HBO Hints It Can’t Go Online-Only Just Yet

Ever since the launch of HBO Go, the online portal that gives subscribers to the premium network access to a wide archive of shows and movies at no extra charge, fans have been begging the network to offer a standalone, subscription version that wouldn’t require them to have cable. But it looks like that won’t happen — at least in the immediate future.

Earlier today, HBO, which has generally not responded to calls for an independent online offering, Tweeted in response to the growing popularity of the hashtag #takemymoneyHBO:

Love the love for HBO. Keep it up. For now, @RyanLawler @TechCrunch has it right: http://itsh.bo/JLtSFE ‪#takemymoneyHBO

Let’s decode this for most people. The “Take my money, HBO” thing is the brainchild of TakeMyMoneyHBO.com, which lets people enter a dollar amount they would be willing to pay for a standalone HBO Go and then have that amount Tweeted with the aforementioned hashtag.

It’s gotten some press recently, including this TechCrunch piece by Ryan Lawler, where he explains that the average $12/month that a small, but very vocal group of people would pay for HBO Go is nowhere near sufficient to make up for the trouble it would cause between HBO and cable/satellite providers:

The results would be disastrous, and there’s no way that HBO could make up in online volume the number of subscribers it would lose from cable. Which is why, even though some users would actually pay more for access to HBO GO without all the other cable channels, you won’t see it show up as a standalone service anytime soon.

So HBO’s Tweet is effectively a confirmation of Lawler’s thinking, but at least the network included “for now,” leaving open the door to a world in which you don’t need to pay for hundreds of channels you don’t watch PLUS HBO just to watch Game of Thrones online.

(via NY Times)

Thanks to MutantMonkey for the tip!

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. JoeTheDragon says:

    you can get limmted basic and add HBO

    • who? says:

      In my system, limited basic +HBO, when the taxes and fees are added in, is about $55.

      • Mark702 says:

        Ya, I was gonna say, basic was about $35-40 when I cancelled cable back in 2007, plus $10 for HBO and taxes is at least $50. Fuck that, I just download Game of Thrones off a torrent site, suck it HBO.

        • madeinguam says:

          Yeah! Suck it HBO! Screw you for trying to make money!

          • MutantMonkey says:

            So if they offered a more appealing service, they wouldn’t be making any money?

            • madeinguam says:

              It would be nowhere near as much as what they’re currently making with their cable contracts.

              • MutantMonkey says:

                Ah, so what you really meant was, “Yeah! Suck it HBO! Screw you for trying to milk every last penny you can!”

            • StarKillerX says:

              Well obviously their service/programing is appealing it’s just that no matter what some people would prefer to pirate it for free.

              I’d bet that HBO could be online for $10 a month and it wouldn’t significantly decrease the amount of piracy of it’s programing, all that would change would be the excuses people use to justify pirating it’s shows.

              • Jawaka says:

                I think it would. There’s a lot of people out there who watch HBO who don’t know a damn think about the Internet and wouldn’t figure out how to get the picture on their TV sets.

        • Alessar says:

          I think that the “limited basic” the first poster mentioned is what my area called “antenna emulation” service for a while. It was a $10 (yes, ten) package that consisted of the 3 main local network affiliates, 3 local channels, and the community access channel. And, for some reason, just a couple educational channels and Univision. It was something mandated in the local cable service contract with the city. At one time you could slightly add on to it, but as time went on it seemed like the digital service + box was being pushed extremely hard and you had to get that — at about $80 — to get anything more.

          When The Oatmeal did its “Pirating Game of Thrones” strip, someone did a rebuttal. I thought most of their rebuttal was pure attitude except for the part where they analyzed the pay structure between HBO and cable. Bottom line: HBO is partially underwritten by big cable to begin with, which makes cutting that cord a lot more difficult.

    • GameHen says:

      We haven’t had cable in years so this may have changed, but in order to get premium channels (like HBO), we had to have the cable company’s box for which we had to be subscribed to their ultra-extra super expensive package. At the time, over 10 years ago, it was costing us upwards of $80 a month – and we didn’t even have the premium channels. Screw that!

    • scoutermac says:

      You can get the welcome pack from Dish Network for $15/month then add HBO for $16/month.

    • HomerSimpson says:

      Pretty sure you need whatever’s above limited basic here.

