. Every cord cutter that I know has a streaming box. Roku, Apple TV or one of the others.
> 
> It makes no sense to block HBO Go because you can't get it standalone, but D* is thumbing Roku, and us, in the eye.


That's exactly the problem with all the media companies these day and their paranoia towards new technologies. I can't use any HBO Go device without paying DirecTV for HBO service. There is absolutely no reason that blackballing Roku (or my preference XBOX) should be more valuable to them then the extra $15 I am eager to give them if they provide access to GO.

It really makes no sense. Unless HBO is stipulating some clause that would allow them to collect subscribers WITHOUT subscribing through a linear service like DTV, then DirecTV's priorities are completely upside down.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

Devo1237 said:


> That's exactly the problem with all the media companies these day and their paranoia towards new technologies. I can't use any HBO Go device without paying DirecTV for HBO service. There is absolutely no reason that blackballing Roku (or my preference XBOX) should be more valuable to them then the extra $15 I am eager to give them if they provide access to GO.
> 
> It really makes no sense. Unless HBO is stipulating some clause that would allow them to collect subscribers WITHOUT subscribing through a linear service like DTV, then DirecTV's priorities are completely upside down.


Is it paranoia or reality? My guess is that most of the television companies feel HBO is doing an end run on them and trying to go directly to the consumer. DTV and many others spent millions of dollars to bring HBO and other services to their customers. They pay HBO huge amounts in fees, more than double what ESPN receives. Now HBO wants to go directly to the consumer and undercut them. Why should Comcast, DTV, and others help them to do that?

DTV owns the relationship with the customer, not HBO. It's one thing to put the programming up on an iPad, quite another when you are delivering it directly to the television.

My guess is DTV and others will allow this if they get protections from HBO on the back end. With the protections, DTV has nothing to lose. Without them, then DTV is merely a willing participant in cutting their own throat.


----------



## tonyd79

Devo1237 said:


> It really makes no sense. Unless HBO is stipulating some clause that would allow them to collect subscribers WITHOUT subscribing through a linear service like DTV, then DirecTV's priorities are completely upside down.


Or it might be as simple as extra fees.

We assume some big reason here and it might be as simple as extra fees to DirecTV for appliances other than PC, iPad, etc.


----------



## Devo1237

ChicagoBlue said:


> Is it paranoia or reality? My guess is that most of the television companies feel HBO is doing an end run on them and trying to go directly to the consumer. DTV and many others spent millions of dollars to bring HBO and other services to their customers. They pay HBO huge amounts in fees, more than double what ESPN receives. Now HBO wants to go directly to the consumer and undercut them. Why should Comcast, DTV, and others help them to do that?


It is a reality that streaming is only going to be bigger and bigger in the future, but the mistake DirecTV is making is not supporting an option that actually benefits them (we have to pay a TV service provider for access to Go). Some day, I'm sure that won't be the case, but until then they can either collect the $16 I'd like to pay them for that access, or force me to consider leaving them altogether for a provider who isn't trying to ignore the changing reality of how their customers want to access their entertainment.


----------



## Devo1237

tonyd79 said:


> Or it might be as simple as extra fees.
> 
> We assume some big reason here and it might be as simple as extra fees to DirecTV for appliances other than PC, iPad, etc.


Maybe. At least that would make sense on DirecTV's part. But everything I've read says HBO isn't charging anything, which makes more sense on their part.


----------



## oakwcj

tonyd79 said:


> Or it might be as simple as extra fees.
> 
> We assume some big reason here and it might be as simple as extra fees to DirecTV for appliances other than PC, iPad, etc.


I don't think so:

"Furthermore, there's no contractual reason Comcast or DirecTV users can't access the Roku app. A person with knowledge of the situation told us there are no amendments needed for those companies to authenticate with one device or another, and the decision to support different devices - or not - is up to the operator."

http://gigaom.com/video/hbo-go-for-roku-comcast-directv/


----------



## Shades228

Here's something that I'm sure some people won't like to hear and may take offense to so if you do then calm down and realize it's not personal.

Look at the supported devices, iPad/iPod, Android, Computers. All of those items are owned by people with certain demographics. These people in general will pay more for services (apps, data plans) and look for features more than price. Adding this brings basically nothing to DIRECTV. The Roku customer base is too small to have to worry about and people who are buying them are doing so with the intent to cut costs elsewhere. Therefor the people who have them are at a higher risk of leaving anyways so why cater to them.

All DIRECTV would do by adding this would be to add value to a product that also connects to the TV. Now I know people are saying you still have to pay for HBO however again it's about the demographics of the people who are buying ROKU's as well.

They've now officially come out and said that they are not going to support it. It's not that big of a surprise so now people just have to choose if it's a deal breaker for them. If so then call one of the smaller companies, who are losing customers, and sign up.


----------



## Chuck W

ChicagoBlue said:


> I see Comcast, Time Warner Cable and a few others aren't on there either.
> 
> Not sure I blame DTV on this one. Seems to me HBO at some point is going to try and sell their service directly to the customer and by putting it directly on the television via Roku, internet connected television or even a game console only brings that action closer to reality.


Yea, you can blame Directv for this.

The original concept of HBOGO was to do exactly what you mentioned... set up a pay system where you pay HBO directly and circumvent the TV providers. Well, the TV providers said to HBO that if you do this, we will drop your channels from our system. So HBO rethought their idea and thus came up with the system you see today.

The bottom line is if Directv is that scared about HBOGO, then why support it AT ALL? Singling out devices is ridiculous.

I suggest everyone start sending emails to Directv about this and make it known you are not happy aout these games they are playing.


----------



## DawgLink

Shades228 said:


> Here's something that I'm sure some people won't like to hear and may take offense to so if you do then calm down and realize it's not personal.
> 
> Look at the supported devices, iPad/iPod, Android, Computers. All of those items are owned by people with certain demographics. These people in general will pay more for services (apps, data plans) and look for features more than price. Adding this brings basically nothing to DIRECTV. The Roku customer base is too small to have to worry about and people who are buying them are doing so with the intent to cut costs elsewhere. Therefor the people who have them are at a higher risk of leaving anyways so why cater to them.
> 
> All DIRECTV would do by adding this would be to add value to a product that also connects to the TV. Now I know people are saying you still have to pay for HBO however again it's about the demographics of the people who are buying ROKU's as well.
> 
> They've now officially come out and said that they are not going to support it. It's not that big of a surprise so now people just have to choose if it's a deal breaker for them. If so then call one of the smaller companies, who are losing customers, and sign up.


I am still not sure exactly what you are trying to say since the devices you point to are owned by millions and millions across many different demographics....and though the ROKU device base isnt that large, I have never heard of one group buying it.


----------



## RickD_99

I am wondering if DirecTV's stance here regarding the Roku could be the basis for a class action law suit? Given that Dish Network and half a dozen other providers *are* allowing Roku access isn't DirecTV's position anti-competitive in some manner? Any attorneys here that would like to weigh in?


----------



## adkinsjm

"RickD_99" said:


> I am wondering if DirecTV's stance here regarding the Roku could be the basis for a class action law suit? Given that Dish Network and half a dozen other providers *are* allowing Roku access isn't DirecTV's position anti-competitive is some manner? Any attorneys here that would like to weigh in?


No, because DirecTV is not deceiving anyone into thinking they might get HBOGo on Roku.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Shades228" said:


> The Roku customer base is too small to have to worry about and people who are buying them are doing so with the intent to cut costs elsewhere. Therefor the people who have them are at a higher risk of leaving anyways so why cater to them.


Your point was a good one right up to when you characterized ALL Roku owners as cord cutters. I have 3 Roku boxes and the only thing I cut with DirecTV was an install appointment to add to my account after they blocked HBO Go on Roku.

The fact is, 12% of Roku owners are cord cutters. That's it. And, any D* customer that would cut the cord would lose HBO Go access along with it. So your point is, pointless.


----------



## NewForceFiveFan

Here's a good reason Directv wouldn't want HBO GO on Roku: they wouldn't make any money on it. Unlike an ipad/iphone/itouch, which are true portable devices, the Roku is just a cheap way for customers to circumvent having to invest in additional receivers in order to watch on-demand programming in additional locations in their homes.


----------



## adkinsjm

"NewForceFiveFan" said:


> Here's a good reason Directv wouldn't want HBO GO on Roku: they wouldn't make any money on it. Unlike an ipad/iphone/itouch, which are true portable devices, the Roku is just a cheap way for customers to circumvent having to invest in additional receivers in order to watch on-demand programming in additional locations in their homes.


I'm sure DirecTV wants its HBO on Demand offerings to match what HBO GO has.


----------



## oakwcj

Shades228 said:


> Here's something that I'm sure some people won't like to hear and may take offense to so if you do then calm down and realize it's not personal.
> 
> Look at the supported devices, iPad/iPod, Android, Computers. All of those items are owned by people with certain demographics. These people in general will pay more for services (apps, data plans) and look for features more than price. Adding this brings basically nothing to DIRECTV. The Roku customer base is too small to have to worry about and people who are buying them are doing so with the intent to cut costs elsewhere. Therefor the people who have them are at a higher risk of leaving anyways so why cater to them.
> 
> All DIRECTV would do by adding this would be to add value to a product that also connects to the TV. Now I know people are saying you still have to pay for HBO however again it's about the demographics of the people who are buying ROKU's as well.
> 
> They've now officially come out and said that they are not going to support it. It's not that big of a surprise so now people just have to choose if it's a deal breaker for them. If so then call one of the smaller companies, who are losing customers, and sign up.


If you're just going to make stuff up, you could do a better job. Rokus are internet devices. They don't work without a broadband connection, which means that anyone with a Roku already has a computer. HBO costs $16 a month, on top of a cable or satellite subscription. We're not taling about cost-cutting poor people here.

It's not a question of DirecTV "supporting" the Roku. It's just a matter of unblocking the authentication routine for HBO GO access. HBO and the providers are engaging in a stupid power play over how HBO GO content gets to your TV. DirecTV would like it to be through HBO on demand, but HBO isn't going to give them the rights to all that content. HBO wants to make it available to subscribers through any and all devices, to enhance the value of its product. That's why it won't give streaming right to Netflix. Consumers are left on the sidelines while they all tilt at their windmills.

You can watch HBO GO on your TV right now with an HDMI cable from your computer. DirecTV just doesn't want to make it easy. A pox on all their houses.


----------



## oakwcj

RickD_99 said:


> I am wondering if DirecTV's stance here regarding the Roku could be the basis for a class action law suit? Given that Dish Network and half a dozen other providers *are* allowing Roku access isn't DirecTV's position anti-competitive is some manner? Any attorneys here that would like to weigh in?


I don't think there is any basis for a class action, particularly given the arbitration provisions of the Customer Agreement. It might be possible, however, to file a claim, subject to arbitration, pursuant to section 9 of the agreement, on the grounds that DirecTV's policy of blocking HBO GO content through the Roku constitutes an arbitrary and unreasonable reduction of the value of an HBO subscription. We are paying for HBO GO as part of our $16 monthly subscription. Denying access through a particular device, where there is no extra cost to DirecTV, and where there are no technical impediments to access, is unreasonable, particularly since there are other ways to get HBO GO content on an HDTV screen [by connecting an HDMI cable from a computer's video card to the TV]. Decreeing that you can't do the same thing through a Roku, which is just another computer on the network, seems totally arbitrary and capricious.

Something to think about.


----------



## inkahauts

"Devo1237" said:


> That's exactly the problem with all the media companies these day and their paranoia towards new technologies. I can't use any HBO Go device without paying DirecTV for HBO service. There is absolutely no reason that blackballing Roku (or my preference XBOX) should be more valuable to them then the extra $15 I am eager to give them if they provide access to GO.
> 
> It really makes no sense. Unless HBO is stipulating some clause that would allow them to collect subscribers WITHOUT subscribing through a linear service like DTV, then DirecTV's priorities are completely upside down.


I am not sure some of their paranoia isn't well founded here for other reasons. Why encourage people to go buy a roku and the discover all the movies they can get without paying for them a la ppv n directv? Roku is a competitor that could try and get a hbo channel package and charge for it just like directv does. Why help them?

Yeah you can make the argument for that on an iPad too,but again, the size of the screen makes a difference. I am hoping directv is planning a way for them to have hbo go their set top boxes and that would make all of this moot.


----------



## oakwcj

inkahauts said:


> I am not sure some of their paranoia isn't well founded here for other reasons. Why encourage people to go buy a roku and the discover all the movies they can get without paying for them a la ppv n directv? Roku is a competitor that could try and get a hbo channel package and charge for it just like directv does. Why help them?
> 
> Yeah you can make the argument for that on an iPad too,but again, the size of the screen makes a difference. I am hoping directv is planning a way for them to have hbo go their set top boxes and that would make all of this mute.


Umm, I assume you meant "moot." I'm sure that's what DirecTV would like to do, but I don't think HBO will "allow" them to duplicate the HBO GO content on DirecTV on demand. That's what's so infuriating about these Goliaths fighting each other. I just want to be able to watch the HBO content that I'm paying for on the device of my choice.


----------



## inkahauts

oakwcj said:


> Umm, I assume you meant "moot." I'm sure that's what DirecTV would like to do, but I don't think HBO will "allow" them to duplicate the HBO GO content on DirecTV on demand. That's what's so infuriating about these Goliaths fighting each other. I just want to be able to watch the HBO content that I'm paying for on the device of my choice.


 Yeah...

And

They might be able to allow streaming on their dvrs. That's what I am referring to.

It has already been said by the powers that be they are trying to get MOST of the Go content onto the on demand, hopefully during the quarter we are in right now. There evidently are some logistical issues that must be worked out. Look into the HBO on demand thread for where I am getting this info. I'd say if they can supply 90% or more via on demand in hd, then really, who cares...


----------



## AlanSaysYo

The more I think about this, the more I dislike it. I think I'm a pretty good DirecTV customer - I have multiple receivers and a few premiums. I pay for Sunday Ticket. I WANT to give them more money for HBO, which I'd like to watch on my Roku since that increases the value of the service to me. I have no intention of cutting the cord even in the distant future. And now, simply on principle, I'm looking into Dish. I know I'm not anywhere near the majority, but I'm a little tired of giving DirecTV a pass just because they have Sunday Ticket.


----------



## dualsub2006

"inkahauts" said:


> I'd say if they can supply 90% or more via on demand in hd, then really, who cares...


YOU don't care, and that's fine. I do care.

I have TV's in my house that will never see a DirecTV (or any other) receiver. There not used often and I'd have to let D* drill a lot more holes in my house to get cable over there.

Those TV's DO have Roku boxes.

I care.


----------



## oakwcj

inkahauts said:


> Yeah...
> 
> And
> 
> They might be able to allow streaming on their dvrs. That's what I am referring to.
> 
> It has already been said by the powers that be they are trying to get MOST of the Go content onto the on demand, hopefully during the quarter we are in right now. There evidently are some logistical issues that must be worked out. Look into the HBO on demand thread for where I am getting this info. I'd say if they can supply 90% or more via on demand in hd, then really, who cares...


I've seen the thread. I'm sure you read satelliteracer's post in which he acknowledged that there would be "rights" issues. That's the other side of the coin. HBO isn't going to let DirecTV replicate HBO GO through its on demand service. I hope I'm wrong about that, but why would they, after investing all this money in GO?


----------



## inkahauts

dualsub2006 said:


> YOU don't care, and that's fine. I do care.
> 
> I have TV's in my house that will never see a DirecTV (or any other) receiver. There not used often and I'd have to let D* drill a lot more holes in my house to get cable over there.
> 
> Those TV's DO have Roku boxes.
> 
> I care.


And I am guessing that right there is one of the reasons DirecTV doesn't want it on roku. While it might not make a difference in your house, I wouldn't be surprised if many people cut out a couple boxes and replaced them with roku devices if you could stream all the go channels (HBO is the first, I expect all the other channels that have go products to follow suit soon enough) Again, I don't like it, but I get it. You might as well say they should add netflix to their boxes, it'd be the same principal. In fact, I'd bet adding netflix to their boxes would lower their revenue less than allowing all the go channels to be accessed on a roku.

One way around this in your own home, just use your tvs as a monitor and hook up a computer to them and stream go that way.

Another thing I think people are minimizing the theory on how much this affects DirecTV because its just HBO.. Its not just HBO. I am sure we will see every provider end up there. Many of the ones that came out with the go services are in the same company as HBO, and they launched HBO first in most cases, and then added more over time. I see no reason to think this is going to be any different.

In some ways, that's going to make people even madder that's its not available on a Roku, but in others, it makes this move make more and more sense from DirecTV standpoint.

I don't see this changing unless they somehow make all roku boxes RVU capable (which if I where ROKU, I'd be working on like crazy right now). But that's a WHOLE other can of worms...



oakwcj said:


> I've seen the thread. I'm sure you read satelliteracer's post in which he acknowledged that there would be "rights" issues. That's the other side of the coin. HBO isn't going to let DirecTV replicate HBO GO through its on demand service. I hope I'm wrong about that, but why would they, after investing all this money in GO?


I had mentioned earlier I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see 90% on demand, SatRacer made it sound liek we'd have a lot of it, not sure 90 but way more tha 60% if I interprit him correctly. But still, I wouldn't be surprised if we got HBO GO through an interface on our DirecTV boxes either someday. This wouldn't be circumventing anything, it'd still be streaming, not on demand. The only question is if DirecTV would go for the poor quality. Streaming is not as good as the on demand they offer, and its highly unlikely that it would ever be able to be as good.


----------



## dualsub2006

"inkahauts" said:


> One way around this in your own home, just use your tvs as a monitor and hook up a computer to them and stream go that way.


There's an easier way. HBO Go and MAX Go work just fine in Chrome on the Google TV.

And had DirecTV not pissed me off with this Roku thing the 4th TV in my house that doesn't have a DirecTV receiver hooked up would have gotten one on the 18th and they would have added 18 months to my contract.

Guess their plan backfired this one time.


----------



## cutter1

Got this response to a complaint sent to the president's desk:


Thank you for your recent correspondence.

While we are not supporting Roku at this time, we are happy to provide our customers access to HBO Go on many mobile platforms. While Roku is an innovative product, our priority right now is to bring the entire HBO library to the television via DIRECTV on Demand where it can be presented in its highest quality format. Once that’s accomplished, we’ll explore other, secondary opportunities to enhance the customer experience.

For the latest announcements about DIRECTV services, please visit our website at directv.com/pr."

If they do,indeed,bring the"Entire HBO library to the television via DIRECTV"
would this make everyone happy campers??


----------



## MikeW

cutter1 said:


> If they do,indeed,bring the"Entire HBO library to the television via DIRECTV"
> would this make everyone happy campers??


It would work for me.


----------



## MikeW

oakwcj said:


> I hope I'm wrong about that, but why would they, after investing all this money in GO?


Satracer alluded to the fact that it is going to take infrastructure to bring the catalog over to OnDemand. I take that to mean DirecTV's infrastructure. It may actually be a benefit to HBO to pull some people off of their servers and let DirecTV handle the load. The investing would have been in hardware, this puts some of that hardware burden on DirecTV.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

Chuck W said:


> Yea, you can blame Directv for this.
> 
> The original concept of HBOGO was to do exactly what you mentioned... set up a pay system where you pay HBO directly and circumvent the TV providers. Well, the TV providers said to HBO that if you do this, we will drop your channels from our system. So HBO rethought their idea and thus came up with the system you see today.
> 
> The bottom line is if Directv is that scared about HBOGO, then why support it AT ALL? Singling out devices is ridiculous.
> 
> I suggest everyone start sending emails to Directv about this and make it known you are not happy aout these games they are playing.


Really? Then if HBO was willing to go this route to prevent being dropped, then it should be no problem for them to give DTV and other MSOs protections IN WRITING (a contract) that says they won't go direct to the consumer. As I've stated before, I've been in this industry for decades and can assure you that is what is happening right now.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

oakwcj said:


> I don't think there is any basis for a class action, particularly given the arbitration provisions of the Customer Agreement. It might be possible, however, to file a claim, subject to arbitration, pursuant to section 9 of the agreement, on the grounds that DirecTV's policy of blocking HBO GO content through the Roku constitutes an arbitrary and unreasonable reduction of the value of an HBO subscription. We are paying for HBO GO as part of our $16 monthly subscription. Denying access through a particular device, where there is no extra cost to DirecTV, and where there are no technical impediments to access, is unreasonable, particularly since there are other ways to get HBO GO content on an HDTV screen [by connecting an HDMI cable from a computer's video card to the TV]. Decreeing that you can't do the same thing through a Roku, which is just another computer on the network, seems totally arbitrary and capricious.
> 
> Something to think about.


"No extra cost to Directv?"

Really? No development cost with their infrastructure to make it work and authenticate? Of course there are costs.

When HBO Go doesn't work, who do you call? HBO? Nope. You call Directv, in fact HBO's own website says to call the provider. Who pays for that call? HBO? Nope. DIRECTV does. Who pays for that agent, that training, the infrastructure to support HBO GO for Directv customers? Directv does.

You guys also forget that HBO receives the highest payment in the industry bar none. Makes ESPN look like peanuts. Double digits. I assure you that the cost to carry HBO next year will go up significantly. And again the year after that. And again the year after that. Most MSO's make very little money on HBO which is why they've had so many contentious deals in the past with so many MSOs.

Right now DTV has HBO Go on tablets, smart phones, PCs. Or in another words, 99% of where you can consume the product. Time Warner has it NOWHERE. Other MSOs have it NOWHERE. Other MSOs do support Roku, others do not. In fact, 50% of the pay television world doesn't support HBO Go on Roku either because they don't support HBO Go at all, or they've chosen not to authenticate on the Roku device. DTV is hardly alone.

Maybe, just maybe, DTV is using this as a bargaining chip for something else from HBO.


