HBO cuts the cord, brings streaming-only service to Europe
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Welcome to the club.
> Highlight of #Olympic2012 so far: seeing Americans struggle with not having immediate access to new content http://fb.me/1FKecNifI
I think the first season of Sherlock was one such show.
But then again, we call everything terrorism.
And it's not really their fault, either. How would you know that the whitelist even exists if you're always on it?
ps- You can get NFL Gamepass (it's basically a web-streaming version of NFL Ticket) for $150/season if you have a UK IP address. Only problem is that it blacks out one of the games (whichever Sky sports is covering) but otherwise HD streaming video and can switch to every game live. It's a sportsman dream.
We'll see how long it takes to bring it to the US though. I'd guess that their cable co ties are too strong here to do it anytime soon.
HBO GO is very good, surprisingly so. The quality of that effort in combination with moves like this suggest some very smart, visionary folks are at work there.
Anecdotally, I'm seeing rapidly growing interest in cord-cutting among non-technical folks.
As tablets and 4G phones proliferate I see people in general becoming increasingly frustrated with cable and desirous of having content when and where they want it.
Also, it's not available with all cable carriers. If I subscribe to HBO with Time Warner Cable in Dallas, HBO Go is not available to me.
I have search and searched and I still just can't understand how there should be any difference between different methods of delivery. I am not sure who is to blame, but I suspect HBO charges TWC a different price for more delivery options for its customers.
Edit: Apparently this is no longer the case and now it works.
I take your point about TW Dallas, but feel like that's going to resolve itself soon as HBO GO generates more demand.
I don't want to stick up for cable companies (they are terribly annoying to deal with) but at the same time, if everything cost what HN readers thought it should cost, they'd have to have filmed The Sopranos entirely using finger puppets.
I think the market is going to sort this out within the next 5 years as more and more serious, big-budget productions are going to be shot and produced for Internet venues. In the meantime, I have a hard time arguing that existing media companies should be forced to forgo market rates for their investments. We're only going to get our glorious Internet media future if the market works.
I wasn't aware that I was in competition with a cable company. I guess I should read my own S-1 statement sometime...
I can't wait until I can switch over entirely...
While there are plenty of people who don't have a console, tablet or a streaming set-top, seemingly everyone has a smartphone. A smartphone which presents an easy, smooth and and generally painless way to consume content on-demand.
These devices are putting perspective to the horrible experience offered by the archaic Motorola set-tops and broadcast model that most cable consumers suffer through. Google is smart to dump that business [1].
1: http://allthingsd.com/20120829/google-reportedly-looking-to-...
Maybe he was just offering a little misdirection, but it didn't seem like it.
When you have, to steal some words from Pink Floyd, "500 channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from." Then the next channel of crap will always capture marginally more money, and will be profitable if costs are low enough. So what you get is in-your face lowest common denominator crap designed to draw the attention of bored channel surfers.
On the other hand, if shows need to generate buzz around the water cooler, such that people are proud to have discovered the show and announce to the world they're paying for it, the focus needs to be on quality.
Oh well, back to Pirate Bay.
Few things in this world are tastier.
We were probably the first to produce some crude kind of brandy ("winiak" in Polish).
It's actually funny that our most successfully exported vodka is Zubrowka. It's not considered that great here. I guess it's the novelty factor.
Is there a forest I'm missing from the trees?
They provide the product, I pay; they don't, I'm not paying; and the package never includes caring.
https://www.ipredator.se/ https://www.ipredator.se/page/faq#other_stream
The NBA and others have started online subscriptions for their content. For people in places like Australia where cable subscriptions with good sport cost $100 / month it's well worth it.
Setanta, an Irish concern, has a streaming service that allows you to pay $17 a month or $100 a year for live sport much of which is soccer. I watch the Bundesliga using this service and it is excellent.
It's a shame that you can't get Ligue 1, Serie A, La Liga and the EPL this way. Yet.
This I'm assuming you can probably subscribe when you need, watch all the shows, and then unsubscribe.
I think $12.50 is perfectly acceptable for the second largest and likely most desirable premium network out there.
I'd expect that most folks probably watch fewer than a dozen channels with any regularity. Nielsen says that the average household was receiving 130 channels yet only watching 18 of them in 2008 [1].
I think we eventually get to an a-la-carte system with app-like monthly price points where premium content falls comes in at $5, $10 or more and there are dozens of solid options in the $1-3 range with loads of free (ad-supported) content.
1: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/...
Assuming that associated territories are included in the offer to their parent country that still leaves Iceland out of "Nordic HBO", assuming the worst case (that only the territories explicitly listed are in) that leaves out Greenland, the Faroe and Åland as well.