      • dadelus says:

        Not if you’re on U-Verse. We have just the local channels package and all the movie channels (HBO, Showtime, etc…)

    • theblackdog says:

      Verizon and Comcast make it damn hard to find the plan, and according to the FiOS site, adding on HBO will cost $17 a month anyway, on top of the $12 for limited basic.

      Also how much do you want to bet that either company would require you to upgrade to their $50 a month “basic HD” package to be allowed to add HBO?

  2. rugman11 says:

    I’ve been saying this for years. The current television system is basically a giant risk-management pool. The writers, production companies, networks, affiliates, advertisers, and cable companies all work together to spread the risk of failure among themselves while each getting a piece of the profit. I think widespread adoption of online distribution is inevitable, but it’s going to have restrictions, either in time (Hulu & Netflix) or money (HBOGO, on-demand tied to cable subscriptions).

    • jim says:

      Great post. But to make your point smaller even a single network with 1 channel is a risk management pool. HBO would not most of the shows they produce if they sold them the next day on Itunes for 2 bucks. Sure SitC, Saparanos or GOT would make them cash hand over fist. But, they will lose their shirt on Luck, Deadwood, and the Wire. The Wire would have been 1 and done in the world the “new biz model bro” and “horse and bugy” invision.

      Content is not cheap and the internet is where profit from content goes to die. For all the success of Netflix they could not afford to buy the first broadcast window rights for the Avengers with the cash on hand.

    • ianmac47 says:

      What you are missing is that a decade from now cable subscription packages will have gone the way of landline telephones, AOL, VCRs, and radio programs. Content consumption is changing and changing rapidly. The pioneers of this new way are more likely to have in place the subscribers and the infrastructure to be leaders.

      • rugman11 says:

        But the current providers are never the leaders and the never want to be the leaders. Look at some of the advances in recent years. AT&T didn’t become a major cell player until 2004 when it was bought (yes IT was bought) by Cingular. It took Apple to revolutionize the music market and Tivo to introduce the DVR. The entrenched companies are never the leaders of change because change is expensive and risky. It’s going to take another company to come in and change things. We’ve seen Netflix try, but their experience has shown the problems with trying to purchase access to content, especially new content: namely, the production companies can still make more money via syndication and DVD than they can through streaming rights.

        • jim says:

          The AT and T you mention is not the same as Ma Bell ATT. The current ATT was one of the broken up pieces that went on to merge and buy out other former Ma Bells and then Cingular brought them and took over their name.

          Is Itunes really the example you want to use here? The internet has killed the music industry. Even Itunes has not really made up for anything with an average cart price several times smaller and less frequent then pre Internet.

          • rugman11 says:

            The point of the iTunes comparison was that it took an outside company, somebody who didn’t make music, sell music, make music players, or sell music players to change the way things are done.

            Further, iTunes was actually an attempt by the recording industry to monetize the pirates. They saw people, like many who download TV shows, who said “we’ll pay for digital music if you’ll offer it.” So the recording industry partnered with Apple to try to take down Napster, LimeWire, etc. and, it worked. Of course the change in their distribution model killed their revenue because it allowed people to only purchase what they want (singles vs. albums). How eager do you think the television industry is to monetize the pirates, now that they’ve seen the results?

  3. Worthy says:

    That’s fine, if HBO won’t take my money I’ll just google search “Free tv online” and the first result has every show available the next day after airing for me to watch. So now HBO, you get none of my money.

    • NeverLetMeDown says:

      Yup, because you get to unilaterally determine the terms of an exchange, and the owner of the content has no say in the matter.

      • Round-Eye 外人はコンスマリッストが好きです。 says:

        I think Worthy is commenting on the fact that HBO’s move is slightly akin to cutting off one’s nose to spite their face. HBO could offer subscription-only services which would make a profit, though potentially tiny, or they can ignore it completely and people will get the shows for free online. Either way, consumers will get the content, but HBO is failing to take advantage of a potential for profit. I don’t know the details and financials of it, but on the surface, it seems silly.

        • rugman11 says:

          Did you even read the Tech Crunch article? The entire point was that, if HBO were to go subscription-only, or even make the offer, they would lose the support of cable companies. Basically, they have to go all subscription or nothing. There’s no incremental profit to be made by offering online viewing while keeping the cable model.

          • BurtReynolds says:

            I don’t know. There are only so many people who will bother with cord cutting. Everyone else is worried that they will miss the opportunity to see something worth watching on a channel they never watch now.

            If HBO offered a streaming option sans cable, and the cable providers decided to drop HBO, they would be greeted with a flood of complaints and probably cancellations. I think the cable companies need HBO more than HBO needs them.

