There are more streaming choices than ever – why are prices going up?(theverge.com)
theverge.com
There are more streaming choices than ever – why are prices going up?
https://www.theverge.com/21310442/tv-streaming-youtube-fubo-price-increases-carrier-fees-disputes-costs-cable-television
134 comments
It's a problem of business model to me.
Streaming companies are starting to look like cable companies, because the "system" incentivizes exclusivity of content.
When netflix started, they didn't make their own content, but instead licensed it. They offered fast and reliable services, and the content was tangential.
But as soon as content producers (and other media companies including cable companies) saw how profitable netflix was, they either raised their content license fees, or withdrew it to add to their own streaming service for exclusivity.
Therefore, netflix needed to complete with exclusivity. This is starting to look like the cable days.
I would propose that all content producing companies have to license their content to anyone who is willing to pay, at the "same" price (per user? per year? etc? this is something yet to be decided). That is, a content producer cannot charge one entity one price, and another entity a different price, nor refuse to license it to another entity (in the same way that a store cannot charge one customer one price, while another customer gets a different price).
Streaming companies are starting to look like cable companies, because the "system" incentivizes exclusivity of content.
When netflix started, they didn't make their own content, but instead licensed it. They offered fast and reliable services, and the content was tangential.
But as soon as content producers (and other media companies including cable companies) saw how profitable netflix was, they either raised their content license fees, or withdrew it to add to their own streaming service for exclusivity.
Therefore, netflix needed to complete with exclusivity. This is starting to look like the cable days.
I would propose that all content producing companies have to license their content to anyone who is willing to pay, at the "same" price (per user? per year? etc? this is something yet to be decided). That is, a content producer cannot charge one entity one price, and another entity a different price, nor refuse to license it to another entity (in the same way that a store cannot charge one customer one price, while another customer gets a different price).
That is, a content producer cannot charge one entity one price, and another entity a different price, nor refuse to license it to another entity (in the same way that a store cannot charge one customer one price, while another customer gets a different price).
Compulsory licensing for mass-distributed media is a good idea. Ever since the Napster days I've wished the media market worked kind of like a spot electricity auction market, and any provider could bid on any show.
Compulsory licensing for mass-distributed media is a good idea. Ever since the Napster days I've wished the media market worked kind of like a spot electricity auction market, and any provider could bid on any show.
Aside from simpler billing, this would also encourage innovation in the tech space separate from the content space.
If I develop a service with a clever new gimmick-- a better recommendation algorithm, a clever social feature, improved accessibility, whatever, it's dead in the water today due to no content. I have to sell out to a big player to have any chance at traction. If I can just pay for a compulsory license, I can focus on the thing that makes my offering unique.
I also think compulsory licenses might provide a desirable social benefit-- separating the artist from their work in the public's eye.
Look how every election year you get the songwriters beefing and suing "I don't want campaign A playing song B". If everyone knows all content can be compulsory licensed, the air of endorsement is gone and nobody has to get inconvenienced or angry.
If I develop a service with a clever new gimmick-- a better recommendation algorithm, a clever social feature, improved accessibility, whatever, it's dead in the water today due to no content. I have to sell out to a big player to have any chance at traction. If I can just pay for a compulsory license, I can focus on the thing that makes my offering unique.
I also think compulsory licenses might provide a desirable social benefit-- separating the artist from their work in the public's eye.
Look how every election year you get the songwriters beefing and suing "I don't want campaign A playing song B". If everyone knows all content can be compulsory licensed, the air of endorsement is gone and nobody has to get inconvenienced or angry.
Specifically to the campaigns playing songs, copyright also has a concept of "moral rights", specifically one considered "right to integrity of the work". Where this lands on a technical legal standpoint I'm not qualified to speak to, but it's something interesting to read up on.
Not everything covered by copyright is a purely economic transaction. To varying degrees, some or most art is an expression of the artist and means something to them. There's more to seeing someone you disagree with use a piece you poured your heart and soul into than just an assumed endorsement.
Not everything covered by copyright is a purely economic transaction. To varying degrees, some or most art is an expression of the artist and means something to them. There's more to seeing someone you disagree with use a piece you poured your heart and soul into than just an assumed endorsement.
Yeah, I'm thinking compulsory distribution for anything above a certain market reach is an easier sell than compulsory sync licenses.
Playback needs to be decoupled from licensing.
I want to pay CBS, Disney, ATT, Comcast ONCE for each license. If I sign up for DirecTV, Hulu, Prime, Netflix, Youtube how much content am I double or triple licensed for. By making everything a bundle with some exclusive content, they are triple charging the consumer. Prime and Roku are at least a little closer to reality, Movies Anywhere, Vudu, Roku, Apple and Amazon have made some progress here. Pay a CBS or HBO auth price, and it integrates into the interface. There needs to be a way to discount a service when youre already paying a content license elsewhere. (I've written more about how this discount should work before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21482394 )
No matter what playback app I want, once I'm licensed for it, let me play back anything I'm licensed for. I want one license manager. I register all my accounts or pay the license manager directly, and then I can sign into any playback platform with my single account, and that interaction determines what I can see. I can sign into a Roku, Firestick, or AppleTV with my Access Manager, without needing to reregister each account on each platform.
I want to pay CBS, Disney, ATT, Comcast ONCE for each license. If I sign up for DirecTV, Hulu, Prime, Netflix, Youtube how much content am I double or triple licensed for. By making everything a bundle with some exclusive content, they are triple charging the consumer. Prime and Roku are at least a little closer to reality, Movies Anywhere, Vudu, Roku, Apple and Amazon have made some progress here. Pay a CBS or HBO auth price, and it integrates into the interface. There needs to be a way to discount a service when youre already paying a content license elsewhere. (I've written more about how this discount should work before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21482394 )
No matter what playback app I want, once I'm licensed for it, let me play back anything I'm licensed for. I want one license manager. I register all my accounts or pay the license manager directly, and then I can sign into any playback platform with my single account, and that interaction determines what I can see. I can sign into a Roku, Firestick, or AppleTV with my Access Manager, without needing to reregister each account on each platform.
triple charging the consumer
Not really. Licensing fees end up being (more or less) tied to actual number of views. When a piece of content is licensed more broadly the views on any given platform will go down, so the fees will as well.
Not really. Licensing fees end up being (more or less) tied to actual number of views. When a piece of content is licensed more broadly the views on any given platform will go down, so the fees will as well.
ASCAP/BMI currently works this way - songs are compulsorily licensed in the US, at least, and everyone gets the same deal.
It makes a lot of sense to prevent this kind of walled-garden approach and the incremental hassle of renegotiating licenses every time, but the licensing organizations aren't the most flexible or responsible, so it brings its own issues.
It makes a lot of sense to prevent this kind of walled-garden approach and the incremental hassle of renegotiating licenses every time, but the licensing organizations aren't the most flexible or responsible, so it brings its own issues.
I fully agree with your proposal, but I want to highlight that the last sentence is in fact wrong (unfortunately, IMHO).
I suspect that physical stores usually charge the same price to every customer only for practical reasons, namely because they have to display a price. They use as many ways as possible however to override it and apply personalized prices: fidelity cards, coupons, happy hours, student and veteran discounts, partnerships with credit cards or airlines, private sales and so on.
I suspect that physical stores usually charge the same price to every customer only for practical reasons, namely because they have to display a price. They use as many ways as possible however to override it and apply personalized prices: fidelity cards, coupons, happy hours, student and veteran discounts, partnerships with credit cards or airlines, private sales and so on.
My proposal is that everyone pirate the crap out of whatever they wish to watch, as the civil disobedience threat behind the happy facade.
Hopefully this will once again force content producers to consider the risks of prioritizing profits exclusively, at the cost of convenience and fragmentation. Worked 10 years ago, should work equally fine today.
Hopefully this will once again force content producers to consider the risks of prioritizing profits exclusively, at the cost of convenience and fragmentation. Worked 10 years ago, should work equally fine today.
10 years ago pirates complained about cable packages that forced them to buy a whole bunch of channels they didn't want. Instead they wanted a la carte choices.
Now pirates complain about "convenience and fragmentation." Saying they want a service with everything all in one place.
The truth is that pirates want content for free. Which is fine. I get that. But don't try to package up this belief as some kind of principled "civil disobedience."
You want to watch other people's stuff for free. Own it.
Now pirates complain about "convenience and fragmentation." Saying they want a service with everything all in one place.
The truth is that pirates want content for free. Which is fine. I get that. But don't try to package up this belief as some kind of principled "civil disobedience."
You want to watch other people's stuff for free. Own it.
I mean Spotify has completely eliminated my desire to pirate music. I did when I was younger but $10/mo easily worth the price.
If such a thing existed for TV and movies it would be a no-brainer too. And Netflix was that for a while. Sure, it didn’t have everything but it had enough that I had more good content than I could watch. It’s not that it’s fragmented, it’s that too expensive to maintain 7 streaming service subscriptions. So most people seem to pick one or two, account share to get coverage, and then pirate what still isn’t available.
If such a thing existed for TV and movies it would be a no-brainer too. And Netflix was that for a while. Sure, it didn’t have everything but it had enough that I had more good content than I could watch. It’s not that it’s fragmented, it’s that too expensive to maintain 7 streaming service subscriptions. So most people seem to pick one or two, account share to get coverage, and then pirate what still isn’t available.
"I pay for what I feel like paying for and then I steal the stuff I don't feel like paying for" kind of proves my point.
Your reasoning is incorrect, and frankly quite insulting. I never pirate music anymore, because there is a service available that provides everything I want with no need to do a wild goose chase half the time I want to listen to something new. Time and attention are the important ingredients, not money.
Ditto for computer games, as everything I care about is always available on one of the three (!) services I use: Battle.net, Steam and GOG. That's an example of low fragmentation. I gladly spend hundreds a year on this. I never have to worry that my favorite game will disappear from my catalog. Never have to worry about DRM servers shutting down and making my purchases worthless.
The same is not the case for movies and series, as the movie industry in particular is still digging its heels and refusing to build something that properly serves its prospective customers. Multiple examples of DRM servers shutting down. Weekly examples of content disappearing from a particular platform, or changing its licensing terms to make it unavailable in my location. You'd have to be a chump to accept these terms.
The alternative should be obvious.
Ditto for computer games, as everything I care about is always available on one of the three (!) services I use: Battle.net, Steam and GOG. That's an example of low fragmentation. I gladly spend hundreds a year on this. I never have to worry that my favorite game will disappear from my catalog. Never have to worry about DRM servers shutting down and making my purchases worthless.
The same is not the case for movies and series, as the movie industry in particular is still digging its heels and refusing to build something that properly serves its prospective customers. Multiple examples of DRM servers shutting down. Weekly examples of content disappearing from a particular platform, or changing its licensing terms to make it unavailable in my location. You'd have to be a chump to accept these terms.
The alternative should be obvious.
Piracy is cheap, and that is appealing, granted. But first and foremost, it's easy and has the best availability/catalogue bar none. I decide what I want, I go to a torrent site, between a few minutes and an hour later I have it. Done. This workflow hasnt changed in 20 years either. For me, that is the appeal.
[deleted]
if i sign up for any streaming service now i still have to pay for channels i don't want. same problem really. we don't have a la carte choices yet
But what about content quality? Movies are mostly rubbish at the moment. Either redone old stuff or comic related because of the torrent effect - it's the only way studios can make money.
There's an argument that music has gone downhill also because of it. You either do well as a band with the first two albums and translate that into tour money or you are gone. I can't imagine that a lot of artists that don't make tour money like Enya would ever emerge these days - no matter how good their studio stuff is.
Quality series creation driven by money flowing from streaming services is one of the few bright sparks in quality entertainment these days other than gaming. If everyone decides to pirate the crap out of that we end up essentially with middle of the road rubbish as we basically are at the cinema now.
I get the frustration about needing to have so many services, it feels like we have just uninvented cable to reinvent it again (I'm waiting for places to start selling packages of streaming) but the benefit at least has been in programming.
There's an argument that music has gone downhill also because of it. You either do well as a band with the first two albums and translate that into tour money or you are gone. I can't imagine that a lot of artists that don't make tour money like Enya would ever emerge these days - no matter how good their studio stuff is.
Quality series creation driven by money flowing from streaming services is one of the few bright sparks in quality entertainment these days other than gaming. If everyone decides to pirate the crap out of that we end up essentially with middle of the road rubbish as we basically are at the cinema now.
I get the frustration about needing to have so many services, it feels like we have just uninvented cable to reinvent it again (I'm waiting for places to start selling packages of streaming) but the benefit at least has been in programming.
I'd agree with the proposal, but I'm not sure it would work equally fine today. I'm starting to think that the advent of Netflix weakened piracy movements too much, at just the wrong time.
After all, media conglomerates have had 10 years to prepare and perfect their anti-piracy systems. What happens in an arms race if one of the sides stops innovating for a decade?
After all, media conglomerates have had 10 years to prepare and perfect their anti-piracy systems. What happens in an arms race if one of the sides stops innovating for a decade?
> perfect their anti-piracy systems
and yet it's trivial today to obtain any media you want to watch for free. popcorn time comes to mind, but there's countless others.
Fighting piracy is like trying to fight the tide.
and yet it's trivial today to obtain any media you want to watch for free. popcorn time comes to mind, but there's countless others.
Fighting piracy is like trying to fight the tide.
My anecdotal experience suggests that today it is slightly more difficult to find pirated content than in "the golden age of Piracy" (namely the mid-noughties to mid-10s). My hypothesis is that having a critical mass of people willing to search, consume and generate pirated content is important.
If piracy becomes rampant enough, content producers may simply pull out entirely, or pivot to less desirable models. There is a reason why the Chinese gaming market is mostly grindy GaaS designed to lure in whales.
> There is a reason why the Chinese gaming market is mostly grindy GaaS designed to lure in whales.
and it's not because of piracy. It's because these games _do_ absolutely bring in more money, due to the way it's designed to fuel addiction.
There's plenty of games in the indie games market that are original and fresh. But the unfortunate outcome of those games is that they don't bring in as much money, and so any failure dooms the indie developer.
and it's not because of piracy. It's because these games _do_ absolutely bring in more money, due to the way it's designed to fuel addiction.
