Is Streaming TV About To Get Really Expensive? (theguardian.com) 378
"The golden age of streaming is over," writes Stuart Heritage in the Guardian, arguing that TV "will become more elitist, tiered and fragmented than it already is."
One report last year said that The Office accounts for 7% of all U.S. Netflix viewing. So, naturally, NBC wants it back. This week, it was announced that Netflix had failed to secure the rights to The Office beyond January 2021. The good news is that it will still be available to watch elsewhere. The bad news is that "elsewhere", means "the new NBCUniversal streaming platform". As a viewer, you are right to feel queasy. The industry-disrupting success of Netflix means that everybody wants a slice of the pie...
Friends is likely to disappear behind a new WarnerMedia streaming service -- along with Lord of the Rings films, the Harry Potter films, anything based on a DC comic and everything on HBO -- that it is believed will cost about £15 a month... Facebook is making shows, for crying out loud. And this sucks. Watching television is about to get very, very expensive.... There's a huge difference between not being able to watch everything because there's too much choice and not being able to watch everything because you don't have enough money.
The Netflix model was great for viewers, but it couldn't last. The content creators got greedy and scared, and now they're determined to drag things back to the bad old ways. They will force everyone to pay for everything separately, and the subscriber base will split, and the providers will have to recoup the money they are spending to take on Netflix -- such as the $500m that NBCUniversal spent to get The Office back, the $250m Amazon is spending on a Lord of the Rings series and the $500m that Warner just spent to win the services of JJ Abrams -- which means that subscriptions will rise. Make no mistake: we're the ones likely to get stiffed here. The golden age of television may be going strong, but the golden age of streaming is dead.
Friends is likely to disappear behind a new WarnerMedia streaming service -- along with Lord of the Rings films, the Harry Potter films, anything based on a DC comic and everything on HBO -- that it is believed will cost about £15 a month... Facebook is making shows, for crying out loud. And this sucks. Watching television is about to get very, very expensive.... There's a huge difference between not being able to watch everything because there's too much choice and not being able to watch everything because you don't have enough money.
The Netflix model was great for viewers, but it couldn't last. The content creators got greedy and scared, and now they're determined to drag things back to the bad old ways. They will force everyone to pay for everything separately, and the subscriber base will split, and the providers will have to recoup the money they are spending to take on Netflix -- such as the $500m that NBCUniversal spent to get The Office back, the $250m Amazon is spending on a Lord of the Rings series and the $500m that Warner just spent to win the services of JJ Abrams -- which means that subscriptions will rise. Make no mistake: we're the ones likely to get stiffed here. The golden age of television may be going strong, but the golden age of streaming is dead.
People will watch YouTube instead (Score:5, Insightful)
If this becomes too expensive, or the quality of offered content on current streaming platforms drop, people will stop watching them entirely and move to sites such as YouTube. No customer wants to have 10 streaming services.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd pay money for an auto-rotating service. Some people do a month of Hulu, then a month of Netflix, etc., rotating through the digital providers. Instead of having to manage all those accounts and billing info and apps and websites, it'd be great if I could just use one service/site/app that's a portal that lets me access these other providers, and crucially, has an option to automatically rotate me through subscriptions to them.
I begrudgingly admit that activation fees/minimum length contracts are probabl
Re: (Score:3)
As useless as I thought Apple's TV app was, this is exactly what it does. It provides a single interface to all of the streaming services that you have on your device. Maybe they really are skating to where the puck is going to be.
Waste of money (Score:2)
I canceled my Netflix subscription when I realized that I was just watching the same Star Trek episodes over and over. The same episodes that aired 30 years ago and which I already paid for many times over.
You have the right to legally record broadcast television therefore you have the right to download all these shows legally. Is paying hundreds of dollars annually in subscription costs worth the convenience of being able to stream? I think not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about netflix, but I see a lot of torrents tagged as being web-dl. I think most are from Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
The law does not work that way.
You typically have the right to delayed viewing. The law varies depending on where you live, but generally it is accepted by law and precedent that recording a show, and watching it later does not deprive the copyright holder of revenue, so is fair use. Long term archiving is not so clear cut.
