9 ms·

AT&T Is Dragging HBO's Streaming Strategy Out of the Dark Ages

34 points by dosy 8y ago

vonseel 8y ago
Subtitle: With Richard Plepler out, new boss Robert Greenblatt will need to fix years of missteps to catch up to Netflix. If what they are giving HBO is anything like the “AT&T Watch TV” app, that’s a pretty accurate subheading. The user experience is a solid 5 years behind Netflix and Hulu.
- bluedevil2k 8y ago
  The current HBO Go app has a really good interface, much better than Netflix and sooo much better than Hulu's jumbled mess (on the AppleTV). I can find the shows I want to watch easily, the current shows are easy to find on the main page, the categories are clean and easy to sort through. Just the fact that you scroll down and not some infinite row like in Netflix works so much better on the TV.
- cwilkes 8y ago
  By 5 years behind do you mean HBOs interface is like Netflix of 5 years ago? If so that isn’t going to take 5 years to catch up. I’m not sure what’s so bad about it. Then again I knew exactly what I wanted to watch.
sharkweek 8y ago
My problem with this is as follows: HBO has led the way in making some of the highest quality television of the last 20 years. Competition has gotten stiffer, but I still view HBO as the premier place for TV (Sopranos, The Wire, Sex and the City, Curb, Veep, Leftovers, True Detective, Deadwood... and of course GoT, the list goes on and on). I would argue many of our favorite broadcast/cable shows would simply not exist if HBO hadn't gone there first. They've had some duds, and certainly have a lot of small-audience niche TV, but for the most part it's a premium quality that I'm willing to pay for. I'm reading through the lines a bit and here is what I see in the article: "More content, faster, cheaper." This isn't about an outdated streaming strategy, HBO Go/Now are fine. If they race to compete with Netflix (dropping price, increasing output), who is quite literally shitting out content every day, the overall quality of HBO will decline greatly. Netflix started with premiere TV (House of Cards) but has evolved into a massive mess of content, rarely of which any really captures my attention anymore. Unfortunately, as the money machine needs to be fed, I 100% see HBO slowly turning into a content factory, and quality is going to fall off. I hope in 3-5 years to come back to this comment and laugh at how wrong I was, but I feel pretty certain about an upcoming quality drop from what was once the bellwether of high quality entertainment.
- ghaff 8y ago
  WRT Netflix, their stated strategy was that their access to data was going to allow them to create superior content as demonstrated (at least for a time) by House of Cards.But it became evident pretty quickly that 1.) The beast needs to be fed with quantity as well as quality (as you say) and 2.) Quality TV/film isn't just an algorithmic exercise.
  - sharkweek 8y ago
    Your last point is a strong one - Great TV seems RISKY before it finds success and it should be! For example, Netflix show "Ozark" is pretty good! But I can pretty much guarantee it wouldn't have existed if AMC hadn't taken a gamble on "Breaking Bad" first.
  - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    You can have the best 3 shows on any platform, but if all you have is 3 shows, people won't sign up or stay. Netflix had to invest in quantity side by side with quality because the content providers started taking their ball and going home.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      If you have economical access to a bunch of OK mainstream content, it's reasonable to put all your wood behind just a few arrows. You won't get a big hit every time but you can increase your odds by lining up the right people and opening a fat checkbook. And those few hits may be enough to get people to renew. But if your licensed content is mostly drek, you have to create filler content yourself, even if it's mostly just OK.
      - mikepurvis 8y ago
        I don't disagree with this, but it's important to acknowledge that "drek" for you might be someone else's niche interest. Sure, some TV is just objectively bad (low production values, whatever), but easily-dismissed shows like Sugar Rush and movies like the Christmas Prince series have legitimate audiences who find them interesting and engaging. One of the most significant and under-acknowledged strategic differences between Netflix and a traditional TV network is that they're not limited by a schedule— they don't need to pick just one show to put in that key Sunday night primetime slot, and they don't need to look at what they're "up against" in the same slot on the other networks. Their only practical limit is budget— ergo, a strategy of lots of niche, long-tail appeal type content makes a ton of sense.
criddell 8y ago
If AT&T wants to drag anything out of the dark ages, I wish they would take a look at the DVRs they give to their customers. They are so slow and their user interface is atrocious. When our contract is up, we are going to try YouTube TV and Hulu to see if either of those is better.
- rwc 8y ago
  The solution is DirecTV Now and, while far from perfect, is under very active development.
  - criddell 8y ago
    I think our current provider is actually DirecTV, but I'm not 100% sure. There are a lot of on-demand channels, but you can't skip the ads in them so I'm not going to watch them. Is DirecTV now better with respect to ads?
  - __david__ 8y ago
