WarnerMedia and HBO Announce New 'HBO Max' Streaming Service Coming Spring 2020

[Alan Gordon]

Bingo. The MR article is misses all the shenanigans that AT&T is pulling here:

AT&T is making Time Warner shows exclusive to HBO Max even though it told government officials that it would continue to distribute Time Warner content as widely as possible.

In December 2016, when AT&T was seeking government permission to buy Time Warner, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson told a Senate antitrust subcommittee the following:

...

Nor is there any reason to believe we could use Time Warner programming or AT&T networks to hurt related markets. Simply put, it would be irrational business behavior to do so. Time Warner's programming is more valuable when distributed to as many eyes as possible. Moreover, in order to have great programming, it is imperative that we attract great creative talent to develop it. The best way to attract that talent is through widespread distribution of Time Warner content.[/]

From: https://arstechnica.com/information...ime-warner-shows-to-its-own-streaming-service

[doublepost=1562711875][/doublepost]
More streaming options isn't beneficial especially in cases like with the creation of WarnerMedia which allowed AT&T to control a large amount of content - followed by making them exclusive to their own service which is what happened here. It would be better for consumers if the content was made available on more services.

I believe this article is primarily referring to when AT&T said they weren't making Warner Media content exclusive to DirecTV/U-Verse, and they haven't. You can still get HBO and Cinemax on DISH, Comcast, Charter, FiOS, Apple TV, Roku, Mediacom, etc., and TNT, TBS, CNN, TCM, and Cartoon Network on DISH, Xfinity, Spectrum, FiOS, Mediacom, etc.
[doublepost=1562714601][/doublepost]

Dude, if you are *only* paying $50.00/mo, inside of two years, you'll *only* be paying $75-80 per month for less, or $100+/mo for more, and in "more" I mean stuff you don't want.

You're assuming that one "has" to have everything 24/7. I currently pay $15.99 (Netflix), $11.99 (Hulu), plus CBS All Access ($5.99). I also have Prime, but I'd have that anyway, so don't count it. I may drop my Hulu plan to commercials, and use the savings to pay for Disney+. Will wait and see the pricing of Apple TV+ and HBO Max, and may drop Netflix for one or the other.

LOL And remember how fast the channels changed back then? You could actually surf. Now you switch a channel, and between buffering and whatever else it's trying to do... forget it. Back in the day I could click past 20 channels in 10 seconds and now what was on each. Now it takes 5 seconds for something to load.

What's a channel?

[doublepost=1562713871][/doublepost]And let's not forget about the cost of internet service going up. I pay $60/mo for trash. Soon $100/mo bills for simple "access" will be the norm. Then add your 10 streaming plans you'll want to subscribe to, and great entertainment can be had for the low price of $300/mo.[/QUOTE]

My internet's like $100 a month for 25/2, so yeah, the internet keeps getting higher, but I'd have it even if I still had satellite TV.

 

[horsebattery]

I believe this article is primarily referring to when AT&T said they weren't making Warner Media content exclusive to DirecTV/U-Verse, and they haven't. You can still get HBO and Cinemax on DISH, Comcast, Charter, FiOS, Apple TV, Roku, Mediacom, etc., and TNT, TBS, CNN, TCM, and Cartoon Network on DISH, Xfinity, Spectrum, FiOS, Mediacom, etc.

The content in the referenced article was talking about ones delivered via streaming services, which is why I brought it up in this case.

 

[Alan Gordon]

The content in the referenced article was talking about ones delivered via streaming services, which is why I brought it up in this case.

I read the article. I also re-read the previous older linked article, which I read when it was first published, and again, every thing I'm reading seems to be talking about the primary concern at the time, which was channels.

To me, this is no different than when "The Expanse" moved from Syfy to Amazon, "Longmire" moved from A&E to Netflix, reruns of "Doctor Who" moved from Netflix to Amazon, or "The Simpsons" moved from syndication to FXX.

 

[nutmac]

Dude, if you are *only* paying $50.00/mo, inside of two years, you'll *only* be paying $75-80 per month for less, or $100+/mo for more, and in "more" I mean stuff you don't want.

At $50.00/mo, you will not have any type of great live streaming service and forget about adding HBO, Netflix, Hulu, CBS, Disney, etc.... $50.00 will get you almost nothing in short order.

You are not wrong but the model is changing.

