@wphortn wrote:
Am looking for this as well. I do have an Apple TV that can play it thru HBOMax app no problem, but I bought into Roku as being an open agnostic platform. And I love the remote! But it is disappointing that Roku has not allowed the HBOMax app to be added. I had HBO Go as an app which worked fine when I was on DirecTV. I have apps for PBS, CBS All Access, Youtube TV, Netflix, and Amazon Prime. Why won't Roku allow the HBOMax app??? Seems Roku is playing hardball and consumer is in the middle.
The HBO MAX app could replace HBO[NOW] in the next five minutes once AT&T decides to do it. They have admitted they have the app ready to run, but they are unhappy with the arrangements made earlier to allow access to HBO NOW via the Roku Channel, and want to change said arrangements because apparently being AT&T isn't quite profitable enough. The thing is, under the existing agreements, changing nothing, Roku must "allow" HBO MAX to replace HBO NOW; Roku has no right to block it, so they are not blocking it. If AT&T wants to rename their app and add a pile more content to their service, that doesn't matter a wit - Roku isn't really involved, it just happens. The problem is that AT&T wants to change the terms of their agreements with Roku so that AT&T can:
- Take away the Roku Channel's existing access to HBO.
- Launch a new ad-supported HBO SUX service (because who doesn't want to interrupt a dramatic dragon attack to watch Matthew McConaughey sell Lincolns?) without cutting Roku in for some of the ad revenues (something that other ad-supported services routinely negotiate with Roku and Amazon).
Say what you like about issue #1 (I've written elsewhere about how Roku's service/platform revenues allow for their platform to be offered at low prices for hardware and no subscription fees for software), but what strikes me as weird about issue #2 is that AT&T is screwing paying HBO customers today over an argument about ad revenues for a service offering they don't even have yet. Whether or not anybody even wants HBO SUX is an open question (price and ad load will likely determine the answer), but since that would be a new service, issues like ad revenue don't have to be discussed until that service launches. Given that, why withhold HBO MAX now?
AT&T made things a lot worse last month. In a move apparently intended to turn the screws on Roku/AMZ but almost certain to backfire, AT&T announced they are planning to withdraw the existing HBO GO app and so cut off streaming access to existing paying cable customers unless they spend $$$ on new streaming devices (okay, to be fair, only the 70% that use Roku or AmzFire, but still...). I would imagine every CableCo platform offers HBO in one form or another (standalone or in upper-tier bundles), but not all have decent streaming/on-demand services that would let customers get to HBO without HBO GO, and many of their customers are locked in to 12-24 month contracts. Given all that, withdrawing streaming access to HBO from paying CableCo customers that stream w/Roku/AMZ is flat out unconscionable; how anyone could possibly blame Roku for this jerk move is beyond me. IMHO, it really lays bare who the bigger culprit is in this little game of chicken.
I can't believe that Cox, Comcast, Charter, etc., are okay with the HBO GO move, as it's inflicting some nasty collateral damage on them. It has instantly devalued their product and encouraged consumers to subscribe to HBO streaming instead of via cable, and those cable relationships, while of declining value, are still very important to HBO - no reason to kill that goose until it stops laying eggs. Then again, AT&T's never been very bright, in any of its many incarnations.
In short form, what's going on here is that AT&T is using the content portfolio it acquired with its ill-gotten oligopoly/monopoly profits to bludgeon a much smaller company into giving it services and support at steep discounts that other content providers don't get. Seeing that, I don't have much trouble figuring who's bullying whom.