    It's not really a solution. It has a terrible interface. Same with Playstation Vue and Hulu+Live TV. They're all geared towards people who turn on their tv and get blared at by whatever random channel it's tuned to. None of them comes close to what Tivo was doing 20 years ago where the menu of your currently recorded shows became front and center and live tv became a secondary concern. Not to mention that several of those services have certain shows blacked out on their DVR service, and some even convert your recorded shows into on-demand versions which (or course) contain unskippable commercials. When I cut the cord last summer it was extremely sobering realizing that all the fancy new internet tv services were so far behind my already long in the tooth Tivo.
    - criddell 8y ago
      > some even convert your recorded shows into on-demand versions which (or course) contain unskippable commercials Is there a higher paid tier that gets rid of those commercials?
kitrose 8y ago
I prefer HBO’s content and streaming app so much more than Netflix/Hulu, I always start there if I am wondering what to watch.
jjoonathan 8y ago
Am I going to be able to give them money in exchange for watching Game of Thrones? Or do they still expect me to mix and match a cable TV package, a "partnered" home entertainment box, and some other nonsense?
- stolson 8y ago
  You can subscribe to HBO NOW for $15 a month.
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    That was an option last season too, but I think I had to have a unique, partnered, non-computer device on which to register the HBO Now account, and the process was broken on the one "acceptable" device I had. I don't remember what it was, but I do remember digging it out of storage and being terribly inconvenienced. In any case, after two thorough, time-consuming attempts I gave up and mooched of a friend who had recently bought a Roku or something.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - X-Istence 8y ago
      Creating a HBO Now account can be done through the web at https://hbonow.com/ https://hbonow.com/ You need a web browser.
      - jjoonathan 8y ago
        In that case, I'm cautiously optimistic that they've reconsidered the nonsense!
- ascagnel_ 8y ago
  If you live in a country where they offer HBO Now, you should be able to do it today. You'll still need a box of some type to consume the content, but it looks like they're covering all of the major players[0]. [0]: https://www.hbo.com/order/hbo-now-devices https://www.hbo.com/order/hbo-now-devices
colechristensen 8y ago
I like HBO just as it is and can't fathom why anyone would claim it is in the dark ages. "Decisions are made slowly and by consensus; longtime employees guard the network’s lucrative, award-winning status quo." -- this is said like it is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with not being "disruptive" and being slow and steady to stay excellent. Many businesses and consumers would be better off if there were less pressure to be #1.
- btmiller 8y ago
  Deliberation is slowly going extinct in favor of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. I see it as the "news feed"-ification of video content.
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    OR A/B testing until every product fits only the lowest common denominator niche. Same argument as the "dictatorship of the majority" in democratic government. Everybody doing what is most popular results in many people losing.
    - com2kid 8y ago
      It is perfectly possible to A/B content to find which content targets a more lucrative niche. It just depends on the goals you set for the test.
- fooey 8y ago
  I've been very happy with PS Vue, I just wish they'd quit raising their prices every 6 months.
- ready2operate 8y ago
  Not having 4k streaming is a big one.
smacktoward 8y ago
I personally have not found the UX of HBO's streaming offerings (I use HBO GO, primarily through an iPad and a PS4) to be appreciably worse than Netflix's. The apps load and are straightforward to find my way around in, I can always find the content I'm looking for, I've never had any technical issues prevent me from streaming that content. In some regards, I would even say their UX is better than Netflix's -- scrolling through a list of items in the HBO apps doesn't trigger a parade of loud auto-playing videos, and HBO doesn't visually privilege their own original content over stuff they've licensed by giving it huge icons and putting it at the top of every list. The article mentions that HBO couldn't handle the streaming demand for Game of Thrones in 2014, which is pretty bad, but which was also five years ago. It doesn't mention them having problems like that anymore, so it seems reasonable to assume they learned something from the experience. If anything, I would say HBO's biggest failure is in marketing/branding: naming their offering for cable subscribers "HBO GO" and the one for cord-cutters "HBO NOW" is an invitation for confusion, and the logos/icons for the apps are so similar anyone could be forgiven for downloading the wrong one. They need to distinguish these services better, and provide some incentive to use HBO Now to attract people like me who are getting HBO through their cable company to jump to having a direct relationship with them instead.
- pronoiac 8y ago
  There's also the DirecTV Now app, which gets bundled with some AT&T mobile plans, and the UX there is much worse than in HBO Now. I don’t think you can make watchlists, and it won’t pick up from the same time if you get interrupted.
