5 ms·

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 su

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.
- antoncohen 14y ago
  It's stupid because it is short sighted. Media companies continually try to stop new technology, like TV and VHS, because they are scared and unwilling to evolve. Only to find out a decade after trying to stop the technology that they are actually making more money with the new tech. A 10 year exclusive with content locked into cable or satellite subscriptions short sighted, they are trying to stop the future. A future which will ultimately cost them less, leading to more profit. Ten years is a long time; 10 years ago the iTunes store didn't exist, 14 years ago HBO had never broadcast in HD, 12 years ago the iPod didn't exist, 6 years ago the iPhone didn't exist, 6 years ago Netflix streaming didn't exist, 6 years ago Hulu didn't exist, 5 years ago Android didn't exist. Ten years from now the technology landscape and the way we consume media will be vastly different. Locking into a 10 year deal and trying to fight technology is stupid [in my opinion, because everything I say in inherently my opinion].
  - cremnob 14y ago
    It's not short sighted. I know it has become a meme for tech geeks to paint industries like content/media as "out of touch" or "dinosaurs", but they aren't. They aren't trying to stop the future, they just want to make the most money. Right now 'the future' isn't capable of delivering that to them. But when it can, content companies will gladly be there. They aren't going to be disrupted because of these deals, which seems to be a common opinion among the tech community. To think so is to misunderstand their business and the large moat that exists around it. Your gripe (and other tech geeks') is really about middle-men, and your preferred middle-man isn't in the position to give you what you want. Some of them, like Apple, are negotiating to do just that and they may be successful if the value proposition to content companies is greater than it is now. Middle-men may disrupt other middle-men, but content companies are going to be fine.
    - antoncohen 14y ago
      Ten years. For 10 years they are going to be locked into the language of that contract. Here is an example of what contracts like this get you: The NFL has an online streaming service. It's only for replays of games after they have been broadcast live on TV. Fine, ok, they signed some contacts giving TV networks exclusive live broadcast, so we can't watch live online. But then it starts to get crazy. Their online service is unavailable on Sunday and Monday nights! Huh?! Yes, some executive signed a contract giving TV networks exclusive rights to NFL broadcasts on Sunday and Monday night, so you aren't allowed to watch replays of other games on those nights. I understand the NFL makes its money with those contracts, but stupid language in those contracts prevents other revenue streams that short sighted executive can't predict. When you heard that the Olympics where going to be available on YouTube did you get excited and try to watch? Oh, you don't pay for cable? Sorry, to watch the Olympics on YouTube you had to authorize through your cable company. Why? Because the Olympics gave NBC an exclusive contract in the US. Until 2020. You won't be able to watch the Olympics streaming online without a cable or satellite subscription until 2024. Deals like that are short sighted.
pavel_lishin 14y 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 This doesn't make any sense. Did they ask you to send them a photo of your TV?
- robryan 14y ago
  If they enforce having a technician come out then they will notice when they go to set it up. I moved house recently, despite setting it all up myself in my new house I had to pay $100 for a technician to come out and press a few buttons to make the smart card work for the new address. (Australia)
  - mikeryan 14y ago
    Actually Xfinity has Self Install kits for new installs http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/selfinstall/ http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/selfinstall/ They only force a truck roll if your residence hasn't had cable in a while. BTW I've had Comcast happily install service without a TV, I got an install before we moved and the tech had no problem just setting up the boxes and leaving.
  - pavel_lishin 14y ago
    Time Warner tried to convince us they needed to send a tech out to screw a coax cable into a modem, because, you know, it's hard, there's so many ports! We declined the privilege of paying them $50 and staying home from work to wait for the cable guy, and figured it out ourselves on the first try.
larrys 14y ago
"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." Why didn't you just borrow a small tv or simply get a elgato for your PC: http://www.elgato.com/elgato/na/mainmenu/products/EyeTV-Hybrid-10/product1.en.html http://www.elgato.com/elgato/na/mainmenu/products/EyeTV-Hybr... Assuming there is a cable where you live and that you are willing to pay for the service (which you said you were) this doesn't appear to be to difficult of a problem to solve. It's perfectly understandable that Comcast would require someone to own a TV. Their contracts with providers probably require that and it doesn't really matter whose idea that is. They consider that a certain class of customer. They have the right to deliver their product over the web as long as someone is also a cable subscriber and the language probably defines very clearly what constitutes a cable subscriber.
- antoncohen 14y ago
  I understand why they have the requirement, it's because of exclusive and short sighted contracts like this one. And that's what is pathetic. I have Comcast internet. I asked if they would just mail me a cable box that I could "install". No, a technician had to come out. This was when Comcast had a 4 or 6 hour service window, on weekdays. I actually booked an appointment for them to come out, then cancelled when I realized I wasn't willing to miss work to sit and wait for a technician to deliver something I didn't want. So yes, if I really wanted it that much I could have found a way to get it. But forcing me to jump through hoops when all wanted to do with give them money so I could use their website... that's pathetic. The entire media industry is stuck in their pathetic ways, and it's pathetic exclusive contracts like this that are preventing innovative companies from disrupting the industry.
- senyb 14y ago
  ClearQAM tuners like Elgato won't work with premium-tier channels like HBO because the networks mandate that the cable company implement encryption and DRM to protect their content. This effectively means the subscriber must have a set-top box or CableCard, to decrypt whatever content scrambling system the provider uses (e.g. Motorola's DigiCipher II) between the head-end and the set-top. Also, with a set-top box or CableCard, they can set the 5C flag for the FireWire port to prevent the recording of the content with a DVD recorder and can mandate HDCP protection for HDMI. [Of course, there are still HDCP strippers and the analog hole, so if somebody wants to cap their content, everybody knows this isn't going to stop them.]
lelandbatey 14y ago
Ignoring the arguments about the direction of the company, I'd like to restate how bad hbo.com was. Upon reading what you'd said, I opened a new tab and went there. I had 2 seconds of a white screen. Then I had 21 (!!!) seconds of the black screen you described, with no indication that the page was still loading any content. At second 22, a loading icon appeared in the middle of the screen, then from second 23 - 25 all the website content loaded and rendered at once. Those results are truly terrible, especially given my internet connection (100mbps+) and computer (high performance). If HBO wants a web presence, they should really get it together (although maybe they don't want a web presence...).
- jstalin 14y ago
  I run ghostery and adblock and went to the HBO site. Nothing ever comes up. After the little spinner stops spinning, just a black screen.

