Slashdot Mirror


As 'Subscription Fatigue' Sets In, the OTT Reckoning May Be Upon Us (adweek.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Deciding which streaming outlet you want to subscribe to can be just as hard as finding a show itself. With options from big players like Netflix, HBO Now, Hulu, Showtime, Amazon and YouTube Premium -- and looming new platforms from the likes of Disney, Apple, AT&T and NBCUniversal -- consumers are already starting to grow frustrated with the crowded streaming marketplace as "subscription fatigue" sets in, according to Deloitte's 13th edition of its Digital Media Trends survey.

Viewers are taking advantage of these options: the average video consumer subscribes to three video streaming services, said Deloitte. But they're growing frustrated over just how many options they have. Nearly half of those surveyed, at 47 percent, said they are frustrated by the growing number of subscriptions and services to watch their shows. And this audience grows attached to the content: 57 percent of consumers said it frustrates them when shows and movies disappear from their streaming libraries.

205 comments

  1. Too expensive by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would get YouTube Premium if it was 2 bucks a month. The current price, higher than Netflix, isn't worth it.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Too expensive by sinij · · Score: 1

      I would never get YouTube Premium, as I don't ever want Google to be able to profile me in such way. Subscribing means offering Google definitive identity and home address as a result of financial transaction of paying subscription.

    2. Re:Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The bottom line is you're really not interesting enough for Google to care about. They probably already know your address from related searches and indexes of public information.

    3. Re:Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already know that stuff. You're kidding yourself if you don't think they have way more data than necessary to connect those simple dots.

    4. Re:Too expensive by sinij · · Score: 1

      However, they have no clue that I am a brony, listen to Nickelback and Justin Bieber on repeat, prefer Oracle databases, and space-delineate instead of tab-delineate my code. We all have our dirty secrets.

    5. Re:Too expensive by sinij · · Score: 1

      You are probably right, they know all that stuff, but not in a legal way. That is, I didn't consensually offered it to them after signing EULA protecting them from liability.

    6. Re: Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they will, once they index this thread and cross reference everything else they know about your username

    7. Re:Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All these media companies could have made millions and millions of dollars by licensing their content to Netflix and Hulu. Instead when streaming got popular everybody decided they needed to have their own streaming platform.

      They totally missed the point of people ditching cable. Nobody wants to pay $200 a month just to watch a few things spread across 5 or 6 different networks. Between myself, my wife and my kids we watch about 12 channels out of the hundreds we have on Directv. The kids watch a lot of cartoon network and my wife watches soap operas and prime time shows. I just watch racing (not Nascar) on tv.

      I have Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime. I'm not subscribing to anymore streaming services. If I can't get it on one of those I'll just pirate it or not watch it at all. I'm fine with paying for entertainment up to a point. I don't think what they are doing is worth the countless millions of dollars they are earning. I don't think an actor is worth $1 million an episode or $25 million for a single movie. I'm not going to eat those costs by continually paying more and more while 90% of the money made goes to suits in offices who don't do anything but "facilitate" things.

      Anything that is on the Disney streaming service is getting pirated at my house. They had a deal with Netflix and decided after it was signed to launch their own streaming service and pull all their content from Netflix.

      The bottom line is I'm not going to pay $5, $10, or $15 a month to a dozen or more individual streaming services just so a bunch of executives and shareholders can add to their wealth.

    8. Re:Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you think Google doesn't know every single thing there is to know about you already you are extremely naive. My wife works for a company that deals in data and they know everything about you. I'm talking about your entire work history, every address you have lived at, and what cars you have owned in your life. They already know where you bank, where you eat, and where you buy groceries.

      The ship for remaining private sailed about 10 years ago, even if you never touched the internet in your life Google knows everything about you.

      Your actual privacy isn't important anymore because it's been compromised. What is important is forcing these companies to secure private data and for there to be serious civil and criminal consequences if they don't. It's also important that individuals be allowed to control their own data.

      Being paranoid that Google will know everything about you because of a youtube premium subscription just shows a profound lack of understanding on the subject.

    9. Re: Too expensive by lgw · · Score: 1

      But they will, once they index this thread and cross reference everything else they know about your username

      That whooshing sound you hear overhead? Yup, that was the joke.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re: Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh fuck 'em, make it a total data wipe.

    11. Re: Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I canceled my Netflix subscription when they decided to raise the price the last time. I plan on getting anything I want to watch via BitTorrent.

    12. Re:Too expensive by hawguy · · Score: 1

      The bottom line is you're really not interesting enough for Google to care about. They probably already know your address from related searches and indexes of public information.

      What are you talking about? It's not like they dedicate an employee to monitor everyone, their automated algorithms track *everyone* (even if you don't directly use Google services). So no one is too small to escape their interest.

      But like you said, most people probably aren't diligent enough to keep Google from identifying them - simply not subscribing to a service won't stop that.

    13. Re: Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably heard it too as the joke flew over your head.

    14. Re: Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-teens-spied-on-chats#update1

      For the people reading this who think the posters who say that it is impossible to escape Google collecting info on you...and how idiotic and self defeating that mentality is, don't rely on them to educate you. They are most likely old. They are definitely too lazy. And they will get caught up in future data breaches like moths to bug zappers. Don't be like them. Obfuscate and never ever abdicate your ability to protect yourself. Don't become doddering old fools who've sold their souls for a pat on the back. They don't have the mental capacity to realize just how badly they have fecked themselves up.

    15. Re:Too expensive by nwf · · Score: 1

      Everyone wants a direct customer relationship. That's the hotness these days, and licensing to Netflix wound't give them that. That's why everyone who tries to work with Apple ends up not doing so, since Apple won't tell them anything about the customer.

      I've subscribed to Netflix since they were DVD only. They have enough original content that I keep them. I tried CBS and it sucked. Hulu hans't much better, but that was a while ago. I have Prime, but their UI is so pathetic that I really don't watch anything. I may end up with Disney + or whatever they call it, but that will max me out.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    16. Re: Too expensive by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Are you a moron? It's not the old people that don't think Google is tracking them.. It's the young idiots who have never lived in a world where you weren't being tracked. Most teens/young adults I speak to act surprised that someone would monetize their personal information. Too young to have a proper world view.. Hell, most of them don't even have full time jobs and still live at home (and no, it's not because there are no jobs, it's because these assholes haven't figured out personal responsibility yet because they've been coddled since birth). i.e. They haven't actually begun to live in the real world, so they don't have the slightest clue on what's really going on.

    17. Re:Too expensive by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      I don't think an actor is worth $1 million an episode or $25 million for a single movie. I'm not going to eat those costs by continually paying more and more while 90% of the money made goes to suits in offices who don't do anything but "facilitate" things.

      That's because you're a socialist asshole. If an actor can rake in $200M for a movie using his name alone (think Johnny Depp) you don't think they deserve a cut of that?

      Goofiness aside, there was a time that any movie that had Tom Cruise in it would do a $100M just because he was in it... How nice that you have decided he's not worth a portion of that.. What are you gonna do? Force him to be in the movie? No? Well, then he gets to set his price.. Don't like it? Tough shit..

    18. Re:Too expensive by sinij · · Score: 1

      Being paranoid that Google will know everything about you because of a youtube premium subscription just shows a profound lack of understanding on the subject.

      Categorically no. Even if Google knows everything about me, the data is noisy and likely thoroughly poisoned. I am not going to volunteer any confirmation of any data they might have on me, as I am sitting here at home at 123 Street Ave, City, Texas and eating my Cheetos and drinking Mountain Dew while feeding Purina to my dog.

    19. Re: Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the A/C's post contains enough information to conclude that they missed the joke. They may have gotten it and chosen to ignore it and respond on-topic anyway.

      There is plenty of evidence in your post, however, to conclude that you are a bit mean-spirited, and you enjoy publicly pointing out the flaws in others.

      Me too.

    20. Re:Too expensive by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      The spaces make up for all the evil.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    21. Re:Too expensive by sjames · · Score: 1

      Making a market value decision and only being willing to pay what you think it is worth is very much the market in action.

      Mr. Cruise's pay is reflected in a higher movie price. In a market economy (this includes Capitalism), buyers get to decide if that is worth it to them or not.

      You seem to be advocating a centrally planned (command) economy. Even the old Soviet Communists didn't force people to buy things they didn't want.

    22. Re:Too expensive by Can'tNot · · Score: 1

      It's not about money, or at least it's not all about money. People in gaming forums are currently throwing various screaming tantrums over the fact that Epic is launching a competitor to Steam, and that's free.

      I really think it's more about fragmentation than cost. People don't want their stuff scattered all over the place, and a lot of people have developed brand loyalty (developed Stockholm syndrome, have become enveloped in the RDF, whatever you want to call it) to the platforms which have been around for a while. The fact that Netflix is really cheap compared to a legacy cable subscription certainly helps, but people have already demonstrated that they're willing to pay quite a lot for those cable subscriptions.

      This is especially true for the Steam loyalists, who "purchase" products rather than just watching whatever's available on the platform at the moment. Having a large Steam library confers bragging rights, and further ties you to that brand.

    23. Re: Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I think that no-one is entitled to 25 million payoff just because their name is this or that. If is their name that can rack up a 100 mil for a single movie then let them collect a share for every single viewer, if a billion viewers choose to see the movie I'm ok with a single actor getting 300 million dollars pay, as long is the viewer choice. But if a movie is bad and the actor performance is not on par I think that is only fair that he got paid with a sandwich and a coke.

    24. Re: Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I canceled when they raised their price, then flagged my account for using a VPN

    25. Re: Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never heard of shadow profikes, eh?

    26. Re: Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've gone through numerous evictions, and otherwise have had to move around frequently. I lost my entire video collection, which at minimum wage cost a small fortune, and so cannot depend on physical copies. I lost digital copies when Walmart and Microsoft got out of the business. The way you talk about Epic games offering sounds like it may be enough to kill both businesses. If Steam goes down I may stop buying digital content altogether. I can't afford subscriptions.

