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

Take my money, HBO

takemymoneyhbo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 316 posts

Re: Take my money, HBO

#231

Post by sixQuarks »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #215
sixQuarks wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if some great writers from HBO left to join a new "startup" with deep pockets and willing to bet on internet only distribution. And what if they create a big-budget show that's awesome like Game of Thrones. Would you pay for that "channel"?

It's interesting that GoT is relatively low budget for what it is, roughly $60 million a season or thereabouts. Netflix dropped $100 million for a season of House Of Cards, so it's entirely possible we'll see more of this kind of thing out of them. And I'm firmly convinced the right people could raise GoT scale budgets through crowdfunding. The right time and talent just have to come along. It'll happen in the next c…

Geez, I didn't realize Netflix spent that much money on that show.

Re: Take my money, HBO

#232

Post by dbbolton »

kin wrote: post #222
dbbolton wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not watching the show is absolutely an option. Not one human being is obligated to watch any television show. I think what you mean is "these people really want to watch the show", and that's true. I know some people who really want to take oxycodone. The government won't let them buy it from a pharmacy legally, so I guess they should be justified in stealing it and then leave a donation for what they think is fair c…

Again, is waiting really the point we're discussing? We're not talking about piracy in general. We're talking about HBO and GoT here. Not watching the show within a week of air is not watching it at all. If you participate in this at all, you'd know what I'm talking about. Waiting is NOT an option. If you're going go to an extreme analogy, I will say to some this is equivalent to watching the Superbowl a week later.…

Personally, I watch shows based on their content, not when they air. Fortunately episode X will still have the same content if I download it tonight or buy it a year from now on a DVD. I won't enjoy it any less just because people aren't talking about it anymore, and I actually prefer it that way. So waiting is an option for me. I don't have some kind of irrational fear that I'll have an anxiety attack if I don't see a show within N days of its first broadcast like a lot of people seem to.

Re: Take my money, HBO

#233

Post by waterlesscloud »

burke wrote: post #224
waterlesscloud wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is money not being taken from the pockets of others? The rationale that someone wouldn't buy it anyway doesn't hold when the argument is that they want it so much they can't wait for it.

"In what way is money not being taken from the pockets of others?" In the way that they are taking money out of their own pockets by not catering to this sizeable crowd. Intellectual Property does not fit neatly into our existing socio-economic framework. This is one of the areas where that really shows.

I'd have more sympathy for this line of argument if I wasn't currently watching season 1 of Game Of Thrones.

When it aired, sure I wanted to see it. People I know were talking about it. But I didn't want to pay what it cost to see it then.

So you know what choice I made? I waited.

And now it's available in a format I want at a price I'm willing to pay. So I paid and I'm enjoying it.

And, in a development that would evidently be quite shocking to some in this thread, I'm finding that I have plenty of people to talk to about it.

Look. I would love it if they made the show available online the next day, like Mad Men does. I think they're mistaken not to do so. I think they'd make more money if they did.

But they don't.

So I wait.

Re: Take my money, HBO

#234

Post by waterlesscloud »

algorias wrote: post #229
waterlesscloud wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is money not being taken from the pockets of others? The rationale that someone wouldn't buy it anyway doesn't hold when the argument is that they want it so much they can't wait for it.

Economically speaking there is no difference between losing money and not making money, but socially there's a clear distinction. You're not automatically indebted to someone just because they built something you want. No value is lost when a digital good is duplicated. The only thing lost in this case is an opportunity. >The rationale that someone wouldn't buy it anyway doesn't hold when the argument is that they wa…

" No value is lost when a digital good is duplicated. The only thing lost in this case is an opportunity."

I know this is a popular justification for piracy, but surely you can see that a lost opportunity is in fact lost value.

Re: Take my money, HBO

#235

Post by cremnob »

trotsky wrote: post #107

I worked on several commercial digital music projects in the time span between early napster and entrenched itunes. One regularly repeated meme of the era was that people didn't want to pirate music, they just wanted it "as easy" or "no drm" or "ala carte" or "all you can eat". While statistically these were all guaranteed to be true for at least some users, in aggregate they were red herrings. The industry was in th…

I think people have an entitlement attitude about digital content (movies, music, software, games, etc) that doesn't exist for other tangible products. And I think this entitlement has come out of being able to get away with stealing the content easily.

Many people can't afford/don't want to pay for a Rolls Royce, they aren't their target market, but they don't feel entitled to drive one. So they don't go out and steal one and then say "if only you had made the Rolls Royce available at the local dealership in Randomtown, USA instead of Manhattan and at a more reasonable price of $30,000 I wouldn't have stolen the car".

Re: Take my money, HBO

#236

Post by waterlesscloud »

sixQuarks wrote: post #231
waterlesscloud wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that GoT is relatively low budget for what it is, roughly $60 million a season or thereabouts. Netflix dropped $100 million for a season of House Of Cards, so it's entirely possible we'll see more of this kind of thing out of them. And I'm firmly convinced the right people could raise GoT scale budgets through crowdfunding. The right time and talent just have to come along. It'll happen in the next c…

Geez, I didn't realize Netflix spent that much money on that show.

To be fair, I don't know how much is coming from Netflix and how much from the Hollywood company MRC, but $100 million for 26 episodes isn't outrageous.

Re: Take my money, HBO

#237

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

trotsky wrote: post #107

I worked on several commercial digital music projects in the time span between early napster and entrenched itunes. One regularly repeated meme of the era was that people didn't want to pirate music, they just wanted it "as easy" or "no drm" or "ala carte" or "all you can eat". While statistically these were all guaranteed to be true for at least some users, in aggregate they were red herrings. The industry was in th…

> One regularly repeated meme of the era was that people didn't want to pirate music, they just wanted it "as easy" or "no drm" or "ala carte" or "all you can eat".

Someone put it well recently: "We don’t want everything for free. We just want everything"

http://questioncopyright.org/we_want_everything

Re: Take my money, HBO

#238

Post by andrewaylett »

WildUtah wrote: post #143
smackfu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you pay $225 a year? That's how much it costs a Briton. ("The annual cost of a colour TV licence is £145.50")

Does $225 include radio, or is that a separate license? And is a black and white teevee cheaper?

Radio is free -- you're only paying to watch live broadcast video (or to watch video that's simultaneously being broadcast, so live streaming of a TV channel counts).

Re: Take my money, HBO

#239

Post by caf »

tg3 wrote: post #172
caf wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting thing is that this seems to imply that HBO makes most of its revenue from people who don't use their product. This in turn implies some economic actors here are not acting rationally (for example, there are a significant number of subscribers who are willing to pay more for cable bundles containing HBO, but then don't actually watch HBO ).

I actually do watch HBO, but I can see exactly how this works (and how I got sucked into the super-premium package). You sign up for the standard internet+tv bundle, for say $60. Then you get HD for an extra $10 or $15, then the DVR is only an extra $5 a month on top of that, and then they ask you about HBO. And you think, "I've seen some good shows on HBO, that's worth the additional small percentage of my cable bil…

You wouldn't think that the availability of HBO online for say $10/month would change that dynamic much, particularly if the additional cost on your cable bill to get HBO is less than that.

Re: Take my money, HBO

#240

Post by imgabe »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #236
sixQuarks wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geez, I didn't realize Netflix spent that much money on that show.

To be fair, I don't know how much is coming from Netflix and how much from the Hollywood company MRC, but $100 million for 26 episodes isn't outrageous.

In that case it's somewhat cheaper than GoT, since their $60 million only pays for 10 episodes.
Post reply on HN