# HBO Max



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

will be HBO plus new series plus new movies plus some selection of Time Warner's back catalog.

The amount of old content on the service wasn't very clear from what I read. But the big name that will be there is Friends.

They aren't going to do the 3 tier service like they stated earlier. Just this and HBO. For a price not too much more than HBO.

HBO Max coming Spring 2020.

I was skeptical they would brand it with the HBO name. It made some sense because HBO is obviously a well known brand name. But at the same time I felt like it would dilute the HBO brand since HBO was a Premium brand in my eyes. Also doesn't quite make sense to me that something better than HBO which is what the HBO Max name implies is HBO plus a lot more content that isn't as "high quality" as the HBO content.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I wonder if this will tick off "regular" HBO users: why should subscribers have to pay more and why isn't it all part of a regular HBO subscription?


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

trip1eX said:


> HBO Max coming Spring 2020.
> 
> I was skeptical they would brand it with the HBO name. It made some sense because HBO is obviously a well known brand name. But at the same time I felt like it would dilute the HBO brand since HBO was a Premium brand in my eyes. *Also doesn't quite make sense to me that something better than HBO which is what the HBO Max name implies is HBO plus a lot more content that isn't as "high quality" as the HBO content.*


Because more is always better in our culture.

Also, with the new AT&T corporate ownership, HBO content itself is not likely to be as "high quality" as it previously was.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

I feel like Disney+ coming out of the gate at $6.99 changes the math on a lot of the other upcoming (and existing) services. HBO is what, like $15/mo? So what are they going to expect people to pay for HBO Max? I feel like it never made sense to have both HBO Go and HBO Now so maybe HBO Max becomes their one and only service. It would be silly to start offering three different flavors of HBO subscriptions, but this is AT&T so who knows what dumb thing they'll end up doing.

Also, I'm still totally baffled by the draw of old shows like Friends and why they're paying so much for the rights. Re-runs are regularly aired and I can collect them all with my DVR if I wanted them.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

OrangeCrush said:


> Also, I'm still totally baffled by the draw of old shows like Friends and why they're paying so much for the rights.


I read an article the other day (from a UK web site, although they seemed to be talking about the US show) that claimed that 7% of _all_ Netflix traffic was "The Office". Take it with a grain of salt, but still.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

wmcbrine said:


> I read an article the other day (from a UK web site, although they seemed to be talking about the US show) that claimed that 7% of _all_ Netflix traffic was "The Office". Take it with a grain of salt, but still.


Not sure about 7%, but I did read that The Office is the most watched show on Netflix. You can actually get this show for free on Cozi TV (over the air). But of course then you're dealing with commercials and who knows if they even air the episodes in any kind of order. Full disclaimer: I watch The Office every night on Netflix


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

OFfice and Friends are the top 2 most watched shows on Netflix. That's why they were paying the big bucks for them.

I also think the draw on those shows on Netflix is the nature of the service. You can watch whatever episode you want. Whenever. No commercials too. You can binge watch them from Ep 1 to the end in order. That is a difficult to do on cable last I checked.

And then of course you don't need a cable sub.

PLus Netflix has ~140 million subscribers. Many ...over half now are overseas. If Friends and OFfice rights apply to overseas customers too then I can imagine many there might be getting their first taste of those shows or having much better access to those shows than they ever did before. Plus whole new generations of viewers discover shows like that.

I mean Friends ran in the 90s. 1994. Kids that were born that year are now the age the actors were. And the actors are still famous or at least especially Jennifer Anniston.

Office only stopped a handful of years ago. IN that case it's still fairly "timely." My kid watched a lot of that and knows way more than I do about it and he was 4 when the series debuted.

also syndication (essentially ~daily reruns on other channels) has always been a thing. The biggest sitcoms always commanded lots of money in syndication because people would loved watching those shows again and again. Sitcoms in particular. and a lot of the actors and others involved in the show... made their money on the back end when the shows got to syndication.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Oh, I don't doubt Friends & The Office's popularity, I just don't get it. It makes no sense to me to pay $15 or so a month for a show you can own the entirety of on DVD for about $100 or free if you're clever with a DVR.

Of course, I don't understand the long lines at Starbucks either or why anyone in their right mind would pay what the cable & satellite companies charge these days.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I'm paying $15 for HBO Now currently (although I don't do it year-round). I'll happily pay another buck to get HBO Max with lots more content for only $16! I'm betting that HBO Max will also (finally!) have 4K HDR too.

I've been following what's going on with this new WarnerMedia service since the concept was first announced. Basically, this is their effort to put everything they've got (except live news and sports), and then some, into one huge service to take on Netflix directly. It'll have 10,000 hours of content when it debuts. Sure, some folks fret that this will mean HBO content gets dumbed down, and I guess that's possible. But at least in the initial years, I think they're going to maintain the separate HBO brand, as well as a few of the HBO linear channels, as its own content destination inside of HBO Max. Meanwhile, new original series created exclusively for this service are being branded (per Warner's press release yesterday) as "Max Originals". I think with those, they're going to try to reach different demographics (including teens/young adults) and somewhat broader tastes than the HBO brand reaches. HBO is very strong with college-educated folks over 30. Netflix is very strong with those under 30. (That's my perception, anyway.)

My hunch is that Cinemax is going to die, both as a standalone service as well as an active brand, once HBO Max launches. Even though the WSJ (and others?) have reported that Cinemax content would be included in HBO Max (which makes sense given the "Max" moniker), no mention of Cinemax appeared in yesterday's press release or sizzle reel. Given the brand's longstanding connotation with "Skinemax" porn, plus the fact that it's always played second-fiddle to HBO, I think Cinemax is more of a branding liability than asset for HBO Max. (Keep in mind that HBO Max, like Netflix, will be pitched as a service offering content for all ages, including kids. Nothing says "not family friendly" like "Skinemax".) My prediction is that past Cinemax originals (e.g. The Knick, Banshee) will quietly live on forever in HBO Max while current ones such as Jett and Warrior will be rebranded as "Max Originals" for future seasons. Cinemax will stop being sold anywhere, with existing subs encouraged to switch over to HBO Max. On cable and satellite systems, all of the Cinemax channels go dark, except the main one, which might be rebranded as HBO Cinema, home to 24/7 uncut, commercial-free Hollywood films (which was the whole point of Cinemax when it initially launched back in 1980).

