

HBO Says No, for Now, to Fans Who Want a Web-Only Option - waterlesscloud
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/hbo-says-no-for-now-to-fans-who-want-a-web-only-option/?src=tp

======
whalesalad
This is why Game of Thrones is the one of the most pirated TV shows of all
time: [http://torrentfreak.com/whos-pirating-game-of-thrones-and-
wh...](http://torrentfreak.com/whos-pirating-game-of-thrones-and-why-120520/)

People are willing to pay, and they're not responding to customer demand.

~~~
mikeryan
_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

~~~
Lexarius
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.

~~~
swah
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.

------
aero142
Ok. That's fine. But I now fully consider piracy for HBO to be a business
decision and I don't want to hear any moral condemnation and cries for
government intervention from them.

~~~
ig1
HBO isn't some critical drug that you need to live, it's an entertainment
channel. You don't have a need for HBO that gives you a moral right to make an
unauthorized copy of it.

If you want to make a copy of it, fine, but don't try and pretend it's
anything other than lack of self-control on your part by trying to gloss with
a "moral high ground".

~~~
aero142
I'm not talking about self justification here, i'm talking about business and
politics. Lately the entertainment industry has been campaigning for
government intervention to clamp down on the internet because content
producers can't make enough money because of piracy. To me, this argument
clearly states that they believe they make more money from a premium price
with a restricted supply that encourages piracy than they would from an easily
available product that would reduce piracy. I am perfectly fine with them
making this business decision. However, as a citizen who would like to have as
little government intervention as possible while still protecting functioning
markets, I see no problem here and don't want to hear about how they need
government intervention to prevent content creators like them from going out
of business.

~~~
ryannielsen
_To me, this argument clearly states that they believe they make more money
from a premium price with a restricted supply that encourages piracy than they
would from an easily available product that would reduce piracy._

Do you also steal diamonds? Gas? McRibs? After all, those are also products
who's supply is artificially constrained. I'm not trying to be inflammatory,
but however you try and justify theft, it's still theft. The market _is_
functioning, you just don't like how it works right now.

~~~
aero142
Hrm, Very interesting response.

Software and media are both zero marginal cost products, so when someone
pirates it, I don't consider it theft. Left to run rampant, piracy could
create a situation where it wasn't viable to run that business anymore, which
I would care about. However, the claim has long been countered by people
saying that the business themselves are in a better position to deal with this
problem without additional government involvement. I believe this article and
the other from dcurtis clearly shows that the later is true for HBO.

Yes, the market is functioning, and I like it just fine. Piracy is creating a
ceiling on how much a company can charge for their product while still making
it widely available for enjoyment of people. Piracy in this case is serving as
price discrimination allowing the most possible number of people to enjoy it
while those who are able to afford it or care enough are paying for it. It
appears as though the current market is doing a rather nice job of maximizing
social benefit.

Would I steal gas or McRibs, no, those are both a clearly limited item. Now
diamonds are a fun one I have never thought of. Rumor has it that there are
warehouses full of diamonds they DeBeers keeps of the market to drive up the
price of diamonds as a jewelry item. Hypothetically, lets say I had designed a
new industrial laser than would help make the lives of other human beings
better off, but I need a giant diamond that at current artificially restricted
price doesn't make economic sense. In this case, yes, I think I would steal a
diamond and not feel bad about it. But then again, although I am not a purist,
many of my ideas about morality are utilitarian. Especially with zero marginal
cost goods.

------
zedpm
Offering a complete streaming service might be a bad idea, but it's a shame
they don't do like so many other content providers and offer individual
episodes for sale via Amazon Instant Video. Many popular cable shows (and even
shows from ABC/NBC/Fox etc.) are available for purchase on Amazon the day
after they air, usually for $2 each. This option would avoid the technical
difficulties and the added expense of operating their own web-based content
delivery system.

------
BenjaminDyer
I think this makes complete sense for HBO, although as a consumer its pretty
irritating. I'm hunting for the reference but I seem to remember reading about
(UK) Sky signup accelerating after the launch of Sky Atlantic, which shows HBO
content pretty much exclusively, their content brings people to providers.
Until the cord cutters outnumber the cable subscribers its not going to change
I'm afraid. Also the providers also have their own IPTV solutions so whats the
benefit to HBO?

------
Codhisattva
Which would be tantamount to open warfare in the minds of the cable companies.
(Incumbents like to over react when revenue they feel entitlement over is at
stake.)

~~~
cremnob
This is about HBO determining that it's better for their business to stay with
the cable companies. The argument is laid out pretty well here:

<http://dcurt.is/hbo-forbes-journalism>

~~~
scott_s
It's better for their business _now_. In fact, I think it's true that they
will get less money as online-only than in the current scheme. But that's not
important, because I think the current business model is going to go away.
That is, I think they'll eventually have to have an online-only option, or
they'll die.

------
seanieb
Their decision makes perfect sense, today. But, my guess is that cable
subscriptions are decreasing, they have just hooked their little red wagon to
a sinking ship. I think HBO are overlooking an opportunity.

