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

41–50 of 111 posts

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

#41

Post by akira2501 »

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…

> Netflix introduces new programs like Google introduces new chat programs.

Yea, and they both have equivalent staying power.

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

#43

Post by PhantomGremlin »

esaym wrote: post #24

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.

How do you make a show like The Sopranos without cuss words? Not too many mobsters earn an Eagle Scout medal.

And if you tell me that The Sopranos wasn't realistic, I'd say you weren't paying attention to the news in the NYC metropolitan area. Many/most of the show's plots were, at the least, "inspired by actual events".

You can always watch the Hallmark Channel on basic cable. Not too many cuss words there.

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

#44

Post by diogenescynic »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #23
barry-cotter wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

You’re both right.

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

#45

Post by ordinaryperson »

kemiller wrote: post #8

They should tap HBO's expertise and connections to build a Netflix competitor while keeping the HBO brand premium. Flogging a racehorse to make it pull a wagon train will just end in tears for everyone. I bet the champagne came out in Los Gatos.

Developing hit shows like "Game of Thrones" is extremely hard, and the competition for streaming content is cuthroat.

Meanwhile AT&T essentially only competes with Verizon, and does that primarily by offering the exact same services -- not exactly revolutionary, Harvard Business School Case Study stuff.

What has AT&T done in the last 20 years that was original? Mainly its operating business strategy is to raise prices as a regional, quasi-monopoly.

But sure, it's the (not highly paid) HBO employees that have to work harder, emulate those brilliant AT&T execs and their super original business growth strategies.

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

#46

Post by hinkley »

dagenix wrote: post #11

So, basically day 1 of owning HBO, they tell the employees that they aren't making enough money (even though they are quite profitable) and that they are going to have to work harder. I'm speculating here, but I'm guessing there was probably no talk about compensating them more. Its hard to imagine a better way of convincing all your best employees to start thinking about switching jobs.

Yeah but think of all the money you’ll save in salaries!

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

#47

Post by csours »

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…

HBO is still distinctively good - they have the time and money to fund things like limited series, and huge shows like Westworld and GoT

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

#48

Post by notyourwork »

mortdeus wrote: post #40
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 wouldn't say that premium cable is over. Rather before you used to pay $60 + premium channels a month to have cable tv. Now you pay $15+15+15+15+15+15+15 ... + 75 for internet connection that doesn't have data caps. Personally I think the de-bundling of cable TV and the getting rid of ads (i seriously never understood how we can pay for cable tv and still be forced to watch ads) is a great way for the market to mov…

I agree though I think in short term price normalization is going to create lots of situations where demand exists but customers are unwilling to pay for all they want. The forced choice is going to create a really competitive market but in short term I won't sign up for 2+ services at ~$15/month.

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

#49

Post by pan69 »

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.

Band of Brothers and The Pacific I thought were great HBO series. Also Rome is a great series.
Post reply on HN