4 ms·

HBO Inks Exclusive, 10-Year Deal With Universal

28 points by abdophoto 14y ago

Benferhat 14y ago
Exclusive content: turning fans into pirates, one movie at a time.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  At this rate, I see absolutely no reason to stop pirating. I started it because I was in high school, didn't have money, and didn't have my own TV, so I'd torrent shows and watch them on my desktop. But now, even though I have a TV, I have no reason to get cable even though I can afford it. I don't watch any sports and I read my news online. I already know how to torrent, have private tracker accounts, and an HTPC to watch torrented shows on my TV. Unless the cable industry comes up with an a la carte, on-demand, ad-free model, I'm just not interested. It's too easy to pirate.
  - ComputerGuru 14y ago
    I pay for cable but have not surfed even basic cable for years. I "pirate" these shows that I'm already paying for because my time is money and a) I am not willing to let the cable company dictate when I sit and watch each show at their whim and schedule, b) pirating is easier, more flexible, less stressful than DVR, and c) ads
    - sigzero 14y ago
      You are right to put your usage of "pirate" in quotes because you are paying for the content. For someone not paying for the content, regardless of any justifications, it is still illegal.
      - mikeash 14y ago
        It's still illegal even if you are paying for cable.
        AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        Can you cite a case that actually says that? I'm genuinely curious, because I'm not aware of any. And I would be interested to see how the courts handle the fair use argument in a case like that.
        wmf 14y ago
        Hollywood is willing to split hairs about things like RS-DVRs vs DVRs, so they're probably willing to sue over downloading a (commercial-free, DRM-free version of a) show that you already paid (to watch at a certain time).
        AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        What does that have anything to do with whether it's illegal? They sued Sony for making the Betamax and lost. They used Cablevision for making the RS-DVR and lost. Contrary to popular belief, Hollywood doesn't actually decide what the law is. (They just bribe Congress when they can get away with it.)
  - forrestthewoods 14y ago
    "Unless the cable industry comes up with an a la carte, on-demand, ad-free model, I'm just not interested. It's too easy to pirate." Well aren't you just a god damned Saint? With an attitude like that I can't believe content holders aren't bending over backwards to make you happy!
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      "Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem" - Gabe Newell I'm willing to pay, but the product I want is not available. I pay for my video games because Steam is such a great experience.
      - forrestthewoods 14y ago
        Bullshit. I can start streaming Avengers from iTunes in 1080p with 5.1 audio in under 30 seconds. It couldn't be any easier. With an AppleTV I can do that in my home theater. Amazon also has video on demand options. So does Xbox amongst many others. If you want to be a selfish twat and not pay for any content then so be it. You'd hardly be alone. Just don't add lying to your list of sins.
        wmf 14y ago
        Maybe you missed the part where Universal's content will not be available on iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Xbox, Playstation, etc. until after HBO is done with it.
        forrestthewoods 14y ago
        It didn't say that because that's not how it works. This is an extension of an existing deal. Universal content is already available for rent/purchase on iTunes and that isn't changing. New releases will continue to be on iTunes ala carte. What you won't see is that content available as part of a non-HBO streaming subscription service.
        w1ntermute 14y ago
- sp4rki 14y ago
  That's exactly what it is. Even my technically uninitiated ex girlfriend is now just torrenting movies and shows because they're becoming to hard to get a hold of decent content to watch. I've been paying for a huge chunk of my content in the last few years, but just because of this story I'm probably going to pirate any Universal and Hbo content I'd like to consume...
alphakappa 14y ago
Oh great... just what we consumers need - content locked into a bunch of exclusive deals on various platforms. I can understand that there might be a good business reason for this deal, but it sucks for consumers who are willing to pay for content, but do not want half a dozen content distribution platforms in their home.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  You can't even get HBO content if you aren't a cable/dish subscriber. I would seriously consider paying for their content, but they refuse to sell it to me and there is no way I'm going back to paying $100+/month to have 500 junk channels in my house.
