Netflix raises monthly charges for U.S. subscribers(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Netflix raises monthly charges for U.S. subscribers
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netflix-subscription/netflix-raises-monthly-charges-for-u-s-subscribers-idUSKBN27E39K
279 comments
I switched to that model a while ago. I refuse to pay for Netflix/Disney+/Hulu/Crunchyroll simultaneously. So I queue up shows I want to watch on a given platform, buy a month of that platform, and then switch to the next platform in the queue the next month.
It requires more overhead (i.e. manually cancelling and re-enabling services), but it saves probably $200-300+ per year vs. having 4 simultaneous subscriptions.
It requires more overhead (i.e. manually cancelling and re-enabling services), but it saves probably $200-300+ per year vs. having 4 simultaneous subscriptions.
Yeah, I switched back to just plain old piracy last year. One button on Sonarr and it's on my NAS and playable on Plex on all my devices a few minutes later. I'm done. They had the right model, but it's gone now. Oh well.
Curiously it seems to be a problem of rent seeking. “I’ll start my own streaming service, with blackjack and hookers” said every rights holder. And why is it so expensive to “rent” a movie from for example Apple? Rent two movies and you’ve paid for a month of Netflix. How did that compute?
Maybe someone with experience in the field and more up to date info will correct me, but
I did some research on the subject 10 years ago while entertaining the idea to launch a VOD service in France, and the right holders expected that such a service would:
- pay them a percentage of the price of the rental, which could not go below a certain amount,
- pay a yearly license (~3500€/year just for my country for a popular movie) per language audio track,
- handle on their own sending technicians to rip the masters to then host them on the platform.
I don’t exactly remember the minimum price per rental, but the economics didn’t make sense in terms of what we wanted to attempt, so we gave up. One would have to pay an enormous amount in upfront license costs without being able to generate a big volume of views by undercutting the competition in the case where technical excellence could allow us to cut prices.
- pay them a percentage of the price of the rental, which could not go below a certain amount,
- pay a yearly license (~3500€/year just for my country for a popular movie) per language audio track,
- handle on their own sending technicians to rip the masters to then host them on the platform.
I don’t exactly remember the minimum price per rental, but the economics didn’t make sense in terms of what we wanted to attempt, so we gave up. One would have to pay an enormous amount in upfront license costs without being able to generate a big volume of views by undercutting the competition in the case where technical excellence could allow us to cut prices.
> per language audio track
I guess this explains why Netflix will have different audio options for the same movie dependent on region.
I guess this explains why Netflix will have different audio options for the same movie dependent on region.
Partially. The other reason is simply to remove clutter in UI.
You can get more tracks to appear if you change Netflix UI language in settings, as described here in 2015 by Netflix CPO: https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-all-subtitles-available-in-a...
This is also mentioned in various Netflix help pages, like here, which says 5-7 subtitle languages are shown by default, and you need to change UI language to see the rest: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/13245
You can get more tracks to appear if you change Netflix UI language in settings, as described here in 2015 by Netflix CPO: https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-all-subtitles-available-in-a...
This is also mentioned in various Netflix help pages, like here, which says 5-7 subtitle languages are shown by default, and you need to change UI language to see the rest: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/13245
Did you do the entire setup from scratch, one by one, or you used some script that handles everything? I mean Sonarr etc.
Also, your seedbox is that NAS or it's remote and the NAS just syncs it?
Also, your seedbox is that NAS or it's remote and the NAS just syncs it?
It's extremely easy to set up the entire stack (Sonarr for TV, Radarr for movies, Lidarr for music, Transmission (or Deluge, or Rtorrent) and Jackett for torrent handling, Plex (or Emby, or Jellyfin) in a docker-compose using the LinuxServer containers, shouldn't take more than a couple of hours to set it all up for complete automation. I have a NUC from... 2016? running all of these and handling a couple of Plex streams at the same time as well, everything works perfectly (but if you're looking for an actual NAS be careful since Plex is a bit on the heavy side, especially if you want transcoding). You can find more info on Reddit, especially /selfhosted /datahoarder /plex and /homelab
as I trust HN more than reddit (perhaps optimistically), what VPN should I use with a seedbox? I've been looking at seedhost, but wondering if I also need a VPN as well, as an american
I am currently using Mullvad VPN.
I followed a guide to set a seedbox up as a media server a year or two ago, and as a professional salesperson not developer it took me like an hour.
I've found that seedbox providers tend to have very helpful irc nerds if you run in to trouble.
I've found that seedbox providers tend to have very helpful irc nerds if you run in to trouble.
Yep. The piracy age is definitely resurfacing.
I pay for one (so i don't feel too guilty), torrent what is exclusive to the others and buy Blu-Ray for the content that is genuinely good.
Currently Netfix gets some cash out of me because i have no interest in giving Amazon or Disney any more money than i have to.
Currently Netfix gets some cash out of me because i have no interest in giving Amazon or Disney any more money than i have to.
After a bunch of churning I just realized I'm not currently subscribing to any of the services, and I'm okay! There's not really any/much new content now anyway, due to the covid shutdown in Hollywood.
I'm sure the next step will be to require annual subscriptions. Amazon Prime has already normalized it.
>Amazon Prime has already normalized it.
many people might have prime on an annual basis but amazon seems content with offering prime on a monthly basis as well. In fact the only way to get prime video (without prime) is monthly. https://www.amazon.com/amazonprime
many people might have prime on an annual basis but amazon seems content with offering prime on a monthly basis as well. In fact the only way to get prime video (without prime) is monthly. https://www.amazon.com/amazonprime
Indeed. I historically have gotten Prime for a month around Christmas shopping season each year, and that's been more than enough Prime for me.
In my opinion the next step is going to be what network TV did. Single episodes available for a week, then available in reruns a year later.
You can see the beginnings of this in shows like “The Boys” that have a weekly release cycle.
To be honest, for some shows, I prefer a weekly release schedule over release of everything at once. It gives you a chance to discuss an episode with friends and speculate about what will happen next.
Services have been doing that for a while though... it's to prevent you from joining on a mass drop, binging the season then only staying for a month... with a 10 week run, you're subscribed for 3 months... and you can watch the back catalog any time.
Even Netflix has shifted their drops this way.
Even Netflix has shifted their drops this way.
> I refuse to pay for Netflix/Disney+/Hulu/Crunchyroll simultaneously.
It could be a great startup idea - buy proxy access to all these content services for you, and in turn, you have to maintain only one account
It could be a great startup idea - buy proxy access to all these content services for you, and in turn, you have to maintain only one account
Yea was thinking the same, I had an idea as to how can I "lend" my account for service A out to some stranger on the internet and in exchange, can get access to HIS/HER account for service B for say 3 months.
Obviously the privacy and payment details is an issue. I like the NetFlix "guest account feature" reminds me of the "gym membership model" of the 90's bring a friend.
Obviously the privacy and payment details is an issue. I like the NetFlix "guest account feature" reminds me of the "gym membership model" of the 90's bring a friend.
That sounds...illegal.
Doesn't sound much worst than libraries for books... some libraries are even digital.
I'm unconvinced that libraries would be viable if the concept was developed now.
There are also mix-tapes which could be used as another example to help your case
They said buy the proxy access
Not sure that will fly. The Supreme Court was not convinced last time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo
> Even though the United States Supreme Court held Aereo was "performing" the broadcasters copyrighted material because Aereo "looks-like-cable-TV" and was similar to community antenna television (CATV) systems, it was later held Aereo could not continue its service under a compulsory license, the way a cable provider would.
They lost the Supreme Court case because they were considered the same as cable broadcasting companies, but then were denied the same legal rights as cable broadcasting companies by a lower court?
I am not a lawyer but what the fuck happened there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_In....
They lost the Supreme Court case because they were considered the same as cable broadcasting companies, but then were denied the same legal rights as cable broadcasting companies by a lower court?
I am not a lawyer but what the fuck happened there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_In....
I think they're proposing that you still pay for your own Netflix account for October, then when you switch to Disney+ in November, you pay for your own Disney+ account again -- the service just handles starting and stopping the monthly contract, for a fee. Maybe this would be illegal too.
let me clarify -
Let's call the startup an "Aggregator" - you only pay monthly to this middle man aka "aggregator" but you can watch any of these services during anytime i.e any time in a year as long as you are an active user. The "Aggregator" would buy pool of accounts on their users behalf. Some more breakdown -
For this discussion - let's say there are total of 10m users for these services but they all would never be online at the same time. So, the aggregator can buy 5m Netflix accounts, 1m Apple, 1m hulu, 2m HBO, and so on.
I think it's a very fragile idea. Once Netflix, and the gang would figure out about the "Aggregator", they might start blocking it. There are ways to handle that but how long are you going to play this cat and mouse game?
For this discussion - let's say there are total of 10m users for these services but they all would never be online at the same time. So, the aggregator can buy 5m Netflix accounts, 1m Apple, 1m hulu, 2m HBO, and so on.
I think it's a very fragile idea. Once Netflix, and the gang would figure out about the "Aggregator", they might start blocking it. There are ways to handle that but how long are you going to play this cat and mouse game?
If a typical potential customer pays for 2 of these streaming services for the unique content and at any given time is only using one of them to its limit after having shared with family and friends then you have the entire extra subscription as surplus value to be captured. $9/mo per household across much of the developed world with minimal infrastructure costs could fund a cat and mouse game for a long time.
That was very different.
This could be done as a power of attorney to avoid almost any TOS issue they could draft.
This could be done as a power of attorney to avoid almost any TOS issue they could draft.
And yet Locast is a thing: https://www.locast.org/
Locast limits access to users within the geographic broadcast range of the relevant TV stations. Apparently that falls within the same legal framework that allows cable TV operators to rebroadcast TV signals over their cable networks, which are similarly geographically limited.
That word is overloaded in this context.
The "proxy" could be a network node or a person/service/entity which contractually takes the place of one side of the contract.
The "proxy" could be a network node or a person/service/entity which contractually takes the place of one side of the contract.
Seems to work for GrubHub...
very heterogeneous industry full of mam and pap shops vs biggest companies ever with lawyer armies.
hi, try joinkeyring.com. We're launching a bundle with a 7 services for $35/mo: Disney +, Showtime, CBS, Philo, Starz, HBOMAX, and Peacock on computer only.
Venmo me @chinolex today and I'll give you a months free (I'm the Founder).
Venmo me @chinolex today and I'll give you a months free (I'm the Founder).
This is nice. r/frugal would certainly love this LPT
The next step is "discounted" year-long subscriptions as the month-to-month price steadily rises. And suddenly we've returned to the world of annual contracts as the standard.
Source: Wild speculation
Source: Wild speculation
Amazon did this from the start with Prime Video. CBS now does annual pricing. Speaking of CBS, I have a discounted CBS+Showtime bundle via Apple. HBO is “free” as part of my AT&T phone plan.
The annual discounts and bundles are already here!
The annual discounts and bundles are already here!
And.... then piracy.
I don't know if you follow the piracy news much, but the crackdown has only increased in viciousness.
Tools like youtube-dl get banned from github, and private torrent servers are taken down, and the data the site has is used to subpoena email providers and ISPs for individuals to sue.
I know we all come from the background of imagining information wants to be free, but it's only going to be another 20 years or so until having a general purpose computer in your house will be as suspicious as having a chemistry lab in your basement.
The next step I'm expecting is some blurring of the line between civil and criminal penalties for piracy, and for police to seize someone's house because it was used for piracy.