You do not have the right to download a show. This is gene
People will watch and unsubscribe (Score:3)
Discovery (Score:5, Insightful)
If I don't have a subscription to $platform, how am I supposed to find out about all the great shows on $platform that they want me to subscribe in order to see? They can't just take out commercials on broadcast TV, because I cut the cord and they'll never reach me. $otherplatform doesn't have advertisements, either at all, or not for $platform at least. There are WAY too many shows to rely on watercooler talk or word of mouth to reach me. I think Dexter was the last TV show I had a conversation about with someone in person. Online there's tons of noise, it's hard to tell if I'll like something just from your online ad, and I use adblockers anyway. It takes SERIOUS amounts of word of mouth online to get me to check something out, or a review on a site I read or a mention by a Youtube influencer I happen across.
So for me, TV is about to stay really cheap, because I'm blissfully ignorant about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Advertising to promote all the fragmented bullshit is going to get expensive. I will stick to my Amazon Prime until it no longer serves me. Not looking for epic quality, just something to spend a few hours with.
Dumped Netflix when the prices went up; the service just isn’t worth that much to me.
They'll buy stories on /. (Score:2)
Unless the only media channel you consume is $platform they'll get you somewhere.
And if all else fails there's word of mouth. Sega stopped advertising in game magazines ages ago because they ran the numbers and found it didn't help much. Big ad campaigns are only worth it for huge releases like your GTA or Call of Duty where if you don't advertise your
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
how am I supposed to find out about all the great shows on $platform that they want me to subscribe in order to see? They can't just take out commercials on broadcast TV
NBCuComast owns the NBC TV network and can insert cable ads locally, Disney owns the ABC TV network...
Re: (Score:2)
Radio? Is that not the thing we used to listen to before all the Podcasts, e-books and spotify?
Re: (Score:2)
I listen to a commercial-free music services or audiobooks. It's also been years since I've watched broadcast TV "live". I record it on the PVR and skip the commercials. Even sports, I'll record it and start watching half an hour after the
Globally, though (Score:4, Interesting)
The solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
Just don't watch that crap. It's a total waste of time, anyway.
Play guitar. Go out. Meet with friends, cook something yummy. Have sex. If it starts to bore you, shift into high gear and become a political activist.
Life can be so wonderful.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that many people watch these things because they can't do the things you described.
I don't need to see everything (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just worse (Score:2)
We had a system where you could see everything. Now, we're losing that. It's the world getting strictly shittier for no real benefit.
You can say "it's not that important", and I would agree there are bigger issues. But, what's happening is that everyone's life is going to get worse to some degree or another so that big media companies make more money. I'm not happy about that.
The nightmare comes (Score:5, Interesting)
>"They will force everyone to pay for everything separately, and the subscriber base will split,"
I don't want to "subscribe" to 15 different streaming services, each having only a few things I would want to watch. Each with "updates" and incompatibilities and app I have to wait to load and limitations and different to-do lists and support lines and downtime and terms of service and pricing models and quality and billing.... and user interface (not that I like Netflix's UI, it really sucks).
But if we had just a few streaming services with open access- each distributor then starts to demand entry and also brings a bunch of stuff to the table, unlimited.... Hundreds of "channels" of which most are nonsense and a bill of $200 a month! So because it is too expensive, they start injecting ads and WHAM! We are right back to cable TV again! Except it is worse, because you can't store anything locally like a DVR, and commercials will be UNSKIPPABLE.
The only way I see this might work are a couple of competing clearinghouse services and metered, commercial-free watching. I am OK with even paying something like $0.50 per hour. Hmm...
Re:The nightmare comes (Score:4, Insightful)
But if we had just a few streaming services with open access- each distributor then starts to demand entry and also brings a bunch of stuff to the table, unlimited.... Hundreds of "channels" of which most are nonsense and a bill of $200 a month! So because it is too expensive, they start injecting ads and WHAM! We are right back to cable TV again! Except it is worse, because you can't store anything locally like a DVR, and commercials will be UNSKIPPABLE.