- negativez 8y ago
  Completely agree - HBO's app is as good as any of them. I'll add that Netflix is the only video app I've used that mismanages the chromecast control ui. Basically every other time I cast Netflix the app loses track of the cast stream, reverts to the browsing ui or other failure mode and I can't pause the stream from my phone. No other app does this.
- mcculley 8y ago
  I subscribe to HBO Now on an Apple TV. I really wish it could remember that I have enabled closed captions (I have a hearing impairment). Netflix does not seem to have trouble with persisting settings.
kevin_b_er 8y ago
While I can appreciate "HBO Now", which is netflix-esque, I fear HBO is still too bogged by the legacy of being a premium cable channel. "HBO Go" is just that, restricted to the cable TV bundling problem. With AT&T in the mix, I can see it going to needing Cable TV or AT&T wireless internet as the requirement to be able to buy HBO. If that happens, they'll still not be as good Netflix at distribution.
smacktoward 8y ago
For those (like me) who are puzzled by some of the assertions made in this article -- I suspect that it's what journalists refer to as a "beat sweetener"[1]. Reporters have particular sectors, companies, etc. they're assigned to cover; these are referred to as their beat. To get stories, a journalist has to develop sources within those sectors/companies/etc. -- people "in the know" who are willing to share information with them. Developing sources is a hard thing to do, as people tend not to talk to reporters unless they've got an axe to grind, which biases their information and makes it less useful to you. One way to get potential sources to open up to you is to butter them up in advance with some flattering coverage. Once you're fixed in their memory as the guy/gal who wrote that great story about them, they're less likely to see you as an adversary. So it's not uncommon, when a new executive takes over somewhere, to see a glowing profile of them appear -- a profile that "explains" how all the problems the place the executive just took over at are the fault of their departed predecessor, who was an idiot whose momma dressed him funny, and how the new executive's bold, daring Vision for the Future™ will solve them all at a stroke. I have no hard evidence whether that's the actual thought process that led to this puzzling article, of course. It just really, really reads that way. [1] See https://www.thenation.com/article/washingtons-beat-sweetener-media-culture/ https://www.thenation.com/article/washingtons-beat-sweetener..., https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/04/a-beat-sweetener-sampler.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/04/a-beat-sweetener...
OrgNet 8y ago
most of the large media companies need a wakeup call... why is it easier to find pirated content then finding a source willing to take your money for non-drm content...
stickfigure 8y ago
I subscribe to both Netflix and Hbonow. Netflix always has something interesting, and a good discovery experience. Every show has a small trailer accessible with just a mouse hover. My wife and I don't watch a lot of casual TV, but when we're looking for a random show to unwind with, we fire up Netflix. We subscribe to Hbonow when the Game of Thrones season starts, and cancel when it ends. It's not that there aren't other interesting shows (although the selection isn't huge), it's that the UX is so user-hostile it makes me angry to use it. Just continuing with the last show I watched requires multiple navigation steps - and sometimes searching. Shows often have minutes-long non-skippable trailers. Playback is slow to start. Discovery is nonexistent, unless you're counting those minutes-long masturbatory trailers that are clearly ads for HBO, not the shows. Hbo needs more than just content, it needs to rethink the way it treats users. Right now it feels like going to a movie theatre where they force-feed you advertising for 30 minutes because "hey, captive audience".
bigmattystyles 8y ago
Slight tangent: Does anyone find it weird that no matter what you watch, HBO puts a 30 second preview for something else before your show. Fix that - and a skip intro button. Otherwise, keep it as is.
- thomasthomas 8y ago
  Needs an "Are you still watching?" prompt as well. It will play every episode of a series if you fall asleep while watching. Would cut costs for them too.
draw_down 8y ago
Perhaps their streaming strategy needs to be dragged out of the dark ages, but I don't think the situation bodes well for the quality of their content. The CEO who just left was apparently beloved by creators in the industry, and the new one just wants a firehose of content like what Netflix offers. So it feels like the end of an era. Looks like the future will be HBO trading on the brand they built over the last few decades but content-wise attempting to match Netflix. I hope I'm wrong.
teilo 8y ago
The best HBO experience is on Amazon. HBO Now is so unreliable and bad that I cancelled it and added the HBO Now channel to my Prime Subscription. Same content, but a player that actually works. HBO Now's web player (on my Macbook Pro, anyway) would not play in HD on an external monitor no matter what I did. HDPC is working. Every other service (including Netflix) worked fine. Only HBO reverted to SD video as soon as I moved my browser window to my 4K display, no matter what browser I used. I'm sure the problem is Silverlight. But it's ridiculous that they still use that piece of garbage.

