I don't know what it's like in the US, but in Canada to get HBO you have to have cable, and then sign up for HBO. However, if you have HBO, you can watch online.
It's almost 2014, I don't have cable. I have Netflix.
I wrote to them about this to see if it was an option and I just wasn't seeing it, and they said it's not an option, and no current plans for it to happen.
If all their content is already online legally via their if-you-already-subscribe "service", why not just open it up to an online only subscription?
I'd pay.

Anyone have insight/thoughts into why this is?
I'm sure there are others out their who would pay for an online HBO subscription, no?

More than all the people who say they would pay for HBO combined.

Streaming only HBO will not be an option until cable companies start paying HBO less or equal to what streamers will pay.

will it reduce it? sure. but people who don't want to pay for their content will find a way to not pay for it, no matter how available HBO makes it...

Numerous studies exist that show that the "piracy kills!" institutions like the RIAA and MPAA are incorrect in their assumptions that each pirated unit means one unit lost.

This is why HBO's always been very compliant when it comes to sharing password and piracy of Game of Thrones.. it's because they know it expands their brand.

>Numerous studies exist that show that the "piracy kills!"
>institutions like the RIAA and MPAA are incorrect in their
>assumptions that each pirated unit means one unit lost.

that's cute self-motivated dogma you + the internet have found to justify your unwillingness to pay for content. here's a quote from Steven Soderbergh's "State of Cinema" speech at the San Francisco International Film Festival, which dwells at length on the intersection of art + commerce in our modern media landscape:

http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/steven-soderbergh-state-of-cinema-address/

Maybe everything is just fine. But� Admissions, this is the number of bodies that go through the turnstile, ten years ago: 1.52 billion. Last year: 1.36 billion. That�s a ten and a half percent drop. Why are admissions dropping? Nobody knows, not even Nate Silver. Probably a combination of things: Ticket prices, maybe, a lot of competition for eyeballs. There�s a lot of good TV out there. Theft is a big problem. I know this is a really controversial subject, but for people who think everything on the internet should just be totally free all I can say is, good luck. When you try to have a life and raise a family living off something you create�

There�s a great quote from Steve Jobs:

�From the earliest days of Apple I realized that we thrived when we created intellectual property. If people copied or stole our software we�d be out of business. If it weren�t protected there�d be no incentive for us to make new software or product designs. If protection of intellectual property begins to disappear creative companies will disappear or never get started. But there�s a simpler reason: It�s wrong to steal. It hurts other people, and it hurts your own character�.

is the fact that the vast majority of people who pirate would *never* have bought the product in the first place. Yes, there are people who would have bought it and end up pirating. Conversely, it's also true that piracy exposes people to something they like that they wouldn't have initially paid for, but are willing to pay for later (like pirating music then going to concerts).

So is your argument actually quotes from a content provider (biased) and Steve Jobs? Doesn't seem very empirically sound.

Why not use an actual academically published study wholistically examining the effects of piracy on the entertainment industry?

Here's one published just last month:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/172985274/LSE-MPP-Policy-Brief-9-Copyright-and-Creation

If you don't want to read that, here's a synopsis:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/new-study-says-online-piracy-isn%E2%80%99t-hurting-entertainment-industry-220006729.html

Excerpt from the article:

�Contrary to the industry claims, the music industry is not in terminal decline, but still holding ground and showing healthy profits. Revenues from digital sales, subscription services, streaming and live performances compensate for the decline in revenues from the sale of CDs or records,� says Bart Cammaerts, LSE Senior Lecturer and one of the report�s authors.

The report shows that the entertainment industries are actually doing quite well. The digital gaming industry is thriving, the publishing sector is stable, and the U.S. film industry is breaking record after record.

�Despite the Motion Picture Association of America�s (MPAA) claim that online piracy is devastating the movie industry, Hollywood achieved record-breaking global box office revenues of $35 billion in 2012, a 6% increase over 2011,� the report reads.

Even the music industry is doing relatively well. Revenue from concerts, publishing and digital sales has increased significantly since the early 2000s and while recorded music revenues show a decline, there is little evidence that piracy is the lead cause.

�The music industry may be stagnating, but the drastic decline in revenues warned of by the lobby associations of record labels is not in evidence,� the report concludes.

The authors further argue that file-sharing can actually benefit the creative industries in various ways.

The report mentions the success of the SoundCloud service where artists can share their work for free through Creative Commons licenses, the promotional effect of YouTube where copyrighted songs are shared to promote sales, and the fact that research shows that file-sharers actually spend more money on entertainment than those who don�t share.

�Within the creative industries there is a variety of views on the best way to benefit from online sharing practices, and how to innovate to generate revenue streams in ways that do not fit within the existing copyright enforcement regime,� the authors write.

>Here's one published just last month:
>
>http://www.scribd.com/doc/172985274/LSE-MPP-Policy-Brief-9-Copyright-and-Creation

it directly acknowledges a sharp decline in recorded music sales, but refuses to allow a link to increased digital sharing as a potential cause. then it points to things like increased concert revenue as proof that the music industry is not losing revenue to piracy. that is not a direct offset. it's a separate revenue stream that's great for acts like the Eagles or U2 or whoever else, but not great for people trying to sell pre-recorded music.

it also focuses heavily on things like the effect of punitive measures. great. that has nothing to do with the effect of piracy on content creators.

it also draws very few strong conclusions. it simply says, "we refuse the conclusions of the large industry lobbies." okay. I'm sure those claims are trumped up, too. it doesn't negate the fact that piracy and evolving distribution models has a pronounced effect on revenue streams for established media creators.

and behind all that, you're not disagreeing with the premise I originally stated at all -- that creating an online subscription wouldn't change piracy of HBO. so why would HBO care? as discussed below, their relationship with cable providers, as opposed to individual subscribers, is more lucrative and allows a greater creative freedom than the majority of media companies out there.

so anyway blah blah blah you just don't want to acknowledge that a cable subscription is part of the price of HBO.

was never a reason for HBO to expand their content offerings, since they don't care about it themselves. You're the one claiming that should be a basis.

...give people accessible, affordable and, most importantly, LEGAL access to content and most people will pay for it.

So here's a quote from Ted Sarandos from Netflix regarding piracy...

http://www.stuff.tv/netflix/netflixs-ted-sarandos-talks-arrested-development-4k-and-reviving-old-shows/news

What are you doing to combat piracy?

One of the things is we get ISPs to publicise their connection speeds � and when we launch in a territory the Bittorrent traffic drops as the Netflix traffic grows. So I think people do want a great experience and they want access � people are mostly honest. The best way to combat piracy isn�t legislatively or criminally but by giving good options. One of the side effects of growth of content is an expectation to have access to it. You can�t use the internet as a marketing vehicle and then not as a delivery vehicle.

And Netflix definitely knows piracy, since they study it to gauge consumer interests:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/content-creators-use-piracy-to-gauge-consumer-interest/?_r=0

�With the purchase of a series, we look at what does well on piracy sites,� Kelly Merryman, vice president of content acquisition at Netflix, told the Web site Tweakers, a Netherlands-based news outlet.

�Certainly there is some Torrenting that goes on and that�s true around the world, but some of that just creates the demand,� Mr. Hastings told Tweakers in an interview when asked how he feels about people pirating content on the site. �Netflix is so much easier than Torrenting.�

In the interview, Mr. Hastings implied that pirating builds demand, and then when the service becomes available in a new country, people switch to the easier, paid product. �In Canada BitTorrent is down by as much as 50 percent since Netflix launched three years ago,� he said.

Cable companies will look vastly different in 5-10 years. To expect a family in 2013 to pay ~200-300 per month for a top tier cable/internet plan is insane.

I could happily select 25-30 channels I want and a decent internet speed/usage amount and i'd be happy. But in order to get the channels I want, I have to have a top tier cable package.

So...I stream online. I would happily pay for HBO and Showtime, just like I do for Netflix (because netflix gave me an affordable option to NOT steal movies, and I jumped at it). I dont want 1200 channels. I want 25-30. But that is not an option. And that is what is certainly going to change in the next few years.

People are demanding it. The cable companies are doing what the music industry did 10-13 years ago. They are trying to milk every last dollar because they know they're about to implode.

Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, all of these will be pay services in a short amount of time.

I, like many young people these days would happily cut the cord if not for the lack of viable sports packages available without cable. I can get nearly everything I want EXCEPT for Sports.

Not for long.

HBO heads were adamant that HBO's attachment to the cable providers would never be in jeopardy when this site first launched:

http://takemymoneyhbo.com/tweetit.php

Well, things change.

Richard Plepler's softened his stance on the notion in the past few months:

�Right now we have the right model,� said Plepler. � If we determine down the road that we want to pivot in some way, we�ll be ready to do that. Otto Berkes is working with engineers to improve that product. One thing that will not happen in the coming years is we won�t be caught unable to pivot if we so choose but for now, we�re running our business just as we want to run it.�

And a few months after that, Comcast started offering HBO bundled with internet and the most basic TV package:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/24/5026452/comcast-launches-internet-plus-hbo-bundle-for-broadband-customers

The thing is, no one's questioning the lucrative partnership HBO has with their cable partners. But that doesn't change the fact that internet-based models (ie, Netflix, Aereo, entire mobile industry) are benefiting greatly from cheap, flexible distribution models that are far more effective at reaching marginal consumers, because internet.

In the other "take my money, HBO" thread here on PTP I was roundly mocked for even considering the *possibility* that HBO explores other revenue streams. Well, bundling it with barebones TV is an exploration of another revenue stream. In another thread I pointed out that nowadays broadband internet is a must-have utility and that TV is moving away from that. Well, bundling HBO with internet service as the base package exemplifies that.

This great article (written just yesterday) goes into more detail on the various market, technological and risk factors as to why HBO should explore more internet-driven distribution models, if not specifically a streaming-only option. Comcast's "Internet Plus" is a great stepping stone towards that end, because it's proof that HBO's superior content is far too lucrative to maintain its antiquated attachment to cable TV providers.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/11/21/comcast-is-a-offering-low-cost-internet-plus-bundl.aspx

comcast internet plus is a way to get kids just out of college to pick up tv and internet instead of just internet.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Par for the course for Rjcc.

but that's exactly how I feel!

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I, and the people who run the multibillion dollar business that is HBO, don't understand business.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

acknowledging that they're building out their digital distribution platform to enable a potential pivot down the line?

Again, and I quote from Richard Plepler:

"One thing that will not happen in the coming years is we won�t be caught unable to pivot if we so choose but for now, we�re running our business just as we want to run it.�

That quote was months before they released the "for college kids" Internet Plus option bundling HBO with internet (with cable TV thrown in).

You didn't read that Motley Fool article, did you? Of course not, you never read any of the links I provide because they always disprove your poorly argued, never-substantiated points.

Excerpts from that article:

__________________________________________________________________________________

"This is an Internet play - While HBO has garnered a lot of attention for this particular offering, it's really an attempt to attract more customers looking for a quality Internet product. That's the target audience of Internet Plus."

"According to a poll by J.P. Morgan, about 40% of consumers with cable TV are thinking about canceling the service. If only a small proportion of them follow through, it will have a significant impact on Comcast's performance.

There is also the possibility that this may be a move toward a la carte programming, something that consumers have said they've wanted for years."

"What to watch for - For Time Warner it's good news because HBO is still considered one of the major weapons to combat the weakening cable video market. This isn't HBO Go, but it's still an attractive addition to the inexpensive content bundle. HBO Go is Time Warner's answer to the consumer wanting to consume more content than the average person. This allows them to watch HBO on a vast majority of devices, which results in a strong base that Time Warner can count on to deliver results year after year.

I think that this will help Comcast to slow down the trend, but there is no doubt that over time it's facing the reality that its cable TV business is becoming more of a commodity business. Worse, it's becoming an expensive one at that."
__________________________________________________________________________________

Like I said in that other post, the pressure for HBO to at least explore more revenue options (at the margins) has been growing. And the Internet Plus option is the first step in that. I actually think it's a great first foray into getting HBO into the hands of more consumers who don't want an expensive cable subscription for a bunch of channels they will never watch. It may honestly be enough to stem the "streaming only" tide for quite some time, provided prices remain competitive.

why should I have to say it again?

you have another 400 words to write about it, I have an actual job discussing this very topic.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Want to point those articles out? Or should I post the myriad articles that proved you wrong... like Judge Posner, AOL Way, Watch Dogs, Ouya... this is all off the top of my head, btw.

Please provide some "evidence", so I can prove you wrong yet again.



