"There is value in exclusivity... [Consumers] are willing to pay a premium for high quality, exclusive content." There is something to HBO Co-President Eric Kessler's words that ring true with his company's goals, and unfortunately for
Netflix enthusiasts, that subscription service isn't part and parcel with his philosophy. In an interview with
Bloomberg, Kessler reportedly offered the previous statement as an explanation to why the two companies would likely not make a deal together, despite Netflix's best efforts. That's par for the course, so far, but what
is new and exciting from the interview is an off-hand comment that in six month's time,
HBO Go would be available "through all major cable systems, on Apple Inc.'s
iPad, on mobile devices and elsewhere," free for those already signed up to HBO. We've seen the former option, but portable? Consider our interests very piqued. While far from official, we also think it's worth listening to a co-president on his own company's dealings -- at least a little bit. Hey, we're all for going the
Hulu route if it's implemented well enough, but it looks like we won't be canceling our cable subscription in favor of going steady with Ol' Red Envelopes anytime soon.
posted August 17th 2010 9:54PM
@Wesscoast
> *points at 130 million iPod touch/iPad/iPhones..
>
> you're insane
That's a drop in an ocean compared to the PC devices out there.
Besides, you have to carefully craft the comparison just to make it look as good as it is. You have to throw in a whole bunch of tiny screen devices to make the comparison not look totally absurd.
It's more like 3M vs. 1 Billion.
...that's even assuming that the tiny screen PhoneOS devices are even supported.
So this is the last article before the new commenting system... in before history...
@Plazmic Flame
Yay
@Plazmic Flame
in before world ending
What happened? I don't know most of those people on the new comment system ... They're all Twitter and Facebook people.
Oh, and HBO ... just join Netflix already ... you're gonna do it eventually.
I have no doubts that the Netflix apps is magical. It's clear that there are numerous advantages to the app running under OS4.
@Teerim I know what you mean. I just came back here to see the old one. :(
for a small fee like 5 dollars, i can see myself paying that if it came to netflix
So where is this stupid Netflix app for the iPhone that we were promised?
It's bad business for TV content providers to give their programs away to Netflix and Netflix, in the next two years, will disappear.
It made sense for TV networks and the cable tv companies to work together--they needed each other. The networks needed to get their programs to our TVs and the cable companies needed programming or customers wouldn't sign up. That's no longer true. Now the internet already connects the networks, the content companies, to us. Consumer products that put networked programming, in High Def, on our living room Big Screen TVs are cheap and they're everywhere.
Comcast recognized that when they bought NBC. Other companies will figure it out soon enough. The most economical solution, by far, for delivering valued and valuable programming to the home is for the content companies to bypass the middlemen, the Netflixes, and their 50% mark-ups, and connect their servers directly to their customers homes.
We consumers will no longer be stuck paying for all the crappy Disney kids channels and the half-dozen CBS-owned MTV-clones and the shopping networks, etc., so it's a win/win/win situation:
We consumers will get more of what we really want and for less money.
Advertisers, who've been lied to forever about the viewership of the unwanted and unwatched, hitchhiker channels, get to put their ads where we'll see them, and for less money.
And the content producers will know, every time they go to the bank, exactly what we like and don't like and they'll be paid more, too!
Netflix is a dinosaur and the giant asteroid will be here when we all realize that we can get more and better by cutting-out the Netflixes and streaming our shows directly from the studios.
@roebling But for now, those studios fail to understand that people want to stream beyond their PC. They also fail to understand open-standards and that what people want is a one-stop-shop device or application that will stream all the content they want, not just content from a single provider.
I want one TV watching device, and I don't want 50 applications on my phone to watch TV.
@roebling what 50% mark up? Netflix is way cheaper than DVD, it costs about as much as one premium channel and you pick what you want... studios don't "give away" there content, they contract for with Netflix to 'rent' it...
Also for TV, you really don't understand how the business model works. Networks order (and pay for) the shows upfront. A studio doesn't take risks in TV, the network does. This is MGM can still afford to make Stargate shows, but it's taken years for a new Bond movie to come out.
Studios aren't going to want to get into the pay and pray side of this business in TV. Direct syndication and canceled pick up might work, but be ready to pony up at least $50 per season before they shoot it.
@dougdeep Yeah, good ideas, good points.
But, betting on a single standard's risky. You could bet wrong. For now, Flash rules. Not because it's better for users, of course, but because it's adopted by so many content providers.
HTML5? Still just a dream.
@Playos 50% is the cut of advertising revenue that networks are getting for allowing middlemen (Hulu) to rebroadcast their TV shows.
Netflix still rules on physical DVD's, of course, but those are dinosaurs. Finding a DVD rental store is harder than finding a pay phone. They'll all disappear, soon.
Why buy when you can rent, right? And, why wait for the mail when you can stream it instantly, ya' know?
When it gets to that, everything streamed, then who needs Netflix? Which studio will pay someone for what they can do better and cheaper themselves?
What it always comes down to is this: what does the middle man add to the value? If nothing, then f**k him.
This is all to the studio, I mean, not to us. Netflix, to them, is just a different kind of cable tv company--a pipeline. How much is that worth when they can pipe it themselves, for free?
@Playos Your studio remarks are right-on, I think. That's where a TV network or distributor or some private financing from the latest dot-com billionaire will always be nice, although incredibly cheap production costs are really just over that next hill... SO, you're tuned in, sounds like you might be the one to start a server farm and web page for distributing micro-budget new films over the 'net--give iTunes the ol' what-for, eh?
The masses will continue to pirate until HBO figures out what they really want.
@dougdeep: Yep, and they'll keep trying to stop us. That's what Flash is good at, I guess. Certainly not great, otherwise.
"Hey, we're all for going the Hulu route if it's implemented well enough, but it looks like we won't be canceling our cable subscription in favor of going steady with Ol' Red Envelopes anytime soon."
Speak for yourselves. We cut the cable cord earlier this year and love it. I can't believe how incredibly arrogant these cable companies are thinking their business model is still viable. $100 for 200+ channels of which maybe, MAYBE, 10% are worth-while.
Hell, I can cut the cable for a few months, buy a mac mini with what I have saved and have 95% of the content available from a cable company for free on my schedule.
If only a few more folks would stop paying cable for this crap they call a product, we'd maybe get them thinking about some better options so they can keep from going out of business. But then, if they do, maybe that is better for everyone.
@ndurantz EXACTLY!
My last comment on the "old" system. :-(
Don't see Netflix going away any time soon. They have a great brand and a strong loyalty from average consumers. Thankfully, unlike Blockbuster, Netflix is always on the lookout for change.