Amazon Snags Older HBO Shows For Web Streaming

http://recode.net/2014/04/23/amazon-makes-a-big-move-snags-older-hbo-shows/

by timjahn • 12 years ago

163 143 12 years ago

Wow, this is big surprising news I think. Not so much what it says about Amazon, more what it says about HBO. Seems to indicate strongly that they may never offer a straight stand-alone streaming app without a TV subscription.

timjahn3• 12 years ago

I was thinking this is their first experiment into offering content outside their own platform. While the content isn't spectacular, it's at least a step in the right direction.

johnpowell• 12 years ago

The content is actually spectacular. The Wire is one of the best shows ever made.

chmullig• 12 years ago

I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. To me this says that HBO is becoming more like most other content providers.

gmjosack2• 12 years ago

You can already sign up for HBO Go with Comcast without having a TV plan. They'll bundle it with your internet plan.

pdovy• 12 years ago

Is that something you had to call and ask for? Doesn't seem to be an option for me on their website through my existing account.

lbsnake7• 12 years ago

This is basically a marketing move: HBO gets to keep their new programs so customers have to have HBO to see GOT and so forth (HBO gives up its back catalog but I doubt their old shows bring in new subscribers so that isn't a huge loss), Amazon justifies their Amazon Prime price increase and also gets people to buy Fire TV (Amazon Prime is probably not coming to any other device like Chromecast). I would say it's a huge win for Amazon and a so-so win for HBO, so likely Amazon is paying a hefty price to HBO for this ad campaign.

whichdan• 12 years ago

Amazon Prime works on most gaming systems and Roku, just not Chromecast and AppleTV.

ssharp5• 12 years ago

I don't think gaming systems and Roku as entries to streaming entertainment are great long-term, mass-market options. They are/were good for early adopters or the more tech-oriented. But for the larger markets, Chromecast, Apple TV, the new Amazon service, and smart TVs is where the market is evolving.

dublinben4• 12 years ago

Or any Android devices but their own awful Kindle Fire tablets. Or any GNU/linux operating systems.

ssharp5• 12 years ago

HBO is also sticking it to Netflix with this move. It's clear that traditional premium channels and streaming premium channels are on a collision course and it makes sense for HBO to spread their content juice to someone other than the streaming Goliath. Selling the content to Netflix would give Netflix an even stronger position as it continues to flank traditional cable. While this move makes Amazon stronger, it makes Netflix weaker.

I hope this will help expand Amazon's reach and get their service on to more devices. Netflix needs a legitimate competitor and Amazon looks to become a formidable player in the streaming arena.

wlesieutre• 12 years ago

Amazon's streaming is on Roku already, with support for Prime and rentals/purchases. I don't see why they'd have any problem with Chromecast. The Fire TV doesn't seem like a product where they intend to make money off of the hardware. It's just a means to get their content in front of more eyeballs.

Their big battle (in my opinion) is that Netflix has a whole lot of name recognition, and that's where making an Amazon streaming box can help. Right now people associate Amazon more with buying physical goods, and less with digital media where their main presence is with the Kindle brand.

ssharp5• 12 years ago

I saw a Vizio smart TV that has a red "Netflix" button on the remote. That may change if Amazon becomes a legit competitor to Netflix, but Netflix definitely has a stronghold.

tantalor• 12 years ago

It’s the first time HBO has offered access to its catalog via a streaming video service that’s not its own HBO Go.

Wrong, iTunes and Google already have the first three seasons of Game of Thrones.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/tv-season/game-of-thrones-season...

https://play.google.com/store/tv/show/Game_of_Thrones?id=71E...