----------



## oakwcj

ChicagoBlue said:


> "No extra cost to Directv?"
> 
> Really? No development cost with their infrastructure to make it work and authenticate? Of course there are costs.
> 
> When HBO Go doesn't work, who do you call? HBO? Nope. You call Directv, in fact HBO's own website says to call the provider. Who pays for that call? HBO? Nope. DIRECTV does. Who pays for that agent, that training, the infrastructure to support HBO GO for Directv customers? Directv does.
> 
> You guys also forget that HBO receives the highest payment in the industry bar none. Makes ESPN look like peanuts. Double digits. I assure you that the cost to carry HBO next year will go up significantly. And again the year after that. And again the year after that. Most MSO's make very little money on HBO which is why they've had so many contentious deals in the past with so many MSOs.
> 
> Right now DTV has HBO Go on tablets, smart phones, PCs. Or in another words, 99% of where you can consume the product. Time Warner has it NOWHERE. Other MSOs have it NOWHERE. Other MSOs do support Roku, others do not. In fact, 50% of the pay television world doesn't support HBO Go on Roku either because they don't support HBO Go at all, or they've chosen not to authenticate on the Roku device. DTV is hardly alone.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, DTV is using this as a bargaining chip for something else from HBO.


They already pay those costs for HBO GO on other devices. No additional costs for the Roku over and above those.


----------



## Satelliteracer

inkahauts said:


> And I am guessing that right there is one of the reasons DirecTV doesn't want it on roku. While it might not make a difference in your house, I wouldn't be surprised if many people cut out a couple boxes and replaced them with roku devices if you could stream all the go channels (HBO is the first, I expect all the other channels that have go products to follow suit soon enough) Again, I don't like it, but I get it. You might as well say they should add netflix to their boxes, it'd be the same principal. In fact, I'd bet adding netflix to their boxes would lower their revenue less than allowing all the go channels to be accessed on a roku.
> 
> One way around this in your own home, just use your tvs as a monitor and hook up a computer to them and stream go that way.
> 
> Another thing I think people are minimizing the theory on how much this affects DirecTV because its just HBO.. Its not just HBO. I am sure we will see every provider end up there. Many of the ones that came out with the go services are in the same company as HBO, and they launched HBO first in most cases, and then added more over time. I see no reason to think this is going to be any different.
> 
> In some ways, that's going to make people even madder that's its not available on a Roku, but in others, it makes this move make more and more sense from DirecTV standpoint.
> 
> I don't see this changing unless they somehow make all roku boxes RVU capable (which if I where ROKU, I'd be working on like crazy right now). But that's a WHOLE other can of worms...
> 
> I had mentioned earlier I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see 90% on demand, SatRacer made it sound liek we'd have a lot of it, not sure 90 but way more tha 60% if I interprit him correctly. But still, I wouldn't be surprised if we got HBO GO through an interface on our DirecTV boxes either someday. This wouldn't be circumventing anything, it'd still be streaming, not on demand. The only question is if DirecTV would go for the poor quality. Streaming is not as good as the on demand they offer, and its highly unlikely that it would ever be able to be as good.


HBO On Demand is in the process of being beefed up and will have most of the back catalog content that HBO Go has. Those are the plans. First things first, the HD UI roll out has to be completed and a few other things but the On Demand product will be very similar to the product on HBO Go in terms of the HBO library.


----------



## Satelliteracer

oakwcj said:


> They already pay those costs for HBO GO on other devices. No additional costs for the Roku over and above those.


I don't want to get in your guys argument, but I would add that every time a new product is added, there is cost. Your agents have to understand that new product, how it works, etc. Resources are used to train those agents on a recurring basis...it's not a one time shot. Agents come and go so there is a constant educational \ training element. The more products, the more complex it becomes for the customer service folks to troubleshoot.


----------



## oakwcj

Satelliteracer said:


> I don't want to get in your guys argument, but I would add that every time a new product is added, there is cost. Your agents have to understand that new product, how it works, etc. Resources are used to train those agents on a recurring basis...it's not a one time shot. Agents come and go so there is a constant educational \ training element. The more products, the more complex it becomes for the customer service folks to troubleshoot.


If On Demand picks up the bulk of HBO's back catalog, then I'll be satisfied. I really don't care how it's done, I just want to be able to watch it with high quality picture and sound. For those purposes, On Demand is superior. I don't know why DirecTV couldn't have given this response from the beginning, instead of the usual no-content delphic non-answer.


----------



## inkahauts

Satelliteracer said:


> HBO On Demand is in the process of being beefed up and will have most of the back catalog content that HBO Go has. Those are the plans. First things first, the HD UI roll out has to be completed and a few other things but the On Demand product will be very similar to the product on HBO Go in terms of the HBO library.


Thanks for confirming!

That should satisfy MOST people, here and everywhere. In fact, I'd say its better than Roku,. because it will give access to everyone that is a DirecTV sub, rather than just the few that have a roku. (Granted, I'm one of those)


----------



## inkahauts

dualsub2006 said:


> There's an easier way. HBO Go and MAX Go work just fine in Chrome on the Google TV.
> 
> And had DirecTV not pissed me off with this Roku thing the 4th TV in my house that doesn't have a DirecTV receiver hooked up would have gotten one on the 18th and they would have added 18 months to my contract.
> 
> Guess their plan backfired this one time.


So you're going to deny yourself programming, even after what Satracer just confirmed now that there wouldn't be a point for a roku anyway for HBO Go?


----------



## RickD_99

ChicagoBlue said:


> Right now DTV has HBO Go on tablets, smart phones, PCs. Or in another words, 99% of where you can consume the product. Time Warner has it NOWHERE. Other MSOs have it NOWHERE. Other MSOs do support Roku, others do not. In fact, 50% of the pay television world doesn't support HBO Go on Roku either because they don't support HBO Go at all, or they've chosen not to authenticate on the Roku device. DTV is hardly alone.


So once again if D* is supporting HBO GO on 99% of available platforms why single out the Roku for access blocking? I've yet to see a compelling argument in these 5 plus pages of commentary to explain their non-support of the Roku platform. Why piss off the 1% or less of us who own Rokus and generate the kind of negative PR they currently are propogating in this very visible Internet forum? Also why not allow Roku access in the interim until their HBO ON Demand UI is finished and available to us? The official responses to the complaints seem to change on a daily basis which definitely makes me wonder if something else related to all of this is going on in the background which they are not telling us about.

On a side note I set up my HTPC for HBO GO access last night and was not too impressed with the picture quality via HDMI. The content looks much better to my eyes on my iPad.


----------



## dualsub2006

"inkahauts" said:


> So you're going to deny yourself programming, even after what Satracer just confirmed now that there wouldn't be a point for a roku anyway for HBO Go?


Well, saying that I am denying myself programming is a bit overly dramatic. I have a TV with D* for every member of my house and I'm not so fat and lazy that I can't get myself up and change rooms if I want to watch D*. I denied D* $6 a month if I denied anyone anything.

And again, for the very last time, saying "there wouldn't be a point for a Roku" might apply to you and some others. For me, there most certainly IS still a point to Roku support. Again, I have televisions in parts of my house that I will NEVER install a receiver in. I WILL NOT allow another TV provider to drill another hole in my house. I'll never, ever, ever have access to On Demand in those rooms.

My TVs in these rooms on the other side of my house have Roku boxes on them already. HBO Go supports Roku and the Roku is the only supported device that D* has blocked. D* is trying to make accessing the programming that they provide available in more convenient options by providing Go. I'd like it if they didn't block Roku access. On Demand aside.


----------



## cutter1

Satellite racer,
Thanks for the info....any thoughts on whether or not content be available thru
Wireless or broadband ?
Thanks


----------



## inkahauts

"RickD_99" said:


> So once again if D* is supporting HBO GO on 99% of available platforms why single out the Roku for access blocking? I've yet to see a compelling argument in these 5 plus pages of commentary to explain their non-support of the Roku platform. Why piss off the 1% or less of us who own Rokus and generate the kind of negative PR they currently are propogating in this very visible Internet forum? Also why not allow Roku access in the interim until their HBO ON Demand UI is finished and available to us? The official responses to the complaints seem to change on a daily basis which definitely makes me wonder if something else related to all of this is going on in the background which they are not telling us about.
> 
> On a side note I set up my HTPC for HBO GO access last night and was not too impressed with the picture quality via HDMI. The content looks much better to my eyes on my iPad.


IN its simplest terms, a roku is a set top box for a tv. None of the other devices are considered a set top box for a tv. That directly competes with dtv boxes. You could make an argument for a htpc, but that's such a different beast.

Also, as you note, the picture quality is at a level for small screens, not really tvs of size. This may be another reason they don't allow it.


----------



## inkahauts

"dualsub2006" said:


> Well, saying that I am denying myself programming is a bit overly dramatic. I have a TV with D* for every member of my house and I'm not so fat and lazy that I can't get myself up and change rooms if I want to watch D*. I denied D* $6 a month if I denied anyone anything.
> 
> And again, for the very last time, saying "there wouldn't be a point for a Roku" might apply to you and some others. For me, there most certainly IS still a point to Roku support. Again, I have televisions in parts of my house that I will NEVER install a receiver in. I WILL NOT allow another TV provider to drill another hole in my house. I'll never, ever, ever have access to On Demand in those rooms.
> 
> My TVs in these rooms on the other side of my house have Roku boxes on them already. HBO Go supports Roku and the Roku is the only supported device that D* has blocked. D* is trying to make accessing the programming that they provide available in more convenient options by providing Go. I'd like it if they didn't block Roku access. On Demand aside.


Well, For your situation the only workaround I can think of is using those unattached tvs as computer monitors or monitor for your laptop, and the access hbo go that way.

At least until someday when directv figures out how to have a solid wifi receiver.


----------



## Devo1237

inkahauts said:


> IN its simplest terms, a roku is a set top box for a tv. None of the other devices are considered a set top box for a tv. That directly competes with dtv boxes.


It will be interesting what DirecTV does when XBOX Live releases it's updated software later this month with HBO Go. It will definitely be high quality, and it will definitely reach that desired demographic that the other poster mentioned earlier in the thread. I really hope they authorize it, but I'm starting to doubt it after SR's post. It stinks, I've been waiting all summer for this XBOX update, now it looks like I'm gonna have to keep waiting for DTV to figure out their more complete "on demand" thing.


----------



## Devo1237

Satelliteracer said:


> HBO On Demand is in the process of being beefed up and will have most of the back catalog content that HBO Go has. Those are the plans. First things first, the HD UI roll out has to be completed and a few other things but the On Demand product will be very similar to the product on HBO Go in terms of the HBO library.


Does that mean we'd at least get all the old HBO shows (since I assume they have less rights issues than the movies from other studios)? That's the key for me. I love watching every episode of a show in order. That's why Netflix streaming is actually a killer product, and things like HBO GO are so beloved by those who use them. Meanwhile, I tried to watch Party Down via DirecTV's On Demand and they were missing like 2 random episodes in one season, and 3 in the other. I wound up resubscribing to Netflix and canceling Starz because Netflix streaming was cheaper and it had all the episodes.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Yes, it means all the old HBO shows will be available....Sopranos, etc.


----------



## trainman

Satelliteracer said:


> Yes, it means *all* the old HBO shows will be available....Sopranos, etc.


"Not Necessarily the News"?


----------



## Devo1237

"Satelliteracer" said:


> Yes, it means all the old HBO shows will be available....Sopranos, etc.


Well that's good news at least!


----------



## inkahauts

"Devo1237" said:


> It will be interesting what DirecTV does when XBOX Live releases it's updated software later this month with HBO Go. It will definitely be high quality, and it will definitely reach that desired demographic that the other poster mentioned earlier in the thread. I really hope they authorize it, but I'm starting to doubt it after SR's post. It stinks, I've been waiting all summer for this XBOX update, now it looks like I'm gonna have to keep waiting for DTV to figure out their more complete "on demand" thing.


High quality? I doubt it will beamy different than what you can get on a roku, or iPad, or any other device now. Streaming hbo go is a awesome thing, but it is not of the same quality as DirecTVs live, or on demanded offerings, and frankly, I doubt any other providers either. Streaming just isn't he same quality, even if it claims to be in hd.


----------



## man_rob

It's fairly easy to connect a PC to an HDTV. My laptop even has HDMI out. I keep it connected all the time since I got a tablet. 

I do have a Roku box in my bedroom, and having HBOGo on it would be quite handy. Seems a bit petty for Directv to block it. Directv is sitting pretty subscriber wise, so they probably feel confident that denying their customers this option isn't going to hurt their bottom line too much. Directv used to be the Anti-Comcast, now they are falling in line with each others customer unfriendly policies.


----------



## Devo1237

"inkahauts" said:


> High quality? I doubt it will beamy different than what you can get on a roku, or iPad, or any other device now. Streaming hbo go is a awesome thing, but it is not of the same quality as DirecTVs live, or on demanded offerings, and frankly, I doubt any other providers either. Streaming just isn't he same quality, even if it claims to be in hd.


Have you used Netflix or the ESPN app on Xbox? They blow away any of the streaming services I've seen on Roku or other boxes like Blu-Ray players. I wasn't trying to make a comparison to DirecTV, I was talking about the quality for HBO Go streaming service, which several users have said looks not so great when using an iPad or google tv. My assumption is this will continue with HBO Go, because based on my own personal experience, Xbox delivers by far the best picture quality for streaming apps.


----------



## Drew2k

Devo1237 said:


> Have you used Netflix or the ESPN app on Xbox? They blow away any of the streaming services I've seen on Roku or other boxes like Blu-Ray players. I wasn't trying to make a comparison to DirecTV, I was talking about the quality for HBO Go streaming service, which several users have said looks not so great when using an iPad or google tv. My assumption is this will continue with HBO Go, because based on my own personal experience, Xbox delivers by far the best picture quality for streaming apps.


Quality is limited by the bandwidth, so perhaps when you saw Netflix on Roku it was at less than best quality. I have the Roku and have XBox and Netflix is equally awesome on both.


----------



## inkahauts

In optimal situations, it wont be the quality of Directv. Of course, device, bandwidth, and all kinds of other stuff can affect how good it is from one viewing to the next, much less device to device.

My netflix looks great on my roku, appletv, blu ray and pc. But every once in a while I have an issue and it looks bad. Directv, its constant quality all the time. HBO Go On my ipad looks fantastic, buts its still not the same as directv. I wasn't trying to say it would look bad, but its also not going to be at the same quality, no matter how you slice it.


----------



## oakwcj

Drew2k said:


> Quality is limited by the bandwidth, so perhaps when you saw Netflix on Roku it was at less than best quality. I have the Roku and have XBox and Netflix is equally awesome on both.


I've read that HBO GO on Roku is limited to 720p and stereo audio. There were no details on bandwidth, but the article said that HBO expects to improve to 1080i and DD 5.1 within a few months. I don't have a link, because I don't recall where I read this, but it would explain less than stellar performance on the Roku. Of course, I haven't seen HBO GO on my Roku, because .....


----------



## Drew2k

oakwcj said:


> I've read that HBO GO on Roku is limited to 720p and stereo audio. There were no details on bandwidth, but the article said that HBO expects to improve to 1080i and DD 5.1 within a few months. I don't have a link, because I don't recall where I read this, but it would explain less than stellar performance on the Roku. Of course, I haven't seen HBO GO on my Roku, because .....


The original Roku was limited to 720p, but that's not been the case for a while.

Roku Product Comparison: http://www.roku.com/roku-products

Roku versus other Streamers: http://www.roku.com/compare_netflix_ready_devices


----------



## oakwcj

Drew2k said:


> The original Roku was limited to 720p, but that's not been the case for a while.
> 
> Roku Product Comparison: http://www.roku.com/roku-products
> 
> Roku versus other Streamers: http://www.roku.com/compare_netflix_ready_devices


You misunderstood. It's not the Roku that's limited to 720p and stereo; it's the HBO GO stream. For now.


----------



## Drew2k

oakwcj said:


> You misunderstood. It's not the Roku that's limited to 720p and stereo; it's the HBO GO stream. For now.


Ah, yes I did. Got it... Thanks.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

RickD_99 said:


> So once again if D* is supporting HBO GO on 99% of available platforms why single out the Roku for access blocking? I've yet to see a compelling argument in these 5 plus pages of commentary to explain their non-support of the Roku platform. Why piss off the 1% or less of us who own Rokus and generate the kind of negative PR they currently are propogating in this very visible Internet forum? Also why not allow Roku access in the interim until their HBO ON Demand UI is finished and available to us? The official responses to the complaints seem to change on a daily basis which definitely makes me wonder if something else related to all of this is going on in the background which they are not telling us about.
> 
> On a side note I set up my HTPC for HBO GO access last night and was not too impressed with the picture quality via HDMI. The content looks much better to my eyes on my iPad.


My opinion....your Roku is hooked up to your television. The iPad, the smart phone, the PC is not. That's the difference. DTV wants to own the television. Just my opinion.

Then again, if they authorize for the Xbox but still don't for Roku then it obviously means something with Roku is going on.


----------



## RickD_99

ChicagoBlue said:


> My opinion....your Roku is hooked up to your television. The iPad, the smart phone, the PC is not. That's the difference. DTV wants to own the television. Just my opinion.


Wrong sir! My HTPC *is* most certainly hooked up to the same TV that my Roku is attached to. I can watch HBO GO on my TV any time I want via my HTPC. Remember that lots of folks are buying laptops these days with HDMI outs so they theoretically could access this service in the same manner. So if D*'s policy is truly to "own the TV" then why allow PC access and make the Roku the red-headed step child?



> Then again, if they authorize for the Xbox but still don't for Roku then it obviously means something with Roku is going on


What astonishes me about this whole episode is the lack of communication from D*. You would think that a company that is so dependent on customer satisfaction would at least make some sort of attempt to explain their decision to us. Their half assed email replies to our complaints to the President's Office hardly qualifies as communication IMHO.


----------



## harsh

RickD_99 said:


> Wrong sir! My HTPC *is* most certainly hooked up to the same TV that my Roku is attached to.


Is this HTPC your daily driver or really more a part of your home entertainment system?


----------



## RickD_99

harsh said:


> Is this HTPC your daily driver or really more a part of your home entertainment system?


It's more a part of my home entertainment system as is the Roku. My D* 
HR24 is and will remain as the daily driver.


----------



## inkahauts

RickD_99 said:


> Wrong sir! My HTPC *is* most certainly hooked up to the same TV that my Roku is attached to. I can watch HBO GO on my TV any time I want via my HTPC. Remember that lots of folks are buying laptops these days with HDMI outs so they theoretically could access this service in the same manner. So if D*'s policy is truly to "own the TV" then why allow PC access and make the Roku the red-headed step child?
> 
> What astonishes me about this whole episode is the lack of communication from D*. You would think that a company that is so dependent on customer satisfaction would at least make some sort of attempt to explain their decision to us. Their half assed email replies to our complaints to the President's Office hardly qualifies as communication IMHO.


I'll bet that less people have a pc hooked up to their tvs than there is people who have a roku hooked up to their vs. Roku is meant to be a set top box only, and is its sole purpose. It is a direct competitor to Directv. PC's just aren't. The masses have never jumped on the bandwagon of hooking up their computers to tvs.

As others have said, what happens when the xbox version goes live should be most interesting. Will they or won't they.

You know, I read an article about why STARZ didn't re-up its streaming rights with Netflix, and it was the same concept here i think. In general, it now undercuts the value of their service. I imagine the same thing goes for Directv. They feel it undercuts the value of their services, and its difficult to disagree with that from a big picture kind of way, not a customer kind of way.


----------



## RickD_99

inkahauts said:


> I'll bet that less people have a pc hooked up to their tvs than there is people who have a roku hooked up to their vs. Roku is meant to be a set top box only, and is its sole purpose. It is a direct competitor to Directv. PC's just aren't. The masses have never jumped on the bandwagon of hooking up their computers to tvs.


Roku was introduced in 2008....and to date they have sold a million units total in those 3 years. Hardly Apple iPod or iPad-like numbers. I'm having a hard time understanding how DirecTV or any other MSO could view Roku as a threat.



> As others have said, what happens when the xbox version goes live should be most interesting. Will they or won't they.


I'm betting it will be available on Xbox and I'm also betting we'll never know the real reason why.



> You know, I read an article about why STARZ didn't re-up its streaming rights with Netflix, and it was the same concept here i think. In general, it now undercuts the value of their service. I imagine the same thing goes for Directv. They feel it undercuts the value of their services, and its difficult to disagree with that from a big picture kind of way, not a customer kind of way.


Well if that is true am I not "undercutting the value" of their service by watching HBO GO on the iPad, smart phone, or PC? And yet DirecTV seemingly has no problem making the service available on those platforms. Am I the only one seeing the inconsistencies here? :nono2:


----------



## inkahauts

"RickD_99" said:


> Roku was introduced in 2008....and to date they have sold a million units total in those 3 years. Hardly Apple iPod or iPad-like numbers. I'm having a hard time understanding how DirecTV or any other MSO could view Roku as a threat.
> 
> Well if that is true am I not "undercutting the value" of their service by watching HBO GO on the iPad, smart phone, or PC? And yet DirecTV seemingly has no problem making the service available on those platforms. Am I the only one seeing the inconsistencies here? :nono2:


I thought i read somewhere they are expecting to have 3 million rokus in homes by the end of the year. I'll have to look sometime.

Actually, no you are not at all undercutting the value by using an iPad or smart phone, or even computer monitor. That Is extending the experience to somewhere that you cannot otherwise get the service no matter what. A roku is trying to replace your current set top boxes hooked up to your tvs, which is the traditional viewing location. Big difference, and why The more I think about it, the less I think we will see it on the Xbox.


----------



## Blurayfan

IMO DirecTV should allow access on any device that HBO Go or MAX Go are available to. After all DirecTV won't be losing subscribers by allowing this since to gain access you need to subscribe to the channels through your provider. On the other hand not allowing access may cause subscriber to leave for a provider who does allow the use on the preferred device.