    27. Re: Too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spaces instead of tabs in your code? You monster!!

  2. Apple Knows This by registrations_suck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple knows this. Maybe it is the secret sauce in its soon-to-be-announced offering.

    I for one agree. I don't want to sign up with a bunch of different places and have to maintain multiple accounts, deal with multiple renewal periods/expirations, have my credit card info scattered all over the place, etc.

    What I want an "Amazon of on-line media consumption". One place, one bill. I add to my account the stuff I want, I deal with one entity, and leave it up to that entity to pay off the content providers under whatever arrangement they may have. I can pick up or drop services as desired, and just maintain it all at one place.

    1. Re:Apple Knows This by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      You hit the nail on the head. I subscribe to Google's Premium service because that is what I mainly watch. However, my NetFlix subscription is free because I get it through my cellular carrier. Do I care to pay $10 a month to a whole bunch of providers? Not really.

      I don't want to sound alarmist, but what are all these businesses selling subscriptions going to do if there is a recession, and Joe Sixpack has to tighten the belt? The first thing he will be doing is cancelling all but maybe 1-2 things that he watches the most. In good times, subscriptions make sense, but come times where people are mainly focused on keeping the lights on, food on the table, and the repo men away from the car, subscription based companies are going to have a losing business model.

    2. Re:Apple Knows This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Average is three subscriptions per person, and they are only now starting to get frustrated?

      I got frustrated at two, and bailed on the one I had. I switched to the Netflix DVD by mail plan instead because it has the highest level of content variety of all of them.

      I have to wait for stuff. And I spent less time watching since I can only have one DVD out at a time. Both of these are benefits that I don't want to give up. It instills a reasonable balance of entertainment activities.

    3. Re: Apple Knows This by peragrin · · Score: 2

      That's called cable, and it fails as your provider makes choices and contract bundling to save money, thus limiting your choices.

      However if you want to do that get subcriptions through Amazon. I pay Amazon for my HBO now subcription, and thus don't only have one place for my card.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Apple Knows This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Average is three subscriptions per person, and they are only now starting to get frustrated?

      I got frustrated at two, and bailed on the one I had. I switched to the Netflix DVD by mail plan instead because it has the highest level of content variety of all of them.

      I have to wait for stuff. And I spent less time watching since I can only have one DVD out at a time. Both of these are benefits that I don't want to give up. It instills a reasonable balance of entertainment activities.

      Translation:

      I have to wait for stuff. And I spent less time watching since I can only have one DVD out at a time. Both of these are things I have to deal with because I am too broke to replace my 1990's DVD player and 1980's 13" TV.

    5. Re: Apple Knows This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spend less time watching

       
      You say that like it's a bad thing.

    6. Re:Apple Knows This by zenasprime · · Score: 1

      Sounds like... Cable TV.

      o.O

      What I want is a la carte TV shows. I don't really care about the services, though I do keep my Netflix subscription going, I'd much rather watch a pilot freebee and pay for a season of a show.

    7. Re: Apple Knows This by tsqr · · Score: 1

      I spend less time watching

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

      Work on your reading comprehension. He said it was a benefit. Or, maybe it's your language skills rather than reading comprehension. Benefit = good thing.

    8. Re:Apple Knows This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is where Comcast, TimeWarner, and the others failed to be visionary. They had the contracts with the content providers and the customers. It would have been a small thing for them to build out their own streaming services and then jettison the costly plant infrastructure costs of maintaining all the wires to pure bandwidth folks. Basically, push folks over to the cut-the-cable idea. The old set-top box would now be something more like a rPie, AppleTV, or Amazon FireTV unit. Grandma and Grandpa still get their content - the transport is just handled a different way. All the dedicated cable bandwidth that used to be used for old-school TV channels can now be aggregated into packets.

      But, instead - they tried to circle the wagons with their existing infrastructure. Bemoaning the fact that people were keeping cable but ditching their content.

      Now, Apple's going to do what they should have started doing 15 years ago.

      I'm not an Apple fan (but do use their products) as see this as a smart move on their part.

    9. Re:Apple Knows This by krray · · Score: 1

      > I have to wait for stuff. And I spent less time watching since I can only have one DVD out at a time. Both of these are things I have to deal with because I am too broke to replace my 1990's DVD player and 1980's 13" TV.

      But the TV has ***COLOR*** (!!)

    10. Re:Apple Knows This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One place, one bill.

      Totally with you on "one place" in terms of a single UI that is totally independent of where each video came from, and I'll never settle for less.

      But "one bill" sounds like you just want to pay a lot of extra money. I vastly prefer multiple small bills, where I'm occasionally adding/firing at whim. If Apple thinks people want to move back to cable TV, and if they're right(!), that's a major disappointment and a huge regression from how things have been going lately.

    11. Re:Apple Knows This by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      What you and most others do not understand is they couldn't do what you said with their existing contracts. To illustrate with a real life scenario. For years since Marvel came out with the Iron Man Avengers movies people have been complaining that Spider-Man or the X-Men are never part of the MCU. Marvel wanted to add them but years prior they had licensed those movie rights to Sony and Fox respectively. So while Marvel/Disney could do Spider-Man TV shows one after another they couldn't even mention him in the MCU without Sony's permission. Fortunately Sony is really bad at making super hero movies so after numerous flops at the box office Sony ultimately agreed to collaborate and allow Spider-Man in the MCU. ComCast's contracts with content providers are extremely specific in regards to the medium they are allowed to use to disseminate said content. They may only have the rights to show it in a specific region because another company already own the rights in other regions. Disney is actually one of the reasons cable bills are so high to begin with. Disney owns ESPN. There are so many ESPN channel it makes the head spin. Cable companies want to offer a budget tier package for families that doesn't include sports. Disney says if you want any of the Disney channels in your package you must include all of the ESPN channels in the same package. A family package without Disney channels might as well be a bachelor package. The budget package is now $70 instead of $40 because of all the added sports channels. I suspect Apple will run into the same quagmire everyone else is they will just sprinkle it with stardust and blame you for holding it wrong when you complain that XYZ is missing.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    12. Re:Apple Knows This by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      What I want an "Amazon of on-line media consumption". One place, one bill. I add to my account the stuff I want, I deal with one entity, and leave it up to that entity to pay off the content providers under whatever arrangement they may have. I can pick up or drop services as desired, and just maintain it all at one place.

      Amazon, ironically, does let you do pretty much that. I see plenty of shows and movies in their video service that are really through a different video service, which presumably you pay for via Amazon.

    13. Re:Apple Knows This by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      The great thing about contracts is that they expire. Eventually, all of ESPN's current contracts cable companies and whomever will expire, just like Disney's are about to do with Netflix. Then it can do something else. Isn't ESPN owned by Disney? Disney could just say fuck all you cable providers, one by one as their contracts expire. Want ESPN? Subscribe to Disney's Streaming Service, through Disney, or fuck off. All of the other big content companies could do the same thing and consolidate down to 5 or 6 or whatever Big Content Providers, each with their own streaming service, with NONE of them offering content to CableTV providers. CableTV could end up providing nothing more than a network connection (their biggest nightmare) that is just a commodity at that point. Now you'd have a situation where the "average person" would have to independently subscribe to those 5 or 6 or whatever Big Content Provider Services.

      OR, those Big Content Providers can save themselves the expense of running their own distribution services, pay a middle man like Apple to manage it for them in exchange for a fee, and allow consumers to deal with one entity (Apple in this case) and can pick content from participating Big Content Providers ala carte in the market square. Content providers can focus on content. The middle man can focus on running the distribution business and consumers can enjoy the convenience of one-stop menu shopping.

      Now take it one step further. The Big Content Providers sign non-exclusive deals with the middle man...so now there are TWENTY middle men. All providing the same service in theory, the same content, but now they are competing against each other to provide the best service, however they define it. Competition can drive down distribution costs for content providers, middlemen have an incentive to avoid complacency, and customers have choices of whom to deal with while still enjoying the convenience of one-stop menu shopping. What's not to love? There is no reason this couldn't happen if everyone played along.

      You know why sellers are on Amazon? Because sellers feel they need to be on Amazon. A lot of people don't even bother looking anywhere else when they want to buy general item on-line. If you're not there, you don't even have a chance to make the sale. They're what, something like 54% of all on-line sales? The same kind of market could develop with media. If you're not at the "market square", you're going to sell a lot less than those who are because not everyone is going to beat down a path to your door, wherever it may be. For example, I'm not watching the new Star Trek. Why? Because I'm not fucking signing up with another service just for that purpose.

      The content providers are betting their content is so compelling that they can drive people to their own storefront. They are betting AGAINST human laziness and desire for convenience. Personally, I don't think that's a great bet.

      I know I'm just an N of 1, but if Disney's MCU stuff becomes ONLY available with a Disney subscription that I have to maintain separately, even for as little as $3/month, Disney can go fuck itself as far as I can concerned. I'll just not watch that content. There is plenty of other content to choose from, and plenty of non-content oriented activities that I can involve myself in.

