11 ms·

"Piracy is almost always a service problem" - Gabe Newell I understand that HBO has some sort of proprietary online video watching service, but speaking as som

by dlss 14y ago

"Piracy is almost always a service problem" - Gabe Newell I understand that HBO has some sort of proprietary online video watching service, but speaking as someone with no TV and no desire to pay for basic cable merely to enable my paying for HBO, I do with HBO would take Gabe's quote to heart.

danso 14y ago
Is it your opinion that HBO is doing this just to screw people over? From last year, a rhetorical imagined response from HBO: http://www.livedigitally.com/2011/12/22/dear-mg-a-note-from-hbo/ http://www.livedigitally.com/2011/12/22/dear-mg-a-note-from-... > We love that you’d spend $19.99 (or more) to pay for our service, and we wish we could have you as a customer. But let’s talk about that for a second. First of all, we don’t have any direct relationship with our fans right now, so when you need customer service, you call Comcast or DirecTV or Cox, etc. So we’d need to get customer service up and running, and that’s pricey, since, as you know, we’d want our service to be top notch. > ...But let’s get to the crux of the issue. There are about 30-40 million Americans who watch HBO shows legally, and we agree, a lot of them would be happy to pay us directly. If we went, as you put it, “cable-optional,” we’d be breaking our existing, mega-million-dollar contracts with our current partners, and from what we’ve seen, they wouldn’t be too happy about that. Second, we don’t really know how they’d change their billing relationship with you or other consumers. Which is going to put a lot of people into a precarious position of having to decide if they really do want to sign up with us and keep paying their cable bill.
- mistercheese 14y ago
  Yes, this is the point that needs to be made every time someone rages at HBO. It's not that they are doing this despite fans "wanting them to take their money", it's that cable partners have made it financially unreasonable for HBO to split from them.
  - subsystem 14y ago
    They are about to launch a video-on-demand service in the nordic countries, but with 12 months commitment and 3 months notice, so they seem quite capable of screwing up themselves.
    - 1123581321 14y ago
      I expect HBO will eventually be bought by or strike a huge deal with Netflix or Amazon.com to get them over the cable companies' deterrents.
      - mistercheese 14y ago
        I suspect if Netflix had the money to make it worth HBO's splitting from cable companies it would have happened when they were looking for content channels. I'm not sure if this is in Amazon's core business either.
        1123581321 14y ago
        It is true that acquisition is unlikely, but licensing is different. I think Netflix has to choose their deals carefully and in the right order. Disney is their biggest deal yet. HBO would be bigger, but next year, it might be manageable. They already did the StarzPlay deal which brought shows to Netflix the day after airing on Starz, and Starz is a poorer version of HBO. Starz didn't renew, which makes the value of the arrangement look low, but it's possible HBO intends to learn from that in their future deal. Amazon's Prime Instant is a direct Netflix competitor and they pursue licenses just as aggressively. They are even publiahing original content, which is not their core competency but certainly is HBO's.
  - baddox 14y ago
    HBO can hardly blame cable companies just because HBO's crappy business model doesn't work without cable companies.
    - mistercheese 14y ago
      Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I'm assuming they made the business calculations and the partnerships with the cable companies was much more profitable than splitting off and doing HBO GO on their own, at least in the regions that they are tied to. (Cable cutters are still a small portion of the population)
- ctdonath 14y ago
  There are about 30-40 million Americans who watch HBO shows legally, and we agree, a lot of them would be happy to pay us directly. If we went, as you put it, “cable-optional,” we’d be breaking our existing, mega-million-dollar contracts with our current partners, and from what we’ve seen, they wouldn’t be too happy about that. Kodak said exactly the same thing about digital photography vs retail film sales. The then-$17B/yr company just this month sold their remaining essence for $0.5B. Remember who your actual customers are.
  - ollysb 14y ago
    The transition from cable to internet for TV consumption probably has a while to play out yet. I'm sure HBO are exploring many scenarios for the future.
