Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television

Streaming TV May Never Again Be as Simple, or as Affordable, as It is Now (sfgate.com) 343

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: Disney and WarnerMedia are each launching their own streaming services in 2019 in a challenge to Netflix's dominance. Netflix viewers will no longer be able to watch hit movies such as "Black Panther" or "Moana," which will soon reside on Disney's subscription service. WarnerMedia, a unit of AT&T, will also soon have its own service to showcase its library of blockbuster films and HBO series. Families will have to decide between paying more each month or losing access to some of their favorite dramas, comedies, musicals and action flicks. "There's definitely a lot of change coming," said Paul Verna at eMarketer, a digital research company. "People will have more choices of what to stream, but at the same time the market is already fragmented and intimidating and it is only going to get more so."

Media companies are seeking to capitalize on the popularity and profitability of streaming. But by fragmenting the market, they're also narrowing the once wide selection that fueled the rise of internet-based video. About 55 percent of U.S. households now subscribe to paid streaming video services, up from just 10 percent in 2009, according to research firm Deloitte. Just as Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime tempted people to "cut the cord" by canceling traditional cable TV packages, the newer services are looking to dismember those more-inclusive options. [...] The cost of multiple streaming services could quickly approach the average cost of a cable bill -- not counting the cost of internet service. That's around $107 per month, according to Leichtman Research Group.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Streaming TV May Never Again Be as Simple, or as Affordable, as It is Now More

Streaming TV May Never Again Be as Simple, or as Affordable, as It is Now

Comments Filter:

  • Greed != good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14, 2019 @01:55PM (#57960082)

    They're ruining what makes it popular (and therefore profitable) out of greed.
    Any greed-powered system is broken.

    • Re:Greed != good (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:20PM (#57960306)

      Let them do it. I'll vote with my wallet. I'm subscribed to Netflix and Prime (prime more for shipping than videos, but I occasionally watch things I find on there). And CuriosityStream but that's like $3 per month.

      That's all I'm subscribing to. If another competitor comes along that offers GENERAL content that's better than Netflix I might would one day switch from one to the other, but I'm not subscribing to a separate service for every single media company.

      Trust me, if enough of these new services fail, they'll go back to looking at licensing their content to a third party streaming service rather than doing it themselves.

      • Same here. I was subscribed to Netflix and Amazon Prime before cutting the cable cord. When we cut the cord, we subscribed to Hulu as well. I tried out CBS's streaming service but cancelled it before the trial period was over. DC's service sounded interesting, but there's not enough I really want to watch there to justify the price. Disney's service intrigues me, but I'll see if the selection and interface make it worth while. (I might subscribe to it for a month or two at least.) Meanwhile, if I want LATES

      • Re:Greed != good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:52PM (#57960604)

        Thing is, these companies are each pulling back their own little pockets of IP - but they are still trying to price it as if they were offering a broad selection of content.

        All of these new services are probably worth maybe $3 or $4 a month each. Heck, nowadays that's really all Netflix is worth too. I'd probably pay Disney $4 a month... but there's no way I'm paying more than that for their piddly little catalog.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Puls4r ( 724907 )
          And let's be realistic - convenience is a huge factor. I really don't want to have to go to this streaming site, then that stream site, then that other one over there to find my content. As a result, this continued fragmentation and proliferation of anti-VPN measures and IP limitations is simply going to increase the number of these shows that get pirated.
      • I agree with the wallet voting part. If the value of the content is worth what they ask then yeah, I'd probably pay Disney $4 a month to watch their stuff, but if they are thinking enough people will watch enough of their content for those people to justify $10 a month ... I'm not sure that's true. Depends not only on what and how much they offer but also the reality that people can only actually consume so much entertainment. Just offering 100x more doesn't increase the 'value' 100x if the consumer is alre

        • Disney's marketing strategy has always been to have the customer's kids hold them hostage. That may allow them to be more successful at overcharging than CBS.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by b0bby ( 201198 )

        You should see if you can get Kanopy through your library. They have some pretty good documentaries there, and my library gives me 3 or 4 movies a month - more than I have time to watch, anyway.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Let them do it. I'll vote with my wallet. I'm subscribed to Netflix and Prime (prime more for shipping than videos, but I occasionally watch things I find on there). And CuriosityStream but that's like $3 per month.