We already have the "random nonsense + ads" model, it's called YouTube. It's not going anywhere. Is it going to pay for HBO series and Hollywood movies? No. I'm pretty sure the paid model isn't going anywhere. That said, with streaming they can have many different business models if they want.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably they gave Netflix an exclusive streaming license, and now they think that it's worth that much to get it back given how much traffic they think it will bring in. They are almost certainly wrong, but oh well, good for Netflix. They can spend that money making new content, which is what nbcu should be doing. Unfortunately for them, they have no one sufficiently imaginative for that, so they're spending their money on the past instead of the future. You know, like you would expect a fossil to do.
I hope so (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe if it gets expensive enough, more people will go back to reading books and having sex.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sex? Are you serious? With all those pathogens, disgusting bodily fluids, inconvenient social things... Zeros and ones are clean and neat, streaming or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Sex? Are you serious? With all those pathogens, disgusting bodily fluids, inconvenient social things... Zeros and ones are clean and neat, streaming or not.
True. And sad. And true.
Re: (Score:2)
As a millenial living in a non western country, let me tell you that the good news are that our millenials are not as bad (No netflix, reads a book every 1-2 weeks, drei Sprache sprechend). The bad news are that I really wonder what will be the west's future. I just think that at some point you'll become a bit more third world and religious, and then begin to flourish again.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you, but I think you give us too much credit.
Flogging a dead horse. (Score:3)
Huh?? (Score:2, Insightful)
As a viewer, you are right to feel queasy...
Queasy?? Because the 'retard-drug of the masses' is about to go up in price?? This only affects the truly-pathetic; granted, they sadly represent the bulk of the curve... but those who've chosen to actually live their lives won't give two fucks.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As a viewer, you are right to feel queasy...
Queasy?? Because the 'retard-drug of the masses' is about to go up in price?? This only affects the truly-pathetic; granted, they sadly represent the bulk of the curve... but those who've chosen to actually live their lives won't give two fucks.
Well, aren't you just the most precious cognoscenti elitist there is?
If you were as high-brow as you try to present yourself as, you'd be aware that television spans a wide gamut of material, ranging from mind-numbing drama-churn through educational, making stops in areas such as insightful and artistic. For every afternoon soap opera, there's something like the first couple seasons of Black Mirror, or Sherlock, or even Battlestar Galactica. I'm sure you can't take a break from reading cutting-edge quan
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for him. I saw a couple episodes of Black Mirror, and although I admit it's well made, it's not my thing. Sherlock was amazing, but it had, what, nine episodes total in the last decade? Sherlock isn't much of a time investment. Got through the first season of Orphan Black, interesting premise, but never found the time to go back to it. Same with Killing Eve. Loved, what's her name, the assassin's quirkiness but a little goes a long way.
Currently giving Catch 22 a try, was a big fan of th
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory: Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television [theonion.com]
Don't worry, it won't last (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry about it. It won't last long. The model is unsustainable and there just isn't space in the market for 35 different streaming companies.
Mark my prediction if you like: 2 Years from now there will be at least 100 streaming services. 5 years from now, there will just be 2 or 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, there will be still 100 streaming services, but you can only subscribe to them through your ISP's "umbrella service", which means subscribing to 90 or so in a big glob at around $200/month. (Cable services seem to like that price point.) Just like the final days of cable TV, 70% or 80% of the content you have to pay for will be stuff you'd never watch. Ala Carte will only apply to a few high priced services, which will be extra.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. We've seen this in some cases (such as the closure of UltraViolet).
In fact, I'll add some predictions along with it. Netflix takes a subscriber hit but survives, due to sheer momentum and smart investment in new content. Disney gains a foothold with a broad & deep catalog and reasonable start-up pricing. Warner and NBC are late to the game with weak offerings and sub-par user experience, teaching them that their content isn't culture lifeblood quite the way Disney/Marvel/Star Wars are. Amazon prime
It gets worse. (Score:2)
Not just Netflix, but a lot of sports is going this way too. In the old days you would get the "package" that let you see all of the games, not just the one in your area. But now there is some content provider that wants to sell you the streaming access to that sport, which you can do instead of buying the "package".
Television (Score:3)
Television isn't a necessity.
I did without any for many years.
I moved just over a year ago and in my new place, I didn't even bother with a TV. I put in an old projector from work, I have a set of DVD's of all the stuff that was good before it all went stupid. I didn't watch much at all, to be honest.
