Warner Bros. Discovery CEO Says HBO Max is 'Way Underpriced' (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0179168852
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/25/09/11/1930227/warner-bros-discovery-ceo-says-hbo-max-is-way-underpriced
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/news/776211/david-zaslav-hbo-max-way-underpriced-password-sharing
> Everyone's favorite CEO, Warner Bros. Discovery head David Zaslav, thinks HBO Max is ripe for a price hike. Speaking at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia and Technology Conference (doesn't that sound like a fun time?) Zaslav argued that his company's premium output can command a premium price.
>
> "The fact that this is quality -- and that's true across our company, motion picture, TV production and and streaming quality -- we all we think that gives us a chance to raise price," he said, according to The Hollywood Reporter. "We think we're way underpriced." The [2]recently re-re-branded HBO Max currently starts at $9.99 per month, including ads, peaking at $20.99 per month for its premium plan, roughly in line with its rivals.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/news/776211/david-zaslav-hbo-max-way-underpriced-password-sharing
[2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/07/09/2317211/max-changed-back-to-hbo-max
Does Max even have much content? (Score:3)
Is there much on max that will keep people subscribed?
I imagine that a price hike would just drive more people to become transients; subscribing for a month each year or two to watch the new stuff, and then cancelling.
Of course, that is what I do with all streaming, so that's just kind of how the world looks to me. I realize that many other people watch stuff a lot more than I do, so maybe they will stay.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. If I had the choice of paying $21 for Max, or $10 for Apple TV, I know which of the two premium services I'd be choosing.
Re: (Score:2)
I have AppleTV+.
My only complaint is that they take SO FUCKING LONG to release a new "season" and that seasons are only 8-10 episodes.
But I have that same complaint about all streaming services.
Re: (Score:2)
8-10 episodes per "season" seems to be the new standard across all streaming services. It feels like a cruel joke to people who knew 26 episode seasons were once a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The Drinker just had a video on this topic.
He also covers the way every episode is part of the "grand arc" now, stand alone stories have disappeared.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, it was a bit before my time but - in the 1960s, some TV series had 30-episode seasons.
Re: (Score:2)
It is. I read a thing on it a while back. Among other reasons, one given was that "newer generations" prefer shorter seasons, so they don't have to pay attention for longer periods of time, such as across 24 episodes. So their dipshit damaged attention spans fuck over everyone else.
Other reasons are things like higher production values require more time to create content, so there less content can be developed within a given time frame, and of course the cost of production.
I get the cost arguments...but ho
Re: (Score:2)
No, it really doesn't. I cancelled a few weeks ago.
if they want to charge more and make better content, or expand their library, and offer their current release movies, I'll think about it. But right now it's shit at any price.
I'll take it for free (Score:2)
The only reason I still have streaming services is that I get them for free with my cell phone and Walmart plans. I might even try them sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't really getting them for free. You are paying for bundled services.
I wish i could decouple Prime video from Prime shipping.
This is the only paid streaming service I subscribe to. The Katherine one is called torrents.
Re: (Score:2)
Ain't that the true.
I may not get any "free" streaming with my cell phone plan, but I also only pay $12.48/month for it too.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that's just great.
No you got me heading over to walmart to see if I can get a reasonable rate for my phone.
I hope you're happy!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm here to serve.
FWIW, I use US Mobile and I have the unlimited minutes and text plan.
Some of their plans have a discount if you pay for a full year in advance instead of monthly, but I don't think mine does.
Flip that and reverse it (Score:2)
They have nothing that would make me spend money on it. Its all way over valued. Every year they go up on price and do not provide one more second of service.
FUBD (Score:2)
This coming from the company that graciously brought us "Fuck you business daddy!" to the vernacular.
They're right, it's priceless!
.sig does not apply in this case.
I have it and almost never watch it (Score:2)
There is very little that interests me, and it would be really easy to quit
\o/ (Score:1)
Someone needs to run to the store for more cool aid.
That must be... (Score:4, Funny)
That must be why I recently dropped my subscription. I couldn't take getting such a good deal anymore.
Ad (Score:3)
Is this an ad?
But... this other ad disguised as an article says Apple TV+ is the new HBO!
[1]https://www.wired.com/story/ap... [wired.com]
How can I, as a lowly consumer, make an informed decision and choose the one that's best for me?
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/apple-tv-plus-is-the-new-hbo-max/
Re: (Score:2)
> Is this an ad?
> But... this other ad disguised as an article says Apple TV+ is the new HBO!
> [1]https://www.wired.com/story/ap... [wired.com]
> How can I, as a lowly consumer, make an informed decision and choose the one that's best for me?
You need both to survive. If you don't have them, think of how many fun conversations you'll miss out on bitching about how crap the latest episode of tits and dragons was, or how much you hated the twist ending to the latest big producer name made AppleTV series?