34 points by dosy 8y ago

Subtitle: With Richard Plepler out, new boss Robert Greenblatt will need to fix years of missteps to catch up to Netflix. If what they are giving HBO is anything like the “AT&T Watch TV” app, that’s a pretty accurate subheading. The user experience is a solid 5 years behind Netflix and Hulu.

bluedevil2k 8y ago
The current HBO Go app has a really good interface, much better than Netflix and sooo much better than Hulu's jumbled mess (on the AppleTV). I can find the shows I want to watch easily, the current shows are easy to find on the main page, the categories are clean and easy to sort through. Just the fact that you scroll down and not some infinite row like in Netflix works so much better on the TV.
cwilkes 8y ago
By 5 years behind do you mean HBOs interface is like Netflix of 5 years ago? If so that isn’t going to take 5 years to catch up. I’m not sure what’s so bad about it. Then again I knew exactly what I wanted to watch.

sharkweek 8y ago

My problem with this is as follows: HBO has led the way in making some of the highest quality television of the last 20 years. Competition has gotten stiffer, but I still view HBO as the premier place for TV (Sopranos, The Wire, Sex and the City, Curb, Veep, Leftovers, True Detective, Deadwood... and of course GoT, the list goes on and on). I would argue many of our favorite broadcast/cable shows would simply not exist if HBO hadn't gone there first. They've had some duds, and certainly have a lot of small-audience niche TV, but for the most part it's a premium quality that I'm willing to pay for. I'm reading through the lines a bit and here is what I see in the article: "More content, faster, cheaper." This isn't about an outdated streaming strategy, HBO Go/Now are fine. If they race to compete with Netflix (dropping price, increasing output), who is quite literally shitting out content every day, the overall quality of HBO will decline greatly. Netflix started with premiere TV (House of Cards) but has evolved into a massive mess of content, rarely of which any really captures my attention anymore. Unfortunately, as the money machine needs to be fed, I 100% see HBO slowly turning into a content factory, and quality is going to fall off. I hope in 3-5 years to come back to this comment and laugh at how wrong I was, but I feel pretty certain about an upcoming quality drop from what was once the bellwether of high quality entertainment.

