Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Wants To Overhaul HBO, Says It Isn't Profitable Enough (arstechnica.com)

AT&T recently acquired HBO, as part of the Time Warner acquisition, "and it is already considering an overhaul that would see HBO produce more video that can compete for the attention of smartphone users," reports Ars Technica. "AT&T wants to boost revenue both in advertising and subscriptions, even if that means upending HBO's longtime strategy of producing a relatively small number of high-quality shows."

At a recent corporate town hall meeting, John Stankey, the longtime AT&T executive and new head of Warner Media, laid out the challenges and opportunities he saw for the network to around 150 employees. He said, in part: "It's going to be a tough year. It's going to be a lot of work to alter and change direction a little bit. [...] You will work very hard, and this next year will -- my wife hates it when I say this -- feel like childbirth... You'll look back on it and be very fond of it, but it's not going to feel great while you're in the middle of it. She says, 'What do you know about this?' I just observe, 'Honey. We love our kids.'" Audio of the meeting was obtained by The New York Times. From the report: The talk, held at HBO headquarters in New York City, was hosted by HBO CEO Richard Plepler. HBO must compete with smartphones for people's attention, Stankey said in this exchange with Plepler: "We need hours a day," Mr. Stankey said, referring to the time viewers spend watching HBO programs. "It's not hours a week, and it's not hours a month. We need hours a day. You are competing with devices that sit in people's hands that capture their attention every 15 minutes." Continuing the theme, he added: "I want more hours of engagement. Why are more hours of engagement important? Because you get more data and information about a customer that then allows you to do things like monetize through alternate models of advertising as well as subscriptions, which I think is very important to play in tomorrow's world."

55 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. If it ain't broke, fix it by AlanBDee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    sigh!

    1. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Informative

      $4 billion profit on $2 billion investment per year isn't profitable enough?

    2. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, it only has 30% of households in the US as subscribers (via teh AT&T CEO), which isn't enough. Also, just selling a product isn't enough. You need hours of engagement per day so you can collect data and deliver targeted advertisements. If there was a way to short just HBO, I'd do it in a heartbeat. It's going to lose a lot of money overspending for six years or so, and in doing so lose it's current subscriber base

      Figure it gets broken out in a firesale to Disney/Comcast in 2025.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Acquisition was $80 billion... AT&T overpaid by $20 billion so it's got to get the money from somewhere I guess

    4. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by ole_timer · · Score: 2

      recall what a disaster the AOL Time Warner merger was. I wonder if ATT Time Warner will be the same in a year or two. I simply can't imagine that many people watch tv and movies.

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    5. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...in doing so lose it's current subscriber base

      They'll never lose me. As long as they have John Oliver and Game of Thrones, I'll continue to pirate their shows faithfully.

    6. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, they're talking about "broadening their viewership" So goodbye John Oliver. And Game of Thrones is too expensive if you need to produce several hours a day.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They need to change something to make their own salaries worthwhile. No one gets bonuses for doing the exact same thing their predecessor has done.

      --
      -
    8. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Raenex · · Score: 2

      It's going to lose a lot of money overspending for six years or so

      I'm not sure about that. I'm more worried they're going to cut back spending on shows that make HBO worthwhile. They're going to destroy the brand chasing a fad du jour marketing metric.

    9. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by DrXym · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The stupid part is that the AOL TW merger could have actually worked and had obvious synergies. AOL was a media delivery platform, Time Warner was the media, cable and broadband. AOL could have been iTunes. It could have been Netflix. It could have been Spotify. It had the nascent beginnings for these services in the likes of WinAmp, AOL Radio etc.

      But AOL ran its properties like silos and was crippled by lack of innovation or vision. Synergy to them was a few extra AOL keywords on some of its properties. This was a company so far up its own ass that it would run protracted marketing studies just to decide whether the fat AOL client should have 6 or 8 bookmark slots and relative support call costs from each.

    10. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      well no - that pays for the acquisition cost - what's needed now is new revenue...

      You never need to pay for acquisition. Unless you destroy the companies you buy, they pay for themselves in that it makes your company's net worth increase by what you paid.

      The only point you would need to pay for it, is if you mess it up, and end up writing it off, but that is pretty rare.

    11. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by quintus_horatius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The purchased company always pays for the acquisition nowadays, and the sooner the better.

      A common strategy is to have the company you just purchased take out a bunch of debt in order to pay you back for the honor of being owned by you. They are then responsible for paying the debt back, while you walk off to the bank with your profit up front.

    12. Re:If it ain't broke, fix it by cthulhu11 · · Score: 2

      Because when I have a 60" TV with a sound system, I *totally* want to squint at my phone instead.

  2. Here comes president Camacho by RickyShade · · Score: 5, Funny

    "OW! MY BALLS!" will premier on AT&T's HBO.

    1. Re:Here comes president Camacho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I heard they were in talks with Pewdiepie to get him on HBO

    2. Re:Here comes president Camacho by nwf · · Score: 2

      We laugh, but based on the idiotic statements from Mr Stankey referenced in the excerpt above, I'd say we have pretty good odds of something like this show. I've heard pretty stupid things from executives before, but Mr Stankey is a cut above on the moron scale.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
  3. God damnit AT&T. by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Overhaul your fucking network first. How come you can't provide more than 1 megabit of upload bandwidth even in the middle of the most densely-populated and theoretically profitable areas in the US? South Korea has 100 megabit synchronous fiber connections running to houses with dirt fucking floors! What the fuck is wrong with you assholes?

    1. Re:God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      uploading is just for those evil pirates and server admins. good little consumers only CONSUME pre approved content.

      you're not being a good little consumer. a note has been made in your account.

    2. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Average · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't understand your gripe. Your mother clearly lives in a place that isn't densely populated. They aren't going to spend a half million in infrastructure to make mom happy.

      They sure as all hell have taken hundreds of millions of dollars in USF, CAF, USDA RUS, and myriad state-level incentives on the "we'll install broadband next year" promise for twenty straight "next years".

    3. Re:God damnit AT&T. by Tintivilus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Their service is great where they have competition. Speedtest.net just now showed 679 Mbps down and 776Mbps up on my advertised gigabit ($70/month) from AT&T in a neighborhood with multiple providers offering >100Mbps service

    4. Re: God damnit AT&T. by jpaine619 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The only way that people like your mother are going to get served high speed broadband is if Americans vote to increase their taxes and have the government subsidize it, as they have done in Korea and elsewhere, but Americans have a special hatred of taxes going back to the founding of their nation so that doesn't seem likely either.

      I'm not picking on you, honest, but it's this kind of logic that drives me nuts. The idea that the government has to "make it happen". It's ... dumb.

      You want high-speed internet in areas the big guys don't want to serve? Simple.. Remove the obstacles that make it so damn difficult for us little guys to do it. i.e. remove all of those laws that were passed to PROTECT the incumbents.

      I cover 100 sq miles of rural San Diego County with very reliable (and inexpensive) internet. But.. it's a goddamn battle every single day to expand further. The amount of red-tape would blow your mind. I know.. it's CA, but for fuck's sake....

      We do not have Capitalism in the United States. We have Cronyism and Protectionism.

      There is no reason, whatsoever, that the government should be protecting AT&T's rural monopolies. But, that's what we have and that's why a lot of people have no access to decent internet.

    5. Re: God damnit AT&T. by jpaine619 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, yes, and yes!

      This is exactly it! This is the bullshit they have been pulling for ages. Although, it's been a lot longer than 20 years. AT&T has been promising 45mbps MINIMUM since at least 1991, and I know they were promising it earlier, but I can't find the data to back up my memory, so I'll settle on "since 1991". That's 27 years.

      I did find this blurb that will help to illustrate just how bad it is..

      ===========
      By 2014, we estimate that AT&T has collected about $150- $200 billion in excess phone charges and tax perks since the 1990’s to upgrade the state-based utility networks that should have supplied at least 45 Mbps (in both directions) to homes, offices, as well as schools and libraries.
      ============

    6. Re: God damnit AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I suffered for many years in rural California on dial up (24.4 on a good day) with a fiber optic backbone line running right under my very street. I tried every trick I could with satellite being my only alternative option. Eventually a two way microwave on the roof solution was affordable, but terrible compared to what people can get in town in both price and bandwidth. My neighbors didn't care. We were ten miles from a medium city.

      People don't get this. I used to be a Republican because I advocated for small government exactly to do away with this kind of cronyism. Let the free market do it. Only to learn that the Republicans only pay lip service to small government ideals, then do the same as the Democrats but less efficiently and with even more pork. Those who vote Democrat in my circle do it largely with the good intention that a properly managed government project helps the most people with the least resources (without that capitalist fat). Both votes bring us to the same sick place. Government is out of control and in collusion with big business. There is no way to fix this by voting. We are locked in a two party system and both are corrupt to the point of being evil. In California I felt like being a Republican was pissing in the wind. Now with Trump running the show I've registered with no party affiliation.

      Now I live in a small German town and can have 100 down 20 up for 50 Euro a month no strings, no caps. My neighbors don't care what political party I support and allow me to live without fear of expressing my small government conservative political beliefs (as long as I don't go full Nazi - who were left leaning big government socialists). But I miss California.

      "The government that governs least, governs best." "Government is a necessary evil." "We get the government we deserve." "We have a republic, madam, if you can keep it!" Well, we the people lost it. We now have a big crony plutocracy ran as a police state. Perhaps we deserve it because of our own stupidity, complacency and arrogance. Oh, crappy Internet for high $ to boot. Thanks Al Gore!

    7. Re: God damnit AT&T. by mr_jrt · · Score: 5, Informative

      You were doing so well until the nonsense about Nazis. I really don't get the American ignorance about Socialism, I really don't.

      Educate yourself:
      https://www.indy100.com/articl...
      https://www.snopes.com/news/20...
      http://www.newsweek.com/nazis-...

      It's really not that hard.

      --
      Boo.
    8. Re: God damnit AT&T. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      How did you solve the last mile problem?

      That's the biggest barrier to entering the broadband market. You have to make a huge investment in infrastructure, up against an incumbent who already has their infrastructure paid off. Sure there are laws that stop you installing new cables sometimes, but even if they went away it wouldn't really change the economics of having to build a brand new network by very much.

      The solution is for the government to force the existing networks to open up so you can use their last mile infrastructure. It makes so much sense - fewer cables all over the place, less disruption digging up roads and pavements, full coverage and finally some real competition on a level playing field.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re: God damnit AT&T. by skam240 · · Score: 2

      Do you build your own infrastructure or do you use AT&T's (or some one else's) like Sonic ( http://www.latimes.com/busines... ) does? I ask because given the huge costs for a small company in hooking up a hundred square mile region I feel it's quite likely that you use some other company's infrastructure that's only available to you because the FCC forces companies like AT&T to do so. If that's the case then your whole anti government post sort of falls apart.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  4. Quick translation guide by StandardCell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You will work very hard, and this next year will -- my wife hates it when I say this -- feel like childbirth... - you will work 80+ hour weeks for at least the next year with no additional bonuses for anyone lower than VP level, so good luck keeping your personal life intact!

    You'll look back on it and be very fond of it, but it's not going to feel great while you're in the middle of it. - if you don't get fired or quit, you get a gold star for making it through!

    She says, 'What do you know about this?' I just observe, 'Honey. We love our kids. - The kids are going to feel pain and stress to toughen them up and be ready for anything in the real world!

    (I wish the existing employees luck. Things were already insanely busy at HBO.)

    1. Re:Quick translation guide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, this is a bonehead move. Anyone with talent is just going to pick up and leave to new, innovative competitors like Netflix. Or Amazon. Or Google. Or anyone else not run by some sluggish vertical monopoly willing fuck up a sure thing.

      HBO's properties will wither and die if mismanaged but there's no shortage of good companies willing to pay to crank out good content.

    2. Re:Quick translation guide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And just like childbirth, someone else will do all the hard stuff while he takes all the credit.

    3. Re:Quick translation guide by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've heard these speeches before. They often proceed layoffs the second year.
      So the company works you to death (in our case literally for one person and non-fatal heart attacks for five others plus the one unconscious contractor who we never found out what happened) and to divorce (a half dozen divorces) and *then* laid 95% of the staff off .

      HBO is going to suck terribly.

      It's like corporations have gone in sane and are taking hatchets to their own golden gooses.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re: Quick translation guide by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah that kind of speech is usually my sign to look for a new job.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. This is a fancy way to say layoffs by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    which you get with each and every merger. This is why we should stop allowing mega mergers. Big mergers are expensive and what's the first thing you do when you spend a bunch of money on a business expense? Try to make it back. Mergers destroy jobs.

    This was another good reason to oppose the Trump tax cuts. The mega-corps already said the money was all going to mergers and stock buybacks. The sort of thing that doesn't create jobs, it destroys them. Heck, it's easy to see why supply side economics fail. Businesses spend money to meet demand. Giving businesses more money does just that, gives them more money. Unless there's more demand they're just going to keep it. And if there's more demand they'll spend the money anyway. Yeah, there's a point where kleptocracy can kick in and choke a business, but you'd be surprised how far up that goes. Meanwhile the working class is choked with low wages and demand for everything is flat. Flat demand, flat job and wage growth.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt there will be any layoffs. AT&T announced at the meeting they don't have people to do the jobs and there wouldn't be layoffs. But it's worse than that. They're trying to turn HBO from a boutique content provider to one that supplies "hours of engagement a day" to a "broadened audience" and "provides data and [opportunities] for targeted advertising." So they're gonna kill the golden goose because they don't know what they bought, and turn it into an also-ran cable channel with 90% trash.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by nmb3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt there will be any layoffs. AT&T announced at the meeting they don't have people to do the jobs and there wouldn't be layoffs.

      Oh, you sweet summer child.

      He said, in part: "It's going to be a tough year. It's going to be a lot of work to alter and change direction a little bit.

      Company execs talk in code during big company meetings. This is code for "start looking for a new job".

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    3. Re:This is a fancy way to say layoffs by nwf · · Score: 2

      Sounds like Mr Stankey's big idea is to be like Netflix. By the time they figure out how to do that, Netflix will be 10 years ahead of them. He's chasing the past not looking toward the future. Seriously, how do people this dumb get to be executives?

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
  6. Well, goodbye to that by Krishnoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We need hours a day," Mr. Stankey said, referring to the time viewers spend watching HBO programs.

    So long, The Wire, The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, Deadwood ... you know, stuff that actually took time, care, and focus to produce. On the other hand, I still have to catch up on most of these series anyway.

    1. Re:Well, goodbye to that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      HBO is just returning to their roots. The 1980s, when HBO stood for "Hey, Beastmaster's on!"

  7. In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    AT&T have decided to ruin one of the most successful brands in entertainment.

    Right now, HBO competes and holds its own against Netflix and Amazon, both of which continue to invest and profit st their expense. Rather than compete, HBO plans to cede this ground, kill the goose laying the golden eggs, and bet it all on a strategy that takes them out if a market they excel at and run head first into one they donâ(TM)t understand and are ill equipped to compete in.

    Thereâ(TM)s not a âoeplan Bâ here - once todayâ(TM)s creators abandon the HBO platform (which theyâ(TM)ll do in a heartbeat), thereâ(TM)s no going back if they change their minds later.

  8. Pepperidge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember those sweet, warm New England summers? Remember sipping lemonade underneath a shady tree? Remember when if your company turned a profit you had a big Christmas party at the office?

    If your company makes money, you've won the game, good job. If it's not enough money, then you suffer from a mental disorder. Best thing to do is commit yourself. Second best thing is to start a second business and combine the profits from both.

    1. Re:Pepperidge Farm Remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wallstreet doesn't care about being profitable. It's all about being more profitable (or less unprofitable) than last quarter so that the stock price will go up.

  9. Bright Side: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    AT&T saving people $10-15 a month as they cancel subscriptions for the once great network.

  10. Interesting, sparks will fly indeed by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess this is what happens when a communications executive takes over a bunch of creatives. I live near NYC and it's nothing like LA, but the entertainment work scene here is pretty much the opposite of AT&T. It's not quite Don Draper 3-martini lunches but former colleagues of mine who now work in that business say it's pretty close. People are creative and used to having a fair amount of freedom around the way they get the job done.

    When a creative company gets acquired by someone who just wants to squeeze it for all it's worth, they'll probably lose some of their better creative talent...those folks have options. AT&T is used to providing a cheap-to-deploy, incredibly high margin service. Once they start cracking the whip, the content quality is going to drop. I imagine the first thing they'll do is offshore every business process that isn't outsourced already. When that doesn't produce the savings, they're going to start cutting into the creatives' budget. No more personal assistants, free car service, free food, expense account dinners, etc.

  11. Kiss of goodbye by markdavis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > "and it is already considering an overhaul that would see HBO produce more video that can compete for the attention of smartphone users, even if that means upending HBO's longtime strategy of producing a relatively small number of high-quality shows."

    Well, I guess you can kiss HBO goodbye, then. Because that is the ONLY thing that makes it worth having; things like Westworld, Sopranos, Oz, Game of Thrones, Room 104, and such. PLENTY of other networks for the type of lower quality, high quantity stuff.

    If you want to get rid of something, please make it Bill Maher.

  12. Hint: Dumping porn a bad start by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the HBO Go app (the one you can use to subscribe to HBO a month at a time), they just dropped the whole "late night" (read: Soft Porn) section. But it's hardly a loss as for some time now they had let updates to that area languish to almost nothing. I have to imagine that subscribers are falling off in part because of that...

    What happened to the HBO of old that had sex positive and fun programming like "Real Sex"? Seems like everyone wants to be Netflix now with hot original dramatic shows, while abandoning aspects that make each service unique and provide extra value.

    The funny thing is that personally I only just started subscribing to HBO, for Game of Thrones, then Silicon Valley, then Westworld. But once I finish up those new seasons I'll probably let the subscription go again as not much of the other content really grabs me. Some more high-end adult content produced with some regularity might help convince me to stay...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. AT&T will slaughter that Golden Goose by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did anyone not expect this? A cellular company bought HBO and their first thought is episodes are too long and everyone wants to watch them on their phone. Oh and they want to add advertising, forgetting of course that most of HBO's subscribers do so because it DOESN'T have advertising.

    They'll kill HBO with these plans before they ever evolve them to compete with Netflix. AT&T will slaughter the goose.

  14. Copying Youtube's business model won't work by shadesofgreen · · Score: 2

    Seems like ATT wants to monetize HBO viewers and introduce Ads on HBO and produce more content, that could be a good thing, however, their is a reason why HBO is so successful in consistently producing high quality content. If you are beholden to advertisers, then the quality of content will suffer, no more adult themed shows, as every fucking advertiser will try to push HBO to be politically correct and viewers will loose a genuine uncensored media outlet. It will be a sad day!

  15. " We need hours a day." by sehlat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    May I ask just how and when a population already struggling just to stay afloat will find those hours and the money to pay for them while they're working multiple jobs?

