Streaming TV May Never Again Be as Simple, or as Affordable, as It is Now (sfgate.com) 343
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.
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.
Greed != good (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Greed != good (Score:2, Insightful)
Only if you ignore the most obvious solution, with a $0 subscription fee.
Which is exactly what will happen once people are fed up.
Time to revive the Vid Angel model (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would the Avengers Universe have been created out of Passion?
Passion gets you 15 minute short films at best.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Greed != good (Score:5, Insightful)
The Avengers was crap.
Nonsense. Cathy Gale and Emma Peel were way ahead of their time.
Re: Greed != good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hollywood needs to move on from the superhero genre entirely. It was overdone fifteen years ago.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
That won't become true until the comic book stories it is based on are played out. It isn't like the idea of being a superhero or there being super heroes itself ever gets played out. In the case of game of thrones that book content has been chewed through very rapidly but comic books have decades worth of material and were written in a format that translates better to the screen in the first place. It'll probably take quite awhile for the video content to catch up, especially given that it takes a lot long
Re: (Score:2)
There would be a million Avengers movies without copyright. Most, but not all, would suck. The stories would probably be more interesting, but the graphics not (although look at what Star Trek fans do for no profit.) I imagine a world without copyright would have a lot of Kickstarted blockbusters (although not through Kickstarter, cause no one is going to pay $5MM to raise the cash.) I would pay $10 now for the next Marvel movie if that's what it took to get it made.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No. But that's what he said: People create superficial garbage for profit.
Re: Greed != good (Score:4, Interesting)
How about like every kubrick film? very very few were made with profit in mind, i think only spartacus was. Something like interstellar which was written, directed and produced by christopher nolan, one person with a vision, could only be done as a labor of love.
Your comment is just wrong. The films that change peoples lives are never made with profit as the main motive. Superhero movies are not what I think anyone would consider "great" films. They are gods and monsters fighting for the masses. They don't make you think, they reinforce antiquated zoroastrianist duality structures and are generally a tired rehash of good vs evil.
Re: Greed != good (Score:2)
I doubt much great media content is made without a profit motive somewhere. Maybe a few actors or directors are taking a small paycheck, the people funding it are still looking for profit.
Whether or not content is good may be based on passion, but whether or not the content exists at all is based on profit.
Re: Greed != good ( sorta not). (Score:3)
Where as I'd say it is true that people create good content out of passion. Everyone needs to eat and provide shelter for themselves and their families. Any activity for which 'no profit' can be gained will never have passionate people working full time to create great things, nor will it ever have a larger amount of resources then can be gathered by a few people dedicated too it. Not that there is room for a balance, but no profit ( of any kind) guarantees no product and OR no passion. Even simple art
Re:Greed != good (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps there should be, oh, a middle ground. A gray area, if you will, where after a certain number of years, things lose their copyright.
Because we should discuss this, rather than the extremes of infinite or no copyright.
Fragment too much... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's just trying to make a point without being complicit in advertising for them.
Re:Fragment too much... (Score:5, Informative)
Let's find out!
https://www.yts.am/ [www.yts.am] -- This is the best movies site where I can find 85%+ of everything I'm looking for and there are -always- seeders. Zero fakes.
https://thepiraratebay.org/ [thepiraratebay.org] -- I hardly never use it (too tracked, down, slow) but it does have things none of the others do.
https://www.katcr.co/ [katcr.co] -- The rebooted KickassTorrents. Good content! I use it for stuff not found on YTS.
https://eztv.ag/ [eztv.ag] -- The TV torrents site. Has stuff none of the others do, including non-geeky TV series.
That's generally everything I need to find practically everything I want. I have to use a search engine (DuckDuckGo is MUCH better than Google for finding torrents in 2019) about 2% of the time.
Re:Fragment too much... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fragment too much... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is it a "has-been"?
It's still up, and it still gets all the magnet links to all the shit.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This exactly
Just don't let Disney bully ISP's with TV to force (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Just pay for what you watch. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Way ahead of you. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You really ought to make time to watch Netflix's Maniac. It is INCREDIBLE!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Cable/Satellite starting to look good again (Score:2)
I expect things to sort themselves out (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
See AC reply - this very eloquently states my thoughts on Disney and their appeal through their own streaming service.
Disney started as an premium channel and then forc (Score:2)
Disney started as an premium channel and then forced it's way into the basic package at X2 or more then the price of nick per sub.
We don't need that to happen to the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Disney isn't just things branded Disney. It's ABC, FOX, Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars, and on and on.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Go ahead, make our day (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Pipe Dream (Score:2)
Maybe the "free market" will work and more competition will mean better service and lower prices.
