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

It’s not a zero-sum game for Apple TV+, Netflix, and Disney+

onezero.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 187 posts

Re: It’s not a zero-sum game for Apple TV+, Netflix, and Disney+

#11

Post by dragontamer »

xt00 wrote: post #10

The claim by the Comcast’s of the world has been that to get everything you previously had with cable you would need to pay a lot more, but what’s happening is that there is consolidation within the content provider side like Hulu now being part of Disney. So the total list of streaming services we might end up with is probably around 4-6, so if each one costs around $10 then that’s still way cheaper than most cable…

> So next play is for somebody like Disney to buy an internet service provider or something?

AT&T owns cell-phones, ISPs, HBO+, WB, DC-universe, and more.

Re: It’s not a zero-sum game for Apple TV+, Netflix, and Disney+

#12

Post by zeroonetwothree »

They are so cheap that I am just subscribed to everything. I know I’m fortunate to be able to afford that but compared to what Americans are spending on everything else it’s surely not a lot for the value you get. Still cheaper than I used to pay for cable ($100)

Re: It’s not a zero-sum game for Apple TV+, Netflix, and Disney+

#13

Post by wizardsOfOz »

dragontamer wrote: post #11
xt00 wrote: post #10

The claim by the Comcast’s of the world has been that to get everything you previously had with cable you would need to pay a lot more, but what’s happening is that there is consolidation within the content provider side like Hulu now being part of Disney. So the total list of streaming services we might end up with is probably around 4-6, so if each one costs around $10 then that’s still way cheaper than most cable…

> So next play is for somebody like Disney to buy an internet service provider or something? AT&T owns cell-phones, ISPs, HBO+, WB, DC-universe, and more.

AT&T also is a horribly managed, bureaucratic company. They have like 8 branded streaming products besides HBO Go, Max, Plus and snow. IMO, Netflix’s high performance culture and attention to detail could be what sets them apart. If they’re not throttled by one of these providers of course.

Re: It’s not a zero-sum game for Apple TV+, Netflix, and Disney+

#14

Post by Akababa »

Call me pedantic, but the usage of the term "zero-sum" in this article makes no sense. They use it synonymously with "winner-take-all" which is so far from it's original meaning that you have to question whether the author even knows what zero-sum means, or if they're just using the buzzword to attract clicks.

In fact, increased competition leads to reduced profits (at least in the short term), making this a "negative-sum" game.

Re: It’s not a zero-sum game for Apple TV+, Netflix, and Disney+

#15

Post by scarface74 »

Retric wrote: post #7
anonytrary wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it depends on the distribution of content amongst the services. If it's a Pareto distribution where the top few services own the majority of the content, then I think people will pay for the top services. On the other hand, if the good content is highly fragmented amongst dozens of services, then the torrents will win. It also depends on the business models. Right now, Netflix is "all or nothing" e.g. you can…

The issue is there is very little good content out there. Cable before video games and the internet could charge a huge premium, but spread things out and you end up with a ‘History’ channel showing cheap ‘Ancient Aliens’ crap. Similarly, break modern content among 5+ services and the content will be worse and simply not worth paying for. Just look a Hulu which has been free on PC and they still can’t compete with Ne…

Hulu is only available in the US. It has 28 million subscribers compared to 60 million US Netflix subscribers.

Hulu is also not racking up a ton of debt trying to stay relevant like Netflix is.

Re: It’s not a zero-sum game for Apple TV+, Netflix, and Disney+

#16

Post by saluki »

I currently subscribe to all three of these and Amazon Prime, and it's less than 1/6 of what I paid for directTV before cutting the cord 9 years ago, and I don't even always keep my subscriptions active all year.

I like this way better, and there can be lots of winners. No way one streaming service can provide and create everything. Plus that's not good either, choice is better.

Re: It’s not a zero-sum game for Apple TV+, Netflix, and Disney+

#17

Post by akiselev »

Akababa wrote: post #14

Call me pedantic, but the usage of the term "zero-sum" in this article makes no sense. They use it synonymously with "winner-take-all" which is so far from it's original meaning that you have to question whether the author even knows what zero-sum means, or if they're just using the buzzword to attract clicks. In fact, increased competition leads to reduced profits (at least in the short term), making this a "negativ…

> In fact, increased competition leads to reduced profits (at least in the short term), making this a "negative-sum" game.

I'm not an economist but I've never heard of competition described as "negative-sum." It's zero-sum because the consumer wins.

"Negative-sum" would be a nuclear weapons manufacturer profiting off blowing up half the planet. The manufacturer might have made money, but overall everyone else loses far more than the manufacturer gained.

Re: It’s not a zero-sum game for Apple TV+, Netflix, and Disney+

#18

Post by npo9 »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #12

They are so cheap that I am just subscribed to everything. I know I’m fortunate to be able to afford that but compared to what Americans are spending on everything else it’s surely not a lot for the value you get. Still cheaper than I used to pay for cable ($100)

I have never paid for cable in my life. The youngest generation hasn’t. Comparing subscription services to cable won’t work for the newest customers because they aren’t use to cable.

Re: It’s not a zero-sum game for Apple TV+, Netflix, and Disney+

#19

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

akiselev wrote: post #17
Akababa wrote: post #14

Call me pedantic, but the usage of the term "zero-sum" in this article makes no sense. They use it synonymously with "winner-take-all" which is so far from it's original meaning that you have to question whether the author even knows what zero-sum means, or if they're just using the buzzword to attract clicks. In fact, increased competition leads to reduced profits (at least in the short term), making this a "negativ…

> In fact, increased competition leads to reduced profits (at least in the short term), making this a "negative-sum" game. I'm not an economist but I've never heard of competition described as "negative-sum." It's zero-sum because the consumer wins. "Negative-sum" would be a nuclear weapons manufacturer profiting off blowing up half the planet. The manufacturer might have made money, but overall everyone else loses f…

> It's zero-sum because the consumer wins.

That's not the traditional economic understanding of the *-sum expression either. In economics, competition forces efficiency improvements, which makes competition in cases where increased efficiency is possible positive-sum.

Re: It’s not a zero-sum game for Apple TV+, Netflix, and Disney+

#20

Post by Akababa »

akiselev wrote: post #17
Akababa wrote: post #14

Call me pedantic, but the usage of the term "zero-sum" in this article makes no sense. They use it synonymously with "winner-take-all" which is so far from it's original meaning that you have to question whether the author even knows what zero-sum means, or if they're just using the buzzword to attract clicks. In fact, increased competition leads to reduced profits (at least in the short term), making this a "negativ…

> In fact, increased competition leads to reduced profits (at least in the short term), making this a "negative-sum" game. I'm not an economist but I've never heard of competition described as "negative-sum." It's zero-sum because the consumer wins. "Negative-sum" would be a nuclear weapons manufacturer profiting off blowing up half the planet. The manufacturer might have made money, but overall everyone else loses f…

That's a fair assessment, hence the quotations. My way of looking at it was from the corporations' perspective, who collectively have to spend more money innovating while having their margins squeezed. Thus in the short term, the harder everyone competes, the smaller the net profit "pie".

You're right that in the long term it benefits consumers, and possibly the surviving companies after competition has died down and they can enjoy the fruits of their innovation.

Post reply on HN