      • finbar says:

        They are being dicks about the whole thing. I won’t be blackmailed into buying a $50.00+ for content I don’t want, so I pick an alternative. Perfectly guilt free.

        • JJFIII says:

          Yes, there are people who are willing to steal others products. There are people who will steal cars because they feel the cost of a car is too much (that is EXACTLY what your argument is). The people who are willing to steal the service will steal it NO MATTER THE PRICE. Those that say they would not steal it if it were $10 per month online are quite frankly liars, and the same group who would say stealing an album online that costs $10-12 is ok
          You are what you are, and you are feeding either the able company or other telecommunication that provides your internet, unless of course you use dial up and wait hours for downloads.

          • mistersmith says:

            No JJ…downloading a movie is not theft, as it does not deprive anyone else of using the movie.

            I steal a car, you can’t drive it. I download a HBO show, they have to argue that my only two options in life were downloading or paying them for a subscription, when instead I will say that I would have Netflixed it, rented the DVDs from Blockbuster, borrowed discs from a friend, etc.

            • rugman11 says:

              And those are all perfectly valid (and legal) options, which downloading is not. HBO would have no problem with you borrowing the discs from Blockbuster or the library. I’m a rampant TV torrentor, but I at least have the dignity to not wrap myself in martyrdom to justify it.

              • StarKillerX says:

                Exactly!

                I am so tired of people trying to justify their actions rather then admit “I’m to fucking cheap to pay for HBO”

                Ironically I’d bet that if HBO was available online for $10 a month the decrease in piracy of it’s programing would be minimal at best.

  4. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    How about a TV-only model that doesn’t require a cable subscription?

  5. catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

    i know the roku user community has been very vocal, especially since most of us are cord cutters or wanna-bee cord cutters.
    my sister has directv, HBO, and roku but because of directv’s rules she still cannot use the roku HBOGO channel.
    there’s a lot of red tape strangling content providers right now and i really hope they work it out for the next contracts

    • airren says:

      I left DirecTV after ten years because they refused to allow HBOGo on Roku. I think they’ve since reconsidered, you might want to have your sister check that now…

  6. Crazydog says:

    …why not just charge an exorbitant amount to “make up” for the lost cost for each individual online-only subscriber. Then those who really want it can have it.

  7. who? says:

    So I was subscribing to cable, and paying $14 every month to get HBO. When my cable bill rose to over $100, I realized that I was only subscribing to cable in order to get HBO. Everything else I wanted was either available via antenna, Netflix, or was cheaper to just buy ala carte from iTunes or Amazon.

    I’d gladly pay $20 just for HBOGo, but my local library gets the HBO shows on DVD as soon as they come out, and I get them soon after that. So now, not only does the cable company not get my money, HBO doesn’t get anything from me either.

    HBO seems happy enough that they’ve tied themselves to some dinosaur cable companies. Good for them, I suppose.

  8. frank64 says:

    The best way for me to get HBO shows is DVD. You would think there would be another way since streaming would be cheaper for them. Netflix DVD, the library or buying used DVD’s works fine for me. Showtime has good shows too, if I had cable I wouldn’t want to pay for both, some Showtime shows are streamed now.

    I would probably pay $10 a month and I know HBO would scoff at that.

  9. umbriago says:

    Isn’t HBO still owned by Time Warner? The same people who own Time Warner Cable?

    Time Warner would never give people a reason to kick the expensive cable habit in a jillion years. Because that is what they would be doing.

    • NeverLetMeDown says:

      Yes, they’re owned by Time Warner, but Time Warner hasn’t owned any stake in Time Warner Cable for something like five years. They’re two entirely separate companies.

      • umbriago says:

        get outta here! I didn’t know that. Well, it makes a lot more sense now.

        Ever since I cut the cord I quit caring about cable TV companies, so I’ll have to beg forgiveness. But it’s a good to not care about cable TV companies.

        • JJFIII says:

          If it is good not to care, why would you consider posting about it? You care more than you let on, and you seem to want to “brag” that you no longer have cable. It is pretty common among those that no longer have it. They need to convince somebody that they are better off without it, because they do not really think it.

          • Doubting thomas says:

            similar to the way that so many people want to make themselves believe that taking something without paying for it isn’t theft.

  10. sirwired says:

    It’s a sensible business decision on HBO’s part. I know that Starz really pissed off cable companies when they licensed their content to Netflix for stupid-cheap.