Warner apparently stated yesterday that the HBO Go and HBO Now apps will continue to exist. I still don't think HBO Now will continue on for very long unless they lower the price to around $12 or less (versus $16 for the full HBO Max). Makes no sense for it to stick around at $15, unless it's just for 6 months for existing HBO Now subs to willingly migrate over to HBO Max (because maybe Warner doesn't want to force them).

As for HBO Go, that only make sense to stick around if HBO continues to exist as a standalone service for traditional cable/sat subscribers. There's been some talk of how all those existing HBO subs would automatically get HBO Max too (which, if true, would make the HBO Go app completely unnecessary). But I don't think that'll quite be the case.

HBO obviously already has carriage contracts in place with Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Cox, etc. and so has to work around those until they run out. My guess is that Warner will say to them, "We're killing Cinemax completely but you can still distribute HBO as a standalone service per the terms of our existing contract if you want. You still pay our negotiated wholesale rate to us and then you charge your customers whatever you want for it. They'll still get the HBO linear channels plus streaming via HBO Go. (Oh, BTW, the only HBO linear channels we plan to offer any more are HBO, HBO Family, HBO Latino and HBO Cinema.) Or we can replace the current contract with a new one for you to distribute HBO Max instead. (Sorry, we're gonna have to charge you a higher wholesale price that's more in line with what Netflix gets.) Regardless of your decision, you should know that we're gonna offer HBO Max direct to consumers as a standalone streaming service for $16/mo and we're gonna advertise the heck out of it, so your customers will be aware of that option. If you're still charging $15 for just HBO, many of them will cancel and come straight to us for HBO Max for just a dollar more. So if you decide to stick with selling just HBO, you may have to lower your price to $12-13. On the other hand, if you decide to distribute HBO Max instead, we think you could price it at $17, a dollar more than us, because customers appreciate having all their content aggregated into your cable box UI, plus unified cable billing.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

OrangeCrush said:


> Oh, I don't doubt Friends & The Office's popularity, I just don't get it. It makes no sense to me to pay $15 or so a month for a show you can own the entirety of on DVD for about $100 or free if you're clever with a DVR.
> 
> Of course, I don't understand the long lines at Starbucks either or why anyone in their right mind would pay what the cable & satellite companies charge these days.


_Friends_ never appealed to me, but I have long had _The Office_ --which I think was one of the best American cable TV sitcoms ever--at the end of my Netflix streaming queue with the intention of re-watching the entire series from start to finish some day. I wouldn't subscribe just for that show (and I may never get around to it over other viewing priorities), but it's a nice fillip. Likewise, having the entire series of _Breaking Bad_ at hand is a bonus. I lent my Blu-ray set of _Breaking Bad_ to my sister a long time ago (highly recommended, by the way, for a wealth of supplemental material) and have binge-watched it on Netflix in the meantime when I had a hankering for a (third, fourth?) dose of WW.


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

Pretty soon to get the shows you watched not long ago on 1 service you will need a dozen. NBC+, CBS, ESPN+, HBO max, Netflix, etc. Pretty soon "cord cutters" will be paying for more than regular cable TV service users - although the content will be different.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

OrangeCrush said:


> Oh, I don't doubt Friends & The Office's popularity, I just don't get it. It makes no sense to me to pay $15 or so a month for a show you can own the entirety of on DVD for about $100 or free if you're clever with a DVR.
> 
> Of course, I don't understand the long lines at Starbucks either or why anyone in their right mind would pay what the cable & satellite companies charge these days.


I doubt many people subscribe to Netflix for just those shows. They also watch other content, but they may watch those shows on a consistent basis which gives them high viewership.

Another factor in this is that many younger people don't watch regular TV. They're watching streaming on their phones and computers. So to them, it doesn't matter if shows are available on cable or OTA. They don't have cable, an antenna, a device which can receive OTA signals, a DVR, or DVD player with which to watch the shows.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

ManeJon said:


> Pretty soon to get the shows you watched not long ago on 1 service you will need a dozen. NBC+, CBS, ESPN+, HBO max, Netflix, etc. Pretty soon "cord cutters" will be paying for more than regular cable TV service users - although the content will be different.


What I see happening is this: rather than content-owning companies such as WarnerMedia, NBCUniversal, CBS, Viacom, Discovery, etc. selling us their content embedded in a bunch of individual cable channels, where those channels had to purchased as part of a bundle including other companies' channels too, they're moving to a model where they just sell us their content directly, as on-demand collections inside their own apps.

So HBO, Cinemax, TBS, TNT, TruTV, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, Boomerang, and CNN's original docs/docuseries all get absorbed into HBO Max (along with a lot of other new and old stuff produced by Warner Bros.). If you have HBO Max, there's really no need for a cable bundle with any of those channels, except for live news/talk on CNN and live sports on TBS and TNT.

We already see content from Disney's own ABC and Freeform channels immediately available on Hulu and they're starting to do that now with FX too. I expect the Disney and NatGeo-branded cable channels to be direct feeders into the upcoming Disney+. But then of course Hulu and Disney+ also offer a lot of additional content that's not on any cable channel. See how this works?

In a year or two, I can _imagine_ we'll have something like the following line-up of subscription video-on-demand services (SVODs).

