I just navigated through Apple's maze to cancel my HBO subscription. I realized that, after months had gone by, it just represented a crap value next to Netflix.

I find HBO shows equal or better in quality than the best Netflix shows. Westworld was fantastic. My wife and I just started watching The Young Pope. In a few months GoT and SV will be back on. HBO is learning from Netflix and coming out with some fantastic shows. I also like catching recent movies on HBO before they show up on Netflix, Amazon Prime etc.

Of course, Netflix is well worth the subscription and if you don't watch a lot of TV, it has enough content to keep you entertained for a while. But I've noticed that I discuss HBO shows more with my friends/family than Netflix ones.

> HBO is learning from Netflix and coming out with some fantastic shows.

HBO was doing that long before Netflix had original programming and Netflix, fairly overtly -- as in, I'm pretty sure I remember Netflix execs saying this -- was following HBO's arc rather than vice versa.

The line was something to the effect of "We need to become HBO faster than HBO becomes us."

It happened.

I think you mean Netflix is learning from HBO.

Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, Sex and the City, Entourage, etc., all well before Netflix did originals.

Well before these even. HBO has been pioneering the edgy, interesting, original content model for television shows since the 80's. 1st and 10, Larry Sanders Show, Oz, Real Sex, America Undercover, Not Necessarily the News, and on and on...

Netflix has obviously run with the idea though. I'd love to see Netflix and HBO merge actually.

Netflix makes it's content choices based on demographic data, and HBO makes it's choices because they have artists who are excited about the project and think it would make a wicked show. The old fashioned way gives better results IMO.

That doesn't sound correct. HBO wouldn't make a show just because their artists are excited, but because the artists are excited and they think their demographic will watch it. Netflix makes the same, just for a different demographic and with more accurate data. It looks like these data points don't help them, which is interesting. Or those (on HN) who say they don't like the Netflix originals are not part of Netflix core demographic.

I live in a part of the world where the opposite is true. The Netflix catalogue of originals is there but apart from that its pretty weak. Not value for money at $8/mo. On the other hand there is a legit service that gives me the sports I'm interested in (minus basketball), all HBO shows and recent movies at $3/mo. I'm canceling my subscription to Netflix for now because I find I don't actually spend any time watching it.

Even in the US, Netflix is for watching their originals plus a pretty good back catalog of TV shows. If you're looking for anything else, it's a bonus if they happen to have it but you shouldn't really count on it.

A former Netflix tech guy once told me that "People get Netflix for the movies and stay for the TV shows." Though that's probably less true than it used to be given Netflix Originals and a pretty wide recognition that their streaming movie catalog is limited. Today it's probably the Originals that drive the purchasing (as with HBO).

IMO, Netflix originals mostly suck and HBO is king. Tho, if you come from network and cable television and your standard of good television is Prison Break, I can see how Netflix content and its originals could be appealing.

> IMO, Netflix originals mostly suck and HBO is king.

Lately I'd agree, but a few years ago that didn't have much and it was mostly high quality. So many of netflixs originals seem to fall into the super hero category that I'm not interested in.

> but a few years ago that didn't have much and it was mostly high quality.

Which ones were those? Are you sure they were Netflix originals?

House of cards, Marco polo, Vikings, OITNB. Not sure if they were Netflix originals everywhere but they were here.

They wouldn't need to force-bundle 20 other channels no one wants.

The thing is that those "20 other channels no one wants" typically cost them nothing or a minimal amount.

It is true that, if you start slicing out ESPN, A&E, etc. it would theoretically be possible to subscribe to an overall lower cable bill but the cable cos would almost certainly raise per-channel (or mini-bundle) pricing to compensate.

As bad as bundling is, it also has historically subsidized smaller channels that sometimes come up with innovative programming that would otherwise never happen.

Everyone passed on Mad Men except this little movie-rerun channel called AMC. Would Walking Dead have happened without it?

Sucks to be them. Sorry, but why should I subsidize channels that nobody wants to watch? Sure, occasionally a hit will come out of them, but if a channel can't stay afloat on their own, too bad so sad!

Well the vast majority of the money from bundling goes to ESPN. If you don't like sports, or only watch during one kind of sports season, then much of the money from cable is a waste.