    It sucks, but it’s also reality.

  11. pythonspam says:

    “The results would be disastrous, and there’s no way that HBO could make up in online volume the number of subscribers it would lose from cable.”
    I currently have no cable service (OTA digital antenna plus hulu/netflix) and would never consider subscribing to cable (with the additional HBO costs) just to get HBO. However, the quality of programs produced by HBO would definitely make me consider the online only version for $10-$30 (depending on if the content available) and I would imagine that there are many others who feel the same way.

    • rmorin says:

      Read the TechCrunch article. For better or worse they have to listen to cable companies, there is just no financially viable way around it.

      Consumers like you don’t matter to HBO because there is no way they could find enough of you to financially incentivise a change to the way they are currently doing things. They would be losing TONS of money from their current agreements with cable companies to have the privilege of charging a relatively small amount of people a monthly internet only fee.

      • who? says:

        I dunno. Netflix seems to make it work.

        • rugman11 says:

          Okay, if you want HBO to turn into an online streamer of nothing but old movies, TV, and Norwegian imports, be my guest. Me, I’d prefer to keep Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, and whatever else HBO originals puts out.

        • rmorin says:

          Netflix has VERY few recently released movies, and produces extremely limited (if any currently) exclusive programming. Both of these have high costs. Contributing to this HBO built their model with the understanding of collaborating with cable providers, thus contracts for content and availability are not as flexible as a (relatively) new start up like Netflix.

          TLDR; it’s not that easy

  12. HogwartsProfessor says:

    I quit watching HBO years ago when they started talking over movie credits. They billed their channel as “uninterrupted movies!” but talking before the movie is over is NOT uninterrupted. There is music over the credits, music that I want to hear.

    Their talking consisted of telling me what was coming up next. Then it was followed directly by a promo telling me what was coming up next. I found this so irritating that I canceled it and haven’t been back since.

    I had to suspend DirecTV recently, so I could pay a tax bill (on unemployment and can’t afford both). So far I’m doing okay with my Roku and online offerings. :)

    • MutantMonkey says:

      They started doing that because they were losing viewers during the credits. Most would get bored sitting through the credits, would flip channels, get caught up in something else and not switch back. People that actually wanted to sit through the credits without any sort of modification were an extreme minority.

    • nybiker says:

      I canceled Showtime from my Directv package for the same reason a number of years ago. They used (maybe they still do) slice & dice the end credits by squeezing the credits to the bottom half of the screen and then in the top-left show the Showtime Extras (a behind-the-scenes piece) and in the top-right was the Showtime Extra logo. When I complained to them, they said that their customers like the ‘Extras.’ I liked the Extras too, but I didn’t want it ‘editing’ the movie. Then they started slapping their logo on the screen; first every 30 minutes or so for about 2 minutes. Then continuously. When I also complained to Directv about it all, their response was ‘hey, we’re the pipe, they’re the water, so talk to them.’ I had figured that if Directv told Showtime to knock it off, Showtime would. But it didn’t happen. So, I canceled Showtime and Directv got less of my money. I then repeated the process with Encore & Starz. I canceled HBO when they started with their logos on the Sports stuff. Eventually, when I was laid off, I canceled the whole shebang and now just have my plain old antenna and my Netflix subscription with DVD & Streaming (ROKU FTW!).

      The whole concept of a premium channel is that the movie/show is supposed to be like we’d see it in a theater. No edits, full-screen, and we read all the credits (and listen to any music that might be played during said credits).
      What part of ‘paid subscriber’ does HBO not understand? You sign up and if you watch nothing at all, well, they still have your money. What difference does it make if you leave after the Sopranos is over? Messing up the movie is only going to piss-off people like you and me and force (well, maybe force is too strong a word; how about cause?) us to cancel the service. And once we cancel, well, it’s less likely we’re going to come back (granted, my financial situation hasn’t improved, so any cable/satellite account is not going to be happening anytime soon for me).

      • MutantMonkey says:

        At the end of the day it is still about actual viewers on the content, not just subscribers to the channel. To the execs, why should they spend millions to have a movie put into rotation if no one is going to watch it.

        If the viewer is constantly leaving the channel, they begin to see that there isn’t much need for it and start to drop the service.

        This is what we see on the research end of things.

        Given that info they try and determine what will keep people on the channel, and for most, the credits are throw-away, so they crunch them and put content on top.

