We knew this was coming (kind of like Winter…get it?), but it still kind of stinks.
Rachel McAdams, Taylor Kitsch, Kelly Reilly, Colin Farrell, and Vince Vaughn. Sounds pretty strong to me.
Currently, it makes sense for content providers like HBO and ESPN to make these online services available in as many places as possible. Unfortunately, it *does not* make sense for them to offer the services without a cable subscription. The economics at this point just do not work out.
People need to realize that the economics of offering HBO without cable just does not make sense currently. The benefit HBO gets from cable companies paying for nearly *all of their advertising* is much more than they could currently hope to recoup from offering the service stand alone.
Great news, even if it was not exactly a surprise.
So it begins[^fn].
[^fn]: HBO has made it clear this is not the model they intend to use in the US. That is unsurprising. I would not be surprised, however, if that is a decision they revisit every five years or so.
A well written response to the Internet’s cry for HBO to “just take [its] money.”
> The short version is this: HBO, more than any other network, benefits from the pay TV ecosystem currently in place, so it has little incentive to try to go around it. If it were to sell directly to consumers, it would have figure it was leaving more money on the table by not currently doing so than it would cost (and risk losing) by doing so.
The reasons laid out by “Jasper” are exactly the reasons I hear for why HBO will not be making the jump to direct subscriptions in the near future. I do hope he’s right that things might change in a few years.
(via [The Loop](http://loopinsight.com))