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

Introducing Vdio

blog.rdio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 107 posts

Re: Introducing Vdio

#71

Post by ShaunK »

ricardobeat wrote: post #38
deltaqueue wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it's a perfect model, but the alternative is having to pay $100/month for a cable subscription to watch garbage you don't want to see, or $10+ to see it in a dirty movie theater, or $15 to "buy" a movie that was $15 in the 90's for a physical DVD. Even if there are 5 Netflixes competing against each other I would rather pay 5 x $7.99 a month to watch content I actually find relevant than pay for junk I…

> Even if there are 5 Netflixes competing against each other [producing their own content] I would rather pay 5 x $7.99 a month You've just described cable. If those subscriptions start to come in packages we're back to square one.

The difference between cable and having 5 Netflix competitors is that you don't have one company with a local monopoly setting your pricing.

Re: Introducing Vdio

#72

Post by hox »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #60
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how Netflix producing content and making it exclusive to their subscription service is a win for consumers.

It's at least a step up from how studios like HBO operate. If you want to watch HBO's content, there's no legal way to do so without being part of an expensive cable package. If you wanted to watch House of Cards and you weren't already a Netflix member, you could just pay the $8 (or get a free first-month trial) to essentially rent the entire Netflix catalog for an entire month. That's what you might have paid not t…

HBO's content is available on a number of outlets as individual seasons and/or episodes.

Re: Introducing Vdio

#73

Post by nosecreek »

msbarnett wrote: post #48
onemorepassword wrote: post #36

"only available [...] in the US and UK" Can anybody think of any geo-tarded service that successfully rolled out in other countries later? Because as some not in the "chosen countries" I always feel that those services either a) never arrive, b) get beaten to the punch by local competitors or c) have to spend a shitload of money to conquer that market, sometimes by buying the aforementioned competitors. Also, unless…

> Can anybody think of any geo-tarded service that successfully rolled out in other countries later? Rdio, iTunes Music Store, iTunes Movie/TV Store, Netflix, Amazon's digital services, etc were all unavailable in Canada on launch and successfully rolled out later on.

Canada has Amazon's digital services? I was surprised to see Rdio on this list as well, but it does look like they now work in Canada.

Re: Introducing Vdio

#74

Post by Cyranix »

rdouble wrote: post #43
tptacek wrote: post #3

I hope this means Rdio is going to be a more sustainable long-term business, and not that Rdio is pivoting away from music; Rdio seems to be the best of a shaky lot when it comes to subscription music services, and I'd hate for it to get worse.

None of the streaming music companies are sustainable in the long term.

Do you have a basis for this statement?

Re: Introducing Vdio

#75

Post by grimgrin »

bennesvig wrote: post #55
ThomPete wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its pretty hard to beat Spotify unless you have some specific taste in music they dont cover well. But overall I have a hard time seing a better service than theirs. It just works, is fast and has a large db of content.

I've tried both and have stuck with Rdio. The social aspect is superior. I love being able to see playlists and recommendations from random people beyond my Facebook friends. Spotify's desktop app is definitely faster, though I find Rdio to be better designed.

But there is a BIG difference here if we're talking about the free services of both. Spotify is always free, and rdio is only free for 6 months. Yes it's probably a good thing to pay for a service that you like (I do), but some people don't, and that's going to be where they prefer Spotify.

http://support.spotify.com/us/learn-more/faq/#!/article/How-...

http://help.rdio.com/customer/portal/articles/187730-rdio-fo...

Re: Introducing Vdio

#76

Post by dublinben »

Cyranix wrote: post #74
rdouble wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the streaming music companies are sustainable in the long term.

Do you have a basis for this statement?

The profit margins are too slim. Their revenue barely covers the operating costs and onerous licensing fees.

Re: Introducing Vdio

#77

Post by dublinben »

lukifer wrote: post #24
evan_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gets brought up every time anyone talks about any media streaming services, but has it ever been shown that consumers care ?

They don't care pre-emptively, but it only takes getting burned once after sinking hundreds or thousands into a dead platform that they start to get skeptical.

I'm sure any customers of Walmart Music are reluctant to fall for this again.

http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/09/wal-mart-latest...

Re: Introducing Vdio

#78

Post by dublinben »

wmf wrote: post #33
nickconfer wrote: post #12

The problem that no one is solving is ownership. If I pay $15 for movie from vdio, what happens if that company goes away? Why can't I switch my collection from iTunes to amazon, etc... Ultimetly that is the top reason I avoid buying digital content. It's a frustrating issue, and legislation should be passed to guarantee consumer protection on their digital goods.

UltraViolet solves this problem, but it's only being embraced by marginal services. (Vudu and Flixster? Sorry, never heard of them.)

UltraViolet is only a solution as long as the studios behind it consider it viable. When they move onto the next platform, your 'ownership' of a digital copy will be worthless.

Re: Introducing Vdio

#80

Post by wmf »

dublinben wrote: post #78
wmf wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UltraViolet solves this problem, but it's only being embraced by marginal services. (Vudu and Flixster? Sorry, never heard of them.)

UltraViolet is only a solution as long as the studios behind it consider it viable. When they move onto the next platform, your 'ownership' of a digital copy will be worthless.

AFAIK the central UltraViolet registry has a business model that will let it survive for years without any help from Hollywood.
Post reply on HN