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

81–90 of 187 posts

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

#81

Post by prawn »

hocuspocus wrote: post #67
prawn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Will take your word for it. I'd guess that in the past here, you'd wait a day or so for a torrent to finish. Now I'd guess they take minutes.

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

#82

Post by nabla9 »

trollied wrote: post #79
nabla9 wrote: post #75

Streaming wars are called wars because newcomers are willing to burn money for market share. Next few years Disney streaming operations are expected to make $5B loss every year. They are still profitable because they make money from everything else, including cable. This is problem for Netflix. Competitors have other sources of revenue aside from streaming services, Netflix has just streaming. Netflix hasn't had posi…

> Competitors have other sources of revenue aside from streaming services, Netflix has just streaming. Netflix have been doing cinema releases of their titles ahead of their streaming debut. Surely that's other revenue?

Not because they want to. Netflix refused to give full 12-week exclusive what the main movie chains (AMC and Regal) require. It will be limited release.

As I understand it, Netflix does cinema releases because it's required for Oscar nominations (at least seven days in a theater) and many creative partners like–like Scorsese and Baumbach–want their films into theaters.

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

#83

Post by jannes »

test1235 wrote: post #56
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I hate this fragmentation but it's still cheap enough that I can't be too pissed. Even if you have 4 video streaming services (Netflix Prime HBO Disney) and 2 music ones (Spotify and Youtube Red) and assuming you split them all with another family, it's only a monthly total of about 45-50 dollars. That's like a decent dinner for two in the Bay Area or one movie outing, for example. We spend so readily on med…

>assuming you split them all with another family I'm surprised the t+c's allow you to do that

They don't, but nobody is really trying to enforce it yet. In a few years when these services face a lot more pressure to turn a profit (after the "wars") we will probably see a lot more of that.

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

#84

Post by dijit »

Woman I know cycles her subscriptions, consumes what she has on backlog and then just moves onto the next.

It seems to work for her, although I don't think I'd be comfortable doing that because I would miss out on pop-culture references.

(I mean, one only has to look at imgur.com for a few minutes to notice a lot of Mandalorian memes, the cynic in me even considers that this might be due to Disney shilling that content)

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

#85

Post by Mindwipe »

dijit wrote: post #84

Woman I know cycles her subscriptions, consumes what she has on backlog and then just moves onto the next. It seems to work for her, although I don't think I'd be comfortable doing that because I would miss out on pop-culture references. (I mean, one only has to look at imgur.com for a few minutes to notice a lot of Mandalorian memes, the cynic in me even considers that this might be due to Disney shilling that conte…

If Disney were going to shill Star Wars memes they wouldn't be about a character where they didn't make any merchandise in time for Christmas.

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

#86

Post by Mindwipe »

trollied wrote: post #79
nabla9 wrote: post #75

Streaming wars are called wars because newcomers are willing to burn money for market share. Next few years Disney streaming operations are expected to make $5B loss every year. They are still profitable because they make money from everything else, including cable. This is problem for Netflix. Competitors have other sources of revenue aside from streaming services, Netflix has just streaming. Netflix hasn't had posi…

> Competitors have other sources of revenue aside from streaming services, Netflix has just streaming. Netflix have been doing cinema releases of their titles ahead of their streaming debut. Surely that's other revenue?

> Netflix have been doing cinema releases of their titles ahead of their streaming debut. Surely that's other revenue?

That's for awards qualification purposes. It brings in rounding errors, and almost certainly operates at a significant loss.

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

#87

Post by pbhjpbhj »

How about: if you release on a publicly accessible channel (ie streaming service) then copyright law is amended to say you have to release to any service that requests it (after say one year) or you lose your copyright.

How would that not serve the public interest?

Public gets access. Copyright owners get paid. Middlemen can't fuck it all up (so easily, I'm sure they'd find a way).

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

#88

Post by erik_seaberg »

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…

> maybe people think the prices are too high

Absurdly high. Game of Thrones costs $167 on Amazon, which is more than binge-watching it eleven times using one-month HBO subscriptions.

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

#89

Post by Mindwipe »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #54
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The problem with buying Season Passes is that they're usually a terrible option for many reasons. They're usually not available until well after the season premiered (12+ months later), roughly at the same time that the DVD/Bluray comes out. The quality of them is iffy, at best - SD or HD at poor bitrates. Fine for watching on a tablet or laptop, marginal at best on a TV/Surround system. They're tied to watching on t…

All those also apply to subscription services, and subscription services remain significantly more popular with users.

Sometimes people on HN might have to accept they are not typical users a bit.

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

#90

Post by Mindwipe »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #50
parasubvert wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is, because a la carte is always significantly more expensive. It results in higher transaction cost overhead, more risk, more cash flow volatility etc.

A la carte is significantly more expensive in literally every industry, globally, for a reason.

Post reply on HN