I was given a free subscription to TVPlayer (which lets you stream most UK Freeview channels). I didn't really use it much. I was given a discounted subscription to Netflix. It was 2018, I decided to see what people were fussed about. I watched a couple of shows on it and quickly became disillusioned. I never bothered to renew after the discount run out a couple of months later.
I have iPlayer, I haven't used it once since I moved (same for ITV Player, 4oD, etc.). It's all dross. For Christmas last year I bought a RPi DVB-T hat, more because it was GBP20 an meant I could just pluck from the schedule Tivo-like, and record to a saveable MP4 file, and I could watch recordings or live TV on my phone.
I watched a couple of old movies on it that everyone probably saw a decade a go. Some Christmas TV specials from the 70's and 80's. A couple of little sciencey programs. Literally nothing that I'd hate to lose or miss. My RPi plays way more old games than does anything else. I currently have one automatically recurring recording for a program that stopped airing a few months ago but I don't want to miss the next season if it starts. It's literally the kind of program that you watch once and enjoy but delete (a mocking current-affairs comedy programme).
I have an Amazon Prime account, not for the video part at all but very occasionally an old movie I haven't seen in a while will pop up there. Oh, and I watched Good Omens. But that's because it costs me nothing that I wouldn't pay without the video stuff (I don't pay for the music and other things). I have a Google Play account that's basically a bunch of my favourite books (that I have in paperback already), apps and some movies (when they do deals or I get given Google credit for something). It could disappear tomorrow, I wouldn't care.
I'd happily ditch it all. And that's when it's convenient to access in multiple formats across multiple platforms any time I like and not at all tied to my home setup. Faffing about finding which service a programme is on, and then being asked to sign up to that just to watch that one programme? No. Not going to happen.
My specific TV/Movie entertainment expenditure since getting the RPi is basically zero per month. Before that it was an absolute pittance per month. I'm not even willing to pay the Netflix fee, let alone other's.
And yet, I have 1000 games on a 15-year-old Steam account. None of them are recurring subscriptions. There's *always* something new to entertain there.
If the market starts fracturing, I will just switch off from it entirely. Yet I see people paying GBP100 per month or more on subscriptions they literally never watch (sports channels, movie channels, etc.) because it's part of a bundle.
The prime way to kill that kind of income is to fracture the services. The same way making me go to 30-something different websites was basically overruled by making one website specifically to go do that for you, or bring them all together (e.g. insurance comparison, Netflix, Amazon, etc.).
The only way it could ever work would be to pay the creators themselves, independent of any broadcast giant, directly, and for permanent access to their properties. That would kill the same companies that are trying to jump in now too.
The modern world replaced all kinds of technological barriers with openness, and now its replacing openness with synthetic, imaginary barriers. It's stupid. Stop it. Because, especially with the younger generations, they don't know, care, or will pay for online video content like previous generations think they still have to.
Umm.. no? You just have more products to spend on (Score:2)
I get free Netflix with family T-mobile plan and it has more original and 3rd party content than I will ever have time to watch. I think the confusion comes from expecting access to every single show without subscribing to multiple services (and then maybe cancelling when you are done watching) or paying ala carte. I in fact also subscribe to HBO Now because Vice News is much more intelligent than CNN or Fox. And, I happen to get Prime originals because I like Amazon Prime for shipping household essentials.
Do they really care what's playing (Score:2)
Why It Won't Last (Score:3)
$30 for a large seedbox used to be fairly expensive, considering I how much I could have gotten with a Netflix and Crunchyroll subscription. The only benefit was satisfying my hoarding dysfunction.
Now, however, it's starting to look like a really good deal for just about everyone with a little know-how.
Double edged sword (Score:3)
No, in general, this is not good, but it is inevitable. There was a reason Disney had a cable TV channel starting way back in 1983 - to directly control and monetize their content. They were one of the few that did have content, and had deep enough pockets to produce a 24/7 TV channel, and had the name recognition that people would actually want the channel and immediately understand what type of content they were getting. The proved the model works and set the stage for all the fragmentation that came after (yes I'm ignoring HBO, Cinemax, etc distributing movies on cable, but they merely licensed and redistributed others' content back then).
