# HBO Max News



## techguy88

Some news for HBO Max

The Turner networks (TBS, TNT, truTV) will showcase some HBO Max programming during Thanksgiving this year.
TNT go into a DC lovefest with most of the DC Extended Universe movies. It will have the network/Pay 2 window premiere of _Aquaman_ that was just rotated out of HBO. An episode of the DC Universe/HBO Max original _*Titans*_ will air on 11/26 @ 11pm ET.
TBS is focusing more on family & comedy movies. Shows streaming exclusively on HBO Max (_Friends, The Big Bang Theory_) will have marathons. On Sunday, November 29th at 10:30pm TBS will show the premiere episode of _*The Flight Attendant*_ after a marathon of Kaley Cuoco's favorite TBBT episodes.
truTV seems to be doing a repeat/marathons of their shows on HBO Max. Tis a shame as they could have let truTV air the first episode of an HBO Max comedy or something lol.

TiVo is having a special where you can buy a TiVo Stream 4K get one month of HBO Max at no extra cost. (New HBO Max subs only.)
The offer also comes with a $30 credit towards any Sling TV package so total savings is $44.99. TiVo Stream 4K retails for $49.99. So if you are someone (or know of a loved one) who wants to try out these two services then it is an awesome deal tbh.

It seems Roku is still pushing the Roku OS 9.4.1 update to its 4K devices. Once that update hits those users can watch HBO Max via AirPlay from an Apple device like iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, Mac.


----------



## billsharpe

techguy88 said:


> It seems Roku is still pushing the Roku OS 9.4.1 update to its 4K devices. Once that update hits those users can watch HBO Max via AirPlay from an Apple device like iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, Mac.


My TCL HDTV is still running Roku OS 9.3. It does seem to take awhile for the Roku updates to reach these sets.

Update: I found my TCL set updated to Roku OS 9.4 on Saturday morning. I can now use AirPlay on my iPad to send screen to TV set directly as well as going through my AppleTV cube.


----------



## techguy88

HBO Max coming to Amazon's Fire TV devices, Fire tablets and smart Fire TVs on November 17, 2020. Existing HBO Prime Video Channels subscribers will have access to HBO Max as well.

HBO Max App Launching on Amazon's Fire TV, Fire Tablet - Variety

@lparsons21


----------



## lparsons21

Good to see HBO Max officially coming to the FireTV though, since sideloading it was so easy it isn’t as big a deal as it could have been.

That leaves only Roku not actually having it though being able to use AirPlay to accomplish that is better than nothing.

Now onto Peacock...


----------



## lacubs

i hope Roku is coming soon


----------



## techguy88

It seems AT&T/WarnerMedia got their way on the big sticking point. None of the "Max content" is on Prime Video Channels. Unlike Apple, Amazon is still able to offer an HBO subscription via Prime Video Channels with all the HBO content and linear channels. After subscribing to the HBO-Prime Video Channel the banner changes and says "HBO Max Access the HBO Max app with your Amazon login". Amazon users can also do in-app purchase for the monthly subscription.

I hate when the terms and conditions are not disclosed but I do wonder what AT&T/WarnerMedia gave Amazon to achieve their goal lol.


----------



## techguy88

Fresh Prince of Bel-Air Reunion moved up now streaming
Wonder Woman 1984 will premiere in theaters & HBO Max on December 25, 2020
Celebrate Thanksgiving With HBO Max's Blockbuster Movies And Holiday-Themed TV Episodes


----------



## Davenlr

lacubs said:


> i hope Roku is coming soon


Yea, especially since every time I try to load HBOMAX on my FireTv is says my TV doesnt support HDCP2.2, which of course, it does. Its a ROKU TV, so perhaps it is just throwing shade at Amazon, but in any case, I want a ROKU app. AT&T is so anal.


----------



## inkahauts

Oh, I think when prime found out ww84 was coming to HBO max they said let’s get this done. That will be a huge driver for them.


----------



## lacubs

inkahauts said:


> Oh, I think when prime found out ww84 was coming to HBO max they said let's get this done. That will be a huge driver for them.


yes, but they better getting a deal done fast because ww84 only staying on HBO MAX for a month from the article i just read


----------



## techguy88

inkahauts said:


> Oh, I think when prime found out ww84 was coming to HBO max they said let's get this done. That will be a huge driver for them.


Amazon reached a deal before the news of _Wonder Woman 1984_ was made public. I doubt WarnerMedia would give them that info before hand.



lacubs said:


> yes, but they better getting a deal done fast because ww84 only staying on HBO MAX for a month from the article i just read


If you have a 4K Roku device (like Roku Premiere or Roku Ultra) Apple AirPlay 2 & Homekit support is rolling out. If you have an Apple device (iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, etc.) you can cast HBO Max content from the Apple devices to the Roku with AirPlay.


----------



## harsh

techguy88 said:


> I doubt WarnerMedia would give them that info before hand.


What would WarnerMedia have to lose?


----------



## techguy88

HBO Will No Longer Be Part of Amazon Prime Video Channels

So... if you want HBO's linear channels without having a traditional pay-TV service the only way to get them would be regular Hulu ($5.99/mo w/ads or $11.99/mo no ads) + HBO Max with this news.


----------



## techguy88

Episode 1 of HBO Max Original _The Flight Attendant _is live on HBO On Demand for DirecTV & AT&T TV / AT&T TV Now customers.

On DirecTV this is listed as a free episode for everyone. _The Flight Attendant_ premieres on November 26, 2020 on HBO Max.


----------



## techguy88

HBO Max Highlights - December 2020


----------



## techguy88

Big news for HBO Max:

Ahead of _Wonder Woman 1984_'s debut in theaters & HBO Max the service no longer offers a 7 day free trial for new subscribers. This follows in the footsteps of Netflix & Disney+ ditching their introductory trials.
From December 3, 2020 to January 15, 2021 new and returning subscribers can save over 20% off the regular price of HBO Max for 6 months by pre-paying $69.99. That breaks down to essentially $11.66/mo for 6 months. (Variety article for this and the above.)
Following in _Wonder Woman 1984_'s footsteps, Warner Bros. is releasing their entire 2021 film slate on HBO Max the same day the films premiere in theaters (where open.) (Source)
Each film will be available on HBO Max for the first 31 days of its theatrical premiere starting on the same day they premiere in theaters. After a film passes the 31 day mark it will be a theater exclusive.
Unlike Disney's live action remake of _Mulan_ the 2021 slate of films will be available at no additional cost to HBO Max subscribers.
WarnerMedia's CEO Ann Sarnoff states this isn't expected to continue into 2022 and expects this to be a "unique one-year plan." More of what Sarnoff said:


> "We're living in unprecedented times which call for creative solutions, including this new initiative for the Warner Bros. Pictures Group," Sarnoff said in a statement. "No one wants films back on the big screen more than we do. We know new content is the lifeblood of theatrical exhibition, but we have to balance this with the reality that most theaters in the U.S. will likely operate at reduced capacity throughout 2021."
> 
> "With this unique one-year plan, we can support our partners in exhibition with a steady pipeline of world-class films, while also giving moviegoers who may not have access to theaters or aren't quite ready to go back to the movies the chance to see our amazing 2021 films," she continued. "We see it as a win-win for film lovers and exhibitors, and we're extremely grateful to our filmmaking partners for working with us on this innovative response to these circumstances."



As long as there isn't any delays into 2022 expect to see some future blockbusters like _Dune_, _In The Heights_, _The Suicide Squad_, _Tom & Jerry_, _Godzilla vs Kong_, _The Conjuring The Devil Made Me Do It_, _Mortal Kombat_, _The Matrix 4_

4K HDR comes to HBO Max at no extra charge starting with _Wonder Woman 1984_. WarnerMedia says that "further films and TV series" as well as support for "additional devices" will be coming "throughout 2021." This includes HDR10, Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos support. (CNET article)
List of devices that will support 4K HDR starting December 25, 2020 w/ _Wonder Woman 1984_ are:

Apple TV 4K (5th generation)
Amazon Fire TV devices including Fire TV Stick 4K, Fire TV Cube, 4K Fire TV Edition smart TVs
Google Chromecast Ultra
"Supported" Android TV devices
This includes Chromecast with Google TV.
Also includes other Android TV devices like TiVo Stream 4K & Nvidia Shield TV (as long as they meet the security requirements whatever they are)

AT&T TV device aka Osprey
While Roku does not have a dedicated HBO Max app they say "Those with an Apple device will be able to AirPlay it in 4K HDR to a Roku streamer or television."
AirPlay 2 & HomeKit support was rolled out to Roku's 4K devices. Only the 2020 Roku Ultra supports the Dolby Vision HDR format.


----------



## compnurd

techguy88 said:


> Big news for HBO Max:
> 
> Ahead of _Wonder Woman 1984_'s debut in theaters & HBO Max the service no longer offers a 7 day free trial for new subscribers. This follows in the footsteps of Netflix & Disney+ ditching their introductory trials.
> From December 3, 2020 to January 15, 2021 new and returning subscribers can save over 20% off the regular price of HBO Max for 6 months by pre-paying $69.99. That breaks down to essentially $11.66/mo for 6 months. (Variety article for this and the above.)
> Following in _Wonder Woman 1984_'s footsteps, Warner Bros. is releasing their entire 2021 film slate on HBO Max the same day the films premiere in theaters (where open.) (Source)
> Each film will be available on HBO Max for the first 31 days of its theatrical premiere starting on the same day they premiere in theaters. After a film passes the 31 day mark it will be a theater exclusive.
> Unlike Disney's live action remake of _Mulan_ the 2021 slate of films will be available at no additional cost to HBO Max subscribers.
> WarnerMedia's CEO Ann Sarnoff states this isn't expected to continue into 2022 and expects this to be a "unique one-year plan." More of what Sarnoff said:
> 
> As long as there isn't any delays into 2022 expect to see some future blockbusters like _Dune_, _In The Heights_, _The Suicide Squad_, _Tom & Jerry_, _Godzilla vs Kong_, _The Conjuring The Devil Made Me Do It_, _Mortal Kombat_, _The Matrix 4_
> 
> 4K HDR comes to HBO Max at no extra charge starting with _Wonder Woman 1984_. WarnerMedia says that "further films and TV series" as well as support for "additional devices" will be coming "throughout 2021." This includes HDR10, Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos support. (CNET article)
> List of devices that will support 4K HDR starting December 25, 2020 w/ _Wonder Woman 1984_ are:
> 
> Apple TV 4K (5th generation)
> Amazon Fire TV devices including Fire TV Stick 4K, Fire TV Cube, 4K Fire TV Edition smart TVs
> Google Chromecast Ultra
> "Supported" Android TV devices
> This includes Chromecast with Google TV.
> Also includes other Android TV devices like TiVo Stream 4K & Nvidia Shield TV (as long as they meet the security requirements whatever they are)
> 
> AT&T TV device aka Osprey
> While Roku does not have a dedicated HBO Max app they say "Those with an Apple device will be able to AirPlay it in 4K HDR to a Roku streamer or television."
> AirPlay 2 & HomeKit support was rolled out to Roku's 4K devices. Only the 2020 Roku Ultra supports the Dolby Vision HDR format.


Guess we need to keep an eye out for some HBO max app updates


----------



## 1948GG

Real 'behind the scenes' news of hboMax moves:

Total subscriber counts have been reported by several sources as, at best, anemic, around ~8.5M. Reasons why abound, but the most obvious is the look to the stock prices, where warnermedia is almost in free fall where the most blocked platform, roku, is in afterburners towards the stratosphere.

The New York Times as well as other outlets have reported that WarnerMedia paid several stars, producers, and directors of films that are being day/date released on theaters and the Max streaming service upwards of $10M each to publically hype the release.

Somebody explain why any of this makes sense. After the latest free preview over thanksgiving I gave a thumbs up to perhaps subscribing but in the final thinking, lack of roku support made me pause, although android support is there. Surely whatever bucks roku wants to properly support their service, at this point, in the long run can't exceed the tens on millions being doled out to try and convince people to junk their money spent on roku and jump to another 'ecosystem' that has fewer streaming choices and higher initial costs simply for one service.


----------



## compnurd

1948GG said:


> Real 'behind the scenes' news of hboMax moves:
> 
> Total subscriber counts have been reported by several sources as, at best, anemic, around ~8.5M. Reasons why abound, but the most obvious is the look to the stock prices, where warnermedia is almost in free fall where the most blocked platform, roku, is in afterburners towards the stratosphere.
> 
> The New York Times as well as other outlets have reported that WarnerMedia paid several stars, producers, and directors of films that are being day/date released on theaters and the Max streaming service upwards of $10M each to publically hype the release.
> 
> Somebody explain why any of this makes sense. After the latest free preview over thanksgiving I gave a thumbs up to perhaps subscribing but in the final thinking, lack of roku support made me pause, although android support is there. Surely whatever bucks roku wants to properly support their service, at this point, in the long run can't exceed the tens on millions being doled out to try and convince people to junk their money spent on roku and jump to another 'ecosystem' that has fewer streaming choices and higher initial costs simply for one service.


Eh i hate roku


----------



## B. Shoe

There's a mild irony for us being overtly concerned about the inclusion of linear channel program being included in these streaming apps, yet so many of us in the streaming forum absolutely cannot stand the catch to most linear channels; advertising.


----------



## NashGuy

1948GG said:


> Total subscriber counts have been reported by several sources as, at best, anemic, around ~8.5M. Reasons why abound, but the most obvious is the look to the stock prices, where warnermedia is almost in free fall where the most blocked platform, roku, is in afterburners towards the stratosphere.


That 8.6 million figure was the number who had activated/begun using the HBO Max app as of the end of 3Q, before it became available on Fire TV. The total number of HBO subscribers is far higher, somewhere between 35 and 40 million, I think, and has grown at least a bit since the launch of HBO Max. The vast majority of those subscribers get it via a cable TV package and watch HBO content on their cable box. Part of the effort facing Warner is just making those folks aware that they get free access to this new HBO Max app too and that it contains lots of additional content that isn't on the HBO cable channels. Of course, Warner is making the same amount of profit off of those customers regardless of whether they activate the app.