        That's all I'm subscribing to. If another competitor comes along that offers GENERAL content that's better than Netflix I might would one day switch from one to the other, but I'm not subscribing to a separate service for every single media company.

        Trust me, if enough of these new services fail,

        • I never advocated for "a la carte" pricing being preferable. I'm not going "back" to anything - I have never paid for cable in my life. I "cut the cord" when I moved out of my parents house 10 years ago. I never did sign up for cable or satellite TV on my own. At that point I was using an Xbox with XBMC (now Kodi) and just downloading what I wanted. Around 6 years ago I subscribed to Netflix out of convenience and it has been good.

          If the studio execs aren't happy with that arrangement, then introducing m

    • Time to revive the Vid Angel model (Score:4, Interesting)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @03:15PM (#57960788)

      Vid Angel was a streaming service based on the idea you could purchase a DVD from them, they would rip it for you and stream it to you, then they would buy back the DVD. Notionally, you are entitled to do anything you like with something you own besides distribute it in violation of the copyright (which you are not doing since you lose access the moment you sell it back).

      They also had one more wrinkle in this equation that appeared to defeat any challenge to the legality of that model. As a paid service they would Bowlderize the content. That is they would micro edit out a user specified set of things you requested. e.g. delete images of gentalia, swear words, gory violence. These might be cuts shorter than 1 second-- and rarely even noticable in practice. They would macro edit longer sequences.

      This put it squarely under the Family viewing act exemption for ripping, and streaming of purchased media for the purpose fo family freindly editing.

      It seemed inconceivable anyone could challenge the plain english of the act.

      Disney did. And they won in court against two different companies trying to use this model.

      But I think the real problem is these were not deep pocket companies. They could not defend themselves. And in the case of vid angel their mission was family friendly viewing not evading copyright laws, so they decided it was better to stay in bussiness. They stayed in bussiness by simply piggybacking their service on other streaming services (Netflix, hulu...) rather than ripping DVDs.

      So at present you can't hire someone to rip a DVD and stream it to you.

      If that could be challenged then one could once again unify all these fragmented providers for any content that was available on DVD.

  • Fragment too much... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @01:57PM (#57960102)
    Fragment too much and all of the streaming services lose ... remember that virtually EVERYTHING is available on sites like the "Harbor for Renegade Sailors" or via hacked Kodi devices. These things are slightly inconvenient to use, but if you have to deal with having 10 accounts, the balance of convenience shifts towards piracy.
    • I'm curious - does Slashdot prohibit naming the thing that "Harbor for Renegade Sailors" refers to? Or were you just making a joke?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )

      Actually, the balance of convenience would also shift towards bundled services, where you get whatever is on multiple streaming services for one bulk fee and via a single convenient access point.

      Kind of like, oh... I don't know....cable.

      Piracy would remain as an option for many, but because it cannot be safely practiced openly without the potential for litigation, it would not be any worse than what we've already seen.

      • The problem with cable is not that they offer services in packages - it is that they are monopolies and thus charge excessively, and care nothing about the desires of their customers. The fixed packages that cable offer are because it is convenient for them, and an excuse (to regulators) to charge high prices, regardless of whether the content is desired.

        Being able to choose cable providers over a single "wire", creating competition would address this. There is no reason why bundles of services, for which y

        • You nailed it. I refused to pay over $20 for local channels that are otherwise free and "sports packages" that I don't give a shit about. Cable TV sucks due to excessive greed. We switched to DSL at 24-Mbps. It streams 4K HDR just fine, with no data caps.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Just don't let Disney bully ISP's with TV to force (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @01:58PM (#57960110)

    Just don't let Disney bully ISP's with TV to force there own Netflix + ESPN online on to all internet subs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      Maybe they'll just pay the ISPs to slow down other providers now that net neutrality isn't a thing.