IanDrake• 12 years ago

And so has Amazon Streaming, but you needed to purchase it. I guess what's new is that some stuff will be free to prime members.

bretthoerner• 12 years ago

That depends, the article mentions Amazon Prime which implies these episodes are free to watch after you have a subscription. If that's true it just means the author is confusing streaming and "cheap subscription services." iTunes is just like buying a DVD except on your computer, so that's not exactly "special."

res0nat0r7• 12 years ago

They are talking about ala carte streaming, not pay per episode content.

dublinben4• 12 years ago

Isn't paying per episode the very epitome of a la carte pricing?

smackfu3• 12 years ago

Yeah, "streaming video service" isn't the right term, since the places where you purchase videos also let you stream them, but I don't know what a better term is. Netflix calls themselves an "Internet television network" but that kind of makes me gag.

Edit: Actually, the Amazon press release uses "online-only subscription streaming service", which does the job.

JamesBaxter3• 12 years ago

I can watch any episode of Game of Thrones and stream the new episodes as they broadcast live on TV with Sky Now in the UK. £5.99 a month.

crayola3• 12 years ago

Note that they are called Now TV, not Sky Now, thought they are a Sky service. (No Sky subscription needed.)

79522• 12 years ago

I watched Game of Thrones live on Now TV and the adverts where a nasty surprise. You forget how much broadcast TV damages the content with ads. It would not surprise me if in five years time TV was exactly the same as it always was, just transported differently.

crayola3• 12 years ago

Now TV (www.nowtv.com) does have Game of Thrones with a subscription model.

(UK only, but that shouldn't stop you!)

mcintyre1994• 12 years ago

Now TV is owned by Sky, who have an exclusive on all HBO content in the UK.

officemonkey2• 12 years ago

first time

At one point "Arli$$" (a HBO show from the 90s) used to be on Netflix streaming.

chalgo• 12 years ago

As does blinkbox.com in the UK

reledi• 12 years ago

The article also mentions that.

That’s not entirely new territory for HBO, which already sells digital versions of its older shows — including Game of Thrones — via outlets like Amazon and Apple’s iTunes store.

waterlesscloud• 12 years ago

The Variety article about this deal uses the term "SVOD", or Subscription Video On Demand.

http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/hbo-cuts-exclusive-lice...

matznerd2• 12 years ago

There is an amazing quote I read over a year ago on the Netflix vs HBO battle and it basically said that it's a race for Netflix to become like HBO before HBO can become like Netflix.

Tyrannosaurs3• 12 years ago

That feels like it's based on what feel to me at least to be several flawed assumptions, primary among them that there can be only one.

matznerd2• 12 years ago

It's not about them being the only one, but it is about being the market leader. And with exclusive content, there actually "can be only one."

I believe in a mature paid-streaming market, consumers will likely subscribe to multiple services, all for way cheaper than satellite or cable currently costs.

I am going to edit my top level post and add the quote now that I am in front of a laptop.

dragonwriter• 12 years ago

Well, there's more than one HBO-like service (e.g., Showtime, etc., exist) just as there is more than one Netflix-like service (plenty of subscription-based video streaming services exist), but that doesn't stop the fact that Netflix's streaming service is pretty much in the same position with regard to content producers as HBO was when it first ran into premium cable competition, and its route to sustainability in a market where it is no longer the sole player is pretty much exactly the same thing as HBO's was in the same situation -- stop being primarily a route to other people's content and instead become a premier content producer that also provides other people's content, so that you have (1) a compelling reason for consumers to choose you when other services exists, and (2) protection against content producers raising their rates so that all the profit from your business goes to them instead of you.

ashbrahma• 12 years ago

This explains why Amazon Prime now costs $20 more per year! ($99 vs $79)

gdulli2• 12 years ago

On the one hand this reinforces that cordcutting will continue to be a second-class citizen in terms of first-run/same-season content, but on the other hand, making it easier for people to discover Six Feet Under is a great thing.

Pxtl2• 12 years ago

making it easier for people to discover Six Feet Under is a great thing.

Well, the first few episodes at least. The show starts out awesome and gets progressively more depressing with no payoff episode after episode.

By the end I was watching out of sheer stubbornness.

gdulli2• 12 years ago

Really? I just finished re-watching it and found the later seasons to be incredible. Better than the first two. Especially the climaxes of seasons 3, 4, 5. I definitely got more out of the second viewing, I had much more focus on character arcs than plot.

