Slashdot Mirror
Streaming TV May Never Again Be as Simple, or as Affordable, as It is Now (sfgate.com)
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.
They're ruining what makes it popular (and therefore profitable) out of greed.
Any greed-powered system is broken.
fuck all this balkanization.
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.
Just don't let Disney bully ISP's with TV to force there own Netflix + ESPN online on to all internet subs.
It would be good if everything is pay per view. In principle.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The more clumsy it is for me to legally watch a show/movie, the more likely it is for me to pirate it. Steam/Google Music/Spotify have entirely stopped my music and game piracy. Video is the only thing I still go torrenting for.
makes traditional cable TV packages look better with
ONE BILL
ONE SET OF RULES
ONE UI
EASY MULTI ROOM with no real limits.
DOES NOT COUNT AS PART OF YOUR CAP!
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.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
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.
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.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
But with half a dozen bills instead of one.
What is unlikely is that people will be happy buying multiple subscriptions, paying a lot more money, for what they already get now. Therefore, many of these new subscriptions started by the studios are already doomed to fail. After that happens, things will go back closer to the way they are now.
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.
How many generations of media industry executives will go by before they understand that they don't have a viable product if people have to go on a scavenger hunt to find what they want. If you take away the simplicity, people can just as well hunt for the free copy.
I simply won't subscribe to 352637 different streamers.
Don't give up too soon, Netflix!
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.
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.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Maybe the "free market" will work and more competition will mean better service and lower prices.
Nah, who am I'm kidding?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
"Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails." - Steve Jobs
As the streaming services multiply, the ISPs might lose their position against net neutrality. They can't afford to make exclusive deals when the content is everywhere.
Obligatory
It's still free to just download everything on bittorrent.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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 greedy corrupt piece of shit scum that need to die a slow painful death (telco and cable companies) don't get to keep wielding monopoly powers over my internet connection.
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!
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
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 streaming, I can subscribe to Neflix and a few specific streaming channels relevant to my interests and be more than happy for a very small monthly outlay. It's not like Netflix was ever a hub of blockbuster films- even now they mostly only have blockbusters if there is an upcoming sequel the studio wants to promote. If I really want something more mainstream, I can always purchase a-la-carte on Amazon.
But media is art. And like all art ultimately is dependent upon patronage. you don't pay to get access to already exists because there's already a creative ways to get that access for free. We paid to endorse the efforts of those who do things the way we want them to. Applying a tangible asset mode to a piece of art, is intellectually bankrupt, as art has no inherent pragmatic value in and of itself.
Those 2 movies weren't out on blue ray. Seriously I don't get why people subscribe to a service for 1-5 movies that they actually want and a bunch of crap shovel ware. Just buy the few shows on physical. If they don't exist on physical then subscribe for 1 month binge watch and subscribe next year for the sequel. Oh yeah and pirate bay is easy if you don't care about legal blah blah blah.
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.
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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
In United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... 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.
If you thought we had too few options in Canada, wait until the idiots with the IP rights sign exclusive contracts with the crooks running streaming services in Canada (Netflix excluded).
As long as everything I care about keeps coming out on DVD, I can get anything I want to watch by waiting a few days for it to arrive in the mail. I pay 24 dollars a month and I get streaming plus up to three disks at a time. That's plenty for me to binge watch an entire season of a show as long as I plan ahead a bit. I get whatever Nextlifx streams, plus literally everything else I've wanted to watch for the last ten years. It would make zero sense for me to subscribe to Netflix plus ten other services, each of which has one or two things I want.
Of course with most of the market being impatient gits that would rather never watch something at all then wait two days for a disk to show up, DVD will probably only remain profitable for Netflix for a few more years and I'll be in the same boat a everyone else when they end it.
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.
I'm already pre-not subscribing to whatever comes out.
Not even if I was turbo rich.
I just disagree with subscriptions for superfluous shit.
If I buy some potatoes, I don't want eggs, bacon, cheese and milk with it. I just want some fucking potatoes.
Let me buy one thing damn it! And don't give me your "oh he's one of THOSE people, let's jack the price up to obscene levels!" bullshit tactics, they don't work. I'd rather deal with pirate sites than that nonsense.
