HBO cuts the cord, brings streaming-only service to Europe(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
HBO cuts the cord, brings streaming-only service to Europe
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/08/hbo-cuts-the-cord-brings-streaming-only-service-to-europe/
109 comments
A lot of us had to do that with the Olympics already.
It was kind of weirdly entertaining in a Schadenfreude-esque manner.
Indeed, Rowan Simpson summed it up best for me (here in New Zealand) https://twitter.com/rowansimpson/status/230392577071923200
For the lazy:
> Highlight of #Olympic2012 so far: seeing Americans struggle with not having immediate access to new content http://fb.me/1FKecNifI
> Highlight of #Olympic2012 so far: seeing Americans struggle with not having immediate access to new content http://fb.me/1FKecNifI
That just redirects me to a mobile signup page
Highlight of #Olympic2012 so far: seeing Americans struggle with not having immediate access to new content (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how-nbcs-olympics-strat...)
Don't worry America, Canada still gets screwed by all y'all.
Indeed it was.
As opposed to now, when the US can watch BBC for free?
BBC America is not the same thing. While a lot of their new shows are finally being broadcast at the same time (next season of Doctor Who has the same premier date in the UK and US), many are still a few months behind here.
I think the first season of Sherlock was one such show.
I think the first season of Sherlock was one such show.
Also, doesn't BBC America have advertising? I don't think you see the full, uncut versions of shows because they need to put ads in.
[deleted]
Why do you want something unpleasant for people who weren't responsible for your own unpleasant experiences?
Awareness. I will often see someone post a link to Hulu and be genuinely unaware that no-one outside of the US can view it.
You want to hurt the innocent to build awareness for your cause? In America, we call that terrorism!
But then again, we call everything terrorism.
But then again, we call everything terrorism.
Because they've shown little or no empathy about those unpleasant experiences?
So you have some kind of beef with HBO's business decisions. My heart doesn't bleed for you because I am uninvolved third party to your beef with HBO. I don't think that merits any kind of aggressiveness toward me. Leave me out of it. Complain to whoever won't take your money.
Because most Americans are unaware of how limiting content providers are once you connect from a non-US IP. A blunt dose of awareness would go a long way in helping people understand the situation.
And it's not really their fault, either. How would you know that the whitelist even exists if you're always on it?
And it's not really their fault, either. How would you know that the whitelist even exists if you're always on it?
It's not exactly a new phenomenon. In addition to obvious British stuff like Sherlock and The IT Crowd, I also resorted to underhanded techniques to watch the first season of the remade Battlestar Galactica series, as it was released in the UK several months before the US.
I had abandoned TV long ago. I had no idea I was seeing the 1st season of BSG months ahead of everyone else, because most people I knew who were watching it were also torrenting it.
Happened with Spotify for a while.
As an American living in the UK, I look forward to this as well.
ps- You can get NFL Gamepass (it's basically a web-streaming version of NFL Ticket) for $150/season if you have a UK IP address. Only problem is that it blacks out one of the games (whichever Sky sports is covering) but otherwise HD streaming video and can switch to every game live. It's a sportsman dream.
ps- You can get NFL Gamepass (it's basically a web-streaming version of NFL Ticket) for $150/season if you have a UK IP address. Only problem is that it blacks out one of the games (whichever Sky sports is covering) but otherwise HD streaming video and can switch to every game live. It's a sportsman dream.
I look forward to paying for this without having to pay for VPN service to Denmark as well to watch it.
[deleted]
We've been there for awhile. A la Top Gear.
Wow. I have to admit that I didn't expect to see anything like this from them for at least a couple more years.
We'll see how long it takes to bring it to the US though. I'd guess that their cable co ties are too strong here to do it anytime soon.
We'll see how long it takes to bring it to the US though. I'd guess that their cable co ties are too strong here to do it anytime soon.
They might also be using them as a test market and if successful, will look into bringing it over the US. I hope so.
I think the answer is probably "as soon as people stop giving money to cable cos for HBO".
This might also be a technical reaearch project. test the weapons that are avail, etc. Go back and improve, before the real war.
The real war? Couldn't the market for HBO be bigger in Europe than in the US? (given that there's more people here ;)
I wonder how long this has been in the works.
Despite all the naysaying, I have a feeling this could show up in the US sooner than expected.
HBO GO is very good, surprisingly so. The quality of that effort in combination with moves like this suggest some very smart, visionary folks are at work there.
Anecdotally, I'm seeing rapidly growing interest in cord-cutting among non-technical folks.
As tablets and 4G phones proliferate I see people in general becoming increasingly frustrated with cable and desirous of having content when and where they want it.
HBO GO is very good, surprisingly so. The quality of that effort in combination with moves like this suggest some very smart, visionary folks are at work there.
Anecdotally, I'm seeing rapidly growing interest in cord-cutting among non-technical folks.
As tablets and 4G phones proliferate I see people in general becoming increasingly frustrated with cable and desirous of having content when and where they want it.
I only watch HBO through my Xbox and iPad (and hopefully someday my Apple TV). The experience is orders of magnitude better than dealing with Comcast's horrific set top box UI.
I can't wait until I can switch over entirely...
I can't wait until I can switch over entirely...
Yep.
While there are plenty of people who don't have a console, tablet or a streaming set-top, seemingly everyone has a smartphone. A smartphone which presents an easy, smooth and and generally painless way to consume content on-demand.
These devices are putting perspective to the horrible experience offered by the archaic Motorola set-tops and broadcast model that most cable consumers suffer through. Google is smart to dump that business [1].
1: http://allthingsd.com/20120829/google-reportedly-looking-to-...
While there are plenty of people who don't have a console, tablet or a streaming set-top, seemingly everyone has a smartphone. A smartphone which presents an easy, smooth and and generally painless way to consume content on-demand.
These devices are putting perspective to the horrible experience offered by the archaic Motorola set-tops and broadcast model that most cable consumers suffer through. Google is smart to dump that business [1].
1: http://allthingsd.com/20120829/google-reportedly-looking-to-...
Wasn't the CEO of HBO doing some naysaying of his own recently? I think I remember an article where he said cord cutting was (a myth, overblown, exaggerated, ???)
Maybe he was just offering a little misdirection, but it didn't seem like it.
Maybe he was just offering a little misdirection, but it didn't seem like it.
If you have cable, HBO GO is free on your phone.
That's the problem. It shouldn't be tied to a cable carrier at all.
Also, it's not available with all cable carriers. If I subscribe to HBO with Time Warner Cable in Dallas, HBO Go is not available to me.
Also, it's not available with all cable carriers. If I subscribe to HBO with Time Warner Cable in Dallas, HBO Go is not available to me.
The cable carriers outbid you for access. If that was "wrong", they should naturally go out of business, right? Otherwise, what you're asking for is an artificial discount for being a cool Internet person.
I take your point about TW Dallas, but feel like that's going to resolve itself soon as HBO GO generates more demand.
I don't want to stick up for cable companies (they are terribly annoying to deal with) but at the same time, if everything cost what HN readers thought it should cost, they'd have to have filmed The Sopranos entirely using finger puppets.
I think the market is going to sort this out within the next 5 years as more and more serious, big-budget productions are going to be shot and produced for Internet venues. In the meantime, I have a hard time arguing that existing media companies should be forced to forgo market rates for their investments. We're only going to get our glorious Internet media future if the market works.
I take your point about TW Dallas, but feel like that's going to resolve itself soon as HBO GO generates more demand.
I don't want to stick up for cable companies (they are terribly annoying to deal with) but at the same time, if everything cost what HN readers thought it should cost, they'd have to have filmed The Sopranos entirely using finger puppets.
I think the market is going to sort this out within the next 5 years as more and more serious, big-budget productions are going to be shot and produced for Internet venues. In the meantime, I have a hard time arguing that existing media companies should be forced to forgo market rates for their investments. We're only going to get our glorious Internet media future if the market works.
The cable carriers outbid you for access
I wasn't aware that I was in competition with a cable company. I guess I should read my own S-1 statement sometime...
I wasn't aware that I was in competition with a cable company. I guess I should read my own S-1 statement sometime...
You are in competition with the cable company when you ask to be able to pay HBO directly instead of paying the cable company, and in the sense that the cable company pays more to deliver HBO to you than you yourself would be willing to pay.
This also affects the XBox app for me w/ TWC in Dallas (and I presume elsewhere). HBO GO on your laptop works just fine, but if you try the HBO GO XBox app it will fail.
I have search and searched and I still just can't understand how there should be any difference between different methods of delivery. I am not sure who is to blame, but I suspect HBO charges TWC a different price for more delivery options for its customers.
Edit: Apparently this is no longer the case and now it works.
I have search and searched and I still just can't understand how there should be any difference between different methods of delivery. I am not sure who is to blame, but I suspect HBO charges TWC a different price for more delivery options for its customers.
Edit: Apparently this is no longer the case and now it works.
[deleted]
I imagine that their market penetration in Europe in so tiny that they can experiment with new models without pissing in too many people's Wheaties. Don't expect this in the US anytime soon.
In Slovenia (small country in Central Europe - so quite far from the HBO Nord AB countries.) they're pretty known (and available everywhere - for money of-course). And the article is wrong - we got HBO Go some months ago too.
In Romania, cable companies have pirated HBO for years. They just offer it free to their customers. Recently, some have cleaned up their offers, but you can still bribe the cable tech for a trifle so he unblocks HBO, apparently.