    14. Re:Apple Knows This by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      One place, one bill. I add to my account the stuff I want, I deal with one entity, and leave it up to that entity to pay off the content providers under whatever arrangement they may have. I can pick up or drop services as desired, and just maintain it all at one place.

      so....you want cable

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    15. Re:Apple Knows This by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Except all of the ISP's have been buying up content companies left and right preparing for war. Combine that with the likelihood that Apple will require Apple hardware to access its service and you've cut your target market in half. I mean Amazon Prime works on Android but not Android TV because Amazon is mad at Alphabet. So Alphabet blocks the Echo Show from playing YouTube videos (painful workarounds notwithstanding). And Amazon has been providing your utopian service for a year now. It isn't any easier than having and app for each service on an Android TV , Fire, or Roku device.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    16. Re:Apple Knows This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence why I just subscribe to netflix, and pirate the shit out of everyone who doesn't put their content on netflix. Even thats annoying, because I have to switch between Plex and Netflix.

      I want *one* service with an easy interface that gives me *everything*. Segmentation, multiple apps, etc, are totally unacceptable.

    17. Re:Apple Knows This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prime works just fine on my Sony 900e which if I remember correctly runs AndriodTV.

    18. Re:Apple Knows This by sjames · · Score: 1

      A big problem is the exclusive deal. A has an exclusive on 1, B an exclusive on 2, C on 3, etc. Any one or two would be a fair enough price to pay for a good variety of entertainment, but not the growing number you have to pay to get the shows you want.

    19. Re:Apple Knows This by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how it is relevant that "apple knows this". Everybody knows this and always has. It doesn't stop the content producers from making exclusive licenses or starting their own streaming service (Disney). This is a long-predicted endgame.

      There is a solution: compulsory fair licensing. The producer can't choose who is and isn't allowed to buy their DVDs so why are they allowed to choose who carries their stream? Basically historical accident. The specter of compulsory licensing is what was holding the fracturing of the streaming services back in the first place. It appears that the big houses have decided it's worth the risk. The personally optimistic prediction is that they will get burned and regret it. They should lose the ability to distort the free market with exclusive licenses. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

    20. Re:Apple Knows This by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Nvidia and Sony have licensed Prime Video and thus are white listed by Amazon. Some industrious individuals have managed to extract the APK from these devices and patched them to work on regular Android TV until the next update rolls out. The fact remains the Amazon Prime Android app actively checks for Android TV and will not run if it is detected.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    21. Re:Apple Knows This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when everyone bitched about cable package bundling? I don't want to pay for a bunch of useless channels! I want to buy channels Ala Cart!

      Well, now everything is fragmenting. Enjoy! If you want a central location I think it might involve the term bittorrent.

    22. Re:Apple Knows This by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      What I want an "Amazon of on-line media consumption". One place, one bill.

      I'd be content with more choice. Streaming for free with ads, or subscribe to remove the ads. Most places force one option or the other.

    23. Re:Apple Knows This by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      Telecoms in the US depreciate their outdoor plant over 15-25 years, and a lot of the cable companies laid their HFC infrastructures out in the late 1990's or early 2000's, so in another 5-10 years they should be able to simplify their networks without incurring too much additional cost.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  3. back to piracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    time to give those 12TB disk a shot and upgrade to gigabit internet!

    1. Re:back to piracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raise the Bandwidth!

      Spin up the drives!

      Hoist the Jolly Napster!

      There be Content ripe for the plucking on the high bitstreams!

    2. Re:back to piracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep P-I-A-C-Y! Oops, forgot the ARRRR!

    3. Re:back to piracy! by jythie · · Score: 2

      I think something streaming services are slowly figuring out is that piracy was never really about the cost, but the convenience. It wasn't just a cheaper product, but a superior one.

    4. Re:back to piracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why people want to move off piracy onto streaming anyway. I hate the idea that streaming services are constantly removing shows and movies I watch; and do all of them even have offline viewing yet? Not that you can device-shift them if they do. It's not even about the money; maintaining my own personal library isn't exactly free-- I have about 350 movies, about a dozen in 4K, the rest 1080p, and 102 full TV series, only 4 in 4K but even 1080p adds up fast; I always keep the highest quality available. All told, it's 20TB. That's a lot of storage to buy, then I keep my system powered 24/7 so others in the household can access the content. Then there's the value of the time spent acquiring and managing all that. But it's all worth it to never have a 3rd party determine what media I payed to have access to will be taken away this month, and never have to worry about the internet being up, etc.

  4. Amazon streaming has sublet too many movies by magarity · · Score: 2

    57 percent of consumers said it frustrates them when shows and movies disappear from their streaming libraries.

    No kidding; Amazon has taken to moving off a lot of both shows and movies to linked providers so now one would need to pony up extra $$ for five or six other services to get the same old selections.

    1. Re:Amazon streaming has sublet too many movies by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I have this sneaking suspicion that Amazon eyes closely what people enjoy watching, then take it off prime when they suddenly and miraculously just so happen to offer a DVD collection of that show as a new item.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Amazon streaming has sublet too many movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you're an old man who still thinks people give a shit about DVDs.

      Amazon removes shows for licensing costs, not to milk time travelers like you.

  5. Aggregator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    What we need is a subscription service, that manages your subscription services.

    For a small monthly fee, you can pay for small monthly fees, and have an easy way to manage all those subscriptions, for just a small monthly fee.

    1. Re:Aggregator by fibonacci8 · · Score: 3, Funny

      We could even give it a name that describes the procedure, and indicates what has traditionally happened when that power is granted to others. "Bundling".

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    2. Re:Aggregator by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      What we need is a subscription service, that manages your subscription services.

      Even better, you need a couple of them.

    3. Re:Aggregator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be called "Bundlr"

  6. How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't see where frustration is coming from, as these days it's so easy to start and stop subscriptions.

    I have Netflix regularly, and Amazon Prime mostly for shipping but do use video also. Beyond that though, I just join in and then drop different services depending on what I want to see - so I subscribe to HBO when Game of Thrones is on, dropping it after (and also catching up on a few other shows they have while I'm there). I subscribed to CBS fo ra little while to watch Star Trek Discovery, then dropped it when I had seen enough.

    This is the golden age of subscription. I don't care how many different streaming options there are, as long as I can take them or leave them when I see fit - so much better than cable ever was.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  7. This is fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rememeber when every website wanted to be a "portal"? Well, everyone wants to be a "platform" now. Gotta sign up and pay, too. For all of them. So this is just stupid and they coulda seen that one coming right from the start. Back in the napster times.

    In fact, that race was more or less won when apple strongarmed the idiot entertainment mafia to give in and open up the music for streaming. One thing for tracks, another for streaming. Cool. Ten different things for streaming? No go. They had their chance, they'd been told time and again, and they didn't want to listen. No sympathy from me, idiots.

  8. It's not the choice that "fatigues" by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's the ever changing offer. Today you have Series A on Streaming Service A. Tomorrow, on Service B. Then it vanishes entirely. Only to resurface on C next week. Maybe. And heaven forbid you want to see more than one show. Because one thing you can be almost certain of: It is on another streaming service. Or will be. Or will no longer be once you subscribed to that other service for exactly this one show, but now you're tied to it for a year.

    Especially that last bit gets people pissed. Streaming services could be a killer for torrents if, and only if, they become at least halfway reliable. Else, torrents are simply less hassle.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:It's not the choice that "fatigues" by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why I still buy movies and sometimes TV shows that I enjoy on physical discs. If it's something I might enjoy rewatching later, or a long-running show where I want to make sure I can watch the whole thing, it doesn't work out significantly more expensive given how much I typically watch on the likes of Netflix.

      The frustrating thing is that because of the emphasis on streaming and rental models these days, it's much harder to buy a lot of things on disc than it used to be, You can find that seasons 1 and 2 are out on disc, but season 3 isn't, and season 4 is but only on US import that doesn't quite work right here in the UK. Then because Amazon won and killed off all the competition, and right now it doesn't have season 2 on sale, you get stuck anyway.

      I miss the old days, when there were actual bricks 'n' mortar shops like Silver Screen, where you could go in and buy most moderately popular films and shows from at least the past decade or two and the classics right off the shelf, and they knew how to get hold of just about anything else if you wanted to order it for collection later. What we have with modern technology should have been better, but as usual the money-grabbing media companies have spoiled it by trying to lock everything up and squeeze out a tiny bit more profit.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:It's not the choice that "fatigues" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even crazier is things are available in different geo regions. Season 3 of a show we were watching is on Netflix in Mexico, but not the US. So it was cool when we were in Mexico but now we are waiting in the US. (yeah yeah, could get around this, but that's even more frustrating. May as well just pirate at that point)

    3. Re: It's not the choice that "fatigues" by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Nothing ever beats "free".

      The only thing that kills torrents is aggressive prosecution and snooping without warrants on people who upload a lot.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    4. Re: It's not the choice that "fatigues" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nothing ever beats "free".

      Convenience does. People are very willing to pay for getting their stuff easily, painlessly and without having to tinker and toy. Steam is a good example for it, it's easy to use, painless, works well and delivers what people want.

      The only thing that kills torrents is aggressive prosecution and snooping without warrants on people who upload a lot.

      Really? Odd. I thought that's pretty much what has been done the past decades, and with, let's be generous, limited success.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. But businesses still think ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nearly half of those surveyed, at 47 percent, said they are frustrated by the growing number of subscriptions and services to watch their shows

    For some reason in the last few decades, businesses have lost touch with reality in terms of business models -- they think they can grow at 10% forever, or that we will just keep spending more and more money.

    When I got Netflix, it wasn't long before I decided that I wasn't using cable TV anymore, and that it wasn't really value for money.

    But I'm not prepared to get a bunch of streaming services because I want specific shows -- it shows up on Netflix, or it doesn't ... and if it's a movie I may buy it on BluRay, or I won't.

    If it doesn't show up on Netflix, or I'm not willing to buy the film on disc ... it simply doesn't exist to me.

    I'm not spending additional money to watch Game of Survivor Brother Thrones season 76.

    The problem is these companies don't seem to grasp that if we need subscriptions for everything we want to watch, eventually we have more subscriptions than we can manage or afford.

    At this point, any new streaming subscription service holds no interest, because I don't care about any specific entertainment enough to pay for another subscription.

    At a certain point, people will just decide on the minimum they can live with ... and if they're not watching that hot new show everyone is watching, then tough. This might be a shock to the system for people who feel entitled to every bit of content, but unless you're willing to pay for a half a dozen subscriptions, you pretty much have to decide what you're willing to spend.

  10. Not Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Pirate Bay and friends are still the way to go.
    (I would pay for HBO if I could a la carte.)

  11. A universal service will be invented by pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because copyright fascists are too cucked to do it themselves. See also epic store.

    captcha:Rectify

  12. Sets in? by chispito · · Score: 1

    Was there ever a time when people were likely to subscribe to more than a handful of streaming services? My wife and I were just talking about this this morning. We would love to watch Cobra Kai but have no interest in signing up for anything, not even a free trial. Same with Star Trek Discovery.

    It might be easier for us to avoid FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) because we are not cord-cutters.

    We never had cable to begin with.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:Sets in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Trek Discovery is broadcast on the Space channel in Canada. Not sure how that deal was worked out. Isn't the first season on Netflix now?

    2. Re:Sets in? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Star Trek Discovery is broadcast on the Space channel in Canada. Not sure how that deal was worked out. Isn't the first season on Netflix now?

      Not in the US. In the US the only way to get Star Trek is via CBS's "All Access"- but who wants to pay an extra $5 a month just for one show?

      In other countries it is available on Netflix (and as a result gets a larger market share of eyes). Only in the US is the consumer blocked from watching it.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Sets in? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's not on Netflix Canada yet.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  13. We knew this was coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once someone sniffs "profit", everyone has to try to cash in, completely destroying the things that made the original profitable in the first place. Might as well get cable again.

    I've found that Prime & my dvd/bluray collection is all I need.

    Now, back to The Waterboy.

  14. Too much entertainment by DogDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Jesus Christ, people, quit watching videos and do something with your lives. If you don't have enough time to watch everything, then the problem isn't what you think it is. Put down the fucking phone/tablet/computer and do something useful. It's much more satisfying.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Too much entertainment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have some sympathy for the people that can't afford to travel to the places they see on the Travel Channel.

    2. Re:Too much entertainment by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      It's not that they don't have enough time to watch everything. It's that they perceive new services as merely further division of a single repository of content. So the objection is to the part about how by the time they've subscribed to enough of them to be able to watch everything, they might as well have just subscribed to DirecTV.

    3. Re:Too much entertainment by Bradac_55 · · Score: 5, Funny

      A /. commenter telling others to go do something real? Pot met Kettle ...

  15. BitTorrent still the best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subscription and login free since 2001

  16. Netflix plus Prime plus Other by ardmhacha · · Score: 1

    If you try to recreate a cable package through multiple streaming services it will end up costing just as much

    As recent cord-cutters
    We already had Amazon Prime for free delivery etc. and will keep it
    We have a Netflix subscription which we will keep.
    We have an antenna and DVR for over the air broadcasts (Networks/PBS/Spanish stations for soccer games with Spanish commentary)

    Then we will probably just have one other active service at a time.
    At the moment it is HBO through Amazon (we are binge watching Game of Thrones and Veep to catchup) and we will probably get rid of it and switch to something else.
    eg we might go with Hulu and binge watch a few series from them and then move on to something else

    An area where this falls down a little is if there are multiple shows on different providers that are still producing new shows and which you "must" watch as they are first aired, at the moment that is not an issue for us.

    Also a lot of live sport is spread over multiple different cable stations so attempting to get them all would be expensive.

    1. Re:Netflix plus Prime plus Other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do us all a favor and stop calling yourself cord cutters when you are clearly connected to all sorts of shit.

  17. "Consumers" have finally hit the limit... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ... of how many corporate hands they want in their bank accounts every month.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  18. They'd have to pay ME... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... to watch that brainwashing propaganda bullshit that they call movies/TV series these days. Was always the case, but much less retarded back in the day. Now they are really in permanent Full Retard mode.

    1. Re:They'd have to pay ME... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you'd have to pay ME to read such an edgy post! oh wait...

  19. We want the 1, not the 3, 7 and 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
    Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
    Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
    One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
    In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
    One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
    One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them,
    In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

    But without the "Dark Lord" and "in the darkness bind them" bits.

    One service. One flat monthly fee. No ads. Watch whatever the hell you want whenever you want. Not the increasingly fractured streaming mess that things have turned into.

    1. Re:We want the 1, not the 3, 7 and 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are describing is a VPN subscription plus Pirate Bay.

  20. glad I have an alternative to Netflix ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After what they end up teaching children at the end of season 2 of The Dragon Prince, I'm so glad I can switch to Disney+

    This is the last thing that should be made into a government utility. Would you rather watch Netflix or the BBC?

    1. Re:glad I have an alternative to Netflix ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BBC without a doubt.

  21. I'm not sure who said it... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...but commerce is natural across humans. If governments (or in this case the stupid companies themselves) try to constrain commerce in unnatural ways, a black market is a certainty.

    In re all the flippin streaming services specifically?
    If you decide to leave the commons and hide your products in pay-to-enter walled gardens, we're going to find out two things:
    1) how good your security is, because ultimate someone's just going to break in and steal it, or
    2) your shit isn't worth the trouble.

    --
    -Styopa
  22. Welcome to the new cable-TV. by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 4, Funny

    Same as the told cable-TV.
    You need to subscribe to multiple providers(packages) to get the few of shows you really want to watch, and the remainder is like the old cable cliche of "500 channels and nothing good is on." How many mediocre shows that take place in some dystopian future do we need?

    Smart money will bet that in a year or two, these providers will begin to divide their offerings into basic & premium content.

    1. Re:Welcome to the new cable-TV. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the average video consumer subscribes to three video streaming services

      I subscribe to three video streaming services, Netflix because I want it, Amazon for shipping, and Xfinity because Comcast gives me no choice but to pay a "broadcast fee" and I can't get Netflix without Comcast's Internet service.

    2. Re:Welcome to the new cable-TV. by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

      No smart money is on these content providers constricting via corporate buy outs. DTVN (AT&T) plays a long game especially with the Fox merger. Not sure where Disney will end up :: content provider vs content creator but they will have a large part of both pie's.

      The smaller non Neftlix/Hulu/Prime/Google providers will not exist in 2 to 5 years and then we will get something similar to one stop ala-carte model we want as the content contracts merge together like cable did in the 80's & 90's.

    3. Re:Welcome to the new cable-TV. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No smart money is on these content providers constricting via corporate buy outs.

      Dumbass, that is exactly what will lead to tiered services!

  23. Make up your minds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, when cable companies bundled up a bunch of channels and services, consumers got peeved about it and demanded "a-la-carte" services, so they could pick and choose the channel(s) they want.

    Now, we have all these individualized channels and services to pick from, you'd figured it would be a consumer's dream-come-true? No! Now we are getting arguments to go back to bundling and "one-stop-service".

    Make up your minds people! /rant

    1. Re:Make up your minds! by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      They are still bundled in a manner that does not easily make sense to the customer.

      When consumers say they want a la carte, they literally want to buy one movie or one season of a TV show or Sunday NFL games this year. A la carte.

  24. The old way was actually better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am personally adamantly against the subscription model. You are basically a renter of content, and the amount of content you are renting is completely at the discretion of the content provider. It incentivizes the gradual splitting up of content into ever smaller "bundles," each with its own access fee, which can, will, and does increase over time. Meanwhile in exchange for your monthly fee all you get is "access." Transitory, intangible, worthless. And as this article points out, now you already have to subscribe to three or four to get the shows you actually want, which gets expensive. They are gradually tipping the ROI scale as far in their direction as they can. I'd much rather stick with paying a flat fee to purchase media which I then own outright and can watch whenever I choose from then on. Of course, I'm a project guy; when I watch ANYTHING, it's usually a how-to video on Youtube in the middle of building or fixing something, so I could care less about media anyway.

  25. A la carte by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But they're growing frustrated over just how many options they have.

    No, what these people are complaining about is that nobody has been able to deliver on a reasonably priced one- or two-stop a la carte experience for viewing content they care about. And they're placing the blame squarely where it belongs - on subscription services basing their model on producing "you can only find this show on this service" content to try to lock in their piece of the pie.

    I don't have to subscribe to a video game service if I want to play the newest video game. I can just buy whatever game interests me.
    I don't have to subscribe to a musical venue service if I want to go to the newest concert. I can just buy a ticket to the concert that interests me.
    I don't have to subscribe to a movie ticket service if I want to go to the newest movie. I can just buy a ticket for whatever movie interests me.

    What is so special about TV shows that intrinsically requires a subscription to a service offering many different shows when all I wanted was to follow the newest episodes of one or a few?

    Keep in mind that after having said all that, streaming is still an improvement over cable.

    1. Re:A la carte by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      You CAN buy most TV shows a la carte. Apple, Google, Vudu, Amazon all carry shows you can buy digitally. You can also get most on DVD or Blu-ray (many with digital copies that end up costing less than just buying digital). Even some Netflix shows are on physical media (Marvel shows and Stranger Things for example).

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:A la carte by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

      "I don't have to subscribe to a video game service if I want to play the newest video game. I can just buy whatever game interests me."

      Heh, not much of a gamer are you ? Look up "Battle Pass" and get back to us on the similarities.

      I'll agree on the other two.

    3. Re:A la carte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You CAN buy most TV shows a la carte. Apple, Google, Vudu, Amazon all carry shows you can buy digitally.

