Earlier quoted context omitted.
There won't be competition for exclusive content like Disney, AMC, HBO etc. except piracy which is still a lot easier for a lot of people, and if fragmentation continues, it will be Even more so.
I think piracy is the real competitor here. Unless they stop torrents they wont succeed here.
Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable
81–90 of 156 posts
Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I've heard it here on HN that some buy the show then just pirate it when they watch it. Just because pirated content has a uniform interface, and a better overall user experience.
Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable
#83So the author instead wants everything to go through Netflix and Spotify? Why would Disney care? Their product practically prints money for them. Unlike Netflix, Disney doesn't need to constantly make fresh content for new subscribers. It makes business sense to just park it into a service and let the money roll in. That's what they do with their "vault." The real question will be how much it costs for a subscription…
But people aren't gonna pay $10 or even $5 every month for a disney-only streaming subscription, if disney doesn't put out new content for it. It's way cheaper to just buy your favorite disney shows & movies. Disney is more established in producing fresh content for their subscribers - cause they're a studio - but that's a different question.
Oh yes they are. Disney owns a ton of properties, and the ability to have exclusive streaming rights over timeless classics is worth a lot.
Kids love to watch the same movie over and over again. They love predictability.
Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright infringement isn't theft.
Thank you for proving my point
This is a question of semantics. You're trying to coopt the gravitas of the word "theft". But theft is the illegal removal of a (physical) item, not copying an item while leaving the original as it is.
Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable
#85It seems to me like more of this fragmentation will make streaming less like cable. I don't care much for Disney content. Now that Disney's leaving, that frees up Netflix resources to (hopefully) get more of the content that I want. Realistically I'm not fond of Netflix's offerings of late, so I don't have high hopes. It's like basic cable these days; very shallow coverage of a lot of different things, so my interest…
The problem is there is going to be a minimum monthly fee of around 10$ 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…
Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable
#86It 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…
It looks like disintermediation, which is what the Internet was supposed to do. Direct from the studio to the consumer. But the reason probably comes from a bad deal.
One would think the NFL would run their own network. Major League Baseball does. But ESPN (owned by Disney) way overpaid for rights to show NFL games, for which viewership is declining. ESPN subscribers are down 13 million from the peak. They bought NFL rights near the top, so the NFL has a great deal for a few years. ESPN had to downsize substantially because of that mistake.[1]
On top of that, ESPN also apparently made a bad deal to broadcast NBA games. The phrase "sports rights bubble" is used.
This activity at Disney may be trying to dig out of the ESPN hole.
[1] https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-cutting-nearly-100-m...
Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable
#87It 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…
It's interesting, I'm 32 so on the upper end of millennial. We're supposed to be the multitasking, multiple screen generation.
But I'll visit older relatives, say 55+, and they'll have the TV on constantly and just talk over it. I find it so distracting and honestly stressful, like when you're on a conference call, your boss is Slacking you and your friend's texting about their fight with their SO last night.
My friends my age all say the same. For most "young adults," you're either silently watching TV, or you're doing something else.
My best guess is that TV has gotten louder and faster paced, but older viewers have hung on to their habits. I bet I could easily have a conversation during Cheers or '90s Law and Order, but not today's shows.
Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable
#88It 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…
It's interesting, I'm 32 so on the upper end of millennial. We're supposed to be the multitasking, multiple screen generation.
But I'll visit older relatives, say 55+, and they'll have the TV on constantly and just talk over it. I find it so distracting and honestly stressful, like when you're on a conference call, your boss is Slacking you and your friend's texting about their fight with their SO last night.
My friends my age all say the same. For most "young adults," you're either silently watching TV, or you're doing something else.
My best guess is that TV has gotten louder and faster paced, but older viewers have hung on to their habits. I bet I could easily have a conversation during Cheers or '90s Law and Order, but not today's shows.
Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable
#89It 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…
It's interesting, I'm 32 so on the upper end of millennial. We're supposed to be the multitasking, multiple screen generation.
But I'll visit older relatives, say 55+, and they'll have the TV on constantly and just talk over it. I find it so distracting and honestly stressful, like when you're on a conference call, your boss is Slacking you and your friend's texting about their fight with their SO last night.
My friends my age all say the same. For most "young adults," you're either silently watching TV, or you're doing something else.
My best guess is that TV has gotten louder and faster paced, but older viewers have hung on to their habits. I bet I could easily have a conversation during Cheers or '90s Law and Order, but not today's shows.
Re: Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Charter is anything like Comcast, by not going through them for my cable I save monthly: $50 - 5 additional cable box rentals $10 - "HD Technology Fee" $5 -- Broadcast access fee $3 -- Regional Sorts Fee That's $68 I avoid by using Hulu + Sling + CBS All Access. We have 6 TVs, 3 Roku sticks, a Roku TV, and 3 Apple TV's.
Out of curiosity, what are you doing with 6 TVs? Even when I lived with my parents we only had two.