Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

joe-steel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 289 posts

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#181

Post by empath75 »

jrmg wrote: post #177
poink wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing for me is that the media companies that thought they could just launch their own streaming services and keep all the money for themselves completely devalued the engineering of Netflix. It was "FAANG" for a reason. Viscerally, Netflix doesn't feel like it belongs alongside Google, but it did, because it was good. How does Disney fail to make money off Star Wars? Because they decided to build a shitty tech c…

I can’t square your comment with the fact that my experience of the other big name streaming services has been just as good as my experience with Netflix. They basically all just work almost all the time. If Netflix has more valuable technical excellence it should show in the customer experience of the product.

HBO's app is a dumpster fire, but disney+ is quite nice.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#182

Post by jrockway »

evilfred wrote: post #170
schneems wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell me how that changes the story for you?

it discounts the entire parent post. BAMTech wasn't a shitty in-house development, it was a billion dollar buyout of the widely acclaimed MLB streamer.

Disney is also a huge tech company, and has been one for a while. They didn't buy a system for managing theme parks off the shelf.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#183

Post by harimau777 »

hiccuphippo wrote: post #161
codetrotter wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it comes down to personal taste. I could likewise see someone say that 80% of all soccer matches are the same. That once you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all. And then on the opposite end you have people enjoying soccer who will be happy to tell you about the nuances between different matches, different players, different teams, etc.

Ah yes, https://xkcd.com/915/

I kind of dislike XKCD strips like that because they seem to encourage people not to think. In actuality the issue may be much more nuanced:

- Perhaps different things do have a greater or lesser degree to which they lend themselves to deep analysis & enjoyment

- Perhaps engaging in meditative analysis of some interest such as wine is valuable in itself even if it is mostly arbitrary what people choose to analyze.

- Perhaps the decision that wine is worth studying was mostly just an accident of history, but now that it's become part of culture failing to engage with it represents a failure to engage with valuable cultural traditions.

Any of those ideas and others might be worth agreeing or disagreeing with. However, it sometimes feels like people just read the XKCD comic and don't think beyond "wine snobs dumb".

Edit: To be clear, I'm not trying to say that the parent post is doing that. Just that I'm not a fan of how XKCD engages (or more specifically doesn't engage) with some issues.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#184

Post by dudul »

duxup wrote: 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.

In my case old content is way superior to new content.

As far as I'm concerned, we could stop making new movies and shows tomorrow I wouldn't bat an eye. There's already several lifetimes of great content to enjoy.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#185

Post by jayd16 »

fbdab103 wrote: post #75
jayd16 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say it's a fixed amount of content? Finite, sure, but it's not fixed.

However, I doubt just because there are 4x streaming platforms there are suddenly 4x studios capable of producing even a low budget show. Knowing nothing of media production, but I assume there are a large number of technical roles which are advisable if trying to produce mainstream content.

There is certainly plenty of talent in Hollywood sitting around most of the time. Downtime is a well established phenomena of the business as you wait for another gig. Beyond that, there are plenty of people looking to break into showbiz. If you throw around money, more shows get made. Quality can thin as top talent is spread across more shows but we're nowhere near the maximum throughput given infinite dollars.

It's not cost effective though. It's more a matter of fixed viewership.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#186

Post by poink »

nostromo wrote: post #172
poink wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing for me is that the media companies that thought they could just launch their own streaming services and keep all the money for themselves completely devalued the engineering of Netflix. It was "FAANG" for a reason. Viscerally, Netflix doesn't feel like it belongs alongside Google, but it did, because it was good. How does Disney fail to make money off Star Wars? Because they decided to build a shitty tech c…

Netflix's tech is unremarkable now, though it was impressive 10 years ago. The tech difference from a user's perspective between HBO, Disney, Hulu, and Netflix today is nil.

Netflix has caching boxes at every major ISP and has been randomly knocking over their own services for several years to ensure they can recover without significant manual intervention. Even if the customer experience isn't that much better, their content delivery is almost certainly much cheaper per stream.

Beyond that, you don't have to _rebuild Netflix_. Even if you do a good job, that's very expensive. It's folly to think you're going to make more money doing that than you will striking very favorable licensing terms with a fairly desperate tech company. Keep the "we could just build Disney+" in your back pocket as a threat.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#187

Post by macintux »

siquick wrote: post #175
jwrallie wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone has experience with cancelling and switching services periodically so that you can access all the content, but not at the same time?

We cancel each service as soon as we subscribe (easy through Apple subscriptions. Most of the time we don’t even realise the month has passed and the service has cancelled until we want to watch something on the service, then it takes 15 seconds to resubscribe.

Apple has changed the game in so many ways. This is definitely one of them.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#188

Post by travoc »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #136
citizenkeen wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep thinking about Plex but I struggle with the idea of teaching my kids that stealing is okay. Like, for a little kid: "This kind of theft is okay, this kind of theft isn't." seems nuanced for a little kid.

Why do people think it is OK to steal media? I never understand it. After university, I reduced my media stealing habits by 99+%. During/before uni, I was broke and could not afford to buy media. (Not an excuse, but just the reality.) After uni, I had a job so I could afford to buy some media.

Do you teach your kids that borrowing from libraries is not OK?

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#189

Post by jrm4 »

nostromo wrote: post #172
poink wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing for me is that the media companies that thought they could just launch their own streaming services and keep all the money for themselves completely devalued the engineering of Netflix. It was "FAANG" for a reason. Viscerally, Netflix doesn't feel like it belongs alongside Google, but it did, because it was good. How does Disney fail to make money off Star Wars? Because they decided to build a shitty tech c…

Netflix's tech is unremarkable now, though it was impressive 10 years ago. The tech difference from a user's perspective between HBO, Disney, Hulu, and Netflix today is nil.

Given the existence of torrents, it really wasn't. Ever.
Post reply on HN