Outside sports, the concept of channels is becoming obsolete. Younger viewers don't care about channels. They will watch whatever programming is available within the streaming services they subscribe to. Netflix, etc. are gearing toward infinite content model for this very reason. Like YouTube, there are seemingly endless supply of contents revealed by the recommendation engine.

Having said all that, people overwhelming watch the library title (old TV shows) on Netflix. As they see these shows move to different service, I think some will defect (especially if the service isn't cheap, as I suspect HBO Max will be).

 

[Andronicus]

Dude, if you are *only* paying $50.00/mo, inside of two years, you'll *only* be paying $75-80 per month for less, or $100+/mo for more, and in "more" I mean stuff you don't want.

At $50.00/mo, you will not have any type of great live streaming service and forget about adding HBO, Netflix, Hulu, CBS, Disney, etc.... $50.00 will get you almost nothing in short order.

Well it is certainly a lot of assumptions you have thrown at me so I’m not exactly sure how to respond, but I’ll try.

Prices going up? Yah, that’s a constant in entertainment and life. Live tv? Don’t miss it.

HBO, Netflix, Hulu, CBS, Disney? More than enough for me and still cheaper than cable.

 

[KrispE00]

But will we finally get 4K? It’s embarrassing to not stream in 4K in 2019.

 

[_Refurbished_]

I don't understand the negativity. More streaming services means more options. Easy to subscribe and cancel. Subscribe when you want it, cancel when you don't.

People thought they would be able to replace cable for $30.

Like you said, it’s a better system. You pay for subscriptions that interest you and that’s it. There will be a lot of shapeshifting over the next ten years. The TV model is so wrecked at the moment, it’s unbelievable.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I don't understand the negativity. More streaming services means more options. Easy to subscribe and cancel. Subscribe when you want it, cancel when you don't.

Yea, what some people seem to be missing is how easy it is to switch from one service to the other on a month-to-month basis. HBO for 2 months, Netflix for 2 months, Hulu for 2 months, Disney for 2 months, CBS for 2 months, Apple for 2 months, etc. Monthly cost is very low, and over the course of a year you get a huge variety of content and always something new and interesting. This is the golden age, from my perspective.
[doublepost=1562720890][/doublepost]

But will we finally get 4K? It’s embarrassing to not stream in 4K in 2019.

Agreed - this was my first question. Netflix has a ton of 4k streaming, and Amazon Prime has some small quantity. Given how much it costs, I think HBO's lack of 4k streaming is a glaring omission.

 

[RickInHouston]

Steve Jobs cracked TV. Did he see this?

 

[warp9]

Why not combine Go, Now, and Max? This seems excessive.

They need to be separate for when they introduce Go+, Now+, and Max+.

 

[dumastudetto]

Steve Jobs cracked TV. Did he see this?

He dropped his iPhone while discussing TV ("I've cracked it"), and the guy writing his biography misunderstood what was going on.

 

[furi0usbee]

Steve Jobs cracked TV. Did he see this?

If Apple would have purchased Time Warner, things would be a bit different now I think. Actually, maybe just let Disney buy "everything" and then maybe I'd be enticed to buy a streaming package if I had access to it all. It's funny, somehow I think less competition in this space is better... I'd rather let movies fight streaming tv fight video games and other forms of entertainment than fracture streaming any more than it already is.

Funny, we went from the contract being locked into something for x months, to the subscription being locked into something for x months. Sure, we can cancel anytime, but we are still simply doing the same, calling it something different and thinking progress has been made.

 

[Mr. Donahue]

And so it begins. This sounds horrible. Why have tiers to HBO? How ridiculous.

 

[sidewinder3000]

I don't understand the negativity. More streaming services means more options. Easy to subscribe and cancel. Subscribe when you want it, cancel when you don't.

Because the trolls and naysayers gotta feast...
[doublepost=1562729633][/doublepost]Doesn't HBO own Cinemax? That seems conspicuously absent from the press release.

Overall it seems like some compelling content. Not wild about all the fragmentation in the industry, but if I cut the cord this will def be one of my subscriptions.

 

[QquegChristian]

The worst thing about all this crap is that people are paying for a lot of services and a TON of content they won’t ever watch and other content they may watch only because they’re bored / better suited stuff isn’t on the service. Then a movie they really want to see comes out and they’re upset because it isn’t on their services so they just pirate it.