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/apple-tv-plus-is-the-new-hbo-max/
So this is just stupid (Score:2)
When it was $55 a month it was a luxury product that only a few people had. The entire point of making it cheaper with you could make more money selling it to a lot of people.
The fact that this is coming up is actually a pretty bad sign for the overall economy and hell our entire society.
More and more we see businesses abandoning the model of selling to as many people as possible and you see the Apple model where you sell at a very very high price to a handful of individuals able to pay.
That's p
No it isn't (Score:2)
I don't want it nor do I need it , therefore you couldnt give it me.
They were worth it at 5.99$ without adds (Score:1)
They were worth it at 5.99$ without adds, but only for the first 6 months at 2.99$. I stopped buying streaming services when they started sticking adds in them. 20$ A MONTH for one of these fragmented services, even without adds, is too much.
Question for you people (Score:2)
Suppose there were a service, let's call it "All-In Streaming" that cost $100/month. It provides access to ten content libraries (named below). On the backend, the fees would be distributed to the various content providers, based on their contribution to watch time. For example, if a user spends 20% of their time watching AppleTV+, 50% of their time on Prime Video, 10% of their time on Peacock, etc, then that user's $100 would be distributed accordingly (minus a 10% fee retained by All-In Streaming). This r
Re: (Score:2)
I sort of expected you to say 'let's call it "cable"'. Personally, I wouldn't pay $100 for that because each entity just doesn't have enough content to justify giving them $8/month all year round.
While it's a trifle inconvenient, I'm a transient subscriber to most of those. At any given time, I'm subscribing to 2-4 of them (excluding Peacock, which I get for free). So from my point of view, I'm paying ~ $40/month and get to see everything that they offer and I'm interested in.
I do have to admit we are tryin
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on transience. That's how I treat some services, like Disney+ and HBO. But I'm a permanent resident on Prime Video and AppleTV+, primarily because they're bundled in with other things I'm paying for.
I look at things in terms of hourly cost.
Fundamentally, what is media-based entertainment worth? Personally, I don't think $5/hr is unreasonable. And mind you, that's for any number of people, not $5/hr/person.
So, at $5/hr, I divide the number of hours watched monthly and if it comes out to $5/hr or
Must be collusion somewhere (Score:2)
It seems like each streaming service comes out with a new series when none of the others does in order to string you along thinking that something else good might magically appear.
Is this guy for real? (Score:2)
Piss right off, Mr. Zaslav. Your service is not a necessity for anyone, and therefore is worth exactly how much people are willing to pay for it. It doesn't matter what YOU feel it's value is.
Well, I guess he'll find out (Score:2)
It's the customers' opinion that matters in the end, not his.
Didn't the government bailout Goldman Sachs? (Score:2)
Anything involving them is invalid.
Underpriced for under content. (Score:2)
Maybe if they just gave GoT last seasons one more try, or the complete disaster of Last of Us.
Honestly, John Oliver is your strongest content generator, and that is incredibly sad.
And this is what I predicted years ago... (Score:2)
I predicted years ago that as every content provider wanted to build out their own streaming service and balkanize everything - eventually they will think that they are worth more than they are, raise their prices (proportionally reducing their subscriber numbers) and end up making less money than they did before the price hike. Eventually they get tired of operating at a loss and shut their service down and go back to licensing to other service operators who can leverage their running overhead across mult
Re: (Score:2)
I mean... people literally demanded this. Remember "cable unbundling?" "Why should I pay for a package of 1000 channels I never watch, I only want to pay for the ones I do." Well, now you get to pay separately for Disney, and Amazon, and Netflix, and HBO, and...
And no, I'm not okay with this, and if prices continue to climb I will likely end up giving my money to one of those shady IPTV services that are probably run by Russian organized crime.
It's way under priced (Score:5, Funny)
I pay $0 a month for HBO Max
Re:It's way under priced (Score:4, Insightful)
>> I pay $0 a month for HBO Max
> Same for me.
> HBO can charge whatever they want. You either pay it or you don't. I don't. Nobody needs HBO. Stop paying them and they will be forced to lower the price. It's that simple.
Already not paying it.
$9.99 with ads is way overpriced. Does this clown honestly think I'll pay them to shove ads at me? I'd maybe consider $9.99 with no ads. I'd certainly be okay with zero with ads, though I probably won't watch it any more than I watch my free-with-Walmart-Plus Paramount+ subscription with ads, which is to say approximately never.
If your service shows ads, I'm the product, and I'm not going to pay you to be the product.
Re:It's way under priced (Score:4, Insightful)
>> I pay $0 a month for HBO Max
> Same for me.
> HBO can charge whatever they want. You either pay it or you don't. I don't. Nobody needs HBO. Stop paying them and they will be forced to lower the price. It's that simple.
This is why I have zero for-pay streaming services. Until they offer something compelling for a price I can accept, I nope out. Too many seem to think these are necessary for survival, or at least talk as if they think they are, and they just aren't.