----------



## Devo1237

"Blurayfan" said:


> IMO DirecTV should allow access on any device that HBO Go or MAX Go are available to. After all DirecTV won't be losing subscribers by allowing this since to gain access you need to subscribe to the channels through your provider. On the other hand not allowing access may cause subscriber to leave for a provider who does allow the use on the preferred device.


That would be the logical opinion for sure. I guess they're scared of giving the customer too many options.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

Devo1237 said:


> That would be the logical opinion for sure. I guess they're scared of giving the customer too many options.


The way DTV adds customers each quarter, they aren't scared of anybody.

They have a right to protect their revenue streams, that includes lease fees on receivers. They want to control the television. If people decide in the 3rd and 4th room they want to just have a Roku or Xbox instead of a DTV receiver, that hurts their revenue. That means higher prices for all of us.

I have no problem with them wanting to protect their revenue streams, smart companies do that. The number of people that will leave is miniscule as it relates to Roku. Now, when Xbox functionality comes out, then they (DTV) has a much tougher decision to make.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

RickD_99 said:


> Wrong sir! My HTPC *is* most certainly hooked up to the same TV that my Roku is attached to. I can watch HBO GO on my TV any time I want via my HTPC. Remember that lots of folks are buying laptops these days with HDMI outs so they theoretically could access this service in the same manner. So if D*'s policy is truly to "own the TV" then why allow PC access and make the Roku the red-headed step child?
> 
> What astonishes me about this whole episode is the lack of communication from D*. You would think that a company that is so dependent on customer satisfaction would at least make some sort of attempt to explain their decision to us. Their half assed email replies to our complaints to the President's Office hardly qualifies as communication IMHO.


You are the corner or corner cases. Most people do not hook up their PC to their television. Most people in this country don't even know how or that it's even possible. Those that do know it's possible, the vast vast majority don't bother too because they have a set top box that provides programming for their television.


----------



## DawgLink

ChicagoBlue said:


> That means higher prices for all of us.


Roku would have absolutely zero to do with higher prices. DirecTV agreements, yearly increases, etc...are the common causes.


----------



## RickD_99

ChicagoBlue said:


> The way DTV adds customers each quarter, they aren't scared of anybody.
> 
> They have a right to protect their revenue streams, that includes lease fees on receivers. They want to control the television. If people decide in the 3rd and 4th room they want to just have a Roku or Xbox instead of a DTV receiver, that hurts their revenue. That means higher prices for all of us.
> 
> I have no problem with them wanting to protect their revenue streams, smart companies do that. The number of people that will leave is miniscule as it relates to Roku. Now, when Xbox functionality comes out, then they (DTV) has a much tougher decision to make.


OK let's assume you are correct and that D*'s decision is all about protecting revenue streams. Shouldn't Dish Network be equally concerned about protecting revenue streams? And yet Dish Network allows HBO GO on the Roku while D* does not. Do you have an explanation for this inconsistency?


----------



## inkahauts

Blurayfan said:


> IMO DirecTV should allow access on any device that HBO Go or MAX Go are available to. After all DirecTV won't be losing subscribers by allowing this since to gain access you need to subscribe to the channels through your provider. On the other hand not allowing access may cause subscriber to leave for a provider who does allow the use on the preferred device.


Have you read what Starz is about to do? Looks like they will offer streaming of their programming, a la hbo go style, and they might make it available to people directly as a streaming product, for a fee. They are going to let customers cut out the middle men, of cable and sat. Prices are about to sky rocket as others try this a la cart via streaming scenario. Yeah, I can easily see why DIrecTV doesn't want these services available in any way on TV screens.


----------



## Chuck W

inkahauts said:


> Have you read what Starz is about to do? Looks like they will offer streaming of their programming, a la hbo go style, and they might make it available to people directly as a streaming product, for a fee. They are going to let customers cut out the middle men, of cable and sat. Prices are about to sky rocket as others try this a la cart via streaming scenario. Yeah, I can easily see why DIrecTV doesn't want these services available in any way on TV screens.


HBO wanted to do the same thing and the cable companies came back and said if you cut us out and offer it direct, then we drop your channels. That's why you have the HBOGO you see today. I'd be very surprised if Starz offers it direct.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

DawgLink said:


> Roku would have absolutely zero to do with higher prices. DirecTV agreements, yearly increases, etc...are the common causes.


My comment about higher prices is tied to a shortening of revenue from the set top boxes, not related simply to Roku.

On average, DTV customers have about 2.5 receivers per account. That's the latest figure I'm aware of. That means they are making 1.5 X $6 X 18 million X 12 months (remember the first receiver is free). That's $1,944,000,000 in revenue every year give or take.

That's a lot of money they are going to protect. Rest assured, if that revenue source drops, whether we like it or not, they will take up something else to make up for it.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

RickD_99 said:


> OK let's assume you are correct and that D*'s decision is all about protecting revenue streams. Shouldn't Dish Network be equally concerned about protecting revenue streams? And yet Dish Network allows HBO GO on the Roku while D* does not. Do you have an explanation for this inconsistency?


Two different companies that have had different viewpoints on things all the time. Shouldn't DISH be concerned about carrying YES in New York? They don't, DTV does. Shouldn't DISH not allow deals like the FOX deal go on for 29 days and lose several hundred thousand customers while DTV cuts a deal before channels come down?

There are obviously 100's of other examples. Are those not inconsistent as well?

DTV's model of lease receiver revenue is different than DISH's. Dish has their two room receivers where one room serves two rooms and thus their revenue model on receivers is different. DTV relies on that revenue because one receiver is in each room. Different model, different reasons to protect those streams.

As I stated earlier, you might see that DTV allows HBO GO on Roku eventually, perhaps they are just using this as a leverage tool to extract some concessions from HBO.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

Chuck W said:


> HBO wanted to do the same thing and the cable companies came back and said if you cut us out and offer it direct, then we drop your channels. That's why you have the HBOGO you see today. I'd be very surprised if Starz offers it direct.


Having negotiated these deals in the past, it is extremely unlikely the cable companies could just drop the channels. If they are in contract, they would not be able to do so. The leverage the MSOs have are to refuse to promote the HBO or Starz services. Basically you don't make any efforts to sell it which hurts HBO and Starz in the pocketbook. At the end of the day, HBO, Starz or Epix or Showtime will have to decide if it's worth the risk for them to sell directly to the consumer and anger these distributors which would cause a loss of revenue from the MSO. Can they make up the difference by selling direct.

I agree with you, today I think the answer is no. However, in a few years, that probably changes.


----------



## oakwcj

Satelliteracer said:


> HBO On Demand is in the process of being beefed up and will have most of the back catalog content that HBO Go has. Those are the plans. First things first, the HD UI roll out has to be completed and a few other things but the On Demand product will be very similar to the product on HBO Go in terms of the HBO library.


*
Satelliteracer*, do you have an update on progress toward implementing the "beefed up" HBO On Demand? Thanks.


----------



## Shades228

oakwcj said:


> *Satelliteracer*, do you have an update on progress toward implementing the "beefed up" HBO On Demand? Thanks.


The HD UI has not been completed and other on demand enhancements haven't been completed yet.

"Soon" I guess could be used.


----------



## dsexton

Sorry, sort of off topic, but not completely. DTV so far has also not opted to provide Speed2. Dish and some other providers have it. Annoying, to say the least.


----------



## MikeW

Shades228 said:


> The HD UI has not been completed and other on demand enhancements haven't been completed yet.
> 
> "Soon" I guess could be used.


Based on the prerequisites, I would have to guess the earliest we will see this is late q1 or early q2.

Looking forward to it. The download speed of HD has been terrific. We watched several movies over Christmas week and never had a buffer issue. Usually started the movie about 10 seconds after the download started.


----------



## tivoboy

Apparently Roku has sold now over 3M units, 
what I don't understand is that I WAS able to login on HBOGO on the ipad with my directv credentials about 6-9 months ago, but now it doesn't work.

Why/what changed?


----------



## Diana C

tivoboy said:


> Apparently Roku has sold now over 3M units,
> what I don't understand is that I WAS able to login on HBOGO on the ipad with my directv credentials about 6-9 months ago, but now it doesn't work.
> 
> Why/what changed?


HBO GO still works on my iPad


----------



## Shades228

tivoboy said:


> Apparently Roku has sold now over 3M units,
> what I don't understand is that I WAS able to login on HBOGO on the ipad with my directv credentials about 6-9 months ago, but now it doesn't work.
> 
> Why/what changed?


Units do not equal customers as well considering many people have multiple box's.


----------



## tivoboy

Shades228 said:


> Units do not equal customers as well considering many people have multiple box's.


indeed, but then again no one said it did. I think the number of multi-unit customers though is going to be low.


----------



## sonnik

It makes no sense that this my "DirecTV" account validation works for HBO GO on Google TV, but not for Roku. 

The only reason I can think of...

Roku likes to not force users to have to log in on each access. You'll notice on the Roku, for many of the applications - they'll ask you to go to the Vendor's web site to "activate" your Roku box.

Simply stated, I have a hunch that DirecTV didn't want to implement some sort of interface/backend to "authorize" HBO GO on Roku.

I haven't bothered trying it with another CATV/SAT provider... does it ask for DTV Account/Password for validation - or does it ask you to go to a web site and punch in "JKGDSK" or something like that as a validation code?


----------



## inkahauts

I think it's because they didn't want to offer HBO go on a device thats dedicated to only working with TVs where's Google TV can't you use that on the computer is well?


----------



## sonnik

The Logitech and Sony Google TV devices are set top boxes that are designed to be stand-alone products. You can't take a Logitech Google TV device and hook it up to your computer, unless you're doing something rather atypical.

Essentially, they're in the same product "class" as Roku.


----------



## inkahauts

"sonnik" said:


> The Logitech and Sony Google TV devices are set top boxes that are designed to be stand-alone products. You can't take a Logitech Google TV device and hook it up to your computer, unless you're doing something rather atypical.
> 
> Essentially, they're in the same product "class" as Roku.


I was under the impression that you can use google tv on your computer too as software. Is that incorrect?


----------



## DrZaius

inkahauts said:


> Have you read what Starz is about to do? Looks like they will offer streaming of their programming, a la hbo go style, and they might make it available to people directly as a streaming product, for a fee. They are going to let customers cut out the middle men, of cable and sat. Prices are about to sky rocket as others try this a la cart via streaming scenario. Yeah, I can easily see why DIrecTV doesn't want these services available in any way on TV screens.


I think this is a great idea. I would not pay for DTV if I could have a box of whatever flavor that would let me choose my content. I have had DTV since the USSB days and I have never enjoyed paying for all of the BS channel packages that contain about 2/3 of the channels I never tune to. If Roku, Boxee or whatever would allow me to only have the content that I wanted and those services charged me accordingly then I would be in heaven. That being said DTV has the same opprotunity to gain my business in the same fashion but they do not seem to want to provide me choices in my content which is why in the end they will be in real trouble in the future. If they want to continue with my business they have to let me choose my content or I will go with the device / service that does.


----------



## BuffaloDenny

I just cancelled HBO because of this. The value just wasn't there for me without it. Saves me $16 a month, and in light of the fee increases I had to counter balance that somewhere.


----------



## sonnik

inkahauts said:


> I was under the impression that you can use google tv on your computer too as software. Is that incorrect?


I've never seen that. When I Google search for "GoogleTV" - one of the pages state: There are two ways to get Google TV. Buy a TV which includes "GoogleTV" software, or buy an external add-on box.

The Add-On boxes don't work with PCs - only other than to co-exist on the same home network for a home media server to your TV.


----------



## inkahauts

Hey, I can be wrong!  Like I said, I was under that impression, but wasn't sure.


----------



## Devo1237

This might help explain DirecTV's decision not to support HBO Go on the Roku.

According to the article, after purchasing a Roku "20 percent cancelled and 20 percent reduced their (Cable TV) service."

http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/03/roku-intervie/


----------



## oakwcj

Devo1237 said:


> This might help explain DirecTV's decision not to support HBO Go on the Roku.
> 
> According to the article, after purchasing a Roku "20 percent cancelled and 20 percent reduced their (Cable TV) service."
> 
> http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/03/roku-intervie/


That's without HBOGO access. If you want HBO, you have to be a cable or satellite subscriber. Yes, many Roku owners are "cord cutters," but they're not the same people who want HBOGO, so your factoid explains nothing.


----------



## Devo1237

oakwcj said:


> That's without HBOGO access. If you want HBO, you have to be a cable or satellite subscriber. Yes, many Roku owners are "cord cutters," but they're not the same people who want HBOGO, so your factoid explains nothing.


LOL, man you're snarky. First of all, I'm on your side. I wish DTV would Roku support as much as anyone, but unlike you I'm curious to understand their logic in not supporting something that would obviously bring them some incremental income when people signed up through DTV to activate HBO so they could have access to HBO Go.

What you could gleam from even the worthless factoid I quoted (since I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the whole article) is that 40% of new Roku buyers ultimately lower or cancel their service. So there's a logical concern from TV that if one of their customers decides to buy a Roku to take advantage of HBO Go, there is a pretty big chance chance they will either lower or cancel their service in the future when they see what all is available on this new Roku device they've purchased.


----------



## oakwcj

Devo1237 said:


> LOL, man you're snarky. First of all, I'm on your side. I wish DTV would Roku support as much as anyone, but unlike you I'm curious to understand their logic in not supporting something that would obviously bring them some incremental income when people signed up through DTV to activate HBO so they could have access to HBO Go.
> 
> What you could gleam from even the worthless factoid I quoted (since I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the whole article) is that 40% of new Roku buyers ultimately lower or cancel their service. So there's a logical concern from TV that if one of their customers decides to buy a Roku to take advantage of HBO Go, there is a pretty big chance chance they will either lower or cancel their service in the future when they see what all is available on this new Roku device they've purchased.


Didn't mean to be snarky. If I were to hazard a guess about DirecTV's motivations, it would be that they're concerned that HBO will ultimately decouple HBOGO access from a cable/satellite subscription. I don't think that HBO would dare to jeopardize its relationship with cable providers now, although that could change in the future. I don't really know what their reasoning is. I would be happy if they'd follow through on an expanded HBO On Demand. I just want to have access to that content on a large screen.


----------



## NewForceFiveFan

So what can you get on a Roku for free that is better than what's on Directv? And I'm not counting Netflix and other services which cost extra.


----------



## Beerstalker

It's not that the content has to be free. Currently people can sign up for stuff like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, through Roku. There is concerns that HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc. might start allowing people to subscribe to them directly on their computers and on devices like the Roku. Then subscribers could drop their DirecTV subscription altogether and possibly save money.


----------



## inkahauts

DirecTV wants to control your experience on your tv, but will allow you to have a more varied experience in your mobile devices. 

They always want the highest quality, short of blu ray on your tv sets, which roku can not consistently offer to everyone, there are to many variables. 

Hbo go access in a roku would also openly invite people to experience a possible replacement for their services. DirecTV I am sure sees a roku as a competitor, and they are absolutely correct about that. Roku is a competitor, albeit in its infancy. Why allow them any foothold if you don't have to.

And as others have said, you don't want to give hbo and the others any encouragement to start selling their products not just through traditional carries, but also through things like rokus and apple tvs directly to customs, and cut DirecTV and cable companies out of the loop.

I am also sure that a good amount of people would deactivate a box or two on their least used tvs if they had a roku with hbo go access. Especially in instances where they may have a box in a guest room that's rarely used. Those people could easily have just a roku in there for guests if it had hbo go with all it's movies.... 

Now add in the people who would probably let their sons and daughters who go off to college with a roku use their account to view hbo go on tvs in their dorms, etc....

There is a bunch of reasons DirecTV isn't allowing it in my opinion, and I don't blame them one bit, if I was in charge I'd do the same thing. I would not allow anyone else with a box that hooks up to a tv to offer up my content that I am getting paid to provide for my customers. that's my job.

With that said, as a customer, I'd love to have it available on a roku or a xbox360, but I doubt it will ever happen.

Roku devices could be the gateway to a la cart. I can see it now, go the traditional provider route for large groups of channels, but if you only want one or two, you can pay a much larger per channel fee, but only buy one or two channels and get it streamed to you via your roku. Of course, thad be for regular channels. For premiums, like hbo, you'd have to pay way more than what you pay a current provider for the same channels, but since you could avoid paying for any non premiums, it could come out a lot cheaper. 

I'd say starz will try it first, probably offering their channels for around 25 to 30 a month on streaming devices like a roku.


----------



## ThePhantom

... then what explains the the fact that my Samsung 6300 TV supports HBO GO w/my D* subscription, but does not work with the Roku?

I'd like to activate my Roku, simply because it's far more friendly to use than the Samsung Smart Hub, IMO.

Given the inconsistent activation, there's something else that's up here. Future availability of HBOGO on XBox and Sony Bravia platforms will be more telling as to D*'s motivations...


----------



## inkahauts

"ThePhantom" said:


> ... then what explains the the fact that my Samsung 6300 TV supports HBO GO w/my D* subscription, but does not work with the Roku?
> 
> I'd like to activate my Roku, simply because it's far more friendly to use than the Samsung Smart Hub, IMO.
> 
> Given the inconsistent activation, there's something else that's up here. Future availability of HBOGO on XBox and Sony Bravia platforms will be more telling as to D*'s motivations...


I thought we had already read that hbo go was not supposed to be available on Samsung tvs with DirecTV. The only possibility I can see is because thee two are also happily in bed together with rvu.


----------



## Satelliteracer

inkahauts said:


> I thought we had already read that hbo go was not supposed to be available on Samsung tvs with DirecTV. The only possibility I can see is because thee two are also happily in bed together with rvu.


D* and HBO GO does work on Samsung TVs.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/hbo-go-samsung-smart-tv/


----------



## ThePhantom

Satelliteracer said:


> D* and HBO GO does work on Samsung TVs.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/hbo-go-samsung-smart-tv/


Yes it does, and it works quite well at that.

Now the obvious (and beaten to death) question -- why not Roku?


----------



## man_rob

ThePhantom said:


> Yes it does, and it works quite well at that.
> 
> Now the obvious (and beaten to death) question -- why not Roku?


Yes, why single the Roku out?


----------



## ChicagoBlue

ThePhantom said:


> Yes it does, and it works quite well at that.
> 
> Now the obvious (and beaten to death) question -- why not Roku?


This has been talked about at length. There is a reason why Comcast, DTV, Time Warner and others aren't supporting Roku.

1) They don't need to
2) Why enable them. Roku needs those guys more than cable \ SAT needs ROKU. Why prop up a competitor
3) Samsung tv's aren't a competitor. XBOX is not a competitor. Roku is

What is the benefit of DTV or any other to allow this? They lose money on the deal and prop up an over the top player? There is nothing to gain for them. This is a business decision and one that many other distributors have also made. If Roku support is that important to everyone, I would suggest switching to a provider that supports that functionality.


----------



## oakwcj

And where is the new and improved HBO On Demand that the estimable Mr. Racer told us was coming RSN?


----------



## ThePhantom

ChicagoBlue said:


> 3) Samsung tv's aren't a competitor. XBOX is not a competitor. Roku is


Outside of rhetoric and posturing, there's no substantial technical difference between a Roku, a Samsung Smart TV, an Xbox, PS3, or the countless connected blu-ray players out there. Suggesting that the Roku facilitates cord-cutting any more than the aforementioned devices doesn't hold water.



ChicagoBlue said:


> What is the benefit of DTV or any other to allow this? They lose money on the deal and prop up an over the top player? There is nothing to gain for them.


If it weren't for the availability of HBO GO on my Samsung, I would have dumped HBO off of my subscription. I'd say there's a benefit to D*...



ChicagoBlue said:


> If Roku support is that important to everyone, I would suggest switching to a provider that supports that functionality.


With Dish's eastern arc satellite constellation, I'm seriously considering it.


----------



## ehilbert1

ThePhantom said:


> Outside of rhetoric and posturing, there's no substantial technical difference between a Roku, a Samsung Smart TV, an Xbox, PS3, or the countless connected blu-ray players out there. Suggesting that the Roku facilitates cord-cutting any more than the aforementioned devices doesn't hold water.
> 
> If it weren't for the availability of HBO GO on my Samsung, I would have dumped HBO off of my subscription. I'd say there's a benefit to D*...
> 
> With Dish's eastern arc satellite constellation, I'm seriously considering it.


Thats how I feel. The only reason I subscribed to HBO and Max is for the GO options. If they end up not letting Xbox 360 stream it I'll just cancel. I like having it on my Razr Maxx but I really wanted it on Xbox.

And yea I know some of you will say DirecTV won't care if I don't subscribe and all that. Yes I know this but sometimes voting with your wallet helps. That being said I have no problems with DirecTV.


----------



## Satelliteracer

oakwcj said:


> And where is the new and improved HBO On Demand that the estimable Mr. Racer told us was coming RSN?


Things happen in a planned order. The HDUI upgrades happened first....those aren't complete yet but very close (HR34 still to come). Then the Pandora upgrades happen(ed). HBO OD is coming and is not far off. For the On Demand to get to where it needs to be, the HDUI changes had to happen first.

There is a process and timeline for all these things to make sure they work properly, etc, etc. Not far off from what I understand.


----------



## oakwcj

Satelliteracer said:


> Things happen in a planned order. The HDUI upgrades happened first....those aren't complete yet but very close (HR34 still to come). Then the Pandora upgrades happen(ed). HBO OD is coming and is not far off. For the On Demand to get to where it needs to be, the HDUI changes had to happen first.
> 
> There is a process and timeline for all these things to make sure they work properly, etc, etc. Not far off from what I understand.


Thanks for the update. I know you're limited in how specific you can be.