        While there is a segment that does not like this, the level of business they bring to the table is not on the same scale as the segment that would rather watch something else than the credits.

    • There's room to move as a fry cook says:

      Wife and I are among the few who stay for the credits at the movie theater.

  13. Mark702 says:

    It’s like: Premium restaurant dinner, only $1!

    *does not include mandatory $29 dinner plate use fee.

  14. Bionic Data Drop says:

    If they come out with an app for Xbox live, Roku, etc. like Netflix, I’m definitely in. HBO has incredible original series and movies.

    Unfortunately, I don’t see this happening for a long time, if ever.

  15. jim says:

    That site is a joke. I might as well start one TakemymoneyWynnhotel I would gladly pay them 10 dollars for a room that is not in use. That is 10 dollars they would not have had. Who cares that if they agreed to this they no longer can charge 300 a nite for the rest of their rooms dont they know I have an internetmba?

    • kryptonianjorel says:

      You realize that there are booking sites that do just that, aren’t you? As long as you pay enough to cover their costs, its financially smart to take your money for a room that would have remained empty.

      The difference here is, consumers are going to get this room (the tv shows) whether the hotel (HBO) gets any money or not. The consumers are giving HBO an ultimatum; we won’t pay $60/month for cable and HBO, but will pay $10 directly to you. If that is not acceptable, you get $0 (either because people just won’t watch, or they pirate the shows anyway)

    • who? says:

      Have you ever seen priceline? That’s exactly why priceline is so cheap.

  16. FrankM says:

    You can get “Broadcast Basic” and add HBO. The FCC made the “tier buy-through” prohibition in the 1992 Cable Act.

    This was in 1992 and needs to be revisited as cable system go all-digital. Making you buy the lowest tier of service was more about cable companies not being able to block the basic analog tier, and less (yeah, right) about making consumer pay for a service that could be received for free with an antenna.

  17. Press1forDialTone says:

    Porno and over-the-top politics and social comment direct to your house took
    them years and years to get to even the inadequate level of security they have now.
    Think how long it will take them to get it to your tablet/phone. And if that security fails
    and everyone on facebook gets to see the stuff you watch on HBO, look out. Just be
    patient, it will happen when they light the fire in the crematorium as they slide you in.

  18. dotyoureyes says:

    Bottom line: HBO already has a pile of spreadsheets full of best-to-worst case scenarios outlining how much money it makes on cable subscriptions, how much it would lose by offering itself a la carte, and how much it would gain among viewers who currently download shows illegally but would pay for programming if it were available without a cable subscription.

    There will come a point down the road when it makes financial sense to offer HBO Go without a cable subscription. That day has not come yet. In the meantime, it’s fine with the “losses” from piracy or would-be subscribers without cable.

  19. incident_man says:

    I really miss the days when DBS (digital satellite) with the standard 18-inch dishes like we now have was relatively new (1994-1996 time frame). Back then subscribers could choose between DirecTV and USSB (US Satellite Broadcasting) or both. DirecTV had your basics, like TBS and TNT, and USSB had the premiums like HBO and Showtime. A subscriber could have one without the other, or have both. So you could have your HBO without having all the other stuff too, if you wanted. My wife and I just had USSB because we were primarily interested in movies; we were able to get free OTA and were satisfied with that offering otherwise. Shortly afterwards, the two companies merged and we were left without the premium-only choice. As a result, our pay-tv bill increased by about 300%, just to keep the premium channels because we had to take all the other stuff too.

  20. coloradogray says:

    Heck, I would buy a season pass for game of thrones and true blood if they would just make it available the next day.

    • theblackdog says:

      This is why I wish HBO would work out a deal with Amazon to sell episodes through Amazon’s instant videos. I *love* that I can see new episodes of Mad Men the day after they air, because it’s a lot cheaper to pay $27 for the season that I can replay anytime than pay $50 a month to get cable.

    • rugman11 says:

      That’s exactly what they’re afraid of, though. HBO (and other cable channels) rely on consistent revenue throughout the year to operate. They don’t want five million people popping in for 10 weeks to watch Game of Thrones and then dropping their subscription because they don’t watch True Blood or Boardwalk Empire.

      Although, that is a way I could see it being done. If HBO could figure out a way to sever ties with the cable companies without losing revenue, I imagine they would go with a one-year subscription model or a contract basis to make sure people stick around for the whole year. And then we could enjoy the hundreds of Consumerist comments justifying their torrenting and complaining about how they would pay for Game of Thrones but don’t want to have to pay for the other 10 months of “crap”.

