Sony To Take On Netflix With Playstation Vue

stephendavion writes "Sony is planning to launch PlayStation Vue, a TV service for PlayStation 3 and PlayStation 4 consoles providing on demand programs and live content. The company will roll out the service to selected customers in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and is expected to feature content from CBS, Fox, NBC Universal, Discovery Communications and 75 other channels. The service is expected to allow users to save their programs for up to 28 days."

Comments

Stupid

[halivar]

Netflix works on every device, everywhere. Sony is planning a competitor that works on a system with a fraction of Netflix's availability. Ask Microsoft how well the XBox Live's on-demand streaming is kicking Netflix's ass.

Re:Stupid

[ganjadude]

exactly. this is another attempt at vender lockin in a market where openess has already been king. What cant you put netflix on? and for that matter what cant you put XBMC on these days???

I like the idea of being able to do more with the systems, but this seems like a "they got it so we need it" type thing. except there is no need at all for such a service.

Re:Stupid

[rhsanborn]

That's because they need to stop trying to make a Netflix clone and do something new. Apple pay isn't better or all that different from Google's NFC pay, the difference is that they've done the legwork to build a network of vendors. Similarly, whoever can build a model where their service has live streams of TV shows and channels that people want, or something similar, will be fantastically successful. It's not clear, but this may very well do that.

Re:Stupid

[91degrees]

And it's very likely to suffer from Sony's usual concern about not ditrupting Sony's other business interests, so crippling their product - a concernt that Netflix isn't worried about.

Re:Stupid

[BarbaraHudson]

What's interesting is that it's marketed as a "PlayStation" product when they could have tied their television service to, you know, the televisions that they are known for.

Do people even buy Sony TVs any more? Well, the stats say some do, but nowhere near Samsung and LGs numbers. Go into any big box store and the Sony TVs are positioned like the 2nd tier products they are.

Re:Stupid

[NotDrWho]

I just worry that all these Netflix wannabes is going to fracture the content market (with content being hopelessly split amongst competing streaming services thanks to a morass of exclusive deals). It's fine now, with just Netflix and Amazon Prime being serious contenders (and Hulu's half-assed effort pulling up the distant rear). But I see a possible future where I've got 300 different streaming services on my box, all of them wanting a monthly fee--and with me trying to remember which one of those 300 has the movie or TV show I want to watch tonight.

Re:Stupid

[jedidiah]

The only thing it has on XBMC is the server side transcoding and that's something that should be made obsolete by better decoding hardware.

Also, the Plex backend server is an incredible pig if you've got a non-trivial media library. In general, the whole thing makes you want to rip it apart and re-engineer it for efficiency and performance.

Re:Stupid

[nine-times]

I just worry that all these Netflix wannabes is going to fracture the content market (with content being hopelessly split amongst competing streaming services thanks to a morass of exclusive deals).

I think that's the goal here. The content owners have had a sweet deal for years, making money from a lot of different angles. They got people to pay for cable, pay for HBO/Showtime, got them to buy DVDs, and got money from advertisments packed into each of these distribution channels (plus cross-promotional marketing and all kinds of other silliness). Now, after decades of figuring out every little spot they can pull money from, the market changes, and people's expectations change. At this point, people really want (and kind of expect) to be able to get all of their media from streaming, whenever and wherever they like. It totally screws up the business models for the content owners, and it destroys the business models for all the other distribution channels.

So these businesses have been getting clever on how to fight back. One of the methods is to hamper the Internet's ability to function as a distribution medium. They're in league with the ISPs, and both are working together to prevent anything resembling real competition in that market. Meanwhile, they've dragged their feet in providing real broadband internet, and they've fought against net neutrality, and they've choked the distribution points that would allow digital media from being reliable (e.g. the Netflix/Verizon kerfuffle).

One of the other pieces of their strategy is to prevent any company from being able to provide anything resembling a "complete library" of TV shows or movies. Each media company splits their library. They give some things to Netflix, some things to Hulu, some things to Amazon, some things to Crackle... etc. They might provide most of the same content to both Netflix and Amazon, for example, but they make sure to provide each with exclusive content, so that if you want to be able to watch whatever you want to watch, you need to pay for both. So while having a "decently sized library" will cost you $9/month, getting "something close to a complete library" will cost $100/month (or whatever the number is) because you have to sign up for several different services. And then, even then, they'll hold back some high-demand content (e.g. Game of Thrones) so that you still need to get cable and premium services to watch what you want to watch. This serves two basic functions: (a) It makes cord-cutting more frustrating, since you can't rely on any set of services to have all the content you want; and (b) it milks extra money from consumers.

And don't think for a second that it's accidental. All this stuff is part of a coherent strategy on the part of a cartel that includes the media companies who own/produce the content and the ISPs and cable companies that distribute it.

However, with the "exclusive content" stuff specifically, there is an additional contributing factor. A lot of the people who rise to positions of power in many companies are from marketing and sales. Marketing people need to justify their existence, which means that they have to come up with clever ideas and special promotions, and bla bla bla. Some of this stuff is clever. Some of it is even kind of nice for consumers. However, for the lazy marketing person, the easiest thing to do these days seems to be to develop a cross-promotional deal of some kind, or exclusive rights for some distribution channel. A lot of times, these deals are stupid and a waste of time. They don't necessarily lead to an increase in sales for anyone, but nobody cares because it's just the stuff that marketing people do, and marketing people run the world. But then also, things like "exclusive rights" can be leverage for getting other concessions, e.g. "We'll give you exclusive rights to this big hit movie, but in return, you agree to..." whatever.

