iTunes availability

[Ran]

Apparently, in France, the latest True Blood season aired in November-December, the DVDs are due in June ... but the episodes are now available on iTunes France.

So, who knows, maybe at least internationally iTunes may not be many months after local transmission.

[fitheach]

Yeah in my neighborhood you only have a choice of RCN or Comcast and there is no difference between their rates and packages. Satellite dishes and other providers are not options in my neighborhood of high rise buildings. And each building only gets one provider, it's not like each apartment can pick between the two choices.

Its the same in NYC... I really wish I could just buy each episode- I'm willing to spend a pay per view fee, but don't want an extra 90 channels. I don't really watch much tv!

[Horus Ex Machina]

Seriously, it's like:

"Hey HBO! I have this LARGE LUMP OF CASH I would like to give you because you made this awesome product! Can I please give it to you? ... no? ... do you not want this large lump of cash? I will give you twice the amount that you would get if I bought premium cable, AND I will only pay 10% of the amount I would have to pay for buying 99 other channels I don't want. It is fresh from the ATM! It has that new-car smell! Just for you! Can I please give you the money...? Still no?? But WHY????"

Seriously though, I would pay HBO $10 per episode to watch this show streaming.

I will not pay my cable company $80 per month of which HBO would probably get $5 per month (not per episode).

Everyone is always speculating on when cable programming will become "ala carte". It seems though that even the internet might be moving in the opposite direction. Look at ESPN 360.com, for example. I lost the right to stream off of that site when I switched from Yahoo DSL to Time Warner Cable. I can't even purchase this service,... on the internet! But it seems that TWC subscribers are screwed in a number of instances. I also can't get HDNet. Ridiculous, but their loss imo. I'll pay for content, but I refuse to change providers for it. Especially for internet content. That ESPN gambit hopefully won't catch on.

[Asha—Not Yara!]

My cable company had a $17 add on charge for a few HBO channels, so I didn't have to spend a ton on a different package, just extra for those HBO channels in addition to my current package. Hopefully more cable companies will go down that route, or I hope HBO will find other options for people who want to purchase its services.

[TargaryenFanboy]

Game of Thrones will not be on itunes until the dvds come out. If you get HBO from Comcast it costs $19.99 a month, and HBO gets about 85% of that. More than buying itunes or dvds, subscribing is the best way to support our favorite show. I've had HBO for three years as an adult, so it's not an extra cost for me. But it's expensive and a luxury. If you can put up with it for three months, do it. You might even get it for $10.

[Edward the Great]

Game of Thrones will not be on itunes until the dvds come out. If you get HBO from Comcast it costs $19.99 a month, and HBO gets about 85% of that.

And most of that money will not be specifically earmarked for Game of Thrones. HBO and the other premium channels mostly broadcast movies that I would rather watch on DVD. Cable mostly broadcasts crap that doesn't interest me.

[Lady Cheesevillage]

Our move is complete and my husband dealt with the new cable company (Charter) for internet. While he had them on the phone he (in his words) "worked them over" for a good tv package. He happened to mention that we wished we could add HBO because I was a GRRM fan, but that we wanted to keep the bill under $100 for both tv and internet. The salesperson gushed, "I love GRRM too!", talked about her enthusiasm for the show and threw in HBO for free.

Behold, the power of fandom!

[mummer]

And most of that money will not be specifically earmarked for Game of Thrones.

Are you under the impression that when you buy a show on iTunes, or rent it on DVD, the money you pay is "specifically earmarked" for the production of that show? That's very unlikely.

[Analu]

I'm not too happy about this either. We got rid of the premium cable channels in the house last year, when our schedule made it too busy to watch TV. No way my wife will let me reorder the package just for one show.

I was under the impression that the shows would be available immediately on iTunes. I know that when I bought "Chuck - Season 2" on iTunes, the season was running at the time, but I could just go to iTunes and download the latest episode as soon as it aired. I don't understand why HBO can't/won't do this.

I'll do what I have to do to watch the show, but it won't include paying an extra $30-40 a month for channels that we never watch as it is.

[mummer]

I was under the impression that the shows would be available immediately on iTunes. I know that when I bought "Chuck - Season 2" on iTunes, the season was running at the time, but I could just go to iTunes and download the latest episode as soon as it aired. I don't understand why HBO can't/won't do this.

Well, reading the other comments on this thread might give you some idea of why they can't/won't.

Chuck is on NBC. NBC doesn't depend on cable subscriptions; HBO does. They have a huge incentive not to compete with their own primary market.

HBO has been offering shows on iTunes for three years, and they've never made them available until the end of the season.

[Analu]

Well, reading the other comments on this thread might give you some idea of why they can't/won't.

Chuck is on NBC. NBC doesn't depend on cable subscriptions; HBO does. They have a huge incentive not to compete with their own primary market.