Warner reported that HBO Max activations were up to about 12.6 million as of early this month, i.e. up nearly 50% since the end of Sept. I'm sure a lot of that was due to it landing on Fire TV on Nov. 17. And Comcast is on the verge of rolling the app out to their X1 cable boxes and Flex streaming boxes this month. The icon has begun appearing on some boxes and Comcast tweeted that it's coming "soon". (I would expect Cox, who uses the X1 platform under their Contour brand, to do the same.) So that will cover a lot of HBO subscribers. And with Wonder Woman 1984 debuting Christmas Day as a major title that will be exclusive to the app, I expect activations to skyrocket this month.

To be sure, HBO Max would get more users if it was on Roku. (Although iPhone/iPad users can cast HBO Max to some Roku players via AirPlay.) But I'm not sure how critical Roku is for HBO Max at this point. A lot of Roku users who care about HBO Max have already jumped ship for Fire TV, the new Chromecast with Google TV, Apple TV, an Android TV device or a smart TV with the app built-in. And even more will switch come Christmas when they receive one of those devices as a gift.

If the standoff between Warner and Roku continues, it will be interesting to see if they just continue the status-quo, with the HBO app on Roku and HBO (but not HBO Max) being sold as an add-on inside The Roku Channel. Or if, on the other hand, HBO disappears completely from Roku. Both sides would survive, of course, but I would think such a move would hurt Roku more in the long term. Even some non-HBO subscribers might decide against buying another Roku when it comes time to upgrade their device as they would want the option of accessing all the popular services.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> But I'm not sure how critical Roku is for HBO Max at this point.


What may be critical to HBO max is that they not summarily cut off any large base of direct customers in favor of options that involve a middle-man and don't bring as much profit.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> What may be critical to HBO max is that they not summarily cut off any large base of direct customers in favor of options that involve a middle-man and don't bring as much profit.


I think only a very small percentage of all HBO customers have signed up directly via HBOMax.com (or HBONow.com before that) and therefore have HBO directly bill their credit cards. Although anyone who is billed via an AT&T cable package (DTV, AT&T TV, AT&T Uverse TV, AT&T TV Now) is essentially also dealing directly with HBO. But the great majority of HBO subs are billed through a middle-man who takes a cut: Comcast, Charter, Amazon, Apple, Google, Hulu, Verizon, Cox, etc. I don't know if that will ever change (although HBO is trying to get more direct paying customers by offering deals like the current one where you can pre-pay for 6 months for $70 but only if you sign up at HBOMax.com). I'm sure that they would eventually like to do what Netflix has been able to do and force all new sign-ups to bill directly through them. But HBO Max has a long way to go to get there, if ever.

In the pre-OTT days, when HBO was purely a wholesaler relying exclusively on cable TV operators as distributors, they gave a pretty generous cut of the subscription cost to those middle-men. I don't know but my guess is that when they rolled out HBO Max and renegotiated all those distribution contracts, they drove down the cut that they pay out to be closer to the norm in the OTT streaming world. Apps/services usually give Apple and Google a 30% cut the first year and then less after that, although very large services might negotiate better deals.

IIRC, about 5 million HBO subscribers pay via Amazon (nearly all of those via Prime Video Channels, which are now being transitioned over to the HBO Max app with Amazon's app store doing the billing). I'm not sure what number of HBO subs are billed through Roku, either because they signed up inside the old HBO Now app on a Roku device or because they subscribed to the HBO add-on inside The Roku Channel app. Prior to the launch of HBO Max back in the spring, I think HBO only had a total of about 8 million OTT subs (those who signed up via the HBO Now app or website or had gotten it via another digital distributor like Prime Video Channels, The Roku Channel, etc.), out of a total of about 34 million subs. So if Amazon accounted for about 5 million of those, that would leave only about 3 million divided among Roku, Apple, Google, Hulu, and HBO/AT&T direct.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> I think only a very small percentage of all HBO customers have signed up directly via HBOMax.com (or HBONow.com before that) and therefore have HBO directly bill their credit cards.


I think you may be surprised.

The only reason I signed up at all was the $11.99 price. I'll probably be dumping HBO Max in January as it is pretty light on stuff I'm interested in.


----------



## techguy88

harsh said:


> I think you may be surprised.
> 
> The only reason I signed up at all was the $11.99 price. I'll probably be dumping HBO Max in January as it is pretty light on stuff I'm interested in.


Well starting in January is when Warner Bros. 2021 theatrical slate hits HBO Max. Kilar (WM CEO) is expecting a new theatrical movie every 3 weeks or so.

My mother was going to cancel it but she decided to try out some of the HBO Originals after I told her the next Conjuring movie will be on HBO Max same day as in theaters lol. She saw one Annabelle movie and wanted to watch the rest. Now she is eating up my Screen Passes on Movies Anywhere rofl.


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> Warner reported that HBO Max activations were up to about 12.6 million as of early this month, i.e. up nearly 50% since the end of Sept. I'm sure a lot of that was due to it landing on Fire TV on Nov. 17. And Comcast is on the verge of rolling the app out to their X1 cable boxes and Flex streaming boxes this month. The icon has begun appearing on some boxes and Comcast tweeted that it's coming "soon". (I would expect Cox, who uses the X1 platform under their Contour brand, to do the same.) So that will cover a lot of HBO subscribers. And with Wonder Woman 1984 debuting Christmas Day as a major title that will be exclusive to the app, I expect activations to skyrocket this month.


If I didn't already get HBO Max with my AT&T Unlimited Elite plan I so would pay for it now with Wonder Woman 1984, Mortal Kombat and The Suicide Squad being day & date releases with theatrical. Tom & Jerry looks fun based on the trailers.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> I think you may be surprised.
> 
> The only reason I signed up at all was the $11.99 price. I'll probably be dumping HBO Max in January as it is pretty light on stuff I'm interested in.


No, I don't think I would be surprised. I keep up with the figures reported by reliable industry sources. As my detailed post above should indicate, I have a pretty good grasp on this.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> No, I don't think I would be surprised. I keep up with the figures reported by reliable industry sources.


The latest subscription count I saw for HBO Max was "nearing" 12.6 million; a number not hinted at by any of your scholarly figures.

The transition from HBO to HBO Max isn't a guaranteed transition.

Assuming that moviegoers are going to be as happy with streaming releases as they would be excited to see movies in a theater is a mistake that Time Warner is going to regret in a big way.


----------



## 1948GG

That 12.6M figure is the latest since I believe the couple + weeks after fire tv figures got added. Folks need to go back and look at the Disney+ figures right before roku was added (and after fire tv was turned on) and then what happend after roku; pretty much afterburners as a result. I think the folks running hbomax have their heads in the sand and it's only a matter of time before the stockholders clean house on the management and force a change of thinking or issue some walking papers.

I watch the number and variety of roku apps vrs those on fire and apple, and they still have a lot of catching up to do. Not only on the major streamers but on things like local channel news streaming and the like. A lot has to do with the huge head start they have, but that's to be accepted. Now, if I had only one box, replacing it would be not that bad, but I have 4 and the cost of changing now would simply be prohibitive just for one high priced service.


----------



## lparsons21

1948GG said:


> I watch the number and variety of roku apps vrs those on fire and apple, and they still have a lot of catching up to do. Not only on the major streamers but on things like local channel news streaming and the like. A lot has to do with the huge head start they have, but that's to be accepted. Now, if I had only one box, replacing it would be not that bad, but I have 4 and the cost of changing now would simply be prohibitive just for one high priced service.


For the major streaming services, Apple, Roku and FireTV have nearly every one. Notably missing Peacock on FireTV (but can be sideloaded), and HBO Max on Roku (but can use AirPlay with some Roku devices). So using any of the 3 and the 'one box' is not a huge problem IMO. AppleTV is great, but Hulu lacks DD5.1 audio and of course, it has the worst remote.

The lesser known or cared about stuff isn't going to decide which is better except for some niche audience.


----------



## 1948GG

2020 roundup on Indiewire rates HboMax as year's biggest loser, costing AT&T 1.2B plus layoffs.

The Winners and Losers of Streaming Television in 2020


----------



## B. Shoe

1948GG said:


> 2020 roundup on Indiewire rates HboMax as year's biggest loser, costing AT&T 1.2B plus layoffs.
> 
> The Winners and Losers of Streaming Television in 2020


A good read and thorough information, thanks for sharing it. I'll preface this with the fact that I keep HBO Max and regularly use it. But I'll agree with the sentiment that has been made on this board in other threads before; HBO simply doesn't have a driving content force behind it at the moment, in comparison to some of the other popular services. There are some GREAT shows on HBO right now. Ones I really enjoy. But nothing to the general masses that is the key driving force behind committing to subscribing.


----------



## billsharpe

compnurd said:


> Eh i hate roku


Why? I've been using Roku for over three years on my TCL HD set. I am very happy with the service.


----------



## 1948GG

Even those who have been offered $10M (unknown if the person who wrote this was offered it) but here is the director of the new 'Dune' and his thoughts:

Dune Director Denis Villeneuve Blasts Warner Bros. Streaming Decision - Variety

Fyi, I always thought since I was one if the extremely early adopters, that I would quit DirecTV when they planted me. But three years ago their rate hiking frenzy and then the sale to AT&T meant, even though I had Comcast internet and a couple paid subscriptions (Netlix and Amazon prime), meant that quitting Dtv and going full streaming was the way to go. Luckily, psvue was there to provide the reasonable channels I liked (they could easily have hiked their fee $20 and been worth it), but YouTube TV has been okay even if they've made poor decisions going forward, in fee adding channels nobody wanted. Now they are in the midst of a fire sale of DirecTV. Good riddance.

More response to Dune director:
Jason Momoa, Josh Brolin Stand by Villeneuve in Fight Against Warner Bros. Over 'Dune'

Apparently those $10M checks that were handed out didn't get far and wide enough.


----------



## techguy88

1948GG said:


> 2020 roundup on Indiewire rates HboMax as year's biggest loser, costing AT&T 1.2B plus layoffs.
> 
> The Winners and Losers of Streaming Television in 2020


I will say their initial strategy of keeping HBO Go and HBO Now brands around while thinking the general consumer could see the difference and chose the better product for themselves was stupid. It should be a golden rule "never confuse the general populous" however AT&T themselves throughout their history has confused the general public more times than one can count. (Although ViacomCBS isn't too far behind and kinda surprising CBS All Access wasn't mentioned in this article.)



B. Shoe said:


> A good read and thorough information, thanks for sharing it. I'll preface this with the fact that I keep HBO Max and regularly use it. But I'll agree with the sentiment that has been made on this board in other threads before; HBO simply doesn't have a driving content force behind it at the moment, in comparison to some of the other popular services. There are some GREAT shows on HBO right now. Ones I really enjoy. But nothing to the general masses that is the key driving force behind committing to subscribing.


Honestly I watch more HBO Max & Peacock than Netflix. Peacock mainly for their catalog content but HBO Max for the originals (both the HBO & Max originals.)



billsharpe said:


> Why? I've been using Roku for over three years on my TCL HD set. I am very happy with the service.


Personally I was a big Roku fan but when they started treating apps like how regular channels are treated during retransmission consent negotiations I just switched the two Roku Ultras I had over to Apple TV 4K devices. It's not worth the headache.

First it was the AT&T TV app that Roku removed, then they almost lost the Fox Now apps, then it was HBO Max, then Peacock, NBCU threatened to remove all their apps and magically Peacock is on Roku and now it's Charter's Spectrum TV app that Roku removed. So there are 2 instances where Roku pulled apps, 2 new apps they were in dispute and 2 instances where there were threats to pull apps. (6 total)

They resolved AT&T TV, Fox and Peacock and avoided an NBCU blackout. However they are still missing HBO Max and now Spectrum TV.

Granted I could care less about AT&T TV and Spectrum TV however I do use the TV Everywhere apps. Regardless its the principal of the matter not even Amazon has had this many disputes with their Fire TV ecosystem within the span of 1 single year.

(Full disclosure I hate Amazon's business practices and it is rare when I say positive things about Amazon's business model so that is something major when I consider Amazon better than Roku in an area.)



1948GG said:


> Even those who have been offered $10M (unknown if the person who wrote this was offered it) but here is the director of the new 'Dune' and his thoughts:
> 
> Dune Director Denis Villeneuve Blasts Warner Bros. Streaming Decision - Variety
> 
> Fyi, I always thought since I was one if the extremely early adopters, that I would quit DirecTV when they planted me. But three years ago their rate hiking frenzy and then the sale to AT&T meant, even though I had Comcast internet and a couple paid subscriptions (Netlix and Amazon prime), meant that quitting Dtv and going full streaming was the way to go. Luckily, psvue was there to provide the reasonable channels I liked (they could easily have hiked their fee $20 and been worth it), but YouTube TV has been okay even if they've made poor decisions going forward, in fee adding channels nobody wanted. Now they are in the midst of a fire sale of DirecTV. Good riddance.


Christopher Nolan would have never been happy with this strategy. Although the karma aspect of him calling HBO Max "the worst streaming service" means his film _Tenet_ will hit HBO Max, as part of HBO's output agreement with WB, after the initial home video, digital purchase, digital rental/PPV windows end.  I do wonder if he realized that before he blasted the service like that. The rest of his films tend to play merry-go-round with the streaming services and two of his _Dark Knight _Trilogy films were previously on HBO Max (ad-free) before going to Peacock (ads for all).  I'm not commenting on the pay-TV horse in general (that is been beaten to death.)



1948GG said:


> More response to Dune director:
> Jason Momoa, Josh Brolin Stand by Villeneuve in Fight Against Warner Bros. Over 'Dune'
> 
> Apparently those $10M checks that were handed out didn't get far and wide enough.