There's plenty of games in the indie games market that are original and fresh. But the unfortunate outcome of those games is that they don't bring in as much money, and so any failure dooms the indie developer.
With how large the Chinese population is, even a small slice of that should be more than enough to sustain a thriving community of indie games. But China lacks any major non-GaaS companies.
> I would propose that all content producing companies have to license their content to anyone who is willing to pay, at the "same" price (per user? per year? etc? this is something yet to be decided).
What economic problem are you trying to solve? These companies make an optional entertainment product. Why shouldn’t they be able to sell it to whoever they want? Especially today now that the Internet has destroyed any sort of market power based on distribution channels.
What economic problem are you trying to solve? These companies make an optional entertainment product. Why shouldn’t they be able to sell it to whoever they want? Especially today now that the Internet has destroyed any sort of market power based on distribution channels.
Doesn't this just entrench walled gardens? That is, your apple/googles of the world have their huge user bases and they are guaranteed access to content at the same price as everyone else, ergo nobody has any real reason to buy outside of those walled gardens because nobody can offer you anything different or cheaper than google/apple.
> in the same way that a store cannot charge one customer one price, while another customer gets a different price
A business can still be selective over who it serves though. If company X is caught doing shady, yet legal shit (say, “donating” millions to a political campaign that goes against my interests) I want the right to not license my works to them.
A business can still be selective over who it serves though. If company X is caught doing shady, yet legal shit (say, “donating” millions to a political campaign that goes against my interests) I want the right to not license my works to them.
I'm torn on this, given that I may also want to exercise this right as a creator, but ultimately, I would probably side with those who want to get rid of this right. In a society increasingly divided along party lines, the logical conclusion of this right would be that creators on each side deny businesses on the other side (and, consequently, the people on the other side) to consume their content. Hence there would be no more opportunities for shared cultural experiences. This would expedite the partisan divide even further, which is bad because we rely on some shared culture to keep our institutions functional and legitimised.
(Side note: In retrospect, this reads like I'm talking about the US society, but I'm not from the US. You can see the same rifts opening in other Western countries, although probably slower on most of them.)
(Side note: In retrospect, this reads like I'm talking about the US society, but I'm not from the US. You can see the same rifts opening in other Western countries, although probably slower on most of them.)
> I want the right to not license my works to them.
and i don't want you to have that right. Unless said company is proven to have broken the law, this is how you end up with political divides.
and i don't want you to have that right. Unless said company is proven to have broken the law, this is how you end up with political divides.
You already have a political divide by not wanting him to have that right.
That's a political disagreement. Political disagreements are good and proper.
A political divide is more like old Dutch pillarisation, where you have some people who read the red newspapers and listen to red music and work for red businesses and go to red schools (and live in red towns), and others who read blue newspapers and list to blue music and work for blue businesses and go to blue schools (and live in blue towns), and very little purple beside.
Purple media is a good thing. You don't have to be a moderate to agree with that.
A political divide is more like old Dutch pillarisation, where you have some people who read the red newspapers and listen to red music and work for red businesses and go to red schools (and live in red towns), and others who read blue newspapers and list to blue music and work for blue businesses and go to blue schools (and live in blue towns), and very little purple beside.
Purple media is a good thing. You don't have to be a moderate to agree with that.
The problems with exclusivity are clear, but we also must realize that lots of things were produced simply because you can just get everything. Netflix shows have been great sometimes, and they wouldn't have a happened otherwise.
I not sure if there is a 'fix' for this other then reducing copy right.
I not sure if there is a 'fix' for this other then reducing copy right.
Until recently, streaming customers have had their subscription prices subsidized by subscriber growth.
This makes no logical or arithmetic sense. How does adding more watchers improve profitability if each viewer has the same associated costs? The code is written. You just need content. Either each viewer pays enough for the content that viewer sees, or they don't. If the content
Say what you will about the cable companies (and they really do suck) but their pricing was not entirely a result of monopolistic practices
The cable companies own a lot of the content companies though.
This makes no logical or arithmetic sense. How does adding more watchers improve profitability if each viewer has the same associated costs? The code is written. You just need content. Either each viewer pays enough for the content that viewer sees, or they don't. If the content
Say what you will about the cable companies (and they really do suck) but their pricing was not entirely a result of monopolistic practices
The cable companies own a lot of the content companies though.
I disagree with the idea that subscriber growth is subsidizing anything as well. There are probably some grandfathered subscriptions but Netflix can just set a time limit for those discounts. If Netflix is losing money from grandfathered subscribers then it would be better to just cancel their subscriptions. If they don't cancel the subscription then the loss they are making is a user acquisition fee/marketing fee and not a subsidy.
The content owners were probably willing to take less as they assumed fewer subscribers.
> How does adding more watchers improve profitability if each viewer has the same associated costs?
Because each additional viewer does not cost the same as the previous one. Why would you assume that?
Because each additional viewer does not cost the same as the previous one. Why would you assume that?
Past the point of ROI on marketing spend, every new viewer adds the same burden on infrastructure and licensing, do they not?
Netflix does not pay a license fee per viewer. They generally negotiate multi-year deals that are priced in advance at fixed rates. Whether one person or a million people watch a show, Netflix pays the same licensing fees.
Plus, a Netflix membership is like a gym membership. Some users watch a lot more content (and cost more in terms of infrastructure) than others. Much like at a gym, all subscribers pay but only some cost as much as they pay. If a gym only charged people who showed up, the fees would need to be much higher.
If every subscriber cost more than they brought in, Netflix would have gone flat broke years ago. There is a reason shareholders wanted subscriber growth and got spooked when it slowed.
Plus, a Netflix membership is like a gym membership. Some users watch a lot more content (and cost more in terms of infrastructure) than others. Much like at a gym, all subscribers pay but only some cost as much as they pay. If a gym only charged people who showed up, the fees would need to be much higher.
If every subscriber cost more than they brought in, Netflix would have gone flat broke years ago. There is a reason shareholders wanted subscriber growth and got spooked when it slowed.
The business values customers at a certain $ value. The negative cash flow of low prices is compensated by the value of the customers that get brought in.
> Low subscription prices are sustainable when the subscriber base is growing and continually bringing in more money, but at some point most of the customer base has been reached and then the only way to increase revenue is to raise prices.
This makes no sense. These services charge a monthly fee. What you are saying only applies to business models that charge a single upfront fee.
This makes no sense. These services charge a monthly fee. What you are saying only applies to business models that charge a single upfront fee.
I think it works under some circumstances, for a limited time:
Imagine you have some fixed costs per user and some fixed revenue per user. Revenue is less than costs, so in theory, you should make a loss each month.
However, imagine you find a way to have costs lag a month behind revenue: A user pays their fee on first of month n, costs occur on first of month n+1. Then as long as you keep acquiring new users, you can "run away from your costs" by paying your gap with the "extra fees" of new users.
Of course this is completely unsustainable and basically a ponzi-scheme - but I imagine there will be temptation to do this, as long as there is sufficient growth...
Imagine you have some fixed costs per user and some fixed revenue per user. Revenue is less than costs, so in theory, you should make a loss each month.
