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".

Comments

Bad news for ESPN

[craighansen]

This is bad news for ESPN, that gets several dollars out of every cable subscriber now.

Re:Bad news for ESPN

[hibiki_r]

ESPN has plenty of people that are willing to give them much more than $7 a month for their content: There is an entire demographic that uses TV just to watch sports.
The ones that are really in trouble are smaller channels that still have some real expenses. Think of someone like AMC, that justifies its existence due to a relatively small number of valuable content they finance themselves, while the rest is filler. Would people really subscribe to the channel if all they wanted as 20 hours of television a year?

Re:Bad news for ESPN

[Hadlock]

What's stopping ESPN from offering their entire HD channel package for $10/month via Amazon, HuluPlus or a bundle deal with HBOGo?

Re:Bad news for ESPN

[TheGavster]

HBO's a-little-after-second-run movie lineup isn't why most people have it; it's the original programming. I think there's a big market for companies like HBO, AMC, etc to develop reputations based on a small number of high-quality shows. Online distribution makes it so they don't need to license a ton of filler, like AMC, or fill out a lineup with low-quality shows, like the big networks do.

Re:Bad news for ESPN

[Isca]

Well, for one ESPN wouldn't make enough money. Purportedly a HBO cable subscriber pays 15 a month for HBO, but only around 9-10 goes to HBO.

ESPN is getting an average of 8-10 dollars per cable subscriber. But it gets this from ALL of subscribers of "basic" cable.

HBO has seen it's viewership shrinking because the cord cutters can find alternative means to get their HBO shows, and the ones who don't watch sports are the ones most likely to cut the cord. So it doesn't really hurt them much to switch people over to cable. A lot of people know that HBO is owned by Time Warner. what they don't realize is that Time Warner Cable is a separate entity, so they are not cutting their throats by doing this. In fact they are really the only entity who could realistically go up against Netflix in the short term.

ESPN can't make that move without charging at least $25 a month. And at that price they wouldn't find as many buyers because of the growth of other regional sports networks - you'd have a smaller pool of sports fans willing to pony up. It may happen eventually but it will only come because the cable model is disintegrating completely. In the meantime they'll milk every cable company in the country for as much as they can by getting 8-10 per customer even if that customer hates sports. (BTW, as a lifelong University of Louisville fan now and a big sports fan I would be a cable cutter if I could pay ESPN $25 a month and HBO $15 a month.)

Re:Bad news for ESPN

[alen]

if i can get a cable package paying $10 a month for YES, MSG and SNY channels i'll jump on it. most people only care about the regional sports networks and not ESPN/FOX Sports etc. only NBCSN would be a big hit since they have the Barclays Premier League

Re:Bad news for ESPN

[rockout]

Their profits may shrink, but even with so many people "cutting the cord", they're not going bankrupt in your lifetime. They're printing money right now. There's a whole hell of a lot of distance between their current profit margins and bankruptcy.

Re:Bad news for ESPN

[Maxo-Texas]

I have HBO because it's cheaper to have it with the comcast bundle than to not have it for the next 18 months. I would never ever pay for it.

I have Netflix because it used to seriously rock and it still rocks.

But all the companies are slicing and dicing the pool of shows and movies smaller and smaller and still want $10 to $15 each.

A huge unlimited pool of movies at $12 was great.

17 limited pools of movies and shows at $12 each is going to suck and not be worth it.

Re:Bad news for ESPN

[CastrTroy]

But they'd probably get a lot more subscribers. There's a lot of people cutting the cable, especially the younger generation. They don't care if you throw in ESPN, they aren't paying $80 a month for television,even if they really like to watch sports. If you make it $10 a month, you'd probably get a lot of college guys signing up. A house with 4 guys in it would probably split the cost of the subscription and it would cost almost nothing for them. And since they may want to watch the game together anyway, it probably wouldn't matter if they could only watch one stream at a time. I hardly watch sports at all, but I'd at least consider paying $10 a month to get ESPN. Sports is something that's great to watch when you have a few people over. Movies and TV require that you actually pay attention to what's going on.

I am not alone when I say....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I am not alone when I say....

[Anonymous Coward]

They will give you a usable DRM container on every major platform, dongle and OS. They will not remove DRM, because the studios they license films from demand it.

But if you expect to watch content on BeOS you're shit out of luck.

Re:I am not alone when I say....

[MightyMartian]

Just buy a Chromecast and deal with it. I stopped caring about DRMed video a long time ago. All I care about is that I can watch Netflix with my tablet as a remote control. If HBO works on Chromecast, I'll be the first guy in line to buy a subscription.

Re:I am not alone when I say....

[dasacc22]

> 2) Of quality at least as good as cable feeds

I do not subscribe to cable, but wouldn't that be based on where you subscribe and your provider? Going with cable provider terms, one might offer the show in high-def while another may not.