ghaff 8y ago
WRT Netflix, their stated strategy was that their access to data was going to allow them to create superior content as demonstrated (at least for a time) by House of Cards.But it became evident pretty quickly that 1.) The beast needs to be fed with quantity as well as quality (as you say) and 2.) Quality TV/film isn't just an algorithmic exercise.
- sharkweek 8y ago
  Your last point is a strong one - Great TV seems RISKY before it finds success and it should be! For example, Netflix show "Ozark" is pretty good! But I can pretty much guarantee it wouldn't have existed if AMC hadn't taken a gamble on "Breaking Bad" first.
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  You can have the best 3 shows on any platform, but if all you have is 3 shows, people won't sign up or stay. Netflix had to invest in quantity side by side with quality because the content providers started taking their ball and going home.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    If you have economical access to a bunch of OK mainstream content, it's reasonable to put all your wood behind just a few arrows. You won't get a big hit every time but you can increase your odds by lining up the right people and opening a fat checkbook. And those few hits may be enough to get people to renew. But if your licensed content is mostly drek, you have to create filler content yourself, even if it's mostly just OK.
    - mikepurvis 8y ago
      I don't disagree with this, but it's important to acknowledge that "drek" for you might be someone else's niche interest. Sure, some TV is just objectively bad (low production values, whatever), but easily-dismissed shows like Sugar Rush and movies like the Christmas Prince series have legitimate audiences who find them interesting and engaging. One of the most significant and under-acknowledged strategic differences between Netflix and a traditional TV network is that they're not limited by a schedule— they don't need to pick just one show to put in that key Sunday night primetime slot, and they don't need to look at what they're "up against" in the same slot on the other networks. Their only practical limit is budget— ergo, a strategy of lots of niche, long-tail appeal type content makes a ton of sense.

criddell 8y ago

If AT&T wants to drag anything out of the dark ages, I wish they would take a look at the DVRs they give to their customers. They are so slow and their user interface is atrocious. When our contract is up, we are going to try YouTube TV and Hulu to see if either of those is better.

rwc 8y ago
The solution is DirecTV Now and, while far from perfect, is under very active development.
- criddell 8y ago
  I think our current provider is actually DirecTV, but I'm not 100% sure. There are a lot of on-demand channels, but you can't skip the ads in them so I'm not going to watch them. Is DirecTV now better with respect to ads?
- __david__ 8y ago
  It's not really a solution. It has a terrible interface. Same with Playstation Vue and Hulu+Live TV. They're all geared towards people who turn on their tv and get blared at by whatever random channel it's tuned to. None of them comes close to what Tivo was doing 20 years ago where the menu of your currently recorded shows became front and center and live tv became a secondary concern. Not to mention that several of those services have certain shows blacked out on their DVR service, and some even convert your recorded shows into on-demand versions which (or course) contain unskippable commercials. When I cut the cord last summer it was extremely sobering realizing that all the fancy new internet tv services were so far behind my already long in the tooth Tivo.
  - criddell 8y ago
    > some even convert your recorded shows into on-demand versions which (or course) contain unskippable commercials Is there a higher paid tier that gets rid of those commercials?

kitrose 8y ago

I prefer HBO’s content and streaming app so much more than Netflix/Hulu, I always start there if I am wondering what to watch.

jjoonathan 8y ago

Am I going to be able to give them money in exchange for watching Game of Thrones? Or do they still expect me to mix and match a cable TV package, a "partnered" home entertainment box, and some other nonsense?