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.

antoncohen 14y ago
It's stupid because it is short sighted. Media companies continually try to stop new technology, like TV and VHS, because they are scared and unwilling to evolve. Only to find out a decade after trying to stop the technology that they are actually making more money with the new tech. A 10 year exclusive with content locked into cable or satellite subscriptions short sighted, they are trying to stop the future. A future which will ultimately cost them less, leading to more profit. Ten years is a long time; 10 years ago the iTunes store didn't exist, 14 years ago HBO had never broadcast in HD, 12 years ago the iPod didn't exist, 6 years ago the iPhone didn't exist, 6 years ago Netflix streaming didn't exist, 6 years ago Hulu didn't exist, 5 years ago Android didn't exist. Ten years from now the technology landscape and the way we consume media will be vastly different. Locking into a 10 year deal and trying to fight technology is stupid [in my opinion, because everything I say in inherently my opinion].
- cremnob 14y ago
  It's not short sighted. I know it has become a meme for tech geeks to paint industries like content/media as "out of touch" or "dinosaurs", but they aren't. They aren't trying to stop the future, they just want to make the most money. Right now 'the future' isn't capable of delivering that to them. But when it can, content companies will gladly be there. They aren't going to be disrupted because of these deals, which seems to be a common opinion among the tech community. To think so is to misunderstand their business and the large moat that exists around it. Your gripe (and other tech geeks') is really about middle-men, and your preferred middle-man isn't in the position to give you what you want. Some of them, like Apple, are negotiating to do just that and they may be successful if the value proposition to content companies is greater than it is now. Middle-men may disrupt other middle-men, but content companies are going to be fine.
  - antoncohen 14y ago
    Ten years. For 10 years they are going to be locked into the language of that contract. Here is an example of what contracts like this get you: The NFL has an online streaming service. It's only for replays of games after they have been broadcast live on TV. Fine, ok, they signed some contacts giving TV networks exclusive live broadcast, so we can't watch live online. But then it starts to get crazy. Their online service is unavailable on Sunday and Monday nights! Huh?! Yes, some executive signed a contract giving TV networks exclusive rights to NFL broadcasts on Sunday and Monday night, so you aren't allowed to watch replays of other games on those nights. I understand the NFL makes its money with those contracts, but stupid language in those contracts prevents other revenue streams that short sighted executive can't predict. When you heard that the Olympics where going to be available on YouTube did you get excited and try to watch? Oh, you don't pay for cable? Sorry, to watch the Olympics on YouTube you had to authorize through your cable company. Why? Because the Olympics gave NBC an exclusive contract in the US. Until 2020. You won't be able to watch the Olympics streaming online without a cable or satellite subscription until 2024. Deals like that are short sighted.

