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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
At the same time? Subscribe to one and watch. When you are done unsubscribe and pick up the next.
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.
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.
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.