HBO Declines to Renew Amazon Contract Leading to Removal of Shows in 2018

[ravx25]

You're stealing the gas of everyone had to drive in to work and produce the show. You're stealing the cost of electricity that they paid to have pumped into the building to drive the equipment to produce the show. You're stealing the hours upon hours of labor someone put into working late nights so they could go and buy groceries for their family at the end of the week. If someone's only source of funding paying their rent is to sell a painting and you copy it, how are they going to pay their rent? They'll just stop painting and do something else instead that you cant copy, and now you don't get to see any more paintings.

While I understand the nuances of pirating, you have a completely wrong thought process here. A lot of folks who pirate shows would not normally buy that product. You're advocating upon a physical product, which media is not in this particular case. It's not taking anything away from their revenues if it wasn't going to be a sold product anyhow.

Again, with your example of painting, your assuming a physical product. That's akin to someone stepping into a Best Buy and stealing seasons of GoT, which no one here is going to do for obvious reasons. This is digital media where there actual product is marginalized. Start thinking in terms of digital media and not physical product.

 

[STR]

Ugh...I'm getting fucking tired of every goddamn company trying to launch their own stupid fucking service. One or two sources is enough. I feel the same damn way about game companies. Bethesdanet, UPlay, Steam, Origin, and Blizzard's bullshit. For fuck's sake stop it!

This is the future, Dan. The days of shelling out $50, $80, $100+ for a big predefined cable package are going away. Instead, we're going to be buying 4-5 $10/mo streaming packages from the companies we want. Content still costs money to make, so it's not going to be drastically cheaper, but at least we won't have to pay for a bunch of channels we won't watch. If you're specific in what you want, this future can and will be cheaper.

The internet fragments all markets. I, for one, welcome the day I won't have to pay for 24/7 cable news. I don't care if you're conservative or liberal, or prefer Fox or MSNBC, all of them are f'ing terrible. Not even news really. I don't want to be paying those people's salaries anymore.

Another upside: it's a hell of a lot easier to cancel and renew Netflix than Comcast.

 

[M76]

What grocery store do you do your shopping at?

I literally have zero clue why would you ask that question. It's not the right question here. It's irrelevant.

 

[nysmo]

Ya that just isn't true at all. For that to be true I would have to be willing to pay for the content in the first place.

This is the only unique part of the argument. Right now you can say "i would never pay for Game of Thrones" because you have the luxury of not paying for it. HBO is not convinced that if piracy was somehow eliminated overnight that you would in fact not pay for it. So they'll continue to resist you on this front because they believe you actually would pay for it if you had no other option. I discussed this earlier where I pirated The Walking Dead. I think it's an OK show and if piracy were wiped from the planet by a magic genie tomorrow I'd be fine without it. However I would not be fine without a show like Silicon Valley therefore I already pay for it now even though I could pirate it.

If you're pirating My Little Pony or some other stupid shit you would honestly never pay for then fine, go ahead, it's of no loss to anyone.

Also, they could stop producing content, or they could try to find a better and more equitable way to distribute it. Which makes more sense?

Well maybe theyre not as creative as you and cant find a better way to run their business. You might as well claim the airline industry should just sell tickets cheaper without offering a better solution to do so. It's not as easy to just sit there in your chair all smug "find a better way to distribute it and I'll pay!". They may be driven out of business trying to redesign it.

 

[Vader1975]

HBO had a 0% chance of me buying their channel as they had a 0% chance of me paying for them on cable when I was younger. They had a 5% chance of my adding it on to prime or hulu or netflix. They have a 0% chance of me buying HBO Now.
So to recap. They had no chance at all of me buying them directly or on cable TV. They had a small chance of me adding it on to an existing service for a very nominal fee (15 dollars a month is not nominal) They have no chance on their own. I don't get excited about shows on their network as I don't have any connection to their network. So as I stay in a void of HBO and they hide all their programming from me, they now become like North Korean TV completely separate from my world and something I never see or care about. How do they get me hooked on something they have now? What is the ultimate plan to get me as a consumer? I am not seeing it.

In response to the pirating controversy above: I only pirate something I own because I don't feel like buying it twice. If I bought your hardcover of your book then trying to sell me the same thing on ebook agitates me. Include it on the receipt as a value add.