SVODs from traditional media

Hulu: $6 with ads / $12 ad-free
Disney+: $7 ad-free
ESPN+: $5 with ads, with additional, more expensive paid tiers available as ESPN makes more and more live sports available outside their cable channels
HBO Max: $10 with ads / $16 ad-free
NBCU: free with ads for cable subscribers / $10 with ads for non-cable subs / $6 fee to remove ads for either group
NBC News Now: free app, maybe also be integrated inside the NBCU SVOD
Discovery/BBCNature: $5 with ads / $9 ad-free
CBS All Access/Viacom/AMC?: $8 with ads / $13 ad-free
CBSN: free news app, also available inside CBS All Access
Showtime+Starz: $13 ad-free
Fox: no plans to launch their own SVOD featuring content from the only channels they have now (Fox, Fox News, Fox Business, FS1, FS2, Big Ten Network), although they will eventually have to distribute their set of live channels with cloud DVR/on-demand as mini-bundles that can be added inside of popular streaming apps like Hulu, HBO Max, CBS All Access, etc.
Sinclair regional sports networks (RSNs): ?? Maybe $15 with ads for all your area's games (live and on-demand) if Sinclair eventually distributes via a standalone streaming package
Hallmark: their channels and content either gets purchased and absorbed by a bigger player (e.g. NBCU) or they go it alone at $5 with ads / $9 ad-free
A+E Networks: they either get purchased and absorbed by a bigger player or they turn into a small studio supplying content to various consumer-facing services like Netflix, Hulu, etc.

SVODs from new media
Netflix: $10 with ads / $16 ad-free (4K HDR 4-screen plan)
Prime Video: $9 ad-free monthly (or part of overall Prime for $119/yr)
Apple TV+: $7 ad-free (or as $3 add-on to Apple Music) -- free extended trial for all Apple device owners upon fall 2019 launch

If I add up all those prices using cheaper "with ads" options where available, the total comes to $95. But that doesn't include pricing for the Fox bundle, or the RSNs or the other sports stuff yet to be added to ESPN+ (or other steaming sports outlets in the future).

If I add up all those prices using the pricier "ad-free" options, the total comes to $132. Same caveat applies about lack of most sports.

Keep in mind that those prices include a lot of what we used to call "premium" services, formerly distributed by the HBO, Showtime, Starz and Cinemax cable channels. Plus a whole lot more content that never aired on any cable channels, like the originals from Netflix, Prime Video, Apple TV+, Hulu, HBO Max, Disney+, etc. And most Americans never subscribed to even one, much less all, premium services simultaneously.

Also keep in mind that it's easy to juggle SVODs; add them and watch for a few months, switch them for different ones if you get tired of them and want a change of scenery. No one is forcing you to subscribe to all the different services all at once (or ever).


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> What I see happening is this: rather than content-owning companies such as WarnerMedia, NBCUniversal, CBS, Viacom, Discovery, etc. selling us their content embedded in a bunch of individual cable channels, where those channels had to purchased as part of a bundle including other companies' channels too, they're moving to a model where they just sell us their content directly, as on-demand collections inside their own apps.
> 
> So HBO, Cinemax, TBS, TNT, TruTV, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, Boomerang, and CNN's original docs/docuseries all get absorbed into HBO Max (along with a lot of other new and old stuff produced by Warner Bros.). If you have HBO Max, there's really no need for a cable bundle with any of those channels, except for live news/talk on CNN and live sports on TBS and TNT.
> 
> ...


You make the assumption that it will be easy to switch. Soon their will be grandfathered pricing and term deals for lower rates as well. That will be the future (same as the past).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

smark said:


> You make the assumption that it will be easy to switch. Soon their will be grandfathered pricing and term deals for lower rates as well. That will be the future (same as the past).


Easy to switch between SVODs? Yes, the reason I assume it will continue to be easy to switch is competition. No major SVOD has ever required a contract (e.g. must subscribe for 12 months) and the competition is set to increase, so I see no reason that will change. Want a great way to ward off subscribers? Tell them they can only access your service by paying yearly. Even Amazon Prime Video began offering a monthly video-only option (which I priced above), although what they *clearly* want is for consumers to be year-round Prime members.

What we WILL see more of are discounts offered to those who prepay for a longer time period. Showtime, for instance, already lets you prepay for one year for $109.90 rather than pay monthly at the regular $10.99 rate. So they're effectively giving you two free months if you pay by the year. That will become a common thing to try and reduce churn.

I do also think that we'll see the prices of these SVODs continue to creep up over time, especially on the ad-free plans. But then, the price of cable channel bundles has been going up forever, and not just creeping.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I always admire people who are optimistic about corporations doing well by their customers when it flies in the face of everything we have ever seen from those corporations.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> I always admire people who are optimistic about corporations doing well by their customers when it flies in the face of everything we have ever seen from those corporations.


It's not so much about "doing well by their customers" as it is "fear of losing their customers to the competition". As long as our government doesn't allow any of the major powers that be (Disney, AT&T, NBCU, CBS, Netflix, Amazon or Apple) to merge with each other or collude with each other (in opposition to antitrust law), then I'm not worried about any of them imposing long-term contracts on their video subscribers. They'd have more to lose than to gain. (And actually, I don't think it would have a material impact if either Apple or Amazon were to purchase, say, CBS.)

The far more likely scenario is that we see them gradually increase their monthly rates to the point that churn doesn't hurt them as much and they're able to offer a more generous discount when pre-paying for longer periods (e.g. 6 months or 12 months), thereby incentivizing consumers to opt into a "contract," so to speak.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Today's NYT features an excellent, extensive survey of the SVOD industry. The article will appear in this weekend's NYT Magazine.

One telling quip refers to the changes in the last 20 years or so that make it much harder to produce a quality series like HBO's _The Sopranos_:

". . . the proliferation of shows has splintered and scattered those [talented] writers, actors and scouts - leading the medium from its early-aughts "golden age" to what some critics have called the era of "good-enough" TV."

*The Great Race to Rule Streaming TV*


----------



## schatham (Mar 17, 2007)

Game shows! I guess they want HBO to race to the bottom with all the other crap channels.



chiguy50 said:


> Today's NYT features an excellent, extensive survey of the SVOD industry. The article will appear in this weekend's NYT Magazine.
> 
> One telling quip refers to the changes in the last 20 years or so that make it much harder to produce a quality series like HBO's _The Sopranos_:
> 
> ...


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

I take the reason why some of you are not adding the cost of the internet is that you are assuming they will give it to you for free.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> On cable and satellite systems, all of the Cinemax channels go dark, except the main one


I agree with most of what you wrote, but I can't see them surrendering all that premium linear channel space as long as it still has value.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Joe3 said:


> I take the reason why some of you are not adding the cost of the internet is that you are assuming they will give it to you for free.