However, imagine you find a way to have costs lag a month behind revenue: A user pays their fee on first of month n, costs occur on first of month n+1. Then as long as you keep acquiring new users, you can "run away from your costs" by paying your gap with the "extra fees" of new users.
Of course this is completely unsustainable and basically a ponzi-scheme - but I imagine there will be temptation to do this, as long as there is sufficient growth...
I am keeping an eye on Netflix and Amazon who are creating more and more content. They are looking to cut out the "middle" as it were and while their successes are a bit hit or miss, my assumption is that they will eventually figure out how to get the best production companies on board and completely take people like Disney and Viacom/CBS out of the picture. Can't do it for pre-existing content but they can for new content going forward.
> my assumption is that they will eventually figure out how to get the best production companies on board and completely take people like Disney...
Disney is big - on the film side there's Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Studios, Searchlight Pictures and Blue Sky Studios
On the TV side, ABC, 20th Century Fox Television, FX Networks, ESPN, and others
I'm not saying Netflix and Amazon won't be able to produce more and more. But completely taking out Disney seems like a whole 'nuther ballgame
I'd be curious to hear more of your reasoning
Disney is big - on the film side there's Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Studios, Searchlight Pictures and Blue Sky Studios
On the TV side, ABC, 20th Century Fox Television, FX Networks, ESPN, and others
I'm not saying Netflix and Amazon won't be able to produce more and more. But completely taking out Disney seems like a whole 'nuther ballgame
I'd be curious to hear more of your reasoning
I wonder if there would be a case for anti-monopoly action against Disney et al, if the US was into doing that kind of thing. If media libraries were split up they wouldn't be able to charge as much for the whole package. It would allow more nuanced negotiations between distributors and the studios.
But that's what's happened, and the result is FAR worse.
Instead of everything being on one app, now it feels like you "need" about 9 different services.
Instead of everything being on one app, now it feels like you "need" about 9 different services.
You can't. Because first they don't have monopoly on anything. Making the argument that only Disney can make Star Wars would be like arguing that only Tom Hanks can be Tom Hanks.
Second, even if you could prove they are a monopoly 'to big' you would still need to prove that there is actual harm to consumers. If the Disney streaming service is reasonably priced its not clear how you would prove that.
What would really make far more sense is simply to reduce Copyright laws back to former levels so that things get to be public domain.
Second, even if you could prove they are a monopoly 'to big' you would still need to prove that there is actual harm to consumers. If the Disney streaming service is reasonably priced its not clear how you would prove that.
What would really make far more sense is simply to reduce Copyright laws back to former levels so that things get to be public domain.
Monopoly is a high bar to reach and antitrust cases don't always have to reach that bar to be viable. There's historically a lot of discretionary space in antitrust law just based on the political climate of the time, which generally deals with the calculus of determining if there is harm to consumers.
It's typical for harm to be argued along just one metric, prices for any particular individual, but I tend to think that's a mistake.
It's typical for harm to be argued along just one metric, prices for any particular individual, but I tend to think that's a mistake.
So disclaimer, other than being on one TV show[1], I've got very little experience with the business of setting up, selling, and marketing episodic content. I've read about it, I've read articles on Netflix's strategy, I've read articles on Amazon's strategies, and occasionally invested in companies that were in this space (not currently however). But with that out of the way.
My reasoning is looking at the "long" game here. For example, back in the 80s a production company would "pitch a series" to a "network". The network was a company that paid for the production and in return retained rights on the resulting show which it either aired, syndicated, or resold via other channels (essentially in perpetuity given modern copyright law). As new distribution companies have been built they have started getting their own series and having their own content.
Perhaps one of the better examples of this would be Sterling Manhattan Cable. The company got the idea for the "green channel" where they would license movies from movie studios and show them uncut and unedited to home audiences. With the financial backing of Time Life Inc they managed to launch their service which they called "Home Box Office" (aka HBO). The story of how HBO came to be, how Time Life bought them and then bought Warner and became the gorilla TimeWarner has a lot of parallels to the Netflix story, except that while HBO had to fight to get onto the cables in peoples houses, Netflix gets there for "free" because Internet. If you ever wondered what the Net Neutrality fight was REALLY about it is pretty clear what its about if you read how being able to control HBO's ability to get to customers was the tool that media companies used to get leverage over them, and then has the tables turned the tool that TimeWarner turned around and has been trying to use against streaming companies.
So what happens if there isn't this stranglehold on the "last mile" between users and the conglomerater? What happens to HBO in an alternate universe where they don't need other cable companies to "like" them to grow their customer base? I think that is the world that Amazon and Netflix live in today.
Both Amazon and Netflix have been able to develop relationships directly with production companies without having to be consumed by one of the big players. Over time their content libraries grow, and their audiences grow, and they become the 'first' place a show runs, rather than the second or third. They are starting to win Oscars and Emmys for their content so their production values are coming up to speed and they can be considered "serious" players.
A couple of things I'm looking for; The first is which one will be the first to launch a "news" channel. Amazon owns the Washington Post so they have some idea of what that might take. As I understand it, news shows (aka talking about what is happening outside, no need to get creative) are the most profitable parts of many networks. A news show might add the additional working capital to make the dependency on subscriber numbers a bit easier to manage. The second will be exclusive production contracts. When a production company like Bad Robot, or Fuzzy Door Productions signs an exclusive distribution arrangement with Netflix or Amazon, that will signal that these "channels" if you can call them that go from being "some people have them" to "everyone has them."
Then all you need is time. Old stuff sticks around but it gets easier and easier to produce new and "better" stuff. CGI has cut costs significantly according to Variety and so maybe the old guard loses out.
That's all I got :-)
[1] Robotica
My reasoning is looking at the "long" game here. For example, back in the 80s a production company would "pitch a series" to a "network". The network was a company that paid for the production and in return retained rights on the resulting show which it either aired, syndicated, or resold via other channels (essentially in perpetuity given modern copyright law). As new distribution companies have been built they have started getting their own series and having their own content.
Perhaps one of the better examples of this would be Sterling Manhattan Cable. The company got the idea for the "green channel" where they would license movies from movie studios and show them uncut and unedited to home audiences. With the financial backing of Time Life Inc they managed to launch their service which they called "Home Box Office" (aka HBO). The story of how HBO came to be, how Time Life bought them and then bought Warner and became the gorilla TimeWarner has a lot of parallels to the Netflix story, except that while HBO had to fight to get onto the cables in peoples houses, Netflix gets there for "free" because Internet. If you ever wondered what the Net Neutrality fight was REALLY about it is pretty clear what its about if you read how being able to control HBO's ability to get to customers was the tool that media companies used to get leverage over them, and then has the tables turned the tool that TimeWarner turned around and has been trying to use against streaming companies.
So what happens if there isn't this stranglehold on the "last mile" between users and the conglomerater? What happens to HBO in an alternate universe where they don't need other cable companies to "like" them to grow their customer base? I think that is the world that Amazon and Netflix live in today.
Both Amazon and Netflix have been able to develop relationships directly with production companies without having to be consumed by one of the big players. Over time their content libraries grow, and their audiences grow, and they become the 'first' place a show runs, rather than the second or third. They are starting to win Oscars and Emmys for their content so their production values are coming up to speed and they can be considered "serious" players.
