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

141–150 of 156 posts

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

#141

Post by epmaybe »

smelendez wrote: post #87
Retric wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The real killer IMO is most young adults just don't watch much TV in any form. 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…

I'm a young adult and I watch way more TV than I'm comfortable divulging to my friends. Easily more than three hours a day on average.

At the same time, I'm usually not paying much attention as I'm either doing work or studying while it is on in the background

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

#142

Post by sverige »

ghaff wrote: post #136
sverige wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some markets, ESPN and other sports channels accounts for as much as $20 per month of the standard cable bill, and those costs are rising. [1] And I don't think I'm overestimating the number of people willing to give up paying for sports on cable. It's somewhere between 57% and 80% of cable subscribers. [2] That's a giant subsidy for an entertainment industry based on watching adults play children's games. Of cour…

Note though that ESPN != watching live sports. A lot of, especially local team, games are on regular network channels. And it's their local team games that most relatively casual sports watchers really care about. I actually don't watch much sports at all. But I hesitate to give up all access to real-time television. (I can't get anything OTA.)

Right, and regular network channels don't cost as much as ESPN and Fox Sports (for example), and also offer a variety of programming.

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

#143

Post by baron816 »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #79
baron816 wrote: post #71

There's a very simple solution for anyone worried about fragmentation: don't buy it. We got into a bad situation with cable because we didn't have a choice. It was either pay $80 per month for everything, or not watch TV at all. We have choices now, and Disney isn't going to be able to force their service on anyone. If people really like their new products and think it's worth the money, then fine. If people hate hav…

I agree on all accounts, however, movies aren't really comparable to music. An episode of a show costs a ton more than a song to make (typically vs typically, there are cheap shows and expensive songs, sure). A movie costs a lot more than an album to produce. http://mentalfloss.com/article/57656/15-albums-cost-fortune-... has an album costing $15m to produce which was a huge outlier. Most expensive albums are in the…

I agree. Additionally, I'm not going to watch the same movie everyday for weeks or months at a time like I do with an album. Renting movies from Amazon/iTunes/Vudu is probably the optimal solution in my case. It's strange how this was the norm in the pre-Netflix days, and now, the idea of paying a la carte makes us feel like we're wasting money. Maybe we need an Audible model where we get ~6 movies a month for a flat fee and discounts after that. I don't know what to do with television content.

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

#144

Post by baron816 »

nebabyte wrote: post #115
baron816 wrote: post #71

There's a very simple solution for anyone worried about fragmentation: don't buy it. We got into a bad situation with cable because we didn't have a choice. It was either pay $80 per month for everything, or not watch TV at all. We have choices now, and Disney isn't going to be able to force their service on anyone. If people really like their new products and think it's worth the money, then fine. If people hate hav…

> There's a very simple solution for anyone worried about fragmentation: don't buy it. I'm not exactly sure what the flaw in this reasoning is called - tragedy of the commons comes to mind but that's not it; it's more like a prisoner's dilemma over a population - but if you're somehow not aware of this by now, this "solution" does nothing in the real world. It's the same "solution" that is supposed to ensure bad poli…

I get what you're saying. It is a prisoner's dilemma. Tragedy of the commons is also a form of prisoner's dilemma.

It won't take an organized effort to reach an equilibrium where consumers benefit. People's incentives aren't to defect and pay the money for the additional services. They're much more likely to just not watch Disney's products, or torrent them. Disney could've very easily have just not licensed their content to Netflix and made everyone buy their DVDs, but they didn't because no one buys DVDs anymore--they watch Netflix. They're banking on the notion that their content is so good that people will pay extra for it. If their content really is that good, then maybe people should pay extra for it. In that case they'll still be paying less than what it's actually worth to them. If not, then they won't. People can watch other stuff, or Disney will abandon the project.

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

#145

Post by Mathnerd314 »

gbacon wrote: post #128
Mathnerd314 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming an efficient market, when many deficits of market economics are already well-known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure The information economy has fixed some of those, but it would be more surprising if there weren't new types of deficits to take their place.

This alleged assumption that in fact I did not make would contradict the principle above. If the market were always and everywhere at every instant of time efficiently allocated, there would be no valid complaints.

My point here is that, even if a business plan could be written for every complaint, the business plan produced isn't necessarily viable or actionable, e.g. if there's a monopoly in that particular industry. Usually the word 'plan' implies that there's a reasonable chance of success, hence my disagreement.

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

#146

Post by jpindar »

techsupporter wrote: post #93
Animats wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me like more of this fragmentation will make streaming less like cable. 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 viewersh…

> One would think the NFL would run their own network. Doesn't the NFL have NFL Network, RedZone, and NFL Sunday Ticket? I think Major League Baseball wound up on the better end of the deal because they decided to not try to chase the dollars that the National Football League was racking up. They realized early on that they have (actual) thousands of events so if they go for the margin instead of the lump sum, awesom…

I believe the parent was talking about the NFL selling its content directly to viewers* which they refuse to do despite fans begging them to PLEASE TAKE OUR MONEY!

*In the US. NFL games are more easily available outside of the US than in.

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

#147

Post by jpindar »

dageshi wrote: post #129
CaptSpify wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear that too, and I mostly agree with doing it, but I kind of feel it's a problem: It tells amazon "Oh, sure, your system is fine, I don't mind paying for DRM!" when in reality we shouldn't encourage DRM. I wish I could go to the studio/artist/creator directly and say "Hey, I would like to pirate your content, here's some money", but outside of Patreon or the like, there's usually not an option to do that.

I've no doubt if amazon could just sell the raw file they would. It's rights holders who demand DRM and if amazon refuses itunes or someone else will happily step in and provide it.

And in fact Amazon does sell music like that, as downloadable mp3s.

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

#148

Post by tertius »

dingo_bat wrote: post #122
tertius wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piracy will always be easiest. Much like most unethical things.

I think services like Spotify or Google play music are already much easier than pirating songs. Why do you think a similar state cannot be achieved for TV shows or movies?

Unless you're in a country where the licensing disagrees. Or a label chooses not to sell a catalog to you.

Music does work a little differently. You pay per play, vs. TV you're paying for a catalog.

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

#149

Post by tertius »

pdpi wrote: post #131
tertius wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piracy will always be easiest. Much like most unethical things.

Steam is a great counter-example. As is spotify.

Steam is a great example, licensing seems to be pretty universal most of the times allowing games in most countries. Music is a little harder and TV/movies are a lot harder.

The music business is much more on board than TV/Movies. But TV/Movies still have a lot of leverage.

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

#150

Post by ves »

scarface74 wrote: post #106
ves wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, what are you doing with 6 TVs? Even when I lived with my parents we only had two.

Owner's suite son's room home gym wife's sitting area Family room Guest bedroom

Gotcha. We didn't have TVs in bedrooms in my parents' house, which is what I figure our TV deficit stems from.
Post reply on HN