But to keep this on topic (since I noticed you went Typical Rjcc again in avoiding it) I see you conveniently ignored the quote from Plepler that basically supports my argument. Did you want to address that, or did you want to continue lying some more?

did I say ouya was going to be super awesome?

cuz it pretty much sucks dick so if I was a massive proponent of it man, that's an L for me, if you cna prove a link. pretty sure there's never been anything ever you've been right no, but you like to believe otherwise




http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

AOL Way:
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=277148&mesg_id=277148&listing_type=search#277196

From Ouya thread:
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=273625&mesg_id=273625&listing_type=search#273855

Judge Posner/Patent system from Apple patent thread:
http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&listing_type=search#275260

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=266716&mesg_id=266716&listing_type=search#276337

Sim City thread:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=280883&mesg_id=280883&listing_type=search#281266

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=280883&mesg_id=280883&listing_type=search#281265

Watch Dogs thread

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=283852&mesg_id=283852&listing_type=search#284951

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=283852&mesg_id=283852&listing_type=search#284288


Oh, and the coup de grace from that same thread:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=283852&mesg_id=283852&listing_type=search#284299

Rjcc: "you're totally right, and I'm totally wrong"

Let's capitalize that so it stands out:

Rjcc: "YOU'RE TOTALLY RIGHT, AND I'M TOTALLY WRONG"



Footnote:

Oh, and those threads above were ones with supporting evidence. Here are some more where you're just clearly wrong:

On X1 DRM guidelines:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=284010&mesg_id=284010&listing_type=search#284112

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=281531&mesg_id=281531&listing_type=search#281752

And some fun ones in the science thread where I provided some of these very same links calling you out, and your response was typical rjcc dodge:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=281004&mesg_id=281004&listing_type=search#281231

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=281004&mesg_id=281004&listing_type=search#281193


Ah... fun trip down memory lane. Funny thing is that all this beef started because you were complaining about me posting links from The Verge. Then you decided to continually try and talk shit in various posts for no reason, and I shut you down each time. And now you're trying to do it again, while blatantly lying about it (which, I'll give you, you are wont to do).

So... yeah. We can debate any or all of the points in these threads if you want. But why waste the energy, since I'm guessing it'll all turn out the same way anyways...


Rjcc: "you're totally right, and I'm totally wrong"

Edit: Man, that's catchy.

second, I wasn't wrong on any of those.

you are dumber and more obsessed with me than I could have imagined

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

And yeah, you really were wrong on all of these.

Typical Rjcc dodge, thanks for proving me right yet again.

Oh, and as for the "stalker" business?

You'll notice that on most of these posts you're coming at ME... not the other way around.

Come on... your knowledge of the English language *should* be better than this... right?

Although, for a writer who can't articulate a single argument... maybe that would be giving you too much credit.

You didn't reply to my post above... pretty conspicuous seeing as how it's gotten this far.

If you'd pay a yearly fee to watch online, why not pay for the channel and just watch only on your iPad? You're still paying for the right to stream either way.

HBO uses stream only as a perk to get people to pay for the channel. And it works, because the stream service is comprehensive and awesome. And I never ever watch on my TV (except for Thrones).

It ain't broke. Until it breaks, no need for them to fix it.

Your kind is relatively scarce at the moment, but as super high speed broadband becomes more commonplace (along with increased entertainment options), your kind will inevitably grow in numbers.

Right now you're a victim of an aging industry that is actively working to reach consumers like you without letting go of established institutional conventions. In due time though you will see that your kind will become the norm, rather than the exception.

Rest assured though... HBO has acknowledged the inevitable cultural shift and is working tirelessly to create the infrastructure necessary to bring their glorious, diversified content right to your doorstep in an affordable and accessible manner.

It may not happen next year nor maybe the next... and there may be compromised offerings along the way... but once the technological, cultural and corporate stars align, I do solemnly swear that someday you *will* have access to HBO Go without a cable subscription.

meanwhile, HBO stays rich by maintaining their exclusivity with cable providers while avoiding falling victim to the whims of a fungible subscriber base.

which, in turn, allows it to have more creative license when funding projects, because their budgets can be accurately forecast and "buzz" can have just as much value as actual viewership...

it's working for HBO. you're dogmatic because you don't want to pay for cable (which, not coincidentally, is exactly why HBO isn't interested in you as a consumer...).

> avoiding falling victim to the whims of a fungible subscriber base.

In October Netflix subscribers in the US surpassed HBO (nowhere near global yet tho):

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-fi-ct-netflix-earns-20131022,0,7706796.story

Why is the subscriber base "fungible"? If companies like HBO and Netflix can keep up their content game, then consumers will pay. The numbers bear that out.

> which, in turn, allows it to have more creative license when funding projects, because their budgets can be accurately forecast and "buzz" can have just as much value as actual viewership...

I don't disagree, but if they can keep their current revenue stream while also targeting consumers at the margins (a concept I constantly bring up that no one seems to address)... doesn't that benefit HBO even more? If Netflix can successfully "accurately forecast" their budgets for a digital distribution model why can't HBO do the same?

how much money does netflix make?

and how much money does HBO make?

there's your answer. profits.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

so why would HBO be eager to replicate the less successful model of Netflix?

I've said this time and time again... explore other revenue streams while maintaining their very profitable partnerships with the cable providers.

Which is exactly what they're doing right now.

Edit: this is my reply to you from 6-07-12

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=613869&mesg_id=613869&listing_type=search#614012

I've NEVER advocated an "either or" model for HBO. The impetus for virtually every info tech-related company nowadays is determining how better to leverage the easy distribution the internet provides. HBO Go may not be a streaming-only option any time soon, but a time will come when it is.

And until that time, they can explore creative ways to get HBO in more hands without the restrictive monthly bill that full cable service mandates.

Which is exactly what they're doing right now.

offering an independent subscription service would reduce the price HBO can charge cable providers, and presently cable providers form the primary source of HBO's revenue.

so why would HBO create a subscription service that harms their core revenue source? just so you can watch Game of Thrones while still thinking you're above it all cuz you don't pay for cable?

Which I've said time and time again.

and yes, that is the point you keep missing -- the number of subscribers to HBO is not as important as the price cable providers are willing to pay to keep it exclusive. HBO does NOT WANT more viewers if it means the cable companies are going to pay them a smaller lump sum for their service.

will that change? sure. global warming might wipe out the coastlines tomorrow and EVERYTHING will change. for the time being, HBO is content being more profitable, and generally regarded as more relevant in the American pop culture landscape, than Netlix, even if it means having a smaller viewership.

without hurting that cable exclusivity. Which is what's happening now.

there's nothing creative about comcast's hbo offer. you still need TV to get HBO.

they have ALWAYS had low cost plans that you can add HBO to.

you don't know that, because you don't know anything about anything.

the only difference here, is that they're actually advertising it.

you're choosing to believe a reality that has never existed, simply because you didn't know about it.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

You seem to do that a lot, so I feel I need to constantly correct you.