I think for most Americans (at least those old enough to have their own established household), paying for home internet service is just something they've been doing for years and not something they'd ever think of doing without, regardless of whether or not the bulk of their video entertainment rides over it. Internet access is now so woven into most of our lives -- for shopping, banking, keeping in touch with family and friends, working from home, reading news, watching viral clips, etc. -- that it's become like electricity, just a basic cost-of-living expense that you can't do without.

Speaking of electricity, an LA Times article said that a typical cable DVR (even just sitting idle most of the time) consumes about $8/mo in electricity (using typical SoCal pricing from 2014). That's nearly $100 per year, and just for one unit!

Cable TV boxes become 2nd biggest energy users in many homes


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wmcbrine said:


> I agree with most of what you wrote, but I can't see them surrendering all that premium linear channel space as long as it still has value.


Except I don't know what other channels that WarnerMedia would want to use those slots for. TNT 2? I think we're going to see fewer, not more, linear cable channels as we go through the 2020s.

I agree that there's probably some short-term pain for them in terms of killing off Cinemax but given that the plan is to ultimately have more subs for HBO Max than HBO plus Cinemax currently have, and with higher profit margins for WarnerMedia (i.e. smaller cuts given to their distribution partners) than they currently get on either HBO or Cinemax, I think the move makes long-term sense.

Earlier this year, AT&T introduced new default channel packages on DirecTV Now, named Plus and Max. Both packages automatically include HBO while Max also includes Cinemax. But even though this service, as well as HBO and Cinemax, are all owned by AT&T, they're only including the HBO, HBO Family, HBO Latino and Cinemax linear channels. Why? That should tell us something about where AT&T sees those services going. The emphasis going forward will be on on-demand consumption. And to the extent that HBO linear channels still exist, it will only be the ones that are truly differentiated and have a reason to exist. What's the point of HBO Comedy, HBO Zone or HBO Signature when all that stuff is on-demand anyhow? Going forward, linear channels exist more as branding vehicles. HBO wants to advertise that HBO Max contains plenty of stuff for kids and varying demographics, so they'll keep HBO Family and HBO Latino (mostly Spanish-language content). I expect that the one Cinemax channel on DirecTV Now will survive by becoming an HBO channel focused solely on theatrical films, HBO Cinema. I expect all four live channels to stream inside the HBO Max app too.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

chiguy50 said:


> Today's NYT features an excellent, extensive survey of the SVOD industry. The article will appear in this weekend's NYT Magazine.
> 
> One telling quip refers to the changes in the last 20 years or so that make it much harder to produce a quality series like HBO's _The Sopranos_:
> 
> ...


HBO is sooo screwed.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> Netflix: $10 with ads / $16 ad-free (4K HDR 4-screen plan)


Since when is there a Netflix with Ads? The different tiers dictate how many screens you can watch on simultaneously and whether or not you can access 4K content. There are never ads.

By contrast Amazon runs stupid ads for their own original shows before every episode. It's annoying.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> Since when is there a Netflix with Ads? The different tiers dictate how many screens you can watch on simultaneously and whether or not you can access 4K content. There are never ads.
> 
> By contrast Amazon runs stupid ads for their own original shows before every episode. It's annoying.


Ah. Well, note the line I wrote above all those points:

"In a year or two, I can _imagine_ we'll have something like the following line-up of subscription video-on-demand services (SVODs)."

You're absolutely right that Netflix so far never contained ads. It's also true that Showtime and Starz are not a combined service (yet), or that CBS All Access has absorbed the channels and content of Viacom and AMC Networks. I wrote all that as what I see as plausible predictions for, say, 2021.

A lot of analysts are already saying that Netflix will eventually be compelled to offer a cheaper version of their service that includes forced ads. I think they're right. Netflix is a not a premium service, it's a big mainstream service that tries to offer something for everyone. Other competing services like Hulu and CBS All Access offer their service two ways: with ads for less, without ads for more. HBO Max will launch ad-free but has already indicated that they plan to introduce a cheaper plan with ads later on. The forthcoming NBCU SVOD will do the same, they've already told us.

I expect Apple TV+ and maybe Prime Video to always stay ad-free, but then neither of those seems like they're going to be big, broad mainstream services that exist only to be profitable in their own right. (And despite your dislike of those pre-show trailers on Prime Video, they're not considered to be "ads" in the industry. Most ad-free services do that, although you can usually FF through them if you like.)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

NashGuy said:


> Ah. Well, note the line I wrote above all those points:
> 
> "In a year or two, I can _imagine_ we'll have something like the following line-up of subscription video-on-demand services (SVODs)."
> 
> ...


There is a Showtime+Starz bundle for Hulu, so I assumed that was what you were referring to there. I didn't see the part where you said "I can imagine".


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> It's not so much about "doing well by their customers" as it is "fear of losing their customers to the competition". As long as our government doesn't allow any of the major powers that be (Disney, AT&T, NBCU, CBS, Netflix, Amazon or Apple) to merge with each other or collude with each other (in opposition to antitrust law), then I'm not worried about any of them imposing long-term contracts on their video subscribers. They'd have more to lose than to gain. (And actually, I don't think it would have a material impact if either Apple or Amazon were to purchase, say, CBS.)
> 
> The far more likely scenario is that we see them gradually increase their monthly rates to the point that churn doesn't hurt them as much and they're able to offer a more generous discount when pre-paying for longer periods (e.g. 6 months or 12 months), thereby incentivizing consumers to opt into a "contract," so to speak.


They are already at or beyond the point of what it costs to have basic cable to get a decent amount of programming. The only people saving money are those who don't watch much television. So, the prices would have to come down.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> There is a Showtime+Starz bundle for Hulu, so I assumed that was what you were referring to there. I didn't see the part where you said "I can imagine".


