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
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.
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.
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.
The more clumsy it is for me to legally and cheaply watch a show/movie, the more likely it is for me to NOT watch it, NOT care about spinoffs and merchandising, and NOT spend any time or energy recommending it to others.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
Made me go the other way. I've now canceled HULU and SLING leaving me with just Amazon and Netflix, and honestly netflix is next on the chopping block.
Thanks to all this stupidity I've simply stopped consuming most TV and I feel my life has improved as a result. As others have noted, I'm reading more then I use to and using "tv time" to do other useful things instead.
For a little bit I missed new episodes of things I was following... now that some time has passed, I don't even miss them anymore. Nor did I miss football (first season since I was .. well since I can remember that I did't watch collage and NFL football like it was my job) this year.
I'll keep amazon around for "The Grand Tour" (and the fact that I use prime shipping a lot still); but if they ever separate the two, I'll drop that as well.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
makes traditional cable TV packages look better with
How about over-the-air TV?
ONE BILL
$0 every month
ONE SET OF RULES
Almost: Ignoring "pay/scrambled broadcast channels" there are only two "rules" - "broadcast copy-protection flag is set, or it's not" - and it's easy to defeat anyways if you don't mind using the "analog hole."
ONE UI
Your TV or tuner determines your UI.
EASY MULTI ROOM with no real limits.
Antenna-splitter does the trick.
DOES NOT COUNT AS PART OF YOUR CAP!
Watch or record as many channels as you have tuners, all day, every day. Internet sold separately.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
I wish I had mod points. Well, stated, Sir. The unfortunate fact, though, is that when you pull aside that curtain to reveal the Wizard, you recognize that in each case, it's the same wizard. Content production and delivery are controlled by a small handful of mega-corporations, and what's happening here is pretty much what everyone has begged for since time immemorial - a la carte programming! You want Disney? pay Disney. You want WB? pay WB. You want ESPN? pay ESPN. The advantage to cable service was that they handled all the accounts payable for the different content providers, then streamed it all on one wire. Yeah, you had to pay for shit you didn't wanna see, but how else were they going to fund 'The Curling Channel? Wait until some stuffed shirt at one of the big media companies realizes that they can fragment it even FURTHER. True 'a la carte' would be you paying $1.67 PER CHANNEL for the 30 different streams you want to subscribe to. Yes, that's 30 different bills a month. Hell, yes, cable starts to look good then, doesn't it? Be careful what you ask for.....
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.
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.
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!
More ways to nickle and dime you.
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.
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. :-)
Mirrors DVR history possibly. First was TiVo and it was great. Easy to use, convenient, and customers liked it. Then everyone else decided they needed their own DVR and they pushed out a lot of crappy set top boxes that looked like they spent a weekend in design, and customers started bitching. So with streaming, Netflix was the big player that attracted tons of customers, but soon everyone else wanted in on the game and soon everyone hated that mess of substandard products as well.
Problem is that you can't always pick up those signals, moving to digital meant that you needed better reception than with analog. Second problem is that broadcast television has been so greatly reduced in quality of programming. It's great for the local news, sports, and not much else. Some markets may be lucky and have a good channel or two (pbs or other independent).
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 only there was a local store that would stock these blu-ray discs, and let you borrow them for a few days for a small fee. Sort of like a library, but just for movies and TV shows.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }