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

AT&T Is Dragging HBO's Streaming Strategy Out of the Dark Ages

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 112 posts

Re: AT&T Is Dragging HBO's Streaming Strategy Out of the Dark Ages

#21

Post by jjoonathan »

stolson wrote: post #9
jjoonathan wrote: post #6

Am I going to be able to give them money in exchange for watching Game of Thrones? Or do they still expect me to mix and match a cable TV package, a "partnered" home entertainment box, and some other nonsense?

You can subscribe to HBO NOW for $15 a month.

That was an option last season too, but I think I had to have a unique, partnered, non-computer device on which to register the HBO Now account, and the process was broken on the one "acceptable" device I had. I don't remember what it was, but I do remember digging it out of storage and being terribly inconvenienced.

In any case, after two thorough, time-consuming attempts I gave up and mooched of a friend who had recently bought a Roku or something.

Re: AT&T Is Dragging HBO's Streaming Strategy Out of the Dark Ages

#22

Post by pronoiac »

smacktoward wrote: post #15

I personally have not found the UX of HBO's streaming offerings (I use HBO GO, primarily through an iPad and a PS4) to be appreciably worse than Netflix's. The apps load and are straightforward to find my way around in, I can always find the content I'm looking for, I've never had any technical issues prevent me from streaming that content. In some regards, I would even say their UX is better than Netflix's -- scroll…

There's also the DirecTV Now app, which gets bundled with some AT&T mobile plans, and the UX there is much worse than in HBO Now. I don’t think you can make watchlists, and it won’t pick up from the same time if you get interrupted.

Re: AT&T Is Dragging HBO's Streaming Strategy Out of the Dark Ages

#23

Post by brandall10 »

chaosbutters wrote: post #16
sharkweek wrote: post #3

My problem with this is as follows: HBO has led the way in making some of the highest quality television of the last 20 years. Competition has gotten stiffer, but I still view HBO as the premier place for TV (Sopranos, The Wire, Sex and the City, Curb, Veep, Leftovers, True Detective, Deadwood... and of course GoT, the list goes on and on). I would argue many of our favorite broadcast/cable shows would simply not exi…

everyone forgets Oz :(

I love Oz, watched every episode during its initial run. But it was not a critical darling at the time.

The bigger sin is not mentioning Larry Sanders. That was a cultural milestone during its time in the same way Sopranos and Sex and City Were. Curbed feels like its spiritual successor.

And of course the one that started it all for HBO in the early 90s, the one that broke the mold for an adult sitcom, from the creators of Friends - Dream On.

Re: AT&T Is Dragging HBO's Streaming Strategy Out of the Dark Ages

#24

Post by btmiller »

sharkweek wrote: post #3

My problem with this is as follows: HBO has led the way in making some of the highest quality television of the last 20 years. Competition has gotten stiffer, but I still view HBO as the premier place for TV (Sopranos, The Wire, Sex and the City, Curb, Veep, Leftovers, True Detective, Deadwood... and of course GoT, the list goes on and on). I would argue many of our favorite broadcast/cable shows would simply not exi…

Agreed. Content is king, and I think HBO understands that very well. I go to HBO for curated, high quality entertainment.

I see this less as a business problem and more of a technology problem with regards to their streaming platform. All big platforms suffer (possibly painfully) in the beginning (e.g. Twitter's fail whale), but that's when it's up to business leadership to stay the course, dive into the problem, and commit to solving it on your own. Look at how much emphasis in this article is placed upon HBO getting away from rivals running their platform! Yet a short period ago they surrender in-house operations to MLB AM? Constant pivoting gets you nowhere.

I see AT&T swooping in to "pick up the pieces" as they see it, and the sad conclusion I foresee is exactly what you described.

Re: AT&T Is Dragging HBO's Streaming Strategy Out of the Dark Ages

#25

Post by tptacek »

sharkweek wrote: post #3

My problem with this is as follows: HBO has led the way in making some of the highest quality television of the last 20 years. Competition has gotten stiffer, but I still view HBO as the premier place for TV (Sopranos, The Wire, Sex and the City, Curb, Veep, Leftovers, True Detective, Deadwood... and of course GoT, the list goes on and on). I would argue many of our favorite broadcast/cable shows would simply not exi…

We're in a golden age of television in part because everyone is producing high-quality shows. For every Deadwood, there's a Justified; True Detective, a Mindhunter. HBO has never been the best place for comedy series and, good as Crashing was, it remains an also-ran there as well.

HBO's quality has been pretty far off its peak for awhile. GoT is a tentpole show with a rabid audience but it's not especially good (it's no The Wire). Deadwood and the Sopranos are from a different era of TV. Veep is great, but True Detective, True Blood, Boardwalk Empire, Enlightened, and The Newsroom would all be in the middle of the pack at Netflix.

More importantly than what Netflix itself creates is the fact that everyone else is creating great TV, and Netflix can just license it. The Americans is better than anything HBO ever produced except The Wire, and it's an FX show. So are Atlanta and Better Things, both better than any HBO comedy series other than Veep. AMC has Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, which arguably are the best thing ever done on TV.

The Deuce is great, but if I have to choose between paying for one show of that caliber per month, or just getting access to stuff like Counterpart, Legion, Get Shorty, Halt and Catch Fire, and Fargo, it's pretty obvious where I'm getting my money's worth.

Which is the big dilemma with HBO's previous strategy. There is too much content that clears the bar HBO set available outside of HBO for them to charge a premium, unless they can keep bottling lightning like they did with GoT, which is not at all a sure bet.

Re: AT&T Is Dragging HBO's Streaming Strategy Out of the Dark Ages

#26

Post by tptacek »

chaosbutters wrote: post #16
sharkweek wrote: post #3

My problem with this is as follows: HBO has led the way in making some of the highest quality television of the last 20 years. Competition has gotten stiffer, but I still view HBO as the premier place for TV (Sopranos, The Wire, Sex and the City, Curb, Veep, Leftovers, True Detective, Deadwood... and of course GoT, the list goes on and on). I would argue many of our favorite broadcast/cable shows would simply not exi…

everyone forgets Oz :(

Because it's not that good. It was good for its time, but TV today is different and better than TV was in 1999. People were still watching laugh-track sitcoms when Oz was in its prime.

Re: AT&T Is Dragging HBO's Streaming Strategy Out of the Dark Ages

#27

Post by btmiller »

colechristensen wrote: post #11

I like HBO just as it is and can't fathom why anyone would claim it is in the dark ages. "Decisions are made slowly and by consensus; longtime employees guard the network’s lucrative, award-winning status quo." -- this is said like it is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with not being "disruptive" and being slow and steady to stay excellent. Many businesses and consumers would be better off if there were less pres…

Deliberation is slowly going extinct in favor of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. I see it as the "news feed"-ification of video content.

Re: AT&T Is Dragging HBO's Streaming Strategy Out of the Dark Ages

#28

Post by sharkweek »

brandall10 wrote: post #23
chaosbutters wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

everyone forgets Oz :(

I love Oz, watched every episode during its initial run. But it was not a critical darling at the time. The bigger sin is not mentioning Larry Sanders. That was a cultural milestone during its time in the same way Sopranos and Sex and City Were. Curbed feels like its spiritual successor. And of course the one that started it all for HBO in the early 90s, the one that broke the mold for an adult sitcom, from the creat…

I think this goes to show how much of an impact HBO had on television.

There isn't an argument quite like this outside of maybe NBC's 90s sitcoms, arguing about Seinfeld/Friends/Frasier or AMC's late-aughts Mad Men/Breaking Bad/Walking Dead.

Re: AT&T Is Dragging HBO's Streaming Strategy Out of the Dark Ages

#29

Post by colechristensen »

btmiller wrote: post #27
colechristensen wrote: post #11

I like HBO just as it is and can't fathom why anyone would claim it is in the dark ages. "Decisions are made slowly and by consensus; longtime employees guard the network’s lucrative, award-winning status quo." -- this is said like it is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with not being "disruptive" and being slow and steady to stay excellent. Many businesses and consumers would be better off if there were less pres…

Deliberation is slowly going extinct in favor of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. I see it as the "news feed"-ification of video content.

OR A/B testing until every product fits only the lowest common denominator niche.

Same argument as the "dictatorship of the majority" in democratic government. Everybody doing what is most popular results in many people losing.

Re: AT&T Is Dragging HBO's Streaming Strategy Out of the Dark Ages

#30

Post by smacktoward »

For those (like me) who are puzzled by some of the assertions made in this article -- I suspect that it's what journalists refer to as a "beat sweetener"[1].

Reporters have particular sectors, companies, etc. they're assigned to cover; these are referred to as their beat. To get stories, a journalist has to develop sources within those sectors/companies/etc. -- people "in the know" who are willing to share information with them. Developing sources is a hard thing to do, as people tend not to talk to reporters unless they've got an axe to grind, which biases their information and makes it less useful to you.

One way to get potential sources to open up to you is to butter them up in advance with some flattering coverage. Once you're fixed in their memory as the guy/gal who wrote that great story about them, they're less likely to see you as an adversary.

So it's not uncommon, when a new executive takes over somewhere, to see a glowing profile of them appear -- a profile that "explains" how all the problems the place the executive just took over at are the fault of their departed predecessor, who was an idiot whose momma dressed him funny, and how the new executive's bold, daring Vision for the Future™ will solve them all at a stroke.

I have no hard evidence whether that's the actual thought process that led to this puzzling article, of course. It just really, really reads that way.

[1] See https://www.thenation.com/article/washingtons-beat-sweetener..., https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/04/a-beat-sweetener...

Post reply on HN