And yes, there have always been lower cost plans out there, just never as low as Comcast. Here's a great article showing the different carriers:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/6/5069882/home-theater-of-pain-pricing-out-the-cheapest-hbo-plus-internet

So, actually, I *do* know what I'm talking about. Like the article states though, Comcast's plan was notable because it's the cheapest:

"After many lengthy conversations with almost a dozen sales reps from cable companies around the country, it turns out the Comcast package is just about the best choice you have for an HBO plus internet bundle � if you can get it. Perhaps surprisingly, a number of other operators offer similar services for a comparable rate to Comcast�s Internet Plus bundle (ignoring the one-year promo). I was able to find similar plans from Time Warner Cable, Verizon FiOS, Cablevision, Cox, and AT&T U-verse, but often such a limited plan is not marketed as a pre-made bundle: you�ll have to make a special � la carte package to make it work. "

Hey look at that, more links substantiating my position. You want to join the party or just keep making shit up?

you have no position.

there's nothing to substantiate.



http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

http://25.media.tumblr.com/5af26cbe333012d4b66381bc1d87610e/tumblr_mv6my8MtWt1rqlnsko1_500.gif

they sell access to video as a subscription.

HBO is making WAY MORE MONEY doing it.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>Why is the subscriber base "fungible"? If companies like HBO
>and Netflix can keep up their content game, then consumers
>will pay. The numbers bear that out.

cable providers, which are in truth HBO's primary client base, are more stable than a month-to-month individual subscriber base. they're also more lucrative and they allow HBO to traffic more in things like "buzz" and demographics (which in turn leads to superior content) than sheer viewership numbers. chasing sheer viewership numbers lead to things like 2 and a Half Men...

>I don't disagree, but if they can keep their current revenue
>stream while also targeting consumers at the margins (a
>concept I constantly bring up that no one seems to address)...
>doesn't that benefit HBO even more? If Netflix can
>successfully "accurately forecast" their budgets for a digital
>distribution model why can't HBO do the same?

again, this has been explained to you multiple times but you seem to be willfully ignoring. HBO is not interested in expanding their consumer base. they are interested in exclusivity. making their content widely available via a cheap subscription reduces their exclusivity, i.e. UNTIL YOU'RE WILLING TO PAY FOR A CABLE SUBSCRIPTION IN ORDER TO GET HBO, YOU'RE NOT *ACTUALLY* WILLING TO PAY FOR HBO.

> again, this has been explained to you multiple times but you seem to be willfully ignoring. HBO is not interested in expanding their consumer base. they are interested in exclusivity. making their content widely available via a cheap subscription reduces their exclusivity, i.e. UNTIL YOU'RE WILLING TO PAY FOR A CABLE SUBSCRIPTION IN ORDER TO GET HBO, YOU'RE NOT *ACTUALLY* WILLING TO PAY FOR HBO.

You care to corroborate this somehow? Has anyone ever in the history of HBO ever said "we're not interested in expanding our consumer base"?

Because that Motley Fool article up above addressed that very issue... cable TV is no longer becoming a utility, but a commodity***. And, like *I've* said multiple times, exploring other revenue streams while still maintaining their current business model doesn't have to be mutually exclusive goals.


*** - In financial terms, the difference between 'utility' and 'commodity' is that the former is essential while the latter has many substitutable goods. A big reason why 'cord cutting' is starting to become a phenomenon nowadays is because there are far more entertainment options nowadays than there were 10, 15, 20 years ago.... limiting the desirability of cable TV.

>> And, like *I've* said multiple times, exploring
>other revenue streams while still maintaining their current
>business model doesn't have to be mutually exclusive goals.

I believe the key to their current model is the exclusivity to cable. If they were to start making their service available via the net, it would significantly alter their business model/revenue.

I know a number of folks who do this.

They aren't going to weaken their Time Warner Cable asset by making it easier to cut the cord.

Launching HBOGo now doesn't make a ton of sense as other people have noted. They'll get less money from cable companies just so they can appease the "consumers on the margins". I'm sure they're prepping HBO Go standalone for when it makes sense but there's no real reason to do it now. The only reason would be to get ahead of the marketplace but Netflix is already there and established so that opportunity has already passed.

it has nothing to do with protecting TWC.

it has to do with the fact that the people protesting are liars. they do not want to buy HBO alone for what it would cost for HBO to keep making the profits they make.

as long as this is true, HBO will not be available by itself.

when it is not true, that circumstance will change.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

...that I can't ever seem to commit to memory.

But, yeah. It'll happen in the future but right now it doesn't make sense. And to rationalize why it would make sense now ignores the actual facts that matter to a business.

>it has to do with the fact that the people protesting are
>liars. they do not want to buy HBO alone for what it would
>cost for HBO to keep making the profits they make.
>
>as long as this is true, HBO will not be available by itself.
>
>when it is not true, that circumstance will change.

The question is: do those without cable mind paying the same for just HBO GO as cable subscribers pay for the channel AND HBO GO? Especially when so many people can simply borrow the login from a friend or loved one?

And maybe the answer to that question changes with time. Right now, I believe the answer is for the overwhelming majority of individuals no.

I completely agree with SoulHonky in post 21. But in that other post for some reason the notion that HBO would dare to explore other revenue streams was somehow offensive.

My position has never been to sever their partnership with the cable companies... it has always been that they should make efforts to leverage their fantastic digital distribution platform in some way. And if they can do that and still satisfy their cable partners, more power to them.

And I've acknowledged elsewhere that going to a streaming-only option will take time, since the industry and infrastructure have yet to reach the point when it can be supported. For some reason that nuance tends to get lost on people.

Overall, everyone seems to agree that this will happen eventually but we need to see a further shift in customer bases and revenue/profitability before it happens.

RJCC is arguing why it isn't happening now. You are arguing why it will happen in the future.

My main argument in that other thread was that HBO should explore other internet-leveraged options to get more HBO subscribers out there (if not necessarily a streaming only option) and I was the only one arguing that position.

which is the only reason you think you're winning an argument no one else is dumb enough to have with you

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

You're a writer. Write.

you'll get my bill in the mail.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

That isn't streaming only or doesn't affect their exclusivity deal?

If it's not streaming only, it won't appease the "Take My Money, HBO" crowd and cord cutters. But to appease those consumers means to piss off the cable companies. I'm just not sure what these other options are that they should be exploring.

The option that Comcast is currently offering won't fully appease the cordcutting crowd, I agree. But it's a compromise that lets consumers get internet (a must) with HBO, without completely cutting out cable TV (now the throw-in).

it's a promotional offer to draw new customers in.

that you are only just now becoming aware of this concept is actually cute.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Who said it wasn't? What are you trying to argue here?

You don;'t actually have a suggestion of what HBO could do, because you don't know what you're talking about.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfyjh7seVw1qfsokbo1_400.gif

Ah ah ah... do you really want to go there?

what are you using that econ degree for these days?

because it's bizarre how little you can apply it to any business

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Next question?

