Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 156 posts

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#31

Post by hamandcheese »

ajmurmann wrote: post #25
bunderbunder wrote: post #17

It seems to me like more of this fragmentation will make streaming less like cable. I don't care much for Disney content. Now that Disney's leaving, that frees up Netflix resources to (hopefully) get more of the content that I want. Realistically I'm not fond of Netflix's offerings of late, so I don't have high hopes. It's like basic cable these days; very shallow coverage of a lot of different things, so my interest…

Couldn't agree more. I'd like to see this go even further and have nothing bundled. I much rather pay straight up for the shows I'm watching than get some bundle. Many shows are about $20 on Amazon or Play which is totally reasonable; you end up owning it and only pay for what you want. That's the model I like best. Unlikely to get everyone on that boat though. EDIT: typos

Hasn't that model existed for a while now?

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#33

Post by LeoPanthera »

ajmurmann wrote: post #25
bunderbunder wrote: post #17

It seems to me like more of this fragmentation will make streaming less like cable. I don't care much for Disney content. Now that Disney's leaving, that frees up Netflix resources to (hopefully) get more of the content that I want. Realistically I'm not fond of Netflix's offerings of late, so I don't have high hopes. It's like basic cable these days; very shallow coverage of a lot of different things, so my interest…

Couldn't agree more. I'd like to see this go even further and have nothing bundled. I much rather pay straight up for the shows I'm watching than get some bundle. Many shows are about $20 on Amazon or Play which is totally reasonable; you end up owning it and only pay for what you want. That's the model I like best. Unlikely to get everyone on that boat though. EDIT: typos

Can you download the video files for the shows you buy, DRM-free?

If not, you don't "own" them at all.

The encryption on DVD and blu-ray discs is easily broken, so that's still a reasonable way to "own" your favorite shows. As far as I know, 4K blu-ray hasn't been cracked yet, so avoid those.

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#34

Post by TAForObvReasons »

usaphp wrote: post #18
ben1040 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "cord cutter" term is a little odd because you're still probably buying internet from the cable company; you're just not buying their video services. When I first signed up for cable, Charter Spectrum had me on a promotional plan - 130/5 internet and extended basic cable (essentially everything but HBO/Cinemax/Starz/Encore), for around $110/month. This was a 1-year promotional price offered only to new customers.…

I am paying $120 for 300mbps internet + TV + phone and some soccer sport pass right now, I just contacted Charter (who bought TWC here) to ask how much just the internet would cost me, and they told me it is going to cost $105 just for the internet. So by "cord cutting" I actually only hurting myself here, no?

Technically you're saving 15 dollars a month, so it's not really "hurting" per se.

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#35

Post by Retric »

bunderbunder wrote: post #17

It seems to me like more of this fragmentation will make streaming less like cable. I don't care much for Disney content. Now that Disney's leaving, that frees up Netflix resources to (hopefully) get more of the content that I want. Realistically I'm not fond of Netflix's offerings of late, so I don't have high hopes. It's like basic cable these days; very shallow coverage of a lot of different things, so my interest…

The problem is there is going to be a minimum monthly fee of around 10$ to keep the lights on. So, fragmentation just increases prices without any net benefit for the consumer.

The real killer IMO is most young adults just don't watch much TV in any form. If your watching ~10 hours a month then paying for more than one streaming service is just a waste. Don't forget it's the median viewer that's important not the average of 0, 1, 2, 3, 100.

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#36

Post by calafrax »

hyperdunc wrote: post #15
tested23 wrote: post #12

I remember how people on the internet used to complain about how they didn’t want all of the garbage channels that were bundled with cable. Now they are complaining about being able to pick and choose what they pay for. (Yes you don’t need to have access to every subscription service) Two things to note, pirates will always find some way to rationalize their theft and the consumer is a child that wants to have their…

Copyright infringement isn't theft.

word. unlicensed content delivery platforms still vastly superior in terms of quality and depth of content after over a decade and billions spent by netflix, hulu, etc. if you really want people to pay for a product you should offer better quality than the people who give it away.

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#37

Post by wybiral »

Retric wrote: post #35
bunderbunder wrote: post #17

It seems to me like more of this fragmentation will make streaming less like cable. I don't care much for Disney content. Now that Disney's leaving, that frees up Netflix resources to (hopefully) get more of the content that I want. Realistically I'm not fond of Netflix's offerings of late, so I don't have high hopes. It's like basic cable these days; very shallow coverage of a lot of different things, so my interest…

The problem is there is going to be a minimum monthly fee of around 10$ to keep the lights on. So, fragmentation just increases prices without any net benefit for the consumer. The real killer IMO is most young adults just don't watch much TV in any form. If your watching ~10 hours a month then paying for more than one streaming service is just a waste. Don't forget it's the median viewer that's important not the ave…

Plus I don't want to manage subscriptions in a bunch of different places. For instance, on Amazon I can add/remove things like HBO and Showtime and have it all in one place.

As much as I like Twin Peaks, I'm not sure I would have signed up for Showtime to watch it weekly unless it were right there with the rest of my content.

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#38

Post by haberman »

I just moved to a place where I can get gigabit fiber and spent a lot of time looking into how I want to get TV. So far the cord-cutting options that look most compelling to me are Hulu Live TV (Beta) and YouTube TV (sadly not available in my area yet).

Things I care about are: ability to watch live TV, access to the major TV networks, ability to DVR, ability to watch things from other devices (like "I'm traveling but want to watch my DVR'd program).

Sling was looking good but doesn't include the major networks and only some of its channels can be DVR'd.

I thought about using an HD antenna and getting a hardware DVR like a Tivo or Channel Master DVR+, but then you can only DVR the major networks. If you try to supplement that with Sling, you're back to the same problem that only some things can be DVR'd. Also the hardware DVRs don't generally let you watch remotely, and the ones that do aren't as good at live TV.

Hulu Live TV seems good so far. You get access to live TV and DVR and you can watch from anywhere. But it also gives you access to its existing streaming library, so you have access to a lot of shows even if you didn't think to DVR them before they happened. At $40/month it seems like a pretty good deal (that gives you 50 hours of DVR). It's $44 to have "No Commercials" (this removes commercials from the streaming content I believe). If you want to skip past commercials in content you have DVR'd, you need to pay an extra $15/month, which seems kind of lame.

I wish I could try YouTube TV but it's not available in Seattle yet!

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#39

Post by calafrax »

nerdponx wrote: post #3

These "bloated" packages exist specifically to force you into buying more than you need. It's a standard monopoly pricing technique, and the presence of bundled packages indicates monopoly power in the market.

i am not sure that it is directly tied to monopoly. paying for a subscription reduces friction for watching individual shows/channels so it increased total viewership and total consumption. every pay point you add adds more friction so will reduce consumption. that is true whether you have monopolies or not. you could have 5 competitors and they would all maximize profit by selling bundles.

Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

#40

Post by calafrax »

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

Stupid article. There is the atavistic fantasy of "you can watch everything you want at one low price", except the price is not a low price, it is a high price. The big anti-competitive problem with cable is that cable and satellite providers do not offer a choice of packages. You get basically the same thing with all providers. Hollywood loves it because they get paid no matter how good or bad the stuff they make is…

don't forget that producing all this content costs 10's of billions per year so someone has to pay for it. both the cost of production and the amount produced keeps increasing so prices need to go up to.
Post reply on HN