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

151–160 of 187 posts

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

#151

Post by alistairSH »

cyborgx7 wrote: post #122
alistairSH wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is pirating something really easier? Maybe I've been out of that game for too long, but between finding good/complete torrents of content, avoiding my ISP finding out I was doing it (and sending me nastygrams), needing to keep a server up and running to download/store media, juggling front-ends as they evolved (Plex hasn't always been around), ... Today, I have a single device (AppleTV), a single remote, and can stre…

Here in Germany, Torrenting legally is distribution, so I don't do it. But find yourself a decent streaming link aggregator, install an adblocker and you are golden. Anything with a webbrowser can play it. No major legal streaming platform can claim this. Also, you are comparing effort it takes to set-up something, with effort it takes to use it, which I'd argue isn't entirely fair.

Setting up my Apple TV took 5 minutes. Plug in the power, set up the wifi, and add a few apps. Much easier than buying a HTPC + NAS + finding the best software to install.

Using is as easy as a smart-phone. Click the search app, find content, hit play. Everything auto-updates, so there's no maintenance. VS a HTPC + NAS which take (slightly) more care+feeing to keep current on software versions.

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

#152

Post by yegle »

fluffything wrote: post #107
yxhuvud wrote: post #101

It is not a zero sum game, because when there are enough of them I can't be assed anymore and I will simply torrent the content instead. The same way you usually never paid for single networks when you bought cable stuff but just bought a bundle with a whole bunch of them.

It might not be a zero sum game for them, but it definetely is a zero-sum game for me. When I want to watch something, I just want to click it and watch it. This is the API that my torrent tracker gives me for free (Airplay to Apple TV works great for this). I'm willing to pay for a service that I use a lot and gives me an API that's at least as good as this. But it doesn't make any sense for me to pay for 5 services…

FWIW, the Google Play Movies (yes, the app on Android) provide an aggregated search based on the service you subscribed to. You can simply filter free TV/movie to see what's available to you, so you don't need to deal with 5 apps if you have 5 services.

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

#153

Post by cyborgx7 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #142
cyborgx7 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has never been cheaper or easier That's exactly the thing though. It has been easier. We all remember it being easier, when we pirated something. The actual sentence should be "it has never been easier while also getting to pay for it". That's just not a very compelling case.

It’s easier to walk out with groceries than stand in line and pay for them also. There is no purpose to comparing pirating with legal means.

Try walking out with your groceries sometime and tell me again it's easier.

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

#154

Post by scarface74 »

Goladus wrote: post #149
scarface74 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generic DVD rippers used DeCSS to remove DRM. There were also plenty of devices that could remove MacroVision while you were copying. I never said that the copy protection schemes weren’t easily circumvented. I said that commercial video has always had copy protection.

So, a point irrelevant to any part of the actual discussion.

I said.

You’ve never been able to buy commercial video without copy protection. Even in the VHS days you had Macrovision.

That statement is factually correct.

The reply:

Not true. Perhaps you meant to say that copy protection has existed for a long time. But plenty of commercial video has been available without copy protection.

Which is factually incorrect.

The reply:

I copied in the 2000s using whatever generic DVD ripper was available for windows at the time. I recall once or twice being unable to rip a DVD for copy protection reasons but it was rare.

Since even the oldest Windows dvd copy programs like DVDRipper could crack DRM doesn’t prove anything...

Are you now saying that being factually correct is “irrelevant”?

But using programs and devices that removed copy protection somehow proves that it didn’t exist?

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

#155

Post by lotsofpulp »

Goladus wrote: post #148
lotsofpulp wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In discretionary entertainment goods, there is no “should be” price, other than the price a seller is willing to sell at and a buyer is willing to buy at. If the media owner determine there is insufficient revenue and more can be had by lowering price, they can do that. What is relevant is that it used to cost much more to get the same product, and it’s up to the buyer to determine what they want to spend to entertai…

> there is no “should be” price, other than the price a seller is willing to sell at and a buyer is willing to buy at. That's true in most markets, but also totally irrelevant to the point. If a seller has no idea what the market will pay for something, and so just slaps on an absurdly high price because they don't actually care about this secondary (a la carte) market at all, that's almost the same as not offering t…

The sellers in this discussion are multinational organizations with very well educated people working with access to tons of data. I'm sure that for their own compensation's sake, they are busy figuring out how to extract as much value from their content as possible, which means figuring out how to get as many people to pay as much as they can for it.