stolson 8y ago
You can subscribe to HBO NOW for $15 a month.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  That was an option last season too, but I think I had to have a unique, partnered, non-computer device on which to register the HBO Now account, and the process was broken on the one "acceptable" device I had. I don't remember what it was, but I do remember digging it out of storage and being terribly inconvenienced. In any case, after two thorough, time-consuming attempts I gave up and mooched of a friend who had recently bought a Roku or something.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - X-Istence 8y ago
    Creating a HBO Now account can be done through the web at https://hbonow.com/ https://hbonow.com/ You need a web browser.
    - jjoonathan 8y ago
      In that case, I'm cautiously optimistic that they've reconsidered the nonsense!
ascagnel_ 8y ago
If you live in a country where they offer HBO Now, you should be able to do it today. You'll still need a box of some type to consume the content, but it looks like they're covering all of the major players[0]. [0]: https://www.hbo.com/order/hbo-now-devices https://www.hbo.com/order/hbo-now-devices

colechristensen 8y ago

I like HBO just as it is and can't fathom why anyone would claim it is in the dark ages. "Decisions are made slowly and by consensus; longtime employees guard the network’s lucrative, award-winning status quo." -- this is said like it is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with not being "disruptive" and being slow and steady to stay excellent. Many businesses and consumers would be better off if there were less pressure to be #1.

btmiller 8y ago
Deliberation is slowly going extinct in favor of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. I see it as the "news feed"-ification of video content.
- colechristensen 8y ago
  OR A/B testing until every product fits only the lowest common denominator niche. Same argument as the "dictatorship of the majority" in democratic government. Everybody doing what is most popular results in many people losing.
  - com2kid 8y ago
    It is perfectly possible to A/B content to find which content targets a more lucrative niche. It just depends on the goals you set for the test.
fooey 8y ago
I've been very happy with PS Vue, I just wish they'd quit raising their prices every 6 months.
ready2operate 8y ago
Not having 4k streaming is a big one.

smacktoward 8y ago

I personally have not found the UX of HBO's streaming offerings (I use HBO GO, primarily through an iPad and a PS4) to be appreciably worse than Netflix's. The apps load and are straightforward to find my way around in, I can always find the content I'm looking for, I've never had any technical issues prevent me from streaming that content. In some regards, I would even say their UX is better than Netflix's -- scrolling through a list of items in the HBO apps doesn't trigger a parade of loud auto-playing videos, and HBO doesn't visually privilege their own original content over stuff they've licensed by giving it huge icons and putting it at the top of every list. The article mentions that HBO couldn't handle the streaming demand for Game of Thrones in 2014, which is pretty bad, but which was also five years ago. It doesn't mention them having problems like that anymore, so it seems reasonable to assume they learned something from the experience. If anything, I would say HBO's biggest failure is in marketing/branding: naming their offering for cable subscribers "HBO GO" and the one for cord-cutters "HBO NOW" is an invitation for confusion, and the logos/icons for the apps are so similar anyone could be forgiven for downloading the wrong one. They need to distinguish these services better, and provide some incentive to use HBO Now to attract people like me who are getting HBO through their cable company to jump to having a direct relationship with them instead.

pronoiac 8y ago
There's also the DirecTV Now app, which gets bundled with some AT&T mobile plans, and the UX there is much worse than in HBO Now. I don’t think you can make watchlists, and it won’t pick up from the same time if you get interrupted.
negativez 8y ago
Completely agree - HBO's app is as good as any of them. I'll add that Netflix is the only video app I've used that mismanages the chromecast control ui. Basically every other time I cast Netflix the app loses track of the cast stream, reverts to the browsing ui or other failure mode and I can't pause the stream from my phone. No other app does this.
mcculley 8y ago
I subscribe to HBO Now on an Apple TV. I really wish it could remember that I have enabled closed captions (I have a hearing impairment). Netflix does not seem to have trouble with persisting settings.