    - ctdonath 14y ago
      Kodak was exploring future options too. The actual future arrived a lot sooner than they expected.
      - ollysb 14y ago
        The difference is that HBO are still making a product that people want. It's the distribution channel that's in danger of dying out not the producer. As long as HBO are making shows people want to watch they'll be just fine.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  There are about 30-40 million Americans who watch HBO shows legally, and we agree, a lot of them would be happy to pay us directly. If we went, as you put it, “cable-optional,” we’d be breaking our existing, mega-million-dollar contracts with our current partners, and from what we’ve seen, they wouldn’t be too happy about that To which my response is, "Welcome to the local maximum, HBO. Make yourself comfortable, as you'll be here a while."
k-mcgrady 14y ago
I know I'm pointing out the obvious but people can wait for the DVD or buy it via iTunes when it becomes available. The show is shown on different networks throughout the world at different times/dates so just putting on online immediately for everyone isn't really an option. It might take 12 months but eventually you can get it in a format you want for a fair price.
- barking 14y ago
  In Europe it's SKY that screens GOT. It's unwatchable because there is a long commercial break about every 10 minutes. Just recently I bought series 1-5 (65 episodes) of mad men for €55. I won't watch GOT again until I get it on a box set.
  - Tycho 14y ago
    I recommend Sky+ to you.
    - barking 14y ago
      That would be an idea, what's holding us back is when our house was built it had 1 satellite cable properly run through our walls and a sky+ box needs 2
      - aes256 14y ago
        Sky+ works fine with one feed, just with the obviously reduced functionality (i.e. you won't be able to record one thing while watching another)
        barking 14y ago
        I didn't know that.
- Firehed 14y ago
  When your friends are talking about the latest episode just after it airs, waiting a year isn't necessarily practical. That doesn't make piracy OK, but it certainly makes it a lot easier for many people to justify.
biot 14y ago
I don't have cable either, yet I've purchased the Bluray sets of Game of Thrones, Band of Brothers, and The Pacific; all HBO productions. External USB drives are pretty cheap these days (DVD and/or Bluray) in case your computer doesn't support optical media.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- kyrra 14y ago
  DRM free is not always better. I like steam as it allows me to download any game I've ever bought from them. Sure, it's locked to my account, but its super easy to use. As well, I have a catalog of all my purchases games right there. DRM free may be a nice ideal, but DRM that does not get in the way is just fine by me.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  It's not DRM that matters. I pirate almost all the content I have, except for PC games. Why? Because Steam is just that good. It makes it so easy to purchase, install and update games, and connect with friends. I just checked my account - I have almost 90 games in Steam. And yet I can't remember the last time I purchased a movie or song. Let me know when Netflix and Spotify have improved their selections greatly (and Netflix has everything it can in full 1080p with surround sound), I'll be willing to pay then. Edit: the parent (username "citricsquid") just deleted his post (screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/yQiir.png http://i.imgur.com/yQiir.png). Here is the text in its entirety: > That quote is such bullshit, it's the most obnoxious pandering around. Yes, if you reduce the prices of your content and increase availability you'll sell more, but the fact is no matter how cheap you price your content and no matter how easy acquisition is people will still pirate it. Steam is in a very good position, it has so much good will (what some might characterize as circle jerking) around it that people buy from Steam just to validate their views on piracy. > "Steam is so successful because they are so great about piracy! That's why I buy from them!" but then when another company takes a much better approach to DRM than Steam (eg: release their content DRM free at a very reasonable price and available everywhere) people will suddenly forget all this "service problem" stuff and pirate it without a second thought. > http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/ http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/
  - biot 14y ago
    Why were you compelled to repost someone's deleted comment without their permission?