      • or Disney can say if you want ABC and ESPN they must be in basic tv then all internet subs must also have Disney online as part of the basic Internet package

  • It would be good if everything is pay per view. In principle.
    • it would be good if the shows/categories worked better sure. The real problem is in practice it always turns into "pay for 250 things you don't want, to get the 1 you do". You look at cable tv from an outside perspective and you see. Ok, so there's 5 channels for music. 1 channel for tech, 3 channels for news, 8 channels for sports, 1 for humor, one for just wildlife, 1 for medicine, one for mysteries etc... You think, OK, well I like comedy and animals, so those are the 2 I want... "oh, ok so those 2 thi

  • Way ahead of you. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by paiute ( 550198 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:01PM (#57960136)
    I used to enjoy Archer. Then that channel went into a higher tier I did not pay for. I did not add it. Then Comcast put Adult Swim in a higher tier. Bye bye Venture Brothers. Years ago I used to clear one or two evenings a week to watch series I was interested in. Then things went on demand and I could watch them anytime. I ended up not watching them at all since I no longer had to set aside time to do it. I have Netflix and Amazon Prime now, and I watch from them. But I won't follow anything they delete to another pay service. I don't have a chance of watching what I can now. I hear about dozens and dozens of great series and movies made by the streaming services, but I don't watch any because there are just too damn many.

    Now I listen to audiobooks on my commute and that is mostly all the time I commit to narrative fiction. Currently deep in the Inspector Montalbano series by Camilleri. You should give it a try.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by zidium ( 2550286 )

      You really ought to make time to watch Netflix's Maniac. It is INCREDIBLE!

      • That proves his point! I have also heard that it is a great show, and it sits in my queue while waiting for me to get around to it... I've also noticed that there is less "water cooler" talk about TV shows these days, they aren't the cultural touchstones they used to be because there are so many. GoT is about it, otherwise shows are talked about the way books are: oh yeah that one was great, how far along are you? vs the old "did you see that last night!"

    • Years ago I used to clear one or two evenings a week to watch series I was interested in. Then things went on demand and I could watch them anytime. I ended up not watching them at all since I no longer had to set aside time to do it. I have Netflix and Amazon Prime now, and I watch from them. But I won't follow anything they delete to another pay service. I don't have a chance of watching what I can now. I hear about dozens and dozens of great series and movies made by the streaming services, but I don't watch any because there are just too damn many.

      Same here, to all that.

      I have Amazon Prime, and if I really want to veg out and watch something (which is not all that often anymore), I just find something they do have.

      Their catalog is huge, and they have stuff from across the whole history of movies and television. They may not have Trendy Series X, but they'll have something interesting in a genre I like.

    • Agreed. Insert the slightest bit of friction into acquiring programming and I'm off to something else. And have never regretted it. This is probably another reason why YouTube is getting more popular.

  • Sorry, but I'm not going to pay for Netflix, Hulu, Disney, Amazon Video, Watch ESPN, sling, etc. etc etc. (and constantly have to switch between them) just to watch TV. A basic cable subscription and a DVR is starting to become the better option again.

  • I expect things to sort themselves out (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:04PM (#57960166) Homepage

    While I can see the desire to make money like Netflix and Amazon Prime, I don't know if new services like Disney and Warner have really thought through the business model that will make them successful. What makes Netflix and Amazon Prime interesting to me is the ability to search around and find some unusual movie (I'm always looking for Roger Corman's stuff from the '60s) or documentary as well as take in their main fair.

    I don't see new comers being able to provide a very wide range of interesting content that competes with the established big two. Disney will have their kid shows, MCU and Star Wars and...? Warner, if they bring in HBO, will have a bit more adult depth but I'm still not sure I would opt for it (if they included TCM selections in the mix, I might be very interested). In either case, they'll be niche players and I don't think they'll be able to successfully compete against Netflix and Amazon Prime and I can see them closing down/changing the services in a couple of years.

    What I would expect studios like Disney and Warner doing would be to provide content to the big two but work out a different/preferential fee structure that helps promote their content.

    • Re:I expect things to sort themselves out (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tbannist ( 230135 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:20PM (#57960310)

      From a Disney point of view, owning their own streaming service makes perfect sense, they already have 2 (or more?) Disney channels. They will just make everything they put on the Disney channel available for streaming. Unfortunately, it will probably work. Parents with kids (especially girls) will fork over the subscription rate for access to all of the Disney content (especially Disney princess shows and movies) until their kids outgrow Disney.