Interesting. I didn't know that Hulu offered that special 6-month bundle pricing. Of course, Showtime and Starz are currently owned by two separate corporations (CBS and Lionsgate, respectively). I wonder if both CBS and Lionsgate consented to Hulu's bundle pricing offer as an experiment to see how consumers would respond. $15 makes sense to me as a bundle for the two (as separate services) as opposed to the normal $20 price ($11 + $9).

As you may know, CBS has already put out an unsolicited bid to purchase Starz. That bidding is on hold right now as CBS and Viacom negotiate the terms of their merger. But once that's done, the word is that CBS will turn back to Starz. My guess is that they end up buying all of Lionsgate, not just Starz. Given that Lionsgate actually owns content (both a movie and TV studio) and Starz basically just rents content on a long-term (or sometimes short-term) basis, buying the whole company would make the most sense, IMO. Analysts also predict that CBS won't stop there because they need to scale up. But the only other options out there after Lionsgate would appear to be Sony Pictures, Discovery, AMC Networks, A+E Networks, Crown Media (Hallmark channels), and MGM (Epix + a film library mainly featuring Bond movies).


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

schatham said:


> Game shows! I guess they want HBO to race to the bottom with all the other crap channels.


Netflix is already adding game shows. I saw one called "Awake", where contestants are kept up for 24 hours and then compete.


----------



## Luke M (Nov 5, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> A lot of analysts are already saying that Netflix will eventually be compelled to offer a cheaper version of their service that includes forced ads. I think they're right. Netflix is a not a premium service, it's a big mainstream service that tries to offer something for everyone.


That's a strange perception given that Netflix has basically been copying HBO, only major difference being that HBO has sports and Netflix doesn't.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

Who is the target demographic for HBO these days? In my opinion HBO has gone downhill since the glory days of The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, etc. Aside from Game of Thrones (which I have never seen and never want to see), I never even hear about HBO anymore, nor do I know anyone that watches it.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Last Week Tonight and Real Time are the only two I watch, And I get those from YouTube.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Adam C. said:


> Who is the target demographic for HBO these days? In my opinion HBO has gone downhill since the glory days of The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, etc. Aside from Game of Thrones (which I have never seen and never want to see), I never even hear about HBO anymore, nor do I know anyone that watches it.


Sadly, I think the new management at AT&T wants to expand the demographic to include virtually every available set of eyeballs out there. We shall see to what degree their plans wind up diluting the HBO brand.

IMHO, there is still no comparison today to the breadth of quality programming on HBO. I have more OP's to HBO series than I do to any other single channel/provider.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

chiguy50 said:


> IMHO, there is still no comparison today to the breadth of quality programming on HBO. I have more OP's to HBO series than I do to any other single channel/provider.


I have always been more of a Showtime guy...Shameless is one of my all time favorite shows. But even so I would never pay for the network. I have always gotten it for free from various promotions over the years.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

JoeKustra said:


> Last Week Tonight and Real Time are the only two I watch, And I get those from YouTube.


I used to watch LWT when it first started, but that guy is such a leftist it became painful to watch. Hmmm, maybe I just answered my own question about target demographics LOL


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

smark said:


> You make the assumption that it will be easy to switch. Soon their will be grandfathered pricing and term deals for lower rates as well. That will be the future (same as the past).


There are and will continue to be bundled offers for limited periods of time and whatnot. i.e. Tmobile & Netflix; Spotify & Hulu, etc., but compared to traditional Cable & Satellite TV the barriers to switching will always be lower. No required equipment, having an installer out, etc. The ease of switching video providers and no need for leasing equipment or amortizing installation costs makes it very difficult for a provider to lock-in customers with a contract. They could try, but nobody wants to go first.

What's more likely are these bundled deals will continue and expand. I have T-mobile anyway, so Netflix is effectively $2/mo for at least the next 12 months which makes me unlikely to cancel for the foreseeable future. Amazon video is effectively bundled w/ the free shipping, so I'm not likely to get rid of that either.



Joe3 said:


> I take the reason why some of you are not adding the cost of the internet is that you are assuming they will give it to you for free.


Same reason we're not talking about the power bill. It's assumed that most people are going to have home Internet regardless of which video services they subscribe to. This is not true for everyone--some people might not want home internet if they have traditional TV services, or the local provider might offer bundling discounts that should be taken in to account for apples-to-apples comparisons.



TonyD79 said:


> They are already at or beyond the point of what it costs to have basic cable to get a decent amount of programming. The only people saving money are those who don't watch much television. So, the prices would have to come down.


Only if you subscribe to just about everything all the time and what you consider a "decent" amount of programming. A "fully loaded" cable package can be over $300/mo. The number and value proposition isn't going to be the same for everybody, but the beauty of cord-cutting is it allows people to make the choices that best suit them. Traditional TV is take-it-or-leave it. You like the packages offered or you don't.

For my situation, taking Internet out of it, cable TV would cost about $70/mo. I actually pay $32/mo and have access to all of the linear channels, on-demand and streaming media I care about.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Luke M said:


> That's a strange perception given that Netflix has basically been copying HBO, only major difference being that HBO has sports and Netflix doesn't.


I think when Netflix first went all-in on streaming, yes, their game was to imitate HBO. "We bet we can become HBO faster than HBO can become us," (or something to that effect) was the famous quote from a Netflix leader back then. So Netflix started offering originals like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black, stuff that felt like HBO or Showtime originals.

But then Netflix very much made a conscious decision to broaden their horizons and ambitions with the quantity and types of original content it was making. As yesterday's article (which I highly recommend) from the NYTimes states:

_Yang says that when he first started working with Netflix, the feeling was: "We don't see ourselves becoming the next HBO; we see ourselves becoming the entirety of cable."_​That quote completely validates everything that I've felt about Netflix over the past year or so. They seem to want to replicate and replace the entire cable TV universe (with the important exceptions of live sports, live news, and local content), but presented in an algorithmically-curated on-demand format. I left basic cable behind several years ago because, despite a few good things here and there, it was largely a channel-surfing wasteland for me. For my tastes, the good stuff was on the premium services plus some stuff here and there on the major broadcast networks and PBS. But now we're seeing Netflix produce a glut of content trying to appeal to all demographics, tastes and interests, at varying budgets and quality levels. So sifting through the stuff on Netflix and finding something worth my time is now a bit like the old days of surfing through all those basic cable channels and finding little worth watching.