by dlss 14y ago

danso 14y ago

Is it your opinion that HBO is doing this just to screw people over? From last year, a rhetorical imagined response from HBO: http://www.livedigitally.com/2011/12/22/dear-mg-a-note-from-hbo/ http://www.livedigitally.com/2011/12/22/dear-mg-a-note-from-... > We love that you’d spend $19.99 (or more) to pay for our service, and we wish we could have you as a customer. But let’s talk about that for a second. First of all, we don’t have any direct relationship with our fans right now, so when you need customer service, you call Comcast or DirecTV or Cox, etc. So we’d need to get customer service up and running, and that’s pricey, since, as you know, we’d want our service to be top notch. > ...But let’s get to the crux of the issue. There are about 30-40 million Americans who watch HBO shows legally, and we agree, a lot of them would be happy to pay us directly. If we went, as you put it, “cable-optional,” we’d be breaking our existing, mega-million-dollar contracts with our current partners, and from what we’ve seen, they wouldn’t be too happy about that. Second, we don’t really know how they’d change their billing relationship with you or other consumers. Which is going to put a lot of people into a precarious position of having to decide if they really do want to sign up with us and keep paying their cable bill.

mistercheese 14y ago
Yes, this is the point that needs to be made every time someone rages at HBO. It's not that they are doing this despite fans "wanting them to take their money", it's that cable partners have made it financially unreasonable for HBO to split from them.
- subsystem 14y ago
  They are about to launch a video-on-demand service in the nordic countries, but with 12 months commitment and 3 months notice, so they seem quite capable of screwing up themselves.
  - 1123581321 14y ago
    I expect HBO will eventually be bought by or strike a huge deal with Netflix or Amazon.com to get them over the cable companies' deterrents.
    - mistercheese 14y ago
      I suspect if Netflix had the money to make it worth HBO's splitting from cable companies it would have happened when they were looking for content channels. I'm not sure if this is in Amazon's core business either.
      - 1123581321 14y ago
        It is true that acquisition is unlikely, but licensing is different. I think Netflix has to choose their deals carefully and in the right order. Disney is their biggest deal yet. HBO would be bigger, but next year, it might be manageable. They already did the StarzPlay deal which brought shows to Netflix the day after airing on Starz, and Starz is a poorer version of HBO. Starz didn't renew, which makes the value of the arrangement look low, but it's possible HBO intends to learn from that in their future deal. Amazon's Prime Instant is a direct Netflix competitor and they pursue licenses just as aggressively. They are even publiahing original content, which is not their core competency but certainly is HBO's.
- baddox 14y ago
  HBO can hardly blame cable companies just because HBO's crappy business model doesn't work without cable companies.
  - mistercheese 14y ago
    Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I'm assuming they made the business calculations and the partnerships with the cable companies was much more profitable than splitting off and doing HBO GO on their own, at least in the regions that they are tied to. (Cable cutters are still a small portion of the population)
ctdonath 14y ago
There are about 30-40 million Americans who watch HBO shows legally, and we agree, a lot of them would be happy to pay us directly. If we went, as you put it, “cable-optional,” we’d be breaking our existing, mega-million-dollar contracts with our current partners, and from what we’ve seen, they wouldn’t be too happy about that. Kodak said exactly the same thing about digital photography vs retail film sales. The then-$17B/yr company just this month sold their remaining essence for $0.5B. Remember who your actual customers are.
- ollysb 14y ago
  The transition from cable to internet for TV consumption probably has a while to play out yet. I'm sure HBO are exploring many scenarios for the future.
  - ctdonath 14y ago
    Kodak was exploring future options too. The actual future arrived a lot sooner than they expected.
    - ollysb 14y ago
      The difference is that HBO are still making a product that people want. It's the distribution channel that's in danger of dying out not the producer. As long as HBO are making shows people want to watch they'll be just fine.
CamperBob2 14y ago
There are about 30-40 million Americans who watch HBO shows legally, and we agree, a lot of them would be happy to pay us directly. If we went, as you put it, “cable-optional,” we’d be breaking our existing, mega-million-dollar contracts with our current partners, and from what we’ve seen, they wouldn’t be too happy about that To which my response is, "Welcome to the local maximum, HBO. Make yourself comfortable, as you'll be here a while."

k-mcgrady 14y ago

I know I'm pointing out the obvious but people can wait for the DVD or buy it via iTunes when it becomes available. The show is shown on different networks throughout the world at different times/dates so just putting on online immediately for everyone isn't really an option. It might take 12 months but eventually you can get it in a format you want for a fair price.

barking 14y ago
In Europe it's SKY that screens GOT. It's unwatchable because there is a long commercial break about every 10 minutes. Just recently I bought series 1-5 (65 episodes) of mad men for €55. I won't watch GOT again until I get it on a box set.
- Tycho 14y ago
  I recommend Sky+ to you.
  - barking 14y ago
    That would be an idea, what's holding us back is when our house was built it had 1 satellite cable properly run through our walls and a sky+ box needs 2
    - aes256 14y ago
      Sky+ works fine with one feed, just with the obviously reduced functionality (i.e. you won't be able to record one thing while watching another)
      - barking 14y ago
        I didn't know that.
Firehed 14y ago
When your friends are talking about the latest episode just after it airs, waiting a year isn't necessarily practical. That doesn't make piracy OK, but it certainly makes it a lot easier for many people to justify.

biot 14y ago

I don't have cable either, yet I've purchased the Bluray sets of Game of Thrones, Band of Brothers, and The Pacific; all HBO productions. External USB drives are pretty cheap these days (DVD and/or Bluray) in case your computer doesn't support optical media.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

kyrra 14y ago
DRM free is not always better. I like steam as it allows me to download any game I've ever bought from them. Sure, it's locked to my account, but its super easy to use. As well, I have a catalog of all my purchases games right there. DRM free may be a nice ideal, but DRM that does not get in the way is just fine by me.
w1ntermute 14y ago
It's not DRM that matters. I pirate almost all the content I have, except for PC games. Why? Because Steam is just that good. It makes it so easy to purchase, install and update games, and connect with friends. I just checked my account - I have almost 90 games in Steam. And yet I can't remember the last time I purchased a movie or song. Let me know when Netflix and Spotify have improved their selections greatly (and Netflix has everything it can in full 1080p with surround sound), I'll be willing to pay then. Edit: the parent (username "citricsquid") just deleted his post (screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/yQiir.png http://i.imgur.com/yQiir.png). Here is the text in its entirety: > That quote is such bullshit, it's the most obnoxious pandering around. Yes, if you reduce the prices of your content and increase availability you'll sell more, but the fact is no matter how cheap you price your content and no matter how easy acquisition is people will still pirate it. Steam is in a very good position, it has so much good will (what some might characterize as circle jerking) around it that people buy from Steam just to validate their views on piracy. > "Steam is so successful because they are so great about piracy! That's why I buy from them!" but then when another company takes a much better approach to DRM than Steam (eg: release their content DRM free at a very reasonable price and available everywhere) people will suddenly forget all this "service problem" stuff and pirate it without a second thought. > http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/ http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/
- biot 14y ago
  Why were you compelled to repost someone's deleted comment without their permission?