      I'm not sure if any of the other company specific streaming services can make it, though. They don't have Disney's catalogue, reputation, or captive audience.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Disney doesn't appeal to everyone, but they appeal plenty to their target age group. They don't care if the young and childless don't subscribe as long as they get the toddlers to tweens market. Next to sports they're pretty much ideal for a targeted subscription...

      • Disney isn't just things branded Disney. It's ABC, FOX, Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars, and on and on.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        Disney doesn't appeal to everyone, but they appeal plenty to their target age group. They don't care if the young and childless don't subscribe as long as they get the toddlers to tweens market. Next to sports they're pretty much ideal for a targeted subscription...

        They'll have sports too. ESPN is owned by Disney.

  • You'll be back to cable prices again (Score:3)

    by Tom Bauserman ( 5448904 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:04PM (#57960174)
    But with half a dozen bills instead of one.

  • Go ahead, make our day (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:05PM (#57960184)

    Fragment and balkanize as you wish. We'll just fire up our VPNs and torrents.

    The one good way to eliminate piracy is to make online media subscriptions easier to use.

  • Expensive? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

    What are you talking about? I haven't paid a cent on the pirate bay ever. It's not streaming, I'll grant you that but my 8TB FreeNAS does a fine job of making it available FOR streaming so I don't see the issue.

  • Failed to learn from history (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:08PM (#57960210) Homepage

    Keeping things simple is what made streaming as attractive, and profitable, as it is. The only way to make it MORE profitable in the long term is to keep it simple.

    It's almost like no one learned their lessons from the music business; when they fought easy access to content, they lost. When they started making their content accessible in ways consumers wanted, they won.

    Different industry, same results. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes these idiots to learn the very same lesson.

  • Maybe the "free market" will work and more competition will mean better service and lower prices.

    Nah, who am I'm kidding?

    • Maybe the "free market" will work and more competition will mean better service and lower prices.

      You realize it was a free market and competition that birthed these services to begin with right? They are the better service (no commercials) and lower prices (fraction of the cost of cable) that you're describing.

      These companies are free to try going their own way, but they're also free to fail and I suspect that they'll fail miserably as so many other networks and providers that tried to create their own services before them.

      Nah, who am I'm kidding?

      Yourself, it would seem.

  • Dont subscribe to them! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by juniorkindergarten ( 662101 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:09PM (#57960222)
    Its pretty simple. Don't subscribe to Disney, Warner et. all. If they wan't to make money they'll have to go back to netflix/hulu. Its up to us to decide if we want to fragment the streaming market.

  • And the worst is a Netflix monopoly. If Netflix gets a monopoly, they'll become just as bad (or maybe worse) than big cable co.

    If Netflix gets less content in the future (because, say Disney keeps its content), then it means they'll be able to lower prices, isn't it? At least that's what should happen in a competitive market, and we definitely need/want a competitive market.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      It all comes down to degrees. Competition is good, but too much fragmentation can be bad for everyone involved, including the companies doing so basicly painting themselves into a corner. Fragmentation, once it settles in, can be very difficult to undo.

      • There will never be too much fragmentation. The best thing would be if content producers could offer their content directly on an open platform compatible application of your choice. We don't need Netflix or any other middle man.

  • Families will have to decide between paying more each month or losing access to some of their favorite dramas, comedies, musicals and action flicks.

    Don't watch and don't care about any of your crappy drama and musicals and action flicks. Don't care about your subscription prices because I aint subscribing to your Netflix or DisneyFlix. Just keep your grubby greedy hands off my internet connection. Don't jack up my internet prices and don't kneecap it with speed restrictions or download limits.

    I am not the world's biggest fan of Elon Musk (to say the least), but I really truly do hope he succeeds spectacularly with his satellite internet project so gree

  • American companies keep doing this to us. I went to the grocery store last week to get some creamer for my coffee. There were probably a dozen brands offering all sorts of flavors. Some were organic. Some were fat reduced or fat free. Some were from happy cows according to the labels, and some were just from the grocery chain.

    Fuck all that. Why can't one manufacturer just make what I want! Why do I have to CHOOSE!

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • One grocery store carries just Folgers, the other store 10 miles down the road carries just Maxwell House. If you want anything fancier there's another store downtown that carries the organic stuff, but only two brands of it. The other store that carries dark roast beans is another 20 miles away. None of them carry supplies like filters or K-Cups, those are at Wal-Mart only.

