Live data from Hacker News

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

onezero.medium.com

31–40 of 187 posts

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

#31

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)

That’s mainly because you’re comparing to the insane prices Americans pay for cable. For me, the basic HD package (over fiber) is €15,95 and if I want the full ‘entertainment’ HD package that’s €21,95.

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

#32

"For months now, journalists, industry insiders, and consumers have opined on who will “win” the streaming wars and why." The more streaming services there will be, the more likely it is that only thepiratebay and torrents will win.

It's amazing how we have gone full circle in the last 15 years or so. In the old days, people complained about their cable tv bill: why do I have to pay for 250 channels when I only watch 5 of them? Let me pay only for what I watch. Now that the future is here, people are complaining that they need to sign up for too many streaming services. Why can't I just pay once for a bundle and get everything I need? I'm just a…

>why do I have to pay for 250 channels when I only watch 5 of them? Let me pay only for what I watch.

But that is still the case. If I could only pay for the shows I watch, I would not complain. But if I watch one Netflix show, I can't just subscribe to that show, I must pay for a ton of stuff I'm not remotely interested in.

You still have Netflix, Disney+ and all the cable channels you need to subscribe to if you want their shows, how is this better for the consumer ?

An actual 'A la carte' situation is that of the consumer being able to actually handpick the shows they want and only pay for those. This will never happen due to the industry being absolutely hostile to the idea, second best from a consumer standpoint is a single huge distributor like Netflix where you would pay larger fee but have access to practically everything you want, that is now pretty much a pipe dream since every major player wants to run their own streaming platform. This is not the way to beat piracy.

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

#33
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Comparing subscription services to cable won’t work for the newest customers because they aren’t use to cable Most Americans have cable. It's often inextricably linked with internet access. The newest customers, in both rural and urban, are definitely used to it.

As a young American, this is probably true for older generations, but I can't see this remaining true for very long. I make sure to get internet only packages from Comcast, since I have absolutely no desire or need for cable.

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

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What's the point of efficiency improvements to a business without a consumer? They could be another business, but at the end of day a member of the public has to pay for it with taxes or post-tax dollars. Economies dont exist without consumers to consume what the producers produce. Sure you could measure efficiency in widgets per human-hour but at the end of day, efficiency improvements do not happen in lock-step acr…

Efficiency improvements lead to an overall increase in the amount of goods produced given a fixed amount of input. The benefit devolves onto both the producer and the consumer (this is called "surplus"), each according to their elasticity of demand. That's the econ 101 model, in any case.

In the televised video market, this "efficiency" might manifest as higher quality shows, or a wider selection of shows available to watch. You only need to look back to the early days of TV to see that what we have today is much better (more entertaining, more interesting, has higher technical quality). We also have a vastly expanded selection of shows to watch. This is the result of competition. The sum is positive, because the overall utility produced has increased.

> What's the point of efficiency improvements to a business without a consumer?

I am not sure what in my comment this is referring to. To a first approximation, there are no firms without customers. At least, none that are both legal and last very long.

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

#35

"For months now, journalists, industry insiders, and consumers have opined on who will “win” the streaming wars and why." The more streaming services there will be, the more likely it is that only thepiratebay and torrents will win.

It's amazing how we have gone full circle in the last 15 years or so. In the old days, people complained about their cable tv bill: why do I have to pay for 250 channels when I only watch 5 of them? Let me pay only for what I watch. Now that the future is here, people are complaining that they need to sign up for too many streaming services. Why can't I just pay once for a bundle and get everything I need? I'm just a…

There are only so many $10-15/month services one can sign up for before you’re paying just as much as you would for cable, but now the UX is splintered and shit.

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

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yea the hbo streaming situation is bonkers.. totally reeks of meeting some odd corporate goals or some BS. They need to solidify their offerings at ATT into like one service or something.. just have it be like HBO+ and call it a day.

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

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how we have gone full circle in the last 15 years or so. In the old days, people complained about their cable tv bill: why do I have to pay for 250 channels when I only watch 5 of them? Let me pay only for what I watch. Now that the future is here, people are complaining that they need to sign up for too many streaming services. Why can't I just pay once for a bundle and get everything I need? I'm just a…

>why do I have to pay for 250 channels when I only watch 5 of them? Let me pay only for what I watch. But that is still the case. If I could only pay for the shows I watch, I would not complain. But if I watch one Netflix show, I can't just subscribe to that show, I must pay for a ton of stuff I'm not remotely interested in. You still have Netflix, Disney+ and all the cable channels you need to subscribe to if you wa…

> But if I watch one Netflix show, I can't just subscribe to that show, I must pay for a ton of stuff I'm not remotely interested in.

When I want a song, I've always just bought it. I still do. I can do basically anything with the file other than redistribute it. I can even play music while offline! I only use streaming services like Spotify and YouTube for songs I don't regularly play.

I'm very frustrated I don't have the same option for movies and TV. Sure, I can buy the physical media, but there's all sorts of legal shinanigans when it comes to ripping blurays and such. My ideal solution isn't one big streaming service that has everything. I want an "iTunes for movies".

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

#38

"For months now, journalists, industry insiders, and consumers have opined on who will “win” the streaming wars and why." The more streaming services there will be, the more likely it is that only thepiratebay and torrents will win.

It's amazing how we have gone full circle in the last 15 years or so. In the old days, people complained about their cable tv bill: why do I have to pay for 250 channels when I only watch 5 of them? Let me pay only for what I watch. Now that the future is here, people are complaining that they need to sign up for too many streaming services. Why can't I just pay once for a bundle and get everything I need? I'm just a…

The complaint about bundling has the implicit assumption that if you'd pay for only 5 out of those 250 it would be a lot cheaper, but that's not really true. Cost of providing those 245 channels is basically zero, so there are no savings they could pass on.

Anyway with these streaming services, it's not so much that people want to pay for a bundle. It's more that micromanaging a lot of subscriptions is a chore. If they could all be integrated in a smooth manner ui-wise, but still paid separately, then people would be happy I think.

Like imagine if adding Disney+ was just a manner of clicking a button that made money flow and content available in the app you were already using.

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

#39
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…

A zero sum game is by definition a game where one party’s loss is another’s gain. That covers “winner take all” situations, or purely competitive situations.

The article’s overall point is that more streaming services can lead to more people paying for streaming services in general, enlarging the overall revenues in the segment than would otherwise be there without the new entrants.

Most folks aren’t unsubscribing from Netflix or Hulu for Disney+. They’re spending more on streaming and less on Fortnite or iPad games, or a night at the pub. This may also accelerate the decline in cable/satellite over time, but even that will be sticky since they will find ways to stay relevant.

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

#40
Calling it a war is a great strategy. It implies that one company will be left standing. I think we can all agree with the article, there won't be one person left standing.

But it's war! You have to choose a side. Are you Mac or PC? Are you iPhone or Android? Are you Netflix or Hulu? This strategy, although I don't think it was concocted by a secret group, is great at creating loyal customers. Some will cheat of course and will swing left and right, but in the end, companies make money.

Post reply on HN