_Wonder Woman 1984_ was a unique one off in that Patty Jenkins, Gal Gadot and others were negotiated with before the news became public and the fact as part of their deal Warner Bros. agreed to pay those involved their back end bonuses based expectations of how the film would perform before the pandemic hit. Since _Wonder Woman 1984_ was projected to make/exceed the $820 million that _Wonder Woman _got at the box office they were paid all their back-end bonuses and the deal was negotiated via the agencies (as normal.) Most sources are saying Jenkins & Galdot each got paid $10 million *plus* because the exact terms were not disclosed.

The issue with the 2021 WB film slate heading to HBO Max for the first 31 days was no negations occurred prior to the announcement and they are not paying the talent their "backend bonuses" like they did with _Wonder Woman 1984_.

Warner Bros. reportedly is moving the "goal posts" up on each film by 50%. So if the talent and/or director was to get a bonus if a film made $300 million at the worldwide box office now get that bonus at $150 million. If a film has multiple "goal posts" each "goal post" is cut in half to reach.

Another issue is how much HBO Max is paying for this 1 month window for each film. (This is from the NY Times article)



> Under the WarnerMedia plan, HBO Max will pay Warner Bros. a licensing fee for the 31-day concurrent rights. The fee will be equal to the studio's portion of ticket sales in the United States. (Ticket sales are generally split 50-50 between studios and theaters.)
> 
> Other factors could influence the fee, including the percentage of theaters that are operating. HBO Max and Warner Bros. also agreed to a floor for these fees: $10 million or 25 percent of the film's net production cost, whichever is greater.


Agencies feel that WarnerMedia didn't do best by the films and maximize their profits. They feel HBO Max got a sweetheart deal essentially. The agencies feel WarnerMedia has an obligation to maximize profits. For sending a movie to streaming vs a traditional theatrical release this means offering each film up for a bidding and seeing what HBO Max's competitors were willing to pay before selling the film to HBO Max. Agencies also argue the licensing fee model above do not take into account how the 2021 film slate will have a positive growth for HBO Max's subscriber base.

So in _Godzilla vs Kong_'s case Netflix was willing to pay Legendary $250 million to release the film on Netflix. Warner Bros. blocked the deal. Legendary (which financed 75% of both _Dune_ and _Godzilla vs Kong_) feels HBO Max should be paying more. _Godzilla vs Kong _is reported to have a production budget of $165 million.

In order for HBO Max to pay $250 million for this film let's say the average ticket price at the American theaters is $15 per ticket. Warner Bros. typically gets half of each ticket ($7.50 in this example) with the other half going to the theater. This means at the American box office _Godzilla vs. Kong_ would need to sell approx. 33.34 million tickets in order for HBO Max to pay a $250 million licensing fee for this movie.

Legendary is actually working to negotiate better terms with WarnerMedia for their two films or a lawsuit is possible if deals are not reached. They really don't care how the films are released they just want maximum profit considering they almost let Netflix have _Godzilla vs. Kong_.


----------



## lparsons21

In Variety today 12/16, it was announced that HBO Max goes live on Roku devices tomorrow!!


----------



## glrush

It's a Festivus miracle !!!

Roku and HBO Max finally have a deal (awfulannouncing.com)


----------



## 1948GG

More like a stockholder's miracle. How about some new subscriber gimmies, and lets see what happens to the subscriber numbers in 3-4 months. 13M at the starting gate....


----------



## lparsons21

Just did a manual update on my Ultra and now have HBO Max


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> Just did a manual update on my Ultra and now have HBO Max


It started showing at 9:04 am ET. However the Roku version is using the Launch Day layout and not the more modern one other devices are using. It's so retro it is missing the Trending Now category


----------



## Mark Holtz

Just added to my televisions. Now to find time to watch it!


----------



## techguy88

This is interesting (from the HBO Max device page):


> The Roku Channel: If you subscribed to HBO on The Roku Channel, you can watch HBO on The Roku Channel. Your HBO subscription on The Roku Channel doesn't allow you to sign in and stream HBO Max.


So there are three different scenarios depending on which Channels service someone subscribed to HBO:

Prime Video Channels: Sometime next year Amazon will remove HBO from Prime Video Channels. In the meantime Prime Video Channels can continue selling HBO Prime Video Channels subscriptions with HBO Max included and those users can login to the HBO Max app with their Prime Video credentials. 
*Apple TV Channels*: Removed the ability to subscribe to HBO Apple TV Channels but grandfathered existing subs, includes access to HBO Max with Apple ID credentials.
*The Roku Channel*: Removed the ability to subscribe to HBO The Roku Channel _*and*_ existing grandfathered subscribers _*do not*_ have access to HBO Max via their Roku credentials.
Although to be fair, HBO The Roku Channel subscribers never had the ability to login to the extinct HBO Go or HBO Now apps via Roku credentials. 

Cinemax is still available via Channels services (that did not change due to HBO Max.)


----------



## 1948GG

The HboMax app on roku needs work, about 50% of the time when launching it, selecting the profile, it exits out of the blue. Along with a fair number of folks more than a little bent as to the layout of the thing, needs more than a little bit of work. Maybe it will improve in short order and the exiting at odd points will be fixed; if they actually start up 4k tomorrow with ww84 we'll see if there are other minor/major glitches, but again doesn't appear they spent a whole lot of time debugging the thing while the coin crunchers were doing their thing.


----------



## techguy88

1948GG said:


> The HboMax app on roku needs work, about 50% of the time when launching it, selecting the profile, it exits out of the blue. Along with a fair number of folks more than a little bent as to the layout of the thing, needs more than a little bit of work. Maybe it will improve in short order and the exiting at odd points will be fixed; if they actually start up 4k tomorrow with ww84 we'll see if there are other minor/major glitches, but again doesn't appear they spent a whole lot of time debugging the thing while the coin crunchers were doing their thing.


When I was setting up the 2 Roku Ultras for my mom & grandma I noticed the Roku HBO Max app is using the launch layout and not the one found on other devices like my Xbox One X, Apple TV & Google TV/Android TV. So I wouldn't be surprised if the updates WarnerMedia had to make with the legacy HBO app from 5/27 - 12/16 while working on the other versions has played a part in this as well. IIRC Peacock had some bugs on Roku that also took a few weeks after NBCU & Roku reached a deal to work out.

One thing that does help in the meantime is going into Roku's settings and selecting restart. However on the last gen Roku Ultras I had and gave to my mom I noticed the crashing issue was prevalent with HBO Max but also extended to Disney+, Hulu, Movies Anywhere, Destination America and ID.


----------



## 1948GG

The android HboMax app looks a lot more polished, a bit of wobbliness in Disney+ but seems 'few and far between' on average. I almost have a 'bad programming' tote board where I keep tabs on how many code breaks I tally each day, where after 50 years of programming (and i really don't consider myself a professional as I don't hold a degree in the field but always seemed to get roped into cleaning up messes all the time over the years) but my tolerance for abject stupidity is extremely low, as my 'get off my lawn' increases as my retirement date (almost 20 years ago) fades into the dim past.


----------



## techguy88

Wonder Woman (2017) is now available in 4K HDR on HBO Max.


----------



## techguy88

Kinda a mix of HBO Max / DirecTV here. Key numbers from Q4 2020 Financial and Operational Trends.

*HBO/HBO Max*
Total Domestic HBO Max & HBO Subscribers - 41.5 million (+ 3.5 million vs Q3 2020)
HBO Max - Wholesale (Legacy pay-TV/virtual pay-TV/ISP/Wireless Providers) - 30.8 million (+ 5.7 million vs Q3 2020)
HBO Max - Retail (Direct to consumer, in-app purchases) - 6.9 million (+ 3.3 million vs Q3 2020)
*HBO Max Activations* - 17.2 million (+ 8.6 million vs Q3 2020)
The hybrid release of _Wonder Woman 1984_ is credited to help drive the total domestic HBO Max/HBO subscribers to 41.5 million. This is 2 years ahead of their projected target. (From the AT&T news release)

HBO (Standalone/No HBO Max access) - 197,000 (- 5.4 million vs Q3 2020)
*Note:* Keep in mind WarnerMedia reached an agreement with Amazon for HBO Max in Q4 2020. Prime Video-HBO subscribers were migrated into HBO Max counts since they are now eligible to get HBO Max at no additional cost with their Prime Video-HBO subscription.
The remaining standalone HBO subscribers come from very small providers that have not reached an agreement for HBO Max (i.e. Google Fiber's legacy TV service) and those subscribed to HBO via The Roku Channel (Roku Channel-HBO subscribers have to cancel that subscription and either subscribe to HBO Max directly or subscribe to the service via Roku in-app purchase.) 

HBO Commercial (no HBO Max access included) - 3.7 million (- 22,000 vs Q3 2020)

*Pay Television services* 
Total video subscribers - 17.2 million (-643,000 vs Q3 2020)
Premium TV (includes DirecTV, U-Verse TV & AT&T TV) - 16.5 million (-617,000 vs Q3 2020)
Premium TV ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) - $137.64 (+7.09 vs Q3 2020)
Per AT&T (via Investor Briefing): "617,000 loss due to competition, lower gross adds from the continued focus on adding higher value customers and a programming dispute, partially offset by lower churn."

Over-the-Top (AT&T TV Now) - 656,000 (-27,000 vs Q3 2020)
Per AT&T: "Beginning in January 2021, AT&T TV NOW has been combined with AT&T TV. AT&T TV NOW connections as of 4Q20 include 12K free or substantially free trial-period subscribers. AT&T has successfully retained many subscribers after the expiration of their trial period."


----------



## harsh

It seems it is more a case of keeping the long-time high value customers rather than adding new high-value customers. New customers get fairly large discounts (more than some OTT streamers pay).


----------



## lparsons21

It would be nice to know how each part of that ‘Premium’ performed.


----------



## harsh

lparsons21 said:


> It would be nice to know how each part of that 'Premium' performed.


Probably not going to happen. It might give unintended insight into what AT&T is planning to unload in the "auction" action. It is starting to look more and more like the whole Premium TV suite is to be shared.

Five will get you ten that they claim that the Premium TV numbers were great next quarter. Of course we know that they will get a big boost from moving all the Now customers into the Premium TV barn but it wouldn't be entirely fair to claim them as added customers.


----------



## lparsons21

The Now customers don’t move, or at least it doesn’t appear to me that they will. They just stay where they are until either they cancel or AT&T shuts it all the way down.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> It seems it is more a case of keeping the long-time high value customers rather than adding new high-value customers. New customers get fairly large discounts (more than some OTT streamers pay).


No, the margins on retail customers who come in via digital app store distributors (Apple, Google, Amazon, Roku) is traditionally greater than wholesale customers who come via an MSO like Comcast, Charter, etc. And on those retail customers who sign up directly via HBOMax.com, there's no commission to pay out to any distributor at all.


----------



## NashGuy

Another bit of news today is that they confirmed plans to introduce a cheaper ad-supported version of HBO Max in the second quarter of this year.

AT&T CEO John Stankey Targets Q2 for AVOD Version of HBO Max | Next TV

I'm still trying to figure out what that's gonna look like. In the past, they talked about "premium" content -- which I take to mean the series, films, docs, and specials tagged as "HBO" inside the HBO Max app -- remaining ad-free. So does only the rest of the catalog -- Max Originals, non-HBO older theatrical films, licensed TV shows -- get ads? Maybe like Peacock, with movies having all the ads before it begins, and shows having short ad breaks interspersed throughout?

But even if that's the case, how much less can they price the thing if it still has the full HBO catalog included, all ad-free? I mean, just a year ago they were charging $15/mo for just HBO. Now they're charging the same for all that PLUS a whole lot more content, all of it ad-free. Look, Showtime -- with a smaller, lower-quality ad-free premium catalog -- is $11.

So I'm wondering if the ad-supported version of HBO Max will be lighter on the HBO part. Maybe it has all of the non-HBO catalog, with ads as I laid out above. But from the HBO part of the catalog, it only has select content that's, say, at least 2 years old (and still ad-free, because that's part of the HBO premium brand). Kind of like the HBO stuff that used to be licensed to Prime Video. And maybe this cheaper version doesn't have any of the 2021 WB theatrical film releases and nothing in 4K HDR. I could see them pricing that at, say, $7/mo.

Or maybe they omit all the HBO content and name the new ad-supported service Warner Max and price it at $5/mo to compete with Peacock Premium?


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> Another bit of news today is that they confirmed plans to introduce a cheaper ad-supported version of HBO Max in the second quarter of this year.
> 
> AT&T CEO John Stankey Targets Q2 for AVOD Version of HBO Max | Next TV
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out what that's gonna look like. In the past, they talked about "premium" content -- which I take to mean the series, films, docs, and specials tagged as "HBO" inside the HBO Max app -- remaining ad-free. So does only the rest of the catalog -- Max Originals, non-HBO older theatrical films, licensed TV shows -- get ads? Maybe like Peacock, with movies having all the ads before it begins, and shows having short ad breaks interspersed throughout?
> 
> But even if that's the case, how much less can they price the thing if it still has the full HBO catalog included, all ad-free? I mean, just a year ago they were charging $15/mo for just HBO. Now they're charging the same for all that PLUS a whole lot more content, all of it ad-free. Look, Showtime -- with a smaller, lower-quality ad-free premium catalog -- is $11.
> 
> So I'm wondering if the ad-supported version of HBO Max will be lighter on the HBO part. Maybe it has all of the non-HBO catalog, with ads as I laid out above. But from the HBO part of the catalog, it only has select content that's, say, at least 2 years old (and still ad-free, because that's part of the HBO premium brand). Kind of like the HBO stuff that used to be licensed to Prime Video. And maybe this cheaper version doesn't have any of the 2021 WB theatrical film releases and nothing in 4K HDR. I could see them pricing that at, say, $7/mo.
> 
> Or maybe they omit all the HBO content and name the new ad-supported service Warner Max and price it at $5/mo to compete with Peacock Premium?