----------



## inkahauts

"Satelliteracer" said:


> D* and HBO GO does work on Samsung TVs.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/16/hbo-go-samsung-smart-tv/


Thanks for the heads up. I wonder if they are doing this since they are also a partner in rvu.

Should be interesting to see if any other tv devices get access that don't also include rvu.


----------



## Jason Whiddon

Satelliteracer said:


> Things happen in a planned order. The HDUI upgrades happened first....those aren't complete yet but very close (HR34 still to come). Then the Pandora upgrades happen(ed). HBO OD is coming and is not far off. For the On Demand to get to where it needs to be, the HDUI changes had to happen first.
> 
> There is a process and timeline for all these things to make sure they work properly, etc, etc. Not far off from what I understand.


Yepp, god forbid Directv would have a plan...

People just dont get it. Thanks as always.


----------



## man_rob

ChicagoBlue said:


> This has been talked about at length. There is a reason why Comcast, DTV, Time Warner and others aren't supporting Roku.
> 
> 1) They don't need to
> 2) Why enable them. Roku needs those guys more than cable \ SAT needs ROKU. Why prop up a competitor
> 3) Samsung tv's aren't a competitor. XBOX is not a competitor. Roku is
> 
> What is the benefit of DTV or any other to allow this? They lose money on the deal and prop up an over the top player? There is nothing to gain for them. This is a business decision and one that many other distributors have also made. If Roku support is that important to everyone, I would suggest switching to a provider that supports that functionality.


Wrong. Roku is a electronic device, and media streamer. It gives non-connected TV's the same content as Samsung smart TVs, and Xbox. It offers absolutely nothing more than Samsung smart TVs, or Xbox does, and is no more a competitor than the other connected media streaming devices.


----------



## ThePhantom

Welp, it looks like, as of today, Mediacom and Optimum (Cablevision) have gotten on the HBO GO/Roku train. We're still in the lurch 

Given the Netflix readily acknowledges that HBO GO is the competitor they fear the most, I still find it surprising the HBO doesn't force the hand of the providers (like D*). It's in HBO's best interest to be on as many devices as possible.

It's not like we're asking D* to provide the Audience Network on the Roku. D* provides the plumbing, HBO is adding the value.

The silence is deafening...


----------



## inkahauts

"ThePhantom" said:


> Welp, it looks like, as of today, Mediacom and Optimum (Cablevision) have gotten on the HBO GO/Roku train. We're still in the lurch
> 
> Given the Netflix readily acknowledges that HBO GO is the competitor they fear the most, I still find it surprising the HBO doesn't force the hand of the providers (like D*). It's in HBO's best interest to be on as many devices as possible.
> 
> It's not like we're asking D* to provide the Audience Network on the Roku. D* provides the plumbing, HBO is adding the value.
> 
> The silence is deafening...


Until I see DirecTV allow anyone other than Samsung on their smart tvs to provide hbo go on any platform that is primarily hooked up to a tv, then I think your smply seeing the results do DirecTV not wanting anyone else to have any opportunity to control your tv if they don't have to. They want to be the ones controlling your experience, and I don't blame them. They allow it on other devices because they are strictly mobile.


----------



## harsh

ThePhantom said:


> D* provides the plumbing, HBO is adding the value.


DIRECTV doesn't provide the plumbing. That's up to your broadband provider. DIRECTV provides only authentication.


----------



## ThePhantom

harsh said:


> DIRECTV doesn't provide the plumbing. That's up to your broadband provider. DIRECTV provides only authentication.


Understood. I guess my point was that we're not asking D* to share their "added value" programming (like Audience) with a competing device -- rather, just like cable, D* is largely a "dumb pipe", providing access to programming provided by others. Why they'd have a hair across their backside over the Roku is still perplexing. HBO should be the one who should have any issue with branding or competitive perception. As I see it:

D* + HBO GO + Roku = enhanced customer retention (keeping people subscribed to HBO, who would otherwise dump it)

Netflix + Roku = no connection to D* whatsoever.

D*'s concept of "oh, we'll provide the content thru our on-demand eventually" seems like a smokescreen. Unless there are plans to supplant the bag of suck that the current on-demand browsing is, the content is only part of the problem. Use a Roku, a Samsung Smart TV, or a Sony Bravia for 5 minutes and you'll see what I mean...


----------



## oakwcj

ThePhantom said:


> Understood. I guess my point was that we're not asking D* to share their "added value" programming (like Audience) with a competing device -- rather, just like cable, D* is largely a "dumb pipe", providing access to programming provided by others. Why they'd have a hair across their backside over the Roku is still perplexing. HBO should be the one who should have any issue with branding or competitive perception. As I see it:
> 
> D* + HBO GO + Roku = enhanced customer retention (keeping people subscribed to HBO, who would otherwise dump it)
> 
> Netflix + Roku = no connection to D* whatsoever.
> 
> D*'s concept of "oh, we'll provide the content thru our on-demand eventually" seems like a smokescreen. Unless there are plans to supplant the bag of suck that the current on-demand browsing is, the content is only part of the problem. Use a Roku, a Samsung Smart TV, or a Sony Bravia for 5 minutes and you'll see what I mean...


I agree that there is a lot of smoke, but I have no idea what's behind the screen. I do know what isn't on the screen.


----------



## dcowboy7

Yea i dont care.


----------



## dualsub2006

D* is going to allow HBO Go on he stupid Xbox, but not the Roku.


----------



## MikeW

I am quite disappointed with the Samsung app. I have attempted to watch two movies. Both movies have stopped at about 45 minutes in. I also have issues with their MLB app. Netflix works great. I would really prefer the ability to use ROKU as it seems to be much more stable.


----------



## oakwcj

I know that being DirecTV means never having to explain the rationale for your inconsistent policies, but this is ridiculous. There are a hell of a lot more XBOX units than Rokus in the wild. Why is Roku HBOGO access a "threat" to DirecTV while XBOX access isn't?


----------



## cygnusloop

Yep. DIRECTV authenticating for the XBOX. 

But not the ROKU. Sheesh...

Guess it's time to email Ellen again. Don't know what else to do.


----------



## dualsub2006

Wouldn't be shocked if Microsoft is giving D* a little nut for every one of their subscribers that activate HBO Go on the Xbox. 

I don't like it, not one bit. Other than canceling my premiums and using that as the reason, I don't know what to do.


----------



## inkahauts

I could understand what DirecTV was doing with the roku with the theory they wanted to control the tv experience. Now I just don't get it. They just lost all logical reasons that they could be stopping it from a roku. Because Xbox, it looks to me, is going to be trying to create an experience similar to that of a roku as time progresses, and will probably offer everything that a roku does within a couple years, IMHO. 

Just weird. Which does lead me to one of two conclusion. Either roku does not offer a secure enough platform either by signal or by user info encryption to satisfy DirecTV, or There is money changing hands somewhere in some way to make all this happen.


----------



## cygnusloop

inkahauts said:


> ...
> 
> Just weird. Which does lead me to one of two conclusion. Either roku does not offer a secure enough platform either by signal or by user info encryption to satisfy DirecTV, or There is money changing hands somewhere in some way to make all this happen.


And, as usual, it's the consumer (otherwise known as a DIRECTV paying customer) that gets screwed. 
Ridiculous.:nono2:


----------



## dualsub2006

"inkahauts" said:


> Either roku does not offer a secure enough platform either by signal or by user info encryption to satisfy DirecTV, or There is money changing hands somewhere in some way to make all this happen.


Authentication and delivery are the same exact methods used to provide the service to the Xbox. It's not security.

It's about money. Has to be.

My mind is just about made up to drop premiums from package. Voting with my wallet is the only thing that I can think to do. I said I would if D* added Xbox and not Roku, now I have to follow through or get off the pot.


----------



## inkahauts

"dualsub2006" said:


> Authentication and delivery are the same exact methods used to provide the service to the Xbox. It's not security.
> 
> It's about money. Has to be.
> 
> My mind is just about made up to drop premiums from package. Voting with my wallet is the only thing that I can think to do. I said I would if D* added Xbox and not Roku, now I have to follow through or get off the pot.


Xbox and roku use the same servers to route everything to Hbo, passwords, etc? That be surprising.


----------



## WestDC

Each Streaming Service has to work out it's own contract.


----------



## dualsub2006

"inkahauts" said:


> Xbox and roku use the same servers to route everything to Hbo, passwords, etc? That be surprising.


The Xbox and Roku are activated the sane way. The content comes from HBO. Roku is secure enough for HBO and the 8 or 9 carriers that allow it.


----------



## dualsub2006

"WestDC" said:


> Each Streaming Service has to work out it's own contract.


That's helpful, only its not really.


----------



## Drew2k

I activated HBO Go on my XBOX today and it was very easy. Go to XBOX, add HBO Go from the App Store and launch it. Select DIRECTV as my provider and see a code. Go to HBOGO.com/acttivate, enter the code from my XBOX, specify DIRECTV as my provider, enter my DIRECTV username and password, see "authorized" in my browser. Wait for XBOX to show "service Authorized". Start browsing titles.

Sound familiar? It's just like authorizing Netflix on the Roku. I see no reason why this HBO Go can't be authorized for the Roku by DIRECTV in the same fashion. Makes no sense.


----------



## inkahauts

"dualsub2006" said:


> The Xbox and Roku are activated the sane way. The content comes from HBO. Roku is secure enough for HBO and the 8 or 9 carriers that allow it.


I don't think you understand where the concern would be. I am not sure that DirecTV feels that roku protects their passwords enough as it passes through their system. If someone can get ahold of that password and username, they can get into their DirecTV account, and that could cause all kids of issues for DirecTV. I am not saying that's the problem, but I am saying that simply saying that can't be an issue is incorrect. They are very big on security.


----------



## inkahauts

Ok, just thought of a possible new reason. 

They have told roku they won't allow it till they allow the roku to act as a rvu box. 

Look, the authentication process, that's me grasping at straws trying to find the most logical reason left, and that's about all I can think off. It could be an issue, but I have no idea if it is, and figure it probably isn't.

I am fully annoyed at the whole thing... And just trying to find a reason...


----------



## Drew2k

inkahauts said:


> I don't think you understand where the concern would be. I am not sure that DirecTV feels that roku protects their passwords enough as it passes through their system. If someone can get ahold of that password and username, they can get into their DirecTV account, and that could cause all kids of issues for DirecTV. I am not saying that's the problem, but I am saying that simply saying that can't be an issue is incorrect. They are very big on security.


Here's what SatelliteRacer said in the XBOX HBO Go thread:



Satelliteracer said:


> Not true. If the provider (DIRECTV, TIME WARNER, etc) choose not to allow it, then it can be prevented. At the end of the day, the authentication is still done with each provider to confirm they are subscribers of that platform and that service (HBO). It's not a broadband authentication but a MVPD authentication. XBOX is just the go between and the device output, they're still authenticating to make sure the customer actually has HBO.


XBOX is not authenticating, DIRECTV is, and Time Warner is, etc. Replace XBOX with Roku in the last sentence and it would be the same on the Roku as it is on the DIRECTV. Roku already has the HBO Go app, DIRECTV just chooses not to "allow it" (authentication pass through) and thus prevents it. Why? No idea. It's only speculation that it's about security, but since the device only presents a code, and authentication against DIRECTV is done via a secure web page in a web browser, I'm not seeing the security concerns...


----------



## inkahauts

"Drew2k" said:


> Here's what SatelliteRacer said in the XBOX HBO Go thread:
> 
> XBOX is not authenticating, DIRECTV is, and Time Warner is, etc. Replace XBOX with Roku in the last sentence and it would be the same on the Roku as it is on the DIRECTV. Roku already has the HBO Go app, DIRECTV just chooses not to "allow it" (authentication pass through) and thus prevents it. Why? No idea. It's only speculation that it's about security, but since the device only presents a code, and authentication against DIRECTV is done via a secure web page in a web browser, I'm not seeing the security concerns...


As I said before, it's one of the last few possible logical reasons I can think of, but I doubt it's the issue. Still, again, either way, the device handles the password and username and is a go between.


----------



## Drew2k

inkahauts said:


> As I said before, it's one of the last few possible logical reasons I can think of, but I doubt it's the issue.


OK, we agree there. 



> Still, again, either way, the device handles the password and username and is a go between.


But not here ... 

The DIRECTV username and password are only entered on HBOGo.com the first time the DIRECTV customer wants to get authorized to watch HBO Go content, and the customer gives himself a friendly account name for HBOGo.com usage. This happens independent of any device being used.

When the customer then wants to activate a device, it starts with the device giving a code, the customer entering the code at HBOGo.com, and HBOGo sending a signal back to the device to say that device is authorized. The device then shows the friendly name. The DIRECTV username and password never leave the HBOGo site.


----------



## AlanSaysYo

oakwcj said:


> I know that being DirecTV means never having to explain the rationale for your inconsistent policies, but this is ridiculous. There are a hell of a lot more XBOX units than Rokus in the wild. Why is Roku HBOGO access a "threat" to DirecTV while XBOX access isn't?


If not outright "money," there must be some thread DirecTV sees that we don't. Maybe it's because Roku essentially markets itself as a cable-cutting enabler. Maybe it's because I can buy four Roku boxes for the price of one Xbox 360. Maybe it's because DirecTV's research has found that 360 owners tend to be satellite or cable subscribers, and further that Gold Xbox Live members tend use satellite in addition to their Live services, not instead of them. Maybe I shouldn't have used so many maybes.


----------



## dualsub2006

"inkahauts" said:


> I don't think you understand where the concern would be. I am not sure that DirecTV feels that roku protects their passwords enough as it passes through their system.


You don't understand how the activation works. You only enter your D* user name and password on the HBO Go website, you enter an activation code on the Roku.

Roku never, ever has access to your login credentials for D* access. It's the exact same process that is being allowed for Xbox access.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

AlanSaysYo said:


> If not outright "money," there must be some thread DirecTV sees that we don't. Maybe it's because Roku essentially markets itself as a cable-cutting enabler. Maybe it's because I can buy four Roku boxes for the price of one Xbox 360. Maybe it's because DirecTV's research has found that 360 owners tend to be satellite or cable subscribers, and further that Gold Xbox Live members tend use satellite in addition to their Live services, not instead of them. Maybe I shouldn't have used so many maybes.


We have a winner. Same reason other MSO's aren't supporting Roku. Those that are, that is their call. Doesn't seem to be the call that DTV and others are willing to make at this time. Roku's sole purpose is for customers to get rid of cable, satellite or their IPTV service. Why on earth would these services support a company who has a mission to do this? Why?


----------



## oakwcj

ChicagoBlue said:


> We have a winner. Same reason other MSO's aren't supporting Roku. Those that are, that is their call. Doesn't seem to be the call that DTV and others are willing to make at this time. Roku's sole purpose is for customers to get rid of cable, satellite or their IPTV service. Why on earth would these services support a company who has a mission to do this? Why?


You must be psychic, since you know what Roku's "sole" purpose is. I use mine for streaming media from my computer to my home theater system and for listening to music on MOG. I rarely use it to watch video and have no interest in cutting any cords, because Roku is not a substitute for the kind of TV programming that I watch. Roku appeals to a wide variety of tastes. The company's sole purpose is to sell Roku boxes.


----------



## MikeW

ChicagoBlue said:


> We have a winner. Same reason other MSO's aren't supporting Roku. Those that are, that is their call. Doesn't seem to be the call that DTV and others are willing to make at this time. Roku's sole purpose is for customers to get rid of cable, satellite or their IPTV service. Why on earth would these services support a company who has a mission to do this? Why?


A cable or satellite subscription is required to use HBO GO. This argument is quite weak. I have a "smart" TV that can stream Netflix, HBO, HULU Plus and Amazon. Why did DirecTV allow that to happen? The downside here is that the TV does such a poor job streaming HBO that I've given up on it for now.


----------



## inkahauts

"Drew2k" said:


> OK, we agree there.
> 
> But not here ...
> 
> The DIRECTV username and password are only entered on HBOGo.com the first time the DIRECTV customer wants to get authorized to watch HBO Go content, and the customer gives himself a friendly account name for HBOGo.com usage. This happens independent of any device being used.
> 
> When the customer then wants to activate a device, it starts with the device giving a code, the customer entering the code at HBOGo.com, and HBOGo sending a signal back to the device to say that device is authorized. The device then shows the friendly name. The DIRECTV username and password never leave the HBOGo site.


Hh hmmm. That's not how mine works. Did they change that? I still use my email address. Maybe thee is an option I have missed, I'll have to look.


----------



## mrjussellr

Forgive me I read the first page and just wantted to put in my two cents ..

Why do you need HBOGO on a roku , if you are using a roku in your home then you should have a receiver on that tv..

hbogo out side your home on a tablet or smart phone sure but ona competing device in your home... thats silly and will probably never happen.


D wants you to used D receivers when in your home to enhance the experiance and see the value in having that 6 dollar receiver fee.


----------



## dualsub2006

"mrjussellr" said:


> Forgive me I read the first page and just wantted to put in my two cents ..
> 
> Why do you need HBOGO on a roku , if you are using a roku in your home then you should have a receiver on that tv..
> 
> hbogo out side your home on a tablet or smart phone sure but ona competing device in your home... thats silly and will probably never happen.


Well, let's see here. Depending on which day you come to my house, I'll have either 6 or 7 TVs in my house depending on who is here. I have 3 D* boxes and 3 to 5 Roku boxes, again, depending on who is here. There are TV locations in my house that don't have coax run to them and never will. My dish is on one side of my house and there is no easy access to the other side. In those locations, I only use Roku boxes with those TV sets.

I'm sure D* would love for me to have a receiver at every TV, and I would if they would solve their coax problem and offer me a wireless receiver. Until then, I have 2 TV locations with nothing but a Roku, a BluRay player and nothing more.

You don't need a receiver hooked up to your Samsung smart tv to use HBO Go with it, and your Xbox can be used without a D* receiver. It might be silly to you, but some don't need, want or can even have a D* receiver on every TV.


----------



## bartkess

hey mrjussellr you are aware that hbo go is not available on a directv receivers? the issue is that directv allows tablets smart phones smart tv's and now the xbox 360.but not the roku.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

MikeW said:


> A cable or satellite subscription is required to use HBO GO. This argument is quite weak. I have a "smart" TV that can stream Netflix, HBO, HULU Plus and Amazon. Why did DirecTV allow that to happen? The downside here is that the TV does such a poor job streaming HBO that I've given up on it for now.


Dtv has no influence on what other apps are on your smart tv. If DTV thought it was a great idea, why don't they put Netflix, HULU Plus and Amazon on their set top boxes?

I don't find it a weak argument at all. DTV allowing their subscribers to get access off Roku introduces their subscribers to other forms of content which may compell their subscribers to cut back DTV services partially or all together. DTV has invested way too much money into these customers in obtaining them, upgrading infrastructure and such to gift wrap them to a competitor.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

oakwcj said:


> You must be psychic, since you know what Roku's "sole" purpose is. I use mine for streaming media from my computer to my home theater system and for listening to music on MOG. I rarely use it to watch video and have no interest in cutting any cords, because Roku is not a substitute for the kind of TV programming that I watch. Roku appeals to a wide variety of tastes. The company's sole purpose is to sell Roku boxes.


Of course their sole purpose is to sell Roku boxes. In an interesting twist, they seem to advertise heavily on sites about cord cutting. Must be a coincidence. :lol:


----------



## bartkess

If you cancel HBO from your DTV package then you do not have access to HBO GO......cutting back services is not an option..


----------



## Hoosier205

While the HBO Go feature on a Roku does not promote cord cutting (due to the need to maintain a traditional HBO subscription with a participating provider)...plenty of other Roku features do. It is perfectly understandable why DirecTV would be less likely to support a cord cutting device when compared to the Xbox 360.


----------



## bartkess

Here is a response from an e-mail i sent to DTV.

There are always a number of reasons behind why we will or won’t have certain options available to customers; costs of development, customer impact and other factors will influence the priority and timing of what will be made available in the future. We appreciate your desire for DIRECTV to provide HBO GO to the ROKU device but at this time, support of the ROKU device is not being considered as DIRECTV has other development plans of a higher priority.

Once again, we thank you for your patience and understanding.


----------



## MikeW

ChicagoBlue said:


> Dtv has no influence on what other apps are on your smart tv. If DTV thought it was a great idea, why don't they put Netflix, HULU Plus and Amazon on their set top boxes?
> 
> I don't find it a weak argument at all. DTV allowing their subscribers to get access off Roku introduces their subscribers to other forms of content which may compell their subscribers to cut back DTV services partially or all together. DTV has invested way too much money into these customers in obtaining them, upgrading infrastructure and such to gift wrap them to a competitor.


Pooly phrased, I suppose. My TV can stream Netflix, HULU+, MLB and has an OTA tuner. These are all of the features I would need to cut the cord. On that very same TV, DirecTV allows HBOGo. Neither you nor I know the real reason, but preventing cord cutting is probably not one of them.

If there are other features of ROKU that would seem more compelling to become a cord cutter, please let me know.


----------



## dualsub2006

"bartkess" said:


> as DIRECTV has other development plans of a higher priority.


HBO already took care of the development. D* says yes, HBO flips the switch. Could have been done in less time than it took them to send you that response.


----------



## Hoosier205

dualsub2006 said:


> HBO already took care of the development. D* says yes, HBO flips the switch. Could have been done in less time than it took them to send you that response.


DirecTV isn't going to say yes. No one is going to flip a switch. They have very obvious reasons for not allowing authorization via Roku.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Hoosier205" said:


> DirecTV isn't going to say yes. No one is going to flip a switch. They have very obvious reasons for not allowing authorization via Roku.


And I have very obvious reasons for canceling HBO. Easy.


----------



## Hoosier205

dualsub2006 said:


> And I have very obvious reasons for canceling HBO. Easy.


Canceling HBO over not having access to a singular free feature on only one device? Go for it.


