Warner Bros. to Replace HBO Max With New 'Max' Streaming Service

[HDFan]

Game of Thrones, House of the Dragon,

House of the Dragon was in motion before the AT&T purchase, although production was later. Don't know about the other shows provenance.

 

[HDFan]

I'm glad they are dropping the HBO name. If kept it then it would then be associated with all of that lower quality video and the name would have become tarnished. Now if they keep it as a separate entity under the Max umbrella there is a chance the name value won't be diluted.

 

[Gudi]

Sounds like another bad decision going from a recognizable brand name to a generic Max.

Unless you want to sell cheap poop movies without being impaired by the quality expectations that come with the brand name. 💩 🎬 🤑

 

[ABQdude]

House of the Dragon was in motion before the AT&T purchase, although production was later. Don't know about the other shows provenance.

 

[bodonnell202]

I'm glad they are dropping the HBO name. If kept it then it would then be associated with all of that lower quality video and the name would have become tarnished. Now if they keep it as a separate entity under the Max umbrella there is a chance the name value won't be diluted.

You make a solid point. Better to not have the HBO name associated with all the mass produced reality TV that comes with Discovery+.

 

[hyperactiv8]

I pay $6.99+tax for Discovery Plus with no ads, now I have to pay $15.99? What a rip off. I already get HBOMax free with my AT&T service.

Discovery+ will remain a separate app. So, you will be fine.

 

[Gizmotoy]

But they are not. The prices didn't change if keep the same parameters and factor in the industry norm of prices increase (not getting cheaper anywhere else either).

Huh? Prices increase by 25%, $4/mo., to keep the same level of service. Unless there's some questionable logic here saying that the prices didn't increase because prices increase, so a price increase is the same as no price increase?

Discovery already had a working ( profitable) service. The TimeWarner side is the service that didn't have a 'smaller' , working "even narrower" service. Also had quirky app on some platforms . etc. Despite being named "HBO Max" that service was the one that was the 'everything and the kitchen sink' aggregator. "HBO Go" disappeared a while back. ( not surprisingly. A service attached only to cable/sat provider base subscription numbers is attached to a shrinking market. )

If WB-Discovery puts this new service on a better platform where some users can be subsetted on a "HBO only" restrictive content . It is just a matter of pricing it or outsourcing it ( let the VOD of the linear service vendor handle the workload for subscribers fronted by them. ). "HBO" having to be both a content creation service and a video delivery service is just going to be more expensive than just being one or the other. If the 'hog' all of the VOD overhead then that is going to show up in additional costs. The higher the optional add-on HBO is priced the fewer folks that choose it and now spreading higher costs onto fewer users.

This part is also unusual. "HBO Max wasn't profitable because it tried to sit in two markets and was a 'kitchen sink' aggregator," and then "So we add a third unrelated market and suddenly now it works"? And then "the higher HBO is priced, the fewer folks that choose it," but also from above "We're raising the price 25%." Neither of these is consistent.

Bundling of content is snowballing , but "Max" isn't only one. It is basically an industry thing at this point. Discovery+ is its own bundle of stuff that not every subscriber watches every single show offering in the bundle.

If a huge block of Discovery+ users move over to the bigger bundle then Discovery+ as a independent offering could disappear. It just happens to have a good balance between subscribers (revenue generated) and costs. If its revenues drops by a huge amount it would be in 'trouble' also.

I'm sure this is true, though. The independent Discovery+ offering does not seem long for this world, and is likely just to soften the blow of transitioning from the inexpensive option to the expensive one. Existing subscribers would have revolted if the price jumped from $7 to $20. I'd expect the price increases on the Discovery+ side to outpace the Max offering until eventually it's killed and only one offering remains.

 

[webkit]

Huh? Prices increase by 25%, $4/mo., to keep the same level of service.

It's not exactly the same level of service as Discovery+ content is being added (which alone had been $4.99 to $6.99/month). Whether or not it's a "better" service depends on one's viewing interests but it's not the same given the increased content. The average subscriber likely hadn't been viewing most of the HBO Max offerings either.

 

[deconstruct60]

Huh? Prices increase by 25%, $4/mo., to keep the same level of service. Unless there's some questionable logic here saying that the prices didn't increase because prices increase, so a price increase is the same as no price increase?

Before

"

Current HBO Max plans​

	With Ads	Ad-Free
Monthly price	$10	$16
Number of screens you can watch at the same time	3	3
Number of offline downloads	0	30
HD available	Yes	Yes
4K Ultra HD available	No	Yes (limited titles)

..."

HBO Max vs. Max Subscriptions: The Differences Explained

A breakdown of how your streaming plan will change with the relaunch.

www.cnet.com

After

" ..

Max subscription plans​

	Ad-Lite	Ad-Free	Ultimate
Monthly price	$10	$16	$20
Number of screens you can watch at the same time	2	2	4
Number of offline downloads	0	30	100
HD available	Yes	Yes	Yes
4K Ultra HD available	No	No	Yes

..."



With-Ads --> Ad-lite no change.
Ad-Free --> Ad-Free no change.

Ad-Free (limited 4K) --> Ultimate $4 change. ( screens up and downloads up . subset of Discovery content added to all of these. )

4K changed, not the service at a whole. 4K costs more money and for a service that wasn't making money that isn't sustainable. The legacy content isn't in 4K anyway. And TVs with decent 4K upscalers work just fine.

Users can still watch all the same old 'HBO Max" content (and more ) at the same $16/mo price.

This part is also unusual. "HBO Max wasn't profitable because it tried to sit in two markets and was a 'kitchen sink' aggregator," and then "So we add a third unrelated market and suddenly now it works"? And then "the higher HBO is priced, the fewer folks that choose it," but also from above "We're raising the price 25%." Neither of these is consistent.

No. The 4K bandwidth hogs that cost more to host/send/service are pay more. The folks who want to save money and just want broad content will shift more so the "Ad-lite" or stay on 4K-less service. Growth in Ad-lite is going to better cover the content costs.

If put a higher fraction of the user base on a cost constrained foundation they can turn Max profitable. If try make the bulk of the user base subsidize "I want to watch 4K content only" narrow subset ... it won't be profitable. Are most users primarily focused on content or fanciest picture quality on most expensive TV set ? If looking for large volume it is likely the first.

I'm sure this is true, though. The independent Discovery+ offering does not seem long for this world, and is likely just to soften the blow of transitioning from the inexpensive option to the expensive one. Existing subscribers would have revolted if the price jumped from $7 to $20. I'd expect the price increases on the Discovery+ side to outpace the Max offering until eventually it's killed and only one offering remains.

There is a pretty good chance only a narrow block of Discovery+ folks move over. It has a pretty good chance of surviving. Especially if WBD can delivery this all off of shared back end infrastructure and use a common code base for the individual apps ( just slightly different facades to same shared back end with access rights control to content). Also on the Ad-lite model folks who still watch mostly Discovery context with the Max service still will funnel money toward funding the Discovery context. Whether that "enough money" comes in through Max or Discovery+ doesn't really matter on Discovery's context profitability. ( who is watching how much of what matters along with the base content production costs. Discovery doesn't have spinning out of control production costs. They don't need a 100M users to pay for it. )

 

[sidewinder3000]

What happens if the goal was diassociate HBO not as a valued asset, but to break deals in a years time with grandfathered perks not expected to continue past this latest increase profit margins effort for WB casting aside its chains? Sure you’re likely to see new offers for same customers just not like completely free for other video providers like Comcast.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re proposing. Can you explain differently?

 

[sw1tcher]

I wonder if after a year or so they'll realize their screw up and bring back the HBO name.

Remember this?

New Coke --> Coca-Cola Classic --> Coca-Cola

The story of New Coke remains influential as a cautionary tale against tampering with an established successful brand.


HBO Max --> Max --> HBO Classic --> HBO 🤣

It took 2 years for them to realize their mistake.

HBO Max is coming back this summer. 😂

HBO Max Is Back: WBD Rebranding Streamer This Summer

In what may be a first in the modern streaming wars, Max is returning to the name it had when it launched in 2020, HBO Max.

deadline.com

Max, Once Known as HBO Max, Is Calling Itself HBO Max Again. Got It?

Warner Bros. Discovery executives are reinstating the name HBO Max for the popular streaming service. It’s the fourth name change for the app in the last decade.

www.nytimes.com