With HBO Go you must have a subscription to HBO the cable network, but this Nordic service will only be online. I think that is what is new about it.
It's not so tiny here in Scandinavia. Most young people I know watch a HBO show or five. There where big Game of Thrones posters on the subway.
Paying more per-show, but only paying for the shows you want to watch, will likely encourage higher quality shows.
When you have, to steal some words from Pink Floyd, "500 channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from." Then the next channel of crap will always capture marginally more money, and will be profitable if costs are low enough. So what you get is in-your face lowest common denominator crap designed to draw the attention of bored channel surfers.
On the other hand, if shows need to generate buzz around the water cooler, such that people are proud to have discovered the show and announce to the world they're paying for it, the focus needs to be on quality.
When you have, to steal some words from Pink Floyd, "500 channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from." Then the next channel of crap will always capture marginally more money, and will be profitable if costs are low enough. So what you get is in-your face lowest common denominator crap designed to draw the attention of bored channel surfers.
On the other hand, if shows need to generate buzz around the water cooler, such that people are proud to have discovered the show and announce to the world they're paying for it, the focus needs to be on quality.
I love ArsTechnica too, but I think the link traffic should've gone to Variety mag:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118058484
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118058484
I had already grabbed my wallet, but then I noticed that it will be restricted to a very few countries.
Oh well, back to Pirate Bay.
Oh well, back to Pirate Bay.
Yeah it's too bad there's no other forms of culture and entertainment to consume.
Obviously there's lots of interesting entertainment. But I also happen to like some TV series, and they are usually not available here in any reasonable form (i.e., if local broadcasters pick them up at some point, then they are dubbed). As far as watching TV series in original English goes, grabbing them via a torrent is by far the most convenient and available method here.
[deleted](2)
This is probably the first cool thing ever to appear in Poland before the rest of Europe.
I live in Poland and it's the first time I ever heard about something like this. As far as quick google can tell me, we have the same "you get HBO Go when you subscribe to cable" thing going on.
Is there a forest I'm missing from the trees?
Is there a forest I'm missing from the trees?
Vodka.
That's not actually true. Russians were first.
We were probably the first to produce some crude kind of brandy ("winiak" in Polish).
It's actually funny that our most successfully exported vodka is Zubrowka. It's not considered that great here. I guess it's the novelty factor.
We were probably the first to produce some crude kind of brandy ("winiak" in Polish).
It's actually funny that our most successfully exported vodka is Zubrowka. It's not considered that great here. I guess it's the novelty factor.
I know Wikipedia isn't the end-all of historical scholarship, but according to the entry, most existing records point to Poland, not Russia.
Polish sausage.
Few things in this world are tastier.
Few things in this world are tastier.
Wasn't Turkey there first?
I actually don't know, I always believed that Vodka was a Polish invention.
[deleted]
Well, this looks like something that I'd be willing to pay for once it comes to the US. Not holding my breath, but it's definitely a good sign that it's coming to other markets.
Let's get a P2P network started.
Americans get BBC and HBO, we get Hulu and Netflix
We already have one of those, except everyone gets everything.
Letting people access content they want to see is killing the industry.
Why would I care about industry? If something would be killing me, would "the industry" care?
They provide the product, I pay; they don't, I'm not paying; and the package never includes caring.
They provide the product, I pay; they don't, I'm not paying; and the package never includes caring.
That's a fine attitude. My comment was mostly sarcastic: pirates already provide everything for free, yet the content creators refuse to let people pay for their product (country limitations, format limitations, drm, etc.) Then they whine about how they're losing money and blame the pirates, when it's really their fault for not selling their product at all.
They do let people pay to access their content - it's just done in a price discriminatory fashion. If they started offering content online they'd lose cable customers who pay more than casual web users.
If only there was already some P2P network that facilitates the illicit sharing of multimedia content.
If you cannot convince some American company to stream to you (which is a matter of that company's choices, not some sort of national content embargo) then why not create your own companies and your own content? Then you also have the option of exporting that service elsewhere, which would give you a competitive advantage over companies which only serve a domestic market.
Any ideas whether it would be feasible to get a proxy connection up to watch it in the U.S. via this?
You could try a VPN with iPredator.
https://www.ipredator.se/ https://www.ipredator.se/page/faq#other_stream
https://www.ipredator.se/ https://www.ipredator.se/page/faq#other_stream
You could use a proxy, but I'm guessing they will also restrict subscription payments to European credit cards like Spotify did before they came to the U.S.
While it appears there are not that many sports fans here it is worth noting that for sport this is already happening.
The NBA and others have started online subscriptions for their content. For people in places like Australia where cable subscriptions with good sport cost $100 / month it's well worth it.