  16. Weird to get an upfront "We're tanking" message by HeckRuler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm more used to corporations doing a more subtle bait and switch game where they grow their popularity with quality products and then try and cut costs as subtly as possible. Outsourcing to China, using cheaper meat, getting rid of what their warranty covers.

    Having a CEO just come out and say "We're going to send this channel straight into the shitter" right to our face is just a weird amount of honesty. I mean, they coach it in positive terms as PR people are ought to do. But even they acknowledge it's going to be painful.

    HBO targeting PHONE audiences. So.... Westworld, but cut down to 6 second VINE clips. Season 10 of Game of Thrones will be flash animation with 3 characters remaining after the killing of the rest. And it won't be the expensive ones.

    1. Re:Weird to get an upfront "We're tanking" message by Black+Diamond · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This was an internal employee town hall meeting. Someone saw the writing on the wall, recorded the meeting and provided it to the press to see if they can get enough momentum to turn the tide against this change.

      They'll fail of course, but it's a noble effort nonetheless.

  17. Re:Who the hell mods this drek up?! by alexgieg · · Score: 2

    Listen sweetcheeks - Megamergers aren't good or bad - they ARE.

    Thus talked the pseudo-conservative who wouldn't be able to distinguish his Russell Kirk from his Eric Voegelin from his G. K. Chesterton.

    Here, little fake-conservative, read some real ones for a change, will you? You may begin with Hilaire Belloc and proceed from there.

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  18. What's the new company called? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, all the good talent is leaving for a new internet-only production company that will take most of HBO's market share? Cool.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:What's the new company called? by akgooseman · · Score: 2

      AT&T will use the new net non-neutrality rules to ensure the new internet-only production company's content can't be viewed by AT&T's customers. And they'll likely conspire with other top tier ISPs to do the same -- the big boys gotta stick together.

  19. Netflix... by erp_consultant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Netflix has to be just loving this. AT&T will turn one of the only remaining traditional TV stations into complete and utter shit. Well, at least it will have plenty of company. Meanwhile watch how subscribers run for the hills as the price goes up and the quality goes down.

    AT&T has always been run as a monopoly. They haven't the faintest idea about customer service and now they are going to be in for a very rude awakening. RIP HBO.

  20. Hours a day? by CharlesAKAChuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, does anyone actually watch any SINGLE channel for hours a day? And of those, how many are watching hours a day of a single channel on a PHONE? Why in the world would anyone think that they're somehow able to make that the slightest bit enjoyable in any way? Has Stankey actually been a human being in America for very long, because any human being in America would quickly realize that nobody wants to stare at a cell phone for hours a day to watch a single channel. Nobody. And then to top it off, he goes right into collecting customer data to monetize it in the form of advertising and subscriptions-seriously, is the guy from another planet? How could that possibly be a good idea for any customer?

  21. Surprised? Me? Nah... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 2

    I honestly can't say I'm particularly surprised about this seeing how the motivation behind corporate consolidations, when broken down, always come back to wanting to make a profit as big as possible. Disney didn't buy LucasFilm and their IP for any other reason than to make a lot of money from their IP and AT&T's takeover of Time Warner (who owns/owned HBO) is not any more different.

    Considering massive the 85.4 billion USD price they had to pay for the whole lot it's kind of obvious that getting parts of Time Warner, particularly HBO, to become drastically more profitable was what was not just plain greed, it was a necessity for the deal to make fiscal sense. You simply don't borrow 85 billion without paying a lot of interest every year or big amortizations.

    As an HBO subscriber it seems like this is probably the right time to un-subscribe from their service. I don't find most of their catalog all that appealing and mostly just watch their old shows (Sopranos, The Wire, etc.) along some of their newer stuff (Westworld being the only one I've actively followed even if the un-planned nature of the writing really has really started to show) so it's not like I'm going to miss out on all that much when I move back to Netflix and the local BBC equivalent's streaming service.

    --
    "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."