Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AT&T’s Troubling Plan to Change HBO

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 111 posts

Re: AT&T’s Troubling Plan to Change HBO

#21

Post by zeusk »

s2g wrote: post #20
MBCook wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They bought a niche diamond mine and want it to be a giant aluminum recycling company. HBO makes a few REALLY good series. That’s what they do. They are not setup to produce 10x as much content. If they do they may not have the people who can do that with reasonable quality. They’re used to polishing gems. You wouldn’t buy Nintendo and order them to make a console more powerful than the XBox One X. That’s not what th…

> You wouldn’t buy Nintendo and order them to make a console more powerful than the XBox One X. That’s not what they do. Except Nintendo could do that and be fine. Probably not, but if the third party is strong. This is more like telling them to start shoving out a mario game twice a year.

> Except Nintendo could do that and be fine.

I believe otherwise. Most of Nintendo's marketing and appeal is based around gameplay and nostalgia; not graphical prowess.

A Nintendo more powerful than one X would cost more since Microsoft amortizes some of the cost over Live services and in-store purchases whereas Nintendo focuses on 1st party games with no recurring revenue. Price elasticity is perhaps most visible in the console arena where consumers are extremely sensitive to upfront costs.

Re: AT&T’s Troubling Plan to Change HBO

#22

Post by jstarfish »

wolco wrote: post #12
homero wrote: post #2

HBO is incredible. Sharp objects with Amy Adams just premiered last night. AT&T is going to ruin it.

I subscribed recently and watched silicon valley, entourage, ballers, veep and watching the wire now. What do you recommend, as most of the other series I haven't heard much about them and hbo shows for some reason seem a little bit harder to get started with.

Rome. Even if you aren't a history buff (I am not, myself) it is still a rich story.

Re: AT&T’s Troubling Plan to Change HBO

#23

Post by WillPostForFood »

barry-cotter wrote: post #18
karcass wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno man. The Russians impoverished East Germany.

East Germany was the richest Soviet conquest and the richest ex-Soviet bloc state at the dissolution of the Soviet empire. Coming close to keeping up with West Germany is pretty good for a Communist state.

Richest ex-Soviet Bloc state is like healthiest terminally ill patient. Comparing East Germany to West seems more “germane.”

Re: AT&T’s Troubling Plan to Change HBO

#24

Post by esaym »

I gave up on HBO 15+ years ago after every single new show they made was nothing but a non stop stream of cuss words. Their only way to stand out just seems to be by bringing new levels of raunchiness to the viewer, and that gets old.

Re: AT&T’s Troubling Plan to Change HBO

#25

Post by tptacek »

I don't buy the logic here, and I'm not sure David Sims does either; this strikes me as one of those headlines that was written by an editor, independently of the article.

For as much as anybody here likes HBO, the diagnosis Stankey (and, I think, Sims) has of it seems apt. HBO has a sterling reputation. But so what? Even today, they're no longer distinctively good; in fact, there are basic cable channels (AMC and FX) that have given HBO a run for its money.

Does anyone really believe that HBO is going to outcompete Netflix on original programming over the long run? Netflix introduces new programs like Google introduces new chat programs. It's not even an event for them. They just randomly drop them in the middle of the week, as if they don't have time even to promote them. Have you ever started an episode of Jessica Jones and had to wait 2 minutes for them to promo the next season of Mindhunter?

And that's just Netflix. Amazon will eventually figure TV out. Disney controls Hulu now. Apple is making a move into online video.

Meanwhile, after Game of Thrones ends, what's HBO got for tentpole series? Westworld? Besides the fact that it won't be airing again for 2-3 years, its renewal was not even a certainty.

I think Stankey is right. If HBO is going to be a factor long-term, a thing people pay substantial amounts of money to retain access to, it is going to have to look more like Netflix and less like a thing you pay your cable company extra for. HBO could afford lulls of a year or two taking flyers on just 1-2 new prestige series (Carnivale; Newsroom; Vinyl). But premium cable is over, everything is going to be disintermediated, and HBO will need to justify demanding $15/mo directly from people. I'm not sure it's worth that today.