Setanta, an Irish concern, has a streaming service that allows you to pay $17 a month or $100 a year for live sport much of which is soccer. I watch the Bundesliga using this service and it is excellent.
It's a shame that you can't get Ligue 1, Serie A, La Liga and the EPL this way. Yet.
The NBA and others have started online subscriptions for their content. For people in places like Australia where cable subscriptions with good sport cost $100 / month it's well worth it.
Setanta, an Irish concern, has a streaming service that allows you to pay $17 a month or $100 a year for live sport much of which is soccer. I watch the Bundesliga using this service and it is excellent.
It's a shame that you can't get Ligue 1, Serie A, La Liga and the EPL this way. Yet.
I have the MLB package. They still restrict the content to appease the cable companies, you can only watch the games that are outside of your market. Works well if you like an out of town team, but if you want to watch the local team it's worthless.
Love it. I cancelled my Directv subscription last month for Hulu + Netflix. Haven't looked back. I'd like to see ShowTime go in this direction for US customers.
One more crack in the dam.
I wonder when more services like this will be released in northern Europe. The legal systems are more or less identical on copyright and intellectual property, which should make it a lot easier? Combined, scandinavia covers around 20 million people and have one of the worlds highest purchasing power.
I hope for the US that HBO will make it an add-on for Hulu or Netflix, I really have enough streaming services.
[deleted]
Nice one, giving it to the nordic countries first means that they can reduce the number of high-bandwidth seeders for their content on Bittorrent. At the same time profit from it.
i will cancel my TWC cable subscription in a millisecond once I can get NFL and HBO streamed to my house via my TWC internet connection. cable is so 1950s.
[deleted]
I feel like the price is a little steep. If all your networks did the exact same thing it would cost a fortune. Though HBO is nice...
Who really wants all those networks?
I think $12.50 is perfectly acceptable for the second largest and likely most desirable premium network out there.
I'd expect that most folks probably watch fewer than a dozen channels with any regularity. Nielsen says that the average household was receiving 130 channels yet only watching 18 of them in 2008 [1].
I think we eventually get to an a-la-carte system with app-like monthly price points where premium content falls comes in at $5, $10 or more and there are dozens of solid options in the $1-3 range with loads of free (ad-supported) content.
1: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/...
I think $12.50 is perfectly acceptable for the second largest and likely most desirable premium network out there.
I'd expect that most folks probably watch fewer than a dozen channels with any regularity. Nielsen says that the average household was receiving 130 channels yet only watching 18 of them in 2008 [1].
I think we eventually get to an a-la-carte system with app-like monthly price points where premium content falls comes in at $5, $10 or more and there are dozens of solid options in the $1-3 range with loads of free (ad-supported) content.
1: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/...
Really? I think the price is great, assuming it's a high quality stream with no ads, new episodes are made available promptly, and you intend to watch at least two or three HBO shows.
HBO's typically ~$7-10 on top of your normal cable bill anyway. If the regular networks went down this model, you'd probably be buying all of [Time Warner, NBC, Disney, Fox]'s channels at $10/mo rather than one by one.
It still beats buying it off iTunes, which can cost around $40 per show per season.
This I'm assuming you can probably subscribe when you need, watch all the shows, and then unsubscribe.
This I'm assuming you can probably subscribe when you need, watch all the shows, and then unsubscribe.
How many shows do you actually watch? I'm not talking about the crap you let play while you walk around the house.
I watch quite a few shows across different networks. I guess this is a good start though. If they did follow with options similar to posted in the previous comments then I feel it would be superb... Though I feel like these days it rarely happens.
Next VPS will be in Europe :-D
"... will allow customers in Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark..."
Then call it HBO Nordic ffs.
Not sure what the problem is, assuming danish realm autonomous countries and countries under scandinavian sovereignty (Svalbard) gets the access of their realm/sovereign, only Iceland is missing, so it's way closer to nordic than scandinavian (which would either disqualify finland or also be missing iceland)
Which is, in fact, precisely what they're doing?
I'm guessing his issue is that "nordic countries" is a well-defined geopolitical entity (it's even had a passport union since the mid-50s) composed of 5 nation-states (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) and their associated territories.
Assuming that associated territories are included in the offer to their parent country that still leaves Iceland out of "Nordic HBO", assuming the worst case (that only the territories explicitly listed are in) that leaves out Greenland, the Faroe and Åland as well.
Assuming that associated territories are included in the offer to their parent country that still leaves Iceland out of "Nordic HBO", assuming the worst case (that only the territories explicitly listed are in) that leaves out Greenland, the Faroe and Åland as well.
My issue is that a few selected countries from Europe do not justify such a headline. Even the article itself states that the service will be named "HBO Nordic AB" (in Sweden). The original source article from Variety has way more information anyway and does make a difference between some European countries and Europa as a whole - so why not link to Variety?
Welcome to the club.