 

[Darunion]

This is the future, Dan. The days of shelling out $50, $80, $100+ for a big predefined cable package are going away. Instead, we're going to be buying 4-5 $10/mo streaming packages from the companies we want. Content still costs money to make, so it's not going to necessarily be drastically cheaper, but at least we won't have to pay for a bunch of channels we won't watch. If you're specific in what you want, this future can be cheaper.

True, but for games I think I see what he is getting at. To keep your games updated you have to leave 8 clients running in the background.
for shows:
To watch any of these shows you have to launch each app and browse the selection only to see they don't have the show you want, so you change to another app (damn now this one needs updated). Now you browse that app and see they have the first 2 seasons but nothing current. Try another app, okay they have the current season but only the most recent 5 episodes. etc etc

 

[nysmo]

I literally have zero clue why would you ask that question. It's not the right question here. It's irrelevant.

You asked why I don't shop at 5 different stores, indicating that you do all of your shopping at one single store. I call bullshit on that statement. So, do you do 100% of your grocery shopping all at a single place without every going somewhere else? Does Wal-Mart offer the same brand of Chicken you like to make with your pasta? Or do you go to Kroger or Publix or whatever for some things, and then sometimes you go to Wal-Mart to get a bag of Dorritos while buying that new Microwave?

 

[M76]

You asked why I don't shop at 5 different stores, indicating that you do all of your shopping at one single store. I call bullshit on that statement. So, do you do 100% of your grocery shopping all at a single place without every going somewhere else? Does Wal-Mart offer the same brand of Chicken you like to make with your pasta? Or do you go to Kroger or Publix or whatever for some things, and then sometimes you go to Wal-Mart to get a bag of Dorritos while buying that new Microwave?

Yes I do my shopping at a single place almost all the time. I thought everyone had a preferred shop and doesn't like going into multiple places wasting time and fuel. When I was living in Belgium I did all my shopping in the local Carefour market, when I was living in Germany I did my shopping in the local Rewe, now I do my shopping in the nearest Auchan. I don't know maybe the shops in the US are shit, I've never been there, but here in europe you can do all your shopping in one place.
Even if it was bullshit, which I assure you it is not. I still wouldn't want to go to 5 different streaming services to get the tv shows I'd like to watch which was the point all along.

 

[STR]

True, but for games I think I see what he is getting at. To keep your games updated you have to leave 8 clients running in the background.
for shows:
To watch any of these shows you have to launch each app and browse the selection only to see they don't have the show you want, so you change to another app (damn now this one needs updated). Now you browse that app and see they have the first 2 seasons but nothing current. Try another app, okay they have the current season but only the most recent 5 episodes. etc etc

Yeah...we're still in the early stages here. I mean, you *still* can't cut the cable entirely yet, especially if you're a sports fan. There's no meta-platform that aggregates your various streaming services into one search box. Right now, if you want to keep everything, you're actually paying more than before and you're dealing with every. single. one. of the hassles you and Dan bring up.

These are teething pains though. I'm not one of those "the free market will solve everything" people (I studied 2 years of econ, so I don't even use the phrase "free market" it's just "the market" and I'm fully aware of its shortcomings). However, the market will sort this problem out. We will get a way to aggregate streaming content. We will not have 8 clients. Either Microsoft, or the industry, will implement a common game client platform (not a store, just a client), or all but the top clients will simply fail. We will end up with something sane.

Five years ago, cord cutting was a fantasy. Nobody thought the cablecos would let it happen, but it is happening, because fragmentation is inevitable.

 

[NeoNemesis]

Well maybe theyre not as creative as you and cant find a better way to run their business. You might as well claim the airline industry should just sell tickets cheaper without offering a better solution to do so. It's not as easy to just sit there in your chair all smug "find a better way to distribute it and I'll pay!". They may be driven out of business trying to redesign it.

Maybe they aren't. If that's the case let them fail and make way for someone more innovative. It's all very Darwinian.

 

[nysmo]

Technology is developed to fulfill a need or solve a problem. If nobody was dying in car accidents the airbag never would have been invented.

If nobody was streaming/downloading tv shows it's very unlikely that streaming services would ever have caught on.

I disagree, I do not think technology is a 100% reactionary service. Sometimes people innovate and just come up with an idea that they think the world will enjoy. Take for example Tesla. Nobody was asking for an electric car.

 

[nysmo]

While I understand the nuances of pirating, you have a completely wrong thought process here. A lot of folks who pirate shows would not normally buy that product. You're advocating upon a physical product, which media is not in this particular case. It's not taking anything away from their revenues if it wasn't going to be a sold product anyhow.