Nah, who am I'm kidding?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Fragmentation is the best thing that could happen (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I don't care, just hands off my internet (Score:2)
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
Choice sucks (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Weirdos do Well (Score:2)
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)
Not paying for that... (Score:3)
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.
Regulation (Score:2)
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.
Well. (Score:2)
It's a good thing that TV isn't that important to me anymore. :D
Screw Disney (Score:2)
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)
At the same time? Subscribe to one and watch. When you are done unsubscribe and pick up the next.
They're really screwing themselves. (Score:2)
What goes around comes around... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
There should be a law (Score:2)
Vertical integration (Score:2)
Haven't even read the summary (Score:2)
Streaming may never again be simple or affordable (Score:2)
...but "piracy" will always be a simple, affordable option.
Somebody will make it easy (Score:2)
The marketplace will sort out pricing with package deals sure to follow.
As for the cost, you usually get what you pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Even subscribing to 4 of the current players is STILL less than a cable bill.
Netflix $10.99 pe month
Hulu $10.99 (as low as $5) per month
Amazon Prime 8.25 per month
Disney $10.99 per month
Cable television companies report average spending per subscriber of about $85 a month [usatoday.com], while the average among satellite TV providers tops $100 a month,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For us,
Netflix - my buddy from college's account, 12-ish years later, still, $free
Amazon - $9/mo
HBO now/go - $9/mo
Internet service - $35/mo
$53/mo including internet
We only pay for HBO about 6 months out of the year as there are several months where Game of Thrones and Last Week Tonight run less than 3 weeks a month.
I have never subscribed to cable in almost 20 years as an adult, never plan to
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Even subscribing to 4 of the current players is STILL less than a cable bill.
Netflix $10.99 pe month
The thing is, many of us gave up the cable bill years ago. My current costs are: DirecTV NOW: $40 and Netflix $12. I also get Prime Video for free with my Prime subscription (doesn't factor into buying it at all, but we watch it). I'm really debating dropping DTVNow because I don't think we get $40/month value from it. I'm never going to pay $100+ a month for TV again. I can entertain myself with YouTube or video games, or social media, or just goofing around on reddit. I can't imagine I am the only
Re: (Score:2)
Having to keep track of several accounts being billed and having to think 'which provider has the series I want to watch again?' is annoying.
Funny thing is back in the day I think Netflix could have been *the* streaming provider. They stuck to their guns about a flat subscription and refused to negotiate an 'a la carte deal' for some content and that set precedent for many companies to decide to compete.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix has enough original content that I'll keep subscribing
Hulu will stay because that's how I do LiveTV and interact with "normal" TV channels (HGTV, etc.)
Amazon Prime will continue because I use Amazon Prime anyway (shipping, etc.)
I seriously can't see paying for Disney or Warner though. I currently subscribe to HBO, but it is getting outcompeted by Netflix in the originals area now... so it may not last.
Disney? No way. The few Disney movies I want I'll buy/rent on iTunes...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What will Disney offer for $10? Their own stuff, with perhaps a bunch of 3rd party content ... I won't pay $10 a month just to watch the latest Star Wars movie and perhaps a handful of animated features.
Looking at the Di$ney Channel lineup, they also have a lot of live action shows for kids (pre-teen and teen). Perhaps they're hoping to directly capitalize on families with children.
Re: (Score:2)
Same as every R candidate back to Dewey.
'This time we're serious' is part of the derp. But good news, it's an easy way to identify idiots.
Re:makes traditional cable TV packages look better (Score:5, Insightful)
Made me go the other way. I've now canceled HULU and SLING leaving me with just Amazon and Netflix, and honestly netflix is next on the chopping block.
Thanks to all this stupidity I've simply stopped consuming most TV and I feel my life has improved as a result. As others have noted, I'm reading more then I use to and using "tv time" to do other useful things instead.
For a little bit I missed new episodes of things I was following... now that some time has passed, I don't even miss them anymore. Nor did I miss football (first season since I was .. well since I can remember that I did't watch collage and NFL football like it was my job) this year.
I'll keep amazon around for "The Grand Tour" (and the fact that I use prime shipping a lot still); but if they ever separate the two, I'll drop that as well.
TV is dispensible (Score:4, Insightful)
I've simply stopped consuming most TV and I feel my life has improved as a result
THIS!
Make something "indispensable" hard to use and people will figure out just how dispensable it really is.
Re: (Score:2)