Look, some people
are perfectly content to swap a DVD with Netflix once a millenia and watch Matthew Broderick and Michelle Pfeiffer in
Ladyhawke on their Xbox 360 -- other people demand something a bit more "hip" on their Instant Watch queue. Netflix is apparently investigating the possibility of an additional $10 monthly fee to watch HBO shows and movies on the streaming service, or at least has a poll to that effect. For people that keep cable around just for things like HBO and Showtime, it's an attractive proposition, and perhaps a bit of an inevitability, but at $10 a month we'd expect Netflix to toss in a bit more premium content than just what one channel has to offer. What's clear is that either way, people are going to find a way to watch this stuff online, and the first provider to figure out the right way to monetize and distribute it wins. This seems like a tentative step in the right direction, if it comes to pass.
posted Feb 1st 2009 6:50PM
Price tiers strikes me as the way to make this work. Make old content available for a low price (as Netflix is doing right now), and then add tiers available on either a subscription or PPV basis for newer content.
So if Netflix does this, and does more than offer just HBO or Showtime, they really will be helping make streaming work.
The only way I will support this is if they include much more HD content (read almost all of it) in the price. If it's gonna be a few shows from HBO and it's all gonna be SD, then forget it. it's a ripoff. SD is on it's way out, if they want to make this a future thing HD content is a must for anything new that's being added on.
$10 a month extra just to watch a few shows on Netflix is way too much. I might as well continue paying HBO by itself through cable and getting their on-demand system that works acceptably.
I'd be shocked if Netflix isn't working on upgrading their HD capabilities as we speak. Their data MUST be showing that people are watching HD content, but their streaming servers most likely need to be upgraded to allow for a larger % of stuff to be in HD. Not to mention re-encoding all of the SD content they already have.
I don't disagree, but that's why I'm saying.. unless they are charging premium to expand service not only content wise but actually upgrading to provide more HD content then it's justifiable. If not, well, charging more for content in SD is really not something I personally need nor would pay for. As I mentioned, for $10 month extra on my cable bill I get HBO all channels, HD + their on-demand service that offers pretty much all shows and most of them are available in HD as well. So I don't see why I would pay Netflix more money for that unless they do offer most of that content and other stuff in HD. Then I'd gladly pay the premium.
I called it:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/01/30/blockbuster-takes-a-hint-makes-push-for-better-digital-distribu/comments/16827533/
Perhaps netflix reads Engadget comments...
They haven't done it yet, this is just speculation, as was your comment :)
One way or another you're going to have to pay for content. $10/mo for streaming of a wide selection of new release level content is a pipe dream. Any more than that and it gets too expensive and you might as well do PPV a la Vudu.
I wouldn't. What value does that add over cable?
Let's see. How about you live somewhere that's got good OTA HD reception and only keep cable so you can watch HBO. Say you're paying $50 a month for HD cable (that's Waaaay) low. if you could cut that $50 and just pay $10 a month extra to Netflix so you could stream your HBO HD, you'd have $40 left in your wallet for food or electricity or increased bandwidth.
With no HD content (streaming) for PC users and no no releases...coupled with the inability to get me a new release nearly 3 months after it was released on standard DVD means that this customer is considering dumping their service. Most of my standard DVD's are Long Wait or Very Long wait and not available to stream.
I'll stick with RedBox and hope they add more blu-ray soon.
now if they could ad both showtime and hbo live stream and on demand for free like starz then that would be fine. they could charge like 6.99 or 7.99 for hbo and showtime as a standalone and for free with your 1 or more dvd plan like streaming is now with starz
I'd pay it. I didn't have a problem with HBO when we suspended our Directv Account until next football season. I had a problem with hundreds of other channels having stuff we don't watch or care about.
We use our roku often now and use hulu/fox/cbs, etc for anything else we want to watch on TV. There's really no reason to have cable TV at this point. 500 channels (and in the case of cable you can't remove the lame channels from your guide) and nothing on...