From that day onward it has been the goal of every other player in the game (including players that didn't exist yet, like Netflix) to achieve the same thing. It's taken decades and a complete shift in the technology through which that media is delivered for everyone else to catch up and start playing too. The internet now allows anyone to enter this game without the middle-man that is Cable Television (it is extremely expensive for a cable company to carry a channel - they pay per-subscriber costs, need the hardware to receive the satellite feed for that channel, an encoder to transmit that feed out on their network, and finally they have a finite amount of bandwidth analog or digital), and so now with these barriers gone we are going to see worse fragmentation than we have ever seen before.
There is one, and only one, silver lining to this. There will be competition between the various streaming services to produce their own content. Good enough and exclusive enough content to justify people paying for their service. This is what brought us the Game of Thrones, for example, and we should expect many series of quality we haven't seen before. The production level is so good it's basically a series of mini-movies. The networks that controlled this monopoly before (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc, etc) had gotten lazy, cheap, and cash-strapped. We all know that Hollywood seems to have lost the ability to innovate and do anything half decent except sequels and remake existing IP (comic books, for example). So we will continue to see these new streaming services bring us better content on average than what we've seen in many years in either television or film.
Buy at the top of the market (Score:2)
I have a feeling that TV has peaked. We have enough programmes - do we need any more? The article mentions Friends being paywalled as it is popular and will attract subscribers. Really? it is 25 years old this year
Netflix (Score:2)
I think Netflix is on the right track here by creating their own content.
Now, if they can just be enlightened enough to realize there could be a better world out there and partner with "friendly" services like Amazon Prime to share their original creations between each other we might get to a world where you can buy 1 service and see everything you want. Imagine going to Amazon and seeing both Amazon and Netflix entire portfolio or vice versa. Hulu is friendly too? They jump on board, you pay $20.00 a mo
This will backfire (Score:3)
If streaming costs more due to the need to pay up for the increased number of streaming services that will exist in the future (NBC Universal, Disney, Warner, Netflix, Amazon etc) more people will turn to "other" ways to get the content (including a certain well-known site with a big sailing ship as its logo and various alternatives to said site that do the same job).
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what's happening with sports (Score:2)
I've been concerned about streaming services fragmenting for a while, ever since I heard Disney was launching their own service. I don't know how that's going to play out but. My guess is in a few years, there will be some consolidation and things will be suckier until then. But I want to make another point.
I decided I'd follow a hockey team this year (go Sharks!). What really surprised me was you can't find a good streaming solution for live (or time-delayed) sports. What I was hoping for was something lik
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
well it was the same for music for a wile. dont know if you rember all the music stores that tryed it be iTunes. but people dont play into 50 different services. so most of these will just die off and go to being free or on netflicks.
That's what I expect with all these streaming services. Some of the weaker offerings won't survive. I'm predict in five years, we are left with Netflix, Amazon, and Disney. But I can't even predict tomorrow's weather so don't bet a lot on that.
Sounds like time to invest in a good VPN... (Score:3)
Anyone who didn't see this coming is an idiot (Score:2)
Guess what, what previously cost $120/month with cable/satellite is not going to be all available for a single $10 subscription.
Netflix operated at lost in order to gain market share, but price hikes were expected, and there will continue to be a lot of them.
And no, Netflix is not going to be able to get all the content. Even if it would, it would be a very bad thing for the consumers because they would be a monopoly and would behave just as bad, if not worse, as the cablecos.
Fragmentation is the best thing
They Won't "Force" Anything (Score:2)
If NBC thinks they'll increase profits by making everyone pay them a monthly fee to watch Friends, they're out of their fucking minds. Same goes for any individual network that expects a direct cut of the pie from me. You can play nice, or you can go fuck off.
vote with walllets (Score:2)
No. (Score:2)
I will probably do this once or twice a year for a show that doesn't show up on my main platform of choice. In total I will spend around $120-$150/year on TV. For cable TV I spent literally 10x that ($120-$150/month).
Poor, poor streaming viewers. (Score:2)
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
OK, that's better.
