171–180 of 788 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We asked for a la carte TV pricing. I think this is what it looks like. I'll probably pay for a few channels and forget the rest.
Or pay for a channel for a month or two, then drop it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Long term, we'll probably wind up with a couple of major marketplaces that provide a UI that ties together content bundles that you've purchased from different distributors (who will actually serve up their catalogs). It's a bit depressing how similar that sounds to how cable networks work. Or platform specific app stores.
The big Media companies want it to work like cable because they think their "premium content" will get people to pay more. In reality, they are likely to trigger a backlash that increases piracy instead.
Steam is a rampant success. You'd think people would catch on. Have the content, make it easy to access, make it easy to pay, and people will give you money hand over fist.
Someone more clever than me could graph out the intersection of cost, convenience and the average consumer's willingness to pirate content for digital media. I expect moving all Disney's non-live-sports content off the world's most popular streaming platform and on to an exclusive platform with its own monthly fee is going to push a lot of consumers over that line.
We're looking at a future where you have to purchase access to content and delivery of that content piecewise. Prices will definitely increase largely for the same content and convenience. And at some point society's probably going to crack down on piracy as though it were a logical extension of hacking.
I don't think it will ever be possible. Phones cameras are only getting better, how can you ever stop someone from recording something in the theater and passing it around in meatspace?
Good quality torrents might become harder to get, but piracy is going nowhere.
It seems crazy that BAMTech grew out of MLBAM - no one would ever have predicted that Major League Baseball would end up being the starting point for one of the biggest companies in online video streaming.
As someone who likes sports but not cable, MLB streaming has consistently been by far the best online sports streaming experience, so this isn't too surprising for me.
It took them years and years to even come up with the system they finally have now to allow you to pay extra to stream local games if you also already subscribe to the local team's cable/sat channel.
When you're actually allowed to access the content, it works like a dream.
If every studio thinks I'm going to pay them $10+ a month to stream their content, they are going to be very mistaken. I can't imagine that a lot of people want to spend the collective hundreds of dollars to sign up for all the streaming services. It's almost asking to drive people to torrents. Now, if Disney does something like $30/year or something really affordable - sure. I might do that on a whim. I guess it's a…
Agreed. I only pay for netflix and HBO (and amazon, but that's a bonus for paying for prime). HBO doesn't feel like "extra" because it's always been an optional add-on that costs more. First all the "major" studios will split and start charing $10/month. Then adds will start creeping back in. Before you know it everyone will be paying for an ad-hoc cable subscription. I think a better option would be to do what Amazo…
An ad-hoc cable subscription. Few people really wanted all the channels they were getting and would gladly have paid less to get only what they wanted.
Another thing we might see here though has happened to me a lot with music because of Spotify.
If you music isn't on Spotify or Soundclound... I'm just going to listen to it less. Its too much trouble to go download/buy from so many different sources.
I can't be bothered to spend the time anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are all movies. Streaming services get traction from episodic series and live shows. If Disney streams only feature film content, it will go nowhere. No parent will pay $10-$20 month to access the same 50 to 100 films over and over.
I have nothing to add to this except that the kids I know love to watch the same movies over and over again to the point of speaking the lines with the movies. I don't get it but I'm not the target audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would pay $20 a month if it had every disney movie ever, and every new release after a certain time period. I imagine there are a lot of parents that would as well.
How long would it take you to break even with installing Plex, buying the worthwhile Disney movies on DVD, and ripping them at $20/mo? 2 years? They have the same problem with ESPN. I want 15-30 minutes a day of MLB scores and highlights and don't want to pay $30/mo for it, even if it includes a channel for every college sport, the ESPPies, and original programming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. I only pay for netflix and HBO (and amazon, but that's a bonus for paying for prime). HBO doesn't feel like "extra" because it's always been an optional add-on that costs more. First all the "major" studios will split and start charing $10/month. Then adds will start creeping back in. Before you know it everyone will be paying for an ad-hoc cable subscription. I think a better option would be to do what Amazo…
Long term, we'll probably wind up with a couple of major marketplaces that provide a UI that ties together content bundles that you've purchased from different distributors (who will actually serve up their catalogs). It's a bit depressing how similar that sounds to how cable networks work. Or platform specific app stores.
"largest streaming search engine in the world [...] with around 12 million unique visits per month" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14842083
--
http://www.canistream.it/ by former HN user SeyelentEco
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Long term, we'll probably wind up with a couple of major marketplaces that provide a UI that ties together content bundles that you've purchased from different distributors (who will actually serve up their catalogs). It's a bit depressing how similar that sounds to how cable networks work. Or platform specific app stores.
The big Media companies want it to work like cable because they think their "premium content" will get people to pay more. In reality, they are likely to trigger a backlash that increases piracy instead.
My steam library is full of games I'll never play, never would have bothered to pirate. Why? because steam sales.
I'm sure the same could be achieved for Hollywood. Not only could they make sure people are paying for the content they watch, they could have saps like me paying for content they never watch.
If every studio thinks I'm going to pay them $10+ a month to stream their content, they are going to be very mistaken. I can't imagine that a lot of people want to spend the collective hundreds of dollars to sign up for all the streaming services. It's almost asking to drive people to torrents. Now, if Disney does something like $30/year or something really affordable - sure. I might do that on a whim. I guess it's a…
I would pay $20 a month if it had every disney movie ever, and every new release after a certain time period. I imagine there are a lot of parents that would as well.
There's a certain standard for Disney movie that makes it easier for you to watch or recommend young kids to watch, comparing to Netflix that you might have to weed out content a bit. Sort of similar to Whole Foods vs Safeway. This doesn't imply which one is better than the other, just that it's easier to set expectations for something with more niche.