4 ms·

There was a discussion about this a couple days ago which included a video of the CEO discussing why economically it just doesn't make sense for them to offer H

There was a discussion about this a couple days ago which included a video of the CEO discussing why economically it just doesn't make sense for them to offer HBO as a standalone product: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4071963 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4071963

chc 14y ago
He didn't really do that. He explained why it didn't make sense for HBO to totally abandon partnering with anyone else and go it completely alone. But there are many less radical options that would satisfy most of the people complaining. For example, he did not explain why HBO couldn't do one of the following: • Release shows in a timely manner on iTunes • Keep their current distribution outlets and just allow people to pay for HBO Go (OK, he mentioned billing, but I'd be happy to write a Stripe payment page for HBO gratis if that's really the holdup) • Add Netflix or Amazon to their list of partners The actual reason why HBO can't do any of this seems to be that Time-Warner owns HBO, and Time-Warner doesn't want that to happen, so it's not even an option for HBO. Realistically, I'd bet good money that HBO could be more responsive to Internet customers' wishes and it wouldn't hurt their business at all (what, is Cox going to stop carrying HBO because they released a Game of Thrones episode on the Web the same month it aired?), but they aren't free to make that call.
- gte910h 14y ago
  "Time-Warner"NYSE: TWX and "Time Warner Cable" NYSE: TWC aren't the same company. While TW may not want something, your implication is because it would effect the cable business, which is not at all related to TW, only TWC, a completely separate company.
  - chc 14y ago
    Shoot, I forgot that they had divorced their parent company. Call me stumped then, because the first half of my comment still applies: The rationale given by HBO doesn't make any sense.

chc 14y ago

He didn't really do that. He explained why it didn't make sense for HBO to totally abandon partnering with anyone else and go it completely alone. But there are many less radical options that would satisfy most of the people complaining. For example, he did not explain why HBO couldn't do one of the following: • Release shows in a timely manner on iTunes • Keep their current distribution outlets and just allow people to pay for HBO Go (OK, he mentioned billing, but I'd be happy to write a Stripe payment page for HBO gratis if that's really the holdup) • Add Netflix or Amazon to their list of partners The actual reason why HBO can't do any of this seems to be that Time-Warner owns HBO, and Time-Warner doesn't want that to happen, so it's not even an option for HBO. Realistically, I'd bet good money that HBO could be more responsive to Internet customers' wishes and it wouldn't hurt their business at all (what, is Cox going to stop carrying HBO because they released a Game of Thrones episode on the Web the same month it aired?), but they aren't free to make that call.

gte910h 14y ago
"Time-Warner"NYSE: TWX and "Time Warner Cable" NYSE: TWC aren't the same company. While TW may not want something, your implication is because it would effect the cable business, which is not at all related to TW, only TWC, a completely separate company.
- chc 14y ago
  Shoot, I forgot that they had divorced their parent company. Call me stumped then, because the first half of my comment still applies: The rationale given by HBO doesn't make any sense.