Re:Stupid

[Solandri]

The real danger is that Sony is also a content producer (Columbia TriStar). Them fiddling around with a distribution method means there's a risk they will pull their film library from other distributors and put it exclusively on their own network. Want to stream movies like Lawrence of Arabia and The Shawshank Redemption? I'm sorry, they're only available on Playstation Vue. (Netflix is no exception - they produce House of Cards and it's available exclusively via Netflix)

This sort of vertical integration really distorts the market. Microsoft refusing for years to release Office for Android and iOS because they wanted to protect their Windows franchise. Verizon playing hardball with MVNOs so they can retain claim to the title of best mobile network (imagine if the companies who owned the cellular towers were different from the companies which provided the service), Cable companies trying to control and charge extra for the data that goes through their exclusive pipes, etc. I can understand the integration if nobody else is willing to offer the product/service to your satisfaction. But if there are lots of competitors out there providing the service, it should be illegal to blatantly withhold your product from all other services except yours.

Cue legal action from a UK cinema chain

[Grench]

There's a cinema chain here in the UK called "Vue"; they have over 80 cinemas as far south as Plymouth to as far north as Inverness. And those are just the ones with Vue branding - they own cinema chains across Europe under different trading names. I wonder if they're thinking of rebranding them all Vue right about now... They have the right to, and hell, I might be tempted to, if I was in their position.

I can't see them permitting an online streaming movie product (in the UK, at least) under that name, without at least getting some revenue from Sony for the name, or without being beaten down by Sony lawyers in a bitter dispute. Possibly pan-European, if they did suddenly decide "all of our cinemas are going to be called Vue now".

Also, echoing what others have said - forget trying to compete with Netflix (or whatever Amazon's LoveFilm service is called these days) unless your product can:

1) work in a web browser on any platform, like Netflix
2) have a wider selection of media than Netflix
3) offer this choice for less money than Netflix

It's just pissing money into the wind if they don't make a product that meets all three of the above goals. Sony knows how to make a lot of money from home entertainment, but they know how to lose a lot too.

End of netflix on PS

[CimmerianX]

I can almost 100% guarantee that Sony will pull the Netflix functionality from all PS models.

Just like how the PS4 will no longer stream from a home media server because they started to offer their own streaming music service under the guise of "it's a more intuitive and streamlined process for the customer', we will see sony replace netflix with Vue citing the same bullshit.

Don't think they will? How's your PS3 linux partition? Oh wait, sony made that disappear when it suited them too.

Re:End of netflix on PS

[drinkypoo]

I don't think they will, because linux on PS3 affected few of their core gaming users, but removing Netflix would affect many of them. Also, antitrust. Besides, the competition has embraced multiple streaming services — Microsoft has their own service, but that hasn't prevented them from supporting several others. If Sony kicks off the competition, they'll be the only ones to do that, and they'll lose all but the most diehard franchise customers.

Re:Never Again

[ganjadude]

people say that every 5 years. remember when they took linux away from the PS3? or the rootkit fiasco? Yet people keep buying them

Re:Not a Netflix competitir

[jedidiah]

I would characterize Netflix as those 32 channels on your 500 cable channel bundle that are dominated by old reruns.

Likewise, if you are patient enough you will see older original content from HBO and non-premium cable-only channels.

That leaves "current stuff" and sports.

Re:Never Again

[The Grim Reefer]

I will never again buy a Sony product, I wonder how many other people feel the same way?

I'm sure plenty, but I'm not one of them. Sony has done some colossally stupid things in the past. rootkit on CDs, the other OS removal on the PS3, exploding batteries, and a bunch of other crap. The thing is, is that there are few to no other companies the size of Sony that haven't done as much or worse.

If you were to boycott every company that's done something incredibly dickish in the past, you'd be living in a cardboard box down by the river. No, probably not as I'm sure the company that made the box probably dumped toxic crap in a river at some point in its past.

I don't really play console games. And if I did I'd be buying the console for games, nothing else. I don't agree with what they did in regards to the Other OS option on the PS3, so I didn't buy one.

But when I bought my last two TVs the Sony XBR models had the best picture (as far as I could see) and options I wanted. So that's what I got. Their ES line of audio equipment has as good of sound as any (to my ears) in a price range that I'm willing to accept. So I have several ES products.

When I decided I wanted to use the 3D capabilities of my TV, I wasn't willing to update my receiver too, and Panasonic was the most reasonable option for a Bluray player with 2 HDMI ports. So I went with Panasonic.

If a company (or even a person) does something stupid and you hold it against them even if they've done something right afterward. What incentive is there for them to change? If I did something cruel to you and then recognized my mistake and treated you kindly afterward. But you kept holding that one mistake against me. What incentive do I have to care about you? Or are you 14 years old and believe that Beelzebub, Sauron, and Voldemort sit atop a tower at Sony and plot the end of days.

Works on non-sony devices

[HalAtWork]

No, Sony's service works on iOS devices and they plan on rolling it out across other non-Sony devices.

Re:De facto a la carte cable

[codepigeon]

I welcome another streaming service. Why? Because it increases the alternative options for cable customers.
Consider:
Netflix ($9) + Hulu Plus ($8) + Amazon Prime ($8.25) + Sony ("competitive") = ~$35
Comcast's Digital Preferred (where I live): $86 (not counting taxes) + $10 HD fee + $8 DVR fee = $104

Lets project that into the future:
Netflix ($9) + Hulu Plus ($8) + Amazon Prime ($8.25) + Sony ("competitive") + Comcast SuperFriendlyLoveCustomer Internet service ($86) + Comcast Modem fee ($10) = ~ $131

Yeah, I am looking forward to the future /s