HBO used to be the pinnacle of stand-up shows, but Netflix has taken that torch now it seems.
For comedy series they do well though. Curb, Silicon Valley, VEEP, Last Week Tonight, Eastbound & Down, and back in the day Larry Sanders, Mr. Show, Ali G and more.
They always deliver with great shows non-comedy as well: Band of Brothers, Boardwalk Empire, The Wire, Sopranos, The Night Of, GoT, Big Little Lies, True Detective and on and on, hard to find this level of quality and creator freedom that allows that. Netflix definitely giving HBO a run for their money in quality and creator freedom, hard to imagine AT&T even giving creators the level of control HBO and Netflix have.
But also, you can't look at those shows in isolation. Compare them to Netflix's properties. Stranger Things is as big a deal as literally anything HBO has launched in the last decade, including Game of Thrones (I really want to believe that HBO is kicking themselves for not buying the script for that; it was shopped to them). For any given HBO 30 minute comedy, Netflix has probably launched 3 equally credible comedies.
The very best, most important 60-minute scripted dramas in the past decade have not as a rule, with the exception of Game of Thrones, been on HBO. If AMC can do Mad Men and FX can do The Americans, there is no reason to believe that Netflix can't do equally well just by pouring investor dollars into acquiring shows. At the end of the day, that's what these businesses do: pick production companies to fund, fund them, and then distribute the results.
You're avoiding some incredible shows.
Season 5 of The Wire was just about a decade ago, and it was abbreviated because it didn't get great ratings.
Carnivale was cancelled for low ratings after its second season. I'm not saying it's bad (it was a mess, though). I'm saying that HBO has to do more things like Carnivale, on a much faster schedule, if it's going to keep up with Netflix.
At any one time HBO has about 3 to 5 shows a year that I like. Netflix seems to have about the same ratio. Netflix’s firehose seems to ensure they have at least a few shows most people like. Without the cable TV lock-in HBO is going to have to do something to convince people to keep payng more for less.
But HBO used to have buffers for this stuff: a captive audience of cross-subsidized cable subscribers that were paying for HBO as a part of their TV package, and a competitive status as basically the king of the hill for prestige scripted television. They could take flyers on John From Cincinnati and Carnivale and wait for the next tentpole --- the next Game of Thrones or Sopranos or True Blood.
But both of those buffers are going away. Cable TV packages are going the way of Blockbuster Video. If you want subscribers, you're going to have to get them to sign up, in a crowded market, and bill them directly. And HBO isn't even close to the only game in town for prestige television. Even Hulu is competitive here; arguably, The Handmaids Tale has done as well as any non-GoT property HBO has launched in the last couple years.
To me, what this suggests is that for HBO to be competitive, their model is going to have to look more like Netflix's: they're going to need to fund and develop a lot more properties, rolling the dice more often until they can find a bunch more tentpole shows. Which is all the article really says, too.
But paying $10 a month for a “throw stuff at the wall“ approach of TV? Why not just subscribe to Hulu.
Meanwhile: if "throw stuff at the wall" is Netflix's model, go look at Netflix's numbers. They're not hurting. Their model works; they stand on their own two feet. We actually don't know if HBO's model works: they're cross-subsidized not just by cable companies, but also by their corporate owners. They were one of the most important players in the old TV model. It remains to be seen how important they'll be in the new model.
I think it would be hard to argue that Netflix was less important than HBO in the modern TV marketplace.