There is literally zero reason to do that other than wanting to be a dick to non-subscribers.
I'd literally rather watch ads every 5 minutes than subscribe or pay the stupid one-off prices for shows some sites have.
Fuck the subscription economy. Fuck all of it.
It's a good thing that TV isn't that important to me anymore. :D
L'Idiot
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 The Air DVRs (you may want to add a 2TB USB drive) for about $35 in the US. Most non-rural areas have 40-60 channels available, you can always pick up a cooking show on PBS Create, or do some shopping on QVC if that's what floats your boat.
Maybe they'll just pay the ISPs to slow down other providers now that net neutrality isn't a thing.
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 very opposite: to make it possible to quickly and easily locate and view content for a reasonable price, and, preferably, a price paid to a single provider, which can then divvy up the costs and the revenues via whatever formula it and the content owners/producers decide amongst themselves.
Nonaggression works!
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.
Guys,
You're getting this backwards. More choices doesn't mean fewer options.
I'm befuddled how anybody could possibly frame it that way.
If you don't want a new streaming service, don't pay for one.
Markets decide these things incredibly quickly.
Not really, The multiplication is bound to hit critical mass at 6. Because virtually every proporty is owned by one of the big 6, National Amusements, Disney, Newscorp, Time Warner, Sony, Comcast. If all 6 of those guys take their balls.. Netflix and amazon would have nothing to offer without selling their soul to some of the big 6. Hulu is technically already split ownership between Newscorp and Disney, So they'd either work together, or sell it to one or the other. and yeah why would the ISP's mind this? It's a big club... and they make up most of it.
I have a Roku TV. The Roku UI provides a search function, which will tell me if the content I want is available on the popular streaming services, and for what price. When we decide we want to watch something, that's the first stop. If it's free on one of the services to which we subscribe (Netflix, Hulu, Prime), that's where we watch it. If it's not free, my next stop is usually the public library. I live in a mid-major city, so our library has copies of damn near everything you'd ever want to see. Sometimes it takes two whole days for the DVD package to be delivered to my local branch (1/4 mile away, closer than the nearest RedBox). As old as I am, I remember making the choice of 'do I pay for this at the theater or wait til it comes out on TV?' Most of the time, TV won out, so I'm patient enough to wait a few months for the latest and greatest movies to get to the library. I suppose if it were a dire need (HA!) I could fire up an instance of Kodi and stream it, but patience usually wins out.
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.
It is a complex mess of different sites and expensive if you start signing up for a lot of them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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 anti-free market.
Occasionally, vertical integration removes superfluous extra work (e.g. a big tool shop may find it cheaper/better to manufacture their own tools).. But usually it just leads to the company trying to entrap customers. The cell phone industry is a good example, where the carriers have entered exclusive contracts with phone manufacturers. So they own the towers, the cell service, and the phones. And you cannot move your investment in a phone to a different carrier if your current one raises prices. Ideally you'd buy a phone, and be able to use it on any carrier (switch). And carriers would not own tower networks so they could switch to/from networks which provide better/worse service.
One of the last three video rental stores just closed in my neighborhood (in Seattle). They had a ton of stuff, from all media companies, and I could walk in a get a disc any time I wanted to. It would play on my DVD player, and I could keep it for a few days and then return it for a nominal cost. As the streaming companies fragment, I will watch fewer movies/shows, and long for the days when I could walk into this store and rent what I wanted.
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.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I've been predicting this for years, and I am giddy with anticipation. With one foot already reduced to a bloody stump by self-inflicted gunfire, the old media is now patching the wound with one hand and reloading the gun with the other. The future of the evil empire is finally in doubt. As more and more of these fossil-franchises unveil plans to roll out their own streaming content portals, you can practically hear the hammer cocking right now.
What's that? More expensive than cable? Nonsense, you're paying for convenience! Fewer episodes total than the entire run of 'The Brothers Flub', and with shows that are just as appealing? The customer can't lose! And let's just replace that fistful of dollars with a fistful of bills. Hope you got a password manager for all those accounts - and that you remembered to turn off auto-pay - and that the service didn't just turn it back on again behind your back to screw you - and that the service doesn't leak your personal information. Oh, and enjoy juggling all of those apps, because streaming through a web browser is just too easy.