      That's not buying, that's renting. They tell you it's buying, but it's either DRM-encumbered or player-restricted and can be taken away from you any time they feel like it. If you can't sell it or give it away, you haven't bought it.

      Netflix is all well and good until they drop stuff you want to watch from their catalog. And good luck trying to watch much of the Netflix library is you happen to be outside the US. I assume the same is true of the other services.

      You can also get most on DVD or Blu-ray...

      True, but there are issues with that. First, when they do eventually release the DVDs/BDs, most of the time you're stuck waiting a half-year a more after airing finishes before you can get your hands on the discs. Sometimes it's many years. (Look at how long it took to get shows like WKRP or the 1990s The Flash on DVD.) In a few cases, especially if something isn't a bug success, it's never. (I'm not holding my breath on seeing Powerless released on DVD anytime soon.)

      Second, distribution is often regionally restricted. I've had to resort to a Danish release to buy a copy of an American TV series I wanted to see; a British release of a Canadian TV series; a British release of a Canadian/South African TV series. Some 3D movies are impossible to buy in North America. (Thanks a lot, Disney and, now, with the Spider-Verse, Sony.)

    4. Re:A la carte by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 1

      There's also the changes made from the broadcast version to the one which is sold, particularly in the music choices.

    5. Re:A la carte by flippy · · Score: 1

      It is buying, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they advertise it as buying. When and if (and I've only heard of one instance where it's happened, at least with Apple / iTunes store) they remove it, I'll be filing a small-claims suit for false advertising.

      Yes, a season of a TV show on the iTunes store can be pricey, sometimes more than a monthly subscription to a streaming service, but it is "pay once".

      As far as the "Netflix is all well and good" comment, that's at least as much renting as anything else.

      I fully agree with others here in saying that what consumers really want is one bill from one company, not 6 or 7 bills from 6 or 7 companies. Apple and others did it with music (one bill from iTunes/Spotify/Pandora - whichever you prefer) and you have access to basically all of the major labels' music and more. There's no technical reason it can't work for video as well. It's just a matter of terms between the companies. Everyone thought it was going to be impossible to get all the music companies to agree to reasonable terms, but that happened.

    6. Re:A la carte by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      There's also the changes made from the broadcast version to the one which is sold, particularly in the music choices.

      This happened in the past due to licenses and the contracts at the time not covering streaming and home media (since neither really existed at the time). It's pretty rare for current shows to have to alter music anymore since they write the contracts with streaming and home media rights in them now.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    7. Re:A la carte by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      I don't have to subscribe to a video game service if I want to play the newest video game. I can just buy whatever game interests me.
      I don't have to subscribe to a musical venue service if I want to go to the newest concert. I can just buy a ticket to the concert that interests me.
      I don't have to subscribe to a movie ticket service if I want to go to the newest movie. I can just buy a ticket for whatever movie interests me.

      Neither of those examples are "buying" either. The person I replied to is obviously OK with that.

      And yes, even games, it's almost impossible to buy physical copies of games not tied to Steam or another always-on DRM. Your only choice is GOG or related DRM free vendors, but their selection is a tiny sliver of the overall available games on PC. Console single player games are about the only ones still buyable and playable without relying on a internet DRM or game server, and even those have a set lifespan of the console itself.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  26. Re:Ala carte cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    we got what we wished for.

    No we didn't. What we wanted was to have one bill, not ten.

    And before you try to claim otherwise, that is not an argument about pricing, which is why I omitted the "You can make good arguments about pricing" part of your post. An argument about pricing would be "I am paying too much". "I am paying too many entities" is not an argument about pricing.

  27. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

    Sure, but you still need a cable bill worth of streaming services to get most of the content out there.

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
  28. OTT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I the only person here who has no idea what OTT means?

    1. Re:OTT? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Am I the only person here who has no idea what OTT means?

      Neither the summary nor TFA defines the what OTT means. According to Google it means "Over The Top", and refers to a box that sits on top of a TV set-top box to give additional services and content. But since services like YouTube Premium don't actually involve any physical device, the term has become disconnected from its origin.

    2. Re:OTT? by TaDaDa · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I worked at a TV station like my father before me, and still had no idea.

    3. Re:OTT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm

      OTT is "over the top" but long predates set-top boxes and refers to anything excessive beyond reason.

  29. Re:Ala carte cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ala carte 'channels' maybe sort-of but I'll move the goal post and say it's not true ala carte of selecting only the set of shows I might find interesting in one location. Right now it's like going to a cafeteria craving mashed potatoes and gravy but it's only offered with overcooked brussels sprouts pre-mixed into the mashed potatoes.

  30. Can't find stuff by Moof123 · · Score: 1

    All options are full of crap. Tons of crap. Sure there are a couple semi-recent movies, but that is about it. Most of it is not worth watching, which is exactly why they can buy tons of hours of stuff for dirt cheap.
    Very frustrating is that there is no good indexing service I have found to tell which of our 3 subscriptions might have it. WTF?
    Want to go back and watch a good show again after giving up finding anything new in despair? Too bad, it disappeared.

  31. And the consequence is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... a resurgence of torrenting.

  32. Too many options, not enough good content by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    I do this: Each month, try a new subscription and cancel an old one.

    After a year, pick one to have permanently, and try the others again.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  33. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by EvilSS · · Score: 2

    Sure, but you still need a cable bill worth of streaming services to get most of the content out there.

    No, you don't. I keep Hulu, Netflix, and Prime (and that's more for shipping than video) year round. If a show I want to watch comes on HBO, Shotime, Starz, CBS, whatever, I'll sub for a month, watch the show, and un-sub. Most people don't need every service every month of the year.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  34. Re:Ala carte cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For years, people screamed they wanted cable ala carte, they wanted to pick and choose what channels they get and now that future is here. This is the future we wanted. You can make good arguments about pricing but we got what we wished for.

    No we bloody did not. What we got was a bill for each channel form a different company with different policies, terms, and conditions, with each and every one trying to gobble up as much of our public and private information as possible to sell off at a profit.

    What we wanted was one bill from one company and to not pay for what we do not use. Now we have many bills and pay to be used!

  35. OTT = Over The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Which is a term for direct to internet content services. Had to look it up. If it's not a widely known acronym, it should be spelled out in the title or summary.

    1. Re:OTT = Over The Top by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Even spelled out it isn’t all that clear.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:OTT = Over The Top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but the fact that it's been in use for years helps clarify it for many.

  36. Re: Ala carte cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Touché maybe if they sold and priced the different dishes separately they'd make more money and have happier customers. Now just do something about the cold food and the constant push to sign up for the cafeteria payment card.

  37. And this is why by wwphx · · Score: 1

    I buy one or two new DVDs/Blu-Rays a month and used ones whenever my fancy is struck. They are my physical disc and shall remain mine. Last year went through the trouble of registering them all through Ultraviolet and all the other streaming services, only to receive an email from Ultraviolet that they're shutting down and all that is going away.

    One of these days I'll buy a little storage network and rip my library, but I'll keep the discs - gotta figure out a backup strategy. Meanwhile, I'll keep my Amazon Prime and Netflix subscriptions and pay for HBO when John Oliver is in-season. But Disney and CBS and all these boutique streaming services will never get a dime from me. I found just how shallow the streaming pool was when I went looking for certain obscure movies (The Return of the Tall Blonde Man With One Black Shoe anyone? Bueller?) and with the death of Criterion's service, that's it. Amazon and Netflix plus HBO occasionally does me quite well - I don't need more TV viewing.

    --
    When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    1. Re:And this is why by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

      Sweet Baby Jesus and I thought I was old ... spinning disks in 2019!

    2. Re:And this is why by wwphx · · Score: 1

      Well, I did install an electric starter in my car so my wife doesn't have to turn that handle of a mornin'. :-)

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  38. Re:Ala carte cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is not à la carte. À la carte would be still using the cable provider, but picking and choosing what channels you get from that provider rather than having to pay for bundles of channels of shit you don't want. Instead, what we've ended up with as an alternative to the "cable co" is having to subscribe to umteen different streaming services and pay umteen different bills every month. This is neither what we wanted nor asked for.

    And the blame falls on the content owners. It's the content owners that force the cable co to bundle a bunch of shit channels with 1 good channel. It's the content owners that are popping up their own subscription streaming services and muddying the stream. It's the content owners - Discovery, Disney, CBS, etc. - that are fucking us all the same, whether it's via bundled channels through the cable co or by forcing us to subscribe to multiple streaming services to get the things we want.

  39. Re:Ala carte cable by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    This is completely true, but it calls to mind the old saying about the grass being greener on the other side. This makes me think that there's a more ideal solution somewhere out there, but until then we'll just repeat the cycle between consolidation and segmentation of service.

  40. And this is why piracy exists. by Strider- · · Score: 2

    And these content providers wonder why piracy still exists. I'm sorry, but a person shouldn't have to subscribe to more than one or two streaming services to get the content they want. Any more than that is a market failure. It's far too easy to just toss the wanted series or movie into Sonarr or Radarr, and magically have it appear in your library. The best part of this is that it will never disappear from your library when a licensing deal expires.

    What we need in the video world is mandatory, non-discriminatory licensing for content, similar to what exists in music. Netflix should be able to provide whatever they want, and just pay the same licensing fee as everyone else. Same thing goes for Netflix produced content.

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    1. Re:And this is why piracy exists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but a person shouldn't have to subscribe to more than one or two streaming services to get the content they want.

      Interesting that you mention sonarr and radarr. I subscribe to three different NNTP providers and over half a dozen indexers. What's so bad about that? Are you really getting by with just one of each?

