HBO Inks Exclusive, 10-Year Deal With Universal
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
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.
The number of people who do not have TV service (myself among them) is utterly insignificant in comparison to those that do; but even more important, carriage agreements and the cable business model are such that a la carte purchases of content just don't make sense; for the studio to make their money back, they'd have to be charging you $80/90 a month, per channel.
This doesn't make any sense. Did they ask you to send them a photo of your TV?
I moved house recently, despite setting it all up myself in my new house I had to pay $100 for a technician to come out and press a few buttons to make the smart card work for the new address. (Australia)
http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/selfinstall/
They only force a truck roll if your residence hasn't had cable in a while.
BTW I've had Comcast happily install service without a TV, I got an install before we moved and the tech had no problem just setting up the boxes and leaving.
We declined the privilege of paying them $50 and staying home from work to wait for the cable guy, and figured it out ourselves on the first try.
Upon reading what you'd said, I opened a new tab and went there. I had 2 seconds of a white screen. Then I had 21 (!!!) seconds of the black screen you described, with no indication that the page was still loading any content. At second 22, a loading icon appeared in the middle of the screen, then from second 23 - 25 all the website content loaded and rendered at once.
Those results are truly terrible, especially given my internet connection (100mbps+) and computer (high performance).
If HBO wants a web presence, they should really get it together (although maybe they don't want a web presence...).
Why didn't you just borrow a small tv or simply get a elgato for your PC:
http://www.elgato.com/elgato/na/mainmenu/products/EyeTV-Hybr...
Assuming there is a cable where you live and that you are willing to pay for the service (which you said you were) this doesn't appear to be to difficult of a problem to solve.
It's perfectly understandable that Comcast would require someone to own a TV. Their contracts with providers probably require that and it doesn't really matter whose idea that is. They consider that a certain class of customer. They have the right to deliver their product over the web as long as someone is also a cable subscriber and the language probably defines very clearly what constitutes a cable subscriber.
I have Comcast internet. I asked if they would just mail me a cable box that I could "install". No, a technician had to come out. This was when Comcast had a 4 or 6 hour service window, on weekdays. I actually booked an appointment for them to come out, then cancelled when I realized I wasn't willing to miss work to sit and wait for a technician to deliver something I didn't want.
So yes, if I really wanted it that much I could have found a way to get it. But forcing me to jump through hoops when all wanted to do with give them money so I could use their website... that's pathetic. The entire media industry is stuck in their pathetic ways, and it's pathetic exclusive contracts like this that are preventing innovative companies from disrupting the industry.
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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-off...
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.
I'd be willing to bet that the initial capital cost of stringing up the nation with cable TV cable has been recouped. Time to end the monopolies.
Hell, we might be able to get Game of Thrones protected as an inalienable right...
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.
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!
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.
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.
And if you want to resort to ad hominem attacks, go find another website to troll. Hacker News isn't the place for that bilge.
Edit: Then again, they're already offering standalone service in parts of Europe.
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.