We are looking at a future of dozens of portals, dozens of apps, dozens of log-ins, and absolutely none of the convenience that the likes of Netflix or Hulu once offered. We are looking at a future of broadcast media that is not just fragmented, but which has been ground into a fine, asbestos-like dust. We are looking at a future where on top of an internet service bill that won't stop rising (at least if you're unlucky enough to get your service from an American ISP) you will have to pay double that or more just to gain access to a respectable content library. Hell, this almost makes Disney buying everything that isn't bolted down look like a blessing, and independent content is still pooling around Netflix, but these aren't solutions to the problem.
People bought into online streaming because it's cheaper and more convenient than cable ever was. Streaming isn't just the future, it's the standard. It's already here, and it's been here for a while now. The rise of the streaming titans also brought to light a fact which no media mogul is willing to acknowledge: The real fair market price for a single viewing of a television show or a movie is close to zero. We're talking fractions-of-fractions of a penny here. The old media's back-catalog is vast, giving people plenty of things to watch without even considering new releases, and those new releases are now competing with that catalog. The market for video entertainment isn't just saturated, it's sitting at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
By trying to split the market and bring home what they think is their fair share of the pie, media executives have once again blown their cover, revealing the brainless invertebrates underneath the costume. Rather than enticing customers toward their sexy new content portals by putting their own library behind a velvet rope, they're demolishing the value of commercial streaming services for everyone. The most tragic aspect of their mistake is that there isn't even a pie to divide - it's a thimbleful of crumbs. The old media emperor has been caught with his pants down. A solid month of varied, non-stop video entertainment courtesy of Netflix costs less than an entree at Olive Garden, only this purchase won't leave you filled with sodium and regret.
If things continue the way they're going now, the entire case for buying a streaming subscription will vanish into thin air at a time when nobody actually wants to watch television or pay for television service. Subscription television is overpriced in ways that words can't even describe, that price is still increasing even as cord-cutters continue running for the hills, and people began voting with their wallets over a decade ago in what should have been a clear sign that things have to change. Instead, the brainlets in charge of the old media are doubling down on a losing strategy: Keep squeezing the customer. If more cash doesn't come out, squeeze harder. The best case scenario is that when
Can you watch first run HBO on Roku?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I just finished a free trial of several streaming services. Cancelled them all.
It took some time to overcome the "I want it now" binge watching in our home. But we did. We found something else to watch or played board games or read a book. The fact is our local library has a huge selection of DVD's, Blu-Ray's and other media. We can request and reserve items and they will buy it off amazon and typically in 2-3 weeks we have it delivered to our local library branch. It's all FREE, just slightly inconvenient.
I will have to wait a few months to see the next season of Man in the High Castle, The Crown, The Expanse etc. but it's money that can stay in my pocket to pay for something we actually need.
The only thing we can somewhat justify is live sports programming. So $50 for DirectTVNow and we can watch March Madness.
The bottom line is I don't need instant access to every movie ever made, and neither do you. Any movie I might want to watch is at the local library or a friend will let me borrow it... and Netflix, Disney et.al. won't know anything about it.
...but "piracy" will always be a simple, affordable option.
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
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.
As long as the prices are reasonable, I would rather have to sign up to multiple different streaming services run by the distributors/license-holders directly. the more granular my ability to sign up for the stuff that I actually want, the less overlap and additional cost I will see myself having to deal with;; a true a la carte. Yeah, there's more research involved, but that's my style anyway. There's so much I'd rather strip out of the current subscriptions I have because I just won't ever watch it, yet I'm definitely paying for it.
The problem is that they're not going to be reasonably priced.
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.
Greed is the root of all evil.
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.
In Market sports be owned by the distribution system is an issue like that.
So... the solution is a single middleman then? That is pretty much all an 'open platform' is, a middleman with 'open' thrown in.