      Ok, if it were a few dozen things that I had to renew each month, sure, that would simply be a lot of work (hmm.. sounds like a job for a computer!). But if I didn't have to remember and instead it was just something I did whenever I acquired a new show, I wouldn't have a problem with that. It's not any different than looking up some hardware on a few online stores and then buying whoever has it cheapest. Why does the number of stores need to be so few? How does trimming that down really help you?

      Each weekend I probably hit 3 or 4 different brick'n'mortar stores for various supplies, groceries, etc. Not only is it not really all that hard, but I think I'm getting better stuff than people who insist on one-stop-shopping so therefore they're stuck with Walmart being their only option.

      Apple TV is going to become the Walmart in the above sentence. My standards are way higher than that, but I can't believe that makes me a snob. It's way too easy and cheap for that.

      What we need in the video world is mandatory, non-discriminatory licensing for content, similar to what exists in music. Netflix should be able to provide whatever they want, and just pay the same licensing fee as everyone else. Same thing goes for Netflix produced content.

      That would be great, but if we had that, then who needs Netflix? End-users could just pay the licensing fees themselves, without some middleman "programming manager" deciding what shows their customers want. The customers can do that.

    2. Re:And this is why piracy exists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that you mention sonarr and radarr. I subscribe to three different NNTP providers and over half a dozen indexers. What's so bad about that? Are you really getting by with just one of each?

      Why would you shell out for NNTP access when you can get private torrent tracker access for free and use Jackett to hook into Sonarr and Radarr?

  41. Shitty UI, too by dristoph · · Score: 1

    A big problem I have with streaming service silos is they each present their own (bad) UI and search space. So if there's a show I want to watch, it's quite difficult to figure out which of the services will have it other than to go to each Roku app, find its search screen, type in the query one letter at a time into the on-screen keyboard, find out the show isn't there, and repeat until I've exhausted all my options and, maybe, resort to just finding a torrent and having it in less time than that just took.

    You can search the web but "which streaming service is show X on" is a surprisingly difficult query. At one point I investigated starting a website that automatically cataloged this information. Turns out these services tend not to have a usable API, and also tend to go out of their way to make screen scraping difficult as well.

    Starts to make possessing your own digital media library more appealing, not just to avoid the silos, but to have a sane user experience.

    1. Re:Shitty UI, too by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      You can search the web but "which streaming service is show X on" is a surprisingly difficult query.

      It gets even worse if you don't live in the US, because the selections are different.

    2. Re:Shitty UI, too by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Roku devices will let you control the device with a smart phone or tabley app, which can use an on screen keyboard for searching. But even that is a PITA, I agree. I always do my searching for content and list management on a computer, then us the TV just to watch it. What's amazing to me though is that even on the computer Amazon's UI is such a useless piece of crap.

  42. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Expect to incur "cancellation penalties".

    Want to watch the newest episode?, you need to back-date your subscription to ep 1.

    just like the "disney vault", the streaming vault, will have more content for people who stay longer.

  43. Most of the TV channels are doing it right by Solandri · · Score: 1

    For most of the TV channels, if you subscribe to a service which offers the channel, you can login directly to that channel's site and stream their content. The movie studios need to set up a similar system, where if a service you subscribe to carries a movie, then they will stream it to you after confirming your subscription.

    What we need now is some master app which coordinates all this. Right now if you try to stream like this directly from all the channels, you'll have to go through a login procedure for each channel, where they redirect you to your subscription service and you have to login. You have to repeat this every few months. What's needed is something which automates this step, automatically verifying your subscription whenever you try to access a channel's stream. That would make the entire procedure seamless and transparent.

    The only remaining troublesome feature would then be compiling a list of which channels each subscription service gives you, so you can compare them and decide which ones to subscribe to. For some reason they don't make it easy to compare channel offerings. I've had to get channel lists from news websites, and those lists rapidly go out of date as channels are added or removed. If each service would just offer their current channel list in xml format on their website, it'd be trivial to create a website which automatically compares them. You could pre-select which channels were must-have, might-watch, and never-watch, and the website could figure out which single service was best for you, or which multiple services gave you what you wanted with fewest subscriptions, or for lowest subscription price.

  44. OTT? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    I would hate to think that the real OTT were to come to an end.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  45. Subscription Fail by Humbubba · · Score: 1

    "...57 percent of consumers said it frustrates them when shows and movies disappear from their streaming libraries."

    All too true. Netflix dropped the stuff I really wanted to watch. So I dropped them.

    1. Re:Subscription Fail by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Netflix dropped the stuff I really wanted to watch. So I dropped them.

      They even drop stuff partially. For some TV show that I wanted to watch, they still offer season 2 and further, but withdrew season 1. It boggles the mind why anyone would think that's a good idea.

  46. Hoovering up 'cord cutters' money by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    You all thought 'cutting the cord' was going to save you money and get you what you want and only what you want? Look again: how many of you have to now get multiple subscriptions to multiple 'streaming services' to get all the entertainment you want? How close is that to what your cable bill was? Oh and don't forget to factor in how much your internet costs, too, counting your wireless bill if you use that as well. Is it now equal to or over what your cable bill was? If so then congratulations, you fell for it all hook line and sinker. Sucker!

    1. Re:Hoovering up 'cord cutters' money by tsqr · · Score: 1

      U-verse U-400 service, $200+. Netflix, $12; Hulu, $12; Amazon Prime, $10; ISP, $50. So, cable = $200; streaming = $84. That leaves quite a bit of margin for intermittent, short-term subscriptions to other streaming services when something interesting pops up. And of course, the cost of Amazon Prime covers more than their streaming service; we save more in shipping costs than the cost of the Prime subscription.

      While it's true that there are a few shows that are available through U-verse that aren't available through our streaming selections, there are many shows through the streaming services that aren't available through U-verse, so it's pretty much a wash in that respect. Plus, we aren't sportsball fans, so that's not even an issue.

      Any other questions?

    2. Re:Hoovering up 'cord cutters' money by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      You all thought 'cutting the cord' was going to save you money and get you what you want and only what you want?

      Depends. As the article says, most people only use a couple of streamers. We only have 2 subscriptions at our house, and it's still less than half the price of cable, while it offers more entertainment that I'm interested in. The beauty of entertainment is that it is interchangeable. I don't have to watch a particular movie if I can watch something equally entertaining instead.

    3. Re:Hoovering up 'cord cutters' money by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Why would ones internet connection be factored into the cost? This being the day and age it is, I imagine most of those we typically think of as cord cutters already had broadband connections when they switched off cable.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    4. Re:Hoovering up 'cord cutters' money by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Why factor in internet cost? Because I have an antenna on my roof that's a one-time expense. I pay zero to watch TV. Sure, I don't care about what's only on streaming but you MUST have internet to use streaming so you have to consider the cost.

    5. Re:Hoovering up 'cord cutters' money by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Consider this: since when does anything, over time, cost *less*? It doesn't. All these 'streaming' services will over time cost more and more. Bet you cash money sooner than you like they'll all cost rivalling cable TV. Why? Because they can.

    6. Re:Hoovering up 'cord cutters' money by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

      Cord cutting was never about saving vast amounts of money. Yes there is an element of that but it's more about getting what you want without the extra shit you do not want. There's always cheap-ass idiots that scream the loudest about the bill but that's not the core issue.

      I pay for two services, get one for free and spot pay for a service every few months that I want to see a full season of something on ::

      DTVN = $40.00 - Grandfathered Go Big plan (starting next month it goes to $50, still well worth it for the channel selection).
      Netflix = $10.99 - Standard account.
      Hulu = $00.00 - Limited adds free from Sprint.

      That's $50.99 (this month) compared to AT&T 430's $130 cable plan we used to have that didn't include HBO which was $15.00.

      I also get HBO from DTVN for $5.00 a month only on the month they have something we want to watch a full season or Starz for $11 when the next American Gods season hits. I paid for a month of DCUniverse ($7.99) to watch the new Young Justice and Teen Titan seasons and then canceled it.

      Now if DTVN raises HBO to $15.00 like everyone else then I'll change to a different service but even that wouldn't be as bad as 430 channels and only 5 or 6 actually watched.

    7. Re:Hoovering up 'cord cutters' money by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

      Jesus you people must be old.

    8. Re:Hoovering up 'cord cutters' money by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Sure, I don't care about what's only on streaming but you MUST have internet to use streaming so you have to consider the cost."

      No you really don't. If you had the same internet connection both before and after cutting the cord then it would be completely incorrect to include unless you included the internet bill into your prior cable costs as well. In other words, the necessity of having a broadband internet connection to watch streaming content is irrelevant in this context because it is typically a cost that was already being payed before cutting the cord.

      Also, I have no idea what you personally having an antenna has to do with this conversation at all.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    9. Re:Hoovering up 'cord cutters' money by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Shut up.

    10. Re:Hoovering up 'cord cutters' money by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I bring an antenna into this because too many of you seem to think that you have to have cable or satellite or streaming or anything you have to pay for, and ignore OTA broadcast television. Just because it's not from Netflix or Amazon or whoever doesn't mean it's not worth watching, and there's no reason you still can't have some 'streaming' service subscription if you want it, too. Antenna+TiVo=more than I have time to watch, usually. More people do this than you apparently believe.

    11. Re:Hoovering up 'cord cutters' money by skam240 · · Score: 0

      So after you said "Why factor in internet cost?" you then followed that up with something that had nothing to do with factoring in internet costs. Got it.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  47. Easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no streaming services. I go outside and hike, go to bars and meet people, and other forms of entertainment that give me far more bang per buck than Hollywood tripe.

    1. Re:Easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " that give me far more bang per buck"

      I'd love to know what bar you can go to and not drink a year's Netflix away in one night. :D

  48. Fundamental disconnect by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    Consumers are willing to pay for a streaming service and we don't mind there being 10-20 streaming services but all of them need to have all the premium content included and for it to stay. Nobody cares about the non-premium content at all. So content makers, stop splitting off your own streaming services and stop selling exclusive access. Let consumers have their cake and eat it to and race these guys to the bottom and make up the difference by making them all pay for content all the time instead of one at a time.