Tools like youtube-dl get banned from github, and private torrent servers are taken down, and the data the site has is used to subpoena email providers and ISPs for individuals to sue.
I know we all come from the background of imagining information wants to be free, but it's only going to be another 20 years or so until having a general purpose computer in your house will be as suspicious as having a chemistry lab in your basement.
The next step I'm expecting is some blurring of the line between civil and criminal penalties for piracy, and for police to seize someone's house because it was used for piracy.
Piracy is still thriving. Living in a country that only Netflix and prime are available we use piracy for everything else that's worth it. The availability is still there as easy as it's always been.
And yet here I am happily using Stremio in the 3rd world. Even then, with all the content available I average at most 1 episode per week. 99% of the content produced is crap. Youtube offers better free options, try the DW documentaries for example.
[deleted]
Until foreign VPN companies become illegal, all of that is solvable with a $2/month VPN subscription.
Not in the long term since more and more services do VPN detection which is trivial any time a VPN has static servers.
Though even residential proxies (https://luminati.io/) are being detected with greater and greater frequency.
Though even residential proxies (https://luminati.io/) are being detected with greater and greater frequency.
Bittorrent & Piracy DGAF about VPNs
My experience is that everyone is sharing with everyone. This person share their Netflix. The next their Disney+. A third, their Hulu. End result is that each person subscribed to only one, but ends up with access to many.
Yep, currently in this boat. Had a group of ~5 friends since about 4 years ago, where we subscribe to pretty much every streaming service out there and share the accounts within the group. This way we get every single subscription, while paying for the price of just one each (on average).
And streaming services realize that a lot of people use it that way, so they have nice individual profile functionality within a single account, so my shows and my recommendations don't get mixed up with those of other people using the account. Not every single streaming service had that feature at the beginning, but by now iirc they all got it.
And streaming services realize that a lot of people use it that way, so they have nice individual profile functionality within a single account, so my shows and my recommendations don't get mixed up with those of other people using the account. Not every single streaming service had that feature at the beginning, but by now iirc they all got it.
Well, I'm pretty sure those multi-account features are meant for multiple members of a single household. I'm sure they know that people are sharing among friends, but I don't think they are trying to encourage that.
>Well, I'm pretty sure those multi-account features are meant for multiple members of a single household.
You are correct, I think it is one of those technically grey areas. However in my scenario, given that the same group of 5 shares pretty much every single service subscription and physically spends a lot of time watching it together, I think, even in the intended spirit of household sharing, it sorta follows.
Regardless of that, imo there would be a lot of outrage if streaming services started cracking down on that, and, my guess, streaming services are intentionally not letting that happen.
You are correct, I think it is one of those technically grey areas. However in my scenario, given that the same group of 5 shares pretty much every single service subscription and physically spends a lot of time watching it together, I think, even in the intended spirit of household sharing, it sorta follows.
Regardless of that, imo there would be a lot of outrage if streaming services started cracking down on that, and, my guess, streaming services are intentionally not letting that happen.
Basically bittorrent for VOD services
> The golden age of streaming has come to an end.
It's been a while, we went full circle. Look at youtube, they display more ads than the TV channels I was watching 10 years ago. The content is spread over more and more services, so you end up paying for a few of them, exactly like we used to do for TV channels, it's ridiculous.
It's been a while, we went full circle. Look at youtube, they display more ads than the TV channels I was watching 10 years ago. The content is spread over more and more services, so you end up paying for a few of them, exactly like we used to do for TV channels, it's ridiculous.
It's ironic how copyright itself prevents these companies from properly competing with "piracy". They just can't offer a better service no matter how hard they try.
Copyright isn't the problem, it's greed. Each company is offering a unique product, so they get to charge whatever they want for it. And users that want that media will chase the platforms around, so they're able to extract the maximum out of every subscriber.
Streaming just allowed cable networks to unbundle in the most lucrative way possible... and when users stop subscribing to various services because their prices have gone too high they'll scream "see, it doesn't work, we have to sell packages!"
Meanwhile the users are back to either pirating or suffering shitty overpriced services, of which Netflix is on a quick pace to make themselves one as their catalog narrows from TV producers moving to their own platforms and they continue to cancel their native shows and give ridiculous fortunes to D-list movie directors churning out flop after flop.
Streaming just allowed cable networks to unbundle in the most lucrative way possible... and when users stop subscribing to various services because their prices have gone too high they'll scream "see, it doesn't work, we have to sell packages!"
Meanwhile the users are back to either pirating or suffering shitty overpriced services, of which Netflix is on a quick pace to make themselves one as their catalog narrows from TV producers moving to their own platforms and they continue to cancel their native shows and give ridiculous fortunes to D-list movie directors churning out flop after flop.
I think a good first step would be to stop making exclusivity deals. Is there some good (for them) reason they do that?
Same reason why every other industry has exclusivity deals (eg. video game consoles): to attract customers. If you're a TV/streaming network, and you want to attract customers, how else are you going to do it? Good ux can only get you so far.
Music streaming solved this problem by remembering they were combating piracy not each other. Each music service has all the music and they all pay royalties.
TV streaming services have come full circle and are repeating the same cable tv mistakes that caused piracy to flourish in the first place.
TV streaming services have come full circle and are repeating the same cable tv mistakes that caused piracy to flourish in the first place.
I knew someone was going to bring up music streaming. Yes, it's indeed true that releases there are (mostly) available across the major platforms. The difference I think, is that music is a loss leader. record/streaming sales is a small drip in the bucket compared to other sources like touring/events and merchandising[1]. Streaming to them is basically another way for them to promote themselves, to get more customers so they can earn the real bucks via the other methods. The same can't be said for tv/movie releases.
[1] random source: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-do-musicians-make-money-...
> According to a recent Citigroup report, the music industry generated a record $43 billion in 2017, but recording artists saw just 12% of that revenue, or $5.1 billion, and the "bulk" of their revenues came from touring.
[1] random source: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-do-musicians-make-money-...
> According to a recent Citigroup report, the music industry generated a record $43 billion in 2017, but recording artists saw just 12% of that revenue, or $5.1 billion, and the "bulk" of their revenues came from touring.
So, Game of Thrones On Ice then? Can't wait.
Music streaming solved this problem with a baseline of compulsary licensing for 'radio style' plays.
I think we've been trained towards seeking out specific shows to watch in order now, so a you can't pick exactly what to watch model wouldn't really fly, but even if it did, it wouldn't cost any less, or be able to include nearly everything.
I think we've been trained towards seeking out specific shows to watch in order now, so a you can't pick exactly what to watch model wouldn't really fly, but even if it did, it wouldn't cost any less, or be able to include nearly everything.
The key difference is the music streaming services aren't necessarily owned by the content producers. I'm assuming Spotify and Apple Music dominate streaming (could be wrong), whereas Hulu/Disney+/etc are all owned by the content producers. Netflix eventually merged into a production company too, which has only made it worse
Music streaming doesn't have many real players. Spotify got in first, apple and google use their huge userbases to push their product and everyone else is irrelevant. If you wanted to make a new music streaming service you could never get anywhere close to big.
Spotify would probably be dead by now if Apple and Google didn't do such a poor job.
Spotify would probably be dead by now if Apple and Google didn't do such a poor job.
>Spotify got in first
Actually Rhapsody was the first. But I guess conditions at the time weren't such that it really went mainstream.
Actually Rhapsody was the first. But I guess conditions at the time weren't such that it really went mainstream.
You understand that without copyright the underlying content wouldn't exist, right? Piracy isn't a sustainable strategy unless it is a small fraction of consumers. Am I missing something here?
> You understand that without copyright the underlying content wouldn't exist, right?
Is it, really? Not OP but I think there is a lot of room for alternative business models that doesn't have to depend on copyright. It's just that copyright already taken a hold on most people's mind so they default to it.
Is it, really? Not OP but I think there is a lot of room for alternative business models that doesn't have to depend on copyright. It's just that copyright already taken a hold on most people's mind so they default to it.
[deleted]
I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but what business models could exist sustainably without the creators of the content having copyright?
Just like the guy that take his stuff from the back of a van, Best Buy can't compete with him too! It's crazy. It's crazy how much better you can offer a service by not paying for what you offer.
The thing is, someone has to pay for that content to exist... if that's not the pirate that pay for it... who does? Oh yeah, me by paying for that uncompetitive service.
The thing is, someone has to pay for that content to exist... if that's not the pirate that pay for it... who does? Oh yeah, me by paying for that uncompetitive service.
But that market exists, we can all hop online and buy counterfeit goods today. The difference between the van and Best Buy is customer service -- with BB I can return the item in a week if I don't like it, claim warranty, etc., and with the van I can't. Meanwhile, I've gotten better service from private tracker staff than any streaming service.
> counterfeit goods today.
counterfeit != stolen
At least counterfeited come with some kind of effort to produce the product in some similar manners. That come with it's own issues, the quality of the product is a big one.
> with BB I can return the item in a week if I don't like it, claim warranty, etc.
Yeah, never got theses issues over media files luckily. You could argue that a rebate high enough justify not being able to return an item. I'm sure plenty of van guy could allow you to return it too ;). I bought a 1060 on Kijiji and the guy told me that he would replace the item if it wasn't working. He got just as much incentive to do this than the van guy ;) hell maybe he even stole them, who knows.
> Meanwhile, I've gotten better service from private tracker staff than any streaming service.
Sure, when that's all you pay for, it's easy to offer great service. Believe me, there's a MUCH bigger part from Netflix price that go toward paying for content than from your private tracker. Not by choice... they need to pay for that content, someone has to pay for it.
counterfeit != stolen
At least counterfeited come with some kind of effort to produce the product in some similar manners. That come with it's own issues, the quality of the product is a big one.
> with BB I can return the item in a week if I don't like it, claim warranty, etc.
Yeah, never got theses issues over media files luckily. You could argue that a rebate high enough justify not being able to return an item. I'm sure plenty of van guy could allow you to return it too ;). I bought a 1060 on Kijiji and the guy told me that he would replace the item if it wasn't working. He got just as much incentive to do this than the van guy ;) hell maybe he even stole them, who knows.
> Meanwhile, I've gotten better service from private tracker staff than any streaming service.
Sure, when that's all you pay for, it's easy to offer great service. Believe me, there's a MUCH bigger part from Netflix price that go toward paying for content than from your private tracker. Not by choice... they need to pay for that content, someone has to pay for it.
I wonder if we've come to a point where people will watch what's promoted at the top of the streaming services they subscribe to, with the exception of virally popular shows or shows recommended to them by friends and family. A good chunk of TV watching is just watching to pass the time. Whatever's trending on Netflix is good enough, coupled with a few shows you and your family are rotating through. Some exceptional shows do drive subscriptions for a particular service. But I think Game of Thrones and The Mandalorian are the exception. More common is watching Friends reruns or the new comedy that pops up on the front page of your streaming service.
It's called torrents. All the content on all the streaming platforms for an even cheaper price ($0).
I wish I could buy torrent files direct from the creative forces behind the entertainment I watch. Imagine if a single TV episode torrent file cost, say, $2. A season torrent file could be say $16 for a 10 episode long season and a movie could be $12 or so. (Numbers just plucked out of the air, but you get the idea)
Let me give the creative forces the money they deserve for the content they produce, but let me keep the file without being bound to a subscription service where I lose everything the moment I cancel.
Let me give the creative forces the money they deserve for the content they produce, but let me keep the file without being bound to a subscription service where I lose everything the moment I cancel.