>it has nothing to do with protecting TWC.
>
>it has to do with the fact that the people protesting are
>liars. they do not want to buy HBO alone for what it would
>cost for HBO to keep making the profits they make.
>
>as long as this is true, HBO will not be available by itself.
>
>when it is not true, that circumstance will change.
>
>http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png
>
>www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at


but I'm not, because it was simple logic.

weird how some people are convinced they were the ones with the idea and are super special?


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I didn't even need to post, you pointed out the failure in your own argument.


I should have just pointed to this post and laughed.

if that's what you think

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It's like watching a fight where one guy's doing an effeminate, open-hand windmill that doesn't connect while he eats measured, disciplined punches for 30 seconds.

I'm pretty sure that score is like 236-0 at this point.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IVtXgClXLyk/Uog-3sttwiI/AAAAAAAA7Is/1MULW1YOYhc/s1600/0000.gif

But for posterity's sake, here's another one:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X8AhJyomSNQ/Uog8I9C5GrI/AAAAAAAA7IM/BO10uNyKHvQ/s1600/000.gif

The funny thing is, if he'd engage me like a mature adult then I'd respond in kind.

Instead he's always trying to pick fights, so fuck it... I'll come out swinging.

I can almost feel the tears of joy and excitement when you hit post "oh, I've got him this time! I'm going to get so much internet respect!"

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

we're back on the six month cycle again?

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It's like watching a fight where one guy's doing an effeminate, open-hand windmill that doesn't connect while he eats measured, disciplined punches for 30 seconds.

I'm pretty sure that score is like 236-0 at this point.

====================================
when cannibal confronts missionary, who is religious and who insane..the one eating people, the other converting them... (c) James Hillman

I agree but I still probably wouldn't pay for it. There are a couple shows HBO has that I have to see but overall don't think I'd watch enough of it to warrant the extra expense, downloading them is the easy option unfortunately.


NFL Sunday ticket I'd be more likely be inclined to buy an online subscription to without having DirecTV...

Sooner than I expected actually

http://recode.net/2014/10/15/hbo-says-its-going-to-start-selling-on-the-web-next-year/

HBO says it’s finally ready: Sometime in the next year the pay TV service will be selling a Web-only offering.

HBO CEO Richard Plepler, speaking at an investor presentation hosted by HBO parent company Time Warner, said the company will start selling a digital version of its service that won’t require a pay TV subscription in 2015.

Plepler said the company will go “beyond the wall” and launch a “stand alone, over the top” version of HBO in the US next year, and would work with “current partners”, and may work with others as well. But we wouldn’t provide any other detail.

Even that vague statement is a milestone for the HBO, Time Warner, and the TV business in general. For years, Time Warner and HBO have said they’re happy with the existing system, where HBO is sold to consumers by TV providers, and is usually only available to customers who are already buying another bundle of TV networks.

That arrangement helped generate $4.9 billion in revenue for HBO last year, and also kept pay TV providers like Comcast* happy.

But now, under pressure from investors to show that Time Warner can extract more value from HBO, Plepler and Time Warner seem willing to risk upsetting that structure. The move will also be seen as a response to the rise of Netflix, which has more than 50 million subscribers for its Web video service, and may generate more revenue than HBO this year.

The upside is that HBO will be able to market itself to customers who don’t want to buy a full “bundle” of pay TV channels, or may not get any pay TV package at all, a number Plepler pegged at 10 million. The downside is that the Comcasts of the world, who HBO will still want to market its service, may punish the company.

Other big TV networks have also discussed an interest in selling programming directly to consumers. ESPN, for instance, has said it will sell a package of NBA games to digital subscribers in the next few years. But in that case, the company has taken pains to argue that it won’t sell a product that competes with the one its already selling via pay TV.

Plepler’s brief statement about its “over the top” plans didn’t spell out the way the company would market and deliver HBO on the Web. It’s possible that the company will build out its own technology to do so. But I’ve also heard industry sources suggest that HBO would work with other companies who are already selling video on the Web, like Amazon and Hulu, to deliver its programming. HBO already has a wide-ranging content deal with Amazon.

He also didn’t discuss whether the Web version of HBO will be a mirror of the version available to pay TV customers. Analysts have previously suggested that HBO might consider a “windowed” version of its TV service on the Web, where shows like “True Detective” and “Game of Thrones” don’t appear until months after they debut on TV.

It’s important to note that much of Plepler’s presentation focused on HBO’s plans to build out its traditional business, by getting better terms from its existing pay TV partners, and by getting pay TV subscribers who aren’t paying for HBO to sign on — while continuing to pay for other TV channels.

*Comcast owns NBCUniversal, which is a minority investor in Re/code.

finally contemplating cutting the cord
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

or what content it will have.

I wonder why not

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I had several thoughts about what it might be, but I just read one that I had not considered -- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20141016154117-6623892-nine-thoughts-on-an-unbundled-hbo

"My bet’s on a library similar to what you can find in Amazon Prime."

if it's truly unbundled, I wonder if it will be the amazon prime HBO stuff, or perhaps a limited subset of that stuff, rotating.

the timing of the announcement though, has me thinking that Fox's takeover attempt on Time Warner pushed the timetable.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Now just let me know when it's available in Canada.....

I figured someone had earned an "I told you so!"


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://www.tumblr.com/blog/blackpeopleonlocalnews

Netflix's competitive advantage was always distribution, not content. HBO had the infrastructure in place but avoided leveraging it to appease their cable partners.

I didn't expect them to pivot so soon though. I was thinking they were going to explore more bundle packages with other companies or some sort of revenue sharing plan with combined marketing efforts.

I'm curious to see how they'll price it though. I'm highly skeptical it'll be offered at the going $15 rate, but I also don't see a higher price point being too palatable either.

Cats were clowning Wally like he was a dumb ass. Smh

Whether I'm right or wrong doesn't matter, I'd rather get it right than *be* right.

It's when other stuff gets introduced that the competitive side in me comes out.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

This is where I think things will get interesting. When some of the big entities that own TV and film get involved, I could see them holding some of their own properties and not sharing them with Netflix or Amazon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/business/cbs-to-offer-web-subscription-service.html

This is starting to become a cordcutter's dream come true. There are going to be a lot of fits and starts when people are trying to figure out pricing structures, but that was bound to happen with something as disruptive as digital distribution.

....eventually.

but why let Netflix and Amazon build businesses off of their content?

they're into making more money, not less, and now that the nielsen digital ratings are out they're getting religion on streaming.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

That they are somewhat living on borrowed time because there's a legit risk that they could turn into the second run theater of the internet. The network/studios will hold their product for a good while and hold off on expansion until the product doesn't drive people to their website anymore. Which will probably mean that their most popular shows will be CBS EXCLUSIVE! or something.