Again, with your example of painting, your assuming a physical product. That's akin to someone stepping into a Best Buy and stealing seasons of GoT, which no one here is going to do for obvious reasons. This is digital media where there actual product is marginalized. Start thinking in terms of digital media and not physical product.

How would you like it if next pay period your boss just didn't pay you and said "i didn't take anything from you"?

 

[Miikun]

That's me. I check it out now and then, seems like everything I want to watch there I have to pay for, anyway. But I have HBO so can watch stuff on HBO Now - I'll probably like this move since it seems like HBO Now has damn little stuff on it, if HBO would put all their eggs in one basket it would suit me fine.

Totally agree with that. By being on Amazon Prime, HBO is effectively getting a disproportionate cut of my interest in free shipping since I sort occasionally watch some HBO content on my account. Does mot mean i'm going to hop over to their service. It's almost like opting to jump from Steam distribution to your own little website and expecting everyone to come over. Some will, but face it this is TV, so a lot will say "not worth the hassle". Instead of spending $ to potentially increase margin, they could have just spent the effort creating more content, and licensing it to the Amazons of the world to handle distribution globally and getting a bigger cut of that $100/year prime fee. Fragmentation for the sake or a moonshot.

 

[jevans64]

I still subscribe to HBO for $10 a month, which is worth it over just the streaming service. My options are to DVR the new shows as they air and use HBO Go to stream older stuff. Only reason I view them through Amazon instead of HBO Go is because the Amazon interface is better than the HBO Go app.

 

[NeoNemesis]

I disagree, I do not think technology is a 100% reactionary service. Sometimes people innovate and just come up with an idea that they think the world will enjoy. Take for example Tesla. Nobody was asking for an electric car.

I watched a really cool TEDTalk with Elon Musk where he said that Tesla was inevitable but that he merely sped up the process.

He also argued that unless technology is driven by a specific need, it often gets ignored.

 

[nysmo]

Start thinking in terms of digital media and not physical product.

Do you not think labor has any value? Can you have a mechanic diagnose an oil leak and then not pay him because his shop hasn't given you any parts? Can your boss refuse to pay you this week because he hasn't taken anything off of your person?

You need to stop thinking in terms of direct causation and instead start thinking in terms of overall correlation. "I didn't steal a DVD off the shelf" is irrelevant when what we're really talking about is you stealing the time and efforts that went into producing that content in the first place. When you buy a DVD from BestBuy you aren't just paying for the disc platter and box art that it was shipped with. You are paying for the cameras used to record the actors giving dialogue, the studio that warehoused the computers used to edit the footage, etc. This is how a price is determined, and is a basic tenant of any business. If you decide to start your own PC repair shop tomorrow then the cost of of your business is derived upon the expenses that went into producing it. Whether it's physical or not is irrelevant, very tangible services were certainly rendered in the process of delivering your digital goods. It was never "free" just to make a copy of something.

 

[jevans64]

Yes I do my shopping at a single place almost all the time. I thought everyone had a preferred shop and doesn't like going into multiple places wasting time and fuel. When I was living in Belgium I did all my shopping in the local Carefour market, when I was living in Germany I did my shopping in the local Rewe, now I do my shopping in the nearest Auchan. I don't know maybe the shops in the US are shit, I've never been there, but here in europe you can do all your shopping in one place.
Even if it was bullshit, which I assure you it is not. I still wouldn't want to go to 5 different streaming services to get the tv shows I'd like to watch which was the point all along.

Yes. It is a lot easier to just pick one place and shop only there in Europe. Shopping is a clusterf**k in the US since they all compete with each other for our business. They have their own store brands and have their own meat markets and deli. So. Most of us in the US will get the cheap basics at Wal*Mart, our deli meats at Publix, and meat from a real meat market or Kroger or Whole Foods. Not a huge deal since I have at least 5 major grocery stores within a 3 KM radius and don't even live in a city.

 

[STR]

I disagree, I do not think technology is a 100% reactionary service. Sometimes people innovate and just come up with an idea that they think the world will enjoy. Take for example Tesla. Nobody was asking for an electric car.

Tesla didn't invent the electric car. And plenty of people were already interested in electric cars before Elon Musk was even born. Plug-in hybrids started making a comeback 10 years before Tesla launched their first model. If anything, the popularity of electric cars is owed entirely to the steady, incremental advances in battery tech. Toyota's Prius+ could run 10 miles on lead acid batteries. Large scale Li-ion/Li-poly packs changed that to 200-300 miles.