geetee 14y ago
Everybody has to get their 10 buck slice a month, and I guess $100 for the cable too.
james4k 14y ago
If HBO can turn away from cable, and either go independent or partner with someone like Amazon, Apple, Netflix, or.. pfft, everyone, this could be interesting. That is probably hugely wishful thinking, though. Edit: Then again, they're already offering standalone service in parts of Europe.
- ConstantineXVI 14y ago
  Amazon and Netflix are now direct competitors to HBO; "partnering" with them would be at best surrender, and at worst suicide. Apple's a non-option; if they wanted in the subscription streaming business, they'd do it themselves. Independence or death are their only choices outside of cable.
- quandrum 14y ago
  All HBO has to do is open "HBO Go" to non-cable subscribers, and they'd get a flood of takers. But they still make too much money of cable subscriptions to do that, so we have to wait for the tipping point when cable becomes a drag on HBO vs the boon it is today.
  - nixy 14y ago
    HBO actually offers this in other countries than the US, the Nordics for example. HBO Nordic gets content as soon as it has aired, so they are aiming to beat piracy with instant availability for $12/mo. Just not in the US yet.
natrius 14y ago
We really need an ASCAP/BMI for video.
dave5104 14y ago
How much is Netflix worth nowadays? If HBO can spend $2 billion on a single deal, wouldn't Netflix be a smart buy for them? It'd be one less company that they need to compete with in content bids. I guess I could see their relationship with cable souring a bit, but at least they'd have Netflix to fall back on?
- rz2k 14y ago
  HBO is a subsidiary of Time Warner. It is understandable why HBO has declined to sell its content on-demand independent of cable subscriptions. It would be interesting if it were spun off.
antoncohen 14y ago
Either Universal is stupid or HBO is planning to change its business model. Or likely both. Watching TV on television channels is dying; people don't want to subscribe to cable anymore, and their is no reason they should. I just went to HBO's website to try to sign up for their streaming service -- you can't. You can only get streaming service with a cable or satellite subscription. I don't own a TV. A few years ago I tried convince Comcast to let me pay for cable television without having a TV, because I wanted access to all the streaming content online -- they wouldn't let me. Comcast insisted that they needed to install a cable box, I told them I don't have a TV, can't I just pay for the service, no a technician needs to come out and install a cable box. It's pathetic. To see how behind the times HBO is just go to hbo.com. For me it was a blank black screen for 10 seconds. Then a Flash loading animation for 5 seconds. And finally the site loaded. The entire site is done in Flash, without Flash there isn't a shred of content. It's pathetic.
- jfb 14y ago
  Or maybe you aren't privy to the numbers that Universal and HBO are? HBO is in my limited experience (from talking to them when I was at iTunes) a very, very, very smart company and I wouldn't expect them to make bad strategic decisions. The number of people who do not have TV service (myself among them) is utterly insignificant in comparison to those that do; but even more important, carriage agreements and the cable business model are such that a la carte purchases of content just don't make sense; for the studio to make their money back, they'd have to be charging you $80/90 a month, per channel.
- cremnob 14y ago
  Why are any of them stupid? They hold the ultimate card. They own and produce the content. Universal sold their content to the highest bidder, which was HBO. HBO sells their content (and their own) to the highest bidder, which are cable/satellite companies. Does Netflix, Amazon, Apple, et al. have the current scale and reach to justify outbidding Cable? There's a tendency for tech geeks to be armchair television/movie execs and it doesn't amount to much other than uninformed fantasy because they lack perspective outside their own self-interest. And for some this leads to the faulty rationalization that this justifies piracy (as I've already started to see here). But this is little more than entitlement, because watching Game of Thrones isn't a right.
PeterisP 14y ago
"exclusive" and "10 years" are two things that should never be together in a single sentence.
sp4rki 14y ago
I'm waiting with my popcorn in hand for some people to get pissed off and start a "revolutionary" movement to bring down mainstream media companies' attempts to hold on to their outdated business models with guerilla tactics. It will be called the RLO which stands for the Redditors Liberation Army. Sad part? I'm not even kidding...

