Hacker News Reader

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 move forward. It shows you that the consumer does ultimately get the final say so.

However, I do not believe that costs are getting cheaper. If anything they are just going to keep going up and up.

Also the crazy level of competition going on right now to produce "service selling" original content, is in my views creating a situation where we keep getting a sub par product out of the deal.

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.

Im happy to pay HBO $10 for content and $5 for curation and an app that isn't constantly hiding what it teased yesterday but has now seemingly forgotten about.

OTOH the Netflix app at least makes it obvious how I can watch the next episode of the show I watched yesterday. After having used the HBO app for two months I still don’t understand how it works for basic things.

I feel like HBO manages to make people feel like there are fewer lulls in its schedule by stretching their shows airtimes out over 3 or 4 months. On other services people watch a show over a week and then look for something else.

> there are basic cable channels (AMC and FX) that have given HBO a run for its money.

Each has produced a couple series ever of the quality that HBO has a few of at any given time. They aren't playing at the same level.

> Does anyone really believe that HBO is going to outcompete Netflix on original programming over the long run?

Yes.

> 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?

Netflix promotes more heavily in the app than most other streaming g services do; I actually find this both more intrusive and less effective than pre-roll promotions like HBO does.

> Meanwhile, after Game of Thrones ends, what's HBO got for tentpole series?

Succession, The multiple (IIRC, 5) GoT spinoff series that are already confirmed in the works, potentially with the first airing as soon as 2020, the Watchmen series they are rumored to be picking up...

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

The trend seems to be more streaming services offering premium add-ons like HBO, and away from “streaming means the end of the premium cable model” that was more defensible a claim a couple years ago.

Are you sure about that, or does it just feel like it should be true? Take AMC --- again, a basic cable channel that should be nowhere near HBO's level, and just look at the time span during which Breaking Bad ran.

During that time, HBO ran Curb Your Enthusiasm, True Blood, Big Love, Boardwalk Empire, The Newsroom, Treme, and (at the end) Game of Thrones.

Meanwhile, AMC ran Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Hell On Wheels, The Killing, and Walking Dead, plus The Prisoner and Hustle.

If you ranked those shows by importance, AMC would have played HBO to a draw in the top 10.

Succession is barely drawing half a million viewers, for what it's worth. If HBO is betting their future on Succession, I think we can call it.

> Take AMC --- again, a basic cable channel that should be nowhere near HBO's level

While for my tastes AMC is nowhere near HBOs level, I take issue with the idea that something I pay for by subjecting myself to commercial advertising should not be of equal quality to something I pay for in equal (or lesser) value in currency.

Go the opposite direction and think about: AMC gave HBO a run for their money despite having to deal with the influence of advertisers. And in some ways, Mad Men and Breaking Bad are both more transgressive than what HBO ran in the same time period. They did well despite a higher degree of difficulty.

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!

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

Season 2 of Westworld had fewer viewers than Ballers. Ballers. You're right; it's a huge-budget show, and one HBO clearly hopes will be a tentpole. But it's no Game of Thrones.

There's enough material in A Song of Ice and Fire to make spin-off series. There's already been talk about adapting Robert's Rebellion. Sure, there's no guarantee that they won't be Caprica rather than Frasier, but it's hardly like AMC facing the loss of Breaking Bad and Mad Men.

AMC is already 3 seasons into their Breaking Bad successor (which is arguably better than all but the last season of Breaking Bad itself), and they also have the Walking Dead franchise, plus a plausible franchise in Killing Eve. AMC also owns Sundance TV.

Would I rather own AMC than HBO? No (FX, though, different story). But AMC is a basic cable channel! Breaking Bad and Walking Dead are both much bigger deals than anything HBO has done in the last 10 years except for Game of Thrones. If we have to argue about which is the more important channel in 2018, HBO's model isn't working.

Well Season 1 of Westworld had an interesting premise. Season 2 is just standard robot wars.

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

Yea, and they both have equivalent staying power.

* Stranger Things

* Mindhunter

* Making a Murderer

* Orange is the New Black

* House of Cards

* Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt

* BoJack Horseman

For better or worse, all of these shows have as much staying power as the median HBO show, and most of them have more cultural currency. However good Barry might have been, TV critics weren't burning multiple columns talking about it.

And again, the idea that HBO just needs to compete with Netflix isn't my whole argument. Neither HBO nor Netflix picked up The Americans. HBO got outbid for a prestige show last year --- by Apple. The problem is that the prestige TV space is crowded.

Most of those are junk after the first or second season, In my opinion. Completely unwatchable considering the great stuff out there.

HBO is not an app, it's a feature.

Unlike the vast majority of apps, HBO is a sound business.