
HBO Decides It Still Isn't Difficult Enough To Watch HBO Shows - pavel_lishin
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/08405618545/hbo-decides-it-still-isnt-difficult-enough-to-watch-hbo-shows.shtml
======
brandall10
The thing that bothers me most about this is I credit HBO for leading the
charge with innovative content that as a whole brought TV to a much higher
level. They took big chances even when it wasn't profitable to do so.

I've had a serious love affair with the network beginning with Dream On, The
Larry Sanders Show, then moving on to Oz (yeah it was a 'male' soap opera I
guess :), Sopranos, 6 Feet Under, Deadwood - which I didn't particularly
_love_, but highly respected, and most of all The Wire (best thing to ever
grace the screen IMO - they lost $$ on it throughout its run)... and then I
killed my cable sub and haven't seen anything of their's since.

Now Mad Men and Breaking Bad are my two favorite shows, they're both on AMC,
and I can easily purchase each season on iTunes HD for just north of $30.
Every episode is available hours after they originally air. I'd pay twice that
much.

Of course, the problem is HBO is just too tightly coupled to big cable.
They're one of the main attractions, and as such the kickbacks they get are
tied to contracts that prevent them from wresting their content to any great
degree. Until this model changes, their A content won't see the light of day,
and more draconian measures are likely to be put in place to thwart piracy.
It's not HBO itself per-see, but HBO as a proxy for big cable; as a defense
mechanism to prop up a flailing business model.

~~~
jdludlow
Our experiences are nearly mirror images. I cancelled cable TV years ago. When
Game of Thrones came out last year, I naively thought "No big deal. I'll just
pay HBO for streaming." I was shocked to discover that there's no way for me
to upend my wallet into HBO's coffers without funneling it through Comcast and
buying multiple tiers of garbage that I care nothing about.

I waited a year and bought the blu ray version, but I still can't understand
why HBO wouldn't prefer to get their money earlier rather than later.

~~~
bsandbox
It's not that they wouldn't prefer to get their money earlier. It's that they
are in bed with the cable companies, who have significant power because they
provide a huge chunk of HBO's revenue. HBO don't want to risk losing that
revenue by disturbing the cosy relationship.

Cable companies are fiercely protective of their status as content providers.
As they see it, the biggest threat to cable is that it gets turned into a
commoditized dumb pipe. Any move by partners like HBO in the direction of
supplying content over IP is seen as a move towards marginalizing their
business.

~~~
SnowLprd
And that's just it: cable has _already_ turned into a commoditized dumb pipe
for a large segment of the population. Instead of recognizing this new reality
and adjusting to it, the cable industry seems intent on sticking its
collective head in the sand and pretending as if the world hasn't changed.

~~~
thwest
The industry isn't sticking its head in the sand, they are out there
aggressively purchasing content creation to ensure that the most interesting
content is only delivered through their pipes. They're going out with all guns
blazing in order to protect past rates of profit. Shareholders aren't of a
mind to let an industry peacefully adjust to a less profitable state.

Bring back the trust busters.

~~~
SnowLprd
I agree with your overall sentiment. But I still contend that this strategy
isn't going to work out for them in the long run. We live in a world where
content can be accessed directly, quickly, and on demand. The industry can
_try_ to "ensure" that the most interesting content is only delivered through
their pipes, but given the ease with which this content can be procured
elsewhere, that approach doesn't seem like a sustainable long-term strategy.

~~~
aidenn0
Yes but the C level executives will be retired or working somewhere else by
then

------
res0nat0r
HBO aren't idiots. They've done the math and for now they've found it IS more
profitable for them to only allow you to get their content with a cable
subscription. Why does when it come to big media everyone thinks the companies
are run by 12 year old morons when they don't agree with their policies?

Hurting Game of Thrones Through Piracy Won’t Change HBO’s Business, It Will
Just Get the Show Cancelled:
[http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/hurting-game-of-
th...](http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/hurting-game-of-thrones-
through-piracy-wont-change-hbos-business-it-will-just-get-the-show-cancelled-
rfure.php)

~~~
scott_s
_They've done the math and for now they've found it IS more profitable for
them to only allow you to get their content with a cable subscription._

I doubt that. Rather, I bet they've made a conscious choice to only be a
content _provider_ , not a content _distributor_. That's a fundamental
business change. I say this because if HBO decided to make the change, and
enabled, say, a $10 online, streaming subscription, I think they'd make more
money than they do now. But that would likely upset their current deals with
the cable companies, and it would be a fundamental business model change.

~~~
bsandbox
Certainly possible that they would make more money, but I doubt it. Doing some
(very) rough math, HBO has about 28M subscribers. Cable customers pay $18
bucks a month for HBO, of which HBO usually gets 50%. So an overnight change
in the business model would require 28M subscribers at about $9 / month.

Just as a point of comparison, Netflix, with a much larger catalog of shows
and movies, has something of the order of 25M subscribers

Obviously an overnight change would not happen, there would be a transition
over several years and the streaming subscribers may well be supplementary to
existing subscribers. But during the transition, cable company partnerships
would be strained and existing revenue would be at risk. Not to mention the
capital investment required to provide the content reliably, dealing with the
multitude of streaming devices, providing customer support, marketing the
product directly to consumers and all the other things that cable companies
take care of (albeit badly). Netflix is making bold changes in its business
model and it's certainly not an easy thing to do.

Ultimately, HBO's core competency is in creating amazing content. It's
arguable if they'd make more money by changing their business model, but I'd
wager that HBO execs simply do not want to have to deal with all the
distractions from their core mission that would occur by doing so.

~~~
Osiris
You're assuming that people would drop cable and buy through streaming as
opposed to maintaining the same 28M subscribers and ADD additional streaming
customers. If they charged $9/mn, I have a hard time seeing how that could be
a net loss. Even if some subscribers switch from cable to streaming, they
wouldn't lose revenue.

The only way they could lose revenue is if current subscribers dropped cable
and didn't go with streaming, which seems unlikely to me.

~~~
wpietri
You're not thinking of this from the perspective of a cable company.

Cable companies are already losing subscribers. They will do everything they
can to discourage people from defecting to broadband downloads. One of the
most obvious things they can do is to have exclusive content. Which means they
would be smart to put immense pressure on HBO to stay out of the distribution
business.

------
PureSin
Oatmeal about difficult of watching Game of Thrones:
<http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones>

and how I feel as a non US resident:
<http://theoatmeal.com/pl/game_of_thrones/nz>

~~~
guccimane
Andy Ihnatko about Oatmeal about difficulty of watching Game of Thrones:
[http://ihnatko.com/2012/02/20/heavy-hangs-the-bandwidth-
that...](http://ihnatko.com/2012/02/20/heavy-hangs-the-bandwidth-that-
torrents-the-crown/)

~~~
gcb
He's never going to be a paying customer anyways.

before torrents he'd just show up at some friend with hbo. Today people don't
mingle irl, so he downloads.

People on 4Chan age group are found of watching streaming with chat on the
side. It's pretty much the same shinding concept of yesterday.

~~~
sophacles
And how terrible a world it was when people mingled and watched TV at their
friends houses -- reducing, NO STEALING, profits from the HBO...

I am a giant theif, I take so much revenue from companies all the time, I need
someone to sue the shit out of me for the following (to teach me a lesson and
put me in my place):

* I loan out my $1000 worth of rototillers to friends all the time, the manufacturers and rental agencies are losing _piles_ of revenue from me.

* I let people use my truck, and/or help them move things regularly. That is dozens of car purchases or rentals

* I help my family and friends with computer issues and build them free websites occasionally -- dirty dirty hippy crap, poor companies are losing service calls all the time.

* I cook meals from my garden, and invite people over to eat with me, grocers and restauranteurs probably should lynch me for denying their revenue.

Stupid sharing and human kindness. Obviously we are just a bad, evil species.

~~~
gcb
hum. that was pretty much my point. not sure if you are agreeing or not :)

~~~
sophacles
Oh, I read your post as opposite of that, so instead of snarky response I'm
retconning it to snarky reinforcement :)

------
reustle
HBO Go on the iPad doesn't let you stream to your TV via the VGA cable, so
they forced me to do this this weekend: <http://i.imgur.com/Og3MH.jpg>

~~~
moreati
What did you do? I can't tell from that photo

~~~
mnutt
It looks like two iPads, one playing the movie with the other one above it in
video record mode, presumably streaming to the TV.

~~~
reustle
Yep, just kept photobooth open.

------
tptacek
I just pay for HBO. It's one of the few channels on TV I actually appreciate
having. That's HBO's business model: they want subscribers. They don't care
how difficult it is for you as a non-subscriber.

As a subscriber, HBO has made it incredibly _easy_ for me to watch HBO shows:
I have access to virtually all of them online on demand.

~~~
zerostar07
Their shows are popular outside the US. They don't seem to want any
subscribers from there.

~~~
_fn
I have HBO on my cable tv subscription, I think they have GoT on it. Of course
it's a few weeks late.

------
redthrowaway
Contents of the article aside, techdirt regularly writes _fantastic_
headlines. I wonder if it's just the individual authors having a flair for the
zinger, or if they have an editor who spruces them up before posting.

------
hooande
Let's not forget what they say about how HBO works financially... softcore
pornography and boxing pay for all of the "Game of Thrones"-level
masterpieces. While they have produced unfailingly inspirational television,
it's not a core part of their economic engine.

It's a shame that non-subscribers can't see all the programming, but we
wouldn't have it at all if it wasn't for their business model. As good as
HBO's programming is, it probably wouldn't be economically feasible if it had
to be directly supported. There might be enough income from itunes to (barely)
support breakout hits like GoT, but it's unlikely that all of the shows that
led up to it would have earned enough money to stay on the air.

Cable companies may be evil, but HBO definitely needed them in order to start.
They can't be expected to unwind the relationship on the promise of netflix
streaming sales to come.

(Disclaimer: I _love_ HBO and will watch anything they make)

~~~
ralfd
> softcore pornography and boxing pay for all of the "Game of Thrones"

Well, softcore pornography and violence is not that much different to Game of
Thrones. ^^

------
tomjen3
Actually they make it difficult to watch it _legally_. Lets not pretend that
most people don't get it from a much more convenient source:

(example pulled from google):

[http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7153447/Game_of_Thrones_-
_Sea...](http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7153447/Game_of_Thrones_-
_Season_2_Episode_1_)

~~~
rprasad
How to legally watch Game of Thrones: 1) Turn on the TV. 2) Change channel to
HBO. 3) DONE.

That is infinitely easier for most of the population than downloading a
torrent; it takes at most 4 button presses. If your TV is too old to handle
the new content protection scheme, _buy a new TV_. If you can afford HBO, you
can afford a new TV.

The type of people who would prefer to download the show via torrent are
generally the type of people who wouldn't pay for HBO to begin with, so HBO
doesn't care about the mythical money to be made off them.

~~~
tomjen3
Looking at how many people buy music on iTunes because it is convenient and
assuming they would buy the video if it was also available, means that you are
very, very incorrect.

And the nonsence about if you can afford x, you can afford y. No, that is not
a given. I can afford one luxury and just because your priority would be given
to luxury A does not mean that I give A the same priority.

Anyway it is a moot point. HBO is not available outside the states.

~~~
Gmo
It is ... (see my post up in this thread), but with the same restrictions
(well, maybe even worse, because it's available only at one provider).

------
beloch
Cable provides a lot of entertainment, but it's expensive, especially if you
pile on premium channels like HBO. Just as telephone landlines are slowly
dying as people decide a cell-phone is enough, cable is dying as people move
to strictly on-demand services like Netflix or iTunes. Why pay for 900
channels with nothing to watch when you can get just the shows you want
anytime you want them? Even if people spend _more_ on iTunes and netflix per
month, the practice still psychologically seems less wasteful.

HBO's latest shows are not available anywhere but over the air on HBO. e.g.
Game of Thrones Season 2 cannot be watched on Netflix or purchased on iTunes.
Those who run HBO probably think of this as being good, since it forces people
to subscribe to HBO. Unfortunately, people who have gotten rid of their cable
subscription aren't going to get it back just so they can watch HBO's latest
shows as they air. They might intend to wait until those shows become
available on iTunes or Bluray, but it's also highly probable that they'll give
in to temptation and just download them from pirates.

This is HBO's real problem. There is a _big_ market for their shows that only
the pirates are serving.

------
davidpetersen
hbogo.com is still the best website I know of for watching any tv channels
shows. HBO subscribers get access to every single show the second it comes
out, and it remains available forever. I can go back now and watch every
episode of every HBO show.

So while I empathize with all of your complaints that HBO makes it too hard
for non cable/DirecTV subscribers to subscribe, I think they are due credit
for putting all of their content online when most other channels have not.

~~~
acuozzo
> I can go back now and watch every episode of every HBO show.

Really?! Can you watch ``Tales from the Crypt'' or ``The Kids in the Hall''?

Can you really watch _every_ episode of _every_ HBO show in the following
list?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_H...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_HBO#Past_programming)

------
greggman
THIS is exactly why PG made his call to kill old media. HBO could be making
bank by allowing either PPV online, subscription online or commercial
supported. They have some of the best shows ever. But for whatever reason, out
dated contracts or old thinking they are throwing money away.

~~~
citizenparker
HBO _is_ making bank. Until we as consumers vote with our wallets and change
our behavior by canceling subscriptions, nothing will change for HBO or their
bottom line.

------
amosson
This move fits with HBO's (and really every content provider's) anti-piracy
strategy. Namely, content needs to be encrypted from the time it leaves their
server's to the time it is decoded by the screen. The reason for this is
simple, if they achieve this goal, they can argue that anyone who provides an
unencrypted copy of content must have violated the DMCA (which has provision
against tampering with encryption). Whether the technologies have cracked (the
article points out the HDCP has been) or whether the provider ever prosecutes
isn't the point, the content providers feel they need to reserve their rights
at any cost.