28 points by abdophoto 14y ago

Benferhat 14y ago

Exclusive content: turning fans into pirates, one movie at a time.

w1ntermute 14y ago
At this rate, I see absolutely no reason to stop pirating. I started it because I was in high school, didn't have money, and didn't have my own TV, so I'd torrent shows and watch them on my desktop. But now, even though I have a TV, I have no reason to get cable even though I can afford it. I don't watch any sports and I read my news online. I already know how to torrent, have private tracker accounts, and an HTPC to watch torrented shows on my TV. Unless the cable industry comes up with an a la carte, on-demand, ad-free model, I'm just not interested. It's too easy to pirate.
- ComputerGuru 14y ago
  I pay for cable but have not surfed even basic cable for years. I "pirate" these shows that I'm already paying for because my time is money and a) I am not willing to let the cable company dictate when I sit and watch each show at their whim and schedule, b) pirating is easier, more flexible, less stressful than DVR, and c) ads
  - sigzero 14y ago
    You are right to put your usage of "pirate" in quotes because you are paying for the content. For someone not paying for the content, regardless of any justifications, it is still illegal.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      It's still illegal even if you are paying for cable.
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        Can you cite a case that actually says that? I'm genuinely curious, because I'm not aware of any. And I would be interested to see how the courts handle the fair use argument in a case like that.
        wmf 14y ago
        Hollywood is willing to split hairs about things like RS-DVRs vs DVRs, so they're probably willing to sue over downloading a (commercial-free, DRM-free version of a) show that you already paid (to watch at a certain time).
        AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        What does that have anything to do with whether it's illegal? They sued Sony for making the Betamax and lost. They used Cablevision for making the RS-DVR and lost. Contrary to popular belief, Hollywood doesn't actually decide what the law is. (They just bribe Congress when they can get away with it.)
- forrestthewoods 14y ago
  "Unless the cable industry comes up with an a la carte, on-demand, ad-free model, I'm just not interested. It's too easy to pirate." Well aren't you just a god damned Saint? With an attitude like that I can't believe content holders aren't bending over backwards to make you happy!
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    "Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem" - Gabe Newell I'm willing to pay, but the product I want is not available. I pay for my video games because Steam is such a great experience.
    - forrestthewoods 14y ago
      Bullshit. I can start streaming Avengers from iTunes in 1080p with 5.1 audio in under 30 seconds. It couldn't be any easier. With an AppleTV I can do that in my home theater. Amazon also has video on demand options. So does Xbox amongst many others. If you want to be a selfish twat and not pay for any content then so be it. You'd hardly be alone. Just don't add lying to your list of sins.
      - wmf 14y ago
        Maybe you missed the part where Universal's content will not be available on iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Xbox, Playstation, etc. until after HBO is done with it.
        forrestthewoods 14y ago
        It didn't say that because that's not how it works. This is an extension of an existing deal. Universal content is already available for rent/purchase on iTunes and that isn't changing. New releases will continue to be on iTunes ala carte. What you won't see is that content available as part of a non-HBO streaming subscription service.
      - w1ntermute 14y ago
sp4rki 14y ago
That's exactly what it is. Even my technically uninitiated ex girlfriend is now just torrenting movies and shows because they're becoming to hard to get a hold of decent content to watch. I've been paying for a huge chunk of my content in the last few years, but just because of this story I'm probably going to pirate any Universal and Hbo content I'd like to consume...

alphakappa 14y ago

Oh great... just what we consumers need - content locked into a bunch of exclusive deals on various platforms. I can understand that there might be a good business reason for this deal, but it sucks for consumers who are willing to pay for content, but do not want half a dozen content distribution platforms in their home.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
You can't even get HBO content if you aren't a cable/dish subscriber. I would seriously consider paying for their content, but they refuse to sell it to me and there is no way I'm going back to paying $100+/month to have 500 junk channels in my house.

geetee 14y ago

Everybody has to get their 10 buck slice a month, and I guess $100 for the cable too.

james4k 14y ago

If HBO can turn away from cable, and either go independent or partner with someone like Amazon, Apple, Netflix, or.. pfft, everyone, this could be interesting. That is probably hugely wishful thinking, though. Edit: Then again, they're already offering standalone service in parts of Europe.

