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.
Just don't let Disney bully ISP's with TV to force there own Netflix + ESPN online on to all internet subs.
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.
Well.. here is a comment I am saving for later use.
Let them do it. I'll vote with my wallet. I'm subscribed to Netflix and Prime (prime more for shipping than videos, but I occasionally watch things I find on there). And CuriosityStream but that's like $3 per month.
That's all I'm subscribing to. If another competitor comes along that offers GENERAL content that's better than Netflix I might would one day switch from one to the other, but I'm not subscribing to a separate service for every single media company.
Trust me, if enough of these new services fail, they'll go back to looking at licensing their content to a third party streaming service rather than doing it themselves.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
At the same time? Subscribe to one and watch. When you are done unsubscribe and pick up the next.
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.
Dude, no way. I know it's not popular to say this with the "Cool Crowd" but almost everything Marvel has put out has been fantastic. Avengers: Infinity War was amazing, as was Black Panther.
I, for one, wish Marvel continues making superhero movies.
How about like every kubrick film? very very few were made with profit in mind, i think only spartacus was. Something like interstellar which was written, directed and produced by christopher nolan, one person with a vision, could only be done as a labor of love.
Your comment is just wrong. The films that change peoples lives are never made with profit as the main motive. Superhero movies are not what I think anyone would consider "great" films. They are gods and monsters fighting for the masses. They don't make you think, they reinforce antiquated zoroastrianist duality structures and are generally a tired rehash of good vs evil.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy