dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
333
share rss forum feed

mogamer

join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI

1 recommendation

Testing the waters

HBO is just testing the waters here. But this is a hopeful sign for people wanting a shake-up of the current delivery model.

I've said it before, the only services that can truely start a major shake-up in content delivery are HBO and ESPN. Once either one, or both, of these services have a subscription model not dependant upon the cabelco/telco/satcos, everything will change.



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

I think youre dreaming. Its gonna be a long , LONG, time before HBO offers this in the states. Im thinking, 134 years.

HBO should be offering this in the UK. Every daughter, husband and grandmother torrents Game of Thrones in that country.



spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·SureWest Internet

said by ITALIAN926:

I think youre dreaming. Its gonna be a long , LONG, time before HBO offers this in the states. Im thinking, 134 years.

Those are my sentiments exactly. They are being douche nozzles and dangling the stand alone subscription in our red, white and blue faces! Asses
--

Romney equals Epic Fail!

mogamer

join:2011-04-20
Royal Oak, MI
reply to ITALIAN926

said by ITALIAN926:

I think youre dreaming. Its gonna be a long , LONG, time before HBO offers this in the states. Im thinking, 134 years.

I think that it will be in less than ten years. Still a long time from now, but it will happen in our lifetimes.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to mogamer

And here is the rub with that:

What's different this time around is that Scandinavia is a market where HBO doesn't have to protect an entrenched business model as lucrative as the one in the U.S., where a standalone product would jeopardize its deals with distributors from Comcast to DirecTV

Emphasis added by me.

HBO could easily offer all their material standalone. They simply choose not to because of the above.



88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

said by Skippy25:

And here is the rub with that:

What's different this time around is that Scandinavia is a market where HBO doesn't have to protect an entrenched business model as lucrative as the one in the U.S., where a standalone product would jeopardize its deals with distributors from Comcast to DirecTV

That's the point it wouldn't. I mean yes cable companies would get mad but they have ZERO reason too. They wouldn't lose a thing. So if cable companies wouldn't be stupid then HBO could offer this without worries.

Listen cable companies offer HBOGO for free if you pay for HBO. Typically $15 a month. If HBO sells HBOGo standalone at $15 a month. Why would a person stop getting regular HBO and just go with HBOGo? You're paying the same price but getting LESS.

If they want to argue that potential HBO subscribers would go with HBOGO instead the same point applies. Why would they? Either way they get HBOGO for the same price but getting it through cable gives you access to regular HBO. Once again why pay the same price and get less.

If they want to make the case that some cable customers may cut the cord if they can get it stand alone. A) I doubt that happens much B) They continually state that cord cutting doesn't exist. People who have cut the cord aren't going to go back to cable just because you're forcing them to get HBO via cable. Otherwise they wouldn't have cut the cord. They either do with or they illegally download HBO shows.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

I personally believe if they went at it separately they would alienate cable companies because they (the cable companies) believe it will cause users to stop paying them for all their other fluff just to get HBO. This would cause cable companies to want to pay HBO even less to get their material, thus HBO would get less from them. That may or may not be true, but what they believe is what is important. I personally believe it to be true and I will never subscribe to an HBO or Showtime type service with my cable/sat/iptv subscription. They have no value to me in that format. Format being a monthly charge for all content, when 99.9% of it I dont care for and probably just want 1 show.

Example: True Blood. My fiance loves that show and I would pay to get it which I can through Amazon. However, the season isnt even available yet. So she finds another way to watch it. One I do not approve of, but none the less they go from earning some money to none.

All the other shows we watch are either on non-premium channels or OTA so we DVR them and watch at our convenience. I can't even tell you when the last time I watched a live, non-sporting event program on TV.

If all the shows we currently watch or may want to watch in the future were available for streaming and a reasonable fee (with no HD because we can fee) and at the same time or immediately following the original broadcast I would cancel uVerse in a heartbeat and purchase them as I see fit. The only need at that point is live sports so I will either go without completely (lost revenue for them), catch some at a friends or local establishment (lost revenue for them, gain for local establishment) and hope some day they will stream it as well.


zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to mogamer

said by mogamer:

HBO is just testing the waters here. But this is a hopeful sign for people wanting a shake-up of the current delivery model.

I've said it before, the only services that can truely start a major shake-up in content delivery are HBO and ESPN. Once either one, or both, of these services have a subscription model not dependant upon the cabelco/telco/satcos, everything will change.

Could you imagine if sports channels offered direct subscriptions in HD?

The amount of channels people have to subscribe to just to get sports is insane.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to Skippy25

said by Skippy25:

I personally believe if they went at it separately they would alienate cable companies because they (the cable companies) believe it will cause users to stop paying them for all their other fluff just to get HBO. This would cause cable companies to want to pay HBO even less to get their material, thus HBO would get less from them. That may or may not be true, but what they believe is what is important. I personally believe it to be true and I will never subscribe to an HBO or Showtime type service with my cable/sat/iptv subscription. They have no value to me in that format. Format being a monthly charge for all content, when 99.9% of it I dont care for and probably just want 1 show.

But it's NOT true. If HBO sells HBOGo standalone at $15 a month which is the same as what cable companies charge for HBO then why would a personal with HBO drop it for HBOGO stand alone? They wouldn't. If your cable company is already giving you HBOGO for free included in your HBO subscription it's not logical to pay the same amount and get less.

If you don't want to pay for HBO to your cable company it doesn't make sense to pay the same amount to get LESS by getting HBOGo stand alone since cable companies offer it for FREE included in your HBO subscription.

Example: True Blood. My fiance loves that show and I would pay to get it which I can through Amazon. However, the season isnt even available yet. So she finds another way to watch it. One I do not approve of, but none the less they go from earning some money to none.

Anohter way HBO is being stupid and missing out on money. But the same excuse they give for not offering HBOGO standalone is the same reason why they don't offer current seasons on Amazon. Cable companies are afraid you'll cancel HBO. Of course you don't have, it won't ever have it, thus cable isn't losing anything, but they don't see it that way. They think if they keep the content away for long periods of time you'll just pony up the cash totally unaware apparently there are other ways to obtain the content. And HBO is too stupid to understand this too.

If all the shows we currently watch or may want to watch in the future were available for streaming and a reasonable fee (with no HD because we can fee) and at the same time or immediately following the original broadcast I would cancel uVerse in a heartbeat and purchase them as I see fit. The only need at that point is live sports so I will either go without completely (lost revenue for them), catch some at a friends or local establishment (lost revenue for them, gain for local establishment) and hope some day they will stream it as well.

Which is exactly why cable fights stuff like this tooth and nail.