Or they'll have to make huge deals like they did with Gotham to get streaming rights and carry the risk that the show doesn't pan out.

Netflix has done a good job shifting gears and becoming more of a content creator and purchasing foreign rights but it has to be a major concern for them.

on original content so far, which helps, and their big money deal for disney's stuff is still in the future.

their stock price dropping yesterday is just as ridiculous as it ever being at the prices it was at.

so far, they SEEM to have navigated the hardest part -- the inevitable price hike that was always inevitable -- by putting it on time delay and announcing it while they battle the ISPs everyone hates. we'll see if people keep chill when it kicks in for existing customers tho.

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

*counts coins & dollars*

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

You made the claim, you want to back that up?

Or are you going to pull your same dodge/ad hominem/disappearing act like you normally do?

I'm going with ad hominem this time, anyone want to take bets?

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/rjcc.png

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Conveniently, it happens when I present a suite of facts that completely shuts down your position.

Just like this time.

So, looks like I was wrong. No ad hominem, resorted to dodge. Still sticking with original bet though, you're gonna get those ad hominem attacks in sooner or later.

So how do I look like a psycho again?

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://www.tumblr.com/blog/blackpeopleonlocalnews

I just enjoy making rj disappear.

nobody did, or has disappeared.

exactly what I said would happen, happened.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://www.tumblr.com/blog/blackpeopleonlocalnews

I liked the news that it was happening in the States next year, but looks like us North of the Board folks are also going to get the HBO goods. (Back catalogue, but I'll take it!)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bell-launches-project-latte-streaming-service-with-entire-hbo-catalogue-1.2818691

Bell launches Project Latte streaming service with entire HBO catalogue
Company will launch service with 10,000 hours of programming soon
CBC News Posted: Oct 30, 2014 3:27 PM ET Last Updated: Oct 30, 2014 3:38 PM ET

Bell Media announced a new streaming service Thursday that will give Canadian customers access to HBO's entire library of scripted television shows.

Known as Project Latte, Bell pitched the plan as the first time the entire off-air library of HBO’s iconic programming catalogue will be available for Canadian customers.

That includes shows like The Wire, The Sopranos, Sex And The City, Six Feet Under, Band of Brothers, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Big Love, Entourage, Oz, Rome and Deadwood, to name a few.

The service will also offer HBO's entire selection of documentaries and comedy specials, with a total of 350 different titles with more than 10,000 hours of programming at launch.

In a release, Bell said the service would be available to all television customers in Canada but also can be delivered via set-top box, apps, online, and other platforms.

Pricing information was not immediately available, and the company didn't say when it might launch.

The announcement comes days before Bell rivals Rogers and Shaw are set to launch their own exclusive streaming service, known as Shomi.

So this service via Bell is a first for HBO in Canada

Ahead of the schedule I think anyone could have predicted...

Just sayin.... http://i.minus.com/ibkScDTGcjWuAF.gif

http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/7/8363811/hbo-now-apple-tv-hands-on

Starting today, millions of people in the US can buy HBO without cable. HBO Now has officially launched across Apple TV and iOS. Subscriptions can be purchased directly through iTunes — your first month is free — and the HBO Now iPhone app hints that Cablevision will begin selling the service very soon. So now that it's here, what's HBO's standalone service like to use? Well, it's very familiar. It's HBO Go sans cable. In other words, it's exactly what we were anticipating, and that's fine.

We had some trouble registering for the service in the immediate moments after it went live this morning. Things seem to be settling now, but some users are still experiencing problems. As you go through the set-up process, you'll agree to a bunch of fine print most people will probably ignore. But there's some interesting stuff in there. For one, HBO is reserving the right to change the amount of simultaneous streams that customers can watch whenever it chooses and without warning.

Should login sharing become a real problem that eats into HBO Now's success, the company has given itself full allowance to get much stricter about where and when you can watch. But don't be alarmed just yet. Knowing that this is a service for cord cutters, HBO is at least partially open to the idea of users sharing HBO Now between family members. Another section of the user agreement mentions that you can add "authorized users" who can use the service under your own account. HBO warns that this should only be used for people living in the same household, but will that be something it somehow tries to enforce? There's no telling right now.

Once you successfully register, you'll find that the HBO Now app on Apple TV is largely identical to HBO Go. And there's no reason it shouldn't be; HBO has made clear from the start that Now would offer its full vault of original shows and catalog movies. You're not losing anything here compared to cable customers, nor should you expect to get anything extra. At least, not yet. Fast Company's interview with CEO Richard Plepler hints that HBO Now may eventually offer programming that won't appear on the main, linear network. Those possibilities are exciting, but they're not here at launch.

Aside from the home screen, HBO Now's main navigation bar is divided into six sections: Watchlist, Series, Movies, More, Search, and Settings. Aside from "More," which is where you'll find HBO sports and comedy specials, they're all pretty self explanatory. From anywhere in the app, you can add shows and movies to your Watchlist. Series is where you'll find HBO's long history of acclaimed original shows like The Sopranos or current hits like Game of Thrones. As for movies, HBO has a pretty extensive collection of on-demand films, and helpfully gives you the precise date when each one will be leaving the service.

HBO Now GoT
As usual with Apple TV apps, navigating around is dead simple. It's incredibly user friendly and obvious; select any show or movie and you can start playing it instantly, watch a brief preview, add it to your watch list, or hit "more" for cast and crew information. So the Apple TV channel is functional, but also a bit bland and inelegant. Especially in the movies section, expect to find yourself scrolling through large grids of icons, which has become another hallmark of the Apple TV experience. None of that's a huge annoyance on iPhone or iPad, where things are laid out better and browsing content is faster and more efficient since you're swiping through everything.

If HBO Go is any indication, the company will have more freedom to experiment with menus and user interface whenever Now inevitably reaches other living room boxes and game consoles. (See: HBO Go on PlayStation 4.) Still, it's perfectly usable on Apple TV, and you're here for the content more so than the app itself. Playback seems to work just fine. Streams start up promptly and display in HD without any noticeable buffering or freezing issues, so MLB Advanced Media seems to be doing a decent job handling the backend of HBO's standalone service. So far, anyway. We'll see how things hold up Sunday night when the internet is in full Game of Thrones mode. Reliability may go out the window.

Signing up for the free month's trial of HBO Now is something of a no brainer. This is something people have spent years waiting for, and it won't take long to decide whether HBO's content library is worth your $14.99 each month. And even then, remember that there's no commitment involved, so you can theoretically come and go whenever your favorite HBO shows are in-season. Obviously the company would prefer you stick with it, but there's nothing that says you have to.