> 3) In a usable non-DRM container which doesn't require a web browser

At this point, who gives a shit if it's DRM if it's easily playable via whatever mechanism you use. Currently, I use LocalCast app on android to play content via DLNA to my TV, or I use the built in chrome-cast functionality of apps (such as netflix) to play to my tv, but I honestly don't give a shit about content as long as it can get to my tv without too much fuss. If I can launch an HBO Go app on a device and have it play on my device, I'm fucking happy. End-of-story. If I can login to a website and play an episode, even if I'm in linux, I'm fucking happy, End-of-story. Ideological shit aside, I want to see the content however I'm wanting to see it, and if it's possible, I'm fucking happy.

DRM has in the past been an issue, but it doesn't have to be.

> 4) Charge no more than $5 per episode (even that is steep).

who the fuck would pay that much per episode? If the audience were 5000 people, then ok, but looking at the most pirated show ever (game of thrones), that's not the case.

Re:I am not alone when I say....

[Kjella]

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).

If it's anything like HBO Nordic:
1) Within 24 hours, often <6 hours
2) Less bandwidth than H.264 cable rips, no 5.1 sound but also not terrible
3) When hell freezes over
4) Here in Norway it's 79 NOK/month, subtracting VAT = $115/year for access to all HBO series

I'm a subscriber but still prefer downloading due to 2), then again I think HBO Nordic is their own company that bought to rights from HBO centrally so whether or not any of this applies is uncertain. I think the delay is because they don't get access to the episode until it's aired in the US, for example.

Re:I am not alone when I say....

[radarskiy]

"every single person involved with marketing for the studio is incompetent."

Yes, but they cry themselves to sleep on beds made of money.

Re:I am not alone when I say....

[alex67500]

they only cry if they get champagne or cocaine in their eyes...

finally

[dasacc22]

obligatory theoatmeal, http://theoatmeal.com/comics/g...

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 ..."stream breaks. Download episode via bittorrent in 3 1/2 minutes and enjoy.

I'm happy to pay for content, but make that shit work.

Total Isolation?

[hawguy]

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?

Re:Total Isolation?

[preaction]

I, for one, love article summaries that condescend to me. It just wouldn't be Slashdot without condescension.

Re:Total Isolation?

[RyoShin]

This was just announced today; I guess the submitter assumes everyone is plastered to their many-tech-related RSS feeds and already read about it.

Of course, "announced" is a lose term here. As far as I'm aware, all they've said is that they're going to offer a new streaming option. That's it. No price, nothing about what HBO content it will have (just the live feed? Can you watch individual episodes? Can you watch past series?). Just that it's coming.

Considering that HBO is one of the main reasons a lot of people don't abandon cable, I wonder if the various cable companies are worried. I can just imagine them rounding up the lobbyists, telling them to throw money at whatever Congresscritter they have in their pocket to somehow make this illegal.

Live sports are the other "main" reason, of course. If the likes of ESPN and the NFL make stand-alone streaming services (I believe they have the "requires cable subscription" offerings at the moment, like HBO already has) then it could be the death knell of cable subscriptions in our country.

Re:Total Isolation?

[antdude]

I bet this will make cable TV prices go up even more. :(

Just in time!

[MrEricSir]

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.

Re:Heh Heh pain for Comcast and Time Warner

[praxis]

HBO $20/month tv + straming

In my market for me to subscribe to HBO it costs somewhere north of $130 a month, though they can't actually tell me how much before selling it to me. Of course, I would get all sorts of other channels, but if I only want HBO, that's the cheapest I can get it today. That's why HBO selling directly to me might actually get money out of me. HBO is not worth $130 a month to me.

Comcast’s current monthly service charges for Digital Premier TV, ranges based on area, from $127.99 to $143.49 (pricing subject to change).

Not quite.

[asylumx]

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.

Re:Not quite.

[RyoShin]

Where did you read that? At least per this NPR article:

Beginning in 2015, HBO will offer a streaming service to cord-cutters and other nonsubscribers on an a la carte basis. It should be noted that the announcement HBO released to the media does not explicitly say the service will be HBO GO (or that it won't), only that it will be "a stand-alone, over-the-top, HBO service." And, of course, it doesn't say how much the service will cost. It doesn't even say it will carry every HBO show, let alone what archival material will be available — HBO GO has a lot.

The announcement says HBO will "work with our current partners" and "explore models with new partners," but it seems inevitable that an arrangement like this will unsettle cable providers who have been able to use legitimate access to premium networks like HBO as one of the remaining barriers against cord-cutting, the practice of declining to have a cable subscription in favor of watching online.

Emphasis mine. While that incredibly vague part about partners could suggest tying it to ISPs, the straight-up statement of "stand-alone" contradicts such an idea.

But, even if it was a package deal, that's not new to ISPs: many have bundles with anti-virus subscriptions and some might do Hulu or Netflix trials. None of these are big pushers, however, and HBO would be a game changer in that.

Re:Time Warner Owns HBO

[jratcliffe]

Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are two entirely different companies. They split apart in 2009, and have no connection except for the name.

HBO has higher earnings than Netflix

[oistrakh]

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