      • JHDarkLeg says:

        You lack vision. HBO will die if it sticks to it’s current model for more than another 10 years. Once baby boomers are gone cable will lose all its power. Once that happens HBO can embrace the new model of internet streaming, or they can have people torrent their content until they’re broke. It’s up to them.

        • rugman11 says:

          I don’t lack vision, you lack numbers. There are currently 104.3 million homes with cable. Is that down from the peak in 2009? Yes, by 400,000 homes or .4%. But there are still more homes currently with cable than in any year prior to 2008. Netflix has 24 million users and all I hear about them is constant complaints about their crappy content. Hulu+ has 1.5 million users.

          Internet streaming is A new model, but it’s certainly not the ONLY model. Do you really think that every channel and cable company and production company is just sitting on their asses doing nothing? You don’t think they’ve explored every possibility for increased revenue and, to this point, found them wanting?

  21. bben says:

    HBO and any other ‘channels’ have decided that the people who either cannot afford exorbitant cable bills or cannot get cable at all are not worth their time. They are in bed with the big service providers who make sure to let them know that if they do start offering their shows direct, the cable operators will cut them off out of spite.

    If the cable operators do cut out HBO, they will loose more subscribers than they will if HBO is available by other means.

    The reality is that most people who presently get HBO by cable will still get it by cable even if it is available for pay by other means. I seriously doubt that cable subscriptions would be affected much, if at all. And HBO will keep loosing income due to piracy by people who are willing to pay for it, but cannot or will not get cable.

    • NeverLetMeDown says:

      “I seriously doubt that cable subscriptions would be affected much, if at all.”

      Hmmm…who do I think is likely to have a more detailed, data-driven, analytically-sound study of the pluses and minuses to HBO of offering their product online: (a) the company, which has potentially billions of dollars at stake, or (b) an online poster who doesn’t know how many of the letter “o” go in lose?

      • jim says:

        Don’t you know NetBA’s know more about business models then people that run the business. I mean I hear it all the time “new business model bro” and “horse and buggy”. Its amazing with their ability to forcast the future that they have not set up their own business to exploit this niche in the market place like billion dollar company after billion dollar company have done in the past.

        I mean its not like the stupid suits in Hollywood look at the buisness landscape and see content does not make money on the internet or anything. Netflix for all its success had a near riot from its costumers for spliting up the service which would result in a total cost of 16 dollars a month. Netflix can not afford to buy the first window rights for a single major movie studios slate of programing never mind a date and day release. If they where to get these rights at the current market value the cost would be 200 dollars a month if not more. To give you the idea on how expansive rights are the ACC sports contract went for 250 million a year and this is not even the richest deal this would wipe out Netflix cash on hand. The production cost of HBO programing plus the licensing cost for movies on HBO in a year is almost the market cap of Netflx.

  22. suez says:

    This saddens me. I won’t pay for regular cable anymore–haven’t in nearly 2 years and don’t miss it–but I would have considered paying just for HBO streaming convenience, as opposed to having to wait for DVDs from Netflix. Their loss.

  23. rockelscorcho says:

    So, if people still pirate Game of Thrones, and HBO says “you won’t see it show up as a standalone serve anytime soon” then they are okay with it because it doesn’t seem to hurt their business model. So, why the hell are people still paying for it? Just pirate it! It seems that it won’t really hurt HBO.

  24. britswim04 says:

    Step 1) Find friend that has cable.
    Step 2) Propose you’ll cover him $15 a month it costs for HBO and a six pack of beer occasionally. Also, consider remaining his friend.
    Step 3) Have him sign in with his provider info once on your HBOgo devices.
    Step 4) Stop whining.

    • mac-phisto says:

      ^^ this is how i made it work. i have a friend that has cable w/ HBO & wanted netflix. i have netflix (no cable) & wanted HBO. now we’re both happy. :)

    • mac-phisto says:

      ^^ this is how i made it work. i have a friend that has cable w/ HBO & wanted netflix. i have netflix (no cable) & wanted HBO. now we’re both happy. :)

  25. Geekybiker says:

    You know if you don’t want cable and still want to watch HBO there are still legal ways to do it? Netflix has most of it, or you can just buy the DVD’s when they come out. Sure you’ll be a season behind, but you’re not required to become a pirate. So many people seem to think just because they can’t get immediate gratification, its okay to steal.