At launch, HBO Now on Apple TV is just what we expected it to be. It's HBO Go without the costly cable package. If you don't have any Apple devices around, jumping in right now might not make the most sense. Cord cutting Android users will need to keep borrowing someone else's HBO Go login for now. In the months ahead, HBO Now should develop into a richer experience and one available on many more devices. But for right now, all you need is the internet — and Apple. Thankfully, an Apple TV will only cost you 69 bucks.

Now I need to find the best internet option where I live. Comcast charges too much for what I need.

how many words were needed?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Everything else is extraneous.

In post #90 you were wondering if the library is similar to what is found in Amazon Prime.

That Verge article explicitly stated the Now library is basically identical to the Go library.

Glad to be of help.


Edit: Oh, and you're right, it IS time to collect. Thanks for writing this article about me.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/08/if-you-said-take-my-money-hbo-its-ready-to-collect/

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=613869&mesg_id=613869&listing_type=search

Just saying. The market for a non-cable connected HBO product is massive, and will only get bigger.

SALES COMMENTARY (Not a product of XXX and should not be regarded as a research report)

Bottom Line: Plepler made it clear that they are just getting started with HBO NOW (800K subs) and are still expanding distribution with XBox and Playstation coming later this year. Less than 1% of NOW subs came from previously subscribing HBO subs through the traditional pay-TV ecosystem. He is quite excited about Jon Stewart, Bill Simmons, a nightly newscast plan with VICE and has been extremely pleased with John Oliver. NOW is currently operating in 9 territories and will be rolling out to Brazil and Argentina later this year. Movies account for >75% of viewing on HBO. HBO extended their output agreement with Summit Entertainment through 2022. He did say that "the company together is simply much stronger than obviously we would be alone."

Key Points:

Domestic Growth: See 3 drivers for domestic growth: 1) capture greater share of revenue from high performing distributors as renewals come up (help make video packages sticker), 2) drive underperforming distributors and if bring one of these to the average it represents $170M of additional revs for HBO, and 3) just getting started with HBO NOW.

Nuggets: Movies account for >75% of viewing on HBO, 62% of on-demand viewing are movies and 41% ONLY watch movies. Usage of HBO Go was up +42% y/y. 97% of people who have HBO in the bundle will not leave the bundle. <1% who have HBO in the pay-TV ecosystem have left to become OTT subs. Just extended their Summit Entertainment movie output deal through the end of 2022.

HBO NOW: Disclosed last qtr that have 800K subs and is “off to a very good start” but have a long way to go. Had a 3 month exclusivity period with AAPL and will come onto XBox and Playstation this year. See NOW the opportunity as the 12.5-13M broadband only homes.

TWX Family: The company is stronger (TWX) than HBO would be alone as brands and scale matter and have greater distribution leverage both domestically and internationally.

Competitive Landscape: "Competition has made us play our best game." Competition has been fierce, when you have House of Cards, Orange is a New Black, etc, but HBO has more hours and range of award winning programing than ever before. The range of talent lining up at the door is a stronger than ever before. The notion that this is a zero sum game has proven to be silly. HBO is never satisfied and the resting pulse is "what's next." These days if we pass on any show, there is a good chance it will appear on one of the competing platforms. HBO has a wide range of programming -– sports, box, documentary, etc. – all are truly important to the programming strategy.

Content: John Oliver is getting 52M views on FB for a 12-minute rant on Net Neutrality which speaks to how powerful and far reaching he is and can be.

AMZN/SVOD Licensing: When made the decision to license to AMZN, it was 3 year old library -- calculation was that a vast majority of AMZN Prime customers didn’t subscribe to HBO, it made sense to monetize some of the old library back then; it was good for AMZN and good for HBO.

http://www.techhive.com/article/3040148/data-center-cloud/att-directv-reveal-plans-for-three-streaming-tv-services-including-a-free-one.html

AT&T's getting ready to bring DirecTV to cord cutters with three sets of online streaming packages for live television. The new subscription packages—as well as one free offering—will not require a DirectTV dish, set-top box, or a yearly commitment, and will roll out sometime between October and December.

DirecTV is the latest cable service to move online without an accompanying cable subscription. Comcast rolled out a new service called Stream TV in limited markets to Comcast Internet subscribers in November. That same month Time Warner Cable did something similar for subscribers in New York City and New Jersey.

DirecTV ditches the dish
AT&T isn’t offering a ton of details about the new packages. We don’t know which networks and pay TV channels will be included or how much each package will cost. AT&T is only saying there will be a “range of content packages” to choose from that will include “on-demand and live programming from many networks.”

Here’s what we do know about the three streaming options:

DirecTV Now
The first offering is called DirecTV Now and appears to closely resemble the DirecTV packages people pay for now. Under DirectTV Now, subscribers will be able to choose from a variety of packages that include live and on-demand content, as well as premium add-on options. Again, it’s not clear how expansive these packages will be—though with Comcast’s Stream TV maxing out around 70 channels we can probably make an educated guess.

DirecTV Now will be accessible on pretty much any device with a screen and an Internet connection, as long as the device has the required DirecTV streaming app available.

DirecTV Mobile
AT&T calls this package a “mobile-first user experience” that will include premium video and “made-for-digital” content. AT&T doesn’t explicitly say this but it appears DirecTV Mobile will be for smartphones only.

DirecTV Mobile will be available to users on any network, so no AT&T wireless subscription required.

DirecTV Preview
The last offering is an ad-supported, free option with limited content from AT&T’s Audience Network, other unnamed networks and “content sources,” as well as the “millennial-focused” Otter Media. In other words, this one’s for the college kids. AT&T is an investor in Otter Media.

The impact on you at home: Online cable packages from the usual suspects sound interesting, but are they really what cable cutters want? A big part of ditching the cable box is to have the freedom to choose the content you actually want and not pay for a bunch of networks you’ll never watch. That’s why services like CBS All Access and HBO Now are more appealing. More concerning is that some of these cable companies are already up to their old tricks with online services. When we looked at Time Warner Cable’s streaming service in November, for example, the company was offering a 12-month teaser price for new customers—a common trick in the cable subscription world that usually ends with jacked up prices.

There aren’t enough details on DirecTV’s plan to know how this will all shake out for interested subscribers. At the very least, it’s a good sign to see television channels move online—but it seems the middle men are coming with them.

but why mention that.

http://nypost.com/2016/02/10/hbo-now-struggles-to-find-an-audience/

you should say where you copied that info from.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Did you even read my post?