It will be interesting to see how the AVOD tier shapes up based on the different reports. However WarnerMedia is hampered by existing contracts with MVPDs in regards to no ads on HBO content. Hulu has select content that will air ads even on the no-ads plan. IIRC _How To Get Away With Murder_ is one of the affected shows and has ads placed at the beginning before the show starts.

Although I don't think it would harm them too much if they only have half the catalog ad-supported or don't include certain HBO content in the ad-supported tier. Having everything in one app with the ability to upsell customers to a higher tier is easier than what ViacomCBS is planning by keeping Paramount+ and Showtime separated.

If you don't go with the Apple TV+ bundle, ViacomCBS offers a CBS All Access (w/ads) + Showtime bundle for $14.99/mo which is the same price as HBO Max's ad-free tier. To get CBS All Access (No Ads) + Showtime they charge $18.99/mo. That is considerably higher than HBO Max and slightly higher than Netflix Premium both of which offers select content in 4K HDR at their highest price points.

The Apple TV+ bundle which has CBS All Access (No-Ads) + Showtime is $9.99/mo with an Apple TV+ subscription. However you can only access Showtime content via Apple TV Channels and I bet not many people know they can use the CBS AA app with their CBS AA-Apple TV Channels subscription to get full access to their live linear streams and the _Big Brother _live feeds during the summer which are unavailable via the Apple TV app. The Apple TV app only includes a linear feed of the local CBS station for subscribers.

Also a kicker is if a movie is available in 4K HDR via an iTunes purchase and Showtime has the streaming rights you will only be able to watch that film in HD SDR via Showtime Apple TV Channels. If you purchase the same film from iTunes it unlocks the 4K HDR version.

ViacomCBS' plan is actually more confusing not only for investors (on the content side) but for customers on how to get the best offer and how to use the two services.

HBO Max would be simpler to understand if WarnerMedia goes the rout of excluding HBO content from the AVOD tier. If WarnerMedia keeps HBO content ad-free in the AVOD tier they could keep some features of the service exclusive to the current No-Ads tier. Like the AVOD tier capped at 1080p SDR content while the No-Ads tier has the 4K HDR content. They could also pull a Peacock and restrict offline downloads to the highest tier.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> Having everything in one app with the ability to upsell customers to a higher tier is easier than what ViacomCBS is planning by keeping Paramount+ and Showtime separated.


I know they said they have no plans to do so, but I can't believe that ViacomCBS will take too long before they begin offering Showtime as an in-app on-add to Paramount+ at a discounted rate. They distribute Showtime as on add-on every other possible way (traditional cable bundle, Prime Video, Hulu, Apple TV app, The Roku Channel, YouTube TV, etc.), so why wouldn't they do so in their own flagship non-premium app, Paramount+? Although it might be a messy question to sort out which Showtime subscribers are able to access that content inside the P+ app. Like, could you use your Showtime Anytime credentials to unlock the Showtime section in P+? My guess is that it would only be for those folks who pay for Showtime via the same billing mechanism as they do P+.



techguy88 said:


> If you don't go with the Apple TV+ bundle, ViacomCBS offers a CBS All Access (w/ads) + Showtime bundle for $14.99/mo which is the same price as HBO Max's ad-free tier. To get CBS All Access (No Ads) + Showtime they charge $18.99/mo. That is considerably higher than HBO Max and slightly higher than Netflix Premium both of which offers select content in 4K HDR at their highest price points.


Yes, when you compare ViacomCBS's services/catalogs versus the other OTT players, it's not a great value proposition, IMO. (Keep in mind that a lot of Showtime's back catalog of high-quality originals are now also licensed out to competing services, like Peacock and Netflix. Some iconic Showtime series such as Nurse Jackie aren't even available on Showtime any more!) So I do think that if ViacomCBS wants to get serious about growth, they're going to have to cut their prices and/or somehow expand their catalog for P+ and/or Showtime. (I've been saying for awhile now that they should acquire Lionsgate and/or MGM and fold Starz and/or Epix into Showtime and the TV and film studios into Paramount.)

Oh, BTW, Showtime began offering a small amount of original content in 4K and 4K HDR last spring. (They certainly have more than HBO Max so far.) Not sure if CBS AA has any yet, though.



techguy88 said:


> ViacomCBS' plan is actually more confusing not only for investors (on the content side) but for customers on how to get the best offer and how to use the two services.


Eh, I don't know about that. Given their situation, and the fact that Showtime (to an even greater extent than HBO) is still distributed and consumed as an add-on to traditional cable TV, I think it makes sense for ViacomCBS to preserve Showtime as its own separate brand and product, as a premium, always ad-free service focused on originals and theatrical films for adult tastes. I think they just need to also offer and advertise it as an optional add-on inside P+ with a bundle price that makes sense and is competitive. Meanwhile, they have to continue aggressively distributing Showtime as an add-on to everything else out there too (as well as a standalone via the Showtime app for the small number of folks who want it that way). They understand that Showtime is never going to be many folks' primary subscription. It'll always be a premium addition to something bigger and broader, whether that's the cable bundle or Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, P+, etc.

P+, OTOH, I don't know. It will be interesting to see if they continue to offer it as an add-on to Prime Video and Apple TV or if they decide, like Peacock, to offer it only via their own app. I'm not sure that P+ will have what it takes to scale up and survive long-term. It's obviously not a niche service but I don't know if it has what it takes in terms of content/value to survive against Hulu, HBO Max, Disney+, Discovery+ and Peacock. We'll see...



techguy88 said:


> HBO Max would be simpler to understand if WarnerMedia goes the rout of excluding HBO content from the AVOD tier. If WarnerMedia keeps HBO content ad-free in the AVOD tier they could keep some features of the service exclusive to the current No-Ads tier. Like the AVOD tier capped at 1080p SDR content while the No-Ads tier has the 4K HDR content. They could also pull a Peacock and restrict offline downloads to the highest tier.


Well, if they decide not to put any HBO content in the AVOD tier, that creates a branding problem. You can't call it HBO Max if it doesn't include any HBO! So they'd have to name it something else (e.g. Warner Max). But then wouldn't that mean it having its own separate app in the app stores? If the hope is that many of those folks would be lured to upgrade to full HBO Max, then you don't want it having a separate brand name and app.

Which is why I come back to the idea of the AVOD tier having a decent amount of older HBO originals (ad-free). It might include the entire run of GoT, Girls, and The Sopranos but only have the first season of Barry and Succession. For new HBO series, the first episode would be available for sampling but nothing else. They could call that tier HBO Max Lite or some such and still distribute it via the same HBO Max app under the main HBO Max brand. And yes, I would also see some amount of feature differentiation between the two tiers, e.g. 4K HDR, downloads, possibly number of simultaneous streams.


----------



## techguy88

Zack Snyder's Justice League hits HBO Max on March 18, 2021 as a single full film.


----------



## techguy88

Full Official Trailer for _*Zack Snyder's Justice League*_ released today


----------



## techguy88

Cinemax Original series _The Kick _and _Banshee_ will be available on HBO Max through the HBO service. (These will be available outside the HBO Max app like DirecTV On Demand, Prime Video Channels w/HBO, etc.)

Cinemax Originals currently on HBO Max through HBO
_C.B. Strike_
_Warrior_

Cinemax Originals coming soon to HBO Max through HBO
_The Kick_ (Saturday, Feb. 20)
_Banshee_ (Tuesday, Feb. 23)

Cinemax Originals still exclusive to Cinemax
_Outcast_
_Quarry_
_Jett_
_Strike Back_
_Hunted_
_Relik_
_Trackers_


----------



## techguy88

WarnerMedia has amended the international release plan for _Zack Snyder's Justice League_. In Canada, the film will stream exclusively on Crave + HBO, in markets where WarnerMedia operates an HBO outlet the film will stream there. (For Latin America this is new since Warners was initially planning on holding the Snyder Cut until the proper launch of HBO Max in the region.) Other areas will be announced within the next few weeks. Depending on existing deals the movie could go to a Buy/Rent model or stream on an SVOD partner where HBO does not operate.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> Cinemax Original series _The Kick _and _Banshee_ will be available on HBO Max through the HBO service. (These will be available outside the HBO Max app like DirecTV On Demand, Prime Video Channels w/HBO, etc.)
> 
> Cinemax Originals currently on HBO Max through HBO
> _C.B. Strike_
> _Warrior_
> 
> Cinemax Originals coming soon to HBO Max through HBO
> _The Kick_ (Saturday, Feb. 20)
> _Banshee_ (Tuesday, Feb. 23)
> 
> Cinemax Originals still exclusive to Cinemax
> _Outcast_
> _Quarry_
> _Jett_
> _Strike Back_
> _Hunted_
> _Relik_
> _Trackers_


I thought we might see this happen after Warrior and C.B. Strike were added to HBO. One reason why I think they're doing it is that HBO is kinda starving for fresh English-language scripted series content right now due to last year's pandemic filming shutdown. Lately, the new stuff showing up on HBO is either docs or foreign-language scripted.

I've got C.B. Strike on my watchlist. (Will probably start it after I finish Perpetual Grace, Ltd. on Epix here soon.) I remember watching the first ep of Banshee a long time ago and it was good, so that's a maybe for me. I'd like to check out Jett. I like Carla Gugino. Jett and Warrior were the only two Cinemax Originals that hadn't been cancelled (aside from foreign import Trackers), so if either got enough viewership on HBO/HBO Max, it's possible that they get renewed as Max Originals. Warner has already shifted Search Party over from being a TBS Original to a Max Original.

Anyhow, it looks like my prescription for Cinemax may be in play: shift its originals over to HBO Max or license them out to other services, then pull them completely off Cinemax and return it back to its roots as a set of cable channels solely airing uncut, commercial-free theatrical movies. I'd go further and only shift recent films from HBO to Cinemax for the last two months of their pay-one window, while keeping them on HBO Max for the full window. The bulk of the Cinemax library would just be older movies that aren't on any of the HBO linear channels that month (although some of them may be streaming on HBO Max). In this way, Cinemax would continue to be a complement to HBO on the cable dial but wouldn't really compete with HBO Max. Sell it to cable TV subscribers for $5-6 per month a la carte (or maybe in an add-on bundle with TCM, like Comcast's $10/mo More Sports & Entertainment package). Also try to get MVPDs to add it into the top-level basic cable channel package (e.g. Comcast's Preferred, Charter's Gold). In other words, make Cinemax the step-down service to HBO in the same way that Encore was to Starz.


----------



## techguy88

I wouldn't be surprised if all the Cinemax Originals eventually are added to HBO. I do think the pandemic is a factor for the shift. It will be interesting to see what happens to Cinemax in the future.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if all the Cinemax Originals eventually are added to HBO. I do think the pandemic is a factor for the shift. It will be interesting to see what happens to Cinemax in the future.


These Cinemax Originals are listed inside the HBO Max app as HBO titles. But when you look at the full list of series at HBO.com, Warrior and C.B. Strike are badged as Cinemax Originals with the note "Streaming on HBO Max" underneath. (The Knick and Banshee aren't even listed there yet.)

Stream & Watch HBO Series Online | HBO

Are these Cinemax Originals airing on any of the HBO linear channels or available via HBO OnDemand on MVPD-supplied STBs? It looks to me like they're only inside the HBO Max app (as well as still being on Cinemax, of course).


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> These Cinemax Originals are listed inside the HBO Max app as HBO titles. But when you look at the full list of series at HBO.com, Warrior and C.B. Strike are badged as Cinemax Originals with the note "Streaming on HBO Max" underneath. (The Knick and Banshee aren't even listed there yet.)
> 
> Stream & Watch HBO Series Online | HBO
> 
> Are these Cinemax Originals airing on any of the HBO linear channels or available via HBO OnDemand on MVPD-supplied STBs? It looks to me like they're only inside the HBO Max app (as well as still being on Cinemax, of course).


_CB Strike _had its most recent season transmitted on linear HBO on a weekly basis then the episode was added to HBO Max. The Cinemax Originals on HBO are also available on demand for MVPD & vMVPD. However on-demand in general does lag behind the HBO Max app in terms of updates. These programs are also available through Prime Video Channels, Apple TV Channels and The Roku Channel with an HBO or Cinemax subscription. The HBO website is now geared to push people to HBO Max at every possible chance so that is why it says "Streaming on HBO Max".

Essentially anything under the HBO brand hub or tagged "HBO" on HBO Max is available on demand for MVPD/vMVPDs and can be shown on linear HBO. For grandfathered HBO Apple TV Channels & The Roku Channel subscribers the content is available there. It is also available to Prime Video-HBO subscribers. (Prime Video will cease selling HBO as a channel to new subscribers later this year.)

This is how shared content between Cinemax & HBO looks on Prime Video Channels


----------



## NashGuy

Well, I'm surprised at the news coming out today about the cheaper, ad-supported HBO Max tier that will debut in June:

_"The main difference will be with the theatrical premieres," Kilar said of the new, lower-priced tier. Only those paying for the ad-free, top tier will continue to have access to day-and-date premieres of Warner Bros movies. "Everything else will be the same," he said, reaffirming that HBO original series will not carry ads.
_​I expected that the cheaper tier wouldn't include those new day-and-date WB film releases but I am surprised that it will include all of HBO ad-free. And apparently it does. Kilar affirms that (as I expected) HBO Originals will always be ad-free. But he seems to indicate that the cheaper tier will include all the same content that the current tier has except for the theatrical WB premieres given that "Everything else will be the same."

They didn't reveal the price for the upcoming ad-supported tier at today's event. But given that the current ad-free tier is $14.99, the new tier wouldn't seem to matter a whole lot unless it's $9.99/mo or less. I mean, I guess it could be around $12 but that wouldn't seem like enough of a difference to matter.

