Slashdot Mirror
HBO To Offer Online Streaming Without TV Subscription
An anonymous reader writes By now, everyone not living in total isolation knows that HBO has announced plans to offer content streaming in 2015 with no TV subscription requirements. Many wonder what took HBO so long to make this transition. Some speculate that the growing unpopularity of ISP giants has shifted bargaining power in HBO's favor. Others say that it's purely maths; there are more cord-cutters and more people willing to shell out money for specific content, as evidenced by Netflix surpassing HBO in earnings this year "despite Netflix having a smaller customer base". Whatever the reason, all are expecting this development to induce "more content providers to make their shows more readily available online".
This is bad news for ESPN, that gets several dollars out of every cable subscriber now.
IF they will give me episodes...
1) On their TV release date.
2) Of quality at least as good as cable feeds
3) In a usable non-DRM container which doesn't require a web browser
4) Charge no more than $5 per episode (even that is steep).
Then, HBO will get my five bucks. Otherwise they get zero. It's just that simple and I still suspect people fail at both math and psychology if they can't get this right.
obligatory theoatmeal, http://theoatmeal.com/comics/g...
..."stream breaks. Download episode via bittorrent in 3 1/2 minutes and enjoy.
A large portion of what I watch actually happens to come from HBO, but regardless I end up downloading the content like anything else. Classic example, I purchase a season of the Vikings from google play store in advance b/c I do not own cable but would like to watch the show legally (even a day late from when it aired). I get a notification that a new episode is available. I click play "Last week on Vik...." stream breaks. Hit replay, "Last wee...." stream breaks. Hit replay, "Last week on
I'm happy to pay for content, but make that shit work.
By now, everyone not living in total isolation knows that HBO has announced plans to offer content streaming in 2015 with no TV subscription requirements.
I like to think that I'm not in total isolation, I read online news (including Slashdot), occasionally check in to Facebook and Twitter, but I never heard this before.
I heard that all the cool kids are on Snapchat now - I suppose that's where this news broke?
This service will truly be tested once the next season of Game of Thrones comes on HBO. If they stay true to same-day airing, I think this service will take off. After that, the hardest part will be getting the cheapskates and frugal users of the world to switch to this from the free price they've been paying until this point in time.
Meow what do we have here?
I like some of the prospects, and I cut my cord in favor of netfix (and ..other.. sources) long ago, but i do not want to pay HBO, ESPN, Showtime, netflix, Hulu and a dozen different providers either.
Silence is a state of mime.
Really this is what the merger was really about and having content abandon them couldn't be better.
Netflix 8$/month streaming
HBO $20/month tv + straming
HBO Subscribers >> Netflix
Who is actually profiting here ? The cable TV company
Net neutrality and isp choice => their death and there couldn't be more deserving entities for capitalism's creative destruction
And it's just in time for the end of net neutrality, so you can be sure your ISP will charge you a premium plan to access HBO online.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
MGM, Universal, Sony, and all copyright owners should just make all their content watchable on their own websites. Instead of clicking to channel 24, I should click to channel mgm.com, paramount.com, or whatever.
This usage of a middleman like Netflix, where most content isn't even available, doesn't make sense to me.
I guess they would have to figure out how to inject ads in or around all their content, or standardize on OAuth Connect or something so I don't have to sign up on each website. They would also have to be happy with micropayments per show or very small monthly credit card charges. I can't sign up on all of them for $10 a month.
Who is actually profiting here ? The cable TV company
HBO is owned by Time Warner. Time Warner sells cable and makes a lot of money from people buying cable just to get HBO. Hence Time Warner has actively resisted HBO selling their content a la carte. Time Warner will make money either way - they've just been denying the sound of inevitability because the folks at the top fear change.
From what I've read, HBO is considering offering its service as an add-on for you ISP (who is often-times also your cable company). So, while this is slightly better, it's actually bad news because it's entirely possible and probable that ISPs will start bundling gold and platinum packages with HBO, Netflix, Hulu, whatever.
I don't know, I guess I could just see this going really badly even though it sounds like a good thing at the moment.
Wow, HBO wasn't whistling Dixie earlier this year when the new season of their most popular show was premiering and they insisted they were working diligently on making their content more available, between the Amazon deal and now this.
The reason is simple: because Game of Thrones.
While it's still not hitting Sopranos in traditional ratings, between the HBOGO and DVR ratings it's estimated it's audience right up there with the largest scripted TV network show right now (beating BBT) - if you factor in pirating it's easily the most watched scripted television show currently in production worldwide, period.
Not only that, but the merchandising is making HBO a bundle right now - they can afford to take this route. Truth be told, I doubt the cable companies cared much - HBO is a huge PITA for them post-GoT, because folks sign up for three months just to watch it then drop it, and they clog the phone centers with "retention" calls to a huge degree trying to worm free HBO out of them for whatever complaint (which usually gets you 3 months, same length as a season).
I'm not a white hat, but I'm not a "download everything free mwhahahaha world owes me anyway" type either. That said - this pretty much takes any "valid" excuse away from pirating the show - and those that still do so are really crapping on the content. I know it won't change most, or even many, folks doing this - but if ever there was a time to support something financially, it's here. The money paid to HBO for subscriptions pays for these shows and keeps them on the air. There are no commercials, no subsidizing with other network divisions, etc. - this is as "real" and direct as it gets for directly supporting traditional content.