Touche11• 12 years ago

Just pirate it.

gamblor9562• 12 years ago

Don't be a tool. Just pay for it. It's been available on DVD for years now, is available on HBO Go, and is now available on Amazon for non-subscribers, and has already been available for non-subscribers on iTunes for years.

smackfu3• 12 years ago

Well, that was a pretty effective move, since now it seems worth it to get a streaming device that does Amazon Prime, where yesterday I didn't care.

DonGateley2• 12 years ago

Do your due diligence well. Amazon does an amazing job of obscuring what Instant Prime is available on leaving an easy impression that it is when it isn't. No Tivo, for example, but they make it all too easy to misunderstand that.

smackfu3• 12 years ago

Yeah, I have an Apple TV and a Tivo now, which are both fairly useless for Instant Prime.

brianstorms• 12 years ago

In my experience, Amazon does not care for high quality streaming. As a Prime member for a while, I gave their streaming a shot. Laughable. Might as well have been watching the video on a 56k USRobotics modem with a very high latency connection. Low resolution, fuzzy picture, stops and starts. I simply do not trust Amazon to do it right.

eogas• 12 years ago

Not to mention HDCP. The first time I tried out Prime streaming, I turned off my second monitor after starting up the video, and Amazon took that to mean that I was a criminal, and that my video should be stopped.

I groaned and fired up Netflix.

hatred• 12 years ago

May be we both live in a different world of sorts. Are there others like you who seem to be facing issues with instant video recently because for me it works quite well. Also , how long back did you try it ?

dublinben4• 12 years ago

No matter where you are, Amazon won't stream high quality (or even HD) streams to a PC. Their streaming quality is quite poor compared to their competitors.

Reedx• 12 years ago

Weird, I use it a lot (almost as much as Netflix) and haven't had those problems. Always get HD and an uninterrupted stream.

chiph• 12 years ago

The money is in the back catalog, as Ted Turner showed when he kept the MGM film library and sold the rest of the company.

biafra• 12 years ago

As a German customer is it possible to get any movie or show on amazon prime in English?

linohh• 12 years ago

Some are available. Just search for OV or OmU in the catalog. It's a pain in the ass finding them, though.

TillE• 12 years ago

The selection is terrible - a few BBC series and some weird films. It's really annoying, because Amazon.de has quite a lot of great TV series and films, all dubbed in German, usually quite poorly.

I honestly don't understand how German audiences tolerate it. 90% of the time, it really just sounds like a bunch of actors sitting in a studio, reading lines melodramatically. I seem to remember the LOTR dubs were well done, though. In contrast, I saw the first episode of Game of Thrones at a friend's house and it was godawful. Completely lost the nuance of every performance.

Anyway, other streaming services (Maxdome, Watchever) will give you the original audio track, but their selection is also rather limited.

SloopJon• 12 years ago

As Amazon Prime's catalog has improved, I've bought fewer videos in the last few years, even as prices have plummeted. (Whole series are selling now for what a single season used to cost!) Good news for my closet space, but to the collector in me it seems so ephemeral. When the copyright on The Sopranos lapses a few hundred years from now, my DVDs and Blu-rays will be in the public domain. Meanwhile, Amazon could lose its license before I get halfway through season three.

JTon• 12 years ago

Agreed. What's your moral stance on buying a show from iTunes/Amazon and then torrenting a copy for safe keeping?

caractacus• 12 years ago

But only in the US, it seems. So far, while the UK might have (a poorer selection of) Prime Instant Video, it doesn't have the FireTV and won't be getting the HBO shows. Maybe they'll launch at the same time?

samelliot• 12 years ago

Exclusive deals don't solve piracy, we're just jumping from one platform to the next.

ds9• 12 years ago

Agreed. It's very positive that the distribution channels are opening up such that more companies are distributing shows like this -- yet as a casual viewer, it's hardly worthwhile for me to subscribe to Amazon Prime and buy some specialized proprietary device, just for one network's older shows.

