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

Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 256 posts

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#151

Post by mi100hael »

darethas wrote: post #44
zimmerfrei wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Disney can probably copy what Netflix has today, but by the time they’ve done that, Netflix will have updated their platform hundreds of time Last year Disney acquired BAMTech (a spun of MLB Media) - though less known, their technical chops when it comes to video streaming are already in Netflix territory. https://www.theverge.com/2015/8/4/9090897/mlb-bam-live-strea...

Yeah the MLB media team really knows what they are doing. The MLB has long had the best tech out of the big 5 sports leagues in the US

They also have a contract to provide streaming for the NHL. Probably other leagues as well.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#152

Post by AtlasBarfed »

rayiner wrote: post #49
sosborn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Off to a torrent site or asking around to see if someone has rips or a box set. The other option is to just not watch it.

The down voting you’re getting is emblematic of the entitlement mentality among tech folks when it comes to content. There is no right to consume entertainment someone else produced for free. If you don’t like the terms on which they’re selling the fruits of their labor, don’t buy it.

These companies are explicitly setting up vertical monopolies, when they already have horizontal monopolies.

The entitlement here is the elites, who don't have anything to fear from antitrust legislation and can fundamentally undermine the free market, which allegedly is important to the underlying Ayn Rand undercurrent of this site.

In that context, rebellion/revolt/resistance is a somewhat legitimate choice by some points of view.

Seriously, we just had an election directly related to the over-concentration of media in a few powers, and now we're allowing them to vertically monopolize the delivery of that content.

Which would be a bit... ok... if it was just Mickey Mouse, but the news is fully controlled by oligarchs.

By vertically integrating the internet access, they can censor the only uncontrolled news outlet: the internet.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#153

Post by jasonjayr »

mmt wrote: post #100
scarface74 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without Fox, Disney has the best chance of success even if it e dis up having a smaller library. Small kids will watch the same thing over and over again. If you have kids, being able to pay $10-$15 a month for all Disney content is a great deal.

> Small kids will watch the same thing over and over again. > being able to pay $10-$15 a month That seems like a terrible deal, compared with just paying for that "same thing" once and watching it over and over for free.

... and children + discs often ends poorly.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#154

Post by shmerl »

scarface74 wrote: post #139
shmerl wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I explained above, their problem is offering renting only video which you can't buy. > What device that you own can’t play Spotify music? Anything they didn't think about? DRM-free formats can be accessed anywhere, you can re-encode them in any codec and etc. For example I can take my audio files and play them in RockBox on my portable Sansa player. How would Spotify help for that? Benefits of DRM-free are quite s…

I have 700 songs in my various Spotify playlists and growing. Back in the day I would have had to pay $700 for my songs. Now so pay $10 a month. I pay $10.99 for Netflix. That doesn’t pay for one movie, let alone a dvd box set.

I don't mind paying to creators for the music I'm listening to. Didn't you yourself say that it costs money to make?

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#155

Post by developer2 »

JimmyAustin wrote: post #127
lgregg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We want an on-demand nexus. A single hub. That is close to existing, it'd be nice if the top players agreed to open their APIs so you could integrate it into a unified TV external like Chromecast or Firestick. Or, to go further, a unified platform that can process subscriptions and PPV across each library. > $100/month for a dozen streaming "channels" with one or two good shows and a the same crap the rest of the o…

The on-demand nexus already works on Apple TV. Say "I want to watch Billions" into the remote and it shows you all the services you can watch it on, then tap through to actually watching it. Now if only it existed on other platforms.

Can you elaborate? Does Apple TV let you purchase à la carte (on-demand) from any service, or do you still have to buy into a monthly subscription for a service just to watch one movie or TV series from its catalog?

The "one hub nexus" we are clamoring for requires either a) preferably, a single monthly fee to access everything; or b) less ideally, assuming reasonable prices, on-demand pay-per-view pricing.

A nexus that simplifies signing up for a dozen different streaming service subscriptions from one UI is not good enough. All that does is improve the frontend experience, while doing nothing to resolve the subscription hell that expects consumers to shell out $80+/month across many services to watch maybe 1% of the content.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#156

Post by toast0 »

JimmyAustin wrote: post #127
lgregg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We want an on-demand nexus. A single hub. That is close to existing, it'd be nice if the top players agreed to open their APIs so you could integrate it into a unified TV external like Chromecast or Firestick. Or, to go further, a unified platform that can process subscriptions and PPV across each library. > $100/month for a dozen streaming "channels" with one or two good shows and a the same crap the rest of the o…

The on-demand nexus already works on Apple TV. Say "I want to watch Billions" into the remote and it shows you all the services you can watch it on, then tap through to actually watching it. Now if only it existed on other platforms.

Roku has a pretty large list of providers and the ability to search across them. It does feel like I'm being nickle and dined to death though when back catalog stuff I want to watch costs the same as recent shows :(

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#157

Post by lovich »

adventured wrote: post #144
lovich wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers aren't an undifferentiated mass either. Why are paying customers sitting through 5 minutes of FBI warnings in front of DVDs because some other people pirate? These arguments go both ways but a large portion of this forum seems to only view it from the companies perspective

> Why are paying customers sitting through 5 minutes of FBI warnings in front of DVDs because some other people pirate? It's not your product to design, in this case you don't get to decide how it's presented. You also don't get to decide the design of iOS, or how Apple designs its next processor, or what color Stack Overflow's logo is, or the design of Wikipedia, or what resolutions YouTube offers, or what algorithm…

"your product" is a function of our laws concerning property and those are not a fundamental law of the universe. Corporations have had a large say in defining what property is in the modern world but consumers get a say too, through their actions.

Why are a series of 1s and 0s this companies property or that person's property other than because society declares them to be so? If they can declare who owns what then that declaration can change

Edit: For example, if steam boat Willie was still under the copyright laws that existed when it was created, it would be society property now. Because the rules were changed, it's Disney's property. If "property" can be taken from society by companies, then the reverse can happen as well

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#158

Post by IntelMiner »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #148
MisterTea wrote: post #3

These companies are obsessed with fragmenting the market for the sake of owning content from production to delivery. I have bad news for them: you're going to lose. People don't want to go back to paying $100/month for a dozen streaming "channels" with one or two good shows and a the same crap the rest of the other "channels" have. We want an on-demand nexus. A single hub. Just the other day I had the urge to watch g…

How noble of you to steal what you didn’t want to pay for to fulfill your urge. Do you try this at the grocery store also when you get frustrated by the prices charged by the people that created the items?

Piracy is not the same as theft. Please do not conflate the two

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#159

Post by mmt »

jasonjayr wrote: post #153
mmt wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Small kids will watch the same thing over and over again. > being able to pay $10-$15 a month That seems like a terrible deal, compared with just paying for that "same thing" once and watching it over and over for free.

... and children + discs often ends poorly.

I can't imagine buying a disc and not immediately ripping and trans-coding it, though I was assuming buying some cheaper, downloadable content in the first place.

Re: Netflix Is Why AT&T bought Time Warner, and Comcast and Disney want Fox

#160

Post by bootlooped »

adrianmonk wrote: post #38
reubenmorais wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Want" disambiguates to plural subject, so it can only be "Comcast and Disney want Fox".

You're absolutely right, but that still leaves it a garden path sentence ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence ) and thus a poor title. The measure of good writing isn't that it's possible to parse unambiguously with sufficient dedication. Good writing gets the idea across without placing any undue burden on the reader. (And it's easily fixed by adding a second "why": "Netflix is why AT&T bought Time W…

Thanks for this, I didn't realize there was a term for the issue I was taking with the structure.
Post reply on HN