Don't get me wrong: there are some great Netflix Originals out there. But there's a whole lot of crap on Netflix too.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

JoeKustra said:


> Last Week Tonight and Real Time are the only two I watch, And I get those from YouTube.


I think you will see pullback there.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

OrangeCrush said:


> Oh, I don't doubt Friends & The Office's popularity, I just don't get it. It makes no sense to me to pay $15 or so a month for a show you can own the entirety of on DVD for about $100 or free if you're clever with a DVR.
> 
> Of course, I don't understand the long lines at Starbucks either or why anyone in their right mind would pay what the cable & satellite companies charge these days.


There are other shows one can watch on Netflix. 

Not to mention a $15 Netflix subscription supports 4 simultaneous users.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Except I don't know what other channels that WarnerMedia would want to use those slots for. TNT 2? I think we're going to see fewer, not more, linear cable channels as we go through the 2020s.
> 
> I agree that there's probably some short-term pain for them in terms of killing off Cinemax but given that the plan is to ultimately have more subs for HBO Max than HBO plus Cinemax currently have, and with higher profit margins for WarnerMedia (i.e. smaller cuts given to their distribution partners) than they currently get on either HBO or Cinemax, I think the move makes long-term sense.
> 
> Earlier this year, AT&T introduced new default channel packages on DirecTV Now, named Plus and Max. Both packages automatically include HBO while Max also includes Cinemax. But even though this service, as well as HBO and Cinemax, are all owned by AT&T, they're only including the HBO, HBO Family, HBO Latino and Cinemax linear channels. Why? That should tell us something about where AT&T sees those services going. The emphasis going forward will be on on-demand consumption. And to the extent that HBO linear channels still exist, it will only be the ones that are truly differentiated and have a reason to exist. What's the point of HBO Comedy, HBO Zone or HBO Signature when all that stuff is on-demand anyhow? Going forward, linear channels exist more as branding vehicles. HBO wants to advertise that HBO Max contains plenty of stuff for kids and varying demographics, so they'll keep HBO Family and HBO Latino (mostly Spanish-language content). I expect that the one Cinemax channel on DirecTV Now will survive by becoming an HBO channel focused solely on theatrical films, HBO Cinema. I expect all four live channels to stream inside the HBO Max app too.


 HBO Max is the combination of the HBO and Cinemax names into one.  I hadn't thought about it like that.

Oh and based on what I read, nothing said outright that HBO Max will have all the Time Warner catalog or all the content from current TW channels.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> HBO Max is the combination of the HBO and Cinemax names into one.  I hadn't thought about it like that.
> 
> Oh and based on what I read, nothing said outright that HBO Max will have all the Time Warner catalog or all the content from current TW channels.


Yeah, you're right, I don't expect that they'll put the ENTIRE back catalog of shows and movies from the Warner Bros. vault on HBO Max, at least not all at once. If I were running it, I'd put a big, rotating selection, enabling me to make a splashy announcement every few months about another beloved old show or film debuting on there.

As for the current shows airing on their basic cable channels -- TBS, TNT, TruTV, CNN, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, and Audience (heh) -- more than one source has indicated that we can expect most or all of that stuff to show up on HBO Max. From CNN, it'll only be their documentary films and docuseries, not their live news or talk shows. So stuff like "The '80s," "Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown," and the new Tom Hanks docuseries "The Movies".

As for the Turner nets (TBS, TNT, TruTV), it's been reported that some shows may debut for streaming first on HBO Max before they broadcast on the linear network. I admit that I've read nothing specifically about new/current content from Cartoon Network, Adult Swim or Audience streaming on HBO Max but, c'mon, if they're doing it with their other more popular channels, why not?

All of the films on TCM and much of the cartoons on Boomerang (Bugs Bunny, The Flintstones, Scooby Doo) are classic stuff from the WB vault, and we know some of it will definitely appear on HBO Max. Will the new series of Looney Tunes cartoons be on HBO Max in addition to the original stuff? We'll see. My hunch is yes.

At any rate, I don't expect that the HBO Max app will include any live linear channels besides the 3 or 4 surviving HBO channels (HBO, HBO Family, HBO Latino, and maybe an "HBO Cinema" all-movie channel). So no live streams of TBS, TNT, CNN, etc. But I do believe that AT&T is very willing to cannibalize their basic cable linear channels by putting all their new/current season content inside HBO Max for on-demand streaming. If I had to guess, it'll contain pretty much all the stuff you see now if you use a cable login to unlock the TV everywhere apps for TBS, TNT, TruTV, Cartoon Network, and Adult Swim (in addition, of course, to HBO and Cinemax). Plus CNN docs/docuseries, and all the Audience stuff they already offer on-demand through all of AT&T's video platforms.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

OrangeCrush said:


> Only if you subscribe to just about everything all the time and what you consider a "decent" amount of programming. A "fully loaded" cable package can be over $300/mo. The number and value proposition isn't going to be the same for everybody, but the beauty of cord-cutting is it allows people to make the choices that best suit them. Traditional TV is take-it-or-leave it. You like the packages offered or you don't.
> 
> For my situation, taking Internet out of it, cable TV would cost about $70/mo. I actually pay $32/mo and have access to all of the linear channels, on-demand and streaming media I care about.


I said basic. How about comparing apples and oranges. You just compared a bill that includes all premiums and probably some sports packages to a basic system.

And if you get everything you want for $32, you are not what I call a typical tv watcher.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Adam C. said:


> Who is the target demographic for HBO these days? In my opinion HBO has gone downhill since the glory days of The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, etc. Aside from Game of Thrones (which I have never seen and never want to see), I never even hear about HBO anymore, nor do I know anyone that watches it.


The target demo is eyeballs, and people who'll pay about $15/month for premium TV. Since they don't run ads, they don't have a demo in the usual sense. They want eyeballs and money.