      If you want everything all on one shelf at the grocery store, hey too bad, you have to CHOOSE.

  • I have to say that the Balkanization tends to work out pretty well for oddballs like me who don't watch much mainstream stuff. Most of my movie/TV watching is foreign and independent films and I don't watch live sports except for non-Nascar auto racing (Formula 1, WRC, WEC, etc.).

    It used to be, to find anything worthwhile on TV I had to subscribe to the super duper gajillion channel package. Even then, it was hit or miss because you never know what would be broadcast when you were free to watch. With stream

  • Legal Precedent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Guillermito ( 187510 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:25PM (#57960354) Homepage
    In United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. it was decided that studios owning their own theaters was a violation of antitrust regulations. The vertical integration of content production and distribution via streaming looks pretty much like and analog case. Not very likely that the US government would be so eager to enforce antitrust laws now as it was in the 1940s, though.

  • Not paying for that... (Score:3)

    by MetricT ( 128876 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:28PM (#57960390)

    I like Star Wars and Marvel movies. So I buy them, rip them, and stream them at home on my Plex machine. Why would I pay Disney on a ongoing basis to stream media when I can instead pay once and do it myself?

    Netflix's big competition isn't Disney or Warners. It's HD Fab and the $2 movie table at the local used book store. That, and the "Kanopy" and "Hoopla" apps, which give me access to a lot of streaming movies, documentaries, TV shows, etc., and only costs $10 a year for a library card.

  • I always wonder: What would have happened if streaming services had been banned from creating content and studios had been banned to create streaming services? Sometimes less integration (through rules) gives us better capitalism, not worse.

  • It's a good thing that TV isn't that important to me anymore. :D

  • A streaming service consisting of PG13 direct to streaming dreck is something I'll pass on.

    The Disneyfied Star Wars movies have been almost as bad as The Phantom Menace or Star Wars Christmas Special.

    I'm guessing The Punisher(s) and Blade(s) won't be available unedited since they're rated R. I still don't know if Disneys Marvel deal included X-men or Spiderman.

    And if you're going to spend money to watch television, the first thing you should buy is a decent antenna and hook up a DVR to it.

    You can get Over

  • Are people watching all these movies? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    At the same time? Subscribe to one and watch. When you are done unsubscribe and pick up the next.

  • Like most people, my budget and time are both limited. If it becomes too expensive and/or too much a hassle, I'll simply find some other way to be entertained. I won't subscribe to multiple services unless they become a lot cheaper than they are now, and I won't hunt to find something decent to watch if that ends up taking as long as watching it (rapidly approaching that situation now with Netflix IMO). What they need to be doing, and what I believe the market will force them to at least attempt, is the

  • What goes around comes around... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:48PM (#57960548)
    Good ol' days -

    People complain that the "Cable Companies" don't allow them to purchase channels a la carte, and that they are forced into buying bundles of channels.

    Today -

    People complain that the "Streaming Companies" are forcing them to purchase streaming services a la carte, instead of having the option of everything being bundled together.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • That if you don't license your content fairly to competing streaming services you lose your copyright. But then we have companies like Disney and their "vault" strategy. PIRACY CRACKS OPEN THAT VAULT.
  • The problem is vertical integration. The studio making/offering the movie should be prohibited from also being a streaming company (which in turn should be prohibited from being an ISP). Fluidity in the market is maximized when each studio to offer its movies for sale/rent on multiple streaming services, and those streaming services are available on multiple ISPs. When you start integrating these components vertically is when you start to get into all this exclusivity nonsense which is anti-consumer and
  • Streaming is already too complicated for me. In the internet age, I don't really pay a service to get me TV shows I pay them to broker the access to those shows. If it falls on me to shuffle my subscriptions around and plan to watch what where, then they're not really doing me much of a service.

  • ...but "piracy" will always be a simple, affordable option.

  • Amazon already supports selection and billing of multiple services in one convenient place. Tivo and Roku are sure to follow. Not sure about Google, but if they don't already do it, they will...

    The marketplace will sort out pricing with package deals sure to follow.

    As for the cost, you usually get what you pay for.

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Close