Then, and only then, did you see fully electric cars hit the market again. And by again, I mean the first electric car ever hit the market in 1890's (not a typo), though it was more of an electric horseless carriage. This stuff comes in waves. Every new battery tech is followed by a new electric car demo.

We're still an advance or two away from mainstream electric car adoption. It needs more mileage (or much quicker recharges) and needs to be a hell of a lot cheaper. $30K for a small hatchback and $50K for a sedan is not going to cut it.

 

[nysmo]

Tesla didn't invent the electric car. And plenty of people were already interested in electric cars before Elon Musk was even born. Plug-in hybrids started making a comeback 10 years before Tesla launched their first model. If anything, the popularity of electric cars is owed entirely to the steady, incremental advances in battery tech. Toyota's Prius+ could run 10 miles on lead acid batteries. Large scale Li-ion/Li-poly packs changed that to 200-300 miles.

Then, and only then, did you see fully electric cars hit the market again. And by again, I mean the first electric car ever hit the market in 1890's (not a typo), though it was more of an electric horseless carriage. This stuff comes in waves.

Ok you can always trace back any mainstream invention to some trivial proof of concept from a hundred years prior. For all intents and purposes Tesla is the first legitimate mass market electric car company and will always be associated as such. The 10 or so people out there clamoring for an electric car did not represent society as a whole. There was very little reason to believe that Tesla would succeed in this endeavor. The only reason they did is because it was affordable to create one now and because they could do so in a manner people would actually want. But there was no current demand to make them that inspired him to pursue it. He just did it because he could and it worked out.

 

[STR]

Ok you can always trace back any mainstream invention to some trivial proof of concept from a hundred years prior. For all intents and purposes Tesla is the first legitimate mass market electric car company and will always be associated as such. The 10 or so people out there clamoring for an electric car did not represent society as a whole. There was very little reason to believe that Tesla would succeed in this endeavor. The only reason they did is because it was affordable to create one now and because they could do so in a manner people would actually want. But there was no current demand to make them that inspired him to pursue it. He just did it because he could and it worked out.

I think you're drinking a bit too much Muskoolaide. Nobody thinks they invented the electric car, because they didn't. If Tesla can't start turning a steady profit, nobody will even remember them in 10 years, because they'll be gone.

I mean, I doubt *that* will happen, but it's hard to build a car company. There's far more failures than successes.

 

[Compddd]

Fuck HBO

 

[M76]

Yes. It is a lot easier to just pick one place and shop only there in Europe. Shopping is a clusterf**k in the US since they all compete with each other for our business. They have their own store brands and have their own meat markets and deli. So. Most of us in the US will get the cheap basics at Wal*Mart, our deli meats at Publix, and meat from a real meat market or Kroger or Whole Foods. Not a huge deal since I have at least 5 major grocery stores within a 3 KM radius and don't even live in a city.

Store brands are there everywhere here as well. But the most sought after brands are purchasable at any one of the stores, even the ones that push their own products almost exclusively. And besides their own branded products are not so bad. They're actually better quality then similarly priced independent products. There are many places to go to in short distances. But going into multiple places takes much more time than simply getting everything you need at one place. At least that's what I do every time. And I'd like to do the same with entertainment as well. It's already problematic to deal with origin and steam I'll definitely not pick up a third. So ubisoft is shit out of luck.

As for streaming services, I can't choose one that would have everything I seek. And I'll definitely not subscribe to more than one. Until they get their head out of their assess and realize that they need to offer a comprehensive service I won't move in on it. And DRM makes it very easy for me to stay away as well. I'd want 4K, but I need a kaby lake? I need to use edge browser? Fuck that noise, that sounds like extortion to me.

 

[kju1]

I would also like to point out that its decisions like this which cause shows to fail. HBO may be able to get away with it because thats what they have always been ("premium") but take the new Star Trek show as an example. I dont expect it to last more than one season, MAYBE two. I don't believe the cancellation will have anything to do with quality. Because it will be paywalled I expect viewership to be extremely low. That show is dead already due to CBS's choice to only have it on their exclusive streaming channel. Putting it on their "exclusive" service isnt a "vote of confidence" as they claim...its a death bell.

 

[Rahh]

Bad move on HBO's part.

 

[Saturn_V]

Guess I better watch The Wire now.

 

[ravx25]

How would you like it if next pay period your boss just didn't pay you and said "i didn't take anything from you"?

This is still completely different. My boss not paying me for time spent is physically harming me in that I'm not getting an agreed upon sum of funds for my time spent. A pirate downloading a file doesn't impact revenue/profit in that most of the time it would have never been realized. You're talking about pulling from an imagined block of funds vs an expected block of funds (my pay) - big difference.

Do you not think labor has any value? Can you have a mechanic diagnose an oil leak and then not pay him because his shop hasn't given you any parts? Can your boss refuse to pay you this week because he hasn't taken anything off of your person?

You need to stop thinking in terms of direct causation and instead start thinking in terms of overall correlation. "I didn't steal a DVD off the shelf" is irrelevant when what we're really talking about is you stealing the time and efforts that went into producing that content in the first place. When you buy a DVD from BestBuy you aren't just paying for the disc platter and box art that it was shipped with. You are paying for the cameras used to record the actors giving dialogue, the studio that warehoused the computers used to edit the footage, etc. This is how a price is determined, and is a basic tenant of any business. If you decide to start your own PC repair shop tomorrow then the cost of of your business is derived upon the expenses that went into producing it. Whether it's physical or not is irrelevant, very tangible services were certainly rendered in the process of delivering your digital goods. It was never "free" just to make a copy of something.

I understand what you're saying but digital media is vastly different than physical media. Me producing a physical copy of something instantly goes into my cost of business. If a non-physical copy if stolen, then those are funds that are never materialized. I'm not saying it's right, but it's two very different thought processes. It just is. The same goes with your pirating of Walking Dead there. Since you don't care about seeing the show necessarily, do you download it, is it funds necessarily lost for the media company? No, b/c you wouldn't have bought it anyhow.

Now, if someone is pirating everything under the sun, then there is a problem with that, but most pirates (I would venture to say at least a solid half without seeing solid research) just would not have paid for what they are downloading.

 

[raz-0]

Ugh...I'm getting fucking tired of every goddamn company trying to launch their own stupid fucking service. One or two sources is enough. I feel the same damn way about game companies. Bethesdanet, UPlay, Steam, Origin, and Blizzard's bullshit. For fuck's sake stop it!

The problem is that both Netflix and Amazon make very compelling business cases for vertical integration for entertainment. HBO Now is really Time Warner's best foothold to pivot to that business model. They sure as heck aren't doing well at trying to out disney disney with the old model.

 

[Darunion]

This is still completely different. My boss not paying me for time spent is physically harming me in that I'm not getting an agreed upon sum of funds for my time spent. A pirate downloading a file doesn't impact revenue/profit in that most of the time it would have never been realized. You're talking about pulling from an imagined block of funds vs an expected block of funds (my pay) - big difference.

I understand what you're saying but digital media is vastly different than physical media. Me producing a physical copy of something instantly goes into my cost of business. If a non-physical copy if stolen, then those are funds that are never materialized. I'm not saying it's right, but it's two very different thought processes. It just is. The same goes with your pirating of Walking Dead there. Since you don't care about seeing the show necessarily, do you download it, is it funds necessarily lost for the media company? No, b/c you wouldn't have bought it anyhow.

Now, if someone is pirating everything under the sun, then there is a problem with that, but most pirates (I would venture to say at least a solid half without seeing solid research) just would not have paid for what they are downloading.

True, but when your work was estimated to sell 100,000 copies, and so far has sold 20,000 copies and there was 400,000 unique copies distributed across torrents, What kind of conversations do you think the company has? Maybe the price was too high or the content not worth it, but from this side it shows that an additional 400k people now have your product. Why pirate it and watch it as oppose to paying for a streaming service to watch it? Is an entire handful a seasons not worth $7 a month? I might be able to justify an episode, perhaps the first few should always be free to capture people. But when someone pirates a whole 7 seasons of something, that kind of leans toward that the entertainment had value to you, maybe not at the value you expected but you then just watched >70hours of content for free. That doesn't feel wrong at all? Probably also part of the same crowd that adblocks websites you frequent, downloads cracked android/apple apps, not using a paid copy of windows. Maybe not you personally but where is the line drawn in the sand between right and wrong? Should every piece of digital content be free just because of its nature? How is that a sustainable business for the creators?