Ten years ago it looked like that might be where the entertainment industry was headed, but then Netflix and Spotify got big because it was even more convenient than torrents. When there are 10 major streaming services with exclusive content, then it's no longer convenient and torrents come back. If it were stupid-easy to get torrented content on a big screen television, then Netflix et al would be in trouble. That's the one missing part, which may keep people on streaming even with the Tower of Babel variety of different services. Netflix et al is installed by default on all new TVs you can buy in a store now. I think there was an attempt to make pirated content easy to consume, those Kodi boxes which are now banned and relegated to enthusiasts now. That's what they are really afraid of, because when your mom can torrent with a remote control it's over.
(Spotify on the other hand is in a different league because there is almost no such thing as exclusive music. It's still way more convenient and time-efficient than torrenting. In my experience you can't even find music torrents anymore unless you go down the private tracker rabbit hole (which definitely doesn't scale)).
(Spotify on the other hand is in a different league because there is almost no such thing as exclusive music. It's still way more convenient and time-efficient than torrenting. In my experience you can't even find music torrents anymore unless you go down the private tracker rabbit hole (which definitely doesn't scale)).
all of the simple player boxes like roku et al have terrible support for playing plain old media files whether via USB storage or over a network (which is often not a feature at all, and forget the smart tv built-in players altogether).
I've wondered if that is intentional, to discourage casual piracy.
I've wondered if that is intentional, to discourage casual piracy.
This is more or less how I buy content through Apple. But, I feel like you meant something else, so what am I missing?
That if the creator is seeding paid torrents, there is no middle man (Apple) to collect a fee.
Maybe, just maybe, the middleman is adding some value? Otherwise creators would have skipped the middleman a long time ago?
Also, how is the money getting to the creator exactly?
Also, how is the money getting to the creator exactly?
My guess is a middleman like Apple isn't necessarily a problem if the content were DRM free. It's the sword dangling overhead which may invalidate ones license without reimbursement, or limit access arbitrarily that is burdensome.
When I downloaded a movie from Netflix I couldn't watch it on vacation because of region locking.
When I downloaded a movie from Netflix I couldn't watch it on vacation because of region locking.
Region locking is typically do to contracts with the content creators, actors, etc. typically has nothing to do with the middleman. DRM isn’t much different, the content creators often demand/expect it.
P.s. I’ve worked in this space.
P.s. I’ve worked in this space.
While true the middlemen often are more visible than rights holders. And some are big enough to push back on DRM as Apple did with music.
Probably minus the "through Apple" part. If that's not your thing, there's lots of independent content on youtube, podcasts, etc that are member-supported via patreon and its alternatives. Shame that isn't available for all the mainstream stuff too, but maybe things will move in that direction.
I pay far more for the content I get on Patreon than the content from the big providers. Curious why that is, maybe it’s content that lacks broad appeal, and content that has broad appeal works better on the platforms?
You can't buy episodes of a series(or even the entire season in a lot of places.
You overestimate the amount of mental energy people are willing to spend to figure out what the “right” streaming service will be for that month.
I usually look through a site like IMDB[1] who regularly updates what new releases are coming out on services.
[1]https://www.imdb.com/whats-on-tv/
[1]https://www.imdb.com/whats-on-tv/
I use JustWatch for that, it's amazing to find where to get my content.
The biggest issue is to unsubscribe each time on the different service. At one point we will have a middle man that does this for us, we will go full circle.
The biggest issue is to unsubscribe each time on the different service. At one point we will have a middle man that does this for us, we will go full circle.
Agreed ! In the beginning (golden age ?) I spend way less time on P.B and torrents.
Now with more services than ever I'm only have access to two services:
a) Netflix - (via gf account)
b) Amazon Prime (own account). The last year or two I'm back to doing a lot more torrenting !
We've never had it so good in terms of overall content, yet we have never had it as expensive to access say my "top15 Films/Shows" if they are widely spread across service providers.
PS/Sidenote: I do miss channel hopping (click-click oh what is this ?)
Now with more services than ever I'm only have access to two services:
a) Netflix - (via gf account)
b) Amazon Prime (own account). The last year or two I'm back to doing a lot more torrenting !
We've never had it so good in terms of overall content, yet we have never had it as expensive to access say my "top15 Films/Shows" if they are widely spread across service providers.
PS/Sidenote: I do miss channel hopping (click-click oh what is this ?)
Similar here... though I'm more and more inclined to just torrent what I watch even if I'm paying for the services. For live-tv, I've had lots of issues with more popular feeds. For example, when the fiance watches Big Brother, it's the worst experience, I swear I've had to download almost every episode this season for her to be able to watch... it's been pretty bad.
Not to mention trying to remember what is where etc... was so much easier when I had a list of shows, I'd check the torrent site(s) about once a week for new episodes, snag them all to a seedbox and download and watch local over the following week as time permitted. At least with less TV I'm getting more done.
Not to mention trying to remember what is where etc... was so much easier when I had a list of shows, I'd check the torrent site(s) about once a week for new episodes, snag them all to a seedbox and download and watch local over the following week as time permitted. At least with less TV I'm getting more done.
Which by itself is almost more effort than it is worth...
Take it further instead, just give me the option to rent a single episode/movie.
Take it further instead, just give me the option to rent a single episode/movie.
Gonna save my money and just put a few bucks towards a VPN. Streaming was a fun ride while it lasted, but I can get higher quality video through torrents and the selection is limitless.
Maybe in 20 years these streaming services will collapse and be replaced by something better, and then those services will once again split up.
Maybe in 20 years these streaming services will collapse and be replaced by something better, and then those services will once again split up.
I really always wondered why people thought this wasn't going to happen, because at the end of the day all the institutions that produced the dynamics of cable television exist on the internet, nothing has changed.
It doesn't really matter whether you send information over an ethernet cabel or a satellite dish.
It doesn't really matter whether you send information over an ethernet cabel or a satellite dish.
I suspect that might be the case for some people. I also suspect a large portion of users will migrate back to torrenting (or Popcorn Time).
I kind of hope that the silo packages via Amazon Video or Hulu become easier and/or more popular to integrate. I'm a bit disheartened at the pricing model that has one likely to only subscribe or unsubscribe in waves. Also, being able to conveniently search across different services is a huge issue... a unifying experience is needed.
Similar to how Spotify membership packaged Hulu membership for me, we might see this "bundling" packages among service providers. OR a startup can provide an abstraction layer on top. Eg. 39$ membership with us will get you Netflix & Amazon Prime. For $59 we'll add Hulu & Disney+ on top. etc.,
One thing that I do is rotate my services. I do two months of Netflix, two months of Disney, two months of Hulu. Those are the ones I do now.
Most of my watching is mainly looking for stuff to kill the time and not specific movies or shows so this works for me.
Most of my watching is mainly looking for stuff to kill the time and not specific movies or shows so this works for me.
Exactly this. It's a transition from the old cable product portfolio over cable to a new internet-"cable" product portfolio over cable/fibre/dsl/etc
Nah people will just go with whatever junk is on the service they signed up for in the past 2 years, which is why these guys are so aggressively trying to get market share.
[deleted]
> Those service will become the new cable companie
At least we can still easily cancel and subscribe from each one. It's still a gains I guess!
At least we can still easily cancel and subscribe from each one. It's still a gains I guess!
And making it more complicated will breed piracy. We are coming full circle.
[deleted]
Netflix's current trajectory makes me sad.
It reminds me of cable TV now: cheaply produced shlock, with less and less premium TV.
The last thing I watched that was truly wonderful on Netflix was Mindhunter -- which I heard was canceled by Netflix because it's too expensive.
Meanwhile there's a dozen or more new "reality TV" knock offs seemingly every week.
We've switched most of our viewing to HBO now -- it has a lot of fantastic content, like Raised by Wolves, Lovecraft Country, His Dark Materials, Chernobyl, etc. And they actually stand behind their product because they believe in it -- they aren't constantly pulling the rug out from under their viewers like Netflix does.
It reminds me of cable TV now: cheaply produced shlock, with less and less premium TV.
The last thing I watched that was truly wonderful on Netflix was Mindhunter -- which I heard was canceled by Netflix because it's too expensive.
Meanwhile there's a dozen or more new "reality TV" knock offs seemingly every week.
We've switched most of our viewing to HBO now -- it has a lot of fantastic content, like Raised by Wolves, Lovecraft Country, His Dark Materials, Chernobyl, etc. And they actually stand behind their product because they believe in it -- they aren't constantly pulling the rug out from under their viewers like Netflix does.
> The last thing I watched that was truly wonderful on Netflix was Mindhunter -- which I heard was canceled by Netflix because it's too expensive.
Nnnnnooooo!
https://www.wired.com/story/why-netflix-keeps-canceling-show...
I honestly consider this the same as Google. They're so focused on insane metrics they don't realize that by killing everything new - good and bad, people are just going to give up on the company entirely because their reputations sour over time.
I mean why am I going to try something new from Google just to find out they're cancelling it in 2 years? Likewise, why would I invest my time in a new Netflix series just to find out it's cancelled after 2 seasons?
The true problem is it's a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point.
Nnnnnooooo!
https://www.wired.com/story/why-netflix-keeps-canceling-show...
I honestly consider this the same as Google. They're so focused on insane metrics they don't realize that by killing everything new - good and bad, people are just going to give up on the company entirely because their reputations sour over time.
I mean why am I going to try something new from Google just to find out they're cancelling it in 2 years? Likewise, why would I invest my time in a new Netflix series just to find out it's cancelled after 2 seasons?
The true problem is it's a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point.
There was an interview somewhere with Satya Nadella where he mentioned that one of the things he had tried to change for Microsoft was to stop chasing immediate metrics because most long term advantages of companies (like good image) aren't measurable in the short term.
Lately it feels like that's the issue with most tech companies, they will do anything to see the uptick in random metrics (engagement, etc) without realizing they are creating miserable experiences by destroying other areas that are less measurable.
Yes, I'll click more in your button if you place it full screen over the main content of your app. No, it's not making me more engage in what you're showing me, it's just forcing me to go through some hoops and now I hate you for it.
Lately it feels like that's the issue with most tech companies, they will do anything to see the uptick in random metrics (engagement, etc) without realizing they are creating miserable experiences by destroying other areas that are less measurable.
Yes, I'll click more in your button if you place it full screen over the main content of your app. No, it's not making me more engage in what you're showing me, it's just forcing me to go through some hoops and now I hate you for it.
[deleted]
I think Netflix should give every series one season. At the end of the season, producers and writers have a chance to pitch to Netflix the number of seasons that they want. A final determination is made, and it is not changed. Writers have a target ending to shoot for, fans know what to expect.
It all depends on the story. ATLA (Avatar: the last airbender) is a great example for something that needs a contract for multiple seasons from the start: they knew they'll have 3 seasons, and that was one big arc and storyline. Same for Trollhunters; it was unfortunate to only have 1 season for the third installation, Wizards: it was way to fast.
Other series, however... are dead slow. It was delightful to recently watch a 1998 film, `Ronin`: 2 hours, and more story happened, than in 2 seasons of most series.
There is no simple answer to this.
Other series, however... are dead slow. It was delightful to recently watch a 1998 film, `Ronin`: 2 hours, and more story happened, than in 2 seasons of most series.
There is no simple answer to this.
Isn't the biggest problem that writers don't have a clear destination in mind for the series? And so it wanders aimlessly. That's exactly the problem I think this would solve.