A couple of things I'm looking for; The first is which one will be the first to launch a "news" channel. Amazon owns the Washington Post so they have some idea of what that might take. As I understand it, news shows (aka talking about what is happening outside, no need to get creative) are the most profitable parts of many networks. A news show might add the additional working capital to make the dependency on subscriber numbers a bit easier to manage. The second will be exclusive production contracts. When a production company like Bad Robot, or Fuzzy Door Productions signs an exclusive distribution arrangement with Netflix or Amazon, that will signal that these "channels" if you can call them that go from being "some people have them" to "everyone has them."
Then all you need is time. Old stuff sticks around but it gets easier and easier to produce new and "better" stuff. CGI has cut costs significantly according to Variety and so maybe the old guard loses out.
That's all I got :-)
[1] Robotica
I won't be surprised if Facebook launches a news & opinion channel / outlet in the next few years.
One small but I think important correction. Bezos owns the Post, not Amazon. It’s not a direct subsidiary relationship where the leaders of the Post report to the leaders of Amazon and news content could get immediately integrated.
The pre-existing content is the problem. How many people would subscribe to Amazon and Netflix if the only content available was produced by Amazon and Netflix?
In some ways the video/DVD business was better for consumers, because once you've bought the DVD you won't have to go pay more money next year to be allowed to watch it again. The problem is very few people can afford all the DVDs they might ever want to watch.
In some ways the video/DVD business was better for consumers, because once you've bought the DVD you won't have to go pay more money next year to be allowed to watch it again. The problem is very few people can afford all the DVDs they might ever want to watch.
I think this is actually a good point as to why streaming works so well. How often do people rewatch the same movies / tv shows? I know in my case those are in the single digits.
There's also the convenience factor. You're over at a friend's house and decide to watch a movie? Better hope you grabbed the dvd with you or that he has one. Just discovered something you wanted to see? Have to wait a day or two or drive to the store to get it. Oh, not what you expected and get bored after ten minutes? Tough, you won't get your money back.
There's also the convenience factor. You're over at a friend's house and decide to watch a movie? Better hope you grabbed the dvd with you or that he has one. Just discovered something you wanted to see? Have to wait a day or two or drive to the store to get it. Oh, not what you expected and get bored after ten minutes? Tough, you won't get your money back.
There’s always outliers.
You’d be shocked to find out how many times I’ve watched Deep Space Nine since I subscribed to Netflix two years ago.
It’s great because most of the episodes are utter garbage, but..
At least $3 of the AU$15 per month I pay could go directly to Andrew Jordt Robinson and the writers for their outstanding work on Elim Garak.
You’d be shocked to find out how many times I’ve watched Deep Space Nine since I subscribed to Netflix two years ago.
It’s great because most of the episodes are utter garbage, but..
At least $3 of the AU$15 per month I pay could go directly to Andrew Jordt Robinson and the writers for their outstanding work on Elim Garak.
3 whole dollars? But I'm just a humble tailor. :)
That tickled me, thank you 8)
now with streaming, I almost never rewatch things. but when I had a collection of DVDs (VHSs before that) I rewatched all the time.
I think you could solve a lot of this problem by coming up with a legal framework for a digital first sale doctrine. If I buy a movie digitally, I need a way to legally sell it or, critically, rent it to someone else. Make that happen, and all of these digital rental services will suddenly increase their catalog a hundredfold. Netflix would do it overnight, since they already have a massive DVD warehouse and they'd just need to stop shipping the DVDs.
I don't think that matters. Like really, at all. I think the first thing you'd have to come up with is a service that sells drm free, so people can actually get what they paid money for. When I "buy" digitally from either amazon or google, there's no way I'll ever see an mkv file or anything like that. When "buying" video digitally, I don't ever get the feeling that the stuff is really "mine". When I buy from bandcamp, I can download a flac and archive it. That music is mine. When I get it from google, I can view it from their website. That movie is not mine.
And let's not pretend that sales would go down. Music is sold like this for a long time, just like copying without permission unfortunately didn't kill Hollywood all this time.
And let's not pretend that sales would go down. Music is sold like this for a long time, just like copying without permission unfortunately didn't kill Hollywood all this time.
I think this also depends on your viewing habits. I very rarely rewatch movies/TV shows. So I could never really justify to outright buy DVDs.
There's the reverse also, content companies introducing their own streaming.
At some point does this just result in streaming from the content producers directly regardless of how that came to be in any given case?
At some point does this just result in streaming from the content producers directly regardless of how that came to be in any given case?
It is interesting that streaming content economically is pretty hard at scale. That was a big moat for Netflix for a long time, but every year it gets filled in a little more as other companies figure it out.
Linear TV as a concept just doesn't seem sustainable for much longer at the current trajectory. It's lost half its viewership in the past 3 years [1]. The decline will continue. Flagship channels will continue to exist, but at some point the bundling model will break down when the economics deteriorate further. Bundling is the only thing keeping most of these channels afloat.
[1] https://medium.com/@ThinkNowTweets/linear-tv-loses-half-its-...
[1] https://medium.com/@ThinkNowTweets/linear-tv-loses-half-its-...
It’s sports. As long as people want sports, they can bundle and charge whatever they want. HGTV probably pays for itself in advertising alone, but bundle it with, say, ESPN and you can charge $1/mo and streaming companies have no choice but to buy it. I would love to spend $65/mo for all the sports, but I can’t. All of the people who want the channels I don’t want are subsidizing me. Unbundle everything and now I’m paying $170/mo and all the other ancillary channels cease to exist.
ESPN needs way way more than one dollar per month per subscriber for their licensing alone.
Of course. ESPN is about $10/mo on every single cable bill. Only a third of cable subscribers ever watch ESPN. If I had to pay fair price for it, I’d be spending likely close to $40-50 on ESPN alone. Add that onto ESPN+, BeIN Sports, NBCSN, Fox Sports, etc and I’d absolutely be up near $150 if I actually paid what it cost.
I recall reading somewhere it was something like $6/subscriber, they highest of any channel, and every subscriber pays to support the channel for those who utilize it.
I thought it was more than that, but you may be right. Regardless if it goes a la carte the price would have to be more than double that because at least half of the people would drop it. Their whole business model is based on the forced purchase in partnership with the cable companies and it is absolutely not sustainable for the future.
I just pay directly for NBA streaming, I don't care about the others.
I think there will always be demand for linear content. But I would add that linear content tends to benefit an audience that is somewhat off the HN-user's psychological radar: 1) Enjoy "noise" in the environment, 2) appreciate scheduled, always-on randomness, and 3) tend to want to like what is generally liked by society. Mass consumerism is the more pessimistic name for it.
Bundling is also beneficial for allowing some choice as a value-add, as opposed to choice-first like Netflix. There's less friction in the former, less in the way of putting some random thing on and making it stay on while changing programming over time.
Bundling is also beneficial for allowing some choice as a value-add, as opposed to choice-first like Netflix. There's less friction in the former, less in the way of putting some random thing on and making it stay on while changing programming over time.