 

[BiH115]

Ugh...I'm getting fucking tired of every goddamn company trying to launch their own stupid fucking service. One or two sources is enough. I feel the same damn way about game companies. Bethesdanet, UPlay, Steam, Origin, and Blizzard's bullshit. For fuck's sake stop it!

Me too, but I pay for absolutely every single service, mainly because I have a lot of stuff that I like to watch (mostly while working from home). There's no going around that if I plainly want to watch something, I'm paying for it (the cost is insignificant to me so it's really a nonissue). Unfortunately, gaming wise, there's not much that'll change there. Each company wants their own shit.

 

[M76]

I would also like to point out that its decisions like this which cause shows to fail. HBO may be able to get away with it because thats what they have always been ("premium") but take the new Star Trek show as an example. I dont expect it to last more than one season, MAYBE two. I don't believe the cancellation will have anything to do with quality. Because it will be paywalled I expect viewership to be extremely low. That show is dead already due to CBS's choice to only have it on their exclusive streaming channel. Putting it on their "exclusive" service isnt a "vote of confidence" as they claim...its a death bell.

I agree on some level. But I think it has everything to do with quality. I believe they know it's going to be utter garbage, and they're putting it behind a paywall because they know it would fail big in the open. But if they put it behind a paywall they might sell a few subscriptions with the name alone before it's exposed as the garbage as it is.

I hope I'm wrong about it as I'm a big star trek fan, but that's how I felt when they said it will be web exclusive.

I expect it will be a half assed lame attempt with shitty cgi, and a lot of sjw pandering. But I hope it will be the greatest ST series ever.

 

[Grimlaking]

HBO GO/HBO NOW is the new future of online entertainment. Once someone puts together a solid platform that gives people premium programming and regular programming for a low monthly fee.... they would.. oh wait. That's cable.. and companies like level 3. (THAT ARE A RIP OFF BTW.) Sling tried to unite them.. so did TiVO. One company needs a stable, fast, high quality streaming service.. for 40 bucks a month that includes all of the big production companies like HBO, Time Warner, Disney and so on that streams to the home. If that happened I would cut the cord so fast...

But as it stands.. everyone wants 10-15 bucks here and there piecemail that it looses it's value proposition in a PITA barrier.

 

[jevans64]

I would also like to point out that its decisions like this which cause shows to fail. HBO may be able to get away with it because thats what they have always been ("premium") but take the new Star Trek show as an example. I dont expect it to last more than one season, MAYBE two. I don't believe the cancellation will have anything to do with quality. Because it will be paywalled I expect viewership to be extremely low. That show is dead already due to CBS's choice to only have it on their exclusive streaming channel. Putting it on their "exclusive" service isnt a "vote of confidence" as they claim...its a death bell.

Still scratching my head on what CBS is doing here. I will never pay $7 a month to watch a single show, even a new Star Trek series. I'll just wait for the first, and only, season to make it to BD.

 

[Shotglass01]

HBO GO/HBO NOW is the new future of online entertainment. Once someone puts together a solid platform that gives people premium programming and regular programming for a low monthly fee.... they would.. oh wait. That's cable.. and companies like level 3. (THAT ARE A RIP OFF BTW.) Sling tried to unite them.. so did TiVO. One company needs a stable, fast, high quality streaming service.. for 40 bucks a month that includes all of the big production companies like HBO, Time Warner, Disney and so on that streams to the home. If that happened I would cut the cord so fast...

But as it stands.. everyone wants 10-15 bucks here and there piecemail that it looses it's value proposition in a PITA barrier.

Spot on, this is where I'm at. I'd do $60 or even $80 if it cut out commercials and wasn't appointment viewing. I'd be back on-board.

 

[Snowdog]

Ugh...I'm getting fucking tired of every goddamn company trying to launch their own stupid fucking service. One or two sources is enough. I feel the same damn way about game companies. Bethesdanet, UPlay, Steam, Origin, and Blizzard's bullshit. For fuck's sake stop it!

So, whoever is first gets a monopoly, and sucks down 30% tax on an entire industry?

No fucking thanks.

Let them all compete however they want.

Tough shit that one service won't have 100% of everything and you will have to make choices. That's life.

 

[nysmo]

As for streaming services, I can't choose one that would have everything I seek. And I'll definitely not subscribe to more than one. Until they get their head out of their assess and realize that they need to offer a comprehensive service I won't move in on it.

So basically you want a bundled service like Comcast that offers everything whether you like it or not.

 

[nysmo]

I understand what you're saying but digital media is vastly different than physical media. Me producing a physical copy of something instantly goes into my cost of business. If a non-physical copy if stolen, then those are funds that are never materialized.

I fail to see how you don't equate the work you do at your job as equal with the work people do to create a movie. How is pirating a movie and depriving someone of the income generated from their labor any different than your boss stealing your paycheck and depriving you of the income generated from your labor?

Again this is all predicated on the idea that you would have paid for the movie if there were no alternatives to pirating it. Obviously the people who make a movie need to get paid for them to continue making movies. If I would have never watched the movie anyway then that studio goes out of business and that's just the market speaking. But if that studio goes out of business after releasing a great film that we would have all paid for then that's wrong.

 

[THRESHIN]

I don't have much of a problem with people pirating TV shows or any other media for that matter.

Firstly, piracy does not amount to stealing. You're not taking a physical item from a person or organization. This is the definition of theft. A lot of what people pirate they weren't going to buy anyway, so loss of income isn't the issue here save hardcore pirates that steal everything.

It also allows people to be exposed to media they didn't know they wanted. Most of my favorite musicians would be unknown to me even to this day without Napster. Those bands got my money.

And finally, the problem here is that the cable companies are still humping a dying business model. They are severely out of date and the piracy shows that. Here in Canada bell gets exclusive rights to certain shows. Want to watch it? Your first born please.

For example, the upcoming star trek discovery show. Bell has exclusive rights and we must pay out the ass to watch it. There is no alternative. Outside of Canada, this show will be released on multiple networks including Netflix. Best of all, it's being filmed in Toronto. It's infuriating.

In my opinion, people are pirating TV shows because they are getting a better experience. No ads, watch it on your schedule, etc. That's the real problem here. The music industry went through this not that long ago with Napster. It all worked out, getting music legally in mp3 format is alive and well.

As a previous poster has said, piracy is driving innovation weather we like it or not. Most of us are not happy with TV service and this is one of the only things they'll listen to.

 

[Teenyman45]

I've never much cared for Amazon's streaming player, my opinion can't get much lower so, no. On the HBO side of things, I already have cable based HBO so this would only negatively affect my view of the Time Warner if I would now have to pay for streaming content from them.

This is the future, Dan. The days of shelling out $50, $80, $100+ for a big predefined cable package are going away. Instead, we're going to be buying 4-5 $10/mo streaming packages from the companies we want. Content still costs money to make, so it's not going to be drastically cheaper, but at least we won't have to pay for a bunch of channels we won't watch. If you're specific in what you want, this future can and will be cheaper.

The internet fragments all markets. I, for one, welcome the day I won't have to pay for 24/7 cable news. I don't care if you're conservative or liberal, or prefer Fox or MSNBC, all of them are f'ing terrible. Not even news really. I don't want to be paying those people's salaries anymore.

Another upside: it's a hell of a lot easier to cancel and renew Netflix than Comcast.

Years ago cable and satellite used to have much smaller bundles. I disliked how directtv wanted a buck or three each month for pretty much every a la carte channel that was beyond a skeletal package. Then things swung too far the other way with massively over-stuffed packages that purposely split related channels into different packages to goose extra revenue.

Official streaming started off massively packaged just to attract attention; now that people are using them content producers no longer want to settle for slices of the pie, but all want their own unique pies. Having all these streaming services, at the price point they want for each is a bigger issue than the number of services to choose from.

 

[ZenDragon]

The problem with this in my opinion is mainly that once they've deviated and launched their own services they tend to only make apps for a handful of platforms/TVs/Devices. This tends to alienate a LOT of viewers such as LG TV owners with WebOS (which blows all Samsung interfaces out of the water IMO but that's beside the case). Whereas Amazon can more easily focus its development efforts to all/more platforms and third party services can simply stream through them. Currently the HBO Now app is not available for my TV. I believe I can get it on my XBox One but I honestly don't like switching back and forth, I just want to turn on my TV and go.

 

[Dullard]

Now, if someone is pirating everything under the sun, then there is a problem with that, but most pirates (I would venture to say at least a solid half without seeing solid research) just would not have paid for what they are downloading.

Then why steal it if it was something that had no value to them? By stealing it, they are admitting that they see some value in the product, just that they are too chickenshit to pay for it.