It's not the same at all. Google is a technology company where technology is supposed to stick around. Netflix is (now) a media company where TV shows die by default.
[deleted]
I don't know, I don't think we give network/cable TV enough credit.
I'm pretty intrigued by stories of how certain shows flopped in their first season (or two) but managed to persevere through some persistent TV exec who kept it funded until they got the story right.
Plenty of examples of mainstream TV shows that went this route. Seinfeld, The Office, It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, the list goes on.
TV execs really care about the product. By contrast, I don't think Netflix cares about the product. I think Netflix cares about the data about the product, which ultimately means dropping an original after 2 seasons.
It works I guess, but I've haven't had a Netflix subscription in a while, and on those occasions where I do renew it I just take a peek for a month before leaving again. More than enough time to watch 2 seasons of TV.
I'm pretty intrigued by stories of how certain shows flopped in their first season (or two) but managed to persevere through some persistent TV exec who kept it funded until they got the story right.
Plenty of examples of mainstream TV shows that went this route. Seinfeld, The Office, It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, the list goes on.
TV execs really care about the product. By contrast, I don't think Netflix cares about the product. I think Netflix cares about the data about the product, which ultimately means dropping an original after 2 seasons.
It works I guess, but I've haven't had a Netflix subscription in a while, and on those occasions where I do renew it I just take a peek for a month before leaving again. More than enough time to watch 2 seasons of TV.
Netflix strategy seems to be hook you with a big budget new show, then slash the budget for season 2 and see if it still sticks(interestingly that didn't seem to be the case with Lost in Space, and Dark Crystal was just outright cancelled).
Also watching a lot more Amazon+HBO these days.
Also watching a lot more Amazon+HBO these days.
This was very evident with Altered Carbon as well. First season felt like it had a budget on par with the best blockbusters. Second season had the budget of some cut rate 90s SciFi show on a third tier cable network.
Dark Crystal was so good, too. It's a shame, but that format and that concept is always chasing a small audience. I'm sad we won't get a season 2, though.
According to David Fincher himself [1], Netflix hasn't canceled Mindhunter, merely put it on indefinite hiatus. Fincher says Netflix actually wanted more seasons, but that he found the show too stressful to make.
[1] https://www.vulture.com/2020/10/mindhunter-season-three-not-...
[1] https://www.vulture.com/2020/10/mindhunter-season-three-not-...
Reality TV is cheap and engaging. The same reason it worked on broadcast/cable. It’s all about numbers now since Netflix is a large company.
I hope companies like HBO keep trying to win with quality over junk.
I hope companies like HBO keep trying to win with quality over junk.
The problem with this kind of "wide appeal" demographic-based analysis used by content producers is that it ignores specialisation.
Famously, MTV stopped showing music videos years ago. They did a bunch of analysis to see what the target demo for a music channel is, what that demographic wants to see in general, and started playing that.
But, obviously, if I turn on the MUSIC TV channel, I expect to see music.
I'm the "target demo" for Science Fiction. That doesn't mean I want to see SciFi when I turn on the evening news. It doesn't mean that I never want to see a period drama, or a nature documentary.
But based on a purely statistical analysis, I should only be shown Science Fiction forever and ever, on every channel, because that's my favourite content category.
Similarly, the number #1 most popular content for the general public is sports for men and celebrity gossip for women.
Does this mean that every streaming service, TV channel, and content producer should create nothing else other than Soccer, Football, Dancing with the Stars, and Big Brother Celebrity?
It seems producers think so. They really do, and NetFlix is going down that path as fast as their statistics will carry them...
Famously, MTV stopped showing music videos years ago. They did a bunch of analysis to see what the target demo for a music channel is, what that demographic wants to see in general, and started playing that.
But, obviously, if I turn on the MUSIC TV channel, I expect to see music.
I'm the "target demo" for Science Fiction. That doesn't mean I want to see SciFi when I turn on the evening news. It doesn't mean that I never want to see a period drama, or a nature documentary.
But based on a purely statistical analysis, I should only be shown Science Fiction forever and ever, on every channel, because that's my favourite content category.
Similarly, the number #1 most popular content for the general public is sports for men and celebrity gossip for women.
Does this mean that every streaming service, TV channel, and content producer should create nothing else other than Soccer, Football, Dancing with the Stars, and Big Brother Celebrity?
It seems producers think so. They really do, and NetFlix is going down that path as fast as their statistics will carry them...
Don't get your hopes up. All the creative heads at HBO have left and HBO Max is on the way to become way more Netflix like than ever.
AppleTV+ seems to be the new HBO. The 4 or 5 shows/movies on there I saw were all decent if not great.
Yeah, I discovered Altered Carbon had been canceled by Netflix for much the same reason (expensive). It was one of the few shows that I was really excited about.
Am I going to cancel my Netflix subscription? Probably not, they still have all the Star Trek franchises where I am, and Friends.
Given that I'm almost never in a country where I can watch the broadcast television (digital nomad), streaming is the only option.
Would love a (legal) service that allowed me to watch AU/UK TV from anywhere in the world. Currently it's possible to do this sometimes with the channel apps and a VPN, but this is a gray area at best.
I get that there are content licensing issues, but the shows that I'm mostly interested in don't really have these problems. Things like the Great British Bake Off don't really make it outside the UK.
I also get that the advertising is focused on local audiences a lot of the time, but surely this is solvable with streaming.
Am I going to cancel my Netflix subscription? Probably not, they still have all the Star Trek franchises where I am, and Friends.
Given that I'm almost never in a country where I can watch the broadcast television (digital nomad), streaming is the only option.
Would love a (legal) service that allowed me to watch AU/UK TV from anywhere in the world. Currently it's possible to do this sometimes with the channel apps and a VPN, but this is a gray area at best.
I get that there are content licensing issues, but the shows that I'm mostly interested in don't really have these problems. Things like the Great British Bake Off don't really make it outside the UK.
I also get that the advertising is focused on local audiences a lot of the time, but surely this is solvable with streaming.
Mindhunter, the one about serial killers, was cancelled?
That’s so sad, it was a great show.
It’s okay. Fincher cancelled it to do a movie with Netflix that looks great. Netflix wasn’t going to get Mindhunter continued successfully without Fincher’s interest.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mank
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mank
[deleted]
> canceled by Netflix because it's too expensive.
I'm sad to hear that. Their reason makes no sense to me; that show is mostly dialogue.
I'm sad to hear that. Their reason makes no sense to me; that show is mostly dialogue.
Fincher uses a huge amount of expensive digital effects to recreate the era. There are VFX breakdowns on YouTube if you're interested.
Yikes, HBO actually joined the Netflix boat early last year.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/hbo-b...
I find shows like Deadwind are the only shows that are worth watching. A few other nordic noir shows are good too. I think the average person probably likes horrible shows like Riverdale. And Netflix is going to have a lot of success because of that.
If the average person likes it, maybe it's not horrible. Or maybe it's exactly what it was intended to be.
Fincher has said that it was too expensive to create, but he also felt like it was consuming too much of his energy. I got the impression from his interview that he didn't want to pursue it.
This is probably rarely mentioned, but Apple TV+ is another great alternative for quality (not so much for quantity at the moment). A friend group of mine with a preference for hard-hitting HBO shows has been alternating between the two.
Checkout "The Midnight Gospel" on Netflix -- it's one of a kind.
I gave episode one a shot -- you're right, definitely strange. Someone basically recorded a convo with their friend about drugs and played it back with an animation. Reminds me of some Newgrounds content back in the day.
The animation can be, um, overwhelming. The conversation is with Dr. Drew Pinsky (not a fan, but in this context he's spot on).
It goes way beyond that into further "explorations of being". Clearly not for everyone, but it resonated enough to get its own subreddit :-).
It goes way beyond that into further "explorations of being". Clearly not for everyone, but it resonated enough to get its own subreddit :-).
Highly recommend watching the Italian show Gomorra
Haven't read every comment, but I read quite a few and I'm shocked that people are thinking the new world of streaming is "the same" as cable.
What I get from streaming that I didn't get from cable is: no commercials and the ability to watch on demand without recording or other hassle. I would pay more than cable prices for those two features.
I don't except to pay one company and get all companies' products - in any context. You don't get Whoppers at McDonald's, Ford doesn't sell Toyotas. Intermediaries create their own islands of exclusivity (you can only get X on Door Dash and Y on Uber Eats).
What I'm worried about is streaming services not letting me pay to not have to watch commercials.
Last thought - if you think there's "nothing good" on platform Z you may be burning through content way too fast. I don't think we can or should put out endless hours of great new TV content aligned to each person's tastes.
What I get from streaming that I didn't get from cable is: no commercials and the ability to watch on demand without recording or other hassle. I would pay more than cable prices for those two features.
I don't except to pay one company and get all companies' products - in any context. You don't get Whoppers at McDonald's, Ford doesn't sell Toyotas. Intermediaries create their own islands of exclusivity (you can only get X on Door Dash and Y on Uber Eats).
What I'm worried about is streaming services not letting me pay to not have to watch commercials.
Last thought - if you think there's "nothing good" on platform Z you may be burning through content way too fast. I don't think we can or should put out endless hours of great new TV content aligned to each person's tastes.
> no commercials
So far, but still Hulu shows commercial in some plans, and netflix shove their "commercials" . Expect it to get worst.
> ability to watch on demand without recording or other hassle.
You still have hassle , you need to move from one application to the other, hardly convenient.
So far, but still Hulu shows commercial in some plans, and netflix shove their "commercials" . Expect it to get worst.
> ability to watch on demand without recording or other hassle.
You still have hassle , you need to move from one application to the other, hardly convenient.
Signed up for one of the “extras” on Prime because they had a show I really wanted to watch. Was like an extra $15/mo.
Commercials every 5 minutes. And they clearly didn’t have much ad inventory because it was the same damn commercial every time.
Canceled the subscription before it went to paid... about an hour after I signed up. Torrented the show instead. Fuck all of that.
Commercials every 5 minutes. And they clearly didn’t have much ad inventory because it was the same damn commercial every time.
Canceled the subscription before it went to paid... about an hour after I signed up. Torrented the show instead. Fuck all of that.
The writing has been on the wall for some time:
1. Grading system changed from 1-5 to 1-2 (thumbs up/down). They thought that the users where full of crap when rating. I do believe some bosses just looked "bad" when buying in the next Adam Sandler movie. This started a cozy culture where no one in Netflix was wrong. Recommendation engine becomes comically bad, even with the best and the brightest.
2. They started to buy everything under the sun. South park made an episode about it even. All the comedians got their own stand up specials. It was now way easier to get a top score (thumbs up). Bosses where happy.
3. As they no longer focuses on quality which they no longer can measure (measuring time watched and churn is not that useful!), they start to strive for quantity. Which is expensive, very expensive.
I guess that in the next decade Netflix will become the next Comcast and cost 35 USD per month, and it all started in an innocent change to the grading system.
1. Grading system changed from 1-5 to 1-2 (thumbs up/down). They thought that the users where full of crap when rating. I do believe some bosses just looked "bad" when buying in the next Adam Sandler movie. This started a cozy culture where no one in Netflix was wrong. Recommendation engine becomes comically bad, even with the best and the brightest.
2. They started to buy everything under the sun. South park made an episode about it even. All the comedians got their own stand up specials. It was now way easier to get a top score (thumbs up). Bosses where happy.
