HBO Max To Get Even More Obnoxious About Password Sharing

from the enshittify-ALL-the-things! dept

The sort of executives who fail upward into positions of prominence at major media and streaming companies are all out of original ideas. So as the Wall Street pressure for impossible, perpetual quarterly growth mounts, they’ve increasingly resorted to the same tactics we’ve long seen at major shitty cable companies like Comcast.

For streaming video that has meant a lot of pointless mergers (and the resulting layoffs, price hikes, and quality erosion), pushing more advertisements into every viewing minute, and generally nickel-and-diming their customers to death. For walking disasters like Time Warner Discovery, that’s also meant a crackdown on password sharing, which company executives say is about to get much worse:

“Several months of testing has enabled WBD to determine “who’s a legitimate user who may not be a legitimate user,” Perrette said. Once that is determined, he continued, the next step is to “turn on the more aggressive language around what needs to happen” in order to and make sure that “we are putting the net in the right place, so to speak.”

You might recall that early on, streaming executives loved password sharing. HBO and Netflix saw it as effectively a form of free advertising, which would encourage people to sign up for service. They actively encouraged it. But now that U.S. streaming growth has saturated in the U.S., they still need their improved quarterly returns. And you certainly can’t achieve that by spending more money on labor and content.

So the push is afoot to generally cut corners and goose profits, or enshittification. In streaming, that also includes harassing people who used a friend’s or parent’s password into signing for their own service. The executive assumption is that people will actually want to do that, as opposed to say, just cancelling service or pirating the content with a VPN and BitTorrent.

It’s understandable executives want people viewing their streaming content to pay for it. The problem is that with the other hand, these same executives, through harmful mergers, new restrictions, price cuts, layoffs, and general quality erosion, are ensuring that it’s less compelling than ever for consumers to actually sign up for their own account.

There’s really no escape from this doom loop, as traditional cable companies long demonstrated. The kind of stuff streaming consumers want (better customer support, lower prices, better features, higher quality content) hurt quarterly revenues. So the process switches to a form of product and brand cannibalization by the extraction class, which is where enshittification enters the frame.

Some of these efforts may temporarily goose earnings (the press tends to credulously parrot claims password sharing crackdowns are goosing earnings, even though streaming companies usually offer no hard data to confirm it), but ultimately the check comes due in the form of merger debt and customer defections. At that point, the executives responsible have likely already moved on to other companies to engage in the same sort of “savvy deal-making,” and the cycle begins again.

When piracy inevitably sees a resurgence, the media executives that remain will blame everything (generational entitlement! China! VPNs!) but themselves. And the cycle continues until piracy or new market disruption forces the companies in question to re-assess their choices. That last part, as the cable TV industry’s slow migration to streaming demonstrated, always takes much longer than it should.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: hbo, warner bros. discovery

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “HBO Max To Get Even More Obnoxious About Password Sharing”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
20 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Shannon Vanshoon (profile) says:

Timely Reminder

It’s kind of sad, since I still remember years and years ago, shortly after Netflix started the streaming side of its service, there were news reports about piracy going down, since what Netflix offered was arguably so much more convenient.

But, then of course, everyone had to start their own streaming service, gatekeep their stuff behind it, and then Netflix got greedy and enshittified, and here we are.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Paul (profile) says:

Re: I'm Paying You, Don't Lock Me Out

I’ve never understood why the metric for password sharing isn’t simultaneous streams as opposed to location. I had the the premium all-possible options Netflix tier, and when I (the actual person paying them) was locked out at my girlfriend’s & parent’s house, I cancelled after being a customer for almost 20 years. That was just too infuriating. What is the point of making an world wide web-based service… not portable? Idiotic.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re:

This. Why not offer a few extra screens for a reduced price and just let it be shared? Then offer simultaneous stream for movie sessions with family and loved ones even when not in the same place. Offer 0-day access to all content for a small extra for those who want to be at the bleeding edge, dunno. There are non obnoxious ways to make money.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Nathan F (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Because allowing a few extra streams on one account, even if being paid for, doesn’t allow them to report to Wallstreet that they got ‘bigger and better’ by adding x number of new accounts.

