TiVo Community Forum banner
  • TiVoCommunity.com Ambassador Program Now Open! >>> Click Here

HBO Is Coming to Amazon Prime

11K views 70 replies 25 participants last post by  Bigg 
#1 ·
The war between Netflix and Amazon intensifies: (Netflix lost round one)

http://time.com/73525/hbo-is-coming-to-amazon-prime-whether-you-have-hbo-or-not/

"Prime members; this isn’t HBO signing up to let Amazon charge you to watch these shows. Amazon says Prime members will have “unlimited streaming access” to shows that include:

All seasons of The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, Rome and Six Feet Under, as well as Eastbound & Down, Enlightened and Flight of the Conchords

Miniseries, including Angels in America, Band of Brothers, John Adams, The Pacific and Parade’s End

Select seasons of current series such as Boardwalk Empire, Treme and True Blood

Original movies like Game Change, Too Big To Fail and You Don’t Know Jack

Documentaries including the Autopsy and Iceman series, Ghosts of Abu Ghraib and When the Levees Broke

Original comedy specials from Lewis Black, Ellen DeGeneres, Louis CK and Bill Maher

Amazon says earlier seasons of HBO shows like Girls, The Newsroom and Veep will roll out “over the course of the multi-year agreement, approximately three years after airing on HBO.”
 
See less See more
#27 ·
The math is quite simple. If a huge number of channels gets paid for by thousands of subscribers, the average cost per channel goes way down for each user. Many channels, such as the shopping and religious networks, are included for free to the provider and, in some cases, may actually pay the provider to air them. The channel sees a return in online sales and donations which offsets their cost and the end user gets a further discount on their overall channel package. Without these channels included in the package your cost would be much higher than it is now.

If you subscribed to just a handful of channels, there would no longer be a bulk discount and the cost for those few channels would exceed what you're paying for the large bundle you currently receive.

Just because the channels show up in your guide doesn't mean you have to watch them. I believe you can set up favorite channels lineups so that only the channels you prefer show up in the guide. I know this is the case for WMC and I believe I used to be able to do it on my Tivos as well.
The problem is that model doesn't allow for the hundreds of channels of garbage to die their death, instead locking them up in bundles. We need some serious channel pruning.
 
#28 ·
I'm gonna cancel NetFlix. I can't keep up as is, and the only thing keeping me on NetFlix is House of Cards.
It looks like Netflix is good guys. Cancelling is easy. There's a link right on the account page.

"We'll keep your account data for one year. Come back at anytime."

As it is I can't even get through my recorded shows, much less Amazon Prime. Content overload.
 
#29 ·
The problem is that model doesn't allow for the hundreds of channels of garbage to die their death, instead locking them up in bundles. We need some serious channel pruning.
Why? Your price isn't going to go down, so why do those channels need to die? Someone watches them, just because it isn't you doesn't mean they should go away. Someone else could probably say the same thing about programming you like to watch.
 
#30 ·
Why? Your price isn't going to go down, so why do those channels need to die? Someone watches them, just because it isn't you doesn't mean they should go away. Someone else could probably say the same thing about programming you like to watch.
The one thing I would say on the other side is if we had less channels there would be room for better resolution. It will be interesting to see how the business model plays if we went totally OnDemand would the increased bandwidth by freeing up all the linear channels be more than enough to go onDemand. Now of course the traditional networks might suffer from the lack of watercooler moment as would this forum if everything essentially became Netflix. They would not know how to sell advertising in that space.
 
#31 ·
I think the current video delivery systems needs to be blown up.

If we all had access to reliable high speed Internet everywhere the concept of being limited to a few hundred choices of what to watch at any one time via a limited number of channels could die the death it deserves.

Services like Netflix, Hulu, & Amazon are a step in the right direction, but to get to where we should be the current delivery systems need to be destroyed (OTA, Cable, & solid media). The reality is that with the Internet we should have "access" to every TV show and movie every made all the time. Sports and local/national news could be available via live feeds along with recorded material.
 
#32 ·
I think the current video delivery systems needs to be blown up.

If we all had access to reliable high speed Internet everywhere the concept of being limited to a few hundred choices of what to watch at any one time via a limited number of channels could die the death it deserves.

Services like Netflix, Hulu, & Amazon are a step in the right direction, but to get to where we should be the current delivery systems need to be destroyed (OTA, Cable, & solid media). The reality is that with the Internet we should have "access" to every TV show and movie every made all the time. Sports and local/national news could be available via live feeds along with recorded material.
Live feeds? I certainly don't want to go back to watching TV like I did in the 70's. I've been time shifting my TV watching since the mid 80's. The only way this would work is if I could still time shift everything. There is nothing out there that I need to watch live. Especially sports. That is the last thing I want to watch Live since there are two to three times as many ads as there is playtime in many sports. That is much worse than TV shows. And there is nothing in the news I need to see in real time. Anything that is very important locally will come over my cell phone with the emergency alert system.
 
#34 ·
Live feeds? I certainly don't want to go back to watching TV like I did in the 70's. I've been time shifting my TV watching since the mid 80's. The only way this would work is if I could still time shift everything. There is nothing out there that I need to watch live. Especially sports. That is the last thing I want to watch Live since there are two to three times as many ads as there is playtime in many sports. That is much worse than TV shows. And there is nothing in the news I need to see in real time. Anything that is very important locally will come over my cell phone with the emergency alert system.
I actually agree with you in regards to watching news/sports live, which is why I noted both live feeds and recorded material. Just wanted to point out there no reason to use the channel model of OTA/cable to deliver any type of content live or recorded if we built out robust Internet delivery systems.

Regarding the commercials issues, this is where I see the current system finally failing. Right now advertisers are still willing to pay unbelievable amounts of money for adds that I really doubt many people watch. The current systems die when advertisers stop paying. I think there will still be a place for people to choice some adds versus no adds, something like Hulu. But many other people will want add free options. Honestly if I didn't have a DVR I wouldn't be able to stand watching OTA TV, when advertiser decide too many people are doing what most of us on these forums do something is going to have to change.
 
#35 ·
Why? Your price isn't going to go down, so why do those channels need to die? Someone watches them, just because it isn't you doesn't mean they should go away. Someone else could probably say the same thing about programming you like to watch.
The problem is, channels other than HBO and the other premiums are isolated from market forces by giant, bloated packages. Why does HBO have such amazing content? Because you can add/drop HBO alone without affecting any other channels (other than the 17 other HBOs that they throw in, but no one really cares about), so they have to compete for the consumer dollar. If other channels had to do that, some would die off, because no one really wants them, and others would provide far higher quality content.

The one thing I would say on the other side is if we had less channels there would be room for better resolution. It will be interesting to see how the business model plays if we went totally OnDemand would the increased bandwidth by freeing up all the linear channels be more than enough to go onDemand. Now of course the traditional networks might suffer from the lack of watercooler moment as would this forum if everything essentially became Netflix. They would not know how to sell advertising in that space.
That too. Full 19mbps MPEG-2 streams. The "watercooler", i.e. bullsh*tting in our cube now on Monday is all about HBO's Sunday night lineup. I don't watch GoT, but I do chime in when they get to Silicon Valley.

Otherwise, NO! OnDemand is horrible. They don't let you FF anything, they just delete stuff from the library whenever they feel like it. Linear TV is here to stay. Also, what about live events?

Live feeds? I certainly don't want to go back to watching TV like I did in the 70's. I've been time shifting my TV watching since the mid 80's. The only way this would work is if I could still time shift everything. There is nothing out there that I need to watch live. Especially sports. That is the last thing I want to watch Live since there are two to three times as many ads as there is playtime in many sports. That is much worse than TV shows. And there is nothing in the news I need to see in real time. Anything that is very important locally will come over my cell phone with the emergency alert system.
Most of the US would disagree, especially on sports. I enjoy the commercials for a bit, until they start repeating (the March Madness ones repeated so much that they drove me NUTS after about the 10th game, and by game 20 or 30, it was really bad). But really, I want to watch the sport, so I'm going to watch live. I'm a huge advocate of time shifting, I've never really watched live my entire life, but sports are sports... Basketball isn't that bad, as there is a lot of play time.

I actually agree with you in regards to watching news/sports live, which is why I noted both live feeds and recorded material. Just wanted to point out there no reason to use the channel model of OTA/cable to deliver any type of content live or recorded if we built out robust Internet delivery systems.

Regarding the commercials issues, this is where I see the current system finally failing. Right now advertisers are still willing to pay unbelievable amounts of money for adds that I really doubt many people watch. The current systems die when advertisers stop paying. I think there will still be a place for people to choice some adds versus no adds, something like Hulu. But many other people will want add free options. Honestly if I didn't have a DVR I wouldn't be able to stand watching OTA TV, when advertiser decide too many people are doing what most of us on these forums do something is going to have to change.
We don't have the bandwidth to do that. Imagine if everyone tried to stream stuff at the same time! Yes, any individual house that's getting 50-100mbps has plenty of bandwidth on its own (my roommates and I combined had HBO Go and 2 Netflix HD streams, plus some donwloads going all at the same time the other day), but if all of them stream at once, even if you shift TV QAMs over to streaming, the core of the network would still have a complete meltdown. "Broadcast", i.e. cable still has a technologically relevant role to play. Yes, it's online MPEG-2 encoding, so it's way less efficient than offline MPEG-4, but I probably suck down 100-150GB per week of content from cable without any impact on my internet connection, much of which I don't even watch, but I still have it locally to watch what I want when I want. And during the Olympics, that was at 1TB/week of video, during the beginning of March Madness that was upwards of 200-300GB over the course of a long weekend... Those numbers don't scale over streaming.

They still have live events, i.e. sports to tie commercials to. And a surprising number of people still watch TV live, even though they have DVRs. A lot of people still view the DVR as something that they record a show on if they're going to be out that night, not something to use full-time like TiVo users do.
 
#36 ·
To make a conclusion to all that discursive babbling, I envision the ideal system being a linear model using linear channels over QAM or satellite, but de-bundling the channels, with a massive "die-off" of channels with a few channels, maybe even some new ones, providing high-quality content, far fewer re-runs, and the like, and then maybe a really cheap bundle (~$10/mo) of crappy channels with low-value content or old re-runs.
 
#39 ·
But they *aren't* caring what I watch, because I *HAVE TO HIDE THE CHANNELS*. I do NOT want to have to hide the channels, I want to pay for exactly the right channels.
Except what you really want is to pay less and the cable company does not want that to happen so even if you get Alacarte they will configure it so you pay the same.

They might say there is a base fee which is high then you can add non premium channels in packs of 5 and in the end it will wind up being the same price.

Cell phone companies do this all the time. They do not want you to pay less period. They don't care what you watch!

Now play nice!
 
#40 ·
I think the current video delivery systems needs to be blown up.

If we all had access to reliable high speed Internet everywhere the concept of being limited to a few hundred choices of what to watch at any one time via a limited number of channels could die the death it deserves.

Services like Netflix, Hulu, & Amazon are a step in the right direction, but to get to where we should be the current delivery systems need to be destroyed (OTA, Cable, & solid media). The reality is that with the Internet we should have "access" to every TV show and movie every made all the time. Sports and local/national news could be available via live feeds along with recorded material.
That a recipe for internet slog, streaming needs it's own network before it chokes out all the edu.. the org., the internet was never intended to be a video distribution network, cable networks are actually a better idea for moving just video content, a closed controlled system.
That being said you may get what you want, and you are going to hate what it's going to cost.
 
#41 ·
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. You make that sound like it's a bad thing.

I should not be subsidizing other people's channels.
But people are subsidizing your channels, too.

Your cost isn't going to go down, not a penny. What does it matter that you "get" some other channels you never watch? Is it that offensive that you don't want to have available to you some content that you will never watch?

I really cannot wrap my head around you and bigg's argument here. It just makes no economic sense.
 
#42 ·
But people are subsidizing your channels, too.

Your cost isn't going to go down, not a penny. What does it matter that you "get" some other channels you never watch? Is it that offensive that you don't want to have available to you some content that you will never watch?

I really cannot wrap my head around you and bigg's argument here. It just makes no economic sense.
It only starts to make sense with a mass die-off of crappy channels, so that there's less content to support, and market forces start to apply to individual channels.
 
#43 ·
But people are subsidizing your channels, too.

Your cost isn't going to go down, not a penny. What does it matter that you "get" some other channels you never watch? Is it that offensive that you don't want to have available to you some content that you will never watch?

I really cannot wrap my head around you and bigg's argument here. It just makes no economic sense.
It makes economic sense that any other meritocracy does. The channels should cost what they cost to make (including profit). I don't want religious/shopping channels subsidizing me, just like I don't want to subsidize ESPN for other people. (I would likely subscribe to ESPN for the months it has the WSOP... just not the rest of the year.)
 
#44 ·
It makes economic sense that any other meritocracy does. The channels should cost what they cost to make (including profit). I don't want religious/shopping channels subsidizing me, just like I don't want to subsidize ESPN for other people. (I would likely subscribe to ESPN for the months it has the WSOP... just not the rest of the year.)
"Meritocracy" :rolleyes:

It seems like you don't have any idea how TV works.
 
#45 ·
It makes economic sense that any other meritocracy does. The channels should cost what they cost to make (including profit). I don't want religious/shopping channels subsidizing me, just like I don't want to subsidize ESPN for other people. (I would likely subscribe to ESPN for the months it has the WSOP... just not the rest of the year.)
You don't want to be subsidized huh? Advertisements are subsidizing you too. If everything was a la carte and there were no ads, ESPN alone would probably cost you $50/month.
 
#46 ·
Why? Your price isn't going to go down, so why do those channels need to die? Someone watches them, just because it isn't you doesn't mean they should go away. Someone else could probably say the same thing about programming you like to watch.
Exactly. I remember when Bravo first came on the scene and I loved it! It was loaded with art films and substantive (to me) arts programs. Viewership wasn't as great as other channels so in time it started dropping great films and migrated more and more to (to me) junk.