3. As they no longer focuses on quality which they no longer can measure (measuring time watched and churn is not that useful!), they start to strive for quantity. Which is expensive, very expensive.
I guess that in the next decade Netflix will become the next Comcast and cost 35 USD per month, and it all started in an innocent change to the grading system.
Youtube also removed the star rating a long time ago because people to rate the extremes: either 1 star or all 5, you don‘t get the benefit of the fine rating system if your users are not capable of rating things correctly
Which people? A percentage of people?
Those extremes are only extreme for people wanting a bell curve.
They had more quality in their data but they where incapable of using it because they like to take averages and so they blame the users.
Those extremes are only extreme for people wanting a bell curve.
They had more quality in their data but they where incapable of using it because they like to take averages and so they blame the users.
No, they have higher quality data now because they have twice as much engagement with the thumbs system, and users weren’t rating 2-4 stars in a useful way. Losing the review comments was a shame but they were infrequently viewed.
As much as it offends my sensibilities, sometimes the best move is to simplify a feature so that improved usage makes up for the loss of the complications.
As much as it offends my sensibilities, sometimes the best move is to simplify a feature so that improved usage makes up for the loss of the complications.
Where can I see the rating that other people gave? The only thin I see is a top 10 for my country.
I wonder if it is possible to make a "meta" service where you can rotate Netflix, HBO, Prime Video etc. every 3 months
This is how I do it now, sign up and then insta cancel.
That way I know the timeline and plan to watch accordingly, and then when it comes up expired on login I decide to resubscribe or try another one. Can only watch a few things concurrently anyway!
That way I know the timeline and plan to watch accordingly, and then when it comes up expired on login I decide to resubscribe or try another one. Can only watch a few things concurrently anyway!
Basically the same that I'm doing. If I am in the middle of something in one, I'll just renew it.
Works really well. Usually by the time you go back to the first service, there are some pretty interesting new things that might slip by if you just kept that one.
Works really well. Usually by the time you go back to the first service, there are some pretty interesting new things that might slip by if you just kept that one.
So do you use new email every time you re-subscribe or use the same email? This trick can also be used for free-trial services but that definitely needs new email address.
If there is a free trial offer at the time I’ll take it but I don’t game the offers or anything, it saves so much money already.
Can you repeat it using the same credit card?
I’m not getting anything for free, just stopping the subscription right after I start it so it’s only a month at a time.
Ya, we currently subscribe to pretty much all of them and that's already excessive, but it becomes more so as the prices keep going up. So, we'll definitely cancel some of them soon, just out of principal and a service to help would be useful.
I don't even need it to activate/deactivate my accounts. The real benefit to me would be tracking and notifying me when the shows I follow have a new season available. Then when I exhaust whichever platform I'm currently subscribed to, I'll know which one to subscribe to next.
Also, tracking the Series and Movies that I want to watch would be helpful, especially the ones that can potentially appear/disappear from different streaming services.
I don't even need it to activate/deactivate my accounts. The real benefit to me would be tracking and notifying me when the shows I follow have a new season available. Then when I exhaust whichever platform I'm currently subscribed to, I'll know which one to subscribe to next.
Also, tracking the Series and Movies that I want to watch would be helpful, especially the ones that can potentially appear/disappear from different streaming services.
Apple does a lot of these things if you sub through them. But next you all will complain that Apple takes a cut. This thread can be summarized as, “we want to pay very little money, and spend very little time, to get lots of great content”.
On the flip side, the VC model of gaining market share by charging less than is required to sustain the business is an unsustainable model that sets unrealistic expectations.
On the flip side, the VC model of gaining market share by charging less than is required to sustain the business is an unsustainable model that sets unrealistic expectations.
Maybe you misunderstood me. I currently subscribe to: Youtube TV, Netflix, Disney+, Apple TV+, Prime and HBO MAX. I spend more on streaming services than I did on cable.
I'm not asking for them to lower their prices; I'm not even asking that they don't raise their prices. I'm simply saying that when they raise the price it makes me think about the value proposition and I am reminded that I'm paying for far more content than I can possibly consume. That's my fault and nobody else's.
I don't need a service that rotates my subscriptions as suggested above. Rather, if someone wants to create a service for cable cutters, I'd like a central place to curate what I like, what I've seen, what I'd like to see and know when that content becomes available. I agree that Apple does some of that, so does netflix, and HBO and some of the others... and I do use those features, but there is still an opportunity for someone to create a service that is centralized and provides more depth.
For example, I'd like to go a little deeper than a thumbs up/down when rating Netflix content. I'd like to have more than one playlist on Apple, Prime, etc. I'd like to know when a hard to find movie/show gets licensed and will be available on a streaming service, etc.
So, no... I don't want to pay very little money for lots of content. I just want to rebalance what I do pay for to match what I have time to watch. No, I don't want to spend very little time... I actually want to spend more time curating.
I'm not asking for them to lower their prices; I'm not even asking that they don't raise their prices. I'm simply saying that when they raise the price it makes me think about the value proposition and I am reminded that I'm paying for far more content than I can possibly consume. That's my fault and nobody else's.
I don't need a service that rotates my subscriptions as suggested above. Rather, if someone wants to create a service for cable cutters, I'd like a central place to curate what I like, what I've seen, what I'd like to see and know when that content becomes available. I agree that Apple does some of that, so does netflix, and HBO and some of the others... and I do use those features, but there is still an opportunity for someone to create a service that is centralized and provides more depth.
For example, I'd like to go a little deeper than a thumbs up/down when rating Netflix content. I'd like to have more than one playlist on Apple, Prime, etc. I'd like to know when a hard to find movie/show gets licensed and will be available on a streaming service, etc.
So, no... I don't want to pay very little money for lots of content. I just want to rebalance what I do pay for to match what I have time to watch. No, I don't want to spend very little time... I actually want to spend more time curating.
I'd say the endgame for content is for everyone to just pay some fee (tax?), regardless of how much you watch, and it gets apportioned over the providers of whatever content you end up viewing. That gets the incentives right all around.
I suppose this is how Youtube premium works. I think they have trouble attracting higher cost content though. I'd prefer if they had a higher tier where you can pay more and get a quality of content that matches what major networks can do.
No, that's not the same model, because the different TV shows aren't paid by ratings.
It's called a public library. They carry DVDs of movies and TV shows.
No, that's not the same model -- doesn't involve the apportionment by use.
True. But the library's share of local taxes is already so low it hardly matters. How much are you going to divide a couple dollars/month by?
It matters when the point of the idea is to ensure that the alignment of incentives between producers and consumers, which requires that producers be paid by how popular their content is. If you forgot the history, you were trying to cite libraries as an example of something following the model I described, which it does not[1], and now you're bringing up how low the tax revenue is, which is of dubious relevance.
[1] nor does a single library's physical DVD rental satisfy the entire internet market
[1] nor does a single library's physical DVD rental satisfy the entire internet market
> now you're bringing up how low the tax revenue is, which is of dubious relevance.
Sorry, I misunderstood "apportionment by use" as meaning "division of payment by users, according to usage". That's what I get for not reading the original comment thoroughly, which suggested a flat per-user fee, distributed to content owners :-P. However, I think libraries still fit the bill.
> that producers be paid by how popular their content is
Libraries tend to buy more copies of popular content to reduce waiting time for patrons. So this does happen.
> nor does a single library's physical DVD rental satisfy the entire internet market
Libraries don't have to do only physical DVDs. They already loan e-books, there's no reason (other than the availability of licensing) they couldn't do the same for movies and TV shows. And a library can certainly satisfy the demand in its city.
Sorry, I misunderstood "apportionment by use" as meaning "division of payment by users, according to usage". That's what I get for not reading the original comment thoroughly, which suggested a flat per-user fee, distributed to content owners :-P. However, I think libraries still fit the bill.
> that producers be paid by how popular their content is
Libraries tend to buy more copies of popular content to reduce waiting time for patrons. So this does happen.
> nor does a single library's physical DVD rental satisfy the entire internet market
Libraries don't have to do only physical DVDs. They already loan e-books, there's no reason (other than the availability of licensing) they couldn't do the same for movies and TV shows. And a library can certainly satisfy the demand in its city.
so, like, cable tv?
No, that's not the same model, your payments have no relation to what you watch, and, to the extent that you do, it's largely ad funded.
No relation? Fees to content providers are indeed allocated by their popularity, in aggregate. It's why ESPN gets paid (by the cable company) much more than other channels. The only difference in your proposal is the extremely inefficient calculation of millions of individual persons' viewing hours and moving pennies around for each.
How is it more inefficient than what you claim cable TV is doing? And I thought the cable payments were periodically renegotiated, not done in terms of direct a hour-watched -> higher portion translation.
If that is how they do it, then the system I proposed is more complex, yes, but more economically efficient because it more precisely rewards content creators.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, cable double dips by having ads, while the purpose of this system is to fund it without needing ads. So not the same thing.
If that is how they do it, then the system I proposed is more complex, yes, but more economically efficient because it more precisely rewards content creators.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, cable double dips by having ads, while the purpose of this system is to fund it without needing ads. So not the same thing.
Seems like you'd already know this, but money doesn't just grow on trees. No ads just means content costs viewers more out-of-wallet dollars. Hulu has a cheap subscription with ads, or a more expensive one without them. HBO doesn't have ads... and you have to pay extra to add it to your cable package. Your "funding" concept is simply a higher price tag.
I'm not sure where my comment implied that money grows on trees; that condescension isn't warranted.
And I left it deliberately vague about how much the monthly fee is -- there are different models consistent with what I described. The point is, to simply apportion directly it over what people actually watch, rather than the clumsy system of paying for a specific provider and some unrelated amount of money going to the content.
And I left it deliberately vague about how much the monthly fee is -- there are different models consistent with what I described. The point is, to simply apportion directly it over what people actually watch, rather than the clumsy system of paying for a specific provider and some unrelated amount of money going to the content.
Good strategy, why would you pay separately for Prime Video when it comes with Prime in general?
[deleted]
A service that combines all these together... You mean cable tv... we have come full circle...
It was a joke
Seems long overdue given the value that most users are getting from Netflix plus the relative inability for most traditional Hollywood studios to produce films at previous rates for the foreseeable future.
The value I got from netflix cratered after every network started their own exclusive paid service.
This was my reaction as well. How has Netflix delivered more value when shows that I could previously watch on Netflix are no longer there.
They keep cancelling shows that I like as well.
They keep cancelling shows that I like as well.
Apart from a few notable exceptions (like The Queen's Gambit), there is an enormous difference in quality between Netflix and Hollywood productions. Netflix redefined the meaning of 'pulp'.
A few? Off the top of my head:
- The Queen's Gambit
- Narcos
- House of Cards
- Russian Doll
- Ozark
- Stranger Things
- Tiger King
- Dear White People
- The Witcher
- The Umbrella Academy
- The Crown
- Space Force
And that's just TV shows. There are a lot of films they've put out that are very good as well.
- The Queen's Gambit
- Narcos
- House of Cards
- Russian Doll
- Ozark
- Stranger Things
- Tiger King
- Dear White People
- The Witcher
- The Umbrella Academy
- The Crown
- Space Force
And that's just TV shows. There are a lot of films they've put out that are very good as well.
I think it just shows you how much time people spend watching TV, so much that they have (or at least think they have) consumed all the worthy content on Netflix.
I wonder how many HNers would be happier if they replaced their excess TV consumption with something more fulfilling than working out how they can subscribe part-time to every service just so they can watch even more.