pavel_lishin 14y 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 This doesn't make any sense. Did they ask you to send them a photo of your TV?

robryan 14y ago
If they enforce having a technician come out then they will notice when they go to set it up. I moved house recently, despite setting it all up myself in my new house I had to pay $100 for a technician to come out and press a few buttons to make the smart card work for the new address. (Australia)
- mikeryan 14y ago
  Actually Xfinity has Self Install kits for new installs http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/selfinstall/ http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/selfinstall/ They only force a truck roll if your residence hasn't had cable in a while. BTW I've had Comcast happily install service without a TV, I got an install before we moved and the tech had no problem just setting up the boxes and leaving.
- pavel_lishin 14y ago
  Time Warner tried to convince us they needed to send a tech out to screw a coax cable into a modem, because, you know, it's hard, there's so many ports! We declined the privilege of paying them $50 and staying home from work to wait for the cable guy, and figured it out ourselves on the first try.

larrys 14y ago

"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." Why didn't you just borrow a small tv or simply get a elgato for your PC: http://www.elgato.com/elgato/na/mainmenu/products/EyeTV-Hybrid-10/product1.en.html http://www.elgato.com/elgato/na/mainmenu/products/EyeTV-Hybr... Assuming there is a cable where you live and that you are willing to pay for the service (which you said you were) this doesn't appear to be to difficult of a problem to solve. It's perfectly understandable that Comcast would require someone to own a TV. Their contracts with providers probably require that and it doesn't really matter whose idea that is. They consider that a certain class of customer. They have the right to deliver their product over the web as long as someone is also a cable subscriber and the language probably defines very clearly what constitutes a cable subscriber.

antoncohen 14y ago
I understand why they have the requirement, it's because of exclusive and short sighted contracts like this one. And that's what is pathetic. I have Comcast internet. I asked if they would just mail me a cable box that I could "install". No, a technician had to come out. This was when Comcast had a 4 or 6 hour service window, on weekdays. I actually booked an appointment for them to come out, then cancelled when I realized I wasn't willing to miss work to sit and wait for a technician to deliver something I didn't want. So yes, if I really wanted it that much I could have found a way to get it. But forcing me to jump through hoops when all wanted to do with give them money so I could use their website... that's pathetic. The entire media industry is stuck in their pathetic ways, and it's pathetic exclusive contracts like this that are preventing innovative companies from disrupting the industry.
senyb 14y ago
ClearQAM tuners like Elgato won't work with premium-tier channels like HBO because the networks mandate that the cable company implement encryption and DRM to protect their content. This effectively means the subscriber must have a set-top box or CableCard, to decrypt whatever content scrambling system the provider uses (e.g. Motorola's DigiCipher II) between the head-end and the set-top. Also, with a set-top box or CableCard, they can set the 5C flag for the FireWire port to prevent the recording of the content with a DVD recorder and can mandate HDCP protection for HDMI. [Of course, there are still HDCP strippers and the analog hole, so if somebody wants to cap their content, everybody knows this isn't going to stop them.]

lelandbatey 14y ago

Ignoring the arguments about the direction of the company, I'd like to restate how bad hbo.com was. Upon reading what you'd said, I opened a new tab and went there. I had 2 seconds of a white screen. Then I had 21 (!!!) seconds of the black screen you described, with no indication that the page was still loading any content. At second 22, a loading icon appeared in the middle of the screen, then from second 23 - 25 all the website content loaded and rendered at once. Those results are truly terrible, especially given my internet connection (100mbps+) and computer (high performance). If HBO wants a web presence, they should really get it together (although maybe they don't want a web presence...).

jstalin 14y ago
I run ghostery and adblock and went to the HBO site. Nothing ever comes up. After the little spinner stops spinning, just a black screen.