Some of the most popular channels are sports and I don't watch those. My viewing is eclectic and I find programming bits on many less popular overall channels. A la carte would be a disaster for me, as would pruning channels down to the 'most popular' which would leave lots of niche, and quality, programming in the dust.
 
#47 ·
Exactly. I remember when Bravo first came on the scene and I loved it! It was loaded with art films and substantive (to me) arts programs. Viewership wasn't as great as other channels so in time it started dropping great films and migrated more and more to (to me) junk.

Some of the most popular channels are sports and I don't watch those. My viewing is eclectic and I find programming bits on many less popular overall channels. A la carte would be a disaster for me, as would pruning channels down to the 'most popular' which would leave lots of niche, and quality, programming in the dust.
That you don't watch sports is important. Not everyone watches ESPN, which currently charges about $4.60 per subscriber, and every single cable subscriber has ESPN. With a la carte, you can expect that people who actually want to watch ESPN will probably have to pay upwards of $10-15 just for ESPN, and nothing else.
 
#48 ·
To make a conclusion to all that discursive babbling, I envision the ideal system being a linear model using linear channels over QAM or satellite, but de-bundling the channels, with a massive "die-off" of channels with a few channels, maybe even some new ones, providing high-quality content, far fewer re-runs, and the like, and then maybe a really cheap bundle (~$10/mo) of crappy channels with low-value content or old re-runs.
The problem is that every channel out there is going to start putting out new content and then you're right back to where you started. HBO puts out new content because they're competing for customers directly. These other marginal channels would do the same. Already obscure channels are putting out new content now. Heck, even WGN is putting out a new show. You're going to have the problem of having 1 show you like on each of 25 different channels as opposed to 5 shows each on 5 different channels.

My point is that I don't want to have to subscribe to the Sundance channel because there's 1 show they put out that I like. I'd rather the system now where I don't care what channel a show is on because my Tivo records it. I don't want ot worry about subscribing to 25 different channels because I like 1 or 2 shows it puts out.
 
#49 ·
I am the exact opposite about sports. If I'm not watching sports live then I really don't see the point. If the game is already over then just get the score and highlights on espn.com
Do you enjoy watching the game? You can always just wait and get the score and highlights on ESPN.com. I enjoy the experience of watching games much more than just looking up the score. Therefore, I will use discipline to not look up the score and watch the game in a way that provides me with the most enjoyment possible.

I watch a lot of Carolina basketball that way. The game starts at 7 but I'm putting my kids to bed between then and 8:30 so I'll just start watching at 8:30 from the beginning.
 
#50 ·
The problem is that every channel out there is going to start putting out new content and then you're right back to where you started. HBO puts out new content because they're competing for customers directly. These other marginal channels would do the same. Already obscure channels are putting out new content now. Heck, even WGN is putting out a new show. You're going to have the problem of having 1 show you like on each of 25 different channels as opposed to 5 shows each on 5 different channels.

My point is that I don't want to have to subscribe to the Sundance channel because there's 1 show they put out that I like. I'd rather the system now where I don't care what channel a show is on because my Tivo records it. I don't want ot worry about subscribing to 25 different channels because I like 1 or 2 shows it puts out.
The thing is, with a la carte, a big chunk of the middle of cable would either get WAY better, or they would go clean out of business within months. There are dozens of channels that have degraded to low-value programming that people aren't going to pay for. It would probably also kill off all of the tertiary channels that various networks have started up, like most of the 13 Discovery channels, several of which are basically trashbins for re-runs, and turn over on a pretty regular basis. It would also kill off the channels that just re-run old movies. Lastly, it would force networks to be much more topic-centric and not wander all over the place, in order to make a good value proposition to a specific type of viewer.

Do you enjoy watching the game? You can always just wait and get the score and highlights on ESPN.com. I enjoy the experience of watching games much more than just looking up the score. Therefore, I will use discipline to not look up the score and watch the game in a way that provides me with the most enjoyment possible.

I watch a lot of Carolina basketball that way. The game starts at 7 but I'm putting my kids to bed between then and 8:30 so I'll just start watching at 8:30 from the beginning.
I can't handle DVR'ed sports... just knowing that it's not live makes it bad enough, even if I isolate myself from everything else. I need the excitement of LIVE!
 
#51 ·
Different strokes for different folks. A la carte sounds good until you realize that you'll end up having to watch the crap the masses watch when there aren't enough subs to your particular channel to justify keeping it.

Personally the shopping channels and religious stations can sit there and collect dust and the people that watch / enjoy them can subsidize my experience while I remove them from the guide and never think twice about them.

If you think corporate America is going to stop its gravy train to break out of the status quo only to save you money and screw themselves out of big profits you're nuts.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top