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 cost both money and time to produce. The more complicated the process, the more costly the production. How many hours of your day can you afford to 'do whatever you want' ?
Of coarse you could make an argument that the government should gather others peoples resources and hand them out to passionate people to do something 'useful' but as soon as you do that I will guarantee that whoever is in control of the current government will want to have some input ( aka control) on the definition of useful.
If your truism is correct and there is no middle ground I'd suggest you list your 10 favorite movies, and tell me which ones were done with absolutely no intention of making profits. (HINT: unless they are all indie films done with a single camera and no applicable crew there aren't any). Even films done by non - profits hope to make enough money to break even so the non-profit can pay it's employees.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Passive entertainment is dying. Single player video games, interactive live shows, and e-sports are the future. This behavior is just a symptom.
In the time it takes me to find something to consume between netflix, prime, and my massive torrent collection, the kid has left the couch, played a match of fork-knife, made a new friend, and fired up a live stream and interacted directly with the presenter. All of which are free to him, funded by ads, and taking ever larger bites out of passive entertainments market share.
Big media has consolidated so much that they are now easily predictable. Writings on the wall. They can cling to sports for a while, but eventually that's going to go the way of the streaming service too, and then it's well and truly over.
The sad part being that we will likely bail them out as they fall, as so much of our shared culture is in their pockets as licenced content. As they gobble each other up, more and more of our collective records and culture will be under a single roof. Losing that last roof would be a tragedy of the commons on par with the burning of the library of Alexandria.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
Just think if Comcast and ATT / Directv had an split and say.
NO on Comcast
CNN
CNN International
HLN
TNT
Turner Classic Movies
Cartoon Network
Adult Swim
Boomerang
TruTV
TBS
and NO on directv
Bravo
E!
Oxygen
Syfy
Universal Kids
USA Network
Golf Channel
NBCSN
NHL Network
Olympic Channel
This is an unpopular decision, however you are not "being screwed" by a company deciding to charge a different value for streaming its movies. There is plenty of consumable streaming media even if the ecosystem for it splinters.
by one of these mega-companies and promise not to raise prices for 5 yrs, but after 1 yr, they will double the price, then double it again the next year, then double it again the next year.
Each of those years, they lay off 10,000 people trying to be profitable.
In the end, we'll pay 30% more than we would pay today for a CATV minimal package, but without sports. That would be a $100/month add-on.
If this fragmentation of content continues it will only hurt the studios in the long run. If I can get a whole boatload of shows from Netflix for $10 a month why would I pay more than $1-2 for content only from Disney or CBS or Paramount?
By the same token, is Netflix still worth $10 a month without the content that studios are pushing exclusively on their own outlets?
If the plan is to more money from me it's not going to work. I'll just find better things to do with my time.
I'm already paying for multiple services:
* Netflix (w/multiple users) - The most comprehensive service, and Netflix-only programming
* Hulu (without ads) - For broadcast TV programming not available on Netflix
* CBS All Access - The TV broadcaster not on Hulu
* HBO Now - Game of Thrones, Vice, Real Time
* Prime Video - meh, this was part of my Prime subscription
That said, I have a large family, so I'm catering to a lot of tastes in programming.
I mean open standard.
Just like you can chose the web browser of your choice, you should be able to chose the streaming application of your choice to access your content. All applications would be using a common protocol to access content directly from content producers. The content producers could chose to host their content wherever they like.
Also this is the ideal scenario but realistically I don't expect it any time soon. In the mean time, if there are a dozens of serious streaming providers, it's a much better situation then having just Netflix.
Any body up for creating a streaming client agitator that lets you pick an choose from all the streaming options shows you what's available , lets you auto subscribe the auto unsubscribe etc.
I could see a nice tool ( it would have to work on TV's , video game consoles, web, laptop etc.) that would manage accounts for you. you search and see if what you want to watch is available where. If you can watch it for free on a service you don't have that cost 9 dollars a month or rent it to 2.50 elsewhere you decide if you want to pay rent on a month by month basis. Of coarse you'd have to figure out how to make money or it wouldn't be worth the time to make it I suppose ;)
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Not until that damned mouse reverses the damage he's done to the copyright system in the US, and probably the rest of the world, as well.