Aside, add "The Alienist" to that list. Great period piece in early New York with Dakota Fanning and Luke Evans. Has nothing to do with aliens btw.
I wonder how many HNers would be happier if they replaced their excess TV consumption with something more fulfilling than working out how they can subscribe part-time to every service just so they can watch even more.
Aside, add "The Alienist" to that list. Great period piece in early New York with Dakota Fanning and Luke Evans. Has nothing to do with aliens btw.
Every time I tell people I don't watch TV, they immediately ask me what I do, as if watching TV is the only thing to do.
I used to be the guy not watching tv everyday. And then I got married
Kidding. TV, especially good quality production, has been a great way for me to tune out of politics and the toxic environment of life in America. It's sad but for anyone just looking to get past the nightmare TV is a real boon.
Kidding. TV, especially good quality production, has been a great way for me to tune out of politics and the toxic environment of life in America. It's sad but for anyone just looking to get past the nightmare TV is a real boon.
Have you tried cutting out the news in general? Helped me a lot.
I just read Wikipedia's current events[1] section once a week or so.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
I just read Wikipedia's current events[1] section once a week or so.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events
Cutting out news is hard when the administration actively pushes policies that affect me and people close to me on a weekly basis.
With the current government, I might lose loved ones to covid, deportation, violence, healthcare disaster, job loss, mental problems, drug abuse, gun shooting or just plain ol suicide.
Choose your poison cuz this otherwise this government will choose one for you.
With the current government, I might lose loved ones to covid, deportation, violence, healthcare disaster, job loss, mental problems, drug abuse, gun shooting or just plain ol suicide.
Choose your poison cuz this otherwise this government will choose one for you.
Statistically not though. That's just the news making you feel that way.
The US has one of the lowest case fatality rates in the world for COVID-19[1]. As far as I'm aware, none of those other things you mention have increased dramatically under the current admin, except as they relate to COVID and lockdowns, which the entire world is unfortunately experiencing, not just the USA. It is certainly strange to pin coronavirus side-effects on the POTUS when you look at how the rest of the world is faring.
The US also remains one of the least likely countries on earth where you will lose a loved one to a healthcare disaster (even before the ACA) – quality of care in America is one of the highest in the world.
[1] http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/
The US has one of the lowest case fatality rates in the world for COVID-19[1]. As far as I'm aware, none of those other things you mention have increased dramatically under the current admin, except as they relate to COVID and lockdowns, which the entire world is unfortunately experiencing, not just the USA. It is certainly strange to pin coronavirus side-effects on the POTUS when you look at how the rest of the world is faring.
The US also remains one of the least likely countries on earth where you will lose a loved one to a healthcare disaster (even before the ACA) – quality of care in America is one of the highest in the world.
[1] http://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/
Case fatality rate is the one metric that has almost nothing to do with leadership. America is fairing well in that metric because we have good doctors and good technology and good facilities.
All the other metrics, infection rates, testing, contact tracing, reflect partially on the administration. And we are not fairing well, comparatively on any of those metrics.
All the other metrics, infection rates, testing, contact tracing, reflect partially on the administration. And we are not fairing well, comparatively on any of those metrics.
The US is a federation of states, and generally internal matters (like stopping the spread of a virus in your state) are not the purview of the executive branch. It's hard to blame the president when it is not equally bad across the board, for example if you have some cities like NYC which manage to contribute 10% of all COVID deaths in the US so far.
When it comes to things that typically are the purview of the executive branch, I think I remember the US being the first country in the G20 to restrict travel from China, among other things, and then the POTUS was called xenophobic by various people for pointing the finger where it deserved to be pointed (China, who was the very first to downplay the virus and pretend everything was hunky dory while it really wasn't).
I'm not a fan of Trump, but if you are placing the blame for coronavirus on him you are more than a little misguided. In all honesty, watching Democrats use people who died of COVID as political props by trying to pin their deaths on Trump is one of the shittiest things I've seen this year, and it's been a crap year.
When it comes to things that typically are the purview of the executive branch, I think I remember the US being the first country in the G20 to restrict travel from China, among other things, and then the POTUS was called xenophobic by various people for pointing the finger where it deserved to be pointed (China, who was the very first to downplay the virus and pretend everything was hunky dory while it really wasn't).
I'm not a fan of Trump, but if you are placing the blame for coronavirus on him you are more than a little misguided. In all honesty, watching Democrats use people who died of COVID as political props by trying to pin their deaths on Trump is one of the shittiest things I've seen this year, and it's been a crap year.
> The US is a federation of states, and generally internal matters (like stopping the spread of a virus in your state) are not the purview of the executive branch.
These states aren't islands though - they mostly share land borders, freeways connect them, and people freely travel between them every day. The virus doesn't know state borders. If the federal government can insert itself into random state affairs by citing the interstate commerce clause, I don't see how it can wash its hands of responsibility for this debacle.
These states aren't islands though - they mostly share land borders, freeways connect them, and people freely travel between them every day. The virus doesn't know state borders. If the federal government can insert itself into random state affairs by citing the interstate commerce clause, I don't see how it can wash its hands of responsibility for this debacle.
Nearly every public health expert and virologist and other related expert I have seen has said the administration has done a terrible job.
Shutting down travel to China was only a partial shutdown and was about the same time that 40 other countries shut down travel.
Much of the early infections were thought to have come in through europe anyway.
Inconsistent messaging, disagreement with their own scientific leadership, disagreement with scientific reality, willingness to promote unproven theories and treatments, and most of all, inability to course correct when new information becomes available are all reasons the Trump admin has done a terrible job and is quite responsible.
Shutting down travel to China was only a partial shutdown and was about the same time that 40 other countries shut down travel.
Much of the early infections were thought to have come in through europe anyway.
Inconsistent messaging, disagreement with their own scientific leadership, disagreement with scientific reality, willingness to promote unproven theories and treatments, and most of all, inability to course correct when new information becomes available are all reasons the Trump admin has done a terrible job and is quite responsible.
> Statistically not though. That's just the news making you feel that way.
I am not only looking at statistics to comfort myself. I am also looking at leadership and the direction of this ship, just like the way I would evaluate a potential employer.
Working a job at a sinking, chaotic ship with NO DESIRE to improve sucks. America's leadership, government and 50% of the population who'd cheer the crazy captain at the expense of the ship are exactly that.
No amount of past statistics can change the present reality.
I am not only looking at statistics to comfort myself. I am also looking at leadership and the direction of this ship, just like the way I would evaluate a potential employer.
Working a job at a sinking, chaotic ship with NO DESIRE to improve sucks. America's leadership, government and 50% of the population who'd cheer the crazy captain at the expense of the ship are exactly that.
No amount of past statistics can change the present reality.
I’m using current statistics.
How exactly is the ship sinking?
How exactly is the ship sinking?
> How exactly is the ship sinking?
I genuinely don't understand if this question is legit. Are you seriously living under a rock?
Covid: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Unemployemnt: https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf
Lifexpectancy: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-lif...
Education: https://hechingerreport.org/what-2018-pisa-international-ran...
Deficits (please pay attention to Republican terms vs Democratic terms) https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/defic...
US incarceration rate: https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08...
And I'll leave US racism, US supreme court politics, US voter suppression as an exercise (an exercise that I'm not sure you will pass since you appear to think America has been just fine lately)
I genuinely don't understand if this question is legit. Are you seriously living under a rock?
Covid: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Unemployemnt: https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf
Lifexpectancy: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-lif...
Education: https://hechingerreport.org/what-2018-pisa-international-ran...
Deficits (please pay attention to Republican terms vs Democratic terms) https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/defic...
US incarceration rate: https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08...
And I'll leave US racism, US supreme court politics, US voter suppression as an exercise (an exercise that I'm not sure you will pass since you appear to think America has been just fine lately)
Out of those, maybe the first 2 seasons of Narcos and House of Cards are good, Stranger Things first season was OK. Tiger king is trash tv. Ozark sucked. DWP, no comments. The Witcher was heavily panned. I have not watched the rest but based on in your comment I wouldnt trust too much on your taste.
I generally don't respond to comments as unconstructive as this one, but I'll make an exception. I've added the overall show scores from Rotten Tomatoes (critics/audience) to maybe broaden your perspective a little.
- Narcos: 89%/94%
- House of Cards: 77%/76%
- Russian Doll: 97%/87%
- Ozark: 81%/92%
- Stranger Things: 93%/91%
- Tiger King: 86%/84%
- Dear White People: 95%/50%
- The Witcher: 67%/92%
- The Umbrella Academy: 82%/87%
- The Crown: 89%/90%
- Space Force: 38%/75%
- The Alienist: 74%/84% (added by request)
The only one not well-received by critics was Space Force (which audiences liked), and the only one even close to "OK" according to audiences was DWP (which critics liked).
Except for those two, every other show on this list had a supermajority of both critics and audience view it favorably.
- Narcos: 89%/94%
- House of Cards: 77%/76%
- Russian Doll: 97%/87%
- Ozark: 81%/92%
- Stranger Things: 93%/91%
- Tiger King: 86%/84%
- Dear White People: 95%/50%
- The Witcher: 67%/92%
- The Umbrella Academy: 82%/87%
- The Crown: 89%/90%
- Space Force: 38%/75%
- The Alienist: 74%/84% (added by request)
The only one not well-received by critics was Space Force (which audiences liked), and the only one even close to "OK" according to audiences was DWP (which critics liked).
Except for those two, every other show on this list had a supermajority of both critics and audience view it favorably.
Are you seriously using Rotten Tomatoes? The site that gave like 100 to Cuties and LOU2? I wish you had not answered back.
Anything else less than 80% in audience score(the "critics" there are beyond redemption) is a steaming pile of crap.
Anything else less than 80% in audience score(the "critics" there are beyond redemption) is a steaming pile of crap.
Feel free to update the list with ratings from any aggregator you prefer.
Also, when you say LOU2, do you mean The Last of Us II? I'd like to point out that Rotten Tomatoes is a TV/film ratings website and so does not have a rating for that video game. As such, if that is what you meant by LOU2, then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
RT is also an aggregator of reviews, so any rating on RT of a film like Cuties is not "RT's rating", but rather a score calculated from professional TV/film critics. If you think most critics are bad at doing their job then fair enough, but this entire subthread was about a claim that Netflix has terrible programming compared to "Hollywood". Not sure who you think is better equipped to judge such things besides professional critics, except of course your estimable self.
Also, when you say LOU2, do you mean The Last of Us II? I'd like to point out that Rotten Tomatoes is a TV/film ratings website and so does not have a rating for that video game. As such, if that is what you meant by LOU2, then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
RT is also an aggregator of reviews, so any rating on RT of a film like Cuties is not "RT's rating", but rather a score calculated from professional TV/film critics. If you think most critics are bad at doing their job then fair enough, but this entire subthread was about a claim that Netflix has terrible programming compared to "Hollywood". Not sure who you think is better equipped to judge such things besides professional critics, except of course your estimable self.
Space-Force ! What a fantastic show !
(A) I don't think that's empirically true; it's easy to rattle off high-quality Netflix content, which is why so many people subscribe to it.
(B) I don't think that's theoretically true either, in that Netflix and "Hollywood" both get content the same way: by buying it from production companies.
(B) I don't think that's theoretically true either, in that Netflix and "Hollywood" both get content the same way: by buying it from production companies.
All the low budget productions that used to fill out Blockbuster Video are now filling out Netflix and Amazon.
