I was looking at the FAQs from Comcast using their Xfinity and HBO2GO Apps for the Xbox 360.
http://xbox.comcast.net/faqs.html


Way to go Comcast.

So, Comcast cant win.

Corrected.

Because they get something no one else gets? Xfinity is a bonus. Bandwidth consumption is par for the course.

I don't get the complaints, HBO Go counts against you when you use it on anything else, why wouldn't it here? Are that many people hitting their 250gb/month? Don't get me wrong, the caps are bullshit, but to complain about HBO Go counting against it is a bit silly.

I have FIOS, and I don't have a bandwidth cap. Previously I had Time Warner Cable, which likewise didn't have a bandwidth cap. So it doesn't matter if the HBOGO app "counts" towards usage or not.

Time Warner tested out the worst bandwidth restriction plan, glad that one failed.

I have Cox which has an unenforced bandwidth cap. They'll let you know when you exceed it, but they don't do anything or charge any more about it. They have the tools in place to do so if they wish.

Even if I did have one, I wouldn't expect HBO Go or Netflix or Hulu or Pandora or Spotify or Facebook or anything to be exempt from that. I'd be taking my fight elsewhere to bring that crap to an end across the board. As if somehow the next byte transmitted costs more than than the 250 trillion before it. If anything, it's a diminishing cost.

I think what upset Match was the dichotomy between HBOGo and Comcast's own Xfinity app, which are ostensibly both Video over IP apps, and serve some of the same content (since Xfinity has HBO content for subscribers).

The difference, as Comcast puts it, is that HBOGo connects outside Comcast's network to the internet at large, while Xfinity's content is stored within Comcast's network, and thus doesn't affect Comcast's internet bandwidth at all.

The cost per byte may diminish with increased volume, but it does cost more to deliver more bytes. Let's say that x number of customers can be well served by a 1Gbps connection from Comcast to the rest of the internet. If those customers all start using 4x the amount of internet as previous, then either two things happen:

1. The internet is 4 times slower than it previously was for those customers.
2. Comcast has to increase bandwidth by 4x to keep the same speed.

Increased bandwidth means increased cost. Note, however, that as you mentioned, just because they need 4x the bandwidth doesn't mean their costs increase 4x. Bandwidth caps seem more based on what the ISP can get away with than what the actual costs are. Add in that the largest consumption of bandwidth nowadays is internet video, and most of the broadband ISPs are cable companies with TV service in competition with these internet video services, and the caps seem even more suspect.

So...are these contradicting statements?

It sounds like it, unless they mean the Xbox app in the first statement, and the iOS app in the second. Maybe the Xbox app grabs the video differently.

Is the iOS app able to stream video when on some other network than Xfinity internet?


http://customer.comcast.com/help-and...o-cable-tv-app
http://customer.comcast.com/help-and...excessive-use/

Just occurred to me that that 360 will be turning 7 this year, and oddly the system doesn't seem dated to me yet. Kind of weird though, probably just timing but I swear the SNES was around for ages before the N64 was released (it wasn't, about 5 years, but then I used to game every day back then).

Weird.

Anyway, can't wait for Fez

That is weird isn't it? (I had thought it was turning 6 this fall, but it will be 7 in fact). With all the advances in computer technology, you'd think games would be way ahead graphically on the PC, and while some games like Batman : AC do look better on a big gaming rig with DX11, it's not like they look that much better. And I don't think there are really any PC games out right now that the 360 hardware couldn't handle.

It launched in 2005. Wii and PS3 hit in 2006.

Yes and no - while such technologies are obviously still advancing, things like memory, ram, processing aren't advancing (or required to advance) like they used to. Basically, a the average PC from 2000 is way, WAY faster and more advance than a PC from 1995. BUT, while a PC from 2010 is certainly faster and more advanced than one from 2005, it's not nearly as drastic a difference than in my previous example.

Plus I think developers are making their games console friendly since that is where the money is in gaming. Add to the fact that the games today still look really good even with 8 year old tech.

Console game makers know the hardware they can use, they've been working on it for up to 10 years. There's little variability. The best ones know how to optimize what they're doing for the hardware they've got access to.
PC game makers have little incentive to optimize for current hardware, because 1) there is really no standard as to current hardware, and 2) they can fall back on the "Upgrade!" and "Required/Recommended" arguments.
I saw the preorder - prepurchase, really - for Guild Wars 2. Not-so-fine print said "Game requirements may change, you may need to upgrade or replace your system in order to play this game." Really? You're trying to pre-sell me a game that I might not even be able to play without spending an additional 50-1000$, and that I can't even KNOW if I can play it? Whereas if the game box says "Xbox 360", I can play it. Period. End of story.

It's not how old the tech is, it's how well it can be used.

That might be somewhat simplistic, but that's basically the way I see it.

On another note, while I appreciate the "media center" approach MS is taking (although I like the new dash less and less as i use it more) I still don't see the point of HBOGo or other things that do the same things that my cable box (if I had one) could do. And since I don't have a cable box, I can't use those apps anywhere.

*sigh* I don't know why we keep having the "what does HBOGo bring to the table that On Demand doesn't?" conversation still.

I can't believe we're having the "I can't believe we're having X conversation" conversation still.
Sorry, I missed the "Approved Conversations" list.

Bandwidth yay! Speed caps no! Low quality video maybe!

Just to answer this question again:

1) the HBOGo app has more content available than what's available on most (all?) cable box on-demand features. This is why everyone was in a hissy about Comcast initially not offering HBOGo and instead favoring their Xfinity app.

2) Xboxes can often be in rooms where there's not a cable box, or perhaps moved between rooms. It offers a chance to view these services in locations where a cable box is not.

I wonder if there is any chance they would make the xfinity app compatible with the AnyRoom DVR, thus allowing people to have access without having to rent the extra boxes.

anyone here play silent hill downpour? it's a great game

I don't understand DtCarson's complaint.

I get he doesn't have cable and thinks the HBOGo app is worthless for him.

But for me being an HBO subscriber, and has been said before, it allows me to stream most of HBO's entire back catalogue of movies and series (all episodes) through the XBox without having to download each individual episode or movie through my Directv Box. And as you just said, there is a ton more content on HBOGo than On Demand.

Hence.

So what exactly does HBOGo bring to the table that On Demand doesn't?