ConstantineXVI 14y ago
Amazon and Netflix are now direct competitors to HBO; "partnering" with them would be at best surrender, and at worst suicide. Apple's a non-option; if they wanted in the subscription streaming business, they'd do it themselves. Independence or death are their only choices outside of cable.
quandrum 14y ago
All HBO has to do is open "HBO Go" to non-cable subscribers, and they'd get a flood of takers. But they still make too much money of cable subscriptions to do that, so we have to wait for the tipping point when cable becomes a drag on HBO vs the boon it is today.
- nixy 14y ago
  HBO actually offers this in other countries than the US, the Nordics for example. HBO Nordic gets content as soon as it has aired, so they are aiming to beat piracy with instant availability for $12/mo. Just not in the US yet.

natrius 14y ago

We really need an ASCAP/BMI for video.

dave5104 14y ago

How much is Netflix worth nowadays? If HBO can spend $2 billion on a single deal, wouldn't Netflix be a smart buy for them? It'd be one less company that they need to compete with in content bids. I guess I could see their relationship with cable souring a bit, but at least they'd have Netflix to fall back on?

rz2k 14y ago
HBO is a subsidiary of Time Warner. It is understandable why HBO has declined to sell its content on-demand independent of cable subscriptions. It would be interesting if it were spun off.

antoncohen 14y ago

Either Universal is stupid or HBO is planning to change its business model. Or likely both. Watching TV on television channels is dying; people don't want to subscribe to cable anymore, and their is no reason they should. I just went to HBO's website to try to sign up for their streaming service -- you can't. You can only get streaming service with a cable or satellite subscription. I don't own a TV. A few years ago I tried convince Comcast to let me pay for cable television without having a TV, because I wanted access to all the streaming content online -- they wouldn't let me. Comcast insisted that they needed to install a cable box, I told them I don't have a TV, can't I just pay for the service, no a technician needs to come out and install a cable box. It's pathetic. To see how behind the times HBO is just go to hbo.com. For me it was a blank black screen for 10 seconds. Then a Flash loading animation for 5 seconds. And finally the site loaded. The entire site is done in Flash, without Flash there isn't a shred of content. It's pathetic.

jfb 14y ago
Or maybe you aren't privy to the numbers that Universal and HBO are? HBO is in my limited experience (from talking to them when I was at iTunes) a very, very, very smart company and I wouldn't expect them to make bad strategic decisions. The number of people who do not have TV service (myself among them) is utterly insignificant in comparison to those that do; but even more important, carriage agreements and the cable business model are such that a la carte purchases of content just don't make sense; for the studio to make their money back, they'd have to be charging you $80/90 a month, per channel.
cremnob 14y ago
Why are any of them stupid? They hold the ultimate card. They own and produce the content. Universal sold their content to the highest bidder, which was HBO. HBO sells their content (and their own) to the highest bidder, which are cable/satellite companies. Does Netflix, Amazon, Apple, et al. have the current scale and reach to justify outbidding Cable? There's a tendency for tech geeks to be armchair television/movie execs and it doesn't amount to much other than uninformed fantasy because they lack perspective outside their own self-interest. And for some this leads to the faulty rationalization that this justifies piracy (as I've already started to see here). But this is little more than entitlement, because watching Game of Thrones isn't a right.

PeterisP 14y ago

"exclusive" and "10 years" are two things that should never be together in a single sentence.

sp4rki 14y ago

I'm waiting with my popcorn in hand for some people to get pissed off and start a "revolutionary" movement to bring down mainstream media companies' attempts to hold on to their outdated business models with guerilla tactics. It will be called the RLO which stands for the Redditors Liberation Army. Sad part? I'm not even kidding...