    Instead of charging per piece of content charge by first view and second view from a given unique household. Second view carries the highest premium because that means something was worth watching again. Beyond second view who cares? That or charge for simultaneous streams but it is harder to spread the royalties out that way. As for advertising subsidized movies and tv, let that go the way of dodo.

  49. Why? It doesn't work like that today by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Expect to incur "cancellation penalties".

    Why should I expect that , when absolutely zero streaming services do that today.

    Want to watch the newest episode?, you need to back-date your subscription to ep 1.

    Again I refer you to my previous statement regarding absolutely no streaming services working like that.

    just like the "disney vault", the streaming vault, will have more content for people who stay longer.

    No services work like that and at this point any one that tried would go down in flames.

    Now what I CAN see Disney doing, is saying some movies are only available at some time during the year... but that would be for everyone.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  50. Get an AppleTV by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I don't want to sign up with a bunch of different places and have to maintain multiple accounts, deal with multiple renewal periods/expirations, have my credit card info scattered all over the place, etc.

    That's the beauty of using an AppleTV for this, today.

    A few services (notably Amazon and Netflix) you still need to sign up for separately.

    But pretty much everything else, you can subscribe to content in an app using in-app purchase on AppleTV.

    That means none of those companies have any info on you beyond account creation. They do not have your credit card. They do not manage subscriptions - you do through the Apple subscriptions management screen on the AppleTV. You can even subscribe, cancel any time in the month and still keep using the service until the expiration of the month subscription, so you don't forget to unsubscribe.

    I have no idea what the Apple video service will offer beyond that but I am pretty dubious about signing up, because the way it works is already pretty good just subscribing and unsubscribing from apps. Its the ala-carte dream I always had about video content, and I'll be dammed if anyone can pull me out of this new video paradise.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Get an AppleTV by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what the Apple video service will offer beyond that but I am pretty dubious about signing up, because the way it works is already pretty good just subscribing and unsubscribing from apps. Its the ala-carte dream I always had about video content, and I'll be dammed if anyone can pull me out of this new video paradise.

      I suspect the Apple video service is what AppleTV has in a more generalized form. Right now you need an AppleTV to enjoy it. With a few more content providers and such, the new service could un-tie its dependency on AppleTV and work in a general sense.

      Apple is good at these things - they can see the whole subscription fatigue thing from a mile away and seek to work around it. Either by re-selling the subscriptions the Apple way and making it stupidly easy to subscribe and unsubscribe willy-nilly, or removing all the issues with subscribing to a million services.

      Remember Netflix complaining they want to do things their own way and not be a part of the Apple service.

  51. Re: Old People Love Physical Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the NEWSFLASH Grandpa!

  52. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    No, you don't. I keep Hulu, Netflix, and Prime (and that's more for shipping than video) year round.

    That's all I have, and honeslty it's more than I need. Prime we have because of the shipping otherwise wouldn't bother with it- it has the worst UI and worst selection. It's not worth getting Prime just for TV.

    That leaves Hulu and Netflix. The wife can't live without Netflix and the kids can't live without Hulu. I watch a few shows from both but could do without either. So both Hulu and Netflix stay for now to keep the family happy.

    Three streaming services is enough and where I'm stopping. I want to watch a couple of shows on CBS but I'm not going to pay extra for it- so screw All Access. I'd like to watch GOT but not paying extra for it- so screw HBO. Nothing I want to watch on Disney- it's just going to be a bunch of comic book crap and kids programs. Even if they get something I want- screw it, not paying extra.

    Streaming service fatigue- I don't need or want more- I'm certainly not going to pay for more.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  53. Re:Ala carte cable by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    For years, people screamed they wanted cable ala carte, they wanted to pick and choose what channels they get and now that future is here. This is the future we wanted. You can make good arguments about pricing but we got what we wished for.

    It's kinda like a la carte but instead of picking "the history channel" and "discovery channel" you get to pick between:

    "variety package 1", "variety package 2", and "variety package 3".

    If you just want documentaries, or history stuff, there's no way to pick just the type of shows you want- you can only pick from variety packages of which only 2 or 3 shows you're interested in in each bucket.

    No one wanted what we have now.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  54. or just torrent for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or just torrent for free, no one really cares if these cocksuckers go out of business

  55. Choose quality! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pay $60 a year to my local PBS station to have access to the archives on demand. I use iTunes to rent higher quality (foreign and independent; not Hollywood crap) films, I watch all the Colbert/Oliver/Meyer/Maher stuff on youtube for free, and I rent DVDs and Bluray discs from my local video shop! None of the streaming services can top this, really.

    The future is ad supported services like Pluto and premium services like HBO. If you agree with me on this point, then you will invest in TTD like I did.

  56. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    I don't see where frustration is coming from, as these days it's so easy to start and stop subscriptions.

    Yeah I know. Just yesterday I was thinking I wanted to a movie so I sat down at the TV, browsed through the library, fired up the website, cancelled my Netflix subscription, jumped on HBO subscribed, downloaded the app to the TV, made some popcorn and ... well at that point it was bed time. But it's okay in the morning I ... wasn't in the mood for a horror film so I opened up the website, cancelled my HBO subscription, jumped on the Netflix website ...

    Easy as pie. What a golden age we live in.

  57. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by lgw · · Score: 1

    I don't see where frustration is coming from, as these days it's so easy to start and stop subscriptions.

    I have Netflix regularly, and Amazon Prime mostly for shipping but do use video also. Beyond that though, I just join in and then drop different services depending on what I want to see - so I subscribe to HBO when Game of Thrones is on, dropping it after (and also catching up on a few other shows they have while I'm there). I subscribed to CBS fo ra little while to watch Star Trek Discovery, then dropped it when I had seen enough.

    Sorry, my torrent finished downloading halfway through reading that. I'm just not interested in the question of "which damn service hosts this thing I want to watch". Netflix used to have a lot of value to me, as I could browse it when I was bored and actually find something. That's fading. I was happy to pay one subscription, and let Netflix sort out the money between all the IP owners but that's the service I was paying for.

    There's just no way I'm going to try to figure out what's on a dozen different services and hope to stumble over something interesting. That' never going to be easier than torrents, or just finding something better to d than watch TV.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  58. Re:Why? It doesn't work like that today by lgw · · Score: 1

    No services work like that and at this point any one that tried would go down in flames.

    Disney. This sort of shit exactly fits their monetization mindset. Once they pull in all the Marvel movies, Star Wars, and Disney and Pixar movies into their own streaming service, expect them to work like that. It's the business model they've had for decades, after all.

    Whatever works to extract the most money from people (and especially from parents), that's what they'll do, no matter how annoying.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  59. What About "Content Fatigue"? by v1s10nary · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the bigger issue here is "content fatigue". We live in a day & age when the production model for all digital media (movies, music, video games, etc.) is quantity over quality. With streaming services now producing their own content (Netflix exclusives, Amazon Prime exclusives.... you get the picture), there is now this silent race to constantly push out as much exclusive media as possible. Give the new Disney streaming service a couple of months- I guarantee you that they too will have their own Disney exclusives that require a subscription to access (if they don't have these already...).

    Personally, I would rather consume quality content once in while than consume a constant flow of bullshit. Modern-day movies and TV shows use special effects to fill the gaps in their half-assed productions. I am a millennial, yet I still find myself enjoying classic movies from the 1970-2000 era more than the mass quantities of exclusive content that I get through Netflix and Amazon Prime.

    How about creating a streaming service that only offers top-rated productions, both modern and classic, as well as the occasional, well-directed exclusive movie? I would definitely subscribe to that.

    --
    "The cause of fear is ignorance."
  60. Re:Why? It doesn't work like that today by tepples · · Score: 1

    Expect to incur "cancellation penalties".

    Why should I expect that , when absolutely zero streaming services do that today.

    Amazon Prime gives a discount for annual billing compared to monthly billing.

  61. Fuck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I choose....none of them. Rather, there are plenty of free options out there instead. I'll watch a few fucking ads in exchange for 'free'. Fuck the subscription model...its not like the content is that great regardless.
    Whenever I have had Netflix or Hulu I still end up endlessly searching for something decent to watch after a week. Now its Tubi and Vudu mostly. Pluto is good for regular TV. Crackle still sucks....what a shitty fucking app lol.

  62. Taste the irony: Article is paywalled by tepples · · Score: 1

    The article about subscription fatigue is locked behind a subscription:

    Want to Read the Full Article?
    REGISTER NOW FOR FREE

    Access 5 free articles*
    every month on Adweek.com

    *Excludes premium content

    I tried to register, giving my email, a random 16-character string as a password, first name, last name, and country. But because I left the following fields blank, the "JOIN" button was grayed out.

    Company
    Job Title
    Business Type
    Job Function
    Job Level

    1. Re:Taste the irony: Article is paywalled by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Just do what I used to do for those kind of sites.... LIE

  63. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by lt.com.riker · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm over reading the emotion (though certainly there are others here who show it), but why get so angry about it?

    Do people feel left out of society because they can't access content that others are experiencing? I truly don't understand the direct vitriol of "having" to subscribe to multiple services.

    Personally, I hated bundled cable, and I like the choices of services now.

  64. Mod parent up. :) by Kludge · · Score: 1

    I wish I had mod points now.

  65. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see where frustration is coming from,

    Enjoy being dumb

  66. No Subscription Fatigue Here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no subscription fatigue, because I don't have any subscriptions. Instead, I try to do valuable things with my life.