FWIW, this was my final impetus. I've been ready to dump cable for two years now (and if you knew how much I love TV you would find the notion itself shocking), but in the end, it was ease of access to HBO, Dallas on TNT (which just got canned), and Nick at Night - besides the "it's already installed" convenience factor - that are why I hadn't cut yet. With HBO accessible on it's own, Nick at Night isn't going to cut it for $150/month. All told, once I get alternate internet, Hulu, HBO, TiVo, etc. I'm going to be paying more like $80 a month for content, which is just fine with me (especially since I can cut those bills if need be or desire wanes much easier than just having to get rid of everything like you do with cable).
So props to HBO for taking the leap - I'll be signing up on day one.
not in canada though, their deal with Bell precludes this option. Bell repackages HBO programming with Canadian content to meet CRTC rules (Canada's FCC). CBC reported today that no online content will be available in the near future (contract with Bell til Hell freezes over, no doubt)
I spoke with the head of a local municipal cable provider years ago--he said the equipment could already handle a-la-cart programming--they just legally weren't allowed.
I've read the agreements. The cable guy lied to you. They can't unbundle what they pay, but they can unbundle what you pay. They could pay $15 per sub for ESPN/Disney bundle, and charge $3 per channel for the content in it, so you get all the kids channels for $3 each, and none of the sports or family channels. They would be on the hook for $15, even if you only got one of the channels, but someone that ordered them all would more than make up for it.
The problem was that no municipal cable provider was willing to take the business risk of allowing a-la-carte, not that it was "illegal".
Learn to love Alaska
Not sure where the poster got their data, but HBO revenues are significantly higher than Netflix. Netflix 2014Q2 revenue was $838milion, HBO 2014Q2 revenue was $1.4billion. Netflix has more SUBSCRIBERS than HBO, but they make far less revenue, and are also far less profitable.
Netflix 2014Q2: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/NFLX/3548772358x0x769748/9b21df7f-743c-4f0f-94da-9f13e384a3d2/July2014EarningsLetter_7.21.14_final.pdf
HBO 2014Q2: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjQ1MzkzfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1
$49/mo.
-OR-
Episodes ala-carte $2.49
SD / $2.99 720HD / $3.49 1080HD
-AVAILABLE-
Within 12 hours of air
Step 3: Profit.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
it's already available in Scandinavia... have been for years... I've been thinking about getting a proxy... I lost HBO when I moved to the US...
I've read the agreements. The cable guy lied to you. They can't unbundle what they pay, but they can unbundle what you pay.
Apparently, you haven't read the agreements in detail. Not only does the cable company have to pay the content provider for the full package, the agreement also says that the cable company has to provide all those channels on some particular tier (like "basic", "expanded basic", etc.) so that the content provider gets to say "available in X% of homes" to keep advertising dollars higher.
So, yes, the cable company could unbundle the channels and only charge you for the channels you want, but you'd still get all the other channels from that content provider based on your "tier". The only way to avoid this would be to have a completely "a la carte" tier. If that happened, though, the content providers would have lower advertising dollars, and would thus have to charge more for their content, which would mean that a la carte would end up at similar prices to what you pay now, unless you truly do just watch one or two channels.
Not sure if that relates to the story. It might.
It's interesting that my local cable monopoly, Time-Warner, has recently offered me cable for $30 per month, including HBO. We seriously considered it, but with the cost of renting the equipment, installation fees, and the fact that that price was good only for one year, we decided that torrents were still a better option. I would happily pay for HBOgo, as long as it's reasonably priced. Same goes for other so-called premium channels. A la carte cable would also be a nice option, but really, you can't beat having shows on demand. I work evenings, so the sit-in-front-of-the-TV-at-a-certain-time model doesn't work for me anyway.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Agreed on all counts, especially #1.
The big question is: what will stop your cable-providing-ISP from capping bandwidth when you stream HBO? To get around that, they need to go the BBC iPlayer route and allow time-bombed downloads. Of course you can dis-arm the 'feature' by simply renaming the file.
I've seen some of that wording, and it looked to me that you could have "basic", "basic" + ESPN, and "expanded basic" (includes all Disney), not that you have to give access to ESPN2 for everyone who orders ESPN, though the contract says you must pay for ESPN2 to show ESPN.
The wording you refer to was written with the intention you have in mind, but the detail wasn't there. There was a gentleman's agreement to not unbundle. If a carrier did, then the wording would change in 3 years, when the contract comes up for renewal.
That's the real fear of unbundling. That the moment you do, you'll never sign another content agreement again. It'd be a time bomb, not a contractual requirement for the contracts in place right now.
Learn to love Alaska
This sortof misses the point. Sure, it's create for people who only want HBO without cable, but those of us who want "unbundling" are really looking for specific programs. I don't want to subscribe to "The Discovery Channel." I just want Mythbusters. I don't want to subscribe to "Fox", I just want So You Think You Can Dance. I don't want to subscribe to HBO, I just want Game of Thrones.
I think, especially with DVRs, people have moved past a channel/network mentality and are in a per-show mentality, just like when we go to watch a movie, there's a specific movie we're aiming to see. No one goes to the theaters with the intention of watching the next great Paramount Pictures film*
Obviously, the networks don't want me to feel this way, but I'm long past caring about networks, and I don't think most people care about networks either.
*The big exception would be studios like Pixar, Dreamworks, Laika, Disney, where the filmmaking pool is shared among productions)
Let me guess: "This content is not available in your region" messages for anyone outside the US. :(
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.