They've offered the very show we're talking about, GoT, for $15 per month, when you want to watch, on pretty much any device you want to watch it on. Included in the $15 is pretty much the rest of their award winning content. If buyers think they can get a better deal elsewhere for their entertainment, they are welcome to patronize other businesses.

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

#156

Post by cyborgx7 »

alistairSH wrote: post #151
cyborgx7 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Germany, Torrenting legally is distribution, so I don't do it. But find yourself a decent streaming link aggregator, install an adblocker and you are golden. Anything with a webbrowser can play it. No major legal streaming platform can claim this. Also, you are comparing effort it takes to set-up something, with effort it takes to use it, which I'd argue isn't entirely fair.

Setting up my Apple TV took 5 minutes. Plug in the power, set up the wifi, and add a few apps. Much easier than buying a HTPC + NAS + finding the best software to install. Using is as easy as a smart-phone. Click the search app, find content, hit play. Everything auto-updates, so there's no maintenance. VS a HTPC + NAS which take (slightly) more care+feeing to keep current on software versions.

I feel like you are being dense on purpose here. I talk about anything with a webbrowser and you argue about the complication of htpc and nas.

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

#157

Post by alistairSH »

cyborgx7 wrote: post #156
alistairSH wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting up my Apple TV took 5 minutes. Plug in the power, set up the wifi, and add a few apps. Much easier than buying a HTPC + NAS + finding the best software to install. Using is as easy as a smart-phone. Click the search app, find content, hit play. Everything auto-updates, so there's no maintenance. VS a HTPC + NAS which take (slightly) more care+feeing to keep current on software versions.

I feel like you are being dense on purpose here. I talk about anything with a webbrowser and you argue about the complication of htpc and nas.

Also, you are comparing effort it takes to set-up something, with effort it takes to use it, which I'd argue isn't entirely fair.

I thought you were talking about setting up some sort of torrenting/media server system with this part of your comment.

I agree, using a browser is easy enough. But, why would I when the AppleTV is already connected to my TV and I can do everything with a simple remote and voice commands?

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

#158

Post by cyborgx7 »

alistairSH wrote: post #157
cyborgx7 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you are being dense on purpose here. I talk about anything with a webbrowser and you argue about the complication of htpc and nas.

Also, you are comparing effort it takes to set-up something, with effort it takes to use it, which I'd argue isn't entirely fair. I thought you were talking about setting up some sort of torrenting/media server system with this part of your comment. I agree, using a browser is easy enough. But, why would I when the AppleTV is already connected to my TV and I can do everything with a simple remote and voice commands?

Then don't if it's easier for you. My usecase is I want to watch things on a reltively low powered Linux laptop. They have nothing for me.

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

#159

Post by rchaud »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #88
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…

> 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.

I don't watch GoT, but that price for an 8-season series with ~10 episodes/season (I"m guessing), is about $2/episode, which I think is pretty reasonable.

I have a box set of the old NBC sitcom Frasier. 11 seasons, 264 (!) episodes, probably $200 total. I've had it for over a decade, and it's been a great thing to have while traveling, or moving to a new home where I won't have Internet set up for a week.

I'm happy to pay a one-time fee for content I'll own forever and can watch in whatever delivery method I want, be it Plex, Kodi or ripped to my phone's SD card. Netflix, Amazon etc can pull these shows off their catalog whenever they want, and shove some unrelated show in my face when their search results don't show what I'm looking for.

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

#160

Post by Lammy »

OJFord wrote: post #72
Lammy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because I don’t pay any extra for it with my Prime subscription. I see their advertising is effective. The price of Prime was even increased recently to help fund video production.

Advertising or not, you can't get Prime without VoD, so if GP likes the deal just for shipping, or for shipping and music, then fine. Personally I have it mainly for shipping, and get good value out of that (especially since here it's next day by default, some items same day), and stream occasionally.

I meant advertising in the sense that GP now thinks of Prime Video as a $0 extra and not Prime as a bucket that contains all these things and is priced accordingly. In reality all Prime customers are paying for Prime Video even if they don’t use it.
Post reply on HN