I cut the cord over a decade ago after going out on a medical disability and never looked back. I barely watch OTA TV as it is, except for some binge watching of NHK World and Buzzr (for Match Game). I tried some of the new offerings and discovered that the TV being put out these days isn't worth paying for an online service to watch, not
You can get a VPN service (Score:2)
for much less than $10/mo.
And one is all you need.
Divorce production and distribution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe a lawsuit similar to the 1948 one that broke up the film distribution system at the time would be appropriate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948),[1] (also known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948, the Paramount Case, the Paramount Decision or the Paramount Decree)[2] was a landmark United States Supreme Court antitrust case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their films. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited.[citation needed] The Supreme Court affirmed (a District Court's ruling) in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States, which prohibit certain exclusive dealing arrangements.
They should just be add-ons to other services. (Score:5, Interesting)
The really stupid thing here is that a lot of that $10/mo. is for the back-end infrastructure to get the streaming service set up in the first place. These channels would be better off contracting with the existing providers (Netflix/etc.) and having all their content as an optional add-on for $2/mo. or something. I'd be much more likely to pay an extra $2 to get CBS / Disney+ / etc. over my existing Netflix than paying an extra $10 for it (or drop Netflix for them). They wouldn't have to spend all the extra setting up and maintaining their own infrastructure, and they'd be able to put their add-on to multiple other services (no need to go exclusive), so they would probably get more subscribers overall. Odds are they'd make as much (or more) doing it this way without customers having to pay as much overall. It would be win-win for both sides.
Re: Still way better (Score:5, Insightful)
In my case, since I am now dad of young toddler twins I donâ(TM)t watch any TV anymore, and thatâ(TM)s actually fine as well. Prefer to read a little once everyone is sleeping.
Re: (Score:3)
The best model for consumers would be something like Spotify or Apple Music where you have access to nearly everything and creators are paid based on your consumption.
Just tell me when the discs are out. I don't mind streaming casual stuff I don't much care about and will only watch once anyway, but I buy shows or films I really enjoy on Blu-Ray or DVD. No connection glitches. No broken apps. No "smart" TV spying on my living room. No rental fees if I want to rewatch later or lend to a friend or family member. And I'm funding the good quality content I actually find worth watching, not hundreds of hours of whatever filler junk Netflix commissioned this week. Oh, and it s
Re: (Score:2)
That’s what I’ve been doing for years. When I go shopping, I stop by the movie aisle and pick up a movie or two or snag a TV series. Then I rip it to my server. I can watch it on my Plex enabled TV, my older TV via disc, my computers, or my portable devices. I haven’t watched over the air, cable, or streaming TV since 2012 and technically stopped years before but finally realized I wasn’t and canceled. We moved a couple of years back and didn’t connect the TV service up.
Note th
Re: (Score:2)
The best model for consumers would be something like Spotify or Apple Music where you have access to nearly everything and creators are paid based on your consumption.
The big challenge is cutting parasitic middlemen, every one of them whining for his traditional cut, out of the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Disks are the way to go (Score:4, Insightful)
Bah. Buy a bluray or a DVD. Problem solved. Movie is yours for as long as the disk lasts and you can manage to maintain a working player and display.
Streaming for $$$ is renting. Renting is bad. Ownership is the way to go.
Keep in mind, too, that when you support streaming instead of buying a disk, you skew the market just that much further away from content you can own, lend, trade and resell... to content you had a brief look at and do not control but are still down some money for having done so.
That's your foot right there in your sights. I advise you not to pull the trigger.
Re:Disks are the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Streaming for $$$ is renting. Renting is bad. Ownership is the way to go.
Owning is a good way to go if you are likely to watch the content again.
I don't tend to watch a movie or TV show again for 20 or so years so if my choice is between a DVD for $20 and watching it for $5 then renting it makes more sense as I am not likely to live long enough to rack up enough $5 charges in my lifetime to make the DVD worthwhile. For a box set, if that's $50 (e.g. Bablyon 5 complete set) then unless that's included in an existing subscription then that mdoes make sense as $50 over about 120 separate episodes and additional movies at even $1 a pop for bulk content is greater than $50. Of course with some I might still want to go for the rental model if I think the content might be so marginal I might not get more than 1/4 of the way through, as then I am only down $30 as opposed to $50. But then the optimum may be to watch $10 worth and then buy the box set if I have not had enough after checking reviews to make sure season N isn't complete rubbish.