kevin_b_er 8y ago

While I can appreciate "HBO Now", which is netflix-esque, I fear HBO is still too bogged by the legacy of being a premium cable channel. "HBO Go" is just that, restricted to the cable TV bundling problem. With AT&T in the mix, I can see it going to needing Cable TV or AT&T wireless internet as the requirement to be able to buy HBO. If that happens, they'll still not be as good Netflix at distribution.

smacktoward 8y ago

For those (like me) who are puzzled by some of the assertions made in this article -- I suspect that it's what journalists refer to as a "beat sweetener"[1]. Reporters have particular sectors, companies, etc. they're assigned to cover; these are referred to as their beat. To get stories, a journalist has to develop sources within those sectors/companies/etc. -- people "in the know" who are willing to share information with them. Developing sources is a hard thing to do, as people tend not to talk to reporters unless they've got an axe to grind, which biases their information and makes it less useful to you. One way to get potential sources to open up to you is to butter them up in advance with some flattering coverage. Once you're fixed in their memory as the guy/gal who wrote that great story about them, they're less likely to see you as an adversary. So it's not uncommon, when a new executive takes over somewhere, to see a glowing profile of them appear -- a profile that "explains" how all the problems the place the executive just took over at are the fault of their departed predecessor, who was an idiot whose momma dressed him funny, and how the new executive's bold, daring Vision for the Future™ will solve them all at a stroke. I have no hard evidence whether that's the actual thought process that led to this puzzling article, of course. It just really, really reads that way. [1] See https://www.thenation.com/article/washingtons-beat-sweetener-media-culture/ https://www.thenation.com/article/washingtons-beat-sweetener..., https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/04/a-beat-sweetener-sampler.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/04/a-beat-sweetener...

OrgNet 8y ago

most of the large media companies need a wakeup call... why is it easier to find pirated content then finding a source willing to take your money for non-drm content...

stickfigure 8y ago

I subscribe to both Netflix and Hbonow. Netflix always has something interesting, and a good discovery experience. Every show has a small trailer accessible with just a mouse hover. My wife and I don't watch a lot of casual TV, but when we're looking for a random show to unwind with, we fire up Netflix. We subscribe to Hbonow when the Game of Thrones season starts, and cancel when it ends. It's not that there aren't other interesting shows (although the selection isn't huge), it's that the UX is so user-hostile it makes me angry to use it. Just continuing with the last show I watched requires multiple navigation steps - and sometimes searching. Shows often have minutes-long non-skippable trailers. Playback is slow to start. Discovery is nonexistent, unless you're counting those minutes-long masturbatory trailers that are clearly ads for HBO, not the shows. Hbo needs more than just content, it needs to rethink the way it treats users. Right now it feels like going to a movie theatre where they force-feed you advertising for 30 minutes because "hey, captive audience".

bigmattystyles 8y ago

Slight tangent: Does anyone find it weird that no matter what you watch, HBO puts a 30 second preview for something else before your show. Fix that - and a skip intro button. Otherwise, keep it as is.

thomasthomas 8y ago
Needs an "Are you still watching?" prompt as well. It will play every episode of a series if you fall asleep while watching. Would cut costs for them too.

draw_down 8y ago

Perhaps their streaming strategy needs to be dragged out of the dark ages, but I don't think the situation bodes well for the quality of their content. The CEO who just left was apparently beloved by creators in the industry, and the new one just wants a firehose of content like what Netflix offers. So it feels like the end of an era. Looks like the future will be HBO trading on the brand they built over the last few decades but content-wise attempting to match Netflix. I hope I'm wrong.

teilo 8y ago

The best HBO experience is on Amazon. HBO Now is so unreliable and bad that I cancelled it and added the HBO Now channel to my Prime Subscription. Same content, but a player that actually works. HBO Now's web player (on my Macbook Pro, anyway) would not play in HD on an external monitor no matter what I did. HDPC is working. Every other service (including Netflix) worked fine. Only HBO reverted to SD video as soon as I moved my browser window to my 4K display, no matter what browser I used. I'm sure the problem is Silverlight. But it's ridiculous that they still use that piece of garbage.