Prices are going up because there is no competition. All these services have different selections of content, and paradoxically the more of them there are, the smaller the slice each one gets, and the more services you need to subscribe to in order to have a well rounded selection. If you are fine with the old model, where the station picks your programming for you, then this model is an on demand continuation of that, but if you would like a model like in music streaming where all services carry mostly the same content but provide a different UX, you are out of luck.
I’m currently subscribed to four streaming services, and disney hasn’t even launched in my area. It is too much. I’m going to get rid of a few, and just start pirating content again. There are many shows and movies I can’t get on any streaming service anyway, but the pirate bay carries them all in bluray quality.
I’m currently subscribed to four streaming services, and disney hasn’t even launched in my area. It is too much. I’m going to get rid of a few, and just start pirating content again. There are many shows and movies I can’t get on any streaming service anyway, but the pirate bay carries them all in bluray quality.
The situation was very similar in US in the past with film studios owning their own movie theaters and showing their movies only there [1]. Then movie producers got broken off of movie distributors. I would like the same happen to streaming platforms. Until then, i can't see any meaningful competition happening in this space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
Heh, I recently found out that season one of a show I'm watching is exclusive to platform A, and season two to platform B... It's madness.
> all services carry mostly the same content but provide a different UX, you are out of luck.
and hence the return to channel bittorrent.
and hence the return to channel bittorrent.
I’d try and confirm that but the UX on Prime Video is so bad I can never tell what’s actually exists on the platform
Are you even watching all that crap? Or is it just that you want a huge collection of media to choose from?
I'm almost exclusively renting, at this point. Decent selection and it comes out cheaper.
I'm almost exclusively renting, at this point. Decent selection and it comes out cheaper.
Youtube TV is just such an awful experience. It's slow, non-responsive, completely uncustomizable, non-intuitive.
Skipping 15 minutes ahead using a remote control is virtually impossible.
You cannot turn off auto play. And what it chooses is complete garbage - nothing I ever watched while using it.
Ugh.
Skipping 15 minutes ahead using a remote control is virtually impossible.
You cannot turn off auto play. And what it chooses is complete garbage - nothing I ever watched while using it.
Ugh.
Couldn't disagree more. I've tried almost all of the OTT services. YTTV is by far the best. It's not slow at all for me. The DVR is fantastic, search feature is great, and the predictive shows work well.
It even has live stats during certain sports, and allows you to catch up watching each "key play." That is, when sports were actually happening. Sigh.
It even has live stats during certain sports, and allows you to catch up watching each "key play." That is, when sports were actually happening. Sigh.
Youtube TV has some issues, but I've never experienced those. I use shield and fast forward with a remote is easy. I've never had it autoplay. I'm not sure what you mean by what it chooses. Are you talking about youtube instead of YouTube TV?
Youtube TV will continue to play shows after your current show ends. Seems to be the default for multiple platforms.
This is the default for every streaming service I've ever used. Netflix, Hulu, HBO, etc etc. Certainly not just a quirk of YTTV.
India, did actually implement a regulation to let users pay for exactly what they want to see to give the users an option other than the bundles provided by carriers/aggregators. This was implemented from Feb, 2019 https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/watching-tv-...
Also, from March of this year the price per channel was capped and even the carriage fee has been capped to what the government agency deemed suitable - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/telecom/teleco...
Though this can end up making the business for some cable TV companies unsustainable, especially on the lower end of the spectrum - some of which were already in losses.
Also, from March of this year the price per channel was capped and even the carriage fee has been capped to what the government agency deemed suitable - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/telecom/teleco...
Though this can end up making the business for some cable TV companies unsustainable, especially on the lower end of the spectrum - some of which were already in losses.
Long ago, the internet streaming services lived in harmony. Then everything changed when the Disney conglomerate attacked.
In all seriousness - I believe it really is pressure from Disney forcing their competitors out, that's caused the faster acceleration of prices. It's something that would have happened anyway, but it's more pronounced with such a large behemoth of licensed content joining in to the fight.
In all seriousness - I believe it really is pressure from Disney forcing their competitors out, that's caused the faster acceleration of prices. It's something that would have happened anyway, but it's more pronounced with such a large behemoth of licensed content joining in to the fight.
Disney isn't forcing competitors out. There are more competitors now than ever.
It's noted in the article, they're not forcing them out by direct competition. Rather, their squeezing their competitors profit margins and forcing competitors' prices up, but charging more prohibitive prices for content.
I am convinced the pricing is all deflated to jockey for dominance and then they’ll start raising them.
I pay $6.60USD per month for Disney+. No way that’s their par pricing. Why would I ever buy my kids a Disney DVD or blu ray?
I pay $6.60USD per month for Disney+. No way that’s their par pricing. Why would I ever buy my kids a Disney DVD or blu ray?
So, $80 a year. How much did you spend on Disney before? (And how much was left for Disney after everyone on the way had their cut taken).
A whole hell of a lot more. Not just for Star Wars but for all the Disney and Pixar stuff for my boys.
Your revision makes the point a bit better. They’ve cut out the store. Manufacturer. Etc. So that’s a win win.
Doesn’t mean Disney is happy sharing the profits with me.
Your revision makes the point a bit better. They’ve cut out the store. Manufacturer. Etc. So that’s a win win.
Doesn’t mean Disney is happy sharing the profits with me.
Digital distribution costs are much lower than physical distribution. And toys are still being sold, maybe even more, as your kids watch more stuff. They could make their whole catalog free and still have a very profitable toy/parks business out of it.
To your point, they've done that previously.
Originally, the Disney channel was a premium subscription channel. They started transitioning to basic cable bundling in 1990-91.
Originally, the Disney channel was a premium subscription channel. They started transitioning to basic cable bundling in 1990-91.
Streaming rentals are $3-$5 and Disney definitely doesn't come out with enough content I'm interested in watching (much less re-watching) each year to justify the service even at its current price. I suppose it might seem like a more reasonable value if you have kids, re-watch a lot of their older stuff, or actually care about any of their TV shows. But I'm not sure how much further they can really push it with their current offerings.
> I suppose it might seem like a more reasonable value if you have kids
I'd be surprised if their strategy involved going after anyone BUT families with kids.
I'd be surprised if their strategy involved going after anyone BUT families with kids.
Disney+ has the entire star wars catalog, which I'm told some grownups like
It's in awful 16:9, but the whole Simpsons back catalogue is enough to justify what I pay them.
They have added the option to switch back to 4:3 recently.
I paid $9CDN for disney+ last month. watched two episodes of The Simpsons. that's $9 more than i otherwise would have paid disney.
They don't need to get more money out of everybody if they can get more customers.
They don't need to get more money out of everybody if they can get more customers.
I want to believe that volume savings will be passed to us. But I’m just not convinced. They can smell money being left on the table. They’ll charge us whatever we will pay. I think we will generally tolerate paying more.
Unlike other streaming services, Disney owns the content (nearly 100 years worth of movies and shows). Their main cost is probably the infrastructure to stream the bytes to the customer. And they have like 55 million subscribers. I think they are going to make a lot of money.
nearly 100 years worth of movies and shows
This is a truly sickening failure of our copyright laws.
This is a truly sickening failure of our copyright laws.
