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

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

#41

Post by chipotle_coyote » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:40 AM UTC

BurningCycles wrote: post #32

alain94040 wrote: post #27

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…

> 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...

We've been able to do this with a substantial number of shows for years, though, by buying individual episodes or "season passes" on Amazon and iTunes. Maybe people just don't know, maybe people think the prices are too high, but more than likely the market has just largely moved on from this model for much the same reason that it moved on from CDs: the rise of streaming. (But put a pin in that for a second...)

> ...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...

This is what we all want price-wise, but would we really, truly want to turn Netflix into the equivalent of the iOS App Store for essentially all legal streaming movies and television?

Everyone blames the proliferation of streaming services on rapacious greed, and, I mean, sure, the profit motive is mighty. But it's also a matter of keeping control. Broadcast networks and cable companies are middlemen who not only take a cut of the profit but who also act as gatekeepers; it's a little mad to think that producers would want to free themselves from that system only to rebuild it with a single all-powerful company in the command seat.

Sure, not all the streaming services will survive, especially at the prices Netflix is currently charging. But I'm not convinced that the world is really going to rise up and rebel against having to pay $50 or $60 a month total to a half-dozen providers for commercial-free, on-demand access to hundreds of thousand of shows versus paying $100+ a month to a single provider.

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

#42

Post by parasubvert » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:41 AM UTC

BurningCycles wrote: post #32

alain94040 wrote: post #27

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…

A la carte TV/Movies have existed for longer than Netflix has been streaming. Google Play, Apple TV, Sony PlayStation store and Microsoft Xbox store all sell seasons and/or episodes and/or full movies. And you can often rent movies for cheaper.

Overall, consumers preferred the subscriptions. They’re a better deal if you watch more than 5-10 hours a month.

Though there are some things you can only purchase a la carte.

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

#43

Post by chipotle_coyote » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:42 AM UTC

CivBase wrote: post #37

BurningCycles wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ha…

> I want an "iTunes for movies".

You... know that iTunes sells movies, right?

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

#44

Post by parasubvert » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:44 AM UTC

CivBase wrote: post #37

BurningCycles wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ha…

There... is an iTunes for movies. I mean, I own hundreds of iTunes movies, some of which I purchased 13 years ago. Microsoft, Google, and Sony all have equivalents.

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

#45

Post by hos234 » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:44 AM UTC

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…

Or just buy/lobby govts to make Internet free in the sense that roads are.

Once individual consumers hit "peak data" consumable, which despite all the hoopla about phones/IoT devices everywhere streaming in 8k 24x7, has probably already happened (upper limit being the brains input bandwidth), there is no great reason for anyone to invest in ISP's esp looking forward 10-20 years. Kind of like Walmart or Amazon thinking they need to buy highways to keep their addicts supplied.

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

#46

Post by starky » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:50 AM UTC

illuminati1911 wrote: post #2

"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.

Yup, I got rid of Netflix because they often didn't have what I wanted to watch, and only have Amazon Prime Video because I don't pay any extra for it with my Prime subscriptions. Not to mention that not every streaming service is available in Canada. If I have to worry about where to find the show I want to watch or whether it is available in my country, then I may as well just go straight to a source that I know will have it.

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

#47

Post by akiselev » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:57 AM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #34

akiselev wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Thank you for the explanation, that makes more sense.

How is overall utility measured in cases of intangible goods like TV shows and movies? I think I understand what surplus means in the context of industrial/agricultural production or simple services like hair cuts or deliveries but what about media? The success of movies or TV shows can't be quantified with an objective measurement like length or CGI per square inch or Rotten Tomato points, only by the profit they generate - which seems to only get more circular and complicated with Hollywood accounting.

There are certainly more shows available to watch today, "interesting" or not, because the market for entertainment has grown massively but it seems to me they only have higher technical quality because human attention is zero sum and they've hit diminishing returns on their capital (which I don't think is all that different from most other industries).

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

#48

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 6:13 AM UTC

akiselev wrote: post #47

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Thank you for the explanation, that makes more sense. How is overall utility measured in cases of intangible goods like TV shows and movies? I think I understand what surplus means in the context of industrial/agricultural production or simple services like hair cuts or deliveries but what about media? The success of movies or TV shows can't be quantified with an objective measurement like length or CGI per square in…

> How is overall utility measured

In the sense of the model, it's not necessarily measured. There is an understanding that there is no such measuring tool as a "util measuring stick." Util being my made up word for a unit of utility. It is taken as a given that utils are roughly convertible to currency, or at least that people are willing to exchange a roughly consistent amount of currency for a given amount of utility. The amount of currency exchanged in a voluntary economic transaction represents both an upper bound on the seller's valuation of what they are selling and a lower bound on the buyer's valuation of what they are buying.

All of this with the appropriate vast numbers of caveats about it just being a model. It's a tool for rough prediction.

> human attention is zero sum

This is not so. You could be forced to pay attention to paint drying on a wall, or you could watch a show that moves you to tears. Both consume the same amount of attention (by which I think you mean, "time spent paying attention"), but both do not provide you so the same amount of utility. You would obviously pay more for one of those experiences than the other.

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

#49

Post by sujNansnam » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 6:13 AM UTC

anonytrary wrote: post #3

illuminati1911 wrote: post #2

"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.

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 mistake you’re making is thinking there is a such a thing as “50 cents a month” of content. HBO was never going to sell you Game of Thrones for 50 cents. Netflix was never going to sell you House of Cards for 50 cents. They are selling you [your favorite show] for $10 and throwing in the rest of the catalog. Digital content has zero marginal cost. That means that a provider would rather sell you every show in their catalog for $11 then just the one show you want for $10. Turns out most consumers prefer that option too. If they don’t, they can still buy the individual unbundled seasons.

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

#50

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 6:48 AM UTC

parasubvert wrote: post #42

BurningCycles wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

A la carte TV/Movies have existed for longer than Netflix has been streaming. Google Play, Apple TV, Sony PlayStation store and Microsoft Xbox store all sell seasons and/or episodes and/or full movies. And you can often rent movies for cheaper. Overall, consumers preferred the subscriptions. They’re a better deal if you watch more than 5-10 hours a month. Though there are some things you can only purchase a la carte.

It costs more to buy four episodes of a single show than an entire month of a typical streaming service. That is not the "let me pick my channels" service that people often ask for.