And presumably there will be other vendors offering other narrow selections, only on their own or "partner company" devices or DRM-ware. This sort of thing makes sense if you already have the device or service, otherwise it just prices the video files beyond any reasonable market value.

And piracy will continue as long as this "jump thru hoops" mentality goes on: compared to the hassle-laden commercial experience, pirating is convenient, and files are high quality, free from junk, and play on VLC.

The copyright holding companies will probably die off before they realize that they could have done better just selling files. They're convinced that only a few would buy and they would put them on torrents - but if I paid a dollar an episode of a series, with no DRM, trailers, ads or other BS, I wouldn't bother sharing, I'd just refer people to the same source to buy their own copies.

jlillyreed• 12 years ago

Until everything is given out for free with no ads, there will always be piracy. However, that would mean that there would be no way to pay for the content, so there's always a balance that needs to be struck.

jobu• 12 years ago

"In addition, HBO GO will become available on Fire TV, targeting a launch by year-end."

Looks like this deal also adds the last missing checkmark to the Fire TV comparison chart: http://www.amazon.com/Fire-TV-streaming-media-player/dp/B00C...

Touche11• 12 years ago

There are definitely others, MLB.tv for example. Of course they pick the list to look good for their device.

jordan0day2• 12 years ago

Live sports (baseball and basketball, specifically) may be one of the last remaining things keeping many Americans from "cutting the cable". I think the first streaming service to be able to offer a significant amount of these will have a clear competitive advantage.

gtaylor• 12 years ago

Indeed. Lack of MLB.tv makes this a non-starter for me. We don't have cable TV, but I love to watch baseball. MLB.tv lets me watch just about anything I want all year.

Our Roku is basically an MLB.tv machine.

Igglyboo• 12 years ago

Huh, interesting. Any idea why they would even include HBO in the chart if they weren't offering it?

talmand• 12 years ago

Because they are comparing their product against other products that do offer that feature and wish to give their customers an honest comparison?

hrayr• 12 years ago

It's weird that they include Chromecast to that comparison chart. Sure, they offer some of the same features, mainly streaming video to the TV, but that's where the similarities end. Chromecast is not a set-top box, it's a second screen device. It's up to the apps and other services to extend functionality to this second screen. In the comparison chart, for example, it says Chromecast doesn't have voice search, well, you can voice search youtube and have it play on Chromecast so that single point is incorrect.

Einstalbert• 12 years ago

I sat through 20 minutes of a co-worker directly comparing these two items the other day. As different as they are, people look to both company's offerings like they're competing neck and neck.

leccine• 12 years ago

Amazon Fire TV is just the perfect platform. Now with old and new HBO series you can literary watch anything you want, including good foreign movies, Hollywood crap. Not to mention the gaming capabilities of the device.

Malarkey73• 12 years ago

I'd really like to watch Oz.

Coming from the UK that was the first show I watched where I thought "There's some good American TV, What is this HBO thing?"

pvnick• 12 years ago

This is great for Amazon. Looks like they're attempting to be the primary outlet for premium big-name content producers, while Netflix is trying to be the primary outlet for their own content, which has the HBOs and Showtimes shying away from doing business with them. Both Netflix's and Amazon's are viable strategies, and it'll be interesting to see which pan's out.

On the other hand, piracy has gotten way easier. The technology is already here for the more tech savvy to instantly stream (or at least quickly download) The Wire and Game of Thrones, bypassing Amazon, as well as Arrested Development and Orange is the New Black, bypassing Netflix. Netflix and Amazon aren't just competing with each other, they're competing with illegal p2p technology. And in the case of Netflix, throw in traditional premium content producers as well.

Reed Hastings currently has great hair, I expect that'll start turning grey real fast.

mbrutsch• 12 years ago

they're competing with illegal p2p technology.