Where it might still make sense to get the DVD is if I think I can watch it then sell the DVD afterwards for over $10, or if I can pick up a used copy for $10.
Now for music I might well listen to a newly purchased album twice in one day, so a purchase of the CD or other permanent format makes a lot of sense, although models like Spotify can make sense as way to experience new music. I'd be happy with a cheaper tier than there is at the moment that allows me to listen to a limited number of tracks that are new to me as while I might want to find some new music I tend to listen to what is familiar more often.
Re: (Score:3)
Go to your local library and borrow the DVDs/Blu-Rays for free. (Well, you pay for it with your tax dollars, but you'd pay for it anyway if you didn't go there.)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually there was some evidence (as a way of avoiding paying royalties)... they computer generated some stuff and stuck it in their curated playlists or suggested songs as a way of lowering the % plays (and share of the profits) of other artists.
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
Re:Still way better (Score:5, Insightful)
You can pick what you want in any month.
Sweet. I am looking forward to next month when I can finally watch Guardians of the Galaxy while I go on a 1 month hiatus from the DC comic universe. Because that was that grand promise of the internet and streaming services: Never the right movie at never the time when you want it!
What a time to be alive! /s
Sorry but no one *EVER* wanted the ability to pick and choose what virtual "bundles" we get to watch. What we wanted was to pick and choose what content we get to watch, and sure as fuck* didn't want to plan our viewing one month out.
p.s. sorry for the language. I don't like swearing, but for all the stupid stuff SuperKendall says this time you've outdone yourself with one of the fucking dumbest defenses of corporate greed I've ever witnessed.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hop scotching streaming services sounds good, until they switch to contract pricing like cable companies.
Yep. Pretty soon it will be "3 month" bundles, then "6 months"...
Re: (Score:2)
And that will be when I drop them just like I dropped cable. Keep in mind there's always a free alternative: Don't watch.
Re: Still way better (Score:3)
In which case he could always try to find a less vapid social circle.
Re: (Score:3)
In my case, I like to binge
Re:Still way better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And then all but their hardest-core fans drop them entirely to stick with the services that aren't doing that, and they lose money rapidly.
This whole doomsday scenario seems to be based on the idea that none of the studios will realize that they produce an easily substituted good, and to maximize total profit need to charge a low enough price for both staying and joining that they're one of the first studios people want to add, and one of the last they want to give up. And long-term contracts are a high pr
Re: (Score:2)
... on the idea that none of the studios will realize that they produce an easily substituted good,
It is and it isn't. If all I want is generic superhero/comic movie, Marvel and DC are kind-of the same. But if you really like Avengers movies, Justice League really isn't an adequate substitute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright terms are governed by international treaty. In such a way that member countries couldn't shorten terms even if their respective governments wanted to. The Berne convention sets a minimum term, but it also established the 'rule of the shortest term' which sets a very strong economic incentive for members to constantly ratchet up the durations. The only way out of the minimum would be to exit Berne entirely, which would result in 1. Likely expulsion from WIPO. 2. Loss of international copyright prot
Re: (Score:2)
Except you assume that only one studio will do it and none will follow suit. You could say the same thing about charging for checked baggage on an airplane. Fact is, one will do it (likely Netflix) and the others will copy that.
Hell, Prime is already an annual service.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well guess what - I can choose to pay $0 and not subscribe.
TV is a passive timesink that can be replaced by other activities.
It provides near-zero value. Time is the only finite resource everyone has.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with Disney owning everything is that it's causing a shift to quantity over quality.
HBO has started making more, lower quality content. Trading off their good name and a few big hits in the last few years, to sell crap.
Netflix is aiming to produce 90 movies a year, and that's before their episodic original content.
The Disney streaming service is categorized by brands they bought. There is a Star Wars channel. Are they going to fill that with high quality content, or fill it with crap and rely on
STARGATE BUY STARGATE (Score:2)
Netflix, just buy stargate.
Its a long big library, and you can make reboots out of it and 10 movies a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Babylon 5 was good because the entire thing was written before the first episode was filmed and they put enormous care into developing the plot and characters. And it still suffered from some 90s cheese.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed.