So let's say the new ad-supported tier will be $9.99/mo and have all of HBO ad-free while all the non-HBO content (except maybe children's content like Sesame Street, etc.) contains ads. That's quite a deal considering that just HBO alone as of a year ago cost $15/mo!

Consider also that probably about half of HBO subs in the US still haven't activated their free access to the HBO Max app -- these are largely older viewers who are content just watching the core HBO content via their cable box. The rest of the HBO Max catalog, the non-HBO stuff, is exclusive to the app. It seems to me that there's a risk that many of those folks, if given the option, would just switch to the cheaper ad-supported version of HBO Max to pay 1/3 less, $10/mo instead of $15. Why not? They'd still get all the HBO content they care about ad-free.

In order to control that risk, I wonder if Warner won't sell the cheaper tier via their cable TV partners. So if you want HBO on your cable box, you have to go with the $15/mo version. Perhaps the cheaper tier will only be sold directly by Warner (via website sign-ups) with them handling the billing and getting all the revenue. But then they miss folks wanting to sign up for it inside the app, where billing would be handled by Apple, Google, Roku or Amazon. Would Warner distribute the cheaper tier through those digital partners but not through their traditional MVPD partners too? It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Well, I'm surprised at the news coming out today about the cheaper, ad-supported HBO Max tier that will debut in June:


Don't be.

This can become the new "freebie" and will generate a more stable cash flow. A $7.6 billion infusion from TPG won't put much of a dent in the $150 billion debt.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> Don't be.
> 
> This can become the new "freebie" and will generate a more stable cash flow. A $7.6 billion infusion from TPG won't put much of a dent in the $150 billion debt.


Again, if the new tier includes all of HBO, still ad-free, and only has ads in the non-HBO part of the HBO Max catalog (which is about 55-60% of it, I think), and they charge $10 or less for this thing, that's a big devaluation of HBO. I mean, it's great for consumers. But HBO alone used to be $15/mo. And now they're maybe going to sell it for $10/mo and then add in a slew of additional ad-supported content for free (which viewers can easily avoid if they only want the ad-free HBO stuff)? That's aggressive but it may be what they need to do to grab market share.

Meanwhile, consider that Showtime by itself costs $11/mo for their ad-free, but smaller and less acclaimed, catalog of premium content. To match what it appears Warner is going to do, they'd need to drop their price a bit and throw in the ad-supported basic tier of Paramount+ for free, all in one app.


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> Well, I'm surprised at the news coming out today about the cheaper, ad-supported HBO Max tier that will debut in June:
> 
> _"The main difference will be with the theatrical premieres," Kilar said of the new, lower-priced tier. Only those paying for the ad-free, top tier will continue to have access to day-and-date premieres of Warner Bros movies. "Everything else will be the same," he said, reaffirming that HBO original series will not carry ads.
> _​I expected that the cheaper tier wouldn't include those new day-and-date WB film releases but I am surprised that it will include all of HBO ad-free. And apparently it does. Kilar affirms that (as I expected) HBO Originals will always be ad-free. But he seems to indicate that the cheaper tier will include all the same content that the current tier has except for the theatrical WB premieres given that "Everything else will be the same."
> 
> They didn't reveal the price for the upcoming ad-supported tier at today's event. But given that the current ad-free tier is $14.99, the new tier wouldn't seem to matter a whole lot unless it's $9.99/mo or less. I mean, I guess it could be around $12 but that wouldn't seem like enough of a difference to matter.
> 
> So let's say the new ad-supported tier will be $9.99/mo and have all of HBO ad-free while all the non-HBO content (except maybe children's content like Sesame Street, etc.) contains ads. That's quite a deal considering that just HBO alone as of a year ago cost $15/mo!
> 
> Consider also that probably about half of HBO subs in the US still haven't activated their free access to the HBO Max app -- these are largely older viewers who are content just watching the core HBO content via their cable box. The rest of the HBO Max catalog, the non-HBO stuff, is exclusive to the app. It seems to me that there's a risk that many of those folks, if given the option, would just switch to the cheaper ad-supported version of HBO Max to pay 1/3 less, $10/mo instead of $15. Why not? They'd still get all the HBO content they care about ad-free.
> 
> In order to control that risk, I wonder if Warner won't sell the cheaper tier via their cable TV partners. So if you want HBO on your cable box, you have to go with the $15/mo version. Perhaps the cheaper tier will only be sold directly by Warner (via website sign-ups) with them handling the billing and getting all the revenue. But then they miss folks wanting to sign up for it inside the app, where billing would be handled by Apple, Google, Roku or Amazon. Would Warner distribute the cheaper tier through those digital partners but not through their traditional MVPD partners too? It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.


Here are my thoughts on it the ad-supported tier with the information released today

*Content*: I expected the Same Day WB Premieres to remain exclusive to the $14.99 tier especially after they got so much blowback for the decision in the first place. They had to redo their contracts with talent, directors, crew, agencies, production partners etc. so they are spending way more than intended. They are also giving theaters more of the revenue from ticket sales for them to book the films. (This is the main reason Disney's _Raya_ is not performing as well as _Tom & Jerry_.) If AT&T were to expand the availability of those films via a cheaper ad-supported tier then theaters wouldn't book the films.
I am surprised they included HBO programming commercial free in the tier as I thought they would use that as an up-sell for the $14.99 tier. However Paramount+ is streaming all their movies commercial free with only the TV shows having ads on their Limited Commercials tier. So in a way this could be seen as HBO Max's version of that.
I wouldn't be surprised for the films under the Max side to have around 180 seconds of ads pre-loaded at the beginning so they play without commercial interruption (similar to select films on Peacock.)


*Features*: I do not expect the cheaper ad-supported tier to include mobile downloads & 4K HDR/Dolby Vision since no other ad-supported tier of an existing service has those features. I know Kilar said "everything else will be the same" however I think he meant that in regards to programming only. I would suspect the ad-supported tier would be HD only with the $14.99 tier having 4K HDR/Dolby Vision.
*Price*: Kilar was a big part of Hulu and was around when their current model ($5.99 with ads or $11.99 without ads) was introduced. Since it is a $6 difference between the two tiers I'm estimating the ad-supported HBO Max tier would be $8.99/month (matching Hulu's price difference). While this would make HBO Max the most expensive ad-supported tier it would put it in line with Netflix Basic ($8.99/mo SD 1 stream). If they go lower than $8.99/month then MVPDs will sure be upset.
*Distribution*: I don't think much will occur here except the user can use in-app purchases for either tier. The only other change I expect is AT&T Wireless will add HBO Max (AVOD) to Unlimited Extra to stay completive with T-Mobile's Magenta plan which includes Netflix Basic.
MVPDs should be fine as long as there are selling points they can use. As long as HBO Max (Commercial Free) keeps premium features exclusive to it there shouldn't be an issue. Plus MVPDs can resell the value of linear HBO as a benefit to HBO Max.
The demographic they are targeting with the AVOD option are the group that are cord-nevers/cord-cutters but are price conscience. Subscribers via MVPDs are older and would be the most likely to stick with the current subscription even if they just watch HBO content.

Going into 2022 I don't expect AT&T to keep the Same Day WB Premieres as they are most likely taking hits on each film. I would expect Warner Bros. to follow in Universal & Paramount's footsteps to shorten the theatrical windows with the option to send films to streaming after 17-45 days.

Like looking at their 2022 film slate (so far) _Sesame Street_ would be a good film for a 45 day exclusive theatrical run before going exclusively to HBO Max (Commercial Free) before it hits the Pay-1 window then would be on both HBO (linear/OD)/HBO Max (AVOD) + HBO Max (Commercial Free). It also would afford them the ability to keep big blockbusters like _The Batman_, the third _Fantastic Beasts_ film and _Aquaman 2_ in theaters for a longer 90+ day runs if they have great legs before sending them to HBO Max (Commercial Free) before the Pay-1 window (that HBO has the rights for.)


----------



## harsh

I think HBO discovered that the $14.99 price was too high. I'm running on a $11.99 month-to-month plan currently and I expect that many others have dove in at under $12.

The streaming model has really fouled the waters of series TV by creating a rift in the time synchronization of shows and I think HBO and their large library of serial shows is suffering because of it.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> Here are my thoughts on it the ad-supported tier with the information released today
> 
> *Content*: I expected the Same Day WB Premieres to remain exclusive to the $14.99 tier especially after they got so much blowback for the decision in the first place. They had to redo their contracts with talent, directors, crew, agencies, production partners etc. so they are spending way more than intended. They are also giving theaters more of the revenue from ticket sales for them to book the films. (This is the main reason Disney's _Raya_ is not performing as well as _Tom & Jerry_.) If AT&T were to expand the availability of those films via a cheaper ad-supported tier then theaters wouldn't book the films.
> I am surprised they included HBO programming commercial free in the tier as I thought they would use that as an up-sell for the $14.99 tier. However Paramount+ is streaming all their movies commercial free with only the TV shows having ads on their Limited Commercials tier. So in a way this could be seen as HBO Max's version of that.
> I wouldn't be surprised for the films under the Max side to have around 180 seconds of ads pre-loaded at the beginning so they play without commercial interruption (similar to select films on Peacock.)
> 
> 
> *Features*: I do not expect the cheaper ad-supported tier to include mobile downloads & 4K HDR/Dolby Vision since no other ad-supported tier of an existing service has those features. I know Kilar said "everything else will be the same" however I think he meant that in regards to programming only. I would suspect the ad-supported tier would be HD only with the $14.99 tier having 4K HDR/Dolby Vision.
> *Price*: Kilar was a big part of Hulu and was around when their current model ($5.99 with ads or $11.99 without ads) was introduced. Since it is a $6 difference between the two tiers I'm estimating the ad-supported HBO Max tier would be $8.99/month (matching Hulu's price difference). While this would make HBO Max the most expensive ad-supported tier it would put it in line with Netflix Basic ($8.99/mo SD 1 stream). If they go lower than $8.99/month then MVPDs will sure be upset.
> *Distribution*: I don't think much will occur here except the user can use in-app purchases for either tier. The only other change I expect is AT&T Wireless will add HBO Max (AVOD) to Unlimited Extra to stay completive with T-Mobile's Magenta plan which includes Netflix Basic.
> MVPDs should be fine as long as there are selling points they can use. As long as HBO Max (Commercial Free) keeps premium features exclusive to it there shouldn't be an issue. Plus MVPDs can resell the value of linear HBO as a benefit to HBO Max.
> The demographic they are targeting with the AVOD option are the group that are cord-nevers/cord-cutters but are price conscience. Subscribers via MVPDs are older and would be the most likely to stick with the current subscription even if they just watch HBO content.
> 
> Going into 2022 I don't expect AT&T to keep the Same Day WB Premieres as they are most likely taking hits on each film. I would expect Warner Bros. to follow in Universal & Paramount's footsteps to shorten the theatrical windows with the option to send films to streaming after 17-45 days.
> 
> Like looking at their 2022 film slate (so far) _Sesame Street_ would be a good film for a 45 day exclusive theatrical run before going exclusively to HBO Max (Commercial Free) before it hits the Pay-1 window then would be on both HBO (linear/OD)/HBO Max (AVOD) + HBO Max (Commercial Free). It also would afford them the ability to keep big blockbusters like _The Batman_, the third _Fantastic Beasts_ film and _Aquaman 2_ in theaters for a longer 90+ day runs if they have great legs before sending them to HBO Max (Commercial Free) before the Pay-1 window (that HBO has the rights for.)


Agree with most of your conclusions with regard to content and features. On price, yeah, the new AVOD version could be $8.99, could be $9.99. I doubt it falls outside that range. (As to your calculations based on the Hulu model, keep in mind that Hulu with ads was originally $7.99, just $4 cheaper than ad-free, before dropping down to $5.99. And also keep in mind that the entire non-kids TV series library in Hulu contains ads while a big chunk of it in HBO Max -- all those HBO Originals -- will still be ad-free.)

On distribution, I tend to think that, if they allow MVPDs to sell the AVOD version of HBO Max, it won't include access to the HBO linear channels and on-demand library inside the provider's own UI. So no HBO channels in the grid guide. It would just be the app. This would incentivize those traditional HBO subscribers to stick with their current $15/mo subscription. (Some wouldn't know or bother to downgrade their subscription anyhow but I do think a fair chunk of them might figure it out and switch to the AVOD version to save $5-6/mo if it didn't change anything in terms of how they already watch and record the linear HBO channels on their cable box.)

As for the WB theatricals released in 2022 and beyond, yeah, I think they'll mostly go back to being exclusive to theaters at first but for a shorter window. Some of the lower-to-mid-budget fare, such as indie-type dramas, might debut in limited theaters and on HBO Max at the same time, as Netflix and Prime Video have been doing for a few years now. Not sure, though, that I see the regular WB film releases coming to HBO Max for an exclusive period before then also becoming available on HBO (linear/on-demand) via the normal pay-1 window. I'd just think that the pay-1 window would start sooner (e.g. 45 days after the theatrical premiere) with the movie showing up on a Saturday night on HBO and HBO Max at the same time.


----------



## lparsons21

Right now I see the current offering of HBO Max as more of a direct competitor to Netflix. Netflix has lots of ‘originals’ which many are just foreign films/shows we haven’t seen in the US on other services, a great catalog of older shows and some new ones. HBO Max has a much better movie collection and their catalog of shows is growing seemingly every day.

Given that, since the price of the ‘standard’ Netflix and current HBO Max are within a dollar of each other, they are prime candidates to kick on and off for some periods of binge watching.

To a much lesser extent, Paramount+ and Peacock are trying to play in this market but really are missing too many things to allow them to bring their pricing up.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> I think HBO discovered that the $14.99 price was too high. I'm running on a $11.99 month-to-month plan currently and I expect that many others have dove in at under $12.


