[HN Gopher] It's hard to say who's winning the streaming wars, b... ___________________________________________________________________ It's hard to say who's winning the streaming wars, but customers are losing Author : anderspitman Score : 177 points Date : 2021-11-19 18:52 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (apitman.com) (TXT) w3m dump (apitman.com) | [deleted] | tamaharbor wrote: | Thepiratebay and a good VPN should solve a lot of your problems. | anothernewdude wrote: | What's the VPN for? | vkou wrote: | While it's plausible to believe that all VPNs are actually | honeypots for the police to catch criminals, getting sued | over torrenting something is a civil case. | | In this case, the hope is that your VPN won't accept money | from media rights holders, in exchange for your data. | comeonseriously wrote: | Are you saying something without actually saying something? | tamaharbor wrote: | It seems to have stopped those annoying piracy letters from | my internet provider. | avalys wrote: | You know, you don't need to watch any TV at all. | anothernewdude wrote: | Honestly one thing netflix has done for me: I'm watching far | less. | Mikeb85 wrote: | Meh, I'm much happier with internet + paying for individual | streaming services than I ever was with a full cable TV package. | | Plus Netflix and Amazon are actually creating some decent | content. | zibzab wrote: | I think pirates are winning. | Notorious_BLT wrote: | Exactly this. For a couple of years, I was onboard with | streaming. It was convenient and frictionless. But now I find | myself having to search google to find out which service a | movie/show is on, only to find its on none of the ones I have. | I pay for Hulu, share my inlaws Netflix account, and I have | Amazon Prime. If whatever I want isn't readily available on one | of those, I immediately just pirate it and put it on my Plex | server (and my backup drive), where I'll always have access to | it. | | Gabe Newell put forward his thoughts on piracy and the success | of Steam as a digital content platform about a decade ago now, | saying "The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting | antipiracy technology to work. ... It's by giving those people | a service that's better than what they're receiving from the | pirates." And for a couple of years, I think streaming services | achieved that. Netflix and Hulu really did seem to capture the | market in paid services because they were so convenient. But as | the market fractures into smaller and smaller services, I think | a lot of people are going to turn back to piracy. | anothernewdude wrote: | I only subscribe to Netflix, and these days I don't even bother | to check if things are on there first. If its a show I actually | want to watch, why not go where it's guaranteed to be? | threevox wrote: | Only viable solution | commandlinefan wrote: | Are they though? They make less money than streaming | services... I do believe they actually lose money hosting these | piracy sites. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | Yup. That's me to an extent. | | I subscribe to Netflix, HBO, and Disney. If what I want to | watch isn't on either of those three, it's getting pirated. | handrous wrote: | I sometimes pirate things that are on services I'm paying for | just because I don't want to have to remember which one has | the thing I want to watch, every time I go to watch it, or | switch between apps if watching multiple shows, or whatever. | jasomill wrote: | The only thing that _really_ tempts me to piracy are shows | only available for streaming via iOS apps that disable | picture-in-picture viewing during commercial breaks. | | This particular behavior should really be banned by App | Store guidelines, as it generates no revenue for Apple, and | I can't imagine a single provider willing to forgo ad | revenue from iOS users as a whole over such a rule. | | Show commercials, if you must, but trying to _force me to | pay attention to commercials_ via technological means is | where I draw the line. | | Instead of actually bothering to pirate the show, however, | I generally just do something else. | | I'm honestly curious why (AFAIK) major content producers | haven't looked beyond existing revenue streams and | experimented with freemium (or at least "low-costium") | models, along the lines of Microsoft studios releasing | current AAA titles through Game Pass -- which, while not | free, is arguably inexpensive -- but charging extra for | optional in-game purchases and DLC. | | In other words, make base versions of shows available for | free or at a low cost, then charge a few bucks per season | for premium features like early access to episodes, 4K/HDR, | and bonus content. For major franchises, at least, I | imagine there are at least enough fans willing to pay, say, | $10-20 per season for such features to make such a venture | worthwhile. | input_sh wrote: | If it isn't in two streaming services I'm paying for, you're | damn right I'm pirating it. | | Not like I have any other choice anyway when some stuff is just | geolocked from me (Disney+, some HBO stuff, etc). | toun wrote: | Ignoring cost, there's two things preventing me from watching | content legally in acceptable quality: DRMs and connection | speed. | | The day streaming providers allow downloading high quality, DRM | free video files to watch for later, I'll happily pay 3 bucks | per movie. | | As it stands, I can't play anything >720p because of DRMs. If | you're willing to prevent paying customers from watching what | they're paying for, just for the sake of reassuring your | shareholders that you're combatting piracy (though failing | miserably), then I have no remorse torrenting your content. | judge2020 wrote: | > As it stands, I can't play anything >720p because of DRMs. | | Should be able to play 4k via the official Netflix app on | Windows, assuming you have the relevant chain of DRM | protection (ie. TPM might be required, along with HDCP cables | and monitors). | | > (though failing miserably), | | I'd argue that they're winning, actually - torrenting these | days requires some upfront costs (hard drives and a media | server) and an initial time investment (dedicate $xx hours to | learning and managing a media server + media library | software). It's much easier to punch in your credit card to | the 3 streaming services you want to use that month. | | This is on top of the fact that most media giants contract | out a service to automatically send DMCA takedown requests to | the ISP of every torrent peer. If you're in the U.S. doing | this, you're most likely going to get a letter from your ISP | asking you to stop torrenting illegal content. Xfinity in | particular has a 3 (or 6?) strike system for DMCAs, after | which they'll terminate your service. Any torrenting | effectively must be accompanied by a VPN that is torrent- | friendly and ignores DMCAs. | input_sh wrote: | > (hard drives and a media server) | | Eh? I'm pretty sure at least 80% of pirates just delete the | movie/show from their PC/laptop when they're done watching | it, _maybe_ casting it to a TV in the process. | toun wrote: | Yes, but those are all non problems for anyone remotely | tech-savvy. The point is, DRMs are hurting paying customers | and do not even make it more difficult for pirates: when | you download a torrent, DRMs are already completely | stripped, so the only people prevented from consuming DRM'd | content are paying customers with non-HDCP compliant | hardware. That's insane. | brewdad wrote: | I'm happy to not deal with the world of pirating much these | days. Only things I really pirate are some BBC/UK shows that | likely won't ever make it to the US and the GD Pac-12 Network | because they can't get their act together and get their network | on any streaming service worth subscribing to. | ghaff wrote: | There are also very few shows that I absolutely have to | watch. There's far more good content out there than I have | time to watch so if something is hard to get at, I'm | generally fine with moving on to the next thing. I don't | watch a lot of video. | mgaunard wrote: | Why would you try to watch a TV show on your phone? Is that a | zoomer thing? | | Can you not just download stuff from NZB and use whatever open- | source software you like to stream and play it on your computer | device of choice? | ericmay wrote: | > Why would you try to watch a TV show on your phone? Is that a | zoomer thing? | | Maybe you're at the airport or on a plane/train/car, maybe you | don't own a laptop, maybe you're traveling for work and just | brought your work laptop, maybe someone else is using the TV, | maybe... | | Plenty of reasons you might watch a TV show on your phone | lol... | skinnymuch wrote: | I am surprised it's questioned. If you're watching something | like reality tv, big screen isn't needed. | | I watch all my TV while walking usually. Trying to lose some | gained weight. iPad/tablet can work too if I'd want to. | smugglerFlynn wrote: | Sure grandpa let's get you to bed | skinnymuch wrote: | I watch stuff on my phone, my brother does it all the time, a | friend in their 40s does too. We are all the two generations | after Zoomers. | | Unless it's an action thing, a bigger screen isn't needed. | Phone is on me and quicker. | | I'm not sure what NZB is. I just want to quickly watch | something usually. | robbyking wrote: | I very very rarely watch TV, but when I do it's usually on my | phone. I don't have a television, so when my wife and I watch a | movie together it's on our laptop, but when I'm by myself I | prefer my phone. | spideymans wrote: | A sizeable minority of Gen-Z adults to not even own or use a | TV. Streaming on phones/tablets/laptops is "good enough", so | why shell out the money for a TV? | | Heck, even when my Gen Z friends do have a TV _right in front | of them_ , they'll often end up watching TV on their laptops or | phones anyways. I suppose it's easier than fiddling with a | Chromecast. | PaulHoule wrote: | I got interested in the show _Alter Ego_ on Fox and wanted to | catch up on what I 'd missed. Fox let me watch one episode before | registering (and paying?) but I was able to watch it all on | Youtube. | | Odds are better that you find anything on Youtube than any place | else unless it is a Chinese TV series that shouldn't be obscure | but practically is. (Like how I had to get a bootleg of _Three | Kingdoms_ from Singapore.) | tyingq wrote: | Did a few searches, and YouTube does seem to have great access | for a lot of titles. | | It's not always real economical though. One season of the | Handmaid's Tale is only available to buy, not rent. And it's | $25. I could pay for 2 months of "no ads" Hulu and get that | season and everything else they have, for less. | | So fragmentation is still an issue. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > So fragmentation is still an issue. | | Maybe Apple is doing the right thing by forcing everything to | go through the App Store on iOS. | tyingq wrote: | Not fragmentation of payment, fragmentation of streaming | rights across Netflix, Hulu, Disney, Prime, etc. I don't | see the two as particularly related. | PaulHoule wrote: | I think many of the things you find on Youtube aren't | supposed to be there but they get uploaded anyway. | skinnymuch wrote: | Yeah Alter Ego isn't. I think parent was looking at | officially available paid offerings only. Not pirated | streaming which the grandparent/OP is referring to. Content | creators don't get anything in that case though. | skinnymuch wrote: | I believe the OP meant bootleg uploaded copies. Otherwise | like you said. Many streaming services have it: Hulu, Fubo. | Even Fox's subsidiary Tubi has it. Which is free streaming I | believe with ads. A one month subscription will usually be | cheaper then buying. | pazurduy wrote: | The problem relies on the vertical integration (streaming and | production), this is no a new problem, actually it's the same | problem as it was with movie theaters back in 1948 (https://en.wi | kipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic...), I've | remember watched a video about it a few years ago | (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDF-S68kx5o) | lotsofpulp wrote: | I went to the TV app on my iPhone, searched for Survivor, | scrolled to season 41 episode 9, and saw I could watch it for $3, | or you can sign up for Paramount+. | yellow_postit wrote: | Searching across multiple services is a key feature I have yet | to find a reliable option for. For syndicated shows I want to | see if they exist on a service I already pay for and if not, | price shop. | | CanIStreamIt used to fill this gap but no longer. | skinnymuch wrote: | Justwatch and reelgood are reliable enough. I usually use | justwatch through https://Trakt.tv | readflaggedcomm wrote: | Rokus do that for any of their channels that supports it, | which are a whole lot. | | You can use it on the web, too, and it shows which channels | require a subscription: https://www.roku.com/whats-on/search | I assume it's accurate for those services across other | platforms than just Roku. | lotsofpulp wrote: | The TV app on macOS and iOS does this. Except for Netflix | stuff, but that is because Netflix does not want to | participate. | sakopov wrote: | Is that $3 on top of 4 streaming subscriptions you're already | paying for? | lotsofpulp wrote: | It is $3 to instantly watch it as long as Apple decides to | keep serving it and/or does not ban you from their services. | | Presumably, if you subscribe to Paramount+, then you can also | watch it as long as you are paying the monthly fee. | | My point is I got to the media I was looking for rather | quick. I would never spend my time watching Survivor for | free, much less pay for it, but my opinion of the experience | of trying to watch it was quick and easy. | bikeshaving wrote: | I think not being subjected to terrible, emotionally manipulative | ads for 1/3 of the time you're watching TV/Movies is the actual | win for consumers in the streaming era. | asdff wrote: | You still get ads in the streaming era, they just are served in | different ways. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I moved to the USA in 1989, and after 24 years in the UK, found | trying to watch TV in the US totally unbearable. I thought it | was because (a) the shows were so bad (b) the ads were | terrible. | | Netflix has made it clear to me that although many of the shows | were awful, not all of them were, and that being able to see | them without ads gave me a totally different appreciation for | what (some) people were trying to do on TV over the last 3 | decades. | nvarsj wrote: | Youtube will get there soon enough. | morsch wrote: | You know, you can pay them to remove the ads. Gives a bigger | share to the video authors, too. (Yes, this won't skip | sponsored content in the video.) | thrower123 wrote: | It's a little thing, but given the choice of watching something | on a streaming app versus watching the same show on the cable | DVR and having to fast-forward through the commercials, even | with smart-resume, it's kind of a no-brainer. | pavel_lishin wrote: | We were at an AirBNB with cable, and let our kid watch a bit of | children's cable content. | | My _god_ , the ads. So many. So flashy. After every single one, | she was _convinced_ she needed whatever toy was being peddled. | | Never again. | switch007 wrote: | Cable has been "adverts with a bit of content" for a long | time ! | blfr wrote: | It's hilarious that after a decade of explosion in streaming the | corps still can't (don't want to) beat the experience of torrents | + mpv. | | The latter is particularly interesting since there are no | licensing issues. Every professional streaming service should | have a better player than mpv. None actually do. | | You could say that it's always like that because pirates get | their content for free. However, Spotify and others managed just | fine with music which used to be even more widely pirated than tv | shows and movies. | | (Survivor.S41E09.Whos.Who.in.the.Zoo is available on torrents in | 1080p.) | judge2020 wrote: | Let me know when mpv can run on a