That link you put up (from the NY Post of all places) is from 2-10-16, right after their analyst call. Yes, 800k was below Wall Street expectations, in the first subscriber announcement since the release of the product. The actual sell side commentary (from Morgan Stanley's Media & Telecom analyst) is in my post:

_____________________________________________________
HBO NOW: Disclosed last qtr that have 800K subs and is “off to a very good start” but have a long way to go. Had a 3 month exclusivity period with AAPL and will come onto XBox and Playstation this year. See NOW the opportunity as the 12.5-13M broadband only homes.
_____________________________________________________

Some reasons for the initially disappointing numbers was the AAPL exclusivity and lack of availability on some of the biggest platforms. Regardless, the market for NOW is huge and will only get bigger as cable cutting grows. That can all be inferred from my post, but you seem to avoid using critical thinking when engaging me.

Oh, also, the reason for the analyst's email is because of HBO's announcement that NOW is expanding into Brazil and Argentina. Here's his blurb on the int'l markets:

_____________________________________________________
Int'l: International business has 3 models: 1) networks in 60 cos, 2) licensing is 150 countries and 3) the OTT. Moving to a global platform and have a lot of range. Going OTT in Brazil (30M broadband subs,70M TV subs) and Argentina this year and currently operating in 9 territories. Putting on 173 hours of original programming in LatAm. Growing +20% in LatAm ex-FX. It’s not a one size fits all strategy. Just did licensing deal with Bell Canada. Licensing deal in China which has a lot of optionality and potential.
_____________________________________________________

http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/02/hbo-will-launch-streaming-services-in-brazil-and-argentina-this-year/

Seriously. The streaming product is going to be massive. Trying to claim a win because of a missed research expectation on their first subscriber numbers is hilarious. Especially since the most monumental Game of Thrones season is about to hit, which is going to spike all their numbers, considering GoT is a bonafide GLOBAL hit. Try taking a step back and see this on a bigger scale.

But, what do I know. You are the one that said of a potential HBO streaming service that: "anyone who seriously entertains this is a moron".

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=613869&mesg_id=613869&listing_type=search#614134

and yes, you were getting trolled for pageviews four years ago.

I was exactly right, thanks for pointing that out!

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

whoaaaaaaa

super hot intel in 2016 coming in from the sell-side.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

just take your ball and go home

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

All I've ever seen is resounding victory.

apparently he keeps a file.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

In post #3, I said:

"There are literally entire countries that have zero legit access to HBO content that always show a huge spike in torrents every time an episode of Game of Thrones comes out.

No question HBO is absolutely successful doing what they're doing now, and disrupting that business model (undoubtedly pissing off the cable providers) would be foolish. But not even trying to tap into potential markets seems like needlessly leaving a ton of money on the table."

Then in post #11, I said:

"It's estimated that something like 25 million worldwide viewers (on par with the Super Bowl) watch GoT each week. Exposure isn't the question... it's about providing a paid option to those who want to pay.

That business model is online streaming... and the infrastructure for HBO GO is already in place... No one's saying that HBO is struggling with their current business model, but if people are clamoring to GIVE THEM MONEY... then that means they're leaving money on the table."


Of course, the mature response in post #23 was:

"if you think this you're a fucking idiot.

more people would buy big macs if big macs cost a penny.

mcdonalds doesn't charge a penny, because they'd be fucking losing money if they did.

THEY ARE NOT LEAVING MONEY ON THE FUCKING TABLE YOU FUCK."


2016 me is just tired and dreading going to the gym. But 2012 me is kinda giddy right now. :D

it's almost like you're committed to some bizarre lie about me saying that HBO would never offer streaming.

even though what I said, was exactly the opposite.


that you think this is all somehow a prophetic idea you had is the weirdest part.



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

2016: with much more broadband penetration, internet TV devices everywhere, app stores in full flow, and a full library of content = 800k subscribers.

this fully answers the question of why HBO didn't offer streaming years ago, when the potential audience was even smaller. the idea that the masses were clamoring to give them money was just wrong.

it's changing, slowly (sure, I predicted that, but so did everyone else so I won't let it blow my head up), but it's not a layup and it's not instant.

weird.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

that tries to slip in a purple chip under your nickels when the dealer busts. The funny thing is when you're trying to cheat, cheat small. Stick a green chip in there, don't swing for the fences every time. You woulda gotten kicked out the casino a long time ago.

The great thing about all this is we're arguing in the very thread where you shit all over yourself. Clean yourself up, you're a middle-aged man.

My argument from the beginning has been exploring untapped revenue streams, including the international markets.

Your argument was they would never explore a streaming option because of their profitable partnership with the telecoms. That HBO's tie to a cable subscription precludes them from providing a streaming product. Your quote from post #24:

"it has to do with the fact that the people protesting are liars. they do not want to buy HBO alone for what it would cost for HBO to keep making the profits they make.

as long as this is true, HBO will not be available by itself.

when it is not true, that circumstance will change."


Guess what: HBO is still making their cable profits, HBO by itself exists, and they're expanding quickly into international markets.

I love how suddenly your argument expanded to broadband penetration, app stores and expanded library content. Seriously bruh, you got caught sneaking a purple chip, you shoulda stuck with the greens. You can hem and haw about how you were saying the same thing, that it would happen in the future, blah blah blah. Nah, read the threads again. There was zero nuance in any of your posts, and your bottom line was that HBO's profits through TV trump any possibility of a streaming option. The great thing is I was talking about streaming leverage already, in post #37. My quote:

"I've NEVER advocated an "either or" model for HBO. The impetus for virtually every info tech-related company nowadays is determining how better to leverage the easy distribution the internet provides. HBO Go may not be a streaming-only option any time soon, but a time will come when it is."

Of course, your response in post #47 was:

"there's nothing creative about comcast's hbo offer. you still need TV to get HBO.
they have ALWAYS had low cost plans that you can add HBO to."
you don't know that, because you don't know anything about anything."


Your backtracking and last-word-ism is fucking laughable. I guarantee you won't be able to mount a coherent counterfactual to this reply without resorting to ad hominem, strawman or false dichotomy. But I hope I'm wrong. Because it's fun watching you try.

Oh, and don't think I missed you avoiding all my points from post #110 either, I'm still waiting for a logical response to that post too. You write for a living, so write something that doesn't make you look like a child.


inb4 "you have another 400 words to write about it, I have an actual job discussing this very topic." (post #22)

despite your limitless archives of my words, you can't find it, because I didn't say it, imply it, or suggest it.

cool, thanks for proving I'm right.

I have no idea why you've spent years pretending otherwise, but everyone needs a hobby.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Your (lack of) reading comprehension continues to amuse and entertain me.

And the march of deflection continues...

pretty standard stuff.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at