----------



## sigma1914

dualsub2006 said:


> And I have very obvious reasons for canceling HBO. Easy.


You didn't want HBO, then, just HBOGo on a Roku...something you never had to begin with.


----------



## bartkess

Ok Hoosier205 what are the obvious reasons for not allowing authorization via Roku? I fail to see any obvious reasons in the response i posted.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Hoosier205" said:


> Canceling HBO over not having access to a singular free feature on only one device? Go for it.


Already did.


----------



## dualsub2006

"sigma1914" said:


> You didn't want HBO, then, just HBOGo on a Roku...something you never had to begin with.


Oh no, I want HBO, I'm just not going to give D* their cut any more.


----------



## Hoosier205

bartkess said:


> Ok Hoosier205 what are the obvious reasons for not allowing authorization via Roku? I fail to see any obvious reasons in the response i posted.


The Roku is more synonymous with cord cutting than any other device HBO Go is available on. Even though HBO Go requires an HBO subscription through a participating service provider, the use a Roku opens up a lot of possibilities for the viewer. Of course DirecTV isn't going to participate in the promotion of a product that has a huge potential to draw customers away from DirecTV in more ways than one. In short, the Roku is a competitor. They might as well run ads in favor of Dish Network or Comcast if they support the Roku as well.


----------



## sigma1914

dualsub2006 said:


> Oh no, I want HBO, I'm just not going to give D* their cut any more.


What's your plan? Buy/rent the Blu Rays/DVDs?

I read Go via Roku is only available to a few providers. TWC, DirecTV & Comcast are a no.


----------



## sigma1914

bartkess said:


> Ok Hoosier205 what are the obvious reasons for not allowing authorization via Roku? I fail to see any obvious reasons in the response i posted.


http://www.technobuffalo.com/home-e...o-go-not-working-on-your-roku-dont-blame-hbo/


> DirecTV issued their own statement on the matter, saying, "While Roku is an innovative product, our priority right now is to bring the entire HBO library to the television via DIRECTV on Demand where it can be presented in its highest quality format."


There we... case closed.


----------



## bartkess

I have the Roku device and the Premier package from Directv i DO NOT plan to cut the cord. and yes the Roku does offer a lot of possibilities.but nothing that would cause me to cut any cords at this time. So I still fail to see any obvious reasons for not supporting the Roku.Yet they support the ipad iphone android phones samsung smart tv's and now the xbox 360
And from the response i received from Directv they are avoiding the real reason they are not supporting the Roku.


----------



## davidatl14

I would like to see DirecTV allow HBOGO via Roku. I understand the argument for and against.

My ISP offers TV service that allows HBOGo via Roku. 


May have to cancel HBO with D** and get the "Minimum Premium Package" from my Cable/ISP provider.


Would never Cancel DirecTV in full, just may reorganize and add a Second TV package.

Hope not and willing to wait for the "New and Supposed Improved HBO On Demand" but that has been touted for quite a while with zero improvement thus far.

Will let it play out over the summer and very likely make a decision late Summer/early fall in how to proceed.


----------



## bartkess

Same here i could switch to Cox cable.and get hbo go on my roku with them.
or i could buy a new samsung smart tv.will have to wait to see how the improved hbo on demand pans out.i dont fell it will be the same as hbo go.


----------



## bartkess

Another Response from Directv.

DIRECTV currently does not have any interest in supporting the ROKU device.

And again no obvious reason.


----------



## dualsub2006

"sigma1914" said:


> What's your plan? Buy/rent the Blu Rays/DVDs?
> 
> I read Go via Roku is only available to a few providers. TWC, DirecTV & Comcast are a no.


I'm rethinking all of my premium channel subscriptions.

I could buy and the series that I watch, even though it would be delayed and rent the movies that I want to see from Redbox or add disc back to my Netflix account. I'd have $500 or so dollars a year to spend if I cut all premiums, so I'd have money left over.

I could also get my premiums from the local cable company, or add Dish at my other address.

Then again, I could decide that D* will do.

I'm not sure how I'll handle it yet.


----------



## Drew2k

Hoosier205 said:


> The Roku is more synonymous with cord cutting than any other device HBO Go is available on. Even though HBO Go requires an HBO subscription through a participating service provider, the use a Roku opens up a lot of possibilities for the viewer. Of course DirecTV isn't going to participate in the promotion of a product that has a huge potential to draw customers away from DirecTV in more ways than one. In short, the Roku is a competitor. They might as well run ads in favor of Dish Network or Comcast if they support the Roku as well.


I can't buy this argument at all. By your examples of "cord cutting" XBOX is as much a competitor to DIRECTV as is Roku. XBOX already offers Netflix and Hulu, both of which are on Roku, and both of which compete with DRIECTV on-demand offerings. Also, it's already been announced that for the first time ever use of XBOX for non-gaming exceeded use of XBOX for gaming, so XBOX is evolving into a device more like Roku with each new service Microsoft adds. And there's no end in sight to what MS is adding.


----------



## Hoosier205

Drew2k said:


> I can't buy this argument at all. By your examples of "cord cutting" XBOX is as much a competitor to DIRECTV as is Roku. XBOX already offers Netflix and Hulu, both of which are on Roku, and both of which compete with DRIECTV on-demand offerings. Also, it's already been announced that for the first time ever use of XBOX for non-gaming exceeded use of XBOX for gaming, so XBOX is evolving into a device more like Roku with each new service Microsoft adds. And there's no end in sight to what MS is adding.


I'm done with it. I'm not going to keep explaining this. HBO Go will not be available for DirecTV subscribers via Roku.


----------



## Drew2k

Hoosier205 said:


> I'm done with it. I'm not going to keep explaining this. HBO Go will not be available for DirecTV subscribers via Roku.


That's your belief and you're sticking with it.


----------



## MikeW

Drew2k said:


> I can't buy this argument at all. By your examples of "cord cutting" XBOX is as much a competitor to DIRECTV as is Roku. XBOX already offers Netflix and Hulu, both of which are on Roku, and both of which compete with DRIECTV on-demand offerings. Also, it's already been announced that for the first time ever use of XBOX for non-gaming exceeded use of XBOX for gaming, so XBOX is evolving into a device more like Roku with each new service Microsoft adds. And there's no end in sight to what MS is adding.


XBox can also be used as a Windows Media Center extender. Talk about the ultimate cord-cutting tool. Complete with OTA DVR functionality and guide data that supports all of the channels I can recieve (not just the ones DirecTV can fit into the stream).


----------



## Rtm

Hoosier205 said:


> The Roku is more synonymous with cord cutting than any other device HBO Go is available on. Even though HBO Go requires an HBO subscription through a participating service provider, the use a Roku opens up a lot of possibilities for the viewer. Of course DirecTV isn't going to participate in the promotion of a product that has a huge potential to draw customers away from DirecTV in more ways than one. In short, the Roku is a competitor. They might as well run ads in favor of Dish Network or Comcast if they support the Roku as well.





sigma1914 said:


> http://www.technobuffalo.com/home-e...o-go-not-working-on-your-roku-dont-blame-hbo/
> 
> Quote:
> DirecTV issued their own statement on the matter, saying, "While Roku is an innovative product, our priority right now is to bring the entire HBO library to the television via DIRECTV on Demand where it can be presented in its highest quality format."
> 
> There we... case closed.


Hilarious considering the Roku XD and XS do 1080p and Dolby Digital 5.1 in a less clunky fashion than DirecTV receivers do.


----------



## Shades228

Rtm said:


> Hilarious considering the Roku XD and XS do 1080p and Dolby Digital 5.1 in a less clunky fashion than DirecTV receivers do.


Please provide me an example of a channel that streams in 1080p and DD 5.1.


----------



## sigma1914

Rtm said:


> Hilarious considering the Roku XD and XS do 1080p and Dolby Digital 5.1 in a less clunky fashion than DirecTV receivers do.


So? HBO GO video isn't 1080p or DD 5.1. On Demand PQ easily is better than anything Roku can do due to streaming compression.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Shades228" said:


> Please provide me an example of a channel that streams in 1080p and DD 5.1.


Netflix.


----------



## inkahauts

"davidatl14" said:


> I would like to see DirecTV allow HBOGO via Roku. I understand the argument for and against.
> 
> My ISP offers TV service that allows HBOGo via Roku.
> 
> May have to cancel HBO with D** and get the "Minimum Premium Package" from my Cable/ISP provider.
> 
> Would never Cancel DirecTV in full, just may reorganize and add a Second TV package.
> 
> Hope not and willing to wait for the "New and Supposed Improved HBO On Demand" but that has been touted for quite a while with zero improvement thus far.
> 
> Will let it play out over the summer and very likely make a decision late Summer/early fall in how to proceed.


Unless you would be hooking that roku up to a tv that has no DirecTV box, I'd just sit tight for the next few months, and see what happens with dvrs on demand offerings. I have a feeling they will completely remove all this debate but for a small small % of people.


----------



## inkahauts

"Rtm" said:


> Hilarious considering the Roku XD and XS do 1080p and Dolby Digital 5.1 in a less clunky fashion than DirecTV receivers do.





"dualsub2006" said:


> Netflix.


There is no chance I can get my roku to look as good as anything coming from my DirecTV receiver. There is no hilarious part about that, its pure fact. I don't have the download speed to have full 1080p true hi quality streaming to my house, and neither do many of dvrs subscribers I'd guess.

Heck, 720p will look better than 1080p from a roku, much less 1080i or 1080p. Plus, does anyone know what the actual resolutions are for the programs that are provided by hbo go?


----------



## tonyd79

"dualsub2006" said:


> Netflix.


Don't think Netflix is actually 1080p. It is just what the box outputs as an option. It does not do 1080i only 720p and 1080p.


----------



## dualsub2006

"inkahauts" said:


> There is no chance I can get my roku to look as good as anything coming from my DirecTV receiver. There is no hilarious part about that, its pure fact.


Top Gear on Netflix looks amazing compared to what D* puts out.

Just sayin.


----------



## dualsub2006

"tonyd79" said:


> Don't think Netflix is actually 1080p. It is just what the box outputs as an option. It does not do 1080i only 720p and 1080p.


Netflix has 1080p Dolby 5.1 content.

No, I can't list what is available.


----------



## ThePhantom

dualsub2006 said:


> Netflix has 1080p Dolby 5.1 content.
> 
> No, I can't list what is available.


The site http://tvandmoviesnow.com will list Netflix content that has 5.1 audio. open up the search options and check 'surround sound' to limit the list to the 5.1 content.


----------



## Chuck W

> DirecTV issued their own statement on the matter, saying, "While Roku is an innovative product, our priority right now is to bring the entire HBO library to the television via DIRECTV on Demand where it can be presented in its highest quality format."


This statement doesn't make sense. If that is the case, then why support HBOGO on ANY system? XBox, Samsung???

Directv needs to stop playing games.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Chuck W" said:


> This statement doesn't make sense. If that is the case, then why support HBOGO on ANY system? XBox, Samsung???
> 
> Directv needs to stop playing games.


The Roku is synonymous with cord cutting, while the others are not.


----------



## MikeW

:nono:


Hoosier205 said:


> The Roku is synonymous with cord cutting, while the others are not.


I suppose if you repeat yourself enough times then it must be true.:nono:


----------



## Hoosier205

MikeW said:


> :nono:
> I suppose if you repeat yourself enough times then it must be true.:nono:


Well, it is true.


----------



## MikeW

Hoosier205 said:


> Well, it is true.


So, again I ask, what compelling feature does ROKU bring to the table that the XBox does not? The major players are Netflix and HULU plus. XBOX also brings the ability, through Media Extender, to be an OTA DVR. In my opinion, XBOX would be preferred if I was to become a cord-cutter. So, if it is all about preventing the cord-cutters, why yes to XBOX and no to ROKU?


----------



## Davenlr

I looked into a ROKU, and was not compelled to even be interested in it over the combo of SageTv and PS3. If Sage ever quits, Ill move to Xbox.


----------



## Hoosier205

"MikeW" said:


> So, again I ask, what compelling feature does ROKU bring to the table that the XBox does not? The major players are Netflix and HULU plus. XBOX also brings the ability, through Media Extender, to be an OTA DVR. In my opinion, XBOX would be preferred if I was to become a cord-cutter. So, if it is all about preventing the cord-cutters, why yes to XBOX and no to ROKU?


The XBOX is not a device synonymous with cord cutting, while the Roku is.


----------



## Davenlr

Hoosier205 said:


> The XBOX is not a device synonymous with cord cutting, while the Roku is.


The two people I know that have cut the cord (one DirecTv sub, one Comcast sub), both are using an Xbox, neither have a Roku. Both are in their 50's and neither use it to play games. Just an observation.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Hoosier205" said:


> The XBOX is not a device synonymous with cord cutting, while the Roku is.


In your own opinion the Roku is synonymous with cord cutting. I'm sure that's what you meant to say.

I mean, if you read what Anthony Wood the CEO of Roku has said, fewer than 8% of Roku owners are cord cutters.


----------



## Drew2k

Hoosier205 said:


> The Roku is synonymous with cord cutting, while the others are not.


That's an interesting opinion that not everyone shares.


----------



## Hoosier205

"dualsub2006" said:


> In your own opinion the Roku is synonymous with cord cutting. I'm sure that's what you meant to say.
> 
> I mean, if you read what Anthony Wood the CEO of Roku has said, fewer than 8% of Roku owners are cord cutters.


No, I meant exactly what I said.


----------



## Drew2k




----------



## dualsub2006

"Hoosier205" said:


> No, I meant exactly what I said.


So you make statements you can't back up? Cool. As long as we understand each other.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Discuss the topic and not each other. Make your point and stop the bickering.

Mike


----------



## MikeW

Hoosier205 said:


> The XBOX is not a device synonymous with cord cutting, while the Roku is.


Good to know. Thanks.


----------



## bartkess

Hey Hoosier205 once again if Directv allows access to HBO GO on the Roku and then you cut the cord with Directv then you Loose HBO GO on the Roku......
Same goes for any device that they do allow.there is not enough content on the Roku to be a cord cutter......


----------



## Chuck W

Hoosier205 said:


> The Roku is synonymous with cord cutting, while the others are not.


:lol: Come on. Directv isn't stupid. They know each device is just as big a threat to them as any other, yet they choose to treat one differently than the others.

Makes no sense other than possibly the other devices ponied up(although Directv and Samsung are in bed with the RVUs), while Roku, being a small outfit didn't.


----------



## photostudent

My three Rokus (under $200 total) are an excellent addition to my Directv service. They do great streaming and have a very easy to use interface. I would say 30% of what we watch is via the Rokus, i.e. Netflix, Amazon, and browsing the 700 or so other channels. It is all "on demand" so no DVR needed. If someone needed to cut expenses I could see getting by with Roku and OTA. Three Xboxes plus three Live accounts would be around $1000 just for the first year. I guess it just depends if you are a serious gamer or not. I see a lot of kids taking their Xboxes when traveling so I could see it being considered a portable device in practice.


----------



## djb61230

I was bothered by not having access to hbogo on the roku but with the latest version of flash on linux, it works well using the chrome browser. Last night we watched a couple of episodes of game of thrones as we hadn't finished season one yet. I was very happy with the video quality. Of course with the browser directv does allow access to hbogo.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

bartkess said:


> Hey Hoosier205 once again if Directv allows access to HBO GO on the Roku and then you cut the cord with Directv then you Loose HBO GO on the Roku......
> Same goes for any device that they do allow.there is not enough content on the Roku to be a cord cutter......


That's absolutely true. You can't use HBO Go without subscribing to HBO with a service provider.

This leads me to believe that it's a matter of agreements between DIRECTV and the hardware companies versus any worries about competition.

Just a guess but it makes sense to me.

Mike


----------



## tonyd79

Mike Bertelson said:


> That's absolutely true. You can't use HBO Go without subscribing to HBO with a service provider.
> 
> This leads me to believe that it's a matter of agreements between DIRECTV and the hardware companies versus any worries about competition.
> 
> Just a guess but it makes sense to me.
> 
> Mike


It is not just HBO that comes into play. If you make HBO Go available on Roku, then a customer buys and inexpensive Roku to get at the HBO library not available on DirecTV. They see all the other stuff on Roku and cut down or cut off their DirecTV.

Not saying it is right but that is what they could be reasoning.


----------



## bartkess

tonyd79 if you cancel hbo from directv then you can not use hbo go......


----------



## Hoosier205

bartkess said:


> Hey Hoosier205 once again if Directv allows access to HBO GO on the Roku and then you cut the cord with Directv then you Loose HBO GO on the Roku......
> Same goes for any device that they do allow.there is not enough content on the Roku to be a cord cutter......





Mike Bertelson said:


> That's absolutely true. You can't use HBO Go without subscribing to HBO with a service provider.
> 
> This leads me to believe that it's a matter of agreements between DIRECTV and the hardware companies versus any worries about competition.
> 
> Just a guess but it makes sense to me.
> 
> Mike


My earlier comment applies here I suppose.



Hoosier205 said:


> The Roku is more synonymous with cord cutting than any other device HBO Go is available on. Even though HBO Go requires an HBO subscription through a participating service provider, the use of a Roku opens up a lot of possibilities for the viewer. Of course DirecTV isn't going to participate in the promotion of a product that has a huge potential to draw customers away from DirecTV in more ways than one. In short, the Roku is a competitor...much more so than Microsoft's XBOX 360. They might as well run ads in favor of Dish Network or Comcast if they support the Roku as well.


----------



## Hoosier205

bartkess said:


> tonyd79 if you cancel hbo from directv then you can not use hbo go......


HBO Go is the gateway drug to a lot more content. Far more than the other devices mentioned.

http://www.roku.com/roku-channel-store#15

This is just about HBO Go. It's about DirecTV not wanting to steer DirecTV customers towards a device that opens up reasons to not give more of your business to DirecTV. The Roku has a lot more potential downside for DirecTV than any other device HBO Go is available on. They obviously felt those other devices passed their risk vs reward test. The Roku did not for obvious reasons.


----------



## AlanSaysYo

In light of DirecTV's decision to allow HBO Go on the 360 and not on the Roku, the ads I've been seeing on the 360's dashboard lately have been hilarious. A DirecTV subscriber firing up the 360 to watch HBO Go this past weekend would have been greeted with gigantic ads for Xfinity TV service, and reminders that you can watch Xfinity on-demand programming on the 360 itself. 

I don't think I've ever seen a DirecTV ad on 360.


----------



## sigma1914

AlanSaysYo said:


> In light of DirecTV's decision to allow HBO Go on the 360 and not on the Roku, the ads I've been seeing on the 360's dashboard lately have been hilarious. A DirecTV subscriber firing up the 360 to watch HBO Go this past weekend would have been greeted with gigantic ads for Xfinity TV service, and reminders that you can watch Xfinity on-demand programming on the 360 itself.
> 
> I don't think I've ever seen a DirecTV ad on 360.


Comcast, along with TW, won't allow HBO Go on Roku.


----------



## tonyd79

bartkess said:


> tonyd79 if you cancel hbo from directv then you can not use hbo go......


I am well aware of that. What I am saying is that for those who want to lower expenses, they can cut other packages out of DirecTV because they can get other sources with the Roku. Or they can see that they like the Roku well enough to cut HBO and all of DirecTV and live with OTA and other sources.

I think it is marginal and a long shot, but I think DirecTV sees Roku as a competitor in that light.


----------



## MikeW

Hoosier205 said:


> HBO Go is the gateway drug to a lot more content. Far more than the other devices mentioned.
> 
> http://www.roku.com/roku-channel-store#15
> 
> This is just about HBO Go. It's about DirecTV not wanting to steer DirecTV customers towards a device that opens up reasons to not give more of your business to DirecTV. The Roku has a lot more potential downside for DirecTV than any other device HBO Go is available on. They obviously felt those other devices passed their risk vs reward test. The Roku did not for obvious reasons.


Since you are so adament about this, why won't you answer this simple question?

What is different about the content on ROKU vs XBOX?

Netflix, HULU Plus, Amazon Instant Video, Crackle, HBO GO, Pandora, and MLB are all available on the XBOX. I realize the list of ROKU items is much greater than this, but I seriously doubt that many of the other channels can substantially differentiate ROKU from XBOX.


----------



## inkahauts

"bartkess" said:


> tonyd79 if you cancel hbo from directv then you can not use hbo go......


Today sure, but what about tomorrow? And with starz rumored to be considering releasing a go platform that can be purchased as a stand alone service absent any regular provider, none of this is cut and dry at all.


----------



## AlanSaysYo

sigma1914 said:


> Comcast, along with TW, won't allow HBO Go on Roku.


My point is that the device that DirecTV has deemed acceptable to use for HBO Go (the 360) is plastered with ads for one of their competitors. You won't see that on the device DirecTV doesn't want you using (Roku).


----------



## Hoosier205

MikeW said:


> Since you are so adament about this, why won't you answer this simple question?
> 
> What is different about the content on ROKU vs XBOX?
> 
> Netflix, HULU Plus, Amazon Instant Video, Crackle, HBO GO, Pandora, and MLB are all available on the XBOX. I realize the list of ROKU items is much greater than this, but I seriously doubt that many of the other channels can substantially differentiate ROKU from XBOX.



The list of content is much larger with Roku
The XBOX 360 is primarily a gaming system, with access to some streaming services. The Roku is primarily a streaming device, with the ability to play media from a USB device (depending on the model). Any additional XBOX features play second fiddle to its gaming function. It's a gaming console that happens to offer streaming.

XBOX 360 ≠ Roku


----------



## bartkess

ok what about my laptop with hdmi out and blue ray player.so its a cord cutter too?


----------



## Hoosier205

bartkess said:


> ok what about my laptop with hdmi out and blue ray player.so its a cord cutter too?


Let's compare the number of people who own a laptop with HDMI out and Blu-ray capabilities who choose to connect said computer to their HDTV...to the number of people who use a dedicated streaming device such as the Roku.