Yeah, I think $15/mo was working fine for HBO in the pre-Netflix world but Netflix changed the equation in terms of how much ad-free entertainment that consumers expect for their money. So they had to add all the additional Max content to build up the amount (and variety) of content they offered for the price. And now they're going to offer it a lower price point too, albeit with ads.



lparsons21 said:


> Right now I see the current offering of HBO Max as more of a direct competitor to Netflix.


I'd say HBO Max (ad-free) is the most direct competitor to Netflix. Warner is putting pretty much all their eggs in that basket, unlike Disney, which divides their content between Disney+ and Hulu, or ViacomCBS, which divides between Paramount+ and Showtime. Apple TV+ is obviously not, given that it's just a small, boutique collection of new original content with no back catalog. IDK, I guess you could consider Prime Video to be a direct Netflix competitor, although the economics are different there because it's part of the larger Prime service that's mainly about selling more stuff from Amazon. And Prime Video doesn't seem to offer as much fresh original content each month as either Netflix or HBO Max, although they do have a huge catalog of older licensed content.


----------



## crkeehn

What impact would the advent of the with ads version of HBO Max have on those of us who get HBO Max free? My U-verse 1000 service includes HBO Max at no charge.


----------



## NashGuy

crkeehn said:


> What impact would the advent of the with ads version of HBO Max have on those of us who get HBO Max free? My U-verse 1000 service includes HBO Max at no charge.


They haven't announced yet whether or not they'll switch the free HBO Max they give to certain internet and wireless customers over to the upcoming version with ads. But even in the version with ads, all of the HBO Originals content will still be ad-free. It's just the other "Max" content that will have ads. (And no word yet on whether any movies will have ads.)


----------



## techguy88

crkeehn said:


> What impact would the advent of the with ads version of HBO Max have on those of us who get HBO Max free? My U-verse 1000 service includes HBO Max at no charge.





NashGuy said:


> They haven't announced yet whether or not they'll switch the free HBO Max they give to certain internet and wireless customers over to the upcoming version with ads. But even in the version with ads, all of the HBO Originals content will still be ad-free. It's just the other "Max" content that will have ads. (And no word yet on whether any movies will have ads.)


They most likely won't change what comes in the Unlimited plans like Elite or the Fiber Internet 1000 plan. Main reason is they are the high end "premium" plans so they would want them to have the best version of HBO Max. During the Grammy Awards, AT&T debuted a new trailer for _In The Heights_ and a new AT&T Wireless ad focused on selling Elite with HBO Max to watch WB's Same Day Premieres. _In The Heights_ is scheduled to be released on June 18, 2021 in theaters & on HBO Max. Also their billing systems for Wireless & Internet plans with HBO Max (Commercial Free) are designed to unlock traditional HBO on DirecTV, AT&T TV, etc.

Like I said if they want to include the AVOD tier they would most likely have it in a plan like Unlimited Extra. This way they have another talking point upsell people to Elite. It would also put their mid-level tier in line with Verizon's Play More & T-Mobile's Magenta. If there are any changes on the Internet side I would speculate the AVOD tier could be included in Internet 300.


----------



## itzme

Is the 3 months free offer still availible? Can an existing DirecTV subscriber just sign up for that somewhere?


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> They most likely won't change what comes in the Unlimited plans like Elite or the Fiber Internet 1000 plan. Main reason is they are the high end "premium" plans so they would want them to have the best version of HBO Max. During the Grammy Awards, AT&T debuted a new trailer for _In The Heights_ and a new AT&T Wireless ad focused on selling Elite with HBO Max to watch WB's Same Day Premieres. _In The Heights_ is scheduled to be released on June 18, 2021 in theaters & on HBO Max. Also their billing systems for Wireless & Internet plans with HBO Max (Commercial Free) are designed to unlock traditional HBO on DirecTV, AT&T TV, etc.


Maybe. It's all speculation, really. My guess is that if they were going to switch out the ad-free version for the version with ads, they wouldn't do it right away. Maybe wait until next year, when the WB theatricals are no longer all debuting on HBO Max at the same time as theaters. And they might only make the switch for new subscribers to those wireless and internet plans, while existing subscribers would continue to get the ad-free version so long as they didn't change their plan.


----------



## DirectMan

itzme said:


> Is the 3 months free offer still availible? Can an existing DirecTV subscriber just sign up for that somewhere?


If you are a current D* customer go to the online account info on the main page there will be an offer. I used the free three month offer and then cancelled after three months. I got a call a few days after cancellation offering me another free three month offer which I accepted.


----------



## itzme

DirectMan said:


> If you are a current D* customer go to the online account info on the main page there will be an offer. I used the free three month offer and then cancelled after three months. I got a call a few days after cancellation offering me another free three month offer which I accepted.


Could I trouble you to be more specific and tell me what link has that ad? I can't find it on the first page i dee when I log in or when I click on "Account Info" Maybe post the url that has the ad ? Or URL after you click the ad? I don't see at it at and I'm logged in as an active customer.

https://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/mydirectv/account/myAccountInfo.jsp
OR
https://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/mydirectv/account/myOverview.jsp


----------



## bamasat22

techguy88 said:


> They most likely won't change what comes in the Unlimited plans like Elite or the Fiber Internet 1000 plan. Main reason is they are the high end "premium" plans so they would want them to have the best version of HBO Max. During the Grammy Awards, AT&T debuted a new trailer for _In The Heights_ and a new AT&T Wireless ad focused on selling Elite with HBO Max to watch WB's Same Day Premieres. _In The Heights_ is scheduled to be released on June 18, 2021 in theaters & on HBO Max. Also their billing systems for Wireless & Internet plans with HBO Max (Commercial Free) are designed to unlock traditional HBO on DirecTV, AT&T TV, etc.
> 
> Like I said if they want to include the AVOD tier they would most likely have it in a plan like Unlimited Extra. This way they have another talking point upsell people to Elite. It would also put their mid-level tier in line with Verizon's Play More & T-Mobile's Magenta. If there are any changes on the Internet side I would speculate the AVOD tier could be included in Internet 300.


One of your post on the difference of the add version and 14.99 version is currently on the table and is correct.
Kinda on the same perception and offerings as *PARTS of the different Netflix tiers might be considered.

Also , the Elite/ max wireless push has been there for a very good while now.
Production is still behind.( Video ) 
You call in , you won't hear of another plan / price Until the cx starts rejection of price and the plan initiatives , then the 
" hot spot " mentioning as the sales tool is pushed after the primary Max push.

Sent from my moto using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe

AT&T will start counting HBO Max against data limits, blames California net neutrality law


----------



## DirectMan

itzme said:


> Could I trouble you to be more specific and tell me what link has that ad? I can't find it on the first page i dee when I log in or when I click on "Account Info" Maybe post the url that has the ad ? Or URL after you click the ad? I don't see at it at and I'm logged in as an active customer.


It could be in account info menu item where it shows "offers" or on the main page, I cannot recreate it as it has disappeared from my screen after the offer was accepted. You can also call D* and speak to a front line CSR and ask them if the offer is available. I am sure it is.


----------



## NashGuy

Looks like Warrior, which was a Cinemax Original its first two seasons and has been streaming within the HBO section of the HBO Max app the last few months, will come back for a third season as a Max Original exclusive to HBO Max (as I had speculated it might).

'Warrior' Renewed For Season 3, Moving From Cinemax To HBO Max - Deadline


----------



## techguy88

I wouldn't be surprised if they merged Cinemax into HBO Max outright.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if they merged Cinemax into HBO Max outright.


It was rumored in a WSJ story a year or so before HBO Max launched that Cinemax would, in fact, be absorbed into the service. And the HBO Max moniker certainly suggested it.

But at this point, I dunno. Maybe we'll see Strike Back, Cinemax's longest-running series, come to HBO Max this year. That's the only big Cinemax Original left that hasn't yet. Beyond that, I'd really just like to see Warner allow HBO Max to retain films for their entire pay-1 window. If they want to shift those recent movies back and forth between HBO and Cinemax during that timespan, fine, but let HBO Max be their exclusive streaming home for the full period, regardless of which set of linear channels is carrying them in any given month.

Of course, if HBO Max were to get not only all of Cinemax's signature original series but also all of its pay-1 films, that makes Cinemax an increasingly hard sell for anyone who already has HBO/HBO Max. But I still think they could milk some incremental revenue out of it, though, by reducing its price and selling it as a small set of cable channels (e.g. Cinemax, Cinemax Hits, Cinemax Selects, Cinemax Family) that exclusively airs uncut commercial-free theatrical movies in HD. Maybe MVPDs could offer it together with TCM as an a la carte movie package for $6 or so.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> But at this point, I dunno. Maybe we'll see Strike Back, Cinemax's longest-running series, come to HBO Max this year. That's the only big Cinemax Original left that hasn't yet. Beyond that, I'd really just like to see Warner allow HBO Max to retain films for their entire pay-1 window. If they want to shift those recent movies back and forth between HBO and Cinemax during that timespan, fine, but let HBO Max be their exclusive streaming home for the full period, regardless of which set of linear channels is carrying them in any given month.


I would consider subscribing to a movie-only service that wasn't plugged up with incessant replays of serial dramas.


----------



## wmb

harsh said:


> I would consider subscribing to a movie-only service that wasn't plugged up with incessant replays of serial dramas.


I tend to think on-demand works best for movies. If I had a nickel for every time I came across an interesting movie half way through on HBO or the like, I'd have a decent stack of nickels. It was really bad in the olden days of one HBO.

Pretty much the same thing for serial dramas.

Both really benefit from the ability to download them to watch on airplanes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> I would consider subscribing to a movie-only service that wasn't plugged up with incessant replays of serial dramas.


That would be an interesting split. Make HBO Max the "everything" subscription and turn Cinemax into an all movies channel package. Keeping Cinemax valuable as an add on to HBO might be difficult without unique content. Perhaps the "skin a max" programming would remain unique to Cinemax (if that counts as movies)?


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> That would be an interesting split. Make HBO Max the "everything" subscription and turn Cinemax into an all movies channel package. Keeping Cinemax valuable as an add on to HBO might be difficult without unique content. Perhaps the "skin a max" programming would remain unique to Cinemax (if that counts as movies)?


Like HBO, Cinemax dropped their soft-core pornography content a few years ago (although the old "Skinemax" joke moniker persists). There's so much porn on the internet if that's what you're looking for. I think they realized that continuing to include that stuff in their line-up was counterproductive to their brand.

My pitch to the honchos at Warner would be to take Cinemax back to its roots as a movies-only set of cable channels, but as one focused mainly on a rotating selection of movies from years past that aren't on currently HBO or TCM (and most of which aren't streaming that month on HBO Max).

So Cinemax would be to HBO a lot like what Encore (and/or the MoviePlex channels) has always been to big sibling Starz. Maybe they would shift recent films over from HBO to Cinemax for the final 2-3 months of their pay-1 window (while letting them continue to stream on HBO Max for those last few months) to give the service a little extra appeal. But the great bulk of what aired on Cinemax would be uncut, commercial-free HD films that played in theaters anywhere from 3 to 50 years ago. Make it a companion service to TCM for serious movie lovers, but while TCM would mainly focus on films up through the 70s, Cinemax would mainly focus on those from the 80s forward. Of course, they'd have to cut the price of Cinemax quite a bit to make it attractive. Maybe $5/mo as an a la carte add-on, with on-demand access purely through the MVPD VOD platform. Some MVPDs might include it in some kind of bigger "Movies Extra" add-on pack or place it in their top basic channel tier (as is often the case with Encore). But with no ad budget, no originals, and relatively low content licensing costs, it might still be a decently profitable way to ring the last bit of value out of the brand. Maybe they'd even revert back to the original logo used when Cinemax launched in 1980 as HBO's movies-only little sister:


----------



## harsh

I think back to when I first signed up with Showtime in the mid 1970s and the service agreement stated that all of the movies would be no older than two years. Of course they weren't trying to fill 8 channels per time zone.

If streaming progresses as it currently appears to be headed, HBO/Cinemax may end up with just the HBO and Time Warner movies but I suppose by that time, there will be no more linear HBO to fill.

Anybody wondering where Sony is in all of this?


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> I think back to when I first signed up with Showtime in the mid 1970s and the service agreement stated that all of the movies would be no older than two years. Of course they weren't trying to fill 8 channels per time zone.


Sounds like you were among the first Showtime subscribers, given that it launched in 1976. I think it was around 1981 when my family first got Showtime, but only because we had a cable converter box (from Circuit City or somewhere) and the local cableco didn't scramble Showtime until maybe the 90s. I didn't realize that they only played very recent movies back then but now that I think about it that seems right. I still recall the little intro bumper that played before movies:

Showtime Feature Intro Early 80s | Retro Junk Commercial



harsh said:


> If streaming progresses as it currently appears to be headed, HBO/Cinemax may end up with just the HBO and Time Warner movies but I suppose by that time, there will be no more linear HBO to fill.


Yeah, content is becoming increasingly direct-to-consumer, with each major studio having its own streaming service that has exclusive rights to their own films' pay-1 window. As this chart points out, HBO's deal with Universal only covers their films released to theaters through the end of this year. It's uncertain whether Universal will seek to renew such a deal or if they'll instead keep their films for their own Peacock service. Who knows, maybe they'll do some kind of sharing deal where HBO/HBO Max has them exclusively for the first few months of the pay-1 window and then they're shared with Peacock (kinda like how the past few years MGM and Paramount films come to Epix and then 90 days later are shared with both Hulu and Prime Video).

Beyond that, HBO's deal with 20th Century runs through 2022 and it's almost a foregone conclusion that Disney will hold back 20th Century films debuting in 2023 forward for Hulu and Disney+. HBO's other supplier is Summit, a subsidiary of Lionsgate, and that deal also ends at the end of next year, with Summit films debuting after that then going to Starz (which is also owned by Lionsgate).



harsh said:


> Anybody wondering where Sony is in all of this?


They just struck a big output deal with Netflix. Their deal with Starz is over at the end of this year and their new films thereafter will go to Netflix. Which is a little surprising to me, honestly, given Netflix's focus the past few years on funding their own original content.

