HBO and Cinemax Come To Hulu, But You'll Need the New App To Watch (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Hulu this morning announced it's finally adding HBO as an optional add-on for subscribers, as well as HBO-owned Cinemax. The premium networks will be offered to those who subscribe to Hulu's on-demand service plus those who pay for Hulu's new live TV service, including both the ad-supported and commercial-free versions. As on most other streaming services, including HBO NOW, the HBO add-on will cost subscribers an extra $14.99 per month. Cinemax is a more affordable upgrade at $9.99 per month. The deal's timing comes just ahead of "Game of Thrones" big summer release, which will allow Hulu the opportunity to capture some number of subscribers for this premium upgrade. Many HBO viewers only pay for the streaming service while the flagship series is airing, as they want to watch it live but no longer pay for cable TV. Now, they'll be able to watch the show live or on-demand, along with past seasons of other popular HBO series, like the "The Sopranos," or catch up on newcomers like "Westworld," along with all the other shows, sports, comedy and music specials, and movies that HBO offers. Some of HBO's other notable originals include "Veep," "Last Week Tonight," "Vice," "Silicon Valley," "Big Little Lies," and "The Night Of." It's now home to kids classic "Sesame Street," too.

Comments

Wow...

[AmazingRuss]

...that's an ad.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, there have been a lot more of them, recently. i wish /. was never sold.

I'm not sure I see the value

[93 Escort Wagon]

If it's the same price, what's the advantage to this over just using HBO Now? Are there platforms which have a Hulu app but don't have HBO Now?

Oddly, when I bought my barebones "internet plus local channels only" package from Comcast, it came with HBO as a throw-in. I doubt I'd pay $15/month for HBO; but I do enjoy Game of Thrones and am looking forward FINALLY to the war starting!

Re:I'm not sure I see the value

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you used the HBO Now app? It's terrible. I switched away when it became available as an Amazon add-on so I could use it from a service that reliably tracks which episodes I've watched, which episode to play next, etc.

Re:I'm not sure I see the value

[Anonymous Coward]

Convenience of all in one app, instead of switching? Admittedly it's a small convenience. It certainly is a boost for Hulu because they can grab more new subscribers who might not want HBO at first but may be willing to try it out. HBO has got nothing to lose here.

Also I haven't used HBO Go or Now, but Hulu streaming for me is rock solid. If HBO streaming is not, then there's another reason.

Re:I'm not sure I see the value

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'm watching on an AppleTV 3. The Hulu app is "rock solid" in terms of streaming, but I find the interface to be really cluttered... so my preference would be for the separate HBO GO app anyway (which has also been solid for me).

Of course, the apps on the 3rd gen ATV aren't getting updated, so I can't speak to the usability of the current apps. But, given what I've read, that may be a good thing! My Netflix app, for instance, still lets me rate stuff using stars... :-P

Re:I'm not sure I see the value

[93 Escort Wagon]

I've used the HBO GO app on an AppleTV 3. For me it's worked quite well - but they obviously haven't updated it in a while, which very well may be a blessing. Nowadays it seems like any app's updates - past the initial round of bug fixes - tend to degrade the user experience rather than enhance it.

Re:I'm not sure I see the value

[sarbonn]

There is no advantage to using their new way of getting HBO. As a matter of fact, it's a disadvantage because it will require the new Hulu (a paid service), and it would also mean it would be lumped into your Hulu, so if you ended up deciding Hulu was no longer for you, I'm not sure how hard it might be to dislodge HBO Now from a no longer working Hulu.

Re:I'm not sure I see the value

[unrtst]

How many ways are there to access HBO content legally/officially? I know of:
* HBO GO (or now?) app, which is available on Android, Roku, AppleTV, and probably a bunch of others such as smart TV's and such. Wrapping them all in this bullet point cause that's still within their app.
* Through Amazon as an add-on (why the hulu part is news? I have no idea), and thus on everything it's on.
* Through Hulu as an add-on, and thus on everything it's on (if you update the app to version ??? I don't know)

In many ways, it's not a big deal. HOWEVER, 3rd party content aggregators have been hammered on for years. This is another means of quashing that. I'd love to have one interface that keeps track of what shows I watch and my progress in each, shows what new episodes are available, etc etc, and have it support backends to hulu, amazon, netflix, hbo, showtime, cinimax, sports things, etc etc. Most media centers make an attempt at that, but they're all pretty awkward IMO. If one streaming company could manage to pull in all the others as add-ons, then they could become the defacto interface and the one company grabbing your eyeballs with ads/etc.

HBO doesn't really care either way. Their business plan differs from most. The only ads you see are those for other programs of theirs, which is still annoying (almost more so, since I already paid for those, and may already be watching them). Anyway... they know they're not going to start streaming all the other channels content, but it doesn't hurt for them to be offered through hulu/amazon/etc (they probably make more money that way, due to not using their own bandwidth/servers).

Re:I'm not sure I see the value

[93 Escort Wagon]

How many ways are there to access HBO content legally/officially? I know of:
* HBO GO (or now?) app, which is available on Android, Roku, AppleTV, and probably a bunch of others such as smart TV's and such. Wrapping them all in this bullet point cause that's still within their app.
* Through Amazon as an add-on (why the hulu part is news? I have no idea), and thus on everything it's on.
* Through Hulu as an add-on, and thus on everything it's on (if you update the app to version ??? I don't know)

I don't understand why they don't just roll both use cases into one app; but HBO GO gives free access to those of us who already get HBO as part of a cable TV subscription, while HBO NOW is the standalone product people pay $15/month for.
 

Re:I'm not sure I see the value

[Wootery]

Here in the UK, Sky have NowTV, a subscription streaming service which includes some amount of HBO content. Game of Thrones in particular is available sometimes - clearly their licence is on-and-off. Currently GoT is available, and back when season 6 was being shown they were made available roughly as they came out.

I cut Hulu already

[Dutch Gun]

That bug in the corner of the screen just bugged me too much. I'm probably a bit weird about stuff like that, but those things drive me to distraction. So I voted with my wallet, and canceled.

Also, $15 extra a month for one channel? Ehh... no. Those are "add-on" prices only for someone used to cable's exorbitant $100 a month plus fees. Maybe when I don't have to think about my budget quite as much... Too bad, as I've heard good things about Westworld.

Re:I cut Hulu already

[beelsebob]

The thing is, HBO has more good quality original content than pretty much all the other channels combined. I agree that $15 a month would be a lot for most channels, but for HBO I'm just fine paying it.

Re:I cut Hulu already

[ranton]

Also, $15 extra a month for one channel? Ehh... no. Those are "add-on" prices only for someone used to cable's exorbitant $100 a month plus fees. Maybe when I don't have to think about my budget quite as much... Too bad, as I've heard good things about Westworld.

It should be noted that based on HBO's operating profit, HBO would not be profitable if they charged $10 per month (maybe marginally profitable since more people would probably sign up). I guess an argument could be made that they would still make a hefty profit at $12.99 per month, but you are really quibbling over a couple dollars there. I bet most people who complain about paying $15 per month would still be complaining if it was $12.99 per month.

It takes a significant amount of money to produce shows at HBO's level of quality. For me it's not much different than paying $5 to rent a movie considering it is movie quality programming. I watch less than a quarter of their original programming but it is still well worth it.

Re:I cut Hulu already

[Rolgar]

Check your library. My library has the previous seasons on disc.

Sesame Street on HBO

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't so concerned when HBO retired Bob, Luis, and Gordon from Sesame Street, but when they introduced Bubbles and Omar Little to give the show some street cred, I had to cancel.

Re:Sesame Street on HBO

[Anonymous Coward]

your a racist

Re:Sesame Street on HBO

[Anonymous Coward]

you're*

Re:Sesame Street on HBO

[Anonymous Coward]

your a doosh

Re:Sesame Street on HBO

[Anonymous Coward]

douche*

Re:Sesame Street on HBO

[Anonymous Coward]

douche

Re:Sesame Street on HBO

[Anonymous Coward]

your all a wholes every won of hugh

Why?

[dgatwood]

I tend to base my purchasing decisions on perceived value. Netflix gives me a huge catalog of movies and TV shows from dozens of companies, including itself, for nine bucks a month. This is almost double that for programming from a single company plus movies that probably mostly overlap with what I already get from Netflix.

The value proposition just isn't there. There are a couple of shows that I'd love to watch, but at those prices, I'll wait for them to all be cancelled, buy one month of service, binge watch them all, and cancel. If they offered their original programming by itself for three or four bucks a month, I'd be tempted to get the service on an ongoing basis and not bother. Thus, at least from my perspective, HBO is badly missing the sweet spot for subscription revenue, assuming they care about actually attracting any of the huge percentage of Internet users who already have an Amazon Prime or Netflix subscription.

Give us a $3-ish per month option that only covers HBO original programming, and you'll attract a lot more customers. Then run upsell promos on the home page for non-original content that they could be getting if they paid for the full service.

Re:Why?

[beelsebob]

For me at least, HBO has more quality programming than Netflix (or in fact, all other channels combined), so it's well worth the $15 a month. Even if it's not to you, you can always wait for GoT to finish, pay $15 for one month, binge watch it all, and then cancel.

Re:Why?

[hackel]

Why? Do you really not understand? Because other services have programmes people want to watch, that Netflix doesn't have. It's actually pretty simple.

I do agree with you, I have often wished for an original-programming-only option for HBO. I don't give a lick about their films, and I imagine the cost to license those must be quite high. But I also imagine it's just like the cable providers—they don't want to let people pick and choose what channels they get, because then they wouldn't be able to make as much money on either alone.

Re:Why?

[PopeRatzo]

Netflix gives me a huge catalog of movies and TV shows

It's not really a huge catalog. All the back-catalog stuff is gone. Now, it's a few dozen Netflix originals, some TV shows that were cancelled after a few seasons, horrible standup comedy, and a handful of terrible 90s movies.

I've been a Netflix subscriber since the days when they'd send you DVDs in the mail. The selection was bigger back then, and more varied.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been a Netflix subscriber since the days when they'd send you DVDs in the mail. The selection was bigger back then, and more varied.

I get Netflix DVDs by mail. As far as I can tell, the selection has never gone down.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree. I get Netflix as an add-on user through a friend. The catalog seems really bad to me. I am pretty puzzled by the rave reviews (not to mention people who claim they wouldn't mind being canned up in an interplanetary space mission with Netflix to keep them entertained).

I don't watch a ton of video content, but I don't have hyper exclusive taste. Most often, any feature film that might have been "good" enough to be shown on primetime network TV back in the day woud suffice. But it is still pretty even odds that I will get bored of looking for something to watch on Netflix and decide to turn off the TV completely, vs. actually finding something that seems worthwhile.

Frankly, I would rather that they cull the 90% that is crap and just makes it hard to find the decent content. My impression is that there is plenty of crap available for free on YouTube etc. Its like going to an 5000-screen multiplex and having to walk six miles to get to the theater that is showing the one movie worth watching.

Re:Why?

[dgatwood]

Netflix basically cut out almost all of their movie catalog and focuses predominantly on TV shows a couple of years ago. Why, you might ask? They ran the numbers and found that the overwhelming majority of their users preferred to watch episode after episode of a TV show.

Finding good movies is way too much work; I just want to be entertained and have a reasonable probability of enjoying what I'm about to watch. With a series, chances are, if you liked the last ten episodes, you'll like the next ten. With movies, there's (usually) no continuity, so you're basically just guessing based on the title and a short blurb written by people specifically trying to make the movie sound good. Thus, you have a decent chance of getting ten minutes in and asking, "Why am I even watching this?"

So assuming that the percentage of TV shows that appeal to a given person is similar to the percentage of movies that appeal to that person (which makes sense because mostly the same companies make them), then you have a choice between spending 10 minutes to watch the first part of a movie and decide if it is crap, knowing that you'll get 2 hours of enjoyment if it is good, or spend that same 10 minutes to watch the first part of the first episode of a series, knowing that you'll get 100 hours of enjoyment if it is good. It just doesn't make sense to watch movies when you look at the risk-reward unless the overwhelming majority of movies are really, really good... which they aren't.

That definitely matches my viewing habits, but if that reasoning doesn't fit your particular viewing habits—if you have a strong preference for movies—then the full HBO is probably a closer match for you. Either way, if you prefer movies, then you're statistically an outlier. HBO is leaving a lot of money on the table by forcing people to take a giant catalog of movies that the vast majority of people apparently don't want, as a precondition for getting the small chunk of original content that they do want.

Re:Why?

[bad-badtz-maru]

Unfortunately, the selection has gone down and this seems to be ever-continuing. It looks like as older titles wear out, the discs aren't being replaced.

Tried HBO-Now

[OneHundredAndTen]

To me, it is not worth $15/month. It is not worth a dime above $5/month. To me. I imagine many will disagree.

Re:Tried HBO-Now

[beelsebob]

So only pay for one month in three, and binge watch during the month you have it.

Re:Tried HBO-Now

[Rockoon]

I would pay $50/month if there was a service that offered everything ever produced, both audio and video, on demand and without commercials.

For that same service, but WITH commercials, I wouldn't even pay $1/month.

Hulu will never get any of my business as things stand.

Re:Tried HBO-Now

[AvitarX]

They only have commercials for ABC, and it's only 30 seconds/episode.

Re:Tried HBO-Now

[ranton]

I would pay $50/month if there was a service that offered everything ever produced, both audio and video, on demand and without commercials.

Based on the profitability of various content providers, it's doubtful such a service would profitable at even $100 per month. Average cable bills are only $100 per month now, don't offer the kind of service you are asking for, and have net margins that average around 10% across the industry.

My guess is you would be looking at more like $200 per month for such a service if you didn't want quality of programming to significantly diminish over time. I would still prefer this model at that price if it existed though.

Re:Tried HBO-Now

[gravewax]

The costs are somewhat artificial and are based on insanely high licensing costs for a small portion of content which in turn is due to insanely high wages for a select few. A single package with everything would allow that insanity to be moderated as they would not be using them as ratings sledgehammers that you must buy whatever the price in order to secure both viewers and other content.

Re:Tried HBO-Now

[Anonymous Coward]

I decided to watch GoT, so I tried HBO-Now too. Turns out it's not available in Canada. I'd have to get a cable subscription and an add-on package just to have access to their streaming services. Essentially HBO requires me to pay about $45 to other companies just to be able to give them $15. So I pirated.

Re:Tried HBO-Now

[ranton]

which in turn is due to insanely high wages for a select few.

While I am a believer that wealth inequality is a problem for this country, those insanely high wages paid to executives rarely have a significant impact on the price you pay for content. Time Warner Inc, for instance, paid about $83 million in total compensation in 2016 to the five executives it listed in its annual SEC statement. That is 0.3% of their total revenue. Which would mean that out of a $15 payment to Time Warner, about 4 cents is going to excessively high executive pay. Even if you double this amount to account for numerous SVP, VP, Director positions making $250k-$1M in total compensation, still less than 10 cents of your HBO bill is likely going to upper management compensation.

A single package with everything would allow that insanity to be moderated as they would not be using them as ratings sledgehammers that you must buy whatever the price in order to secure both viewers and other content.

Having content providers compensated primarily by their ratings seems like a good thing to me. I like there to be significant financial incentives to produce quality content.

Re:Tried HBO-Now

[knope]

i agree

Re:Tried HBO-Now

[Anonymous Coward]

IT isn't the executives that are the problem, it is the insanely high wages named actors/actresses demand per episode and can get away with it due to the heavy competition for ratings. a popular television series can cost 10 times or more to produce per episode simply due to inflated wages costs.

Re:Tried HBO-Now

[gravewax]

when I said select few I was not specifically aiming at the execs, the bigger problem is the excesses in the various actors and actresses pay packets across both film and TV, those pay packets make the $83 million paid to execs seem like chump change.

I was wondering the same thing

[SuperKendall]

If it's exactly the same price it seems to make more sense to just use the HBO app. If it were even a slight discount I'd be tempted to get Hulu which I do not currently use...

The HBO AppleTV app works really well though, so I'll just activate my subscription and carry on.

Re:I was wondering the same thing

[parallel_prankster]

The advantage maybe more for HBO, no price reduction for them but they may not have to manage so many users simultaneously. HBO may be in a position to dominate because of GoT and some oversubscription of bandwidth may be somehow managed on Hulu's side? Just a thought.
Otherwise, I dont see how simply convenience of using HBO from Hulu's site is any better than just paying for HBO now.

Amazon Prime

[Zorro]

Let me know when I can stream it from Amazon.

Not installing another damn App for just one show.

Re:Amazon Prime

[dhawton]

You already can: https://help.hbogo.com/hc/en-u...

Re:Amazon Prime

[PopeRatzo]

I just wish there was an Amazon Prime app for my android phone, like Netflix has.

Re:Amazon Prime

[CronoCloud]

There is one already. You have to go to Amazon to install the Amazon Underground app, then you install the Amazon video app from it.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/...

Re:Amazon Prime

[PopeRatzo]

I tried going the Amazon Underground route a couple of years ago, but it wouldn't install on the phone I had back then. I've got a new Pixel, so I'll try again.

Re:Amazon Prime

[im_thatoneguy]

You can but the problem with Amazon (and I assume this) is that they don't offer the full catalog, only a limited selection (for the same price as HBO Now!).

Creepy

[Anonymous Coward]

Signed up, installed app, started app, app requires GPS enabled to continue, uninstalled app.

Re:Creepy

[Anonymous Coward]

Signed up, installed app, started app, app requires GPS enabled to continue, uninstalled app.

Yeah, because localization is such an uncommon requirement for this sort of thing.

O how the mighty have fallen ...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this news for nerds? Why are we seeing what is basically an attempt at viral advertising. Let them pay for advertising out of their own pockets like everyone else.

Re:O how the mighty have fallen ...

[Nidi62]

How is this news for nerds? Why are we seeing what is basically an attempt at viral advertising. Let them pay for advertising out of their own pockets like everyone else.

Who says they didn't pay for it here, too?

Re:O how the mighty have fallen ...

[PopeRatzo]

How is this news for nerds? Why are we seeing what is basically an attempt at viral advertising. Let them pay for advertising out of their own pockets like everyone else.

You should ask for a refund on your $9.99/month Slashdot Unlimited account. Call the 800 number and someone will help you.

Re:O how the mighty have fallen ...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this news for nerds? Why are we seeing what is basically an attempt at viral advertising. Let them pay for advertising out of their own pockets like everyone else.

"Nerds" now encompasses, and is probably dominated by, digital content consumers with no further technical expertise or interest.

NoThxKThxBye

[Anonymous Coward]

Not much else to say about that.

Feels like a push to get installs of their new app

[junk]

I've been a happy Hulu customer for a while, until very recently. The new app is so bad, I'm suspending my account indefinitely. The catalog has gotten smaller, the UX has gotten worse and all the new features can't be accessed through the old one (I have an APK backup and stopped updating from my Android devices because it's so bad). With all the new contenders in the space, I don't imagine Hulu is a good long term investment.

Pointless

[hackel]

"Now, they'll be able to watch the show live or on-demand" Really? How is that any different from what people have been able to do with HBO Now all along? Hulu seems to be adding NO value to this equation. You still have to use their proprietary, DRM-ridden application. You have to pay the same price, plus have to pay for a shitty Hulu membership as well?

Is this is just to avoid having to use two different apps to watch programmes? That is actually an admirable goal, but implemented all wrong. There needs to be a standard for adding streaming service options to a single experience, such as add-ons to Kodi, so that everything is in one place, independent of each-other.

Oh well, I'm sure glad Hulu got a ton of free advertising out of this. /s

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you can't watch most HBO shows live through HBO Now (assuming you CAN actually watch them live through Hulu, trying to get confirmation of this from somewhere). You can on HBO Go, but not HBO Now (with a few exceptions such as Vice News Tonight).

If this is actually the case, I'll be cancelling my HBO Now subscription and signing up through Hulu. Smart on their part since HBO can't get it together for their Now customers.

Minimum subscription: 12 months

[tepples]

So only pay for one month in three

Sites are starting to catch on to this, such as through minimum subscription term commitments. That's why Amazon Prime, for example, is annual, not monthly. Even for those sites that do not require minimum subscription term commitments, you miss out on water cooler socialization opportunities during the months when you do not subscribe.

Re:Minimum subscription: 12 months

[tattood]

That's why Amazon Prime, for example, is annual, not monthly.

Check again

$14.99?! I could buy my own ship for that!

[the_skywise]

I'm only paying $10/month with my cable (for however much longer that lasts...) The Game of Thrones disc sets are only around $50. Yeah I'd have to wait a year for the set to come out but...

Re:Feels like a push to get installs of their new

[Anonymous Coward]

....until of course the go the route of netflix and turn off access to any app older than some version X.X.X.X

Hollywood has decimated the public domain ...

[Anonymous Coward]

and now they can reap the rewards. Multinational corporations have ripped you off and there's nothing you can do because they control your government.

A worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

... Ad. ::: BTW, you need to buy new devices for this [feature] to work. Thank you dear(scammed) customers.

Old the old smart TVs

[williamyf]

So, all the old smart TVs with the old Hulu App will not be able to het the new HBO-on Hulo pack?

Bummer. Who would have tought. If only someone had the foresight to warn would be buyers about that!

Chromecast, Roku and Amazon Stick for the win!!!

Re:Feels like a push to get installs of their new

[Anonymous Coward]

Version 3.1.2 build 1142 of the Netflix app still works on my Android Gingerbread phone.
What is the oldest version Netflix lets you use?