I love netflix, but i just dont like the idea of getting HBO or Showtime content via it. that is what i have my HD subscription for. netfilx just is not high enough quality to have me drop my networks.
I'd gladly pay an extra $10 a month if I could stream HBO's catalog of shows (current and prior) in 1080i HD.
I hope it's not $10 a month. The onnly reason why I am still with Netflix is the online streaming. I use it while at work. If they didn't even have it I would cancel and go to Blockbuster and pay $30 for unlimited rentals and they are less then a block from my condo. But if they charged like maybe $2 a month, I'd be fine with that, but anymore more, no way. I will cancel Netflix and go with Blockbuster where I can go into the store everyday and grab movies for work.
Higher priced plans or variably priced tiers is inevitable with Netflix streaming. What we have now is just a little taste of the drug to get all the addicts in wanting more. Then the dealer will start collecting. Anybody who thinks the major studios are going to let Netflix have all their content and let people have unlimited access to them for 10 bucks a month is naive. Even 20 dollars a month is not enough. The fact is that with streaming you can watch a whole lot more than with physical rentals with the mail, availability and throttling to slow you down.
Expect to pay more (a LOT more) to receive the digital holy grail digital delivery: all movies and TV shows ever made, on demand, 24/7/365 in HD.
I think there is a very good chance it wont cost that much on the actual service.... remember the starz stuff costs 7.99 by itself (and is "free" with the rest of their plan). I could see hbo doing a similar thing but I don't see it costing nothing for existing streaming customers.
HD would be a requirement though.... they need to have every hbo movie in hd and all of their series (esp band of brothers and some of their older classics). I would pay a $5 addon fee to my existing subscription for that.
If prices for streaming keep rising it will KILL it before it even gets off the ground.
Why would HBO agree to 5 dollars a month for the same content they can charge 13 dollars month for the same content with cable companies? And why would they risk alienating their two biggest cash cows (Time Warner and Comcast) in the process.
Some people may want it for 1 dollar but that doesn;t mean HBO is goiung to give it away for that. They know they have a reputation for high quality content and they know it is very much in demand. That's why they can get away with pricing their DVD sets so high and this is why there are tons of people who just keep cable so they have access to HBO.
Same thing with ESPN. They hold the strings and they know it.
why did starz? they charge very close to the same price as hbo does to the cableco's yet their content is "free" to existing watch now subscribers....
Here's a thought: How about make it FREE if you already subscribe via your cable provider? I have every premium channel (HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Showtime, Encore, etc) through FiOS already... why would I need the extra streams to my Roku box?
It would be nice if HBO (et al) added their older shows and documentaries that aren't currently playing On-Demand.
"why did starz?"
Starz is just a third tier movie channel. HBO and Showtime have all the big hits and so obviously they have more demand and can command more money. Starz is probably happy to get whatever they can. I guess something is better than nothing. But HBO doesn't have to settle so they won't.
Besides we don't know what kind of deal Starz made with Netflix. We don't even know if Netflix is turning a profit on its streaming service or if its just a loss leader at this point to make them stand out from Blockbuster. I am pretty confident Netlflix pays Starz something every time their licensed content gets streamed and the more content they add without increasing their fees the more Netflix loses.
Eventually somebody has to pay.
Once a millenia? Ladyhawke? Xbox 360? That first sentence is so obnoxious, I don't know what to say.
I have no use for any of the SHO or HBO movies -- that's what I have Netflix for -- I just want the original series. So, $10 for ALL the premium series on-demand, sign me up. If I have to pay $10 for HBO and $10 for SHO, etc, I'll stay with the DirecTV version, thanx.
There is no way I'm going to pay an additional $10 on top of the $10 I'm already paying.
I was hoping they would just move their entire library over as is and we're all set. Looks like I may have to cancel. I've only been keeping it in anticipation that I can stream every single selection that they carry on DVD/Blu for $10 a month. I'm not going to pay $20 a month for that. I'm barely able to pay $10 as it is in this recession.