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
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.
"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.
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.
Looking at my local cable plans, watching Game of Thrones on TV would cost me something like $1200/year, because I'd need to subscribe to digital cable with a mess of extras. And our TV is the worst screen in the house (even my phone has higher resolution). Tell me again why I would do this?
Personally, I'm going to wait until GoT comes out on DVD, and borrow the first episodes from someone. If I really want to watch the series, I'll buy the box set. But lots of people aren't so patient, and I've heard that piracy is free…
The tight relationship between HBO and the cable companies will remain insanely profitable for years to come. But eventually there will be too many customers like me, and that's going to be a hard day for HBO.
People are willing to pay, and they're not responding to customer demand.
How many of these people don't have cable or satellite? Really now if you already have cable (and I know very few that don't) then you already have the ability to pay, and get HBOGo
I do not have cable or satellite. When I want to see something, I check Amazon, Hulu, or similar places. If I can't find anyone willing to take my money in exchange for a stream, I then consider alternatives that do not involve making contracts with cable/dish companies.
Its crazy if you think about it: there are dozens of teams working for free (probably pulling all nighters) to translate subtitles to brazilian portuguese so the other folks that don't speak english can see the shows only a couple days later that they appear in US.
They are truly fans of the series, but they're all pirating this content. But its hard for me to just say that they're motherfucking thieves.
If they could just sit back and pay x<=5 bucks to see this show with comfort - would they? I would.
I think a significant amount. My sample is biased, I know a bunch of very active people in SF, but I'm not sure anyone I interact with weekly has cable or satellite.
Sooner or later, if Netflix achieves some combination of quality/price/offering around the world people will abandon conventional cable very quickly (or whatever we call cable: I mean something that 95% of the time is airing stuff I don't care about).
I'll be honest: I have cable right now because I live with my parents and they probably wouldn't understand how Netflix works. Also Netflix is in the first days in Brazil. But living by myself it would be an obvious superfluous expense to cut.
I have internet through Verizon's FIOS, and I don't do any of their tv deals. I use streaming Netflix as my stand-by, and I purchase movies and shows à la carte from the PlayStation Network or Amazon's streaming service through my PS3. Everything I watch is legit.
Some folks are willing to pay for exactly what they want, but they're not willing to pay an additional amount to get content they don't care about.
Same thing that happened with the music industry: people don't want all the filler bullshit on some albums, they just want the hot single. Let folks buy a single MP3 and they will, or they'll pirate if you only provide the entire album for sale.
Some folks are willing to pay for exactly what they want, but they're not willing to pay an additional amount to get content they don't care about.
You have the option of buying the DVDs or through iTunes. Using your analogy, they can buy the entire album or a single track. If a band played some new songs at a concert, you'd have to wait until they made it on an album...unless someone records them and releases them for free.
But — umm — the release date is only, like, two or three weeks away.
Two or three weeks away would fine. Two or three months would be okay too. GoT season 1 finished airing in June 2011, and didn't come until out on DVD until March 2012.
If they have cable, and they're pirating - you would be correct. It would however be incorrect to assume that someone who doesn't want to pay 80 dollars a month before being allowed to pay for HBO would pirate it if given the chance to just pay for HBO directly.
I don't have cable/satellite. The minimum monthly cost to obtain HBO for me is about $45/month for basic cable, HBO, and a DVR option.
My GF is completely addicted to Game of Thrones, but she openly admits she will not pay $540/year for basically a single season of a show.
All the "but look at all the other content you get" arguments are null, if I were interested in any of that other content, I'd already be paying for it. But we're not.
She can torrent it now and watch it when she likes for free. While she will undoubtedly go buy the DVDs when they're released (she always does), the incentive to watch it "now" as it's being broadcast is worth some amount of money $0<n<$540 for her.
I really don't buy the argument that HBOGo wouldn't make any money if they charged $15/mo for streaming-only access. Nearly everyone I know (none of whom have cable/satellite and HBO now) would gladly pay that price or even marginally higher.
People are willing to pay, and they're not responding to customer demand.