Even if they just break even on this (or lose money), they'll still come up ahead compared to companies like Netflix. For the last decade or more Disney movies and TV shows have been vessels to sell merchandise and park tickets.
I think people are underestimating the Disney+ value prop. The back-catalog is absolutely phenomenal - the right mix of nostalgia and pop culture. The Mandalorian was one of the best shows I have seen lately - technical magic and very entertaining. I don't think any Netflix franchise comes close to matching Disney's top 3 (Marvel, Star Wars and Pixar stuff), and Disney will probably milk all of it for the foreseeable future. They have the talent to keep it from going stale.
I suspect Netflix will continue to dominate the adult/indie streaming scene while Disney will get a majority of the pop culture market. And pop culture sells in the physical world as well.
I suspect Netflix will continue to dominate the adult/indie streaming scene while Disney will get a majority of the pop culture market. And pop culture sells in the physical world as well.
I just cancelled / paused Disney after having it for the last 4 or 5 months. My kid watched a bunch of shows and movies at first, but barely anything in the past couple months. Maybe we'll get it again in a few months or a year.
I feel like lots of the small/niche services are going to see their subscribers doing the same.
I feel like lots of the small/niche services are going to see their subscribers doing the same.
The only streaming service I subscribe to is Netflix and that is shared with 4 of our family members across 3 countries. I stopped watching live tv there is no point anymore.
Media consumption is somewhat different here in Scandinavia, but while prices on streaming services are increasing, i can still manage to buy both Netflix and HBO Nordic (~$14 each) for less than the price of the smallest Linear TV package, consisting of 5 free channels, and 4 paid channels ($40).
Add to that, that the linear tv channels spam me with commercials at a frequency and duration so that it feels like the commercials is the content (which is probably not far from the truth from a broadcasters perspective).
I'd say that the "breaking point" is around $20/month. After that it is no longer possible for most people to have 3-5 streaming services, and there will be a battle for customers, and we're going to see an increase in piracy again.
In Denmark (and possibly more European countries) you can get "streaming bundles" with your mobile subscription with a 10%-20% discount. I.e. Telmore (https://www.telmore.dk/) offers a "Telmore Play" bundle, consisting of unlimited/free calls/texts, 60GB data (of which 32 are free for EU roaming), as well as Netflix, HBO Nordic, Viaplay and TV2 Play (last 2 are danish/nordic). This bundle will cost you $52/month.
Upgrade it to $60/month and you also get unlimited data, a music streaming service (Telmore Music) as well as Bookmate which is a "book streaming service" (not really needed as public libraries are free and offer everything as ebooks anyway)
As prices increase, i think we're going to see more and more deals like this. Netflix etc. will be the new "middlemen" in the coming decades and have less and less direct customers.
As to why it ended up being the cell companies distributing it, i can only guess that the danish (nordic?) cell market was/is highly competetive, and for the past 20 years prices have been downward spiraling. That has changed in the last 5 years or so with prices starting to increase, but the amount of goods/services offered increasing as well. It is no longer enough (in Denmark at least) to simply offer more calling time/data, and we've arrived at "unlimited" at <$50/month.
Add to that, that the linear tv channels spam me with commercials at a frequency and duration so that it feels like the commercials is the content (which is probably not far from the truth from a broadcasters perspective).
I'd say that the "breaking point" is around $20/month. After that it is no longer possible for most people to have 3-5 streaming services, and there will be a battle for customers, and we're going to see an increase in piracy again.
In Denmark (and possibly more European countries) you can get "streaming bundles" with your mobile subscription with a 10%-20% discount. I.e. Telmore (https://www.telmore.dk/) offers a "Telmore Play" bundle, consisting of unlimited/free calls/texts, 60GB data (of which 32 are free for EU roaming), as well as Netflix, HBO Nordic, Viaplay and TV2 Play (last 2 are danish/nordic). This bundle will cost you $52/month.
Upgrade it to $60/month and you also get unlimited data, a music streaming service (Telmore Music) as well as Bookmate which is a "book streaming service" (not really needed as public libraries are free and offer everything as ebooks anyway)
As prices increase, i think we're going to see more and more deals like this. Netflix etc. will be the new "middlemen" in the coming decades and have less and less direct customers.
As to why it ended up being the cell companies distributing it, i can only guess that the danish (nordic?) cell market was/is highly competetive, and for the past 20 years prices have been downward spiraling. That has changed in the last 5 years or so with prices starting to increase, but the amount of goods/services offered increasing as well. It is no longer enough (in Denmark at least) to simply offer more calling time/data, and we've arrived at "unlimited" at <$50/month.
Because they now offer more content, at a higher quality, with greater convenience than when they first started. It is also perceived as high value socially, something you should obviously have. This wasn't always the case, and the price had to be lower to reflect that - or some people would not pay it.
I'm sure before Netflix raises prices, they ask themselves the question "what % of our subscriber base will we lose, and how much will it hurt the growth rate?"
Presumably, they also do some research. For Netflix, previous subscribers were slowly grandfathered in to the new prices, while new subscriptions paid the full price immediately. I imagine that allowed them to measure the impact on growth and churn before affecting their entire user base, allowing them to reverse the change if they saw it was a big mistake.
Since they haven't reversed the change, one can only assume that it didn't have a big enough effect to justify keeping the previous pricing. Ergo, people consider it to be worth the money. I know I do.
Finally, presumably they arrived at the previous price point by playing with prices, content and advertising until they arrived at a sufficiently large growth rate, so they were at the right price for that time. But many variables have changed since.
I'm sure before Netflix raises prices, they ask themselves the question "what % of our subscriber base will we lose, and how much will it hurt the growth rate?"
Presumably, they also do some research. For Netflix, previous subscribers were slowly grandfathered in to the new prices, while new subscriptions paid the full price immediately. I imagine that allowed them to measure the impact on growth and churn before affecting their entire user base, allowing them to reverse the change if they saw it was a big mistake.
Since they haven't reversed the change, one can only assume that it didn't have a big enough effect to justify keeping the previous pricing. Ergo, people consider it to be worth the money. I know I do.
Finally, presumably they arrived at the previous price point by playing with prices, content and advertising until they arrived at a sufficiently large growth rate, so they were at the right price for that time. But many variables have changed since.
The article explains that the prices go up because the carriers rise prices so that the steaming services have to follow suit. What this doesn't explain is why the market accepts those prices.
Why is there such a demand for the carrier channels? Shouldn't youtube and twitch channels and other content providers increase supply to the point that people don't care about the content that they can get from the carriers?
Are those prices sustainable for the next generation or are carriers milking old customers who just have switched the medium but won't switch content?
On the other hand, with phones going for $1,000+, there is enough money available to be spent. What's the upper overall limit on money that is spent on streaming and entertainment? If people can afford to spend $200 per month on entertainment, it's not unreasonable for streaming services to go for a $100 share.
Why is there such a demand for the carrier channels? Shouldn't youtube and twitch channels and other content providers increase supply to the point that people don't care about the content that they can get from the carriers?
Are those prices sustainable for the next generation or are carriers milking old customers who just have switched the medium but won't switch content?
