16 ms·

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. HB

by 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.
- mikeryan 14y ago
  A 10 year exclusive with content locked into cable or satellite subscriptions short sighted, There's nothing about this deal which is short sighted. Unless you're referring to another article or details I'm not privy to but my understanding is that HBO tied up the digital distribution rights to a large supply of quality content for a long time and I'm pretty sure with minimal demands on how they distribute it (do you know otherwise?). Distribution mechanisms be damned they ensured they'd have a quality pipeline of content for a long time. To your point about locking into a cable subscription. That thing has been circled around in HN for a long time and it seems damn foolish to think HBO isn't looking to the future. There maybe a time when the number of those of you who don't have a TV start to approach the 80 million households in the US with cable, and it makes sense for them to break out of the cable distribution model, but it sure as hell isn't now at least in the US. (Note HBO is allowing HBO-Go subscriptions without cable in other countries). I'd love to hear what you think HBO's "smart" choice is because I'm pretty sure switching right now from their current model is foolish and I'm also pretty sure HBO is better prepared then just about anyone to make the leap then any other network.
wtallis 14y ago
You can't ignore the fact that Cable is only the highest bidder because they have entrenched government-granted but relatively unregulated monopolies. The online-only services aren't competing with Cable on equal terms. Regulatory action shouldn't be off the table when the local cable monopolies start moving up the supply chain.
- pavel_lishin 14y ago
  > Cable is only the highest bidder because ... Doesn't really matter why, though, right? They had more money to throw at them, so they got the deal. It's not fair, but it's not about fairness.
- larrys 14y ago
  "because they have entrenched government-granted but relatively unregulated monopolies." Have you ever thought why it is they have those monopolies? Because they were granted to them as a right in order to justify having to string cable into homes to deliver a product that was nascent at the time in many communities. Let's say I come up with an idea to wire up an office building to deliver a new service (blue mood lighting to offices). And I get a chance to bid on that along with other people. I win the bid and therefore I get to deliver the product after I pay the cost of installing it and the risk that only a few offices will want the product.. That doesn't mean that bad deals weren't cut in some places. But cable has a monopoly for a reason. This company for reference went bust many years ago despite having a virtual monopoly on broadband in offices: http://venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/broadband-office http://venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/broadband-off...
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    You can fairly argue that utilities are natural monopolies and that having a government regulated monopoly is more efficient. That's a reasonable position. But then it has to be a government regulated monopoly. You can't just let them do whatever they want or they'll walk all over everybody. In particular, a monopoly over the wire should not be allowed to be leveraged into a monopoly over content. Utility companies should be utility companies, period, and leave the content distribution to competing content distributors.
mayneack 14y ago
Posts like that are not necessarily a bad idea from our own self-interest, however. If enough people bitch about how stupid all these things are and the conventional wisdom shifts, I would guess that it will be good for those of us that want it to be a stupid idea/don't use TVs. Even without changing an movie exec's mind, if enough people get convinced that they are behind the times using a tv and switch to something "better" then those executives will then have to cope with a larger market share of people without TVs. Hell, we might be able to get Game of Thrones protected as an inalienable right...

by cremnob 14y ago

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.
mikeryan 14y ago
A 10 year exclusive with content locked into cable or satellite subscriptions short sighted, There's nothing about this deal which is short sighted. Unless you're referring to another article or details I'm not privy to but my understanding is that HBO tied up the digital distribution rights to a large supply of quality content for a long time and I'm pretty sure with minimal demands on how they distribute it (do you know otherwise?). Distribution mechanisms be damned they ensured they'd have a quality pipeline of content for a long time. To your point about locking into a cable subscription. That thing has been circled around in HN for a long time and it seems damn foolish to think HBO isn't looking to the future. There maybe a time when the number of those of you who don't have a TV start to approach the 80 million households in the US with cable, and it makes sense for them to break out of the cable distribution model, but it sure as hell isn't now at least in the US. (Note HBO is allowing HBO-Go subscriptions without cable in other countries). I'd love to hear what you think HBO's "smart" choice is because I'm pretty sure switching right now from their current model is foolish and I'm also pretty sure HBO is better prepared then just about anyone to make the leap then any other network.

wtallis 14y ago

You can't ignore the fact that Cable is only the highest bidder because they have entrenched government-granted but relatively unregulated monopolies. The online-only services aren't competing with Cable on equal terms. Regulatory action shouldn't be off the table when the local cable monopolies start moving up the supply chain.

pavel_lishin 14y ago
> Cable is only the highest bidder because ... Doesn't really matter why, though, right? They had more money to throw at them, so they got the deal. It's not fair, but it's not about fairness.
larrys 14y ago
"because they have entrenched government-granted but relatively unregulated monopolies." Have you ever thought why it is they have those monopolies? Because they were granted to them as a right in order to justify having to string cable into homes to deliver a product that was nascent at the time in many communities. Let's say I come up with an idea to wire up an office building to deliver a new service (blue mood lighting to offices). And I get a chance to bid on that along with other people. I win the bid and therefore I get to deliver the product after I pay the cost of installing it and the risk that only a few offices will want the product.. That doesn't mean that bad deals weren't cut in some places. But cable has a monopoly for a reason. This company for reference went bust many years ago despite having a virtual monopoly on broadband in offices: http://venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/broadband-office http://venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/broadband-off...
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  You can fairly argue that utilities are natural monopolies and that having a government regulated monopoly is more efficient. That's a reasonable position. But then it has to be a government regulated monopoly. You can't just let them do whatever they want or they'll walk all over everybody. In particular, a monopoly over the wire should not be allowed to be leveraged into a monopoly over content. Utility companies should be utility companies, period, and leave the content distribution to competing content distributors.

mayneack 14y ago

Posts like that are not necessarily a bad idea from our own self-interest, however. If enough people bitch about how stupid all these things are and the conventional wisdom shifts, I would guess that it will be good for those of us that want it to be a stupid idea/don't use TVs. Even without changing an movie exec's mind, if enough people get convinced that they are behind the times using a tv and switch to something "better" then those executives will then have to cope with a larger market share of people without TVs. Hell, we might be able to get Game of Thrones protected as an inalienable right...