I disagree about HBO going downhill. They have, *by far*, the best shows on TV. And I watch a lot of TV. Their series, their mini-series, their docs, are head and shoulders above the rest. Not to say others don't have some great TV, but if you list the top series of the last [1][3][5] years, HBO has more than any other. Of the current series I'm watching, they have more than any other network (and I have Netflix, Amazon, SHO, Starz, C-Max, etc).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Adam C. said:


> Who is the target demographic for HBO these days? In my opinion HBO has gone downhill since the glory days of The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, etc. Aside from Game of Thrones (which I have never seen and never want to see), I never even hear about HBO anymore, nor do I know anyone that watches it.


I think the target market historically for HBO has been middle-class and wealthier college-educated Americans aged 30+. It's always been the most expensive "premium" network, with the most cultural cachet. You hear a lot of folks online saying "HBO is done now that GoT is over" but I think those are *mostly* guys in their teens and 20s who, frankly, aren't part of the main target demo for HBO.

That said, HBO Max is aiming to dramatically expand the demographics and taste profiles of the people it targets. Yes, they want to bring along all those folks who know and love HBO as it's always been. Casey Bloys remains the head of programming for HBO and, as he states, even though they're increasing HBO's output by about 50% this year, they've not greenlit anything that they wouldn't have done under HBO's traditional taste guidelines. So they're preserving the HBO brand which will remain as a "quality core" at the center of HBO Max. But outside of that, we're going to see a new set of "Max Originals" that will complement HBO programming by playing to different demos (think young adults and teens, especially females, kids, families watching together, etc.) in order to compete more effectively against Netflix. And then they'll add in all the current stuff from their basic cable channels (but without ads): TBS, TNT, CNN (docs/docuseries only), Cartoon Network, etc. And favorite old movies and TV shows from the Warner Bros. vault to binge on.



Adam C. said:


> I have always been more of a Showtime guy...Shameless is one of my all time favorite shows. But even so I would never pay for the network. I have always gotten it for free from various promotions over the years.


Yes, to be honest, I've been more a fan of Showtime originals over the past few years than HBO's too, although, for my money, it feels like Showtime's well is starting to run a bit dry. I've been a paying subscriber to Showtime for years but dropped it a few months back but will pick it up again in a month or two. I can't wait for the final seasons of Homeland and The Affair coming up this year. Ray Donovan continues to be great, although I feel like it should wrap up in the next season or two. (The character arcs feel like they're reaching their end points.) Shameless shoulda wrapped up a year or so ago...I've yet to watch this past season and I can't believe they're even bothering to continue with the series without one of its two main stars. (BTW, it's a Warner Bros. TV production, so perhaps past seasons will jump from Netflix to HBO Max eventually.) I thought season one of Kidding was pretty good and look forward to more. I liked I'm Dying Up Here but that's over. They've had some great mini-series. I dropped out of Billions after the first couple of seasons. None of their other new stuff has grabbed me although there's always more on the way...


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> I said basic. How about comparing apples and oranges. You just compared a bill that includes all premiums and probably some sports packages to a basic system.
> 
> And if you get everything you want for $32, you are not what I call a typical tv watcher.


You're confusing two different things. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, it can get quite expensive if you subscribe to a large number of streaming services at the same time, but that still compares favorably to many fully-loaded cable packages on offer.

"Basic" cable is often a barely-advertised bundle of just OTAs and a few extras like CSPAN, but I assume you're referring to the standard tiers which includes what most people expect in a full cable package (ex. Spectrum's Select, Comcast's Starter, etc.)

Spectrum Select costs around $70/mo (actually closer to $80 now, looking at the additional fees on the rate card). OTT services with similar lineups are in that ballpark too. But my point, which you completely missed, is that streaming services offer a level of customization that cannot be had from traditional multi-channel services. In my case, I don't care at all about live sports or 24-hour news networks and that saves me around $40/mo and I have access to far more on-demand shows & movies compared to what Spectrum offers. As I said, the value proposition is going to be different for everybody. For some, it makes sense to keep cable. For others, it makes more sense to drop it and piece together what they want from Internet services.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

This is why we can no longer have nice things, same lack of antitrust enforcement creates another way to to keep stealing our wallets in our living rooms through televisions. 

The Golden Age of Cord-Cutting Is Over. Now What?


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Joe3 said:


> This is why we can no longer have nice things, same lack of antitrust enforcement creates another way to to keep stealing our wallets in our living rooms through televisions.


It's worth mentioning that during the merger approval process, AT&T promised not to do exactly what they're doing right now. They explicitly promised not to rope off the Time Warner content on their own services and to keep it widely available. So they're reneging on that promise, not that I'm surprised. Shame it wasn't binding.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

OrangeCrush said:


> It's worth mentioning that during the merger approval process, AT&T promised not to do exactly what they're doing right now. They explicitly promised not to rope off the Time Warner content on their own services and to keep it widely available. So they're reneging on that promise, not that I'm surprised. Shame it wasn't binding.


It's a matter of interpretation. They can argue that all of their content is still available on their cable channels through traditional cable channel bundles. Now if they start pulling their cable channels from Comcast and DirecTV, then they would probably be violating their merger obligations.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> It's a matter of interpretation. They can argue that all of their content is still available on their cable channels through traditional cable channel bundles. Now if they start pulling their cable channels from Comcast and DirecTV, then they would probably be violating their merger obligations.


Nooo, it's not how you look at it. Unless, you think it's perfectly acceptable if you happen to catch your wife or husband one afternoon cheating on you in your own bed for them to say from under the sheets, " My dear don't get all worked up about this. Really, it's all how you look at it dear."

There's a snarky little wink and nod between Congress and the billions of dollar Private interest sitting across from them at the merger hearings to the fact they are both lying through their teeth. And therefore, very much intend to use their increased power to bleed the unsuspecting American public's wallets dry like they did through cable. The one question that has been asked of TiVo in many different ways here has always been which side are you on?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Joe3 said:


> Nooo, it's not how you look at it. Unless, you think it's perfectly acceptable if you happen to catch your wife or husband one afternoon cheating on you in your own bed for them to say from under the sheets, " My dear don't get all worked up about this. Really, it's all how you look at it dear."
> 
> There's a snarky little wink and nod between Congress and the billions of dollar Private interest sitting across from them at the merger hearings to the fact they are both lying through their teeth. And therefore, very much intend to use their increased power to bleed the unsuspecting American public's wallets dry like they did through cable. The one question that has been asked of TiVo in many different ways here has always been which side are you on?