I always thought it might make sense for Apple to acquire Sony Pictures and Television, giving them a big shot in the arm in terms of both production and distribution capabilities plus also a big back catalog of movies and classic TV shows that could be part of Apple TV+. But with a long-term deal in place between Sony and Netflix, I think Sony will remain a mid-sized arms dealer for the foreseeable future rather than get sucked into one of the bigger players.


----------



## cmasia

Watched that Showtime feature intro, then found this for HBO:






The intros at 4:45, 8:15, and 9:26 are absolutely epic.

In 1983, I bought a monster (at the time) Sony 27" monitor, with no tuner, and hooked it up to a 10ft. fiberglass dish. Nothing was scrambled at the time.

The swirling lights and the majestic musical ending gave me goose bumps every single time. I used to occasionally tune to HBO just to see the intro!


----------



## NashGuy

cmasia said:


> Watched that Showtime feature intro, then found this for HBO:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intros at 4:45, 8:15, and 9:26 are absolutely epic.
> 
> In 1983, I bought a monster (at the time) Sony 27" monitor, with no tuner, and hooked it up to a 10ft. fiberglass dish. Nothing was scrambled at the time.
> 
> The swirling lights and the majestic musical ending gave me goose bumps every single time. I used to occasionally tune to HBO just to see the intro!


Cool. I had seen all of those HBO intros starting at 4:45 but none of them before that point. I assume that those first few ran in the 70s. I definitely remember the music and the giant "HBO" in outer space that ran before movies back in the 80s.

I've noticed that if you stream a movie from the HBO catalog in the HBO Max app, you still get a very short intro bumper that ends in this graphic:









As for Showtime, aside from the one I posted above that ran in the early 80s, I remember this one that they used in the mid-to-late 80s:

showtime feature | Retro Junk Commercial


----------



## crkeehn

cmasia said:


> Watched that Showtime feature intro, then found this for HBO:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intros at 4:45, 8:15, and 9:26 are absolutely epic.
> 
> In 1983, I bought a monster (at the time) Sony 27" monitor, with no tuner, and hooked it up to a 10ft. fiberglass dish. Nothing was scrambled at the time.
> 
> The swirling lights and the majestic musical ending gave me goose bumps every single time. I used to occasionally tune to HBO just to see the intro!


Thank you for the wonderful memory. In 1983 I purchased my first condo, the maintenance fee included HBO. The 4:45 intro was my first exposure to HBO. I also remember them having a short feature on the filming of that intro, which was kind of fun.


----------



## techguy88

HBO And HBO Max Add 2.7M Subscribers In Q1 - Deadline 

HBO & HBO Max now has 44.2M domestic subscribers ending Q1 2021 (March 31, 2021). Globally HBO & HBO Max have 63.9M subscribers. HBO Max expands internationally in June first with Latin American then in Europe in late 2021 (where HBO currently operates.)

AT&T no longer reports the total number of "activations" (i.e. the number of wholesale + retail subscribers who login to the app) but replaced that with a domestic ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) figure and International HBO subscribers which is in line with other streaming services.


----------



## lparsons21

HBO Max now has both ad supported and no ad subscriptions available. $9.99 for ad supported, $14.99 for no ads. They are also offering annual pre-paid subscription to both new and existing subscribers at a pretty good discount.


----------



## NashGuy

Yes. And at the same time they introduced an ad-supported plan, HBO Max also updated their app for Apple TV in a way that f'ed it up in a major, major way. It was a very unpleasant surprise I found when I tried to watch Hacks night before last.

HBO Max update for tvOS breaks key features on Apple TV - 9to5Mac

The playback controls are almost totally destroyed. I mean, it's laughably bad. Like, how did this build ever find it's way out of beta and get placed in the App Store?!


----------



## James Long

HBO Max Ad-Free and With Ads plans

"Depending on your provider, you may be able to choose a subscription plan (With Ads or Ad-Free) and either monthly or annual billing."

Does that open the door for a provider to sell "with ads" streaming as part of their MVPD offering (instead of bundling ad-free HBO Max)?


----------



## lparsons21

James Long said:


> HBO Max Ad-Free and With Ads plans
> 
> "Depending on your provider, you may be able to choose a subscription plan (With Ads or Ad-Free) and either monthly or annual billing."
> 
> Does that open the door for a provider to sell "with ads" streaming as part of their MVPD offering (instead of bundling ad-free HBO Max)?


Good question, I've not read anything that addresses that issue.


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> Yes. And at the same time they introduced an ad-supported plan, HBO Max also updated their app for Apple TV in a way that f'ed it up in a major, major way. It was a very unpleasant surprise I found when I tried to watch Hacks night before last.
> 
> HBO Max update for tvOS breaks key features on Apple TV - 9to5Mac
> 
> The playback controls are almost totally destroyed. I mean, it's laughably bad. Like, how did this build ever find it's way out of beta and get placed in the App Store?!


They took one of my biggest peeves of the Peacock app on Apple TV and ported it over to HBO Max  Unfortunately I am used to this by now with Peacock. I also decided to replace the 1st Gen Siri Remotes with the 2nd Gen version. I had to re-enable the swiping gestures just so I could RW/FF on HBO Max. Apple shouldn't allow companies to use a custom player and force them all to use the default one.



James Long said:


> HBO Max Ad-Free and With Ads plans
> 
> "Depending on your provider, you may be able to choose a subscription plan (With Ads or Ad-Free) and either monthly or annual billing."
> 
> Does that open the door for a provider to sell "with ads" streaming as part of their MVPD offering (instead of bundling ad-free HBO Max)?





lparsons21 said:


> Good question, I've not read anything that addresses that issue.


I would be interested to see how this works lol. I don't think it is a bad idea myself. However I personally would not be surprised if AT&T starts offering HBO Max with Ads on its Unlimited Extra plan in the future. Would make Unlimited Extra competitive with the slightly cheaper Verizon's Play More Unlimited and T-Mobile's Magenta plans that include entertainment perks.


----------



## b4pjoe

techguy88 said:


> They took one of my biggest peeves of the Peacock app on Apple TV and ported it over to HBO Max  Unfortunately I am used to this by now with Peacock. I also decided to replace the 1st Gen Siri Remotes with the 2nd Gen version. I had to re-enable the swiping gestures just so I could RW/FF on HBO Max. Apple shouldn't allow companies to use a custom player and force them all to use the default one.


Another example of fixing something that was never broken.


----------



## glrush

I don't know if it's related to the same issue, but a friend using a new MacBook Air with 16Gb of RAM. Since the latest update, when she tries to watch HBO Max, she gets low memory warmings and then the program crashes. There must be a pretty big memory leak either in the OS or the app.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Does that open the door for a provider to sell "with ads" streaming as part of their MVPD offering (instead of bundling ad-free HBO Max)?


Given the ruckus surrounding the contract negotiations with Amazon and Roku, I'd think not. I expect that any ads will be those from HBO and insertion will not be supported.


----------



## harsh

I'm having considerable difficulty with the HBO Max app on my Sony Android TV (X900H). It hangs a lot on startup and requires that I force stop the app and restart it.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> They took one of my biggest peeves of the Peacock app on Apple TV and ported it over to HBO Max  Unfortunately I am used to this by now with Peacock.


Peacock was really bad when it launched but they've since fixed most of the playback control issues in their Apple TV app. It still uses their own player, not the native Apple player, but it now works pretty similarly for basic controls (play, pause, jump back/forward, rewind, FF).



techguy88 said:


> I also decided to replace the 1st Gen Siri Remotes with the 2nd Gen version. I had to re-enable the swiping gestures just so I could RW/FF on HBO Max.


I still have the 1st-gen remote and swiping to FF or rewind is basically useless in the new HBO Max app now. It just goes crazy and who knows where the playhead will end up. Sometimes it just runs all the way to the start or end of the show. It's completely broken.



techguy88 said:


> Apple shouldn't allow companies to use a custom player and force them all to use the default one.


Yes, I wish that was the case too. I had one of the old-style Apple TV boxes a few years ago, back before it had its own app store; it only featured whatever apps that Apple directly installed on it. And each of those apps was forced to use Apple's own UI design template, not just for playback, but for the entire app. So browsing for something to watch in Netflix looked much the same as in Hulu or HBO Now or YouTube. There was a high degree of uniformity -- everything looked "Apple". I can understand why app makers rebelled against that almost total lack of branding. Frankly, that's not even what I would want now as a consumer.

But where Apple should have drawn the line was in terms of the playback controls/UI. They should have insisted that apps retain Apple's design for that. Because consumers shouldn't need to learn a different set of remote control behaviors to operate each different app. There should be a consistency and reliability across all apps for such basic tasks (especially given that the Apple TV remote lacks dedicated buttons for all playback controls except play/pause). And to a large extent, apps were voluntarily choosing to use Apple controls when they launched apps for the new Apple TV with its own App Store. But that's becoming less true over time. YouTube and Peacock have their own, although they're not too different from the default Apple player for basic tasks. Disney+ has its own. Now HBO Max has its own (although it remains to be seen how bad it will be, because I have to think that the current atrocity they've foisted on us will be somehow amended). At this point, I'm starting to wonder whether it's worth sticking with Apple TV or if I should explore alternatives.


----------



## CTJon

I find the Apple+ playback process the worst. I watch stuff on my iPhone while at a gym and most of the time what I am watching is longer than my time at gym. Other apps remember where I am so I just bring the program up and it is where I stopped. Apple + I have to remember exactly and move the bar to that point. Also, Apple + on my phone stays with the orientation lock (so I have to turn off) where others such as HBO Max, Netflix etc just orient as needed.


----------



## James Long

techguy88 said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that open the door for a provider to sell "with ads" streaming as part of their MVPD offering (instead of bundling ad-free HBO Max)?
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested to see how this works lol. I don't think it is a bad idea myself. However I personally would not be surprised if AT&T starts offering HBO Max with Ads on its Unlimited Extra plan in the future. Would make Unlimited Extra competitive with the slightly cheaper Verizon's Play More Unlimited and T-Mobile's Magenta plans that include entertainment perks.
Click to expand...

Possible ... I can see many uses for the "with ads" level where HBO Max may not want to give full access to all content "ad free" to every provider they write a contract with. Perhaps an MVPD would offer HBO linear channels via their service with HBO with-ads instead of HBO Max and be able to use the $9.95 price point.



harsh said:


> Given the ruckus surrounding the contract negotiations with Amazon and Roku, I'd think not. I expect that any ads will be those from HBO and insertion will not be supported.


I was not suggesting the MVPD insert their own ads.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Possible ... I can see many uses for the "with ads" level where HBO Max may not want to give full access to all content "ad free" to every provider they write a contract with. Perhaps an MVPD would offer HBO linear channels via their service with HBO with-ads instead of HBO Max and be able to use the $9.95 price point.


Warner isn't doing any distribution deals for HBO that don't include access to the HBO Max app as part of the package. But even in the new $9.99 tier with ads, all the content in the HBO hub inside the HBO Max app (i.e. all the HBO Originals plus the theatrical films in the HBO library, which currently includes Tenet, Wonder Woman 1984, Greenland, etc.) is still ad-free. And that body of content is the only stuff that airs on the ad-free HBO linear cable channels and resides in the ad-free HBO OnDemand library available through the MVPD's portal/platform.

Customers who sign up directly at HBOMax.com or via the HBO Max app (and therefore get billed by an app store operator like Apple, Google, Roku, Amazon or Samsung) now have the option to choose the cheaper tier with ads in the non-HBO content. What I don't know is whether any MVPD distributors will offer it (or even be allowed by Warner to offer it). IMO, it would be a risky move to do so if existing HBO cable TV customers could lop off 1/3 of the monthly price and still have the same core HBO experience on their cable box -- same set of ad-free live channels, same ad-free HBO OnDemand library. Sure, there would be ads in the other non-HBO stuff in the separate HBO Max app, but a lot of those HBO cable TV customers aren't even using that app (just as many of them didn't use the old HBO Go app before it). If the HBO Max app is available right on their cable box (as with Comcast X1 boxes), then they'd be much more likely to actually launch the app and watch something there with ads, which would give Warner some additional revenue. But my guess is that, as a group, those customers still wouldn't generate sufficient ad revenue in the app to offset the $5/mo less they would be paying for HBO.

So my guess is that if broadband/TV operators like Comcast, Charter and Verizon are given the option to sell the $9.99 version of HBO Max, it will be for just the app. Those customers won't also get the HBO linear channels or the HBO OnDemand library integrated into their cable box UI. That would force those customers to open the HBO Max app to use any aspect of the service, where they'll be presented with lots of non-HBO content that includes ads, thereby increasing the amount of ad revenue they generate for Warner.

On a side-note, I think they should include the HBO linear channels inside the HBO Max app for those who pay for the $14.99 premium tier, while leaving them out of the cheaper $9.99 tier. It's not a huge deal but having the live channels is nice and it makes no sense why HBO Max's customers paying through an MVPD distributor should get them while those paying the same amount to HBO Max directly, for the standalone app, do not. Showtime and Epix, in contrast, have always included at least their main linear channel inside their streaming apps.


----------



## b4pjoe

Another problem I found with the updated HBO MAX app on the Apple TV is if I try to continue watching a show from Up Next that is on HBO MAX is that if the HBO MAX app is already open it will not launch the content you tried to watch from Up Next. It launches the app to the HBO MAX home screen and stays there. The only way I can launch HBO MAX content to watch is to kill the HBO MAX app first and have the app launched by Up Next.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> Another problem I found with the updated HBO MAX app on the Apple TV is if I try to continue watching a show from Up Next that is on HBO MAX is that if the HBO MAX app is already open it will not launch the content you tried to watch from Up Next. It launches the app to the HBO MAX home screen and stays there. The only way I can launch HBO MAX content to watch is to kill the HBO MAX app first and have the app launched by Up Next.