The technology isn't "illegal", but some uses for it are. Big difference.

gdilla• 12 years ago

Netflix's evolution is more a reaction to HBO and Showtimes reluctance to work with them.

jonny_eh2• 12 years ago

Yup, parent is confusing cause and effect.

georgemcbay2• 12 years ago

Would upvote 100 times if I could.

I briefly worked for a movie/tv streaming service whose CEO was a movie industry exec. (I worked there almost accidentally as fallout from a previously company failing and that streaming company basically taking on all of the previous company's employees as a team).

One of the big take-aways from that brief stint was realizing how much the management at traditional "content" companies hate Netflix... like seething, psychopathic hate. In their minds they are on a mission to destroy Netflix at all costs because of how Netflix's all-in-one pricing model "devalues" their content.

pdubs• 12 years ago

Too bad there's no first-party app for hardware-accelerated 1080p/DD5.1 streaming on Windows like there is for Netflix and Hulu...

markbnj• 12 years ago

So what was it about the Amazon deal that made HBO say yes when they've been telling Hastings to gfh for years now?

Raphael• 12 years ago

Yes, I'm surprised Amazon could pay HBO enough. My assumption was that Netflix couldn't afford HBO content, but that apparently wasn't true, as Amazon doesn't charge more than Netflix and has hefty delivery costs.

netcan2• 12 years ago

I don't know what to think about TV.

On one hand, there's a lot of progress happening. Streaming, on-demand and pay-per-view/download are really getting bigger and more prominent every year. HDboxes, are getting better too and achieving a lot of the same things (watch anything anytime).

The artform itself is improving. Game of Thrones or Breaking bad are better that any show could be in the stand alone episode paradigm of Star Trek. They are using the 10+ hrs hours of sequential viewing to do some serious plot & character development. Walter White wasn't possible before serials.

On the other hand, it's all such a kludge.The whole thing is built around creating and maintaining an artificial scarcity modeled on the slightly less artificial scarcity of a few years ago. We pretend that we're paying Amazon or Netflix's for a cable or pretending that we're paying Apple for a video cassette. Don't get me started on loaning.

I'm not claiming that copyright could go away and still have Game Of Thrones. This isn't that kind of statement. But… it's just such a kludge. Something this brittle and ugly can't be the right way to do anything.

jonny_eh2• 12 years ago

I don't follow. How is paying Netflix a kludge? They're providing a fantastic service in addition to some great new content. If Amazon, Hulu, et al step up their game then we're all the better for it.

panzagl• 12 years ago

Netflix on its own isn't a kludge, but paying netflix, plus maybe Hulu, and oh, there's stuff from Amazon as a side effect of 2 day shipping, plus buying individual episodes from Amazon, iTunes, or Google, and don't forget the old Ultraviolets, right, right? Add in some ripped media and possibly a wire or antenna hooked to a dvr and that's what's a kludge.

chaostheory2• 12 years ago

What's the point you're trying to make? That you can't buy episodes of shows like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones separate from cable, they're too expensive, or that Netflix and its kin aren't good enough?

netcan2• 12 years ago

My point is that even applying the word "buy" to something like an episode in todays context feels artificial. It's built around rules which state that everyone must pretend that Game of Thrones is being recorded onto video cassettes and you are walking over to the video store to borrow them.

I'm not trying to make a normative or ideological point. Overall, the shows themselves and the system of selling and delivering them to us is way better than 10 years ago. I'm not claiming some unalienable right (though ironically there is an inalienable ability, via pirating) to see anything, anytime at a price of my choosing.

I'm not making suggestions for an alternative economy where Game of Thrones gets produced. I'm just saying that this system is ugly and feels fragile. It's a kludge.

atacrawl• 12 years ago

I was actually hoping this meant shows like The Larry Sanders Show and Dream On had found a home online. Darn.

arjn• 12 years ago

This is a very big deal for me. I've had Netflix, Amazon and Hulu streaming via my Roku for over 2 years now but no HBO. I use comcast for internet but no TV so the Roku HBO app would not work.

Amazon Snags Older HBO Shows For Web Streaming

Related Stories