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?

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Soul music is bad, bad, bad!

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.

twitter: lategordon

Check out my podcast Long and Late Movie Show: http://itunes.com/podcast?id=498789655

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...

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

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�.

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

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.

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

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.

********************************************************************




"I *always* quote myself. I'm the only reliable source on *most* subjects" - OKP's First Lady of Knowledge, Janey

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!

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Soul music is bad, bad, bad!

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.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Soul music is bad, bad, bad!

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...).

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

> 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?

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

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?

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

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.

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

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.

___________

HOPE!
https://vine.co/v/i7JjIBL3Qix
https://vine.co/v/i7JtqEFwxDu

> 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.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

I know a number of folks who do this.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

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.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

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.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>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.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

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.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

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.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

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.

-Sig-

“Why didn’t you do this in your own god damn country?"

-All Stah's view on undocumented immigrants wanting to be treated like human beings.

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.

-Sig-

“Why didn’t you do this in your own god damn country?"

-All Stah's view on undocumented immigrants wanting to be treated like human beings.

====================================
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.