On the other hand, with phones going for $1,000+, there is enough money available to be spent. What's the upper overall limit on money that is spent on streaming and entertainment? If people can afford to spend $200 per month on entertainment, it's not unreasonable for streaming services to go for a $100 share.
My plan was to have two streaming subscriptions at any one time. One is Amazon Prime, that only leaves one slot. I cancelled Netflix over a year ago, intending to buy HBO for a while. Somehow, I never got around to it.
Though lately it helps that my daughter is home from college now because of the pandemic. She seems to have access to just about every service. (Sharing accounts with friends)
We did watch The Mandalorian via my other daughter's ex-boyfriend's account. I felt a little dirty doing that because they just broke up and his heart was broken.
Between sub $10.00 video games on Steam or GOG, Youtube, and Amazon Prime, it seems silly to pay for more services.
Though lately it helps that my daughter is home from college now because of the pandemic. She seems to have access to just about every service. (Sharing accounts with friends)
We did watch The Mandalorian via my other daughter's ex-boyfriend's account. I felt a little dirty doing that because they just broke up and his heart was broken.
Between sub $10.00 video games on Steam or GOG, Youtube, and Amazon Prime, it seems silly to pay for more services.
Recent and related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23693407
"YouTube TV sharply increases monthly subscription to $64.99"
I do not know a single person paying YouTube $65 a month. I had a friend that was buying YouTube without the ads, but I am not sure if that is the same thing.
The only situation I can think of where that makes sense is if you have a really fast fiber connection to the Internet but no cable at all, and really want the equivalent of cable TV.
If I'm getting my Internet through Comcast and really want cable TV that bad I might as well go through them and take advantage of the bundles.
If I'm getting my Internet through Comcast and really want cable TV that bad I might as well go through them and take advantage of the bundles.
Probably because of the loss of net neutrality, they are having to give a bigger and bigger cut to the cable companies.
I'd love pay per view. I'd give them 1 Euro per view and at the end of the month I could even spend more than a monthly subscription, or zero. Unfortunately none of the streaming services sells this product and I'm not subscribing any of them.
that sounds about right. from my own usage experience i found that i'd be wiling to pay about $1 per movie, and half for a tv episode.
i could also live with a system that costs $30 per month but caps the hours i can watch to say, 60. that's 2 hours per day. that would be enough.
now of course with that in mind, i should be willing to pay more for each family member, and then $60/month don't look so bad anymore. however, i'd still want to get all available tv channels for that, and not just a selection
i could also live with a system that costs $30 per month but caps the hours i can watch to say, 60. that's 2 hours per day. that would be enough.
now of course with that in mind, i should be willing to pay more for each family member, and then $60/month don't look so bad anymore. however, i'd still want to get all available tv channels for that, and not just a selection
How much it would cost me per month if I am to subscribe to the top three streaming services in the US?
[deleted]
Content wars.
Don’t know why a person needs more than one streaming service. How much TV does a person need to watch?
I don't know that one NEEDS to watch any TV. Then again you don't NEED to be on the internet or hacker news. People also do things they want, not just what they need.
You do need access to the Network to participate in human society. Currently the Internet is the Network. Historically the PSTN was the Network and before that (and to some extent in parallel) the global postal system was the Network.
Now participating in society isn't as immediately necessary as air, water, or food, but just staying physically alive isn't really enough for people. They seek meaning in their lives and emotional connections to others, by participating in human society. The Network enables that.
A programme to deliver Network access to everybody who wants it and hasn't gone out of their way to live somewhere crazy makes at least as much sense for a rich industrialised nation as a programme to build sewers, or to demand safe housing for its people.
Fortunately if you want television the Network delivers that too.
Now participating in society isn't as immediately necessary as air, water, or food, but just staying physically alive isn't really enough for people. They seek meaning in their lives and emotional connections to others, by participating in human society. The Network enables that.
A programme to deliver Network access to everybody who wants it and hasn't gone out of their way to live somewhere crazy makes at least as much sense for a rich industrialised nation as a programme to build sewers, or to demand safe housing for its people.
Fortunately if you want television the Network delivers that too.
If I could buy a magical streaming service that only carries the two or three shows I care about at any one time that would be great, but that doesn't exist. But rather than actually paying for all the content I just end up subbing to Netflix and Anime Lab and pirating everything that's not there. (And I'm considering unsubbing from Netflix - they've slowly removed all of the non Netflix original stuff I care about)
Piracy bad I know I know, but there's a limit to how many hoops I'm willing to jump through before I give up and pirate stuff - legitimately finding out how to buy content I want to watch shouldn't be harder than torrenting it.
Piracy bad I know I know, but there's a limit to how many hoops I'm willing to jump through before I give up and pirate stuff - legitimately finding out how to buy content I want to watch shouldn't be harder than torrenting it.
I don't know about what I need, but I guess I've decided there's no way in hell I'm paying for more than one. I feel like each little fiefdom demanding its little tribute is going to hurt them all in the long run, or at least I hope it does. Let the market consolidate into some kind of monopoly, dare I say it, since I'm usually against such things. If it's even possible at this point with how fragmented it is. Maybe the next generation aggregator/platform will come along and all these services will jump onboard it. Until then, I'm kind of leaning toward piracy or just plain abstinence. There are a lot of creative people out there making time-dependent art but the fact is, it's time-dependent art, which means I have to spend the time to watch it. Maybe more than once, in the case of the super detail-oriented ones like the Breaking Bad universe let's say. I notice when I skip all that shit, I get tons of learning-new-frameworks-and-languages done.
You only need more than one because of siloing. Would anybody be happy with one channel or one website. This is not music where all of the offerings have nearly identical catalogs. The problem is they silo so much that piracy becomes the only logical option.
Yes but one might watch a small selection of shows over many streaming services.
And even still, I know several people who fill every spare minute with streamed tv to keep their conscience busy.
And even still, I know several people who fill every spare minute with streamed tv to keep their conscience busy.
Because streaming services have a limited selection. You might only be interested in a dozen shows and after a year you've watched everything you wanted.
Then switch to a different service for awhile. That is the killer consumer feature, the ability to rotate services on a month-to-month basis.
Same goes with clothes. People like having choices, even tho they may never actually wear it.
It depends on what shows people want to watch.
Low subscription prices are sustainable when the subscriber base is growing and continually bringing in more money, but at some point most of the customer base has been reached and then the only way to increase revenue is to raise prices. Until recently, streaming customers have had their subscription prices subsidized by subscriber growth.
Why can't streaming companies be happy with the revenue they already have? They need to increase revenue not solely because shareholders demand it, but also because the price of content continues to increase, especially when content providers know they have leverage when licensing terms are negotiated. The bigger a streaming company gets, the more eyeballs will see the content, so content providers feel justified in asking for more money. Also, streaming companies generally have libraries of content that increase in size over time, so the total money they pay for licensing will also continue to increase even if the price of each piece of content does not. On top of all that, they need to pay for the infrastructure to deliver all the bytes.
(This is why Disney's streaming service is in such a good spot -- they already own the content, and they have a huge back catalog.)
Say what you will about the cable companies (and they really do suck) but their pricing was not entirely a result of monopolistic practices. Price pressure from content owners was also a major factor, and it is such a strong force that streaming companies can't escape it.