I always wondered who actually rented those movies and how they made money. I guess the formula still works because people must be watching them on Netflix...
I always wondered who actually rented those movies and how they made money. I guess the formula still works because people must be watching them on Netflix...
There is a lot of money to be made in low budget productions. Because the market of consumers is big and the cost to produce them are low. And you occasionally end up with a blockbuster and have something like Paranormal Activity that cost $15k to make and made millions in the box office.
There is lots of room at the bottom.
Anybody else hit this bug with Netflix:
You have a perfectly valid Credit Card, you try to re-start your account (or maybe create a new account), and you get a "payment form not valid". Your bank says Netflix isn't even trying to authorize the payment, netflix support says they know there is no issue with your card, the issue is on their side, but they cannot fix it, the only proposed solution is to buy a netflix gift card...
https://twitter.com/dorfsmay/status/1315402870661902336
This totally puzzles me.
They have a bug that I am sure technical people would jump in and solve in a matters of hours, they have tech support people who understand the issue, but the company has provided no way to connect the two!
You have a perfectly valid Credit Card, you try to re-start your account (or maybe create a new account), and you get a "payment form not valid". Your bank says Netflix isn't even trying to authorize the payment, netflix support says they know there is no issue with your card, the issue is on their side, but they cannot fix it, the only proposed solution is to buy a netflix gift card...
https://twitter.com/dorfsmay/status/1315402870661902336
This totally puzzles me.
They have a bug that I am sure technical people would jump in and solve in a matters of hours, they have tech support people who understand the issue, but the company has provided no way to connect the two!
Netflix sometimes blacklists cards to prevent people from continuously getting free trials on new accounts, although it seems to be random/based on a list of heuristics that only a handful of employees know.
then this bug may disappear for those in the USA since Netflix doesn't do free trials in the USA anymore.
see https://gizmodo.com/netflix-thinks-its-so-great-you-dont-nee...
see https://gizmodo.com/netflix-thinks-its-so-great-you-dont-nee...
The key differentiator between the future and past, isn't strictly cheaper prices, it is flexibility.
Satellite/Cable had a huge lock-in factor due to equipment contracts and even monopoly/duopoly issues. A lot of consumers found themselves either hard or soft locked in as prices continued to rise/quality declined (and many still are).
The future is different not because content is guaranteed to be inexpensive, but because competition can exist and users get the choice (including choosing nothing for periods). In this case Netflix is raising prices which sucks, but the market is rich in high quality competitors, some of which are cheaper.
Satellite/Cable had a huge lock-in factor due to equipment contracts and even monopoly/duopoly issues. A lot of consumers found themselves either hard or soft locked in as prices continued to rise/quality declined (and many still are).
The future is different not because content is guaranteed to be inexpensive, but because competition can exist and users get the choice (including choosing nothing for periods). In this case Netflix is raising prices which sucks, but the market is rich in high quality competitors, some of which are cheaper.
Subscriber growth has stalled. So they increase the rates on existing customers.
Sounds like a good way to get people to cancel and create a downward spiral. I feel like Netflix just recently raised rates. Maybe it was a year ago but feels like yesterday.
Netflix has underpriced its service forever, it really should be more expensive than it always has been. They've anchored expectations to a low number now, so it's hard to change.
Are they under-priced though? How much does the average subscriber watch?
For the price of Netflix for a month I can rent two/three movies and choose whichever I want. Netflix doesn't provide much value on top of that. Paying in advance for a quite limited movie selection.
It would only be their series that provide value for the money, if you like them ...
For the price of Netflix for a month I can rent two/three movies and choose whichever I want. Netflix doesn't provide much value on top of that. Paying in advance for a quite limited movie selection.
It would only be their series that provide value for the money, if you like them ...
And considering that a lot of shows that get a strong fanbase of followers get cancelled, I don't think their price is "too low."
It especially doesn't make a lot of sense to have "tiers" of subscription. Why would you allow your users to get a worse experience from you? That seems like a good way to associate "lower quality" with your brand.
It especially doesn't make a lot of sense to have "tiers" of subscription. Why would you allow your users to get a worse experience from you? That seems like a good way to associate "lower quality" with your brand.
Netflix is on for several hours a day in the average household. It's easy to forget that it was perfectly normal to pay $150+/mo for cable back in the day. Probably more with all the hidden fees and add-ons.
Given that 150USD was like 40 movie rentals that is kinda insane. Was cable packages some kind of fallus symbol maybe? Or was it some special sports channels?
Ye seems like people watch it longer than I guessed. Like old TV channels. It is funny becouse I get itches from watching rolling content nowadays and have totally forgot how watching TV after school was.
Ye seems like people watch it longer than I guessed. Like old TV channels. It is funny becouse I get itches from watching rolling content nowadays and have totally forgot how watching TV after school was.
It was January 2019, so nearly two years ago.
We’ve come full circle sadly. YouTube TV raised fares with more channels I don’t watch or want. Netflix increases rates and further creates walled garden.
Everyone wanting to cut the cord isn’t better off then we were 5 years ago.
Everyone wanting to cut the cord isn’t better off then we were 5 years ago.
I'm much better off. I can take my subscriptions with me, wherever I go. I can subscribe for a month at a time. I can cancel online. I can share subscriptions.
I see the trend, but I'm still way better off now than I was when I had a regular cable or satellite plan. When I add up all the streaming services I pay for, it's still lower than what I was paying for DirecTV, and there's much better content now.
I also regularly rotate services. For example, Amazon Prime is how I'm getting my HBO. I'm ready to remove that channel for a few months until the shows I watch return. I've done that with Acorn (UK programming) and with Showtime.
Looking at the proliferation of silos (Peacock, AppleTV+, Disney, Netflix, HBO Max, Hulu, etc.), it's going to get harder to have a decent all-in-one place to go for content. But this is what a lot of cord cutters insisted that they wanted ("Why do I have to pay for ESPN if I don't watch it?"). Turns out it might not be cheaper after all? That is unless you're willing to put a little effort into rotating active services.
I also regularly rotate services. For example, Amazon Prime is how I'm getting my HBO. I'm ready to remove that channel for a few months until the shows I watch return. I've done that with Acorn (UK programming) and with Showtime.
Looking at the proliferation of silos (Peacock, AppleTV+, Disney, Netflix, HBO Max, Hulu, etc.), it's going to get harder to have a decent all-in-one place to go for content. But this is what a lot of cord cutters insisted that they wanted ("Why do I have to pay for ESPN if I don't watch it?"). Turns out it might not be cheaper after all? That is unless you're willing to put a little effort into rotating active services.
One key is whether you're willing to give up live TV. If you have to pay >$50/month for essentially a streaming cable bundle, you've cut way into your savings by cutting the cord especially if you had some sort of internet/cable or internet/cable/phone bundle.
I dropped phone and cable a while back and it saves me quite a bit of money overall but I do lose some things because of it.
I dropped phone and cable a while back and it saves me quite a bit of money overall but I do lose some things because of it.
I don't watch sports, which I suppose is part of the reason, but I have 0 desire for live tv. I'd much rather watch what I want when I want.
Except we have fewer advertisements interrupting shows.
Smart TVs can pause live TV so you just buffer up 5 minutes and skip the ads.
You can still sign up for Netflix, Hulu, HBO and Disney+ for a fraction of the cost of a cable subscription, without commercials.
I don't think that is true. Sadly, sports is the one big thing that still prevents most people from cutting cord for real, but I prefer the current "multi streaming service" world a lot more than the old cable world.
As I said in another comment, you can just keep one subscription active at a time. It is way cheaper than cable and you can still rotate pretty quickly.
If something really good comes, you can subscribe to both for a short period, but most of the time you can do pretty well with just keeping one active.
I wish a Netflix-for-sports existed already, though. I always had to keep the basic cable just to watch my team's football (soccer) games because you can't get those in any other way.
As I said in another comment, you can just keep one subscription active at a time. It is way cheaper than cable and you can still rotate pretty quickly.
If something really good comes, you can subscribe to both for a short period, but most of the time you can do pretty well with just keeping one active.
I wish a Netflix-for-sports existed already, though. I always had to keep the basic cable just to watch my team's football (soccer) games because you can't get those in any other way.
Unlike with cable, we don't have natural monopolies keeping competition away. So now we have competition: if you don't want Netflix, you have a choice in YouTube TV, Hulu, HBO, Disney, CBS All Access, Amazon Prime Video, and more.
>> if you don't want Netflix, you have a choice in YouTube TV, Hulu, HBO, Disney, CBS All Access, Amazon Prime Video, and more
Then what does cable TV have a monopoly on?
Then what does cable TV have a monopoly on?
[deleted]
the monopoly is on the content, now
Content isn't a monopoly. Content competes with other content. The same way content creators have been competing forever.
YouTube TV isn’t available where I am. But it must be awfully expensive when it does. YouTube without commercials is ~$20 USD a month here.
How does increasing rates further create a walled garden?
The Office getting yanked end of year will be a major unsub event. I don’t think this will be.
Some things are just better to me on DVD to be honest, and The Office is definitely one of those. The extras, the commentary tracks, it's just been a better experience for me than on netflix.
I don't understand these supposed single-series diehards like The Office fans that make their cancellation ever known every time Netflix comes up.
If you're obsessed with a single show, isn't it time to own the whole thing digitally? Why would you even settle for needing an internet connection and service subscription to watch the one show you care about? It's like being annoyed that Scribd stopped hosting your favorite book.
Reminds me of the small brain panel of that galaxy brain meme.
If you're obsessed with a single show, isn't it time to own the whole thing digitally? Why would you even settle for needing an internet connection and service subscription to watch the one show you care about? It's like being annoyed that Scribd stopped hosting your favorite book.
Reminds me of the small brain panel of that galaxy brain meme.
> Why would you even settle for needing an internet connection and service subscription to watch the one show you care about?
Because I have half a dozen devices, all which get replaced every few years, that all need to be able to access that show. How do I get my show on all those devices without an internet connection and without taking a bunch of my time managing it?
Because I have half a dozen devices, all which get replaced every few years, that all need to be able to access that show. How do I get my show on all those devices without an internet connection and without taking a bunch of my time managing it?
If you really wanted that, you can get a Plex server up and running which would likely suit you better since a single show is your deal breaker. Might as well control the deal.
But I'd question the need to get TV on all of your six devices just like I'd question the need to get Twitter and Candy Crush on all of them. Maybe get it on 1-2 (laptop, TV usb stick) and learn to be okay with not having 24/7 access to TV. You'd be happier.
As some ideas for ways to swap out TV with something more fulfilling, I recently decided to randomly consume some Youtube courses on the works of T. S. Eliot and Plato, of course reading them on my own alongside. It's not necessarily as stimulating as captivating TV or methamphetamine, but I feel like I'm growing, being challenged, and it's damn sure fulfilling. Also gives me something interesting to talk about. (I chose those authors because an older friend of mine knows about them and likes talking about them.)
But I'd question the need to get TV on all of your six devices just like I'd question the need to get Twitter and Candy Crush on all of them. Maybe get it on 1-2 (laptop, TV usb stick) and learn to be okay with not having 24/7 access to TV. You'd be happier.
As some ideas for ways to swap out TV with something more fulfilling, I recently decided to randomly consume some Youtube courses on the works of T. S. Eliot and Plato, of course reading them on my own alongside. It's not necessarily as stimulating as captivating TV or methamphetamine, but I feel like I'm growing, being challenged, and it's damn sure fulfilling. Also gives me something interesting to talk about. (I chose those authors because an older friend of mine knows about them and likes talking about them.)
