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

61–70 of 187 posts

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

#61

Post by jchw »

alain94040 wrote: post #27
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.

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…

I don't think we have, I think the problem has gotten worse.

Let me try to make an example. Let's say there's one popular streaming platform, that is $5/mo. They mostly just aggregate and license content. Later on, content owners want to skip the middleman so they start making their own streaming services. So now you have 3 streaming services, which are each $5/mo.

So you are now paying 3x as much. But you don't watch 3x as much. You pay 3x as much for the privilege of being able to watch a wider variety of things. This is actually pretty similar to the problem of cable, just split in a completely different way. You still can't get the stuff you want 'a la carte,' but now you have to pay three different entities anyways.

Of course content owners will end up making out well because they make money whether on an aggregator or on their own platform, and because people now pay much more per month on average.

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

#62

Post by taurath »

jchw wrote: post #61
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…

I don't think we have, I think the problem has gotten worse. Let me try to make an example. Let's say there's one popular streaming platform, that is $5/mo. They mostly just aggregate and license content. Later on, content owners want to skip the middleman so they start making their own streaming services. So now you have 3 streaming services, which are each $5/mo. So you are now paying 3x as much. But you don't watc…

I think people preferred Netflix being the only game in town simply because then if it wasn’t on Netflix you could mostly discard it, not that there wasn’t great content not on Netflix. It’s the tomato sauce choice fallacy - many people will be quite happy just having one, as compared to having 50 because then you can’t be happy with your choice because you’ll be wondering about the other ones.

In the end - just pick a tomato sauce and try not to think about it too hard. If you don’t like it, pick a different one next time.

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

#64

Post by fdsa_1234_0000 »

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.

Man I really don't get the cost / inconvenience arguments against having a few distinct streaming services.

Cost: If you can't afford ~$15 / month for unlimited streaming stop watching TV and find a higher paying job. Seriously, you've got much bigger problems than your entertainment bill.

Inconvenience: Really? Pretty much any device -- desktop, mobile, TV -- can support these services with a quick login. That's a level of lazy I can't get my head around.

Reminder to everyone (especially you younglings): You're entitled to exactly fucking squat. Stop being worthless, whiny consumers. Go get a real job and you won't be worried about your microscopic entertainment bill.

Having said that:

I will pirate if the parent company won't sell me their content because of geo bs. That need has dropped almost to zero now. I actually pay the highest available price for services that have options (Tidal, Netflix) because really, if you watch an episode or two a night you're talking pennies to consume something that cost 7-8 figures to create. That's insane.

The economics of these services seem to fare better than the economics the internet forced on music. If you care about production quality as well as artistic quality the best days of music are in the rear view mirror (barring some kind of renaissance).

The storytelling in good tv and film is one of my favorites things about being human. If you think production budgets magically appear out of thin air you're an idiot. Pay for the things you enjoy or else they'll disappear.

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

#65

Post by taurath »

ken wrote: post #8

> Does the fact that there were four broadcast networks mean that one of them eventually prevailed, and the others disappeared? No. Was there a cable channel war resulting in one dominant cable network? No. I get all 4 broadcast networks for free over the air. Cable channels are infamously bundled so if I get one, I have to get dozens, and it's essentially impossible for channels to fail in the market. These comparis…

> if I get one, I have to get dozens, and it's essentially impossible for channels to fail in the market

Totally untrue! Cable companies have to pay a rate to get a channel. Most channels don’t fail, their viewership drops and then they turn into cheap syndication products and mostly use ad money. ESPN is like $15 of your cable bill, and OXY is like $.05. If they didn’t have enough viewers to break even on content costs and broadcast costs off of ad money, they would stop broadcasting.

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

#66

Post by httpsterio »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #41
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…

> 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 t…

There's only so many hours in a day that can be spent on streaming. I think I have something streaming for about four hours a day (I usually work or so something else at the same time) and so far Netflix's offering has been good enough that I don't have any additional subscribes.

If I want to watch something else, those hours are away from my Netflix usage and I get less for my money in those cases. I don't think that a large offering is what should raise the price, rather the hours I spend watching. If I only watch an hour a day Netflix and Hulu for 3, I think the 10USD or so should be split into 25/75 between those providers.

Splice kinda has a pricing model for their samples and presets that could be applied here. A fixed monthly cost will give me credits with which I can purchase what I want and leftovers from that month gets rolled into the next month. If I could pay 10 dollars and get 10 hours of any content on any provider, I'd buy it. I'd most likely end up paying more each month but at least I wouldn't feel like wasting my money paying a fee for content I'm not gonna watch and feeling like needing to have multiple subscriptions rolling all the time.

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

#67

Post by hocuspocus »

prawn wrote: post #21
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.

Especially because torrenting was once slow and painful, so Netflix and co compared very favourably. Now, torrenting is fast and chances are you've watched almost anything worth watching on Netflix already. Paying for a few of them might appeal to people who've historically paid for cable (or Foxtel/etc in Australia), but it's a noticeable cost otherwise. We currently subscribe to Netflix and Stan, but have dropped S…

> Especially because torrenting was once slow and painful, so Netflix and co compared very favourably.

Maybe in Australia... but here torrenting has never been slow and wasn't particularly inconvenient when Netflix first came out.

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

#68

Post by clintonb »

Supermancho wrote: post #25
npo9 wrote: 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.

Americans may have cable, but to what extent? It is cheaper for me to get Internet with basic cable—over-the-air channels—than without. My cable boxes have sat in a closet for the past six years. I stream most content I watch.

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

#69

Post by gnicholas »

sujNansnam wrote: post #49
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 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 the…

> Digital content has zero marginal cost.

In Netflix’s case, I’m not sure this is true. I’ve heard that some of the content is paid based at least partly on usage.

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

#70

Post by diffeomorphism »

starky wrote: post #46
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 wi…

> and only have Amazon Prime Video because I don't pay any extra for it with my Prime subscriptions

While I pay extra all the time on my Prime subscription for all the stuff I don't use but Amazon bundled in anyways.

Post reply on HN