Should it be legal for Netflix to restrict their content so that it's only accessible inside their own app? Or should they be required to distribute it as a subscription package through other companies' UIs and billing systems, such as Prime Video Channels, or Apple TV Channels, or as an add-on tier to Xfinity cable TV, Spectrum cable TV, etc. with all the Netflix shows blended in with everything else?


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

NashGuy said:


> Should it be legal for Netflix to restrict their content so that it's only accessible inside their own app? Or should they be required to distribute it as a subscription package through other companies' UIs and billing systems, such as Prime Video Channels, or Apple TV Channels, or as an add-on tier to Xfinity cable TV, Spectrum cable TV, etc. with all the Netflix shows blended in with everything else?


Of course not (though I think they'd make more money if they did--I've long felt that making customers come to your app, your platform, etc. shrinks your potential customer base & leaves money on the table). But if Netflix had been the one to buy Time Warner and as a condition of getting approval for that promised not to lock away all the Time Warner content as Netflix exclusives, then they should absolutely be held to what they promised.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Joe3 said:


> Nooo, it's not how you look at it. Unless, you think it's perfectly acceptable if you happen to catch your wife or husband one afternoon cheating on you in your own bed for them to say from under the sheets, " My dear don't get all worked up about this. Really, it's all how you look at it dear."
> 
> There's a snarky little wink and nod between Congress and the billions of dollar Private interest sitting across from them at the merger hearings to the fact they are both lying through their teeth. And therefore, very much intend to use their increased power to bleed the unsuspecting American public's wallets dry like they did through cable. The one question that has been asked of TiVo in many different ways here has always been which side are you on?


If the content is still available to you through other media outlets than just AT&T's own media outlet, then I don't really view it as a problem. It's hard for me to get too worked up over something as superficial as entertainment video content. There's honestly so much content out there and so many different ways to access it now that it feels kind of overwhelming.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Should it be legal for Netflix to restrict their content so that it's only accessible inside their own app? Or should they be required to distribute it as a subscription package through other companies' UIs and billing systems, such as Prime Video Channels, or Apple TV Channels, or as an add-on tier to Xfinity cable TV, Spectrum cable TV, etc. with all the Netflix shows blended in with everything else?


Yes, and this is why, TiVo. "If" TiVo finally gets its head out of its ass, the TiVo becomes the one aggregator to all customer subscriptions without getting into the subscriptions business. They do successfully what they are supposed to do best. One unified place to pick and watch. Use the greed of these companies against them by TiVo simplicity of feature and functionality.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

tarheelblue32 said:


> If the content is still available to you through other media outlets than just AT&T's own media outlet, then I don't really view it as a problem. It's hard for me to get too worked up over something as superficial as entertainment video content. There's honestly so much content out there and so many different ways to access it now that it feels kind of overwhelming.


It's a letter-of-the agreement vs. intent of the agreement thing, which irks me, but you're right--at the end of the day, it's just entertainment. I'm totally with you on feeling overwhelmed with all the different services and subscriptions and ways to get this or that show or movie or just to sit down and decide what we feel like watching tonight. I've said before, nobody cares and nobody wants to have to care whether something's on Netflix or Amazon or Hulu or Disney or CBS or one of AT&T's 57 stupid services or whether a particular show was owned by one studio and bought by another and licensed to ThisorThat Enterprises, Ltd. We're here for shows, not a history of mergers & acquisitions, and not everybody is going to get to be their very own Netflix and they're going to have to learn to work together again if they like having money.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

OrangeCrush said:


> It's a letter-of-the agreement vs. intent of the agreement thing, which irks me, but you're right--at the end of the day, it's just entertainment. I'm totally with you on feeling overwhelmed with all the different services and subscriptions and ways to get this or that show or movie or just to sit down and decide what we feel like watching tonight. I've said before, nobody cares and nobody wants to have to care whether something's on Netflix or Amazon or Hulu or Disney or CBS or one of AT&T's 57 stupid services or whether a particular show was owned by one studio and bought by another and licensed to ThisorThat Enterprises, Ltd. We're here for shows, not a history of mergers & acquisitions, and not everybody is going to get to be their very own Netflix and they're going to have to learn to work together again if they like having money.


Well, on the one hand, I agree with you. Video content is getting carved up into different services and I believe that most of the big ones will require you, as Netflix does, to enter their own app to watch the content you pay them for. Which isn't ideal.

But I also believe that Apple is leading the way here with the TV app on their Apple TV streaming box. Basically everyone *except* Netflix chooses to cooperate (i.e. support two-way communication between their app and the Apple TV app). But that's on Netflix -- they kinda think they're the greatest thing ever and they seem to have a problem playing nice with the other children on the playground. (I think they might be humbled a bit in a couple years. We'll see.)

What the Apple TV app does is give you one place to browse through a curated list of new, trending and recommended content from across a variety of popular apps, with an emphasis on the ones you have installed. And the best feature is a unified Up Next watchlist that keeps track of series and movies you want to watch. It knows right where you stopped watching in each series. And it knows where all of the content is located. Just click a title and it typically launches the appropriate app and starts the video stream. (In some instances -- mainly the Showtime app, IIRC -- it's taken me to the episode/movie title page inside the app and then I had to hit the play button to actually to start the stream. And for some reason, titles in the free Tubi app only launch the app rather than take you right to the title/stream inside the app. But I think that may be a temporary bug with that app.)

I call the Apple TV app an "umbrella UI" because it's a content-centric UI that spans across lots of underlying apps. Very useful. The latest home screen for Android TV does something similar. The Roku Channel is evolving into being something similar and will probably one day serve as the new Roku home screen.


----------

