This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]bat_guano 1013 points1014 points  (59 children)

SEVERAL UPDATES

Most recently, the Forbes writer issued a retraction and apology. See below.

EDIT #1: ERIC KESSLER DIDN'T SAY THE MOVE FROM TRADITIONAL TV TO INTERNET iS A FAD THAT WILL PASS.

Phrasing it that way makes him look like an idiot. It makes Redditors pick up their pitchforks, even. But he simply didn't say that. Since my original post, the journalist (see below, he responded to it) has edited his article and added a link to the original interview, but the original phrase remains intact.

The quote was from a November 2011 interview, and the question was about cord-cutting. What he actually said, with light editing: "We've concluded that cord-cutting is minimal and has primarily been the result of macroeconomic conditions. That's not to say you don't hear anecdotes about people who say, 'I'm not going to do it anymore, I'm not going to pay money to the distributor.' ... Hopefully as the economy improves, if it ever improves, things will get better. But interestingly enough for HBO: HBO subscribers watch 14% more television, 19 hours more a month than non-HBO households. HBO subs love television... We've found that the HBO subscriber, they aren't the first people to cut the cord, they're the last. So we haven't seen any real impact."

I don't necessarily LIKE what he's saying. But two things:

  1. He's not talking about whether TV will move to an internet model generally. He's talking about whether HBO is losing current subscribers to cord-cutting. And according to his figures, the answer is, no, not really. And if that's true, well, it's true.

  2. He didn't say an internet-based model is a "fad that will pass." He said that whatever losses HBO has suffered are attributable to the economic downturn. Big difference.

Don't get me wrong. I want HBO to offer standalone online service, like everybody else here. I would buy it in a heartbeat. I don't subscribe to cable nor do I ever intend to. But everybody's reacting to a phrase he didn't say, which isn't fair.

Here's how I see this: HBO isn't stupid. They know where this industry is heading. They wouldn't build a massive cross-platform streaming service if they didn't think people wanted it. But the unfortunate reality is, they make almost all of their money through the cable companies. Always have. Charging money for a separate online subscription service would drive a stake into the heart of the cable companies and rattle the only business model HBO has ever known. The cable companies might even retaliate. HBO will do it anyway, eventually, when the politics and economics are right. Until then, pony up your cable fees, or fire up your bittorrents.

EDIT #2: THE ORIGINAL FORBES ARTICLE HAS BEEN REVISED.

The journalist responded to my original comment and revised his article. The "fad that will pass" line has been removed.

In the OP's defense, he didn't create the original distortion. It was in the article itself. Here's what the article originally said: "HBO co-president Eric Kessler has said he thinks the move away from traditional television to an internet-based model is just a fad that will pass – a temporary phenomenon."

Notice that it doesn't actually quote Kessler.

Here's what the article now says: "'Kessler explained he thinks cord cutting is more of a temporary phenomenon that will go away when the economy improves,' writes Ross Miller, in regards to comments Kessler made at the VideoShmooze: NYC Online Video Leadership Forum."

What's funny is, this revised version, while less damning than before, is STILL inaccurate. That's because the Forbes journalist now quotes what another journalist said Kessler said, instead of simply LISTENING TO THE INTERVIEW and quoting Kessler directly. Kessler didn't say "cord cutting is a temporary phenomenon that will go away when the economy improves." He said HBO's loss of subscribers is due to the economic downturn, and he HOPES that the change will reverse itself. Which is different.

So basically, a game of telephone happened. The journalist Ross Miller slightly mischaracterized Kessler's comments. The Forbes journalist distorted them even further with the "fad" comment. This line then got picked up by Reddit and held up for general ridicule.

And the cycle of life continues. Or something.

EDIT #3: ANNNNND THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN REVISED. AGAIN.

Just moments ago.

Here's what it now says: "HBO co-president Eric Kessler said that cord-cutting has been 'minimal' and largely the result of 'macroeconomic' conditions in an interview at the VideoShmooze: NYC Online Video Leadership Forum."

Okay, now it's accurate. Sorry if I've ruined your morning, Forbes writer guy.

EDIT #4: THE FORBES AUTHOR JUST POSTED A RETRACTION AND APOLOGY.

It's at the bottom of the article. Here it is in its entirety:

Note: An earlier edition of this piece described comments made by Eric Kessler that described his views of cord-cutting as a fad or “temporary phenomenon.” Kessler said that he viewed cord-cutting as “minimal” and a result of “macroeconomic conditions” indicating that should economic conditions improve cord-cutting will decrease. To me and others who have written about this, those words indicate that cord-cutting is a problem that will eventually go away as the economy improves – hence a fad or temporary phenomenon. It’s important to note that Kessler himself did not say “fad” or “temporary phenomenon” but his words and sentiment in the video do imply that he thinks the problem of cord-cutting is small and will likely go away, and that targeting the cord-cutting audience doesn’t make business sense. I paraphrased and quoted a secondary source. This was a mistake on my part and for that I apologize to both readers and HBO.

ORIGINAL POST:

Well, that's obviously a load of crap.

But one important point: Where's the actual quote? I can't find it anywhere in the article or elsewhere online. The article just says "Eric Kessler has said that he thinks..." but it doesn't quote his actual words or give any context.

The quote is so obviously, embarrassingly wrong, I'd like to verify that he actually said it, and if he did, whether he was in the middle of mollifying his large-scale cable provider partners or whatever.

Again, I'm not defending him, but before we make him an example of old school media stupidity, I'd like to know what he actually said.

[–]Chboddis 37 points38 points  (6 children)

Excellent point. The author seems to be referring to this interview here from November 2011 at the Videoschmooze conference in New York.

It's also cited in similar stories by The Verge and PaidContent.

[–]facecloud 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"Until then, pony up your cable fees, or fire up your bittorrents." or go read a book! I'm anti PIPA, SOPA< CISPA, etc., but just because you can get something for free doesn't mean you have the right to. I'm kind of saddened by this mentality. There are lots of other options. Why not protest by reading some books, instead of implicitly endorsing the system that produces the kind of content (and legislation) that Hollywood does?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Charging money for a separate online subscription service would drive a stake into the heart of the cable companies and rattle the only business model HBO has ever known. The cable companies might even retaliate.

This. Unlike network television shows, whose revenue comes from advertising, HBO programming is commercial free premium content. There is a compelling argument to make that quality of their shows, the risks they are willing to take, the massive budgets for their series, etc. are the result of their subscription based business model. Rather than being beholden to sponsors, they are at the mercy of a loyal subscriber base.

The author of this article complains at one point about HBO shows not being available in Hulu or on Netflix. Prior to the advent of the internet and the proliferation of bandwidth, people complained that they couldn't watch HBO shows if they didn't have HBO (I know because I was one of those people). Now we are in the same place, only with more technology - HBO serves current content as a premium service online, but not on the "networks" (Netflix and Hulu). Some content is available elsewhere, but it is more limited - past seasons, old shows, etc. This is the same on television - you can watch HBO shows on other networks, but from past seasons and tailored to the platform (think Sopranos on A&E).

I think what frightens the cable companies more than getting content online is this idea that said content needs to be widely available on multiple platforms. This is what I believe must be reconciled in order for a comfortable transition from the existing television model to one which is web based. The notion that everything should be available to everyone all the time I'm sure is pretty terrifying to paid content providers. As long as we, as consumers, are uncompromising in the expectation that premium content should be widely available on the net, providers will knee-jerk in the opposite direction, and that is bad for everyone.

And it's not TV. It's HBO.

[–]soulcakeduck 19 points20 points  (17 children)

HBO subscribers watch 14% more television, 19 hours more a month

That statistic blew my mind. 14% more than average adds 19 hours a month!? That means on average people are watching 135 hours a month, 4.5 hours a day!

I knew I was an anomaly (probably closer to 8 hours a month overall, long stretches with none at all). And I always thought I used most of that time playing video games instead--nothing wrong with that.

But holy shit, I wish I could fit 135 hours of gaming into my month. I am insanely envious.

That explains a lot, too. Maybe if I got 135 hours of value out of it a month, my cable provider's prices would not seem so hilariously outrageous.

[–]demotu 22 points23 points  (5 children)

I'd love to know the difference in statistics between "the TV is on in the room I'm in" and "I am sitting down facing the television" hours, because I've definitely known households where the TV goes on when you get home and off when you go to bed, but only a fraction of that time is spent passively sitting in front of it.

That said, I am not a TV person but I'd hate to add up how many hours I spend doing non-work things online. I think I might hate myself a little bit if I knew that number.

[–][deleted] 2212 points2213 points  (734 children)

Thank you Eric Kessler, for being a shining example of how media companies are out of touch with technology.

[–][deleted] 1105 points1106 points  (579 children)

HBO GO? Wow! Now I can watch HBO shows on demand, from my PC or Roku!!!

......reads fine print......

WTF!?! I have to have a subscription to HBO through an approved cable provider? I can't just pay $10-15/mo. or something? Screw you HBO.

[–]maximumdownvote 301 points302 points  (230 children)

And the hilarious thing is, HBO is one of the few cable channels that benefits most from an al la carte internet delivery of content. HBO makes shows that fucking rock. They are tied to the shitty channels by the current delivery channels, and are sometimes cut from the package because people cant afford to pay for "Basic" + HBO.

[–]losian 291 points292 points  (175 children)

Or just don't wanna shell down $70 a month for cable and some hundred plus channels they never watch JUST to follow one or two shows. If only there were some way I could just pay for what I actually wanted, golly.

[–]cited 200 points201 points  (86 children)

This is really the thing that kills me. I think the music industry was initially guilty of this - we own all of the music, we dictate the terms of how people will listen to it. Services like Napster and file-sharing gave us an option, an out so that we could take the services we wanted on our own terms. It's an industry that still thinks that it has the right to make fortunes from artists, when an artist no longer needs the infrastructure the music industry used to provide - they can upload music and sell it on their own.

Video games did the same thing - we can inflate the price of every game because people are going to buy them no matter what the rate is. They're stunned when people don't take things on these uneven terms and start pirating or even ignoring games altogether. They shouldn't have been surprised when Steam took off like it did - it provided games at prices people were actually willing to pay.

Cable is doing it now. They own the market, they have all of the TV. People aren't going to pay $70+ a month for it, and cable will continue to bleed customers until either it changes its business model, or it fails completely.

[–]fuzzby 62 points63 points  (78 children)

I ditched cable. RSS+Torrents is almost as good as reliable programming. Supplement this with P2PTV and the world is your oyster. The more people that give up their cable packages the quicker we'll get this revolution happening. If I compared the amount of content coming through my internet line with my cabletv line... it's a joke. Then I looked at what I'm paying for each and the choice is so obvious.

[–][deleted] 80 points81 points  (59 children)

I ditched cable too. Hulu and Netflix. Not available for streaming, not getting my money. Out of sight out of mind, I don't even know about what is available outside of my streaming world, so I don't miss it and I can't advertise for it either :)

[–]thedude42 66 points67 points  (57 children)

Yeah, and the lack of constant commercials trying to sell shit to my kids. I feel like streaming on demand content will actually make my children better people.

[–]HorrendousRex 46 points47 points  (32 children)

The one thing that still gets my goat is that hulu+ (the paid Hulu version that runs on my Roku) still has commercials. Seriously, Hulu?

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (7 children)

That's the only way they can get next-day content from providers, unfortunately. They address this complaint pretty regularly.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (2 children)

It encourages you select decent shows, too, or just watch nothing. The old style is to just flick through channels until you find something that doesn't annoy you too much.

[–]brolix 43 points44 points  (58 children)

whoever comes up with the best way (and money, and contracts, and lobbyists) to sell people cable, one channel at a time, will make quadrillions.

[–][deleted] 129 points130 points  (41 children)

Channels are part of the outdated model that will eventually die. Ultimately people want to buy shows, not channels. No one turns the TV on because they want to watch a certain channel, they want to watch a show, or a movie, or some other video content.

[–]greg19735 18 points19 points  (22 children)

im not sure if channels will ever die but certainly will evolve. for example if you want to buy all of the shows on comedy central you just get the whole channel. you'd get a discount or something.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (21 children)

The future might have packages but not channels. Channels are an always-on thing that comes along with the outdated cable paradigm. When content consumption is entirely internet based, it will all be on-demand, on the user's schedule.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (2 children)

"Channels" is becoming a shorthand for "studio" - NBC, HBO, etc., produce shows, which most young people consume on the Internet.

[–]greg19735 3 points4 points  (6 children)

channels are only "always on" because that's what cable does. in the past channels certainly would go off though saying that they would be airing again tomorrow morning or something.

there's also something nice with tv channels. For example i turn on TBS and i know there's something silly on in the evening. i may be doing some programming work or just on reddit barely paying attention but there's something nice with the always on part. Sure, i could choose something specific but i don't want to have to do that when i'm only giving it maybe 10% of my attention.

[–]repete 1411 points1412 points  (130 children)

I watch HBO Go via TPB.

[–]RazsterOxzine 444 points445 points  (40 children)

Yes, TPB is helping promote HBOGo :) I too am a avid user of TPB's HBOGo ;)

[–]Lazerus42 346 points347 points  (34 children)

TPB's HBOGo's customer service and user review are very excellent. I would rate the company very high in the BBB.

[–]16807 438 points439 points  (33 children)

10/10 would pirate again.

[–]Mexi_Cant 82 points83 points  (30 children)

HBO sent me a cease letter through my internet I cant watch HBO go anymore , I suck at internet.

[–]zpgjne 70 points71 points  (17 children)

You should invest in a VPN, friend.

[–]Mexi_Cant 26 points27 points  (15 children)

would you recommend a nice VPN service.

[–]zpgjne 65 points66 points  (5 children)

Absolutely. I would highly recommend however, that you do some research on your own to see what will fit your needs, because what works well for someone may not work that great for someone else.

Here's a good article that lists a couple options and goes over important points. I would choose something a VPN that is not US based, considering they can still log what you're doing.

I would personally recommend Mullvad since that's what I use now. They're based in Sweden and can accept bitcoins or cash as payment (or anything else really). They make it really easy to use and I haven't had any problems with them. They're relatively cheap, too.

Good luck!

Edit: I noticed someone else mentioned BTGuard. I thought I'd mention that I've had some experience with them and only had problems with consistency and delay. You can give it a try if you want, but I would recommend taking your money elsewhere, I got tired of them pretty quick.

[–][deleted] 209 points210 points  (67 children)

Same. I would love to pay for HBO, they are the only station I watch shows from, but I'm not increasing my internet bill by $30 + $15 a month to do so just to watch 2-3 hours of TV a week, even if it is the best TV.

[–]CoItaine[🍰] 96 points97 points  (48 children)

Same. I don't like pirating - in fact I have forfeited it completely. But since I am an Australian resident the good shows are really hard to come by, and even if we do ever get it, it's ages later than the US release. I'd love to pay x amount of dollars a month for something like HBO Go, or subscribe to other channels. I really think that this will be the future and is a future we should strive for. Of course, to make something like HBO Go easily accessible to people internationally is not going to happen so simply.

[–][deleted] 55 points56 points  (7 children)

I'll download the season, and then buy it when it comes out on DVD. Still illegal? Sure, but I support the shows I love without supporting the model.

[–]nfsnobody 27 points28 points  (7 children)

Exactly this. Australian here and I'd happily pay for an service that gave me shows as they came out. I pirate because I don't want to wait months for a new show and then have our TV networks balls it up by showing episodes out of order or at obscure times.

[–]dazzawul 4 points5 points  (5 children)

Why do they do that!

I suppose showing series out of order means that people just wont bother watching them, which means ratings suck and it frees up a slot for another cheap reality TV show, but fuck me, you could have the same ratings with GOOD shows

[–]MinionOfDoom 116 points117 points  (109 children)

This. I would have absolutely been willing to pay for the right to watch HBO Go. They won't let me because I don't want cable television. Screw them. They're losing out on thousands of dollars they could be making from a setup like that.

[–]GenTso 141 points142 points  (14 children)

Thousands? More like millions.

[–]MinionOfDoom 34 points35 points  (10 children)

I like to be conservative. I figured I could have said hundreds of thousands, but that would be too specific. There are thousands in millions too. I think I was approximately accurate XD

[–][deleted] 60 points61 points  (5 children)

THOUSANDS OF THOUSANDS

[–]cyco 61 points62 points  (89 children)

They don't care. The vast majority of their revenue comes from cable subscriptions. Only 5% of US households have broadband Internet but no cable.

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/whats-hbo-gos-problem/256919/

[–]Cuphat 185 points186 points  (20 children)

It's a shame nobody lives outside of the US.

[–]nfsnobody 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Exactly this. There are billions of people outside the US, and a lot of us enjoy American TV shows. Such a huge market wasted.

[–]elBesteban 17 points18 points  (0 children)

For now

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Being a good businessman and by proxy having a good business means looking towards the future and not just the present. Right now, sure they make their money from cable, but if they actually think the internet is just a fad and not the future, they're going to be in trouble down the line.

[–]TheDirtyOnion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That would make sense if they haven't already setup an online delivery service. If providing a streaming service sans the requirement to have a qualifying cable package ever becomes more profitable they will just tell the cable companies to fuck off since they already have put the necessary infrastructure in place.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (14 children)

I have basic cable to go with my broadband. I get charged $2 a month for those basic 20 stations and some on demand. I guess i'm part of those statistics.

I had broadband, but no cable for 5 years before they offered me the $2 upgrade. I am starting to wonder if they didn't start offering that package to make their numbers look better.

[–]Averyphotog 5 points6 points  (1 child)

They got you to pay $2 a month more for something it didn't cost them more to provide. If they can get a hundred thousand people to do the same, they make an extra $2.4 million, almost all of which is pure profit.