It's amazing how badly they screwed up that app. Well, at least they've finally admitted on Twitter that they're aware of the problems and say they're working to fix it. We'll see.


----------



## b4pjoe

I got an update for it today and it now launches from Up Next correctly but they are still using their own player which still sucks.

I suppose they are trying to make their app look the same across all different boxes as it now looks identical to their app on the Fire TV.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> I got an update for it today and it now launches from Up Next correctly but they are still using their own player which still sucks.
> 
> I suppose they are trying to make their app look the same across all different boxes as it now looks identical to their app on the Fire TV.


I'm not optimistic that they'll return to the native Apple TV player but if they at least do what Peacock did and make it so that their player responds the same way to the Apple remote for jump back/forward, rewind, FF, pause, and play, then I can live with it. Peacock was pretty awful when it first launched so I rarely used the app. But now that the controls are decent, I'm using it a little more.


----------



## b4pjoe

Well with their own UI they broke siri. You used to able to ask Siri "what did he/she say" and it would rewind a few seconds and turn on subtitles for you. Not sure they can fix that if they are using their own media player.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> I'm not optimistic that they'll return to the native Apple TV player but if they at least do what Peacock did and make it so that their player responds the same way to the Apple remote for jump back/forward, rewind, FF, pause, and play, then I can live with it.


I think they may be more of an indictment of how Apple was messing with the state-of-the-art than a flaw somehow created by the service. Apple's way of doing things was unconventional to the point of being obtuse relative to the VCR style that most have been using for the better part of their lives. The onus was on Apple to prove that their interface was decidedly better and I'd say they failed miserably to convince all but the most devout.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> I think they may be more of an indictment of how Apple was messing with the state-of-the-art than a flaw somehow created by the service. Apple's way of doing things was unconventional to the point of being obtuse relative to the VCR style that most have been using for the better part of their lives. The onus was on Apple to prove that their interface was decidedly better and I'd say they failed miserably to convince all but the most devout.


How is it Apple's fault that HBO MAX switched from the built in media player to one of their own and broke FF and RW and Siri for some things? You can't tap on the touchpad to move FF or RW 15 seconds like you could before. If you try to swipe to FF/RW it doesn't stop when you stop swiping. It just keeps going and going and going. They made turning on subtitles harder too. Before you just had to swipe up and and swipe to subtitles and turn them on. Now pause, down arrow, right arrow, select, and then navigate to the subtitle to turn it on.

HBO MAX has admitted it was their fault and they are working on it. Not that I believe they will return it to the way it was but fixing FF and RW would be nice. The only one that failed here is AT&T/Warner/HBO MAX.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Not that I believe they will return it to the way it was but fixing FF and RW would be nice. The only one that failed here is AT&T/Warner/HBO MAX.


I think this may have been a business decision to unify the UX rather than a simple booboo. This assumes that they forgot that the Apple TV has no way of doing FF and REW conventionally and that's a really stupid oversight to be sure. I suspect that AT&T was on a mission to "improve customer satisfaction" (make things easier for their CSRs) and there were some casualties.

I'm not sure Apple should be granted a free pass in all of this and their very recent doubling of buttons on the Apple TV remote control certainly suggests that Apple went a bit too far with their "elegant design" over simplicity. I firmly believe that Apple uses hoop-jumping to make their customers beholden.


----------



## b4pjoe

It just so happened the new Apple TV and remote were released just before the update. The new remote was working great for people that had already received it before the HBO MAX update came out. But it didn't just break FF/RW on the new remotes. It broke it on both remotes. There were no new TVos updates during this time. Maybe read what people are posting on the Twitter help page.

https://twitter.com/HBOMaxHelp


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> I think this may have been a business decision to unify the UX rather than a simple booboo. This assumes that they forgot that the Apple TV has no way of doing FF and REW conventionally and that's a really stupid oversight to be sure. I suspect that AT&T was on a mission to "improve customer satisfaction" (make things easier for their CSRs) and there were some casualties.
> 
> I'm not sure Apple should be granted a free pass in all of this and their very recent doubling of buttons on the Apple TV remote control certainly suggests that Apple went a bit too far with their "elegant design" over simplicity. I firmly believe that Apple uses hoop-jumping to make their customers beholden.


You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Do you own an Apple TV? Did you use the HBO Max app on Apple TV either before or after this recent disaster of an update?


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> Well with their own UI they broke siri. You used to able to ask Siri "what did he/she say" and it would rewind a few seconds and turn on subtitles for you. Not sure they can fix that if they are using their own media player.


Yeah, I use that feature a lot, thanks to so much mumbled dialog and/or poor sound editing and/or I'm going deaf. Peacock still doesn't support Siri's "What did they say?" command, although it does respond to a Siri command like "Go back 30 seconds". So apparently apps that use their own playback control *can* work with Siri. But maybe they have to code in compatibility for each specific command and Peacock just didn't code in support for "What did they say?". IDK.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I use that feature a lot, thanks to so much mumbled dialog and/or poor sound editing and/or I'm going deaf. Peacock still doesn't support Siri's "What did they say?" command, although it does respond to a Siri command like "Go back 30 seconds". So apparently apps that use their own playback control *can* work with Siri. But maybe they have to code in compatibility for each specific command and Peacock just didn't code in support for "What did they say?". IDK.


The 'new' HBO MAX still works with Siri for FF/RW # of seconds or minutes. Last night I was watching Greenland on HBO and about 20 minutes in the FF just took off without me even having the remote in my hand. Got all the way to the end of the movie before I could grab the remote and stop it. Took me about 2-3 minutes to get back to where it was when it took off and the only way I could get to the exact location was using Siri and tell it to FF or RW _____ number of seconds until I got back to where it was. Nice feature ATT/Warner/HBO.

I did see something on Twitter that the changes were made for the new ad supported version of HBO MAX. No idea if that is true or not.


----------



## billsharpe

I am using the HBO Max app on my Roku TV set. It seems to load slower than other steaming apps - Netflix, Prime Video, Acorn, Disney+ and Paramount+. Once I start watching a program, though, there are no problems.


----------



## NashGuy

Hooray! Warner has acknowledged that they messed up and they updated the HBO Max app for Apple TV to switch it back to the native tvOS player/controls.

HBO Max Fixes Apple TV Bugs: Technical Errors Resolved With Update - Variety

I just launched the app and, sure enough, it's back to the old controls. Even asking Siri "What did she say?" worked.

I still don't understand how they made such an error to begin with but I give them credit for admitting fault and fixing it fairly quickly.


----------



## b4pjoe

I read earlier today they had a new version out but haven't been home to try it. Good to hear it is fixed. Now lets just hope they don't try to go back to their own media player again.


----------



## harsh

Are they serious about this new ad-supported offering?

I just received an e-mail with the feature list and I have to say that the ad-supported version appears to be a serious compromise in my mind.

The ad-free version includes movie premieres, downloading and UHD content that you don't get with the cheaper version. I understand that Nexflix bends you over an additional $4 for UHD content alone but the UHD on Netflix is perhaps an order of magnitude better. For their part, Amazon prime doesn't discriminate against UHD.

I suppose that HBO Max is probably looking more at Paramount+ but I'm not sure I buy that comparison either.


----------



## lparsons21

Yes they are serious and considering that they have so much to offer, even without the UHD and movie premiers, it is a decent offering for those so inclined IMO.


----------



## billsharpe

I'm willing to pay $14.10/month (with 6% off using my credit card) at least for the next few months for HBO Max. We expect to watch "In the Heights" as well as "Mare of Eastown" in the next few weeks.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Are they serious about this new ad-supported offering?


The offer is available ... not some theoretical proposed offering rumored to be in the works. I'd say that is serious.

If people subscribe to the full version there is no loss. But they will probably pick up subscribers who don't want the current release movie or UHD. Not everyone shares the same interests.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> If people subscribe to the full version there is no loss. But they will probably pick up subscribers who don't want the current release movie or UHD. Not everyone shares the same interests.


Compared with options like Disney and Apple TV+ that are much cheaper, I'm not sure they're really addressing the bottom feeders.


----------



## lparsons21

harsh said:


> Compared with options like Disney and Apple TV+ that are much cheaper, I'm not sure they're really addressing the bottom feeders.


Apple's TV+ isn't a good comparison since it is all originals and not many of them, HBO Max is very much broader in scope. Disney+ is more comparable, especially for Disney fans, not so much for others.

True bargain hunters probably aren't going to be interested in any of them since there is so much really free stuff out there.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> If people subscribe to the full version there is no loss. But they will probably pick up subscribers who don't want the current release movie or UHD. Not everyone shares the same interests.


Yep. For folks who *only* care about the core HBO library (i.e. the stuff that airs on the HBO premium cable channels), this $10/mo plan is a great deal because all that stuff remains ad-free. It's just the non-HBO stuff that has ads.

And while those new Warner Bros. movies that are currently in theaters aren't included in the $10 plan, they'll all become available as regular HBO movies (ad-free) in a few months. Wonder Woman 1984 debuted at Christmas in theaters and on the $15 HBO Max plan and then showed up as a regular HBO movie five months later, in late May. So you can stream it now, ad-free, in the $10 plan.

And as for 4K, HDR and Atmos, those new WB films are the only things that HBO Max offers in those high-end formats so far (which is nuts -- why aren't new HBO and Max Original series being done in 4K HDR?) So you're not missing all that much 4K content by going with the cheaper plan.

By Feb. 2022, there's not supposed to be any difference in the content libraries of the two tiers. I suppose the final new WB film of 2021 will hit theaters and the upper HBO Max tier around 12/25 and leave that tier 31 days later in late Jan. Hopefully at that point they open the floodgates on 4K HDR content in the upper tier to serve as a bigger differentiator between the two, given that new theatrical films will no longer be. I'm sure that HBO and Max Originals have been shot in 4K HDR for a few years now, it's just a matter of them doing the encodes and putting them on their streaming servers.


----------



## codespy

Did anyone else get an email from HBO Max yesterday?

Subject line read “Integration Test Email #1” 

And went on to say “This template is used by integration tests only.”

I sub to DirecTV and the Premier package, so I don’t pay extra for HBO Max.


----------



## compnurd

codespy said:


> Did anyone else get an email from HBO Max yesterday?
> 
> Subject line read "Integration Test Email #1"
> 
> And went on to say "This template is used by integration tests only."
> 
> I sub to DirecTV and the Premier package, so I don't pay extra for HBO Max.


Yes


----------



## steve053

codespy said:


> Did anyone else get an email from HBO Max yesterday?
> 
> Subject line read "Integration Test Email #1"
> 
> And went on to say "This template is used by integration tests only."
> 
> I sub to DirecTV and the Premier package, so I don't pay extra for HBO Max.


Received the same one. I don't subscribe but receive HBO Max via my cell plan.


----------



## Steveknj

Got it too.


----------



## b4pjoe

I have the same DirecTV and the Premier package. Didn't get an email from HBO Max.


----------



## MysteryMan

b4pjoe said:


> I have the same DirecTV and the Premier package. Didn't get an email from HBO Max.


Same here. I subscribe to Premier, EPIX and Movies Extra Pack but I did not receive a e-mail from HBO Max.


----------



## RichardL

codespy said:


> Did anyone else get an email from HBO Max yesterday?
> 
> Subject line read "Integration Test Email #1"
> 
> And went on to say "This template is used by integration tests only."
> 
> I sub to DirecTV and the Premier package, so I don't pay extra for HBO Max.


Yes, Me Too


----------



## NashGuy

The HBO Max email was an error that went out to part of their subscriber base. I got it too.


----------



## billsharpe

NashGuy said:


> The HBO Max email was an error that went out to part of their subscriber base. I got it too.


I got it too. I subscribe to HBO Max, but not through my cable provider. I have the HBO Max app on my Roku TV set. I also have the HBO and Cinemax channels now showing up on my Frontier DVR, although I am not subscribed to HBO on Frontier. I gave that subscription up last year when Frontier raised my $5 promotional charge for HBO to the normal $15.


----------



## NashGuy

billsharpe said:


> I got it too. I subscribe to HBO Max, but not through my cable provider. I have the HBO Max app on my Roku TV set. I also have the HBO and Cinemax channels now showing up on my Frontier DVR, although I am not subscribed to HBO on Frontier. I gave that subscription up last year when Frontier raised my $5 promotional charge for HBO to the normal $15.


Yeah, looks like HBO and Cinemax are doing a free 5-day preview on lots of cable TV services right now, so that's why you're seeing those channels on your Frontier box. Everything on HBO (and more) you can stream in your HBO Max app. But you might check to see if there are any good movies airing on Cinemax this weekend that you want to record, as there doesn't tend to be much overlaps in the current set of movies they have vs. HBO Max.


----------



## billsharpe

Thanks! I forgot about free previews. There is a movie on HBO today, The Personal History of David Copperfield, that I want to record.


----------



## armchair

Just as my HBO Max 6 month promo was ending, got an email today about annual pricing options. Switched plans from monthly without ads to annual without ads. Prepaid and my remaining balance was credited towards the annual plan.

I was just thinking annual plan pricing would be the mostly likely strategy to retain subscribers. Timely offer.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe

HBO's Apple TV Channel Shuts Down Today, Forcing All Users to Migrate to HBO Max


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> HBO's Apple TV Channel Shuts Down Today, Forcing All Users to Migrate to HBO Max


I understand the decision to shut down HBO as an Apple TV Channel and stream exclusively through the HBO Max app. But they could have handled this better. I don't think they gave much advance notice and people are getting cut off in the middle of their billing cycle. Hopefully HBO works with Apple to ensure customers get a prorated refund on however much of their $15 monthly fee was unfulfilled.

Would've made more sense to cut off each individual subscriber at their most recent billing date between 6/22 and 7/22 instead of auto-renewing then. And send them messages via email and via the Apple TV app about the change with instructions on how to sign back up via the HBO Max app.


----------