This leaves you supporting the greedy services and their (often wasteful) whims and stiffing the creators of the content that most appeals to you.

I directed a movie being released soon that is currently 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. Netflix may or may not license it. I have no control over where they want to spend (our subscription) money. But why does that make people immediately jump to the conclusion that they must pirate the movie?

If Netflix and Hulu and HBO and Apple and Disney and CBS and all these other services aren’t providing you with EVERYthing you want to watch, you should speak with your wallet by dropping some of these services and using the extra money to rent a few movies per month. It will show the services which content is in demand in what is left of the traditional movie market.

Personally I’d just rotate a different service each month and use the other $30 I’d save to rent any 6 movies I actually really want to watch.

 

[2010mini]

A la carte tv.

We asked for it. We got it.

 

[goobot]

Personally, I feel it's time for somebody to invent a new service, whereby only shows I prefer to watch are available on some kind of physical media that I can either rent or borrow from a neighbor/friend/relative, thus negating the need to have recurring charges on my credit card. Just tossing this out there.

You could just use Netflix disc service or redbox.

 

[Sp1281]

We are back to bundles with channels we don’t want...

 

[Awsaim]

If they include this with their wireless plan, I’m all for it.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Might be time to get my dusty peg-legs, hook hand and eye-patch out of the closet again.

Do you resort to theft for every non-essential product that you decided is too expensive? Starbucks costs too much, just steal it? If you do not think this content is worth the price they are charging for it, you have every right to boycott it, but theft is just not justified.

 

[warp9]

Personally I’d just rotate a different service each month and use the other $30 I’d save to rent any 6 movies I actually really want to watch.

I lost interest in most modern media years ago so my decision is easy (no subs at all), but this will work for most people. Between just Youtube and iTunes, you can rent almost anything you want for less than the price of theatre popcorn.

 

[nburwell]

These new streaming services that are popping up are going to have to really compel my wife and I to drop one of the existing streaming services we subscribe to. We're pretty happy with Netflix, Hulu (free through Spotify), Amazon Video and HBO (through Directv Now), so these new streaming services are really going to have to stand out in order for us to drop one of current services.

These streaming services are getting so ridiculous, that it's almost better to stick with traditional cable. Or simply stick to your guns and only subscribe to the services that you truly work for you and your family.

 

[Plutonius]

I’m kinda the opposite. I don’t mind paying multiple services for my media. I have several streaming/subscription services and I pay like $50/month which is still less than I used to pay for cable. And some of my subscriptions are just for a few months like when I get Fubo for NFL season.

Fubo itself is $55 / month.

Most people don't realize what they are actually paying when they add up the services.
[doublepost=1562766734][/doublepost]

Subscribe to one service for a month, catch up on all the interesting stuff, cancel and move on to the next. Give six services two months a year and you'll be up to date on pretty much every major TV series.

Unfortunately, I think most people would rather have a choice what to watch rather than being forced to watch a few shows until changing the subscription.

Families and couples also have different preferences.

 

[zorinlynx]

Do you resort to theft for every non-essential product that you decided is too expensive? Starbucks costs too much, just steal it? If you do not think this content is worth the price they are charging for it, you have every right to boycott it, but theft is just not justified.

The media industry had a huge piracy problem. They realized that if they didn't start streaming content, it would just get worse.

So we ended up with Netflix. Lots of content for a reasonable monthly fee. Piracy slowed down considerably.

But now they're getting greedy; each company is starting their own service rather than streaming through Netflix. What was once $8-$15 a month will now be $40-$60 a month to get it all. We're right back where we started.

Yes, piracy is morally wrong, but so is unfettered greed. The industry was moving in a great direction and now they're fouling it up all over again. To be perfectly honest I'm probably going to just not watch most things instead of pirate, but occasionally something that is a "must see" comes along. If it's not on something I'm already subscribed to, I'm not paying another $10+ a month for one show. Screw that jazz.

 

[Unami]

I think this helps avoid piracy. I know myself personally I haven't pirated anything in a very long time because accessing the content legally is so easy and cheap now.

Different folks... I recently started a little pirating again, because often films that were on my watchlist became unavailable, when I finally got around to watching them. Also I'm sharing my Netflix and Prime Account with other family-members, so I can't cancel them to sunscribe to another one to watch certain things. I hope we'll get something like spotify for movies and tv some day, but at the moment it's getting more and more annoying with increasing fragmentation and price hikes.