| Get with the times... I really don't understand this. Who does this benefit? HBO could be collecting dues from Cable & Sat subs *and* offer a robust online packing for $4.99-$9.99/mo directly to the consumer.
But yes by all means attempt some model that makes zero sense to anyone except your buddies at Comcast/AT&T/Verizon.
People will continue to download your content at an alarming rate because you offer no viable alternative. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by d1gw33d:People will continue to download your content at an alarming rate because you offer no viable alternative. Yep. Bittorrent for the win.
Of course execs refuse to accept this reality. It doesn't bode well for shareholder value. |
|
| said by Network Guy:said by d1gw33d:People will continue to download your content at an alarming rate because you offer no viable alternative. Yep. Bittorrent for the win. Of course execs refuse to accept this reality. It doesn't bode well for shareholder value. What reality? That people want to access content without paying? |
|
| reply to d1gw33d
said by d1gw33d:People will continue to download your content at an alarming rate because you offer no viable alternative. Define "viable alternative." |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:What reality? That people want to access content without paying? That Netflix and many other cheaper alternatives exist. Their crap isn't all that great or exclusive to begin with. |
|
1 edit | said by Network Guy:said by fifty nine:What reality? That people want to access content without paying? That Netflix and many other cheaper alternatives exist. Their crap isn't all that great or exclusive to begin with. Netflix is $9- $10, HBO is $12 - $15 from most cable providers and you get the TV channels in addition to the streaming. OK so it's 5 bucks a month less, but the way I see it, HBO isn't really interested in streaming but is providing it as a convenience to people who want it. They are probably also feeling the market.
I want to see how long the unlimited $10 streaming from netflix will last when they have to cater to more demand and movie licensing fees go up. The cost to produce the average feature film isn't cheap. |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by fifty nine:I want to see how long the unlimited $10 streaming from netflix will last when they have to cater to more demand and movie licensing fees go up. The cost to produce the average feature film isn't cheap. Netflix offers a lot more content for less, even if it's not content that HBO fans are interested in.
I'm sure if Netflix has to cross the price hike bridge, many may consider other alternatives as well. Their pricing can be conceived as both disruptive and unsustainable, depends on which way the industry starts to go.
Unless you can't live without HBO, it's pretty stupid to pay extra for the convenience given the alternatives.
One can argue that $11 to catch a flick at the movie theater is ridiculous. While the lines at the local movie theater are getting shorter these days, some people still pay it. |
|
|
|
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:said by d1gw33d:People will continue to download your content at an alarming rate because you offer no viable alternative. Define "viable alternative." I think I did. Something like Hulu/Netflix would be great.
What's the minimum/realistic buy in to view HBO content? Yes its $12-15/mo in addition to what? $50-100/mo from a cable co? If they aren't "interested" in streaming as you mention in another comment then they could easily piggy back on top of the existing options like Hulu/Netflix and for another $5-10/mo on top of the Netflix/Hulu subscription you could access HBO's content.
I just don't understand a company refusing to sell directly to it's consumers save for old media (discs) 6-12 months after final episode air date. |
|
| reply to fifty nine
What is your thought process here? You come in and defend this route HBO is taking while back handing Netflix? To what purpose?
Netflix offers a decent selection on a variety of devices for a flat rate while giving you access to a huge physical media library. Rates will probably go up. As you mentioned it has nothing to do with Netflix and everything to do with Hollywood / Studios. Which quite frankly seems to have the same mind set as HBO.
Control the content as much as possible, hold on to old business models and refuse to innovate distribution models.
You seem to also want to sniff out any possibility of piracy from users posting here and assume anyone that downloads content just wants it for free. Come back to Earth.
If you think it's that black and white you're out of touch or a corporate whore. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to d1gw33d
said by d1gw33d:But yes by all means attempt some model that makes zero sense to anyone except your buddies at Comcast/AT&T/Verizon. Actually, it makes sense to HBO, not to Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon. HBO will be the one receiving the additional revenue from all current HBO/Skinemax subscribers for each negotiated deal. |
|
| If it didn't make sense to Comcast/AT&T/Verizon why would they strike exclusive deals?
Regardless it still begs the question why? How could they not make *more* money selling directly to customers over a variety of delivery vehicles? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | I didn't mean to imply that it doesn't make sense for the ISPs, just that it's likely close to a zero-sum game for them.
Just like the Disney model for ESPN, HBO knows that it can generate more revenue by forcing a known pool of consumers into paying additional monthly dues versus taking a chance to potentially sell to an unknown group of consumers. Do you honestly believe that HBO would garner more subscribers as a standalone product than it would be forcing the content upon existing consumers? I doubt it.
OTOH, if enough content owners start making these deals that it exceeds what cable/ISPs are willing to pay, it may generate an interest in opening the model outside of the selective garden. This may lead down a path towards à la carte premium content offerings that we'll never otherwise see from current providers. |
|
1 edit | said by openbox9:I didn't mean to imply that it doesn't make sense for the ISPs, just that it's likely close to a zero-sum game for them. Just like the Disney model for ESPN, HBO knows that it can generate more revenue by forcing a known pool of consumers into paying additional monthly dues versus taking a chance to potentially sell to an unknown group of consumers. Do you honestly believe that HBO would garner more subscribers as a standalone product than it would be forcing the content upon existing consumers? I doubt it. OTOH, if enough content owners start making these deals that it exceeds what cable/ISPs are willing to pay, it may generate an interest in opening the model outside of the selective garden. This may lead down a path towards à la carte premium content offerings that we'll never otherwise see from current providers. I think they would get more subs. They would have the existing model plus this HBO Go nonsense for those subs who wish to view the content on their PC's. In addition they could have new subs direct or people that are "cutting the cord" could switch and give HBO money directly. I don't see it as a replacement (not yet at least) but a new way to do business in addition to. |
|
| reply to fifty nine
I would gladly pay $0.99 per episode to rent season 3 of True Blood in HD quality over the Internet right now. I'm sure as shit not going to pay $12/mo+ for HBO since they have nothing else I'm interested in.
--
TKJunkMail aliases - MIllIlITER, MMH, Golf N Sun |
|
| reply to d1gw33d
said by d1gw33d:What is your thought process here? You come in and defend this route HBO is taking while back handing Netflix? To what purpose? Because they do apparently have different goals, but people seem to think they have the same goal.
In other words, I don't get the impression that HBO wants to be another netflix.
You seem to also want to sniff out any possibility of piracy from users posting here and assume anyone that downloads content just wants it for free. Come back to Earth. When people place Bittorrent as a viable alternative, my conclusion that people "just want content for free (or close to it)" is absolutely correct. |
|
| reply to d1gw33d
said by d1gw33d:I just don't understand a company refusing to sell directly to it's consumers save for old media (discs) 6-12 months after final episode air date. Simply put, Netflix isn't a top priority for the studios. If it does become one, it won't be able to keep charging 10 bucks a month. |
|
| reply to fifty nine
I was discussing 2 different things. People do and will continue to pirate HBO's content due to lack of availability in what would seem is a viable process.
Obviously there are plenty of people just saving a buck and stealing but that's not what I was implying by "viable alternative." |
|
| reply to digitalfreak
said by digitalfreak:I would gladly pay $0.99 per episode to rent season 3 of True Blood in HD quality over the Internet right now. I'm sure as shit not going to pay $12/mo+ for HBO since they have nothing else I'm interested in. That's the problem. At 0.99 per episode with no commitment you're not a reliable, profitable revenue stream. HBO and others really couldn't care about losing a customer like you. (No offense to you personally). |
|
| reply to d1gw33d
said by d1gw33d:If it didn't make sense to Comcast/AT&T/Verizon why would they strike exclusive deals? Regardless it still begs the question why? How could they not make *more* money selling directly to customers over a variety of delivery vehicles? Because when a customer is paying for a HBO online subscription separately, they will drop the cable subscription and go for the online subscription exclusively to save money. |
|
| reply to d1gw33d
said by d1gw33d:I was discussing 2 different things. People do and will continue to pirate HBO's content due to lack of availability in what would seem is a viable process. Obviously there are plenty of people just saving a buck and stealing but that's not what I was implying by "viable alternative." People continue to pirate because they don't want to pay the asking price. That doesn't make it right. |
|