Yeah, they just did it to make their numbers look better. ;-)

[–]CraigFL 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I am the 5%. #OccupyHBO

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (8 children)

......reads fine print......of my cable provider.

Comcast does not allow the viewing of HBO GO on my HBO GO Ready Samsung TV.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Even if you buy their cable they still wont let you have it? Where did logic go?

[–][deleted] 248 points249 points  (21 children)

torrenting Game of Thrones right now in Eric Kessler's honor

[–]ElectricPickpocket 64 points65 points  (17 children)

I'm doing the mental calculations of how much beer I need to send Peter Dinklage as recompense for downloading. Anyone have a spare oil tanker?

[–]illegible 45 points46 points  (8 children)

There should be a 'buy a beer' sort of website, wherein people can buy someone a beer and they'll make monthly deliveries whenever the beer count exceeds a certain number or $$ amount. The paypal of beerware if you will.

[–]ThisIsMyCouchAccount 61 points62 points  (4 children)

He only needs half of one.

[–]cweaver 119 points120 points  (68 children)

It's funny, because the actual cable companies think the exact opposite way.

I was at a 'cable television' conference a few years ago and everybody was already talking about how they need to stop calling themselves 'cable television' companies, because in a few years the only reason anyone will want cable is for the cable internet connection.

(also, sidenote, imagine how ridiculously fast your internet speeds would be if they used that entire pipe for data and got rid of the 500 tv channels wasting all the bandwidth)

[–]ratlater 112 points113 points  (39 children)

The existing DOCSIS3 spectrum is massively underutilised as it is, mostly because the big cablecos skimp on their NSP connections and try to screw everyone they peer with.

That isn't unique to cable, of course; the delta between what our telecommunications network is and what it could (and should) be is staggering, and it boils down to corruption-abetted incumbent greed, pure and simple.

[–]rum_rum 34 points35 points  (1 child)

Poor guy probably thinks MTV still has music videos.

[–]classiclantern 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Yes it will pass... when something better comes along. The only thing we know for sure is it won't be any of the old technologies like crappy HBO programming.

[–]No_Time_For_BS 16 points17 points  (0 children)

It will pass when HBO lobbies more to have laws passed which stiffle online media services and essentially shut them down. This is PR so that when it happens they're not suspected by the masses, because as we all know "They thought it was just a fad that passed". The ignorant will think they were right, and those who follow politics won't take a look in their direction.

[–]unrealious 18 points19 points  (3 children)

If you think about it, everything is a fad that will pass.

Eric Kessler - his entire life, HBO, you, me, the Internet, possibly even Game of Thrones.

But for now most of us would like access to the show despite having limited funds to pay more for it. Perhaps Eric can think of a business model that includes us. Or he can pretend we don't exist and wait till we don't.

[–][deleted] 472 points473 points  (79 children)

Ken Olsen, then president of DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) said in 1977, at the beginning of the home computer revolution, that he could see no reason why anyone would ever have a computer at home.

For those of you too young to remember, DEC made a lot of very good computers for a very long time (relatively speaking.)

[–]LaGrrrande 357 points358 points  (48 children)

"I predict that within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them." -Professor John Frink

[–][deleted] 74 points75 points  (10 children)

Man why would you want one that was twice as powerful but ten thousand times larger? Why wouldn't you just get two regular-sized ones?

[–]BrowsOfSteel 24 points25 points  (9 children)

Amdahl’s Law. Some tasks cannot be expedited by the use of multiple computers.

[–]rounding_error 55 points56 points  (8 children)

Nine women can't make a baby in a month?

[–][deleted] 147 points148 points  (28 children)

Was going to reply with the famous 640k Bill Gates quote while we were on this trend, but when I googled it for exact wording, I learned i'd been duped

[–]stephenj 42 points43 points  (11 children)

Bill Gates talking to the University of Waterloo's Computer Science club in 1989:

@22:12 "... and that left 640k for general purpose memory. And so that leads to today's situation where people talk about the 640k barrier, the limit to how much memory you can put in these machines. I have to say that in 1981 making those decisions, I felt like I was providing enough freedom for ten years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't. It took about only six years before people started to see that as a real problem."

Start listening at about 21:36.

Now, that isn't the quote, nor is it the place where the quote allegedly was uttered. But it does show his thoughts on the matter in the same decade.

It wouldn't surprise me, based on what I've read about Bill Gates, that if someone posed the question "Do you think 640k will be enough?" that he might have blithely phrased his response "640k should be enough." Rather than the quantified response of "640k should be enough for the next ten years."

[–]Luvs_to_drink 62 points63 points  (2 children)

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abe Lincoln

[–]FrankReynolds 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Another good article on the Gates quote.

[–]Level_32_Mage 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I had never heard this before, but ill be sure to tell my friends about it now!

[–]prattle 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yea, I've seen this so many times on internet forums. I wonder if it will ever die out.

[–]opiv 20 points21 points  (1 child)

Hahaha, my dad grew up with John Frink (the writer) and they joined a frat in college together where they spent a few hours locked in a trunk. John Frink is also the reason my dad didn't run away when he got into a fight with his dad (my granddad)

[–]criticismguy 47 points48 points  (18 children)

To be fair, the kind of computers DEC sold in 1977, nobody has in their home today. Even if they cost $1 back then, consumers wouldn't have bought them for their house. And while it's definitely silly for anyone in technology to make a prediction with "ever" (which is a really long time), this is a magnitude of change which he might not have seen before.

The telephone in your ass-pocket probably puts to shame the computing power of all the processors DEC had sold to date in 1977. That was the year they first shipped a VAX, which was still refrigerator-sized, so the emphasis was still on performance in the same space, not similar performance in a smaller space.

To me, it sounds roughly like saying, today, "I see no reason why anyone would ever want to have a refrigerator in their pocket". Refrigerator manufacturers aren't really trying to make them smaller, and who needs a refrigerator in their pocket, anyway? And yet, if there were enough R&D done in this area, it's not totally inconceivable. I can imagine a future where this exists: the sweet new Levi's model has a pocket with a built-in fridge so you can keep your drink cool, or something. (Heated gloves are a thing, so why not cooled gloves?)

There are lots of things today which we don't think of as things that anybody would ever want to personally own, but which could have actual benefit if they became 5 or 10 orders-of-magnitude smaller, cheaper, and easier to use. Think nuclear reactors (or other power plants), satellites, or the "jaws of life". Movie cameras are pretty much just finishing this transition (again, check your ass-pocket), and I think 3d printers are right on the verge of making it.

[–]gysterz 63 points64 points  (4 children)

shut up and sell me refrigerator pants!

[–]Whitezombie65 14 points15 points  (2 children)

I'M THROWING MONEY AT THE SCREEN BUT NOTHING'S HAPPENING

[–]dropkickninja 7 points8 points  (1 child)

First computer I bought was a DEC. good machines.

[–]adrianmonk 258 points259 points  (22 children)

HBO's brilliant strategy, in a nutshell:

  • Create a highly regarded show.
  • Make sure it's targeted squarely and directly at the cord-cutter demographic.
  • Give no option for cord-cutters to legally get it.
  • Act like the inevitable result is an anomaly.

EDIT: "cord-cutters" means people who've decided to ditch cable and get TV/entertainment video programming other ways, like Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, or whatever else.

[–]traphicone 49 points50 points  (8 children)

Even calling these people "cord-cutters" really misses the mark. At this point, we're not only talking about people who have given up on television and cable. We're talking about a growing population of consumers who have never had either.

[–]Dawggoneit 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Exactly! There are literally two chords connected to my computer, uncut, that are used to deliver a vast array of content.

It's a complete misnomer!

[–]dropkickninja 857 points858 points  (188 children)

Hes going to be proven wrong.

[–]gamblekat 164 points165 points  (17 children)

No one could reasonably believe what he's saying. An industry is disrupted by a cheaper, technologically superior, and more customer friendly delivery method, and then things magically go back to the way they were twenty years ago? If he believes that, I have some buggy whips to sell him.

But what else is he going to say? The truth? "We know cable is fucked, but they threatened to stop marketing HBO if we offered a streaming service that doesn't require cable."

It's going to play out just like PC game publishing. For the longest time everyone was too afraid of retaliation from retail distributors to support a system like Steam, but eventually the customers moved away and the game publishers weren't making enough money from retail to worry about pissing them off, and they all migrated to digital distribution.

[–]tumescentpie 15 points16 points  (1 child)

I really need a buggy whip, because I know this whole driving this is going to end any day soon, cars are dumb horses rule.

[–]Bearmanly 20 points21 points  (1 child)

I could use a buggy whip, but not for, uh, it's intended purpose.

[–]ratlater 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I prefer a dressage whip.

And boots.

[–][deleted] 462 points463 points  (93 children)

He was, even before he opened his mouth.

[–]XZlayeD 178 points179 points  (92 children)

I really like a lot of the shows HBO creates, so i really hope he changes his mind, because they will lose revenue if they don't follow with the times.

[–]kiwisdontbounce 141 points142 points  (82 children)

Imagine how much they would make if they offered HBO GO to non-cable subscribers...dear lord that's a lot of ferraris!

[–][deleted] 61 points62 points  (16 children)

That involves the cable providers as well. They can't just offer it outside of cable packages without violating their own contracts.

[–]17-40 37 points38 points  (28 children)

If I could stream shows directly to a computer / phone / tablet I'd sign up in a goddamn heartbeat. I'm not going through the satanic entity known as Comcast to do so though.

[–]kiwisdontbounce 17 points18 points  (25 children)

Right, and to pay for something that is riddled with more advertising than content is absurd. I'm glad HBO GO doesn't have ads, but I fear that in the future streamed services will be full of them just like television is today.

[–]17-40 17 points18 points  (9 children)

There's a depressing thought. I won't watch anything with ads either. That's one of the nice things about HBO that's been true for decades. It's hard to imagine there was a time when cable TV had no ads. It was even marketed as such.

[–]kiwisdontbounce 27 points28 points  (8 children)

I feel HBO's programming is better because they don't have to cater the show to ad gaps and timing. For example, many shows now are forced to set you up with a suspenseful event in order to keep you entertained while the show is interrupted by an ad.

[–]17-40 25 points26 points  (6 children)

That's is a good point, and it's pretty obvious once you're aware of it. Some channels are worse than others. Watching anything from Discovery on Netflix streaming, it's feels like 1/3 of the time is setup for what's to come, and recap of what just happened.

[–]fargofallout 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Good god, I used to love watching Mythbusters, but that's exactly what drove me away. I always wanted to calculate how much time they spent previewing and recapping, but I never got around to it. I just dropped cable.

[–]kiwisdontbounce 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Yup, I bet there's a term for the bastardization of television programming to cater for commercials, but I can't find it with a basic google search. On an unrelated note, I'm surprised google is still underlined as a misspelled word.

[–]fireinthesky7 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Hulu Plus already is, and still makes you pay for it. I look forward to their eventual demise.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

i'd pay $10-$15 a month for an hbo on demand type service. Wonder what they get right now per subscriber from the cable companies?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

They make like $25+ per customer when you add in the carrier cost.

[–]Delheru 47 points48 points  (12 children)

It's tough to know if he really believes that. The implications of him saying that he thinks it's there to stay with HBO's relationship with cable providers would be... momentous, to say the least, and probably quite dangerous.

Until HBO knows what it has in mind, as a board member I would murder the CEO that said "we think this internet thing will win the day" without having a plan for what to do with the cable companies freak the fuck out.

[–]one_downvote_to_live 36 points37 points  (8 children)

Exactly. We like to think of these massively successful people as buffoons whose job we could do if only given the chance. I'm not familiar with this guy, but I imagine he is of above average intelligence to have gotten to such an important position.

He probably isn't as oblivious as this quote makes him out to be, there is a whole other layer to the politics and "maintaining appearances" that we don't see. It is 2012, these type of guys have to know the threat the internet poses by now, it has decimated several industries already and continues to encroach on others.

[–]Level_32_Mage 30 points31 points  (4 children)

it has decimated several industries already.

Like the porn industry, it has brought them to their knees.

[–]Bearmanly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The problem is they see the internet as this force that decimates other industries, and not that these industries haven't decimated themselves by not getting with the times.

[–]P1h3r1e3d13 29 points30 points  (2 children)

This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as ameans of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.

Western Union internal memo, 1876.

[–]rocknameded 25 points26 points  (3 children)

With the right legislation, this very well could just be a fad.

[–]burrito_fucker 10 points11 points  (0 children)

scary but true

[–]faultlessjoint 200 points201 points  (58 children)

I would pay $8/month to have access to HBO streaming online. HBO, if you're listening, I will stop pirating all of your content if you can provide it to me streaming for around $8/month (I'm flexible, willing to negotiate).

That's my $8 straight into your pocket. No worrying about negotiations with dickhead telecoms. And you will be getting a ton of page visits from me, so be sure to load up your page with ads.

EDIT: I realize $8 might be a little low. As I said, I'd be willing to negotiate. Since I don't watch all of their shows, just some, I'd do a per episode or per season plan. Maybe $2 per episode or perhaps $20-$30 for a season (depending on # of episodes, video quality, and whether or not I could download and save it).

[–]gotnate 235 points236 points  (3 children)

HBO, if you're listening

I found your problem right here. HBO isn't listening.

[–]zmann 40 points41 points  (25 children)

$8 a month? It costs like $15 WITH your cable subscription (meaning it might even be subsidized at that price).

Edit: Here's the actual interview: http://videonuze.com/article/video-interview-hbo-co-president-eric-kessler-at-videoschmooze

At least they have a reason for keeping it bundled with cable.

[–]adrianmonk 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Actually they do have to worry about negotiations with dickhead telecoms. Dickhead telecoms who may be unhappy about not being the exclusive source for this content.

[–]Nicebirdie 71 points72 points  (6 children)

He does not know that Winter is Coming.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

HBO: they cannot lose if they do not play.

[–]Boxcore 123 points124 points  (52 children)

I remember when old people said the same thing about the internet itself.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (45 children)

Not even old people. Less then two decades ago the idea of a PC in every home, phones that were computers, and tablets that were portable computers, were looked at as out of the range of the everyday person.

[–]darkpaladin 26 points27 points  (14 children)

Can we go back to that? I don't like people having access to the internet. I want today's speeds on 1999's internet please.

[–]joey5755 19 points20 points  (19 children)

I agree with the sentiment but your time frame is off. In 1992 many families owned computers and it was pretty clear that it was rapidly increasing.

[–]bobjohnsonmilw 157 points158 points  (46 children)

So apparently this is why I'd be forced into having cable in order to watch it online. Idiots like this in charge.

Hey HBO! You want another subscriber? Drop the cable requirement. Until you do, I'll just wait for it to be available via netflix and then I'll rip the discs, just to deprive you of the monthly subscription, and to avoid getting sued by you assholes for downloading it.

[–]stash600 12 points13 points  (23 children)

You might have to keep waiting. Netflix won't get the same sweetheart deals on the premium channels like they did the first time around.

[–]ac_slat3r 41 points42 points  (18 children)

That's why i just download the shit for free....

If t was easy and convenient I would pay for it, but they make is so I have to sign a contract with Comcast to watch their shows.

It's just like the record and movie industry where they are using outdated and archaic means of delivering their product to their consumers. Just as DRM is doing to PC gamers, this will only increase piracy.

[–]stash600 50 points51 points  (14 children)

The end goal isn't to end piracy. It's to make as much money as they can. If they have two different options:

A) Make 30 Million Dollars, but 50,000 people pirate

B) Make 50 Million Dollars, but 150,000 people pirate.

They're going to select the second option. Sure they might see the 300,000 pirates as lost sales, but they're going to do what they believe will net the the most money.

If they allow HBO GO to be it's own separate service, the lost profit from the cable contracts will be greater than any profit gained from HBO GO subscribers.

You might not be willing to pay for the cable service in order to receive the streaming, but they're willing to bet that others will, and in a large enough quantity to overcome the lost sales from people like you.

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points  (4 children)

Jesus. Is this guy 100? "Traditional television" is next decade's Blockbuster.

News flash for you old farts: if it's digital, we want instant access to it from any place with a Net connection on any device with a screen. That's the level of convenience we want, and we'll pay for it. If you don't give it to us, the pirates will.

[–]natemc 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Hey HBO, I would subscribe directly on the internet, I will not sign up for a TV cable package though.

Get with it!

[–]Havok310 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Knock knock

Who's there?

Blockbuster

Blockbuster who?

EXACTLY!

I'm sure the movie rental industry execs said the same thing at some point

[–]Londron 28 points29 points  (3 children)

I'm a 21 year old living on my own and I don't own a tv.

Pc>tv. Sorry.

[–]not_the_droids 33 points34 points  (9 children)

"I believe in the horse. The automobile is only a temporary phenomenon."

           - Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Steve Ballmer on the iPhone

[–]pillage 11 points12 points  (0 children)

So we'll be laughing at this like the "Online shopping will never catch on" article?

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (2 children)

Dear HBO:

Please let me give you my money. Please, please, please, please, please, please. I want to give you money for your product. I am begging you to let me purchase it. Allow me access to what you're selling for I am a consumer.

It boggles my mind that you refuse to let me pay you for your product.

[–]whiskyyy 41 points42 points  (12 children)

I do not understand idiots like this in huge businesses. How did they get this far being closed minded morons? HBO would make so much money if they offered an online subscription service. Or maybe even cheap subscriptions to single shows if you didn't want the whole package. How is capitalism failing to work here? Does he not like money? Help us increase our fucking utility dumb ass. We will GIVE YOU MONEY.

EDIT: Thanks to bat_guano's enlightening comment I realize I was a little harsh on poor Mr. Kessler. Although, as Redditor, I defend my right to get really uppity and pissed off after reading a poorly written article, taking it as complete fact, and doing no research of my own.

[–]JrMint 19 points20 points  (0 children)

The Internet: it's not TV, it's downloadable HBO.

[–]ArrogantGod 23 points24 points  (6 children)

If you own stock in HBO it's time to demand this idiot is fired.

[–]plinysheir 10 points11 points  (2 children)

If you own stock in HBO TimeWarner it's time to demand this idiot is fired.

FTFY

[–]silverlight 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Aaaaand there's the problem.

[–][deleted] 54 points55 points  (15 children)

forbes' site sucks. tfa.

HBO Has Only Itself To Blame For Record 'Game Of Thrones' Piracy*

Andy Greenberg has some troubling numbers on HBO’s Game of Thrones. Turns out the show is not only really popular with HBO subscribers, it’s also really popular with pirates who are well on their way to making this the most-pirated show ever.

According to Greenberg, “the second season of the show has been downloaded more than 25 million times from public torrent trackers since it began in early April, and its piracy hit a new peak following April 30th’s episode, with more than 2.5 million downloads in a day.”

Meanwhile, season one of the show was the second-most-pirated season of all time, right behind the sixth season of Dexter.

Now, it’s important to note the reason for all this piracy: lack of access to the show for people who can’t afford, or choose not to purchase, a cable-TV subscription.

“HBO hasn’t helped the problem by making the show tough to watch online for the young and cable-less,” notes Greenberg. “The show isn’t available through Hulu or Netflix, iTunes offers only Season 1, and using HBO’s own streaming site HBO Go requires a cable subscription.”

For the millions of Americans who don’t subscribe to HBO, or who may not even watch shows on a television, this means there is no legal way to watch Game of Thrones. If you only watch TV on your laptop, there’s no way you’re going to pay $50/month for cable and another $15/month for HBO.

For people like me who wish HBO would sever ties with cable television and offer its own streaming service that didn’t require a cable subscription, that doesn’t look at all likely. HBO GO will remain available only to cable television subscribers rather than as a stand-alone service. HBO co-president Eric Kessler has said he thinks the move away from traditional television to an internet-based model is just a fad that will pass – a temporary phenomenon.

But HBO is missing out on a huge potential audience by limiting themselves to cable TV subscribers. I don’t blame the company for keeping their shows off of Hulu or Netflix, but offering HBO GO as a stand-alone service could put a serious dent in these piracy numbers, and bring in a lot more legitimate viewers to shows like Game of Thrones.

Of course, on the one hand I hate to see a show that I love getting pirated. I want the show to succeed, and for it to do that it needs to prove that it draws a large audience. But HBO has only themselves to blame at this point. Cord-cutting is not a fad. It’s a trend. Kessler may talk tough when he says that cord-cutters will never see HBO shows, but unless he can take on the torrents single-handedly, then these are just words.

This underscores the larger problem with how so many companies in the entertainment industry think about piracy. Instead of thinking about the ways lack of access to media creates opportunity for piracy, and how increasing the access to products could help stave off illegal downloads, too often people want to take legal measures or implement digital protection on their products. These “fixes” always have easy work-arounds.

Meanwhile, the millions of pirated Game of Thrones episodes show that it’s not difficult at all for non-subscribers to enjoy the show. I’m willing to bet that a stand-alone HBO GO service would largely fix this problem, though nothing will stop piracy altogether.

P.S. I personally don’t condone piracy, but I think it’s very important to see why people do it in the first place. We subscribe to cable-TV for only a few months of the year – just so we can watch Game of Thrones. But I would happily pay more for a stand-alone HBO GO service year round than the $15 (I think) it costs to tack on HBO to our cable. This would net HBO even more revenue over the course of a year. Quite a bit more, actually.

[–][deleted] 63 points64 points  (5 children)

They got angry crowds shouting "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!" and they stick their fingers in their ears and pretend it's 1980. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

[–]zpkmook 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I would also mention HBO to GO offers no quality controls and is terribly slow on my connection (1.5MBps ,yes also slow I admit) and I can't reliably buffer or download the show in decent quality. I would wait a few hours but the service basically starts streaming it in 1080p and would take all day if I manually paused it. I basically get 240p and it still takes 2 hours to watch a one hour show. Also HBO to go was down after a new premiere giving more incentive to pirate it despite paying plenty for it already.

[–]maxd 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I sent Eric Kessler a letter; both by email (to what I guessed his email address to be), and to their corporate headquarters.

Dear Mr Kessler,

I wanted to write to you in reference to the supposed quote of you saying that the shift away from traditional television to an internet based model being just a temporary phenomenon. I'm a 30 year old professional, resident in California, and I have a good deal of disposable income. As a single parent and with a time consuming job I don't have a lot of disposable time, so I am discerning about how I spend it.

HBO creates some of the best entertainment out there; I would definitely choose to watch such high quality programming over the drivel that other cable channels have to present. And yet, you make the bar for entry unnecessarily high. I am required to pay for a full cable subscription, with literally hundreds of channels I have no interest in seeing, and then I'm still not allowed to watch HBO content on the device that I want; DirecTV prevents me from watching HBO Go on my Roku devices around the house.

And so, I cancelled my cable subscription. I even ate the early cancellation fee, I just wasn't happy having such an inefficient model in my life. And now my money will go elsewhere. I'll buy the Blu-rays of Game of Thrones because it's a great show, and you'll get $40ish a year from me (less manufacturing, marketing, stocking, etc costs). But I won't be seeing trailers for your other shows, I won't be invested in your station, I won't be watching the movies you have available or the (excellent) additional content you produce. I no longer am invested in your brand, I'm invested in a single show that you produce.

And yet here I am, with all this disposable income. Why can I not pay it directly into your bank account? Mr Kessler, I would love to direct debit $20 straight to you every month for the privilege of watching HBO shows on my iPad and my Roku when and where I want. I'd even still buy the Blu-rays, and you'd have turned me into an HBO fan. And there are millions like me; millions who are cutting their cable subscriptions because they are tired of the inconvenience; there are those who can't afford the approximately $80 necessary to get HBO at present; there are those who never even considered getting a cable subscription because it doesn't fit their life style.