Re: AT&T’s Troubling Plan to Change HBO

#26

Post by SquirrelOnFire »

throwawaymath wrote: post #19
forapurpose wrote: post #13

I've wondered about HBO's future. I see a few problems: First, it used to be the only source for intelligent programming. Now I can get as good or better content from Netflix, Amazon, and smaller arthouse-oriented channels. HBO doesn't stand out to me. Second, streaming channels are a la carte, not bundled, and I'd have to pay cable TV-sized bills to subscribe to 100 channels. HBO doesn't seem to offer enough to be w…

I guess this is a matter of opinion, but I’ll bite anyway. What content do you watch from Netflix or Amazon that you find to be comparable to HBO’s tentpole programming? To be honest with you, I find Amazon’s content to be...well, bad. On the other hand Netflix has a few good shows, but the company is clearly prioritizing quantity over quality. Not only does its content not have the awards or acclaim HBO’s garners, b…

House of Cards (First 2 seasons at least), Stranger Things, Orange is the New Black, Marco Polo, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Dear White People, Bojack Horseman, and to a lesser extent some of the Marvel shows (Jessica Jones, Daredevil, Luke Cage, Punisher), not to mention how much amazing standup comedy Netflix puts out. Sure, there's a lot of junk, but Netflix is succeeding in becoming HBO faster than HBO is becoming Netflix.

Re: AT&T’s Troubling Plan to Change HBO

#27

Post by arkis22 »

wolco wrote: post #12
homero wrote: post #2

HBO is incredible. Sharp objects with Amy Adams just premiered last night. AT&T is going to ruin it.

I subscribed recently and watched silicon valley, entourage, ballers, veep and watching the wire now. What do you recommend, as most of the other series I haven't heard much about them and hbo shows for some reason seem a little bit harder to get started with.

Deadwood is excellent. The Larry Sanders Show is one of the best comedies ever.

Re: AT&T’s Troubling Plan to Change HBO

#28

Post by michaelpinto »

gamechangr wrote: post #5

HBO is too great to be ruined by AT&T. Wiki says "HBO is the oldest and longest continuously operating pay television service (basic or premium) in the United States". I'm not under estimating HBO. like the rest of the fear mongering I hear from my friends :) AT&T doesn't' have what it takes to ruin it.

You have to define what "ruin" really is. Ruin could mean no longer being a viable brand, in which case you may be right. However ruin can also mean a creative decline in terms of creating new series, and if they're shifting to an ad supported model and try to appeal to the widest audience that may really be the case.

Re: AT&T’s Troubling Plan to Change HBO

#29

Post by zjaffee »

AT&T owns a ton of content through owning Warner Media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Warner... and my guess is that they will be able to show that content on netflix. At least from my perspective, netflix has become a less desirable place to spend time on, given that they have taken down a lot of their third party content, something that AT&T and HBO will likely be able to resurface.

Re: AT&T’s Troubling Plan to Change HBO

#30

Post by stcredzero »

tptacek wrote: post #25

I don't buy the logic here, and I'm not sure David Sims does either; this strikes me as one of those headlines that was written by an editor, independently of the article. For as much as anybody here likes HBO, the diagnosis Stankey (and, I think, Sims) has of it seems apt. HBO has a sterling reputation. But so what? Even today, they're no longer distinctively good; in fact, there are basic cable channels (AMC and FX…

I don't buy the logic here, and I'm not sure David Sims does either; this strikes me as one of those headlines that was written by an editor, independently of the article.

There are a lot of those nowadays. Have you noticed too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiE6gI0fYuA

Netflix introduces new programs like Google introduces new chat programs. It's not even an event for them. They just randomly drop them in the middle of the week, as if they don't have time even to promote them.

It looks like Netflix is trying to use the same methods and tactics as YouTube for promoting content by algorithmically presenting content to users. Is Netflix changing itself into an "ecosystem" for show starters and show runners? That would be a nice way to outsource the risk.

Amazon will eventually figure TV out.

Amazon is well positioned to do the same.

But premium cable is over, everything is going to be disintermediated

The same needs to happen to news!

Post reply on HN