Ownership is overhead.
Netflix stopped working on linux for me a few months ago. I finally figured out it was probably a wildvine related issue (and if you don't know what wildvine is, omg what a rabbit hole), and Netflix just doesn't care to fix it because fuck linux users I guess. Fuck netflix, I guess. HBO did the same thing... Showtime still works, and I finally gave into Amazon, on which I can watch my HBO shows. I think Amazon is going to come out much better in the streaming wars than many anticipate.
It doesn't work well on Windows either unless you have a specific Intel CPU, a specific GPU, and a new monitor. They downgrade from 4K to 1080p silently.
I'm tempted to see if the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission would smack them around a little for false advertising...
I'm tempted to see if the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission would smack them around a little for false advertising...
Is it wise to raise prices now when you have more people watching than every and more people who can not pay more because of this pandemic? Ok, it's just $2 but still...
Glad they kept the $9 single stream price. If I do go back to streaming service, that's a fair price.
As a single person, I've watched as most of these services have increased their prices for single users but made it much more reasonable for a family.
Why am I paying the same price for Amazon Prime as a family of 5 with a 3K square house who orders from Amazon 2x/day and watches 5x the video?
Why am I paying $70/month for cable for maybe 7 hours/week when some family is watching 100 hours combined per week?
Why am I still paying a premium for AT&T post-paid mobile service when a family who is constantly adding and changing new lines for the kids gets a brand new IPhone or two each year during their upgrade deals, yet AT&T won't ever offer an existing user a discount on a new phone?
Same with Spotify, Apple Music, HBO, etc.
As a single person, I've watched as most of these services have increased their prices for single users but made it much more reasonable for a family.
Why am I paying the same price for Amazon Prime as a family of 5 with a 3K square house who orders from Amazon 2x/day and watches 5x the video?
Why am I paying $70/month for cable for maybe 7 hours/week when some family is watching 100 hours combined per week?
Why am I still paying a premium for AT&T post-paid mobile service when a family who is constantly adding and changing new lines for the kids gets a brand new IPhone or two each year during their upgrade deals, yet AT&T won't ever offer an existing user a discount on a new phone?
Same with Spotify, Apple Music, HBO, etc.
It looks like in the end we will end up back where we started with cable TV package deals. For example - I just want to watch European football and to do that right now I have two options, either pay almost $70/month for fubo.tv (which was just 20$ before it started adding crap channels and was focused on football only), or I have to sign up for CBS to watch champions league, fanatiz to watch bein sports, peacock to watch some premier league games, NBC cable to watch other premier league games, and espn plus to watch Italian and French league, ridiculous.
Some people cancel and then once it has stopped reactivate useing their VPN to renew in Turkey or Argentina at much cheaper rates. Long as they already have a verified payment card on their account.
But doesn't that change, or limit, the content that's available to them?
Content you see is based on where you are, not where you’re paying.
Tbh I still think Netflix is a very good deal. For $14/month you get access to a huge selection of movies and TV shows that you can watch with no commercials. Where I'm from a ticket to the cinema costs about that much (excluding popcorn) and will plough you with 10 minutes of commercials and movie trailers for the privilege.
People will happily pay $30 per person for dinner in a restaurant multiple times a month, but are reluctant to pay $14/month for access to a huge library of endless entertainment. Why?
People will happily pay $30 per person for dinner in a restaurant multiple times a month, but are reluctant to pay $14/month for access to a huge library of endless entertainment. Why?
The Netflix shock jock level of extremist one-upmanship outrageous content(politics, horror, children cartoons) has lead to my cancelation.
Along with functionally absent parental controls.
Price is irrelevant.
Along with functionally absent parental controls.
Price is irrelevant.
I share various streaming and news subscriptions with a small network of friends and family. I pay for 7 services myself and have access to 5 others. (5 television, 3 music, 3 news, 1 podcast)
The messed up part is, that's still only a sampling of the services that are out there! But most of the remaining are regional newspapers and niche streaming video services.
The messed up part is, that's still only a sampling of the services that are out there! But most of the remaining are regional newspapers and niche streaming video services.
I share my Netflix account with 3 other family members. It can’t get more cheaper than that. I subscribe to HBO once in a while. I got 1 year free Apple TV+ after buying a Mac. So my monthly streaming expenses for now is 3€.
I miss low prices and high quality. Netflix has lost its way.
Cancelled today.
Cuties led to a lot of cancellations
Yeah, I didn't cancel though I really felt like it. But now with this price raise I can't help but feel like I'm funding that trash, which doesn't sit well with me. /soapbox
Including mine, that was upsetting.
Also, the shows I watch, such as Narcos, Stranger Things, etc. are released once every 2 years and I realized I had not used the service in a while.
Also, the shows I watch, such as Narcos, Stranger Things, etc. are released once every 2 years and I realized I had not used the service in a while.
I never understood the hype around netflix. Its very low quality "entertainment". Cable tv for "young people".
If you can't find things to watch on Netflix, you either haven't looked/tried or you have such narrow interests that the other services aren't going to please you either.
Maybe since you mentioned "young people", you're looking for Gunsmoke reruns?
Maybe since you mentioned "young people", you're looking for Gunsmoke reruns?
what is "gunsmoke reruns" I am 27 years old,hombre :-)
I dont think I have narrow interests. I just think Netflix is extremely shallow garbage entertainment. Similar to watching TV. I was forced on serveral social occasions to watch netflix. I would be alright with it like i am alright with people watching TV. But people pretend like this is the greatest thing ever sooo much better than watching TV. Its a very undignified ritual you have to go through to do even more undignifed stuff.
No idea why the share price increased, clearly this is going to make people cancel their service.
Netflix wont be around for many more years. The critical mistake was switching their servers to AWS, you never pay your competitor even if it reduces your costs.
Netflix wont be around for many more years. The critical mistake was switching their servers to AWS, you never pay your competitor even if it reduces your costs.
The critical mistake was made very very long ago, when they didn't pursue becoming a platform aggressively, at all other cost. They decided they want a big cut and were brazen to think they owned enough mindshare to draw all the eyeballs. Always pursue dominance. Sow, sow, sow, and more sow. Then reap. Amazon was already an object lesson for them, but they ignored it.
In hindsight, of course it went that way. Have you seen the culture deck?
They've been on AWS forever haven't they? Long before prime video. I very much doubt that it reduces their cost, even at the pricing they must get. It lets them focus their effort.
Ok lastly you're wrong on their longevity. Yes some people will cancel but the vast majority will not, and they will see more revenue. I don't 'get' Netflix (the content sucks and they are like Google -- your favorite show is likely to get canned, simply because the very best shows are almost by definition "uniquely" appealing and TV, er streaming content is too expensive to generate many such shows) but every remote has a NFLX button. In the end there will be netflix and disney.
In hindsight, of course it went that way. Have you seen the culture deck?
They've been on AWS forever haven't they? Long before prime video. I very much doubt that it reduces their cost, even at the pricing they must get. It lets them focus their effort.
Ok lastly you're wrong on their longevity. Yes some people will cancel but the vast majority will not, and they will see more revenue. I don't 'get' Netflix (the content sucks and they are like Google -- your favorite show is likely to get canned, simply because the very best shows are almost by definition "uniquely" appealing and TV, er streaming content is too expensive to generate many such shows) but every remote has a NFLX button. In the end there will be netflix and disney.
Could you expand on your first paragraph? What would it have meant for them to become a platform? How should they have dominated (sow, sow, sow)?
They should have spent 120% of their money on customer acquisition, and offered streaming services to content providers at a "can't say no" cost, ie at a loss, so as to dump more money into customer acquisition. They should have signed antitrust-worthy deals with ISPs to prevent other streamers from colocating (a major cost/barrier to streaming is the CDN).
Imagine being the tivo of streaming.
Instead, they spent too much money hiring too many brilliant but overconfident types. Average people could have done it, at low wages with lots of equity. Saving more money for customer acquisition.
They did a good job with their DVD service, which has a more easily understandable barrier to entry. They thought they had a similar barrier to entry with streaming, perhaps in part due to thinking that what they were doing would be so hard for others to pull off.
Of course, this is all in hindsight, so take it for what it's worth. But, as noted, even back then they had platform examples to model themselves after. Perhaps they weren't going after such kind of dominance, but still they could have foreseen vast competition.
Apple, OTOH, gets it. They can't even give away 1 year free of their TV service. But they will keep plugging away at it. Come to think of it, they are probably netflix's worst enemy, not disney etc. Netflix do recognize this ... they wisely refuse to be a provider on ATV, where they will just get 'amazon'd'. When your competition is Apple, you are in a bad place.
Imagine being the tivo of streaming.
Instead, they spent too much money hiring too many brilliant but overconfident types. Average people could have done it, at low wages with lots of equity. Saving more money for customer acquisition.
They did a good job with their DVD service, which has a more easily understandable barrier to entry. They thought they had a similar barrier to entry with streaming, perhaps in part due to thinking that what they were doing would be so hard for others to pull off.
Of course, this is all in hindsight, so take it for what it's worth. But, as noted, even back then they had platform examples to model themselves after. Perhaps they weren't going after such kind of dominance, but still they could have foreseen vast competition.
Apple, OTOH, gets it. They can't even give away 1 year free of their TV service. But they will keep plugging away at it. Come to think of it, they are probably netflix's worst enemy, not disney etc. Netflix do recognize this ... they wisely refuse to be a provider on ATV, where they will just get 'amazon'd'. When your competition is Apple, you are in a bad place.
When companies raise prices the stock goes up because they are anticipated to increase revenue without additional costs. It's a $1-$2 increase. People are unlikely to cancel en masse otherwise they wouldn't have done it.
Disney, Amazon, Netflix, Apple TV+.
Apple intends to "give away" Apple TV+ for free with their bundle Apple One. ( It is sort of included in the bundle as offering value )
Amazon Prime Video is ~85% of US household and increasing. And again it is included for free as part of Amazon Prime. And it is working hard on its intentional expansion.
Disney - I dont think any family with kids is ever going to cancel that. Not to mention their low price.
Netflix, with all their quality originals and their confidence to raise prices seems to suggest there are little to no lost of subscribers.
I wonder how this is going to end.
Apple intends to "give away" Apple TV+ for free with their bundle Apple One. ( It is sort of included in the bundle as offering value )
Amazon Prime Video is ~85% of US household and increasing. And again it is included for free as part of Amazon Prime. And it is working hard on its intentional expansion.
Disney - I dont think any family with kids is ever going to cancel that. Not to mention their low price.
Netflix, with all their quality originals and their confidence to raise prices seems to suggest there are little to no lost of subscribers.
I wonder how this is going to end.
> Apple intends to "give away" Apple TV+ for free with their bundle Apple One.
They aren't giving it away and it isn't free.
In fact Apple One is so expensive you need to be paying for most of the included services already for it to make financial sense (and several of those services aren't popular by themselves).
They aren't giving it away and it isn't free.
In fact Apple One is so expensive you need to be paying for most of the included services already for it to make financial sense (and several of those services aren't popular by themselves).
In the next 12-24 months it'll be obvious the way to consume media will change from a monthly netflix/apple/cbs/peacock/hbo/anyone else fee to a 30 day run. People will sign up and churn based on what they want to see. Services will pop up around this and handle your memberships for you. Those service will become the new cable companies.
Netflix is still a good value for the money charged.