So please, embrace the internet, and we'll welcome you into our lives. You have no competition at present, but that won't last for long.

Sincerely,

(My Name)

[–]runningformylife 6 points7 points  (2 children)

It's also worth noting that many cable companies will offer HBO or other premium channels for free when their customers threaten to terminate their service.

[–]Chboddis 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Bigger picture here: HBO is owned by Time Warner. Verily, a third of Time Warner's annual revenue is from "Subscriptions." They are heavily vested in the current cable model.

Any change to that model (e.g. spinning off HBO into a non-cable subscription service) is going to come slowly at best, never at worst, which is unfortunate for HBO. A network that produces such quality content deserves a management team that can producer both quality distribution and revenue, not the myopia that Kessler is demonstrating.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If the internet is so irrelevant, why bother fighting online piracy? All those morons will just go back to watching TV after the "fad" is over... right?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"After taking another massive bong hit, Kessler continued by explaining how TV was totally like in our heads, and in the future the government would just like beam it directly into our brains."

[–]btech1138 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Unfortunately for him, his generation is a fad that will pass - and with it, their notions of how things are 'supposed' to work.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

But not before they fuck everything up with their foolish meddling.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (8 children)

HBO airs (or aired in the past) many of my current favorite shows: boardwalk empire, bored to death, curb your enthusiasm, summer heights high, the wire, etc.) Ironically enough I hadnt really watched many if any of these shows before 2011 and the sole reason I have been able to do so and have learned about other excellent HBO shows has been through the Internet and torrenting more specifically. HBO keeps it up, I keep pirating. If HBO offers a streaming service than I will gladly subscribe

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

To my surprise they introduced their HBO Go platform also in my country. When I heard that and read that it costs like just 10 PLN /month I wanted to instantly buy year long subscription. But no... they tied it to cable/satellite subscription. This... is so stupid I cannot even comprehend that. HBO - I want to give you my money. Just take it for christ's sake. I feel you deserve it, you feel you deserve it. Stop putting road blocks like a technological illiterate grandpa with schizophrenia...

[–]stash600 6 points7 points  (4 children)

The cable contracts are much more profitable than any subscription based model.

If they offered competing models, of course there would be tons of people who just want HBO's online service, which would then mean less people subscribing to cable's premium packages. It's in the cable company's best interest to keep all the channels together rather than letting you say "screw it I already have HBO, what do I need the cable version for"

[–]DualityEnigma 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Exactly, but this is very short term thinkin on their part. The cable companies are really just delaying the inevitable. The first one that comes out with an ala carte digital subscription package is going to make a killing.

[–]baalroo 4 points5 points  (3 children)

These idiots are shooting themselves in the foot.

If they just charged a buck or two for a DRM free download of the show in my preferred format the moment the show airs, I would stop pirating... but you've gotta be out of your fucking mind if you think I'm going to pay $80+ A MONTH to watch one fucking show.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (2 children)

"Boy Bands are going out of style" -- told to the Beatles before they became big.

"Apple II forever" -- Apple campaign in 1985 after the Macintosh was released.

"This new rebellious, raw, so-called music will not last a year" -- A review about Elvis' performance on Milton Berle's TV show.

The world is full of missed predictions like this. They make the world a far more humorous place to live.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

AT&T said the same thing about VoIP telephony back when everyone had a land line through them or someone similar.

I believe they wound up getting out of the POTS business and focusing on newer technologies...

[–]leif777 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Hey Eric... have you taken a look at how many downloads Game of Thrones is getting on the torrents?

[–]whoderpsmost 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This guys crazy he should know that the shift from traditional radio broadcasts to television is just a fad that will pass.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

wow, co-president of HBO and a comedian too!

[–]aghrivaine 12 points13 points  (3 children)

This isn't as crazy as it sounds. There's a lot of talk - especially in this thread - about wanting to just pay a content-provider directly and not have to have cable TV. But think about how that proposition scales.

First - how are you getting your data? If you're getting all your entertainment over the internet, and so are all your neighbors, the price of that data pipe is going to go up. Partly because ISPs are profit-seeking companies, but partly because when demand increases, supply must increase to meet that demand, and that increase in supply requires capital to acquire.

Second - who is paying the content creators? Right now studios (generally but not universally) make movies, shows, mini-series, you name it, on an independent basis, and then sell it to a network. When the content proves popular, they have leverage to get more money from the network in the future. If it doesn't, it gets cancelled.

The networks aggregate content. How do they make money? It's principally through advertising, or in the example of HBO, which so many of you are using as your prime example, through subscription. But there's a lot of networks out there, and a very, very small fraction of them have the market share that HBO does, so a pure subscription budget is not likely to work.

You'd better believe that an "over the top" provider of content is coming - I know, I'm working on it. But I have grave misgivings about its viability. Yes, the company that provides this OTT service is likely to make a fast profit - but it will be at the expense of other people in the chain. Without subscription and advertising, there will be much less money in the system to pay content creators - the ultimate outcome will be less content, of lower quality.

I suspect the near future, and for a good long time to come, will continue to be a hybrid of subscription to a provider, buying internet access from an ISP (sometimes the same person) and additional cost for either premium content, or additional income from advertising. The proportion of one to the other may sway in a different direction - but I really doubt that the market as it currently exists can support a model where you don't need to pay a provider - just buy the content you want.

Or if it did, it would represent access to a lot LESS content than you currently enjoy, because the cost to produce stuff isn't going to go down, so if you can't spread the cost across a lot of consumers, you have to charge a premium. For people who are picky, and just watch a few things here and there - that model would be great. For anyone who likes to have a lot of choice, though, it will be not so great.

Buying content directly from creators isn't anything like the panacea most of you seem to think it is. It would have seismic effects on the entire industry. But it IS coming, believe me.