Even then, they don't really have anything I want to watch, so probably not even then.
You apologists for capitalism have no imagination (it's the very definition of 'conservative' in fact).
You just can't imagine any system beyond what you see, therefore it could never exist. 'But communism bad!' - like the only two options are outright Stalinism or unfettered capitalism. The discussion is as old and boring as the movies you defend.
You deserve Avengers movies.
" Families will have to decide between paying more each month or losing access to some of their favorite dramas, comedies, musicals and action flicks."
No they don't there is a third option, download torrents. I'm not going to pay for a bunch of different streaming services, I'm going to keep paying for Netflix and torrent anything else I want.
Streaming was the solution to piracy - everything accessible in one place. Easy to use. Fair cost. Now the idiots are trying to break it up and make it expensive again - they're basically just trying to re-form Cable TV. So, I guess they want us to go back to pirating their shit again?
I missed the part where you actually refuted his point.
Yes, Either with HBO Go or HBO Now, both channels are on the Roku.
But hold on, what does the subscription cost for Roku? You mean to tell me I'm going to have to worry about paying for Amazon Go + Netflix + Roku?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Posting to undo wrong mod. I wish there was a better way to fix fat fingers!
With an HBO subscription you can. If you don't have an HBO subscription via cable, you can purchase one via Roku.
They tell me what they want, I grab it from rarbg or 1337x, 15 minutes later it's on the NAS and we're watching it in VLC on a FireTV. More streaming services is great for us if it means more content.
In big cities you can usually get dozens of sub-channels crystal clear.
If you don't count shopping, religious, "this channel available for lease," and channels in a language you can't speak, it's probably only 2 or 3 though.
More ways to nickle and dime you.
So far the best things on tv are a 2hr trip down the Kennat-Avon canal and a guy explaining the construction and origin of the Walker Colt .
Tried to watch Black Mirror but all I got out of it was how to use the Roku fast forward.
Almost all of the programs we watch are British, with some Aussie and NZ stuff. So if Disney et al want to do their thing so be it. We may not notice.
Like others , Netflixs is currently in review, basically, 'does anyone watch it?' Prime is safe because of the shipping, but their content and layout has improved considerably.
Yeah, I was kinda wondering that myself. After all, he started so strong with the "apologists for capitalism".
Oh, and " no imagination" is not the very definition of conservative. Unless you're using your dictionary wrong.
"The more things change, the more they aren't any different."
In the beginning, there was tv. And lo, it was good, for any content creators could broadcast unto the lord.
Then tv begat tv channels, with news and entertainment independent.
Then channels begat more channels which in-turn begat networks ABC, NBC, and CBS (three ways of spelling the exact same thing).
Alas, content creators would no longer broadcast anything. For 'twere the networks would control the airwaves.
And so it stood, for many ages, as networks created content for their channels, and content writers were at the mercy of the networks.
Thus followed the big bang, ye old fragmentation:
Scores of networks and hundreds of channels.
And then, out of divine intervention, the gods themselves begat the internet.
And lo' it was good. For content creators could, once again, broadcast unto the lord.
So it stood, until such time as the content creators would threaten the networks.
For you see, 'tis good to be a network.
And so the internet of the gods' creation would begat netflix, prime video, and youtube (more inventive names they are certainly not)
And lo' these channels would gather content from across the fragmentation of networks.
And then netflix did begat netflix originals,
And prime video did purchase top gear, (asterisk, double-dagger)
But, as does echo through the ages:
'tis good to be a network.
And Disney shall fragment theirs,
And Warner shall fragment theirs.
And to each studio, so a fragment shall begat.
And thusly, surprise shall follow surprise,
Not for novelty nor for ingenuity,
But for the willful blindness of all.
I never wanted to pay for ABC News, ESPN, Disney Channel, and whatever else Disney forced into my basic cable bundle.
If you're not forced to pay for Disney, how many will willing opt to?
All of them will have limited content, so prices should be less
There are sites with all the shows, free
Netflix should still be able to get the shows. Disney may not get the subscribers, the people will just get less content.