Apples to oranges.


----------



## bartkess

and not only can i stream hbo go but also max go.
and most modern tv's have a pc imput.
so any device that can connect to a tv and stream internet content is a cord cutter.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Hoosier205 said:


> My earlier comment applies here I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> Hoosier205 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Roku is more synonymous with cord cutting than any other device HBO Go is available on. Even though HBO Go requires an HBO subscription through a participating service provider, the use of a Roku opens up a lot of possibilities for the viewer. Of course DirecTV isn't going to participate in the promotion of a product that has a huge potential to draw customers away from DirecTV in more ways than one. In short, the Roku is a competitor...much more so than Microsoft's XBOX 360. They might as well run ads in favor of Dish Network or Comcast if they support the Roku as well.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. Once you drop the subscription you no longer have access to HBOGo. If you drop DIRECTV you still have to go somewhere else to pay for HBO.

Your premise just doesn't make any sense to me. What advantage is there for a Roku owner in dropping DIRECTV? :scratchin

Mike


----------



## bartkess

Mike Bertelson said:


> I don't get it. Once you drop the subscription you no longer have access to HBOGo. If you drop DIRECTV you still have to go somewhere else to pay for HBO.
> 
> Your premise just doesn't make any sense to me. What advantage is there for a Roku owner in dropping DIRECTV? :scratchin
> 
> Mike


Thank You.


----------



## QuickDrop

Hoosier205 said:


> The list of content is much larger with Roku
> The XBOX 360 is primarily a gaming system, with access to some streaming services. The Roku is primarily a streaming device, with the ability to play media from a USB device (depending on the model). Any additional XBOX features play second fiddle to its gaming function. It's a gaming console that happens to offer streaming.
> 
> XBOX 360 ≠ Roku


XBOX owners in my area can get ESPN3 channels on their XBOX because of Verizon, which Roku doesn't seem to support outside of DLNA streaming through PlayOn. More sports without subscribing to the "sports leader" seems to me more of a threat to DirecTV than needing to subscribe to a premium movie service through DirecTV so you can watch it on another piece of equipment.

I don't get the opposition. Television services, and DirecTV is certainly not alone, seem to have their head in the sand and believe their customers don't have other boxes hooked up to their TVs or have no clue such boxes exist, so by limiting what they offer on their box or what a third party can offer on theirs the consumer will be none the wiser.

I have no clue why a select few consumers of DirecTV's product are so concerned splitting hairs over HBO to Go being allowed on some products and not others.

Does anyone truly believe the quoted poster would be aghast if the position was reversed and DirecTV allowed streaming on the Roku but not XBox 360? He seems to be oblivious to the fact that XBox already has most of the major streaming options available and uses the fact that it has the additional benefit of playing video games as some how a limitation. Blind bias can be hilarious.


----------



## MarkG21

Mike Bertelson said:


> I don't get it. Once you drop the subscription you no longer have access to HBOGo. If you drop DIRECTV you still have to go somewhere else to pay for HBO.
> 
> Your premise just doesn't make any sense to me. What advantage is there for a Roku owner in dropping DIRECTV? :scratchin
> 
> Mike


Because of the *potential* that a user might find out they like what the roku offers beyond hbo go. A user may make a desision that they can both live without hbo and directv.

A Roku is marketed primarily as a streaming video player. An Xbox is a gaming system first and everything else second. While true that you can cord cut with an Xbox, it's far more likely on a Roku. Hense, why it's not available for Roku. Directv sees them more as a competitor/ threat.


----------



## DawgLink

My parents have HBO with their Cox Cable subscription so I just use their login. Very helpful


----------



## Hoosier205

"Mike Bertelson" said:


> I don't get it. Once you drop the subscription you no longer have access to HBOGo. If you drop DIRECTV you still have to go somewhere else to pay for HBO.
> 
> Your premise just doesn't make any sense to me. What advantage is there for a Roku owner in dropping DIRECTV? :scratchin
> 
> Mike


Alright. I am trying to be as clear about this as possible. This is about more than just HBO Go when DirecTV makes this choice. As I said before, HBO Go is just the gateway drug. If a customer cancels either just HBO or DirecTV entirely, DirecTV will have helped to promote the use of the very product that aided the customer in cutting the cord. You can swap HBO with any other content provider that requires DirecTV authentication via Roku...same result. DirecTV isn't going to voluntarily introduce their customers to Roku. XBOX steaming is small potatoes compared to threat posed by Roku. XBOX is the far safer option for DirecTV.


----------



## Hoosier205

"QuickDrop" said:


> XBOX owners in my area can get ESPN3 channels on their XBOX because of Verizon, which Roku doesn't seem to support outside of DLNA streaming through PlayOn. More sports without subscribing to the "sports leader" seems to me more of a threat to DirecTV than needing to subscribe to a premium movie service through DirecTV so you can watch it on another piece of equipment.
> 
> I don't get the opposition. Television services, and DirecTV is certainly not alone, seem to have their head in the sand and believe their customers don't have other boxes hooked up to their TVs or have no clue such boxes exist, so by limiting what they offer on their box or what a third party can offer on theirs the consumer will be none the wiser.
> 
> I have no clue why a select few consumers of DirecTV's product are so concerned splitting hairs over HBO to Go being allowed on some products and not others.
> 
> Does anyone truly believe the quoted poster would be aghast if the position was reversed and DirecTV allowed streaming on the Roku but not XBox 360? He seems to be oblivious to the fact that XBox already has most of the major streaming options available and uses the fact that it has the additional benefit of playing video games as some how a limitation. Blind bias can be hilarious.


The XBOX steaming options are extremely limited compared to Roku. Gaming is not an "additional" benefit of the XBOX nor is it a limitation. Gaming is the primary feature, everything else is secondary. Streaming is not the primary use or target for sales...as opposed to Roku. Roku is far more of a competitor to DirecTV than Microsoft with the XBOX.


----------



## Hoosier205

"MarkG21" said:


> Because of the potential that a user might find out they like what the roku offers beyond hbo go. A user may make a desision that they can both live without hbo and directv.
> 
> A Roku is marketed primarily as a streaming video player. An Xbox is a gaming system first and everything else second. While true that you can cord cut with an Xbox, it's far more likely on a Roku. Hense, why it's not available for Roku. Directv sees them more as a competitor/ threat.


Exactly.


----------



## Davenlr

Hoosier205 said:


> . Streaming is not the primary use or target for sales...as opposed to Roku. Roku is far more of a competitor to DirecTV than Microsoft with the XBOX.


From Microsoft:


> The Xbox 360 Console with Kinect. Kinect brings games and entertainment to life in extraordinary new ways-no controller required. Easy to use and instantly fun, Kinect gets everyone off the couch moving, laughing, and cheering. See a ball? Kick it. *Control a HD movie with the wave of the hand.* Want to join a friend in the fun? Simply jump in. *Wi-Fi is built-in for easier connection to the world of entertainment on Xbox LIVE, where HD movies and TV stream in an instant.* Xbox 360 is more games, entertainment, and fun.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Hoosier205 said:


> Alright. I am trying to be as clear about this as possible. This is about more than just HBO Go when DirecTV makes this choice. As I said before, HBO Go is just the gateway drug. If a customer cancels either just HBO or DirecTV entirely, DirecTV will have helped to promote the use of the very product that aided the customer in cutting the cord. You can swap HBO with any other content provider that requires DirecTV authentication via Roku...same result. DirecTV isn't going to voluntarily introduce their customers to Roku. XBOX steaming is small potatoes compared to threat posed by Roku. XBOX is the far safer option for DirecTV.


That is based on premise that if DIRECTV allows HBOGo via Roku will make their subs go out and buy one just for HBOGo instead of using PC/laptop/Xbox they already own.

I get your point but it seems like a stretch to me. I get that it's a competitive service/product but it seems like more of an opportunity to gain some leverage than to run and hide.

Mike


----------



## Hoosier205

"Davenlr" said:


> From Microsoft:


Yes, they are advertising those secondary features.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Mike Bertelson" said:


> That is based on premise that if DIRECTV allows HBOGo via Roku will make their subs go out and buy one just for HBOGo instead of using PC/laptop/Xbox they already own.
> 
> I get your point but it seems like a stretch to me. I get that it's a competitive service/product but it seems like more of an opportunity to gain some leverage than to run and hide.
> 
> Mike


It also applies to those customers who already have one and are lead to use it even more.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Hoosier205 said:


> It also applies to those customers who already have one and are lead to use it even more.


If they've already got one then they know the capabilities. I just don't that will lead to reducing those capabilities by dropping DIRECTV and losing HBOGo.

Like I said, it just seems like a stretch to me.

Mike


----------



## Hoosier205

"Mike Bertelson" said:


> If they've already got one then they know the capabilities. I just don't that will lead to reducing those capabilities by dropping DIRECTV and losing HBOGo.
> 
> Like I said, it just seems like a stretch to me.
> 
> Mike


Well, I've laid out the reasons for why DirecTV customers cannot access HBO Go via Roku. The reasons why are not going to change and neither will the outcome. DirecTV isn't going to suggest to their customers that they use a competitors product.


----------



## tonyd79

"Mike Bertelson" said:


> If they've already got one then they know the capabilities. I just don't that will lead to reducing those capabilities by dropping DIRECTV and losing HBOGo.
> 
> Like I said, it just seems like a stretch to me.
> 
> Mike


It may be a stretch but the reasoning is consistent with actions directv has taken and their public concerns about cord cutting

No one who is downgrading the line of thought has come up with a plausible explanation, however. Don't just knock what some of us think directv's reasoning is (regardless of if we agree with it...I do not). Come up with another potential reason.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Hoosier205 said:


> Well, I've laid out the reasons for why DirecTV customers cannot access HBO Go via Roku. The reasons why are not going to change and neither will the outcome. DirecTV isn't going to suggest to their customers that they use a competitors product.


You've laid out your opinion and I understand the line of thought. I just don't agree with the logic. It is consistent with their actions but I think if it is so it's short sighted on their part.

Oh well, it doesn't matter to me much since I don't have a Roku...although I might look into getting one. :grin:

Mike


----------



## Darcaine

MikeW said:


> Since you are so adament about this, why won't you answer this simple question?
> 
> What is different about the content on ROKU vs XBOX?
> 
> Netflix, HULU Plus, Amazon Instant Video, Crackle, HBO GO, Pandora, and MLB are all available on the XBOX. I realize the list of ROKU items is much greater than this, but I seriously doubt that many of the other channels can substantially differentiate ROKU from XBOX.


The difference isn't in the content, it's in the fact that Directv has a pre-existing relationship with Microsoft and Samsung, and doesn't have any such relationship with Roku, and would benefit from Roku becoming a distant memory.

They have no hope of ever getting rid of Xbox Live, or Samsung TVs, may as well support them and keep their parent companies as happy business partners, but they can contribute to choking Roku out of the market before they gain more power and control of the living room (Microsoft benefits from this as well). Which is exactly what they are doing.


----------



## dualsub2006

Was there bad blood when D* bought ReplayTV? Anthony Wood, who is the founder and CEO of Roku was also the founder and CEO of ReplayTV. 

He had sold ReplayTV before D* bought the assets, but he was still there when D* bought it out I believe. 

That might explain a lot of this. If Wood left a sore spot in D* shorts on his way out the door, maybe they're just holding a grudge.


----------



## joed32

I love my Roku and have 3 of them in the house, they have lots of good content. I really don't see any big need for HBO to go being on them since I have HBO and HBO On Demand on all of my TVs, and HBO to go on my computers. I have no intention of leaving Directv but Roku is a nice add on especially if you have Netflix. Just my opinion.


----------



## man_rob

The only thing the Roku does is give connected smart TV services to older sets. Nothing more. It's ridiculous that DirecTV doesn't support HBO Go on the box. There's nothing on Roku that you can't get on a Samsung connected TV. DirecTV's HBO on demand is crap compared to other providers, and HBO Go. I don't understand why my Blu-ray player can stream HD content every bit as good looking at DirecTV HD, immediately, while I have to wait for a the DVR to download a program.


----------



## Hoosier205

man_rob said:


> There's nothing on Roku that you can't get on a Samsung connected TV.


That is not accurate.



man_rob said:


> DirecTV's HBO on demand is crap compared to other providers, and HBO Go.


DirecTV is working to bring all HBO content to subscribers through On Demand. All of the HBO Go content via On Demand in HD with DD 5.1. That will beat what any other provider offers anywhere.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Hoosier205 said:


> man_rob said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing on Roku that you can't get on a Samsung connected TV.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not accurate.
> 
> 
> man_rob said:
> 
> 
> 
> DirecTV's HBO on demand is crap compared to other providers, and HBO Go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DirecTV is working to bring all HBO content to subscribers through On Demand. All of the HBO Go content via On Demand in HD with DD 5.1. That will beat what any other provider offers anywhere.
Click to expand...

The features between the Roku and the Samsung Smart TV seem pretty close to me. AAMOF, it seems the Samsung does much more including Kinect like operation so you can just move your hand to bring up Hulu or Netflix.

Why is man_rob's statem inaccurate? 

Mike


----------



## MikeW

Mike Bertelson said:


> The features between the Roku and the Samsung Smart TV seem pretty close to me. AAMOF, it seems the Samsung does much more including Kinect like operation so you can just move your hand to bring up Hulu or Netflix.
> 
> Why is man_rob's statem inaccurate?
> 
> Mike


It seems Hoosier takes alot of stock in the quantity of channels ROKU provides. I don't know many people who would view the content on the vast majority of those channels. As I've said multiple times, Netflix, HULU, and Amazon are the major players...all others are just filler.


----------



## tonyd79

"man_rob" said:


> The only thing the Roku does is give connected smart TV services to older sets. Nothing more. It's ridiculous that DirecTV doesn't support HBO Go on the box. There's nothing on Roku that you can't get on a Samsung connected TV. DirecTV's HBO on demand is crap compared to other providers, and HBO Go. I don't understand why my Blu-ray player can stream HD content every bit as good looking at DirecTV HD, immediately, while I have to wait for a the DVR to download a program.


Roku does a lot more than a Samsung tv. And streaming is not close in quality to on demand downloads.


----------



## Hoosier205

MikeW said:


> It seems Hoosier takes alot of stock in the quantity of channels ROKU provides. I don't know many people who would view the content on the vast majority of those channels. As I've said multiple times, Netflix, HULU, and Amazon are the major players...*all others are just filler.*


Perhaps in your opinion, but not everyone will agree.


----------



## Drew2k

Mike Bertelson said:


> Why is man_rob's statem inaccurate?


I'd love to hear the answer as well...


----------



## Mike Bertelson

MikeW said:


> It seems Hoosier takes alot of stock in the quantity of channels ROKU provides. I don't know many people who would view the content on the vast majority of those channels. As I've said multiple times, Netflix, HULU, and Amazon are the major players...all others are just filler.


The channels for Roku are not the major source of consumption but they do provide some content, even taking into consideration some of the "channels" are actually apps like Picasa.

A service provider with the most basic package more than covers that and a smart TV does everything else the Roku although...although, if IPTV is the future the there may be more real content for Roku in the future giving it a distinct advantage.

Then again, maybe not such an advantage. That same IPTV content should also be available to the smart TV too; which is why I suspect the days are numbered for add on boxes like the Roku.

Mike


----------



## Hoosier205

Mike Bertelson said:


> Why is man_rob's statem inaccurate?


More content (video content...not games and such) is available with Roku and at with higher audio/video quality in some cases.


----------



## sigma1914

I don't think my Samsung has Amazon.


----------



## sigma1914

sigma1914 said:


> I don't think my Samsung has Amazon.


I found it in the Yahoo Widgets App... weird.


----------



## DawgLink

Hoosier205 said:


> That is not accurate.


Can you get Amazon on a Samsung TV? I really dont know


----------



## Hoosier205

DawgLink said:


> Can you get Amazon on a Samsung TV? I really dont know


It isn't listed as one of the apps available, but I do not have a 2012 Sammy to confirm.


----------



## sigma1914

DawgLink said:


> Can you get Amazon on a Samsung TV? I really dont know


Yes, it's part of the Yahoo Widgets app.


----------



## inkahauts

"dualsub2006" said:


> Was there bad blood when D* bought ReplayTV? Anthony Wood, who is the founder and CEO of Roku was also the founder and CEO of ReplayTV.
> 
> He had sold ReplayTV before D* bought the assets, but he was still there when D* bought it out I believe.
> 
> That might explain a lot of this. If Wood left a sore spot in D* shorts on his way out the door, maybe they're just holding a grudge.


I doubt he was. It was owned by Denon before it was sold to DIRECTV and that was way after they had stopped shipping units and I think had even been sold to someone else before that.


----------



## man_rob

Oh, by the way, PlayStation 3 now offers Amazon Prime streaming video. The arguments that Roku is any more than a electronic device that allows retrofitting older TVs with smart TV's, and PS3 streaming abilities are just plain silly. Roku is no more a competitor than the other streaming devices.


----------



## Hoosier205

man_rob said:


> Roku is no more a competitor than the other streaming devices.


False, apparently...DirecTV disagrees with you as well.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Hoosier205 said:


> DirecTV disagrees.


Do you have a source that this it the opinion of DIRECTV?

Mike


----------



## MikeW

Mike Bertelson said:


> Do you have a source that this it the opinion of DIRECTV?
> 
> Mike


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2993243#post2993243

Similar to a request Hoosier just made this morning...

If you are going to claim to know what the rate for DirecTV customers is...please provide proof. Unless a provider (content or service) divulges what the actual rate is, the closest you can come is a guess or a broad estimate.


----------



## Hoosier205

Mike Bertelson said:


> Do you have a source that this it the opinion of DIRECTV?
> 
> Mike


I've edited the post.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

"MikeW" said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2993243#post2993243
> 
> Similar to a request Hoosier just made this morning...
> 
> If you are going to claim to know what the rate for DirecTV customers is...please provide proof. Unless a provider (content or service) divulges what the actual rate is, the closest you can come is a guess or a broad estimate.


 I've never claimed to know what the rate is. If you re-read my posts you'll see I clearly said it was a guess.

Mike


----------



## MikeW

Mike Bertelson said:


> I've never claimed to know what the rate is. If you re-read my posts you'll see I clearly said it was a guess.
> 
> Mike


I'm just saying the Hoosier suggests that his opinion is fact without anything from DirecTV to substantiate his claim. In a completely un-related topic, he does ask another user to provide proof.


----------



## QuickDrop

Hoosier205 said:


> The XBOX steaming options are extremely limited compared to Roku. Gaming is not an "additional" benefit of the XBOX nor is it a limitation. Gaming is the primary feature, everything else is secondary. Streaming is not the primary use or target for sales...as opposed to Roku. Roku is far more of a competitor to DirecTV than Microsoft with the XBOX.


The most popular streaming service is Netflix. The two leading streaming devices for Netflix are the PS3 (about 30%) and the XBox360 (about 25 %). Both the footprint and usage for streaming (in general) of video game devices far exceeds streaming only devices like Roku.



Hoosier205 said:


> DirecTV is working to bring all HBO content to subscribers through On Demand. All of the HBO Go content via On Demand in HD with DD 5.1. That will beat what any other provider offers anywhere.


Exactly. If DirecTV offers a better viewing experience than secondary boxes, DirecTV customers will prefer to use DirecTV. They are already subscribed to DirecTV, after all.

This is just so ludicrous. You subscribe to HBO through DirecTV either way. DirecTV is getting the money for the subscription. If someone believes the streaming options Roku has over the XBox 360 streaming options is enough incentive to make people quit subscribing to DirecTV, they must either have a very poor opinion of DirecTV's offerings or feel the need to take DirecTV's side without thinking. Those are the only options that make any sense


----------



## man_rob

Hoosier205 said:


> False, apparently...DirecTV disagrees with you as well.


False why? Roku is _not_ a content provider, say like Sony, and their PlayStation video on demand services, http://us.playstation.com/games-and-media/movies/ that competes *directly* with DirecTV's similar service. Then there is all the other video channels available via sony.
http://us.playstation.com/psn/psn-services/ That is just a sampling, and they now offer Amazon Prime as well.

Roku is an electronic video streaming device. It's a piece of hardware that retrofits older TVs with smart TV video streaming.


----------



## joed32

Is Crackle on Smart TVs, or Al Jazeera English or an XXX movie channel? They're not on my smart TVs. Roku is a lot better than my Sony or LG both of which have Netflix, Hulu +, etc.


----------



## MarkG21

man_rob said:


> False why? Roku is _not_ a content provider, say like Sony, and their PlayStation video on demand services, http://us.playstation.com/games-and-media/movies/ that competes *directly* with DirecTV's similar service. Then there is all the other video channels available via sony.
> http://us.playstation.com/psn/psn-services/ That is just a sampling, and they now offer Amazon Prime as well.
> 
> Roku is an electronic video streaming device. It's a piece of hardware that retrofits older TVs with smart TV video streaming.


What is more likely?

Cord cutting through a gaming counsel or through a roku (or apple TV)?


----------



## MCHuf

MarkG21 said:


> What is more likely?
> 
> Cord cutting through a gaming counsel or through a roku (or apple TV)?


I think it's more likely through a streaming box. Most people buy consoles primarily to play games. Streaming media is secondary for them. People buy a Roku, AppleTV or a Boxee to watch video.

For now I don't think pay-tv providers are that worried about "cord cutters". I think their big concern is people dropping their packages down and replacing leased equipment with a streaming box. Right now I have three tv's. Two of them are connected to a Dish 722K dvr. The third is connected to a $49.99 Roku LT box. I'm saving some money per month by having one less stb from Dish. I watch Netflix, Amazon, HBOGO, EPIX, Crunchyroll, Roku News channel plus a lot of internet-only channels on that tv. Since all my sets are connected to a roof-top antenna, I get a lot of programing on that set without being connected to Dish.

