Live data from Hacker News

Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

joe-steel.com

11–20 of 289 posts

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#12
Disney did not get that, for Disney+ to work, there needs to be constant new, exciting releases.

As TFA says, Disney+ had a few great titles then just fizzled out. Yeah, it’s nice for little kids, but not nice enough for this kind of cost.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#13
> When Disney+ first premiered it was criticized for only having The Mandalorian and WandaVision which were both over in the blink of an eye. Marvel, for me, has had diminishing returns since then, and I would not subscribe to Disney+ to exclusively watch anything from Marvel at this point.

> Star Wars, unfortunately, is also on the bubble with several disappointments, including the most recent Star Wars: Ashoka where I watched 50 minutes of space whales doing space whale stuff. Stretching Star Wars: Skeleton Key and Star Wars: The Acolyte out into next year, with both unlikely to be as inspired as Star Wars: Andor doesn’t convince me that $109.99 needs to leave my bank account right this very minute.

As far as I can tell, there are roughly two kinds of people:

1. People that just have too much time on their hands. Or, at least, more time than they have executive function and willpower to fill it with actual activities. They are actively looking for any kind of media consumption to make the hands on the clock move faster.

2. People for whom their time has value and products are competing to be the best use of their time.

I see so many people who appear to be in the first category and will watch anything, even stuff they admittedly find boring, just to... I don't know... run out the clock on their life.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#15
Basically there was a finite amount of content and a lot of it appeared on Netflix. Then 4+ services launched and a near fixed amount of content was divided by 4. Then they doubled the price. So now for a worse discovery experience you are effectively paying 8x the price.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#16
post #9
post #8

We have Disney+ but don’t watch it super often. Our price is increasing from $85/yr to $140. I’ll probably cancel here in a few days and maybe in the future just subscribe for a month and binge some shows after they’re out. The almost doubling of the price is absurd.

140 a year? You know you can pay for a good VPN for a lot less than that...

Can you though? NordVPN for instance comes to $67.5 for the first year and then $120 every year. I know there are cheaper options too, but not that much. Plus they still have to buy the subscription. And then dealing with the hassle of the VPN.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#17

> When Disney+ first premiered it was criticized for only having The Mandalorian and WandaVision which were both over in the blink of an eye. Marvel, for me, has had diminishing returns since then, and I would not subscribe to Disney+ to exclusively watch anything from Marvel at this point. > Star Wars, unfortunately, is also on the bubble with several disappointments, including the most recent Star Wars: Ashoka wher…

[deleted]

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#18
post #7

I don’t really care about “new” content. Similar to video games. I consume if it is new or old. If I can’t find content then I’m done with the service. Unfortunately on all these platforms discovery is horrible unless they want you to find it.

When reducing copyright terms or eliminating copyright comes up, there’s always someone posting about how horrible it’ll be if the rate of creation of new media plummets, and I just cannot relate.

I’m not even going to get through every video game that’s probably worth playing, that already exists, before I die, and that’s a fairly new medium. Music? TV? Film? Books? LOL. LMFAO.

If all publishing magically entirely stops tomorrow, it’s not like I’m going to run out of probably-good media to “consume”. Not even close. Affect on QOL would be basically zero.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#20
post #16
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

140 a year? You know you can pay for a good VPN for a lot less than that...

Can you though? NordVPN for instance comes to $67.5 for the first year and then $120 every year. I know there are cheaper options too, but not that much. Plus they still have to buy the subscription. And then dealing with the hassle of the VPN.

Mullvad? 72$ yearly instead of the price hike with Nord, pretty easy to set and forget an always-on vpn. Are clients that bad these days that hard to miss red/green on/off toggles are the hassle or where's the friction?
Post reply on HN