    Here are ten great things to do as alternatives to wasting your life online:

    Volunteer at a Homeless Shelter / Soup Kitchen / Animal Shelter / Fire Dept / EMS Dept - they all are desperate for help

    Take senior citizens grocery shopping and help them with their doctors appointments

    Take your family on a hike / to the park / be outside (without phones)

    Volunteer at your local Awana Clubs

    Spend time getting to know your neighbors

    Deliver meals to the homebound

    Visit random people in the hospital

    Become a Guardian ad Litem

    Put a plant where the TV used to be .....
    Make Humanity Great Again

    1. Re:No Subscription Fatigue Here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God forbid anyone every relax and enjoy themselves rather than serving others 24/7.

      Go to work 8 or more hours a day, get paid. Do work for others the rest of time for nothing... why bother living if all you are doing is working?

    2. Re: No Subscription Fatigue Here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother living if you're not?

  67. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand either. My $0 subscription to youporn relieves my frustration, and they never delete my faves.

  68. Tolerance for 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a tolerance for 3:

    1. Netflix : always
    2. Amazon - since it comes with Prime
    3. Crunchyroll - since it's cheap

    Now:

    Disney: only subscribe for when the newest stuff is out, else, possible see it in the cinema, at matinee prices
    Hulu: Nope
    CBS: Possibly watch a season of Star Trek, cancel after
    HBO: Possibly watch a season of something, cancel after
    Roku: Nope - you already got my money, just shut up and aggregate the content.
    Youtube: It's free

    Netflix always gets money, the rest get the scraps, and will sugger from a growing/shrinking problem.

    They wanted stable revenues, they will not get it, in fact, the reverse.

    New Content: lots of subscribers
    1 Month In: Lots of people cancel
    rinse, repeat

    the revenue will start to look like a sine wave. somewhat predictable.

  69. I use only one streaming service for everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called BitTorrent

  70. We wanted a la carte... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    ... now instead of having to buy a super expensive cable package to get the channels/shows you want, now you need to subscribe to multiple different services to get the 1 or 2 things you want on each one.... was better when Netflix had almost everything and you didn't need multiple subs....

  71. Re:Why? It doesn't work like that today by nwf · · Score: 1

    That is a risk with Disney, since they have become rather money grubbing of late. I plan on subscribing to their service, but if they play the vault game, I will not continue.

    --
    I don't know, but it works for me.
  72. Netfix+ by haeger · · Score: 1

    I'd actually pay a little extra, say 1-2EUR on my Netflix account if it allowed me to view shows from some other network. Pay a little extra to Netflix and get 3h of viewing of another providers content, delivered through the same account/subscription I already have.
    I'm sure they could work out a deal if they only wanted to.

    But alas, Popcorntime is still a better experience. Or so I'm told.

    --
    You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
  73. You Only Need 3 Subscriptions by Improbus · · Score: 1

    You only need 3 subscriptions: 1. Netflix 2. Amazon 3. Bittorrent (for everything else) 4. Maybe a 4th for those who enjoy sports (that's extra)

  74. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by dargaud · · Score: 1

    I don't see where frustration is coming from, as these days it's so easy to start and stop subscriptions.

    I don't know, bittorrent 'subscriptions' have been working fine for over a decade...

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  75. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I already pay for the internet, what's this about needing to pay other bills to watch stuff? Weird.

  76. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by barc0001 · · Score: 1

    > as these days it's so easy to start and stop subscriptions.

    It is, but it's also easy to forget when your subscription month end is, and as a result you'll miss cancelling in time. It's also a hassle. I have Netflix, and I get Prime Video through my Prime membership. I may entertain buying a couple of other services for a month here and there, but that's it, and when I do that I'll do it at a time when I can binge what I wanted and then drop it. I won't be subscribing to anything else on an ongoing basis. And I feel that my sentiment is somewhat common, so all these other streaming services that are getting ready to jump in, dreaming of massive ongoing recurring revenues will be quite disappointed, I think.

  77. Suppose.tv by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    suppose.tv is the Swiss pocket knife of streaming choices. Any time I get frustrated with my current service I hop over to see if I can get my must have's anywhere else. And just when I think I've got a solution I see they don't support my chosen client (Nvidia Shield TV). It's nice to see at a glance instead of rooting around the fine print of each site.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  78. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

    +1 this.

    I keep Directvnow and Netflix year round. I don't include Prime because it's 99% used for shopping only.
    Hulu is free from Sprint (wouldn't the merger be cool if we get Netflix & Hulu both free? yea won't happen).

    I sub HBO and Starz for one month on Directvnow when we want to watch a full season of something (GOT/American God's/etc) only then turn it off. Even with the $10 increase DTVN is still cheaper for us original grandfathers for the amount of channels vs anything else.

    I sub DC Universe for a month when they have a complete season of something new.

    It's not bundling or true one stop ala-carte but it's not hard.

  79. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

    That's a dumb comment (yea I know AC).

    That won't happen as it would break the well established subscription model that Netflix created. The blow back would be above the level of MoviePass bad. Netflix can't screw with there own model much as it's about as profit streamlined as the McDonald's menu - anything more and you get outrage and less purchases.

    As for the Disney Vault comment, only an idiot would sign up right away. Wait for everything to finally trickle in, probably takes a year and then sign up for a month or two.

  80. Re:Ala carte cable by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

    That's called Cable grampa, your welcome to it.

  81. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by Calydor · · Score: 1

    So you enjoy juggling all those subscriptions. Good for you.

    Some people want to just sit down and watch something without first having to figure out which service is active today and what is actually on that service.

    That's where torrenting comes in.

    It's sad, really. Netflix was THIS CLOSE to winning over piracy because people don't inherently WANT to be criminals ... but then everyone got greedy and wanted their own cake instead of a slice of the cake and here we are, torrents are once again becoming the optimal solution because they're hassle-free. For most people, avoiding hassle is the goal.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  82. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by sarren1901 · · Score: 1

    FOMO, or fear of missing out, is a big part of it. I actually didn't start watching GOT until like season 5 started as I wasn't willing to pay for it. Then my friend let me borrow the first season on dvd and I was instantly hooked. HBO became suddenly worth it for a while.

    Now I'll definitely be watching it because I'll want to be able to talk with my coworkers who also love the show. If I don't see the show right away, how can I participate in the conversation?

  83. Re:Why? It doesn't work like that today by lgw · · Score: 1

    That is a risk with Disney, since they have become rather money grubbing of late.

    If by "of late" you mean "for the past 100 years or so". The line used to be "if a kid in America gets a dime, Walt gets a nickle".

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  84. Too Much Choice, Not Enough Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was a fan of Netflix a few years ago, but we cancelled it recently when we realised we were rarely watching it anymore. We have Amazon Prime because we frequently purchase goods from Amazon, but have only ever watched a couple of shows on the associated streaming service.

    Most of the video content I watch today is on YouTube. I have subscribed to a few users on it that regularly post well-composed and high quality long form (for YouTube) videos that I like to watch when I have the time. (Essential Craftsman and My Self Reliance are my current favourites)

    Other than that, as I'm now approaching middle-age, I don't have hours of time to waste away on the couch anymore what with having a house and garden, wife and children, career, hobbies and community commitments. We don't use TV to babysit our children - they get a limited amount of screen time per day and we encourage them to play inside and outside, even though I find myself needing to drink more and more coffee each year to be able to keep up with them.

    When I have time to waste, I want to watch high quality TV or movies. I can wait to hear through word-of-mouth what the best shows are and then add them to my list. (Currently working through McMafia)

    That's why we've gone back to just buying/renting shows and movies from iTunes. If it's not on iTunes or YouTube, it's not worth worrying about. Can barely be bothered to look for torrents anymore.

    We'll probably make an exception for re-subscribing to Netflix though when the new episodes of our favourite shows on it are out: Mindhunter, Stranger Things, Ozark and The Crown.

  85. Fake identity biz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As simulated in Gattica, fake identities perhaps an opportunity.

  86. Re:How can you get frustrated? Never easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait until they change the terms to add one of the following:
    1) Intro offer at standard price for XX years. Monthly contract at XXXXX.
    2) Anyone with 3 or more cancellations and reactivation within a year are banned from the service

    Right now they probably don't care. But once service jumping becomes popular, they'll start stopping it. Just like credit cards and banks are starting to block people who sign up every couple months to get all those starting bonuses. If you aren't careful you can suddenly find yourself blacklisted from all the primary companies. Luckily in the banking industry there are thousands of banks. In the media industry, there are only a few players and when you get banned from their services you may also get banned from their other services. Want to risk getting banned from all Amazon services for some video abuse?

  87. Welcome to âoeala carteâ cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what everyone wanted, right? Right?

    Be careful what you wish for.

  88. iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After iTunes became wildly successful, everyone around tried to cash in by opening their own online music stores. One company even spent millions developing a competing music player called Zune. None of those other online music stores was as successful as iTunes, and most of them shut down especially after streaming music services started to gain in popularity.

    Subscription streaming TV services will be just like online music stores. Some, like Netflix, will survive and prosper. Others will fail spectacularly (Disney). And others will stay in business but never be anywhere nearly as successful as the one or two leaders that remain.

  89. pick one by sad_ · · Score: 1

    pick one and watch whatever is on there, there is probably already too much content on to watch it all (and new stuff is being added the whole time).

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  90. Solution! by MattBear · · Score: 1

    The perfect solution to all of this, is have one box that sits under your TV, which aggregates many different sources into one subscription plan, With different tiers and plans available based off of what you want. Oh wait.....

  91. Re:Why? It doesn't work like that today by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    Not that things can't change but currently the CEO of Disney plans for the Vault to go away with the launch of Disney+.

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/...