Let's say you subscribe to a certain package because of a couple of channels. And let's say both those channles sign big deals with Netflix, Amazon Prime or Hulu Plus. You could replace a stb or dvr on one tv, and/or even drop down to a lower package. This is what the pay-tv providers really fear. Of course this could lead to "cord-cutting". But with more and more sports going the pay-tv channel route, IMO, it's not that much of a problem (yet). Now if the NFL ever offered a streaming version of Sunday Ticket, that would be a game changer! Then you could watch every major league sport online through a streaming box.


----------



## ChicagoBlue

MarkG21 said:


> What is more likely?
> 
> Cord cutting through a gaming counsel or through a roku (or apple TV)?


The data I have seen is that people with a PS3 or XBOX are more affluent and want it all. The gaming, the streaming, the tv provider. They are much less likely to cord cut or cord shave.

People with Roku or similar devices often are on the cheap and more likely to cut the cord. I'm sure DTV is seeing the same data. So is Comcast and others that don't support Roku.


----------



## NewForceFiveFan

MarkG21 said:


> What is more likely?
> 
> Cord cutting through a gaming counsel or through a roku (or apple TV)?


I was in an Apple Store a few weeks ago. I was playing around with the Apple TV hooked up to a 42" widescreen TV checking out the different free videos and rental previews. The video quality, even from Apples own offerings was horrible. I don't know if it was hooked up with hdmi but I thought I was looking at realplayer videos from 15 years ago or a bad vhs vcr connected by composite. Even Netflix and Youtube streaming on a Wii connected to an SD tube tv via composite looked better. It was definitely a turnoff on a future purchase of that device to go along with my ipad.


----------



## MarkG21

MCHuf said:


> I think it's more likely through a streaming box. Most people buy consoles primarily to play games. Streaming media is secondary for them. People buy a Roku, AppleTV or a Boxee to watch video.
> 
> For now I don't think pay-tv providers are that worried about "cord cutters". I think their big concern is people dropping their packages down and replacing leased equipment with a streaming box. Right now I have three tv's. Two of them are connected to a Dish 722K dvr. The third is connected to a $49.99 Roku LT box. I'm saving some money per month by having one less stb from Dish. I watch Netflix, Amazon, HBOGO, EPIX, Crunchyroll, Roku News channel plus a lot of internet-only channels on that tv. Since all my sets are connected to a roof-top antenna, I get a lot of programing on that set without being connected to Dish.
> 
> Let's say you subscribe to a certain package because of a couple of channels. And let's say both those channles sign big deals with Netflix, Amazon Prime or Hulu Plus. You could replace a stb or dvr on one tv, and/or even drop down to a lower package. This is what the pay-tv providers really fear. Of course this could lead to "cord-cutting". But with more and more sports going the pay-tv channel route, IMO, it's not that much of a problem (yet). Now if the NFL ever offered a streaming version of Sunday Ticket, that would be a game changer! Then you could watch every major league sport online through a streaming box.


Yep, completely agree. I should have said cord cutting or downgrading service/receivers.



ChicagoBlue said:


> The data I have seen is that people with a PS3 or XBOX are more affluent and want it all. The gaming, the streaming, the tv provider. They are much less likely to cord cut or cord shave.
> 
> People with Roku or similar devices often are on the cheap and more likely to cut the cord. I'm sure DTV is seeing the same data. So is Comcast and others that don't support Roku.


I agree. Gaming counsels and streaming devises cater to different crowds. I believe DirecTV (and other companies) are more worried about Roku users downgrading or cutting compared gaming counsel users.



NewForceFiveFan said:


> I was in an Apple Store a few weeks ago. I was playing around with the Apple TV hooked up to a 42" widescreen TV checking out the different free videos and rental previews. The video quality, even from Apples own offerings was horrible. I don't know if it was hooked up with hdmi but I thought I was looking at realplayer videos from 15 years ago or a bad vhs vcr connected by composite. Even Netflix and Youtube streaming on a Wii connected to an SD tube tv via composite looked better. It was definitely a turnoff on a future purchase of that device to go along with my ipad.


That may be just the conditions at that store. I have bought a few videos from the iTunes store and they look pretty good to me. DTV looks better when compared though. I mainly use my Apple TV for my blu ray rips.


----------



## man_rob

joed32 said:


> Is Crackle on Smart TVs, or Al Jazeera English or an XXX movie channel? They're not on my smart TVs. Roku is a lot better than my Sony or LG both of which have Netflix, Hulu +, etc.


Crackle is on the PS3. Does DirecTV fear that the 4 or 5 Al Jazeera viewers are going to dump them? (It can be watched via PS3 as well.) And while there is a pay per view porn on Roku, there's *free* porn on the PS3 via the internet. Who pays for it these days? Not to mention there's flash support on the PS3 so many network shows are available for free on it as well.


----------



## man_rob

MarkG21 said:


> What is more likely?
> 
> Cord cutting through a gaming counsel or through a roku (or apple TV)?


They are all just as likely to lead to cord cutting, ans they all offer virtually identical content.


----------



## Hoosier205

man_rob said:


> They are all just as likely to lead to cord cutting,


No



man_rob said:


> ans they all offer virtually identical content.


No

A $60 streaming player is not the same as a $200-$250 gaming console, nor do they offer the same content.


----------



## photostudent

man_rob said:


> Crackle is on the PS3. Does DirecTV fear that the 4 or 5 Al Jazeera viewers are going to dump them? (It can be watched via PS3 as well.) And while there is a pay per view porn on Roku, there's *free* porn on the PS3 via the internet. Who pays for it these days? Not to mention there's flash support on the PS3 so many network shows are available for free on it as well.


Not that I watch xxx but plenty free on the Roku. I have a Smart TV, an XBox, a WII, and a Bluray with streaming but easiest to use and best quality is the Roku. Again an apple and orange situation as you can get a half dozen Rokus for the price of a game console. Mostly the massive amount of channels on the Roku feeds my intellectual curiosity. TechTV may have been too "niche" for Cable/Sat but I probably watch five hours a week of TWIT, it's streaming legacy. The Roku does not have a browser but I found that I prefer to web surf with a tablet or laptop while watching my TV. I do not actually know any cable cutters but have friends who have taken the cable boxes out of their teenagers rooms because the kids only play games, surf the web, and text!


----------



## Darcaine

Hoosier205 said:


> No
> 
> No
> 
> A $60 streaming player is not the same as a $200-$250 gaming console, nor do they offer the same content.


PS3 and Xbox 360 prices will drop considerably over the next couple of years as they launch PS4 and Xbox 3. May not be comparable today, but in time it certainly will be, with the consoles offering much more value for a very similar price.

Plus it's not really the consoles offering the service, it's XBL and Playstation Network, which can extend to multiple devices.


----------



## joed32

man_rob said:


> Crackle is on the PS3. Does DirecTV fear that the 4 or 5 Al Jazeera viewers are going to dump them? (It can be watched via PS3 as well.) And while there is a pay per view porn on Roku, there's *free* porn on the PS3 via the internet. Who pays for it these days? Not to mention there's flash support on the PS3 so many network shows are available for free on it as well.


The porn channel is free on the Roku as well and not PPV. I don't think that Directv should fear people with streaming devices at all. I was just touting the Roku as a very good streamer.


----------



## joed32

ChicagoBlue said:


> The data I have seen is that people with a PS3 or XBOX are more affluent and want it all. The gaming, the streaming, the tv provider. They are much less likely to cord cut or cord shave.
> 
> People with Roku or similar devices often are on the cheap and more likely to cut the cord. I'm sure DTV is seeing the same data. So is Comcast and others that don't support Roku.


The data you have seen? I would think that people buying gaming machine would tend to be younger and people who don't care about gaming to be older and more affluent. I have 3 Roku's, Directv Premiere and Netflix, with 5 DVRs and one HD receiver and Sunday Ticket. Hardly on the cheap. And I don't game.


----------



## Dan B

Studies do show that gamers are more affluent than non-gamers, and their average age has been steadily rising. A study last year showed an average age of 37, with 29% of gamers over the age of 50.


----------



## QuickDrop

Dan B said:


> Studies do show that gamers are more affluent than non-gamers, and their average age has been steadily rising. A study last year showed an average age of 37, with 29% of gamers over the age of 50.


I wonder how much of this argument is about age. I don't consider myself "young" but I'm close to the average age of video games owners, which might explain why the "X-Box is video game system" posters sound, to me, as out of touch as companies who a decade or more ago attempted to put malware on computers because their customers wanted to rip their own CDs to their music library.

I also find it disturbing the extent to which a few DirecTV consumers, and only a very few consumers, seem so upset by the notion that a DirecTV subscriber might choose other viewing options along side their DirecTV subscription. As a consumer, I would think you would not only want multiple choices, but also the ability to enjoy multiple choices simultaneously. When someone resorts to a "because DirecTV says so" defense, it comes across less as loyalty than a pathology.


----------



## Satelliteracer

joed32 said:


> The data you have seen? I would think that people buying gaming machine would tend to be younger and people who don't care about gaming to be older and more affluent. I have 3 Roku's, Directv Premiere and Netflix, with 5 DVRs and one HD receiver and Sunday Ticket. Hardly on the cheap. And I don't game.


You would be surprised who buys gaming systems. They skew close to 40. I only know this because of the studies done for NFL ST on the PS3. Very affluent, men, close to 40 years old.


----------



## Shades228

Satelliteracer said:


> You would be surprised who buys gaming systems. They skew close to 40. I only know this because of the studies done for NFL ST on the PS3. Very affluent, men, close to 40 years old.


The atari generation is taking over the boomer generation in terms of driving products.


----------



## joed32

Satelliteracer said:


> You would be surprised who buys gaming systems. They skew close to 40. I only know this because of the studies done for NFL ST on the PS3. Very affluent, men, close to 40 years old.


Maybe I'm just too old. Home computers didn't even exist when I was young. I did buy an Atari for the kids though.


----------



## DawgLink

Satelliteracer said:


> You would be surprised who buys gaming systems. They skew close to 40. I only know this because of the studies done for NFL ST on the PS3. Very affluent, men, close to 40 years old.


I am in my 30's and many friends above me by a few years have gaming systems AND their parents/friends have systems even if they get them just for the Netflix/Streaming parts.

The age of gaming systems is getting older


----------



## cygnusloop

All due respect to Hoosier's point of view, but if you accept that DIRECTV's position in all this is to protect/maintain their subscriber base from cord cutting/shaving, then logic would seem to dictate that the Trojan horse that the XBOX represents is the much greater potential threat.

There must be something else to it.


----------



## Hoosier205

"cygnusloop" said:


> All due respect to Hoosier's point of view, but if you accept that DIRECTV's position in all this is to protect/maintain their subscriber base from cord cutting/shaving, then logic would seem to dictate that the Trojan horse that the XBOX represents is the much greater potential threat.
> 
> There must be something else to it.


Logic would dictate otherwise. Roku is a more affordable and is also a dedicated streaming device that is much more prominent in cord cutting. Streaming is only secondary with gaming consoles. I'm not sure how best to explain this. It is what it is.


----------



## tonyd79

cygnusloop said:


> All due respect to Hoosier's point of view, but if you accept that DIRECTV's position in all this is to protect/maintain their subscriber base from cord cutting/shaving, then logic would seem to dictate that the Trojan horse that the XBOX represents is the much greater potential threat.
> 
> There must be something else to it.


But what? I am not seeing other theories being proposed much less proven.

I can easily see DirecTV seeing Roku as the biggest threat, especially if you realize that there is no other advantage to working with Roku. XBOX has other corporate entanglements that DirecTV can take advantage of. Roku has none.


----------



## photostudent

I guess the "why" of HBO-Go not being offered on the Roku doesn't really matter. I've been with Direct for about 16 years and do not remember them making any quick about faces on their policies. If so we would be watching BBCA HD on a Tivo! I doubt anyone will be changing providers over the issue.


----------



## cygnusloop

tonyd79 said:


> But what? I am not seeing other theories being proposed much less proven.
> ...


Preexisting business relationships with Microsoft and Samsung?

ROKU is too small a fish in DIRECTV's estimation to even bother?

I do stand by my opinion that if DIRECTV is worried about their subscribers "discovering" the world of online video services, supporting it (and tacitly encouraging it even) on the XBOX is a pretty poor strategy.

Which, to me, is why all the arguments about big old DIRECTV feeling threatened by little old ROKU just fall flat. I suppose it is possible that DIRECTV is that short sighted, but I think they are smarter than that.


----------



## MarkG21

cygnusloop said:


> Preexisting business relationships with Microsoft and Samsung?
> 
> ROKU is too small a fish in DIRECTV's estimation to even bother?
> 
> I do stand by my opinion that if DIRECTV is worried about their subscribers "discovering" the world of online video services, supporting it (and tacitly encouraging it even) on the XBOX is a pretty poor strategy.
> 
> Which, to me, is why all the arguments about big old DIRECTV feeling threatened by little old ROKU just fall flat. I suppose it is possible that DIRECTV is that short sighted, but I think they are smarter than that.


I don't think directv is worried about people going out buying an Xbox, buying Xbox gold live just to play hbo go. It's a nice addition to a *secondary* feature if you already have an Xbox and an gold membership.

As mentioned before, Roku is *primarily* a streaming player. It does nothing else. It's cheap. It can give some users ideas how they want to go about their existing subscriptions.

That said, I wish Dtv would allow access to the Roku. When I first heard about Roku getting hbo, I immediately bought one but since returned it because I didn't need it other than hbo.

I can see the disappointment if your a both Roku user and directv user. You have no intentions on canceling or downgrading service but you still get locked out because of the potential of what others will do.


----------



## AlanSaysYo

As fascinating as I've found this discussion, I'd much rather DirecTV hurry up and release the VOD improvements that will supposedly compensate for the lack of Roku support. At the end of the day, I really just want some justification to give my wife for subscribing to HBO. I can't say I need more programming because the DVRs are always almost full. That doesn't fly. "Get rid of some shows," she'd say. I need the programming available whenever I want it, not taking up space on my DVR. I recorded all of The Wire on 101/Audience and it's taken me a year to get through it. I will subscribe to HBO when I have on demand access to their catalog. It's a certainty.

I WANT TO GIVE YOU MY MONEY, DIRECTV. HELP ME OUT.


----------



## QuickDrop

This isn't the be all and end all of argument winners, but:

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/entertainment-overtakes-gaming-in-xbox-360-usage/093492

It should be noted that this link comes from a UK site. I realized this because of the line

*The breadth of content services available in the UK still lags behind the US,*

The sad part is that by most of us simply explaining how home entertainment works nowadays it's more likely DirecTV will pull current access support to different boxes for their subscribers, not add new ones.

Other links to the obvious:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-12/tech/30507082_1_xbox-microsoft-google-tv-devices

http://www.businessinsider.com/toda...ut-your-cable-company-out-of-business-2011-12

http://www.businessinsider.com/with...just-made-google-tv-look-even-sillier-2011-10


----------



## Satelliteracer

QuickDrop said:


> This isn't the be all and end all of argument winners, but:
> 
> http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/entertainment-overtakes-gaming-in-xbox-360-usage/093492
> 
> It should be noted that this link comes from a UK site. I realized this because of the line


It's actually not a correct article. The one a few weeks ago was more accurate. The article is talking about the "ONLINE" aspect of XBOX only but people are implying that they are using the XBOX (and PS3) for more online that standalone functionality. That is not correct.

In other words, the PS3 and XBOX are still used primarily to play disc based games or downloaded to hard drive games more than anything else. What these articles are talking about is when customers do use them for online services, THEN they are using it for things like streaming video, etc more than games.


----------



## QuickDrop

Satelliteracer said:


> It's actually not a correct article. The one a few weeks ago was more accurate. The article is talking about the "ONLINE" aspect of XBOX only but people are implying that they are using the XBOX (and PS3) for more online that standalone functionality. That is not correct.
> 
> In other words, the PS3 and XBOX are still used primarily to play disc based games or downloaded to hard drive games more than anything else. What these articles are talking about is when customers do use them for online services, THEN they are using it for things like streaming video, etc more than games.


So X-Box has what? at least 20 million X-box Live subscribers who watch streaming and Roku has sold exactly how many boxes?

I know, I know; X-Box owners play video games too.


----------



## Drew2k

If the presumption is that DIRECTV will not support "streaming-only" devices, then the unanswered question is why would DIRECTV willingly invite XBOX users to sample and increase the use of streaming options on XBOX (by authorizing HBO.com on the device)? ROKU is "bad" because it's not a gaming system? But XBOX is a gaming system and a streaming system, and DIRECTV is inviting users to do more streaming, and that's OK?


----------



## raott

The only not allowing it accomplishes is angering your customers (however given the current state of the HR2Xs I'm not sure D* really cares about angering their customers). 

It isn't going to stop anyone from getting a ROKU box, all it is going to do is leave a bad taste in a customers mouth when they see other products are supported and other cable companies supporting HBO to Go with Roku.


----------



## oakwcj

Satelliteracer said:


> It's actually not a correct article. The one a few weeks ago was more accurate. The article is talking about the "ONLINE" aspect of XBOX only but people are implying that they are using the XBOX (and PS3) for more online that standalone functionality. That is not correct.
> 
> In other words, the PS3 and XBOX are still used primarily to play disc based games or downloaded to hard drive games more than anything else. What these articles are talking about is when customers do use them for online services, THEN they are using it for things like streaming video, etc more than games.


And, assuming that your data is reliable at present, what makes you think that the situation won't change now that HBO GO is available on the XBOX? How 'ya gonna keep them down on the farm once they have seen Paris? You don't have to be in the 1% to afford an XBOX.


----------



## sigma1914

raott said:


> ...
> 
> It isn't going to stop anyone from getting a ROKU box, all it is going to do is leave a bad taste in a customers mouth when they see other products are supported and other cable companies supporting HBO to Go with Roku.


I understand your point, but the 2 big cable giants (Time Warner and Comcast) aren't supporting HBOGO on Roku, either.


----------



## inkahauts

Maybe they figure Xbox is owned by people who spend a lot more money on entertainment, and roku is sold to people who want to spend as little as possible on entertainment, and that they have done studies to show that people who use online gaming systems for streaming do it strictly for supplementary viewing,not replacement viewing? Just guessing...


----------



## NewForceFiveFan

I don't have a Roku but I just added the HBO Go app to my Xbox 360 so I had to go to hbogo.com/activate to activate the xbox on my hbogo account after getting the authentication number on the device. I'm not sure if this will work but instead of picking Roku from the pulldown try picking either xbox 360 or smarttv and clicking on Directv and logging in then providing the number and see if it will activate.

Here's the list of current providers authenticating for roku:
AT&T U-verse, Charter, Cox (beta), dish, Mediacom, Optimum, RCN*, suddenlink, Verizon, WOW!, BendBroadband, Blue Ridge Communications, Grande Communications, HTC Digital Cable, Massillon Cable/Clear Picture, Midcontinent Communications, HBO Employee/Guest, Other


----------



## Hoosier205

This all becomes very pointless when the VOD is updated, so I'm not sure why some are so upset.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Hoosier205" said:


> This all becomes very pointless when the VOD is updated, so I'm not sure why some are so upset.


No it doesn't. I have TV's that don't have D* receivers and because of their location never will. Wouldn't have settled it for me.


----------



## Hoosier205

"dualsub2006" said:


> No it doesn't. I have TV's that don't have D* receivers and because of their location never will. Wouldn't have settled it for me.


...but how exactly is that DirecTV's fault?


----------



## dualsub2006

"Hoosier205" said:


> ...but how exactly is that DirecTV's fault?


Because I DO have a Roku at every TV, HBO has a Go channel and D* won't allow HBO to authenticate for me.

Save all of the reasons that you give for D* blocking the Roku. Your statements that you present as fact are nothing more than your best guess.


----------



## Drew2k

Hoosier205 said:


> ...but how exactly is that DirecTV's fault?


I refer you to the thread title.


----------



## MikeW

Hoosier205 said:


> This all becomes very pointless when the VOD is updated, so I'm not sure why some are so upset.


The service is called HBO-GO. How, exactly, are you supposed to take the updated VOD with you? In my world, I'd love to stuff a ROKU in my suitcase and enjoy HBO-GO in a hotel room. This task is also not as feasible with an XBOX.

It's great that you're satisfied with the status-quo. I am not.


----------



## Hoosier205

dualsub2006 said:


> Because I DO have a Roku at every TV, HBO has a Go channel and D* won't allow HBO to authenticate for me.
> 
> Save all of the reasons that you give for D* blocking the Roku. Your statements that you present as fact are nothing more than your best guess.


I was referring to this:



dualsub2006 said:


> No it doesn't. I have TV's that don't have D* receivers and because of their location never will. Wouldn't have settled it for me.


Why is it DirecTV's fault if you either do not have receivers for these other TV's or that you have chosen to place these TV's the locations where they "never will" have receivers?


----------



## Hoosier205

MikeW said:


> The service is called HBO-GO. How, exactly, are you supposed to take the updated VOD with you? In my world, I'd love to stuff a ROKU in my suitcase and enjoy HBO-GO in a hotel room. This task is also not as feasible with an XBOX.
> 
> It's great that you're satisfied with the status-quo. I am not.


Nomad.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Hoosier205" said:


> I was referring to this:
> 
> Why is it DirecTV's fault if you either do not have receivers for these other TV's or that you have chosen to place these TV's the locations where they "never will" have receivers?


The only way to reach 2 of my bedrooms with coax would be to allow D* to run it along the front of my house and drill holes in the front wall. Not ever, ever going to happen.

I put TV's in my bedrooms. My business.

Is any ofcthis D*'s fault? No. Then again, I never said that it was.

I could go completely cable, but then I have the issue in reverse. See? I can have D* on one side and cable on the other.

I could also allow one or the other to run a bunch of coax along the outside of my house. Only, I'm never going to do that.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Hoosier205" said:


> Nomad.


Not an option. iPhone/iPad only. Not what I'm carrying.


----------



## inkahauts

"dualsub2006" said:


> No it doesn't. I have TV's that don't have D* receivers and because of their location never will. Wouldn't have settled it for me.


And to a certain extent that may be why Xbox is considered ok and roku isn't. Xbox is likely one to a house and generally setup on a main tv. Roku can be many to a house and on all outlier TVs to give them something.

DirecTV doesn't want to give people a reason to cut boxes at outlier TVs.

Here is a question though. If DirecTV gets their vod very close to hbo go and they where to release a wireless client box would that satisfy you? And yes you would have to pay the mirror fee, but you'd be able to get everything on it too not just hbo go like a roku. Just curios.


----------



## QuickDrop

Drew2k said:


> If the presumption is that DIRECTV will not support "streaming-only" devices, then the unanswered question is why would DIRECTV willingly invite XBOX users to sample and increase the use of streaming options on XBOX (by authorizing HBO.com on the device)? ROKU is "bad" because it's not a gaming system? But XBOX is a gaming system and a streaming system, and DIRECTV is inviting users to do more streaming, and that's OK?


I can only assume some money exchanged hands and Microsoft has deeper pockets than Roku. That's the only thing that really makes sense.

Microsoft has been attempting to be the "one box" solution for years and has not only a larger footprint in households than Roku, but is still growing. Since they added the Kinect feature, it's monthly sales have far surpassed those of similar "video game systems" at this point in it's lifespan.

The non-fanboy defense, as given by Satelliteracer, seems based on the idea that it is primary a (expensive) video game machine and that the people who would use it as a streaming device to "compete" with DirecTV (though DirecTV gets the money from HBO subscriptions) is smaller than Roku. It ignores the fact that people are using both the XBox and PS3 as full home entertainment and ignores the much larger install base the XBox 360 has over Roku. Either DirecTV is completely ignorant, which I don't believe, or they are getting paid.

Does Satelliteracer's comments also mean DirecTV would take HBO to GO away from XBOx 360 when the streaming customers are blatantly obvious? Or when everyone recognizes that the XBox offers the same service Roku does?

IMO, I wish DirecTV learned something from Microsoft and sought out deals with other streaming companies. How much would Netflix, or the dozen of other streaming services XBox offers, pay them to be included with YouTube and Pandora? People aren't stupid; they know how to get content. If they have one other devise attached to their TV aside from a DirecTV box, they already are. DirecTV best move would be to offer all those services on their own box.


----------



## QuickDrop

Hoosier205 said:


> This all becomes very pointless when the VOD is updated, so I'm not sure why some are so upset.


Using the DBSTalk search feature, it appears that you've posted in this thread about 30 times. That's quite a lot for someone who believes the topic will soon be "very pointless" and isn't sure why people are upset by DirecTV offering a service on one secondary device and not another.

30 posts is a lot of time to waste on something pointless. Your expertise might be better focused on less "pointless" threads in this forum.


----------



## inkahauts

"MikeW" said:


> The service is called HBO-GO. How, exactly, are you supposed to take the updated VOD with you? In my world, I'd love to stuff a ROKU in my suitcase and enjoy HBO-GO in a hotel room. This task is also not as feasible with an XBOX.
> 
> It's great that you're satisfied with the status-quo. I am not.


I keep hoping someday they will enable AirPlay then you could bring along an appletv.


----------



## inkahauts

"QuickDrop" said:


> I can only assume some money exchanged hands and Microsoft has deeper pockets than Roku. That's the only thing that really makes sense.
> 
> Microsoft has been attempting to be the "one box" solution for years and has not only a larger footprint in households than Roku, but is still growing. Since they added the Kinect feature, it's monthly sales have far surpassed those of similar "video game systems" at this point in it's lifespan.
> 
> The non-fanboy defense, as given by Satelliteracer, seems based on the idea that it is primary a (expensive) video game machine and that the people who would use it as a streaming device to "compete" with DirecTV (though DirecTV gets the money from HBO subscriptions) is smaller than Roku. It ignores the fact that people are using both the XBox and PS3 as full home entertainment and ignores the much larger install base the XBox 360 has over Roku. Either DirecTV is completely ignorant, which I don't believe, or they are getting paid.
> 
> Does Satelliteracer's comments also mean DirecTV would take HBO to GO away from XBOx 360 when the streaming customers are blatantly obvious? Or when everyone recognizes that the XBox offers the same service Roku does?
> 
> IMO, I wish DirecTV learned something from Microsoft and sought out deals with other streaming companies. How much would Netflix, or the dozen of other streaming services XBox offers, pay them to be included with YouTube and Pandora? People aren't stupid; they know how to get content. If they have one other devise attached to their TV aside from a DirecTV box, they already are. DirecTV best move would be to offer all those services on their own box.


I don't think Microsoft payed for it. To many reasons to state but it just doesn't make sense for them to have done that.

I do think the bigger question is does DirecTV look at devices and ask the question is this a device to supine nr our services or replace it based on how it's used in the market today. And I think gaming systems have a very different place than roku type devices.


----------



## inkahauts

"QuickDrop" said:


> Using the DBSTalk search feature, it appears that you've posted in this thread about 30 times. That's quite a lot for someone who believes the topic will soon be "very pointless" and isn't sure why people are upset by DirecTV offering a service on one secondary device and not another.
> 
> 30 posts is a lot of time to waste on something pointless. Your expertise might be better focused on less "pointless" threads in this forum.


----------



## dualsub2006

"inkahauts" said:


> Here is a question though. If DirecTV gets their vod very close to hbo go and they where to release a wireless client box would that satisfy you? And yes you would have to pay the mirror fee, but you'd be able to get everything on it too not just hbo go like a roku. Just curios.


For VOD content only? I might. I'd have to buy additional equipment and pay a higher monthly fee, but if content improves as we are led to believe it will, I might.

How much the device costs and the mirroring fee would be questions I'd need answered. I wouldn't want to pay a full mirroring fee for VOD only.

Then again, if I could buy wireless receivers (not DVR, just a receiver) that offered live satellite, I'd do that in a heartbeat. I don't know if they can or will ever do that, but I'm a buyer if they do.


----------



## oakwcj

inkahauts said:


> And to a certain extent that may be why Xbox is considered ok and roku isn't. Xbox is likely one to a house and generally setup on a main tv. Roku can be many to a house and on all outlier TVs to give them something.
> 
> DirecTV doesn't want to give people a reason to cut boxes at outlier TVs.
> 
> Here is a question though. If DirecTV gets their vod very close to hbo go and they where to release a wireless client box would that satisfy you? And yes you would have to pay the mirror fee, but you'd be able to get everything on it too not just hbo go like a roku. Just curios.


When I started this thread and complained to DirecTV, I got a phone call from a staffer in Ellen's office who told me that the HBO on demand product would be upgraded to the functional equivalent of HBOGO within several months. Satelliteracer also indicated that this would be happening. The problem is that this was almost six months ago and I'm still hearing RSN. I would be satisfied if it comes to pass, because I expect that both picture and audio quality would be better than what I'd get through the Roku. I'm not hung up on the vehicle: I just want the content. but I am pissed off that DirecTV has given most favored device status to the XBOX and not to the Roku. And I'm not interested in the speculation about motives offered by other DirecTV customers. DirecTV, as usual, remains Delphic on these matters.


----------



## Hoosier205

QuickDrop said:


> Using the DBSTalk search feature, it appears that you've posted in this thread about 30 times. That's quite a lot for someone who believes the topic will soon be "very pointless" and isn't sure why people are upset by DirecTV offering a service on one secondary device and not another.
> 
> 30 posts is a lot of time to waste on something pointless. Your expertise might be better focused on less "pointless" threads in this forum.


You'll notice in the post you quoted that I used the word, "when."

I am more surprised that folks don't understand the reasons why DirecTV would support the use of HBO Go by its customers on the XBOX 360, but not the Roku. That is the only thing that surprises me. A choice was made and a device that is more likely to be used by cord cutters in a variety of ways was not made available.

Eventually DirecTV is going to offer all of the HBO Go content via VOD with much better picture quality and DD 5.1. That beats the pants off of HBO on any other device. That solves the issue at home, unless you choose to not have receivers for all of your displays.

Nothing to get all riled up about.


----------



## Drew2k

Hoosier205 said:


> I am more surprised that folks don't understand *the reasons* why DirecTV would support the use of HBO Go by its customers on the XBOX 360, but not the Roku. That is the only thing that surprises me. A choice was made and a device that is more likely to be used by cord cutters in a variety of ways was not made available.


I have yet to see DIRECTV share anything even close to the speculation you proffer as "the reasons".


----------



## QuickDrop

Drew2k said:


> I have yet to see DIRECTV share anything even close to the speculation you proffer as "the reasons".


But DirecTV MUST BE RIGHT. THEY MUST BE!

In all seriousness, this is why I believe we should seriously question the couple posters here (and I only know of two) who work for DirecTV. I know that critical questions of some highly placed posters are seen as an "attack" by some people, but it helps to show what DirecTV thinking is. It's obvious that many people here believe DirecTV's thinking is wrong on this issue (and I'm sure some posters here would immediately change their mind if DirecTV's policy did) and I truly believe it does help to tell them so, even it means they convince the majority of us that we are wrong.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Drew2k" said:


> I have yet to see DIRECTV share anything even close to the speculation you proffer as "the reasons".


This ^^^^^^^^^

Playing the contrarian can definitely be fun sometimes. Heaven knows I like to do it myself some times. You cross the line when "your opinion" becomes "the reason".

Hoosier crossed that imaginary line a long time ago.


----------



## Hoosier205

Drew2k said:


> I have yet to see DIRECTV share anything even close to the speculation you proffer as "the reasons".


Offer an alternative reason.


----------



## oakwcj

Hoosier205 said:


> Offer an alternative reason.


Because "Roku" rhymes with "haiku" and Mr. or Ms. DirecTV [corporations are persons, after all] "thinks" haikus are stupid. That reasoning is just as plausible as yours.


----------



## Hoosier205

oakwcj said:


> Because "Roku" rhymes with "haiku" and Mr. or Ms. DirecTV [corporations are persons, after all] "thinks" haikus are stupid. *That reasoning is just as plausible as yours.*


If you're going to disagree with my reasoning, offer some logical reason(s) why you believe I am wrong.


----------



## bigglebowski

oakwcj said:


> Because "Roku" rhymes with "haiku" and Mr. or Ms. DirecTV [corporations are persons, after all] "thinks" haikus are stupid. That reasoning is just as plausible as yours.


You guys have it all wrong Pete Roku used to work at Directv. He had the idea to be able to download content to your receiver over the internet. Directv execs laughed him out of the room during his presentation and now he is on a mission to marginalize Directv. Its actually Pete Roku who is not allowing Directv to offer HBO on his platform.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Hoosier205" said:


> Offer an alternative reason.


Other possible reasons have been offered. I'm not going to repost them because you can just read the thread. They're all right there.

You're just the only one that is adamant that your reasons are facts.


----------



## Hoosier205

dualsub2006 said:


> Other possible reasons have been offered. I'm not going to repost them because you can just read the thread. They're all right there.
> 
> You're just the only one that is adamant that your reasons are facts.


If you believe they have some merit...that they are in some way logical...defend them. If you believe so strongly that I am wrong, prove me wrong. We have some time to discuss it until the HBO VOD offerings are updated and this issue becomes irrelevant.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Hoosier205" said:


> If you believe they have some merit...that they are in some way logical...defend them. If you believe so strongly that I am wrong, prove me wrong. We have some time to discuss it until the HBO VOD offerings are updated and this issue becomes irrelevant.


I. Already. Have.

And I can't prove a negative. I have no proof that any of my beliefs for why the Roku is blocked are accurate. Oddly, you have no proof for your beliefs either.

Speculation. That's the word. Speculation.


----------



## Hoosier205

dualsub2006 said:


> I. Already. Have.
> 
> And I can't prove a negative. I have no proof that any of my beliefs for why the Roku is blocked are accurate. Oddly, you have no proof for your beliefs either.
> 
> Speculation. That's the word. Speculation.


You won't. You have not. You have chosen not to for whatever reason. I'll wait until someone offers a logical alternative.

You did however say that you are entitled to HBO Go on any device because you pay for HBO. So far it looks like the only explanation you have offered is that perhaps Microsoft is paying DirecTV for each sub that authenticates via the XBOX.


----------



## dualsub2006

D*, Comcast and any other MSO that is freely allowing their customers to become accustomed to watching pay TV on their Xbox is setting themselves up for a screwing. 

Microsoft's stated intention was to have the Xbox totally take over the living room. Their plan as late as January of this year year was to offer pay TV on the Xbox. 

MS says they won't offer pay TV because it's too expensive. How stupid will Comcast and D* be if MS is using them to warm Xbox owners up to the idea of getting their pay TV from their Xbox? 

I mean, how great would it be for MS to have 10 million people used to watching TV on their Xbox when it comes time to dust off their own pay TV plan again?

Comcast and D* would both take it in the shorts if they each lost a couple million subscribers to MSTV. 

Microsoft doesn't have a history of walking away from money, and they see piles of it in the Xbox. They won't give up. They never, ever do. 

And some say D* is concerned about the Roku leading to cord cutting.


----------



## dualsub2006

"Hoosier205" said:


> You won't. You have not. You have chosen not to for whatever reason. I'll wait until someone offers a logical alternative.
> 
> You did however say that you are entitled to HBO Go on any device because you pay for HBO. So far it looks like the only explanation you have offered is that perhaps Microsoft is paying DirecTV for each sub that authenticates via the XBOX.


I don't know why.

You don't know why.

I've already admitted numerous times that I don't know why.

You refuse to admit that you don't know why. You continue to offer your beliefs framed as facts.

I'm done with you. Completely. Say what you want from here on out. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to see which of us can pee further up the wall.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Ok. This back-n-forth bickering is over. Discuss the topic and not each other.

If you've made your point, there's no need to repeat it.

It all stops now!

:backtotop

Mike


----------



## sigma1914

Does it matter why? DirecTV said they're not going to allow it and plan on offering an expanded OnDemand version. The End.


----------



## MikeW

Hoosier205 said:


> Nomad.


Christ, you have a terrible answer for everything. I own a Nomad and it is the worst option possible. If I want to watch a movie, I would need to record it, give nomad 2 hours to transcode it, then wait another hour to have it transferred to my device. Then I would have to watch the movie on my cell phone or laptop. I can watch HBO-Go on either of those devices. Neither of those devices have an HDMI or component output. Oh wait, my iPhone does...but HBO won't allow me to output their content through there.


----------



## tampa8

I of course do not know why Direct TV does not allow HBO GO on the Roku. But with Dish allowing it I have kept HBO all year now instead of when there are series I want to watch. That was my plan to save some money, but there is so much there that it has become a regular thing to use for me. I bring the Roku to our vacation cabin where I have internet but no Satellite/CableTV, just an antenna for the networks, because we don't watch as much there. This is a huge benefit in our case. Dish isn't losing anything, in fact has gained.


----------



## Chuck W

Hoosier205 said:


> If you're going to disagree with my reasoning, offer some logical reason(s) why you believe I am wrong.


I gave a very legit reason a ways back, but you just passed it on by.

It has to do with $$$$. Microsoft and Samsung have ponied up $$$$ and also have a working relationship with Directv(Samsung RVUs anyone?). Roku, on the otherhand, because they are a small outfit, didn't pony up anything and nothing to offer Directv in terms of a working relationship.

As I said in my other posts, Directv is not stupid, they know ALL the streaming devices pose just as big of a threat as the next, but it becomes a give and take relationship, when you are dealing with certain companies.


----------



## davidatl14

oakwcj said:


> When I started this thread and complained to DirecTV, I got a phone call from a staffer in Ellen's office who told me that the HBO on demand product would be upgraded to the functional equivalent of HBOGO within several months. Satelliteracer also indicated that this would be happening. The problem is that this was almost six months ago and I'm still hearing RSN. I would be satisfied if it comes to pass, because I expect that both picture and audio quality would be better than what I'd get through the Roku. I'm not hung up on the vehicle: I just want the content. but I am pissed off that DirecTV has given most favored device status to the XBOX and not to the Roku. And I'm not interested in the speculation about motives offered by other DirecTV customers. DirecTV, as usual, remains Delphic on these matters.


Spot On!


----------



## DawgLink

MikeW said:


> Christ, you have a terrible answer for everything. I own a Nomad and it is the worst option possible. If I want to watch a movie, I would need to record it, give nomad 2 hours to transcode it, then wait another hour to have it transferred to my device. Then I would have to watch the movie on my cell phone or laptop. I can watch HBO-Go on either of those devices. Neither of those devices have an HDMI or component output. Oh wait, my iPhone does...but HBO won't allow me to output their content through there.


I ordered and tried the Nomad as well and it was....terrible

No comparison between the two, imo


----------



## Drew2k

Mike Bertelson said:


> Ok. This back-n-forth bickering is over. Discuss the topic and not each other.
> 
> If you've made your point, there's no need to repeat it.
> 
> It all stops now!
> 
> :backtotop
> 
> Mike


Well I guess I will have to let the many others who posted since my last visit to the forum speak for me... they did a great job. 

Our guesses as to why DIRECTV isn't allowing HBO on Roku are just that - guesses. It now looks like we're all in agreement with this, everyone, that we don't definitively know why so anything we say is just speculation. It may be reasoned speculation, but using reason to speculate still leaves the final result as a guess as to why one streaming device is authorized for HBO Go and another streaming device is not.

We could be months away from having the HBO VOD update delivered to us on our DIRECTV receivers, so it's a shame that the DIRECTV customers with Roku devices are not allowed to enjoy HBO Go on their Rokus in the interim...


----------



## QuickDrop

Mike Bertelson said:


> Ok. This back-n-forth bickering is over. Discuss the topic and not each other.
> 
> If you've made your point, there's no need to repeat it.
> 
> It all stops now!
> 
> :backtotop
> 
> Mike


When someone posts the topic is "pointless," yet continually posts on the topic, I believe it's justifiable to question the person's motives. Otherwise, any of us could say any stupid thing and be safe knowing other posters can't question the stupidity of our remark.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

QuickDrop said:


> When someone posts the topic is "pointless," yet continually posts on the topic, I believe it's justifiable to question the person's motives. Otherwise, any of us could say any stupid thing and be safe knowing other posters can't question the stupidity of our remark.


You can discuss any points made by any other member...we just have to stop with the personal comments/attacks. If someone doesn't feel they can do that then maybe they should stay out of the discussion.

Mike


----------



## BloodSpatter504

From what I can observe, the heart of this discussion centers around whether or not you feel that Roku presents a viable threat to any of DirecTVs offerings.

A lot of you have contributed some very compelling, complex, intelligent and entertaining thoughts/ideas in this thread, which is why I felt compelled enough to get out of bed, hop on a desktop and create an account just to mention what I feel is the most important aspect as to what everyone is not seeing eye to eye on.

Roku is more of a *potential* (which is a strong key word as someone else pointed out) threat down the line to DirecTV than companies such as Microsoft, Samsung, Sony and others because of the *open source nature of the project*. Roku will educate and openly walk anyone who wants to develop software for it's product down the proper channels. I can't post a link yet as this is my first post, but see the /developer link on Roku website if you're curious as to just how easy it is.

It's not so easy with Microsoft, Sony, etc. There are many more hoops to jump through, and most of which require that you are a corporate programmer currently employed by a company who has already made a name for itself. This is why you don't see any guides on the XBOX 360 or PS3 homepage that are willing to hold your hand through the software development process to develop applications for their respective products.

To put it simply, there are some really talented amateur programmers and out there who are either hungry to make a name for themselves, or hungry to solve a problem by creating an app that suits their needs. Roku is a much more conducive platform for those who wish to make that happen.

Smart TVs are also not as much of a immediate threat as you might think. While Samsung and some other Smart TV companies encourage open development of their platform in the same manner as Roku, at the end of the day it all boils down to simple economics: the average man who forks out big dollars on a TV is not the same guy who is looking to cut costs by eliminating his cable bill. DirecTV (in my opinion) knows this and is also aware of the tremendous pound-for-pound value of the Roku. This, combined with the idea that nearly anyone can develop applications for the Roku is the reason why I feel that they view Roku more of a long term threat as any of the major companies that have been routinely mentioned in this thread.

Another thing to take into account is that odds are, the XBOX 360 and PS3 are devices that have already hit the peak of their production cycle made by companies that we, generally speaking, already have a good idea of what they bring to the table. Sony made it's name as a maker of electronics. Microsoft made it's name producing what was viewed as an essential piece of PC software. While these big companies still continue to innovate, everyone has a pretty good idea of what to expect from their products in the future. The Roku is still a bit of a wild card in this equation, which I believe is the same thing DirecTV sees, hence why they haven't (at least politically speaking) welcomed it with open arms (yet). DirecTV is smart enough to realize that they are simply a vehicle (middle man) linking point A to point B and I strongly believe they fear the potential for a device that makes this much sense.

Roku, the little underdog that it is, could potentially blow up into something much bigger. Let's not forget that how warmly small, but power devices have been received by consumers lately. Not many people predicted that concept of a tablet would pose any kind of a threat to desktop computers. Roku could potentially be equally as dangerous to cable providers.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

I've closed this thread. I'm tired of the piling on, the rude condescending attitude by the longtime members and I know this is just going to continue if this thread is left open.

We have long time members who don't read/post as much anymore due to this rude, piling on behavior that is so pervasive these days. IMHO, it's gotta stop.

We have to get back to the days where we discussed the subject; constructive discussions with no personal attacks and just plain rude posts...the days when we were helpful.

Back in my noob days I started a thread and the discussion progressed with none of the crap that keeps happening in threads like this (Link). That's how it should be done.

Mike


----------