HBO has been offering shows on iTunes for three years, and they've never made them available until the end of the season.

Well they should rethink this. Just because they've been doing it this way for years doesn't mean it's definitely the right way to go. Especially in this day and age.

IMO, most people aren't going to sign up for a package of channels they don't want just to watch one show. They'll turn to other ways of watching the show; ways in which HBO won't be making any money off them. Yeah, that makes sense.

[mummer]

Analu: I'm absolutely sure that all of this has been talked about and argued over within HBO's management. That's no reason for us not to grouse about it, but you still might want to put a little more thought into it-- I mean, it makes no sense at all to use Chuck, a non-cable show, as your example. And I can't tell what you mean by "this day and age"; was 2008 a different era of human history?

"Most people aren't going to sign up for a package of channels they don't want just to watch one show"-- you could say the same thing about every show on HBO. So then how has HBO managed to survive? Obviously people do subscribe, presumably because there's more than one thing they want to watch there. ASOIAF fans-- and people who are so desperate to watch something at the moment it comes out that they'll bootleg the show, but then won't bother to rent it when it's available later-- aren't the center of the universe.

[Analu]

I have thought about it. I think HBO is stupid to be so black and white about this. This isn't the halcyon days of Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, Rome, etc. They aren't exactly blowing people away with the quality of their shows these days, and forcing people to pay for a package of premium channels makes it even less appealing. There's some wiggle room here, if they're willing to take into account certain considerations regarding this show and allow other options for fans of the show to watch without opting for a package of channels they may not need or want. I'm not saying they have to do it the way NBC has for Chuck and their shows. Just allow for other ways to watch it. Right now, I don't see them trying to accomodate anyone, just a "my way or the highway" position.

And just to be clear, I'm not an HBO hater. I'm actually the exact opposite. My 3 favorite shows of all-time are Deadwood, Rome and The Wire and I own all 3 boxed sets. I'd happily pay $80 or whatever they want to charge to preorder the season or subscribe online or whatever they come up with. I'm just not paying $40 a month for a bunch of channels and shows that I (frankly) think are bad. That's all.

[Areo]

I'd happily pay $80 or whatever they want to charge to preorder the season or subscribe online or whatever they come up with. I'm just not paying $40 a month for a bunch of channels and shows that I (frankly) think are bad. That's all.

I agree. I think HBO can do a lot about this problem many (potential) viewers have but are just not trying.

GoT will be the first DVD I'll buy. EVAR! Allowing people to pay for what they want to watch can be beneficial for several reasons like the ability to clearly and quickly identify the viewer base of a given show and get more money out of it as buying one show is surely more expensive than a subscription (a premium the buyer is willing to pay to get exactly and only what she desires). Also, having a DVD for instance allows you to pause, play whenever you like and so on. That is basically why I don't watch TV anymore (together with the delay for the shows to get on air on some local station and the translation that kills them).

I am convinced there is a way for them to accomodate many people who feel the same way in a profitable way.

[mummer]

Analu, I don't think you're a hater and I totally get why it would be good for us if HBO did this. What I don't get is why you (and others) are so convinced that HBO could easily do this, from a business standpoint, if they only wanted to.

You seem awfully quick to dismiss the importance of their relationship with the cable companies, when as far as I can tell (without actually knowing the details of their contracts) that's really the only imaginable reason that they would do things this way. I mean, requiring viewers to have a cable contract in order to use their online streaming service doesn't directly benefit HBO in any way. So either HBO is run by total idiots... or the cable companies have major leverage over their business decisions, and don't want them to do anything that would make it easy for people to get HBO content without having cable.

Obviously HBO can still make their own decisions. But if they do something that is a major F-you to the cable companies, they're likely to be giving up a big chunk of real revenue -- i.e. their current ability to demand $[some large number] instead of $[some smaller number] from Comcast, because a lot of people sign up for Comcast at least partly in order to get HBO. And that would be for the sake of the hypothetical revenue of, say, ASOIAF fans who don't want cable. Yeah, maybe they could end up making more money from those people (even though many of us will probably end up paying for the show on DVD or iTunes anyway, just a bit later). But why would they take the chance? It's not like they're doing badly now. They've been doing it this way for years, while Showtime has been putting more content online, and HBO still has more subscribers than Showtime.

I'm not sure what your point is about their original programming. It's true that they don't have The Sopranos, Deadwood, etc. any more -- but they didn't have those for much of their history either; movies are still a big part of their business, and they have exclusive broadcast rights to them (that is, if a movie is on HBO, it's not on iTunes or Netflix). And some of the shows you mentioned didn't actually have a huge audience during their original run. On the other hand, True Blood is HUGE, Big Love just finished five successful seasons, and Boardwalk Empire and Treme are sort of in the place The Wire started out in (critical acclaim, not many viewers). You may wish they were in a crisis so they'd need us more, but I don't think that's so.

[Analu]

I agree. I think HBO can do a lot about this problem many (potential) viewers have but are just not trying.

Exactly

I'm not sure what your point is about their original programming. It's true that they don't have The Sopranos, Deadwood, etc. any more -- but they didn't have those for much of their history either; movies are still a big part of their business, and they have exclusive broadcast rights to them (that is, if a movie is on HBO, it's not on iTunes or Netflix). And some of the shows you mentioned didn't actually have a huge audience during their original run. On the other hand, True Blood is HUGE, Big Love just finished five successful seasons, and Boardwalk Empire and Treme are sort of in the place The Wire started out in (critical acclaim, not many viewers). You may wish they were in a crisis so they'd need us more, but I don't think that's so.

I'm not saying I want HBO to be in a crisis or anything of the sort. I'm not sure where you're getting that. I'm saying I wish they were more accomodating to the public and offered more than just binary options.

My point about Sopranos, Deadwood etc is that during that time, I was willing to pony up the extra money for a package of channels I didn't particularly want, because there were several really quality shows on HBO and so to me, the ends justified the means. I never got into Big Love, liked (but didn't love) Boardwalk Empire, and True Blood? Yeah, TB having huge numbers is part of the problem, IMO. HBO will continue putting out garbage (albeit entertaining garbage) like that, since the numbers are there. It's a guilty pleasure show, not a high-quality show on the likes of Deadwood, Rome, et al. Of course, this is all just subjectively speaking.

I get everything that you're saying, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. I love ASOIAF and am thrilled that HBO is adapting it. I have money that I'm perfectly willing to spend to see it, in a variety of different and legal ways, EXCEPT for the one and only way that HBO allows it to be seen. I understand what you're saying from an economic perspective, but I'm practically begging HBO to take money from me so I can watch this show, but they don't seem to give a shit. That's frustrating to me.

[mummer]

I get everything that you're saying, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

I don't like it either... but I don't think you do get what I'm saying. Or at least, if you can understand that there are (probably) good business reasons for it, then I don't get how you can also say things like "they don't seem to give a shit." If the only way they could convince you that they give a shit is to do what you want them to do, but you know that they have reasons not to do that even if they do give a shit, then... maybe just try not to take it personally?

And I don't why you say "the one and only way that HBO allows it to be seen", as if DVDs and iTunes don't exist unless they're provided to you right now. It sounds to me sort of like if I said I had no choice but to trade bootleg tapes of my favorite band (I mean assuming it's a band that doesn't support that) because the band didn't play in my town or because I didn't get to go to that show, even if I knew they'd be releasing the live album in 6 months.

I don't think that's a horrible evil attitude or anything, it just puzzles me.

[Analu]

Yeah, we're going in circles now. If you can't understand that no one who's a fan of the series is going to wait months for it come out on iTunes to watch it when everyone else is going to be watching and discussing it when it airs, then we're done here and I'm not going to repeat myself anymore.

And I'm not taking anything personally. This is an asoiaf message board. I'm allowed to voice my frustrations about not being able to watch it here. That's all I'm doing.

[mummer]

Yeah, we're going in circles now. If you can't understand that no one who's a fan of the series is going to wait months for it come out on iTunes to watch it when everyone else is going to be watching and discussing it when it airs, then we're done here and I'm not going to repeat myself anymore.

No, I totally understand that. What I don't get is the part about how HBO isn't allowing you to give them money. I know people who have the same dilemma, and what they do is watch it for free when it airs (either bootlegged, or at a friend's house or whatever)... and then rent it later once it becomes rentable, which gives HBO money and is what they would've done anyway. I've done that before and I'll probably do it again.

And I'm not taking anything personally. This is an asoiaf message board. I'm allowed to voice my frustrations about not being able to watch it here. That's all I'm doing.

Of course you're allowed. Did I stop you from voicing anything? I just thought statements like "HBO doesn't give a shit" sort of went beyond frustration into taking it personally... and I'm allowed to say that too. It's really not a huge deal and I didn't mean any offense.

[Bronn Stone]

No, I totally understand that. What I don't get is the part about how HBO isn't allowing you to give them money. I know people who have the same dilemma, and what they do is watch it for free when it airs (either bootlegged, or at a friend's house or whatever)... and then rent it later once it becomes rentable, which gives HBO money and is what they would've done anyway. I've done that before and I'll probably do it again.

It's really not very difficult to understand. They are turning down low-revenue sources to preserve their high revenue sources. Because if everyone could get GOT for $3, nobody would pay $20 a month for HBO. I WANT them to think that GOT is inspiring the sorts of customers who aren't nit-picking every nickel they spend. Because that will encourage them to spend more on production. Which might give us a 2-hour special episode in Season 2 named The Battle of the Blackwater. HBO would rather have $15 from 10M people than $2 each from 75M. Especially if they knew the pent up demand will drive future DVD sales.