Balkanization of services would be totally ok if there were a standard.
It was ok that long ago, content was balkanized across ABC, CBS and NBC. They all supported the TV standard so you had a single UI and switched between them by turning a dial.
It was ok that Iron Maiden and Judas Priest had different LPs, 8-tracks, cassettes or CDs, because you'd put their tape/record/CD in your player (made by yet another company) and it would play. Take it out, put in the other band's recording, and that played too.
It was ok that a Robocop VHS tape worked in a Toshiba VHS player, and that you could eject it and put in a VHS tape of Tron.
It was ok that your web browser could load Microsoft's home page, or Apple's or Google's or Nintendo's.
It's ok that a pirate's media player can play a pirated file that was taken from HBO's service or Netflix's service or the BBC's service or CBS's or Hulu's.
But if you're not pirating video yet, then you don't get to do the above stuff. Proprietary video streaming is the one exception, different from how we do everything else. You use Netflix's app for Netflix's service, HBO's app for HBO's service, etc. Of course it sucks. You knew it would suck.
So we all just need to keep on voting against lack of standards with our wallets. Pirate. Pirate until they make a standard and comply with it. You'll know when they have successfully implemented a standard, because suddenly a bunch of homebrew apps will come along which implement it. Your list of TV shows will look a lot like a pirate's list, with HBO shows all mixed in with Netflix and Disney shows, in the alphabetical list of shows.
If I have 2-3 services to watch my anime and they're $5-$7 month I won't mind. $10-$21 bucks is still a lot cheaper than cable. That works for me because I don't care about sports though and the kid's grown up so I don't need much else.
Where it'll be a problem is if you end up with stuff like CBS' Star Trek show. But even that's not much of a problem. You buy it, watch the season and cancel it until next season. $5 bucks a month might be a bit much for 1 show. But if it's 9 months out of the year that's more like $3.75. That's basically an Amazon rental.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You so-called 'cord cutters' thought you were being so smart, but in the end we see that you're going to end up spending the same amount of money, if not more, for your 'streaming' media, TV or music. Meanwhile I'm happy with my antenna. I'll be happy to point you all in the direction of how to get set up with one when you're ready. :-)
What more do I want?
At least one of these is available in most big cities. Yes, you may need a buy a long-range antenna but you can get them without any recurring charges.
Comet TV even streams over the intertubes.
fuck AAA everything
But I remember when there were no streaming options. Then we had Netflix, and Hulu, and you guys complained that large portions of what you actually want to stream aren't represented. The studios heard, and gave you more option. Now you dipshits are complaining about how there are too many channels to subscribe to. Pardon me for a little while I play this tiny violin.
Streaming has never been better.
There have never been more big label and small deal options than there are now.
Sometimes you just need to pull your head out of the shit pile and enjoy the roses for what they are.
One major streaming monopoly isn't good for anyone.
Now, at least, they're competing on the merits.
And the golden age of television continues.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
If it's not on Netflix, it will eventually be on Vudu for purchase. Everything else is super niche and I'm unlikely to care (e.g. Sesame Street is only available on HBO and PBS). I can't think of the last time I searched for something that isn't available on one of those two.
Netflix currently is the cheapest service still, isn't it?
I think most people would agree that some copyright is fine. Needs to be long enough to recoup costs and make a profit. Needs to be short enough to encourage more works is my thoughts.
I also see no reason that this post should be copyrighted for the next century or so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
This is why I eschew streaming, and instead buy used dvd's.
What the hell? What does this mean for DTVN subscribers? Do I get to pay even more for HBO? Certainly makes me feel like I'm making a big mistake playing with that retard factory.
No, it's not. Anyways that doesn't mean much. It all depends on what you get per dollar.
If you have HBO Go (HBO on your cable TV) or HBO Now (direct streaming service from HBO), then Roku will let you stream content through the corresponding Roku apps.
The executives that were so quick to jump behind streaming platforms seem to have forgotten that it was consumer contempt of their money grabbing business models that pushed people to pirate their content in the first place. Streaming brought back convenience that they had destroyed. They are about to repeat history via a refresher course in economics and the power of the black market.