Many folks (techdirt included) argue that piracy is just marketing. For
instance, it allows HBO to reach an audience they wouldn't reach otherwise.
They even speculate that the Game of Thrones ratings bump was due to piracy.
While that may (or may not) be true, in most industries, companies control
when, where and much to spend on marketing.

For HBO (or any content provider) all these decisions come down to economics
and how they can maximize their profits. In this new case (adding HDCP to
their streams) they probably judged that the number of customer's they'd loose
was pretty small and making the change would allow them to further their
strategic goals.

~~~
voyou
"if they achieve this goal, they can argue that anyone who provides an
unencrypted copy of content must have violated the DMCA (which has provision
against tampering with encryption)"

How does that help them, though? Anyone who provides an unencrypted copy has
infringed on their copyright, so HBO can go after them on those ground whether
or not they also violated the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. It
seems to me this would only be useful if they think they can actually prevent
people from circumventing their DRM.

------
hjkl
"...HDCP encryption, a newer part of the HDMI standard..."

I don't think that's true.

My understanding is that HDCP encryption has been around for as long as HDMI
has been around. For example, Blu-ray discs/players use HDCP to encrypt their
content.

It seems strange that these DVR boxes don't support HDCP. Maybe some of the
heat should be directed towards DirecTV for using such non-compliant hardware.

------
JVIDEL
HBO was born with Cable, it was disruptive back then because TV in those days
was boring, dull, repetitive and way too family-friendly.

They don't "understand" the internet, just like TV channels of old didn't
understand that not everybody was into Dukes of Hazzard and The Andy Griffith
Show re-runs.

------
njs12345
I wonder how much revenue you'd raise on Kickstarter if HBO agreed to release
The Wire into the public domain for a certain sum. Enough to make it worth
their while? I think so (especially if they released the source material so
people could get it in HD, not currently available)..

~~~
rmc
probably very little to release it as public domain, since people could then
sell and keep all the profits themselves. It would kill their chance to sell
it themselves.

A Creative Commons licence (CC-NC-BY-ND (non-commerical, attribution required,
no derivatives)) might be better.

------
alexbell
I hope Netflix's original content gets good/becomes a large enough library to
threaten HBO. They would offer subscriptions over apps, set top boxes, and
maybe even browsers shortly after.

Content providers need to be smacked around by someone like Netflix in a big
way.

------
chris_wot
There are two perspectives on HBO and piracy. The first is that they are
losing money due to piracy.

The second is that they aren't losing money, just not gaining it.

I suspect they are betting on the second perspective. Foolish, but seems to be
there business plan.

------
zerostar07
Suppose someone created a landing page where guilt-ridden torrent downloaders
can spend a reasonable amount (say $2 per episode) to get rid of their guilt,
would HBO accept the money?

~~~
elemeno
Is't that option just called buying the shows from iTunes or on DVD?

~~~
rmc
No, because torrents are available to more people than iTunes or DVDs. Try
living outside the USA and/or using Linux.

~~~
elemeno
Amazon ships worldwide, region free DVD players are pretty much the norm
worldwide as well. I really do think you'd have to stretch to find somewhere
where a torrent is available but it's impossible to get a DVD.

If you're just trying to contribute back to those who made the content you're
enjoying, just get the DVD regardless of if it's the right language or
subtitles or region, and then merrily torrent away know that you've at least
done the right thing on a moral basis.

------
bryanh
Archaic C-level execs are still making the calls. This isn't unexpected.

~~~
ssharp
And armchair C-level execs criticize without understanding the reasoning
behind the decision.

I don't like that I can't just buy a subscription to HBO Go (I recently dumped
cable) or buy HBO shows on iTunes the day after they air, but there are lots
of revenue-related reasons why HBO is restricting access to its content.

------
guccimane
"We've recently discussed the fact that HBO severely limits the availability
of its shows to non-subscribers..."

Really?! How _dare_ they!

~~~
sophacles
Cut the disingenuous crap. The next 3 sentences state that beyond that, they
are now, without warning, requiring paying subscribers to upgrade equipment to
handle the HDMI encryption. The first sentence was merely contextualization.
Further, the context of that sentence (via the link) was how difficult it is
to legally pay HBO for the thing they are supposedly selling.

~~~
guccimane
I know. I don't make any bones about this HDCP stuff being bullshit. They are
screwing their own, paying customers. That's terrible.

It's just that I really have no time for this entitled attitude that content
owners are obligated to sell their wares to us when we want, how we want, at
the price point we want.

~~~
sophacles
It's not entitled bullshit, that is a false dilemma and a strawman. It is
pointing out hypocrisy. If they make it very hard to give them money, why the
fuck should it be valid when they complain about not getting money?

It's like a bum complaining it isn't enough when you give him your spare
change.

edit: accidentally a word

