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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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: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: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: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.