Not only did they know where it was all going, so the show could speed up when forces that be decry that the end is nigh - all the characters had pre-written exit points should any of the actors become unavailable.
That's how they got around the fact that one of its main actors started showing symptoms of a serious mental illness during the making of season one. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"The problem with Disney owning everything is that it's causing a shift to quantity over quality."
Total and utter nonsense. Most programming has always been crap. Netflix has been downright shoveling out new and boring shows, so it's true of streaming already. Ditto Amazon for that matter. But it was a long and hallowed tradition in cable and broadcast.
Re:Still way better (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes content will be broken out across multiple streaming services, all for $9.99/month.
But guess what. You can pick what you want in any month. Or maybe some months if you are traveling a lot? Drop them all for a bit.
Subscribing to two or three streaming services a month is still way cheaper than loading up any kind of premium cable bundle, and you get to watch exactly what you like, when you like.
This is exactly the world we all have wanted forever, the ability to pick and choose what virtual "bundles" we get and watch. Some may be pricy but again if you can just turn them on and off again... well that works for me.
The problem is that the fragmentation is getting to the point where what I want to watch is spreading over more than 'two or three' streaming services. I'm not paying regular subscriptions to watch NBCUniversal, WarnerMedia, HBO, Disney, Amazon, Netflix and god know who else's streaming service content, never mind their old stuff that I have seen before. What I am going to do is subscribe to the services that most consistently deliver stuff I'm interested in, pirate what little I want from the rest and spend more time living my life than sitting on my ass watching old movies I've seen before.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the companies buy legislation banning encrypted vpn proxies, how will owning the ISPs help reduce piracy? And even if they do buy that legislation, people will talk around with 1TB memory sticks on their keychains and share their pirate libraries that way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes content will be broken out across multiple streaming services, all for $9.99/month.
good that torrents are still free and i never even considered subscribing to any of this. watching you guys paying through your noses for serial made mass entertainment crap is a form an entertainment in itself. also free, like all the best of life.
Re: (Score:3)
Why did this get modded down? Because everyone was dumb enough to shell out $10-20/month for garbage content they get mad at you? lol
Re: (Score:3)
You're a criminal. Don't act morally superior.
You'll get caught or get a rootkit and pay a much bigger price.
sucks to live where you live i guess ...
before calling me a criminal you should do some research, you would eventually find out that music and movie copying and sharing (not software) is legal in several countrys, e.g. mine. there's a specific global tax to account for it. netflix operates here and still makes an obscene amount of money. people just like to be spoonfed their entertainment, but other options are indeed available.
anyhow, apparently i'm a troll now. funny!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least at first. But ISPs really REALLY want to go back to the old cable-tv model, where viewers didn't blink at paying $200/month or more just for fukkin TV. That's what they're set up to do, and their business model just doesn't allow for everyone paying $40/month for broadband. It just doesn't. These last few years were an aberration.
Expect at some point only being able to get the services you want accompanied by services you don't want that you still have to pay for. It's inevitable.
I suppose jus
Re: (Score:3)
No this is back to the cable tv system where you had bundles of things you want and lots of stuff you don't want..
Only it's worse, because there will be multiple incompatible services from different parties and not all of them will be available in your area or compatible with your devices.
And who's to say it would be any cheaper? Most likely they will crank up the price, especially if they don't have enough users to satisfy their profit demands. Netflix is increasing prices, and their content is being gradu
Re: (Score:2)
The side effect of this, is that less popular content won't be produced at all. So niche shows will be out, and everything will be even more mass market than it already is.
Re: (Score:2)
If a content producer isn't willing to license it to Netflix or Amazon Prime, it's pretty clear they don't want my money, so I'll acquire it through other means. They had their chance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you. I'd rather take my dog to the park or read a book or sharpen a skill, or meet a friend for dinner (if possible, at a dog-friendly restaurant).
No matter how well written and well produced, TV is still essentially sitting on a couch watching someone else have a life.
There's an oldies channel, I don't actually know if it's over-the-air or what, that wife watches "if there's nothing else on". I was walking from my office to the garage, the other day, passed the TV, and glanced at what she was wa