

HBO Inks Exclusive, 10-Year Deal With Universal - abdophoto
http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/06/hbo-inks-exclusive-deal-with-universal-to-keep-content-out-of-netflixs-hands/

======
antoncohen
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.

~~~
cremnob
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
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
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
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.

------
alphakappa
Oh great... just what we consumers need - content locked into a bunch of
exclusive deals on various platforms. I can understand that there might be a
good business reason for this deal, but it sucks for consumers who are willing
to pay for content, but do not want half a dozen content distribution
platforms in their home.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
You can't even get HBO content if you aren't a cable/dish subscriber. I would
seriously consider paying for their content, but they refuse to sell it to me
and there is no way I'm going back to paying $100+/month to have 500 junk
channels in my house.

------
Benferhat
Exclusive content: turning fans into pirates, one movie at a time.

~~~
w1ntermute
At this rate, I see absolutely no reason to stop pirating. I started it
because I was in high school, didn't have money, and didn't have my own TV, so
I'd torrent shows and watch them on my desktop.

But now, even though I have a TV, I have no reason to get cable even though I
can afford it. I don't watch any sports and I read my news online. I already
know how to torrent, have private tracker accounts, and an HTPC to watch
torrented shows on my TV. Unless the cable industry comes up with an a la
carte, on-demand, ad-free model, I'm just not interested. It's too easy to
pirate.

~~~
forrestthewoods
"Unless the cable industry comes up with an a la carte, on-demand, ad-free
model, I'm just not interested. It's too easy to pirate."

Well aren't you just a god damned Saint? With an attitude like that I can't
believe content holders aren't bending over backwards to make you happy!

~~~
w1ntermute
"Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem" - Gabe
Newell

I'm willing to pay, but the product I want is not available. I pay for my
video games because Steam is such a great experience.

~~~
forrestthewoods
Bullshit. I can start streaming Avengers from iTunes in 1080p with 5.1 audio
in under 30 seconds. It couldn't be any easier. With an AppleTV I can do that
in my home theater. Amazon also has video on demand options. So does Xbox
amongst many others.

If you want to be a selfish twat and not pay for any content then so be it.
You'd hardly be alone. Just don't add lying to your list of sins.

~~~
wmf
Maybe you missed the part where Universal's content _will not be available on
iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Xbox, Playstation, etc._ until after HBO is done with
it.

~~~
forrestthewoods
It didn't say that because that's not how it works. This is an extension of an
existing deal. Universal content is already available for rent/purchase on
iTunes and that isn't changing. New releases will continue to be on iTunes ala
carte. What you won't see is that content available as part of a non-HBO
streaming subscription service.

------
sp4rki
I'm waiting with my popcorn in hand for some people to get pissed off and
start a "revolutionary" movement to bring down mainstream media companies'
attempts to hold on to their outdated business models with guerilla tactics.
It will be called the RLO which stands for the Redditors Liberation Army. Sad
part? I'm not even kidding...

------
dave5104
How much is Netflix worth nowadays? If HBO can spend $2 billion on a single
deal, wouldn't Netflix be a smart buy for them? It'd be one less company that
they need to compete with in content bids. I guess I could see their
relationship with cable souring a bit, but at least they'd have Netflix to
fall back on?

~~~
rz2k
HBO is a subsidiary of Time Warner. It is understandable why HBO has declined
to sell its content on-demand independent of cable subscriptions. It would be
interesting if it were spun off.

------
james4k
If HBO can turn away from cable, and either go independent or partner with
someone like Amazon, Apple, Netflix, or.. pfft, everyone, this could be
interesting. That is probably hugely wishful thinking, though.

Edit: Then again, they're already offering standalone service in parts of
Europe.

~~~
quandrum
All HBO has to do is open "HBO Go" to non-cable subscribers, and they'd get a
flood of takers.

But they still make too much money of cable subscriptions to do that, so we
have to wait for the tipping point when cable becomes a drag on HBO vs the
boon it is today.

~~~
nixy
HBO actually offers this in other countries than the US, the Nordics for
example. HBO Nordic gets content as soon as it has aired, so they are aiming
to beat piracy with instant availability for $12/mo. Just not in the US yet.

------
natrius
We really need an ASCAP/BMI for video.

------
geetee
Everybody has to get their 10 buck slice a month, and I guess $100 for the
cable too.

------
PeterisP
"exclusive" and "10 years" are two things that should never be together in a
single sentence.