Remeber. The goal isn’t to make a better product or service for the customer, it’s about making more money for the investors and wallstreet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Yeah. The original idea behind the stock market was good, but since the ordinary person generally can’t get into it, that means it’s generally wealthy people buying up portions of companies, then sitting back and getting even richer off the proceeds while the people actually receiving the “services” are worse off, which does indeed make the stock market since the 1980s a cancer.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Why not offer a few extra screens for a reduced price and just let it be shared?

I think what people are overlooking is that these companies are assholes (including Netflix since they joined the MPAA) in a whole world of other assholes. What seems like it should be straightforward never is, because everyone will fight everyone else on every significant point of a contract.

That means, among other things, that the terms are re-negotiated for every country. That there are probably no royalty breaks for multiple streams in a “household”, and if there were, they’d all be arguing about the definition of “household”. “Hollywood accounting” cuts both ways—people making contracts with film companies have to be hard-asses about definitions and enforcement, lest they get screwed by those companies. There’s no room for “common sense”, which was long ago abused past the point of breaking.

Let’s not forget that the whole business model of streaming is barely sensible at all, in that lots of people are willing to send anyone the data for free, and, as such, have to be legally suppressed. “Popcorn Time” was the streaming service people actually wanted.

Anonymous Coward says:

HBO and Netflix saw it as effectively a form of free advertising, which would encourage people to sign up for service.

My guess is that it simply didn’t work. I remember HBO doing a lot of free preview periods in the early 1990s, during which the cable signal would go un-scrambled for a few days. It was advertised beforehand, and, as a kid, I’d watch during those times; but I knew it was famously expensive and I’d never otherwise see it “legitimately” (excepting occasionally in hotels, but TV’s always weird while traveling).

In other words, the idea of subscribing basically didn’t occur to anyone in my family (though we did eventually get a “black box” from “some guy”, which defeated the scrambling). It’s not hard to imagine someone running the numbers and finding that password sharing didn’t much lead to new subscribers either.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

But that functionality was one of the reasons people bought the product to begin with.

I assume you don’t have numbers, just as I don’t, and that HBO does have them. I can only infer that their conclusion is that people, whatever the reason they subscribed in the first place, don’t much seem to be canceling over this. In other words, what you describe as “the problem” isn’t HBO’s problem.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

And why should my husband not use the account I pay for if I want him to be able to, pray tell?

If you’re choosing to give money to HBO, I guess you’ll take what they give you. Luckily, if the two of you are in the same household on the same internet connection, they do allow that sharing. Otherwise not, but if you were to pay them anyway, why would they care about your “should”?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Jake’s an offshore mechanic. Are you saying he has to do without entertainment while on the rigs?

No. I’m saying that if that’s HBO’s policy, people who know about it and give HBO money are effectively expressing support for it.

“Without entertainment” is hyperbolic. There are forms of entertainment other than TV and film, and there are TV and film services other than HBO. Someone really intent on giving HBO money could simply do it, again. (But maybe they should first check whether the internet access is good enough to support simultaneous streaming by the non-sleeping non-working crew members. Five years ago, it almost certainly wasn’t; with Starlink, there’s a chance.)

If we’re literally talking about a crew going to the “high seas”, that should hint at another option—the “competition” people on Techdirt keep mentioning. For $300, Jake could bring a 20 TB hard drive and be the hero of the rig instead of HBO’s chump. (It could store upward of 20,000 hours of video with somewhat-better-than-DVD quality; there are maybe 4,000 free hours in a year.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I’m saying that if that’s HBO’s policy, people who know about it and give HBO money are effectively expressing support for it.

But that wasn’t HBO’s policy when I signed up, and they’ve hardly made policy changes clear since, which is why I canceled my subscription a year ago as a result of this shit.

“Without entertainment” is hyperbolic. There are forms of entertainment other than TV and film, and there are TV and film services other than HBO.

Where’s the hyperbole? Not everyone can do with books and radio only, and due to the nature of his job, Jake can’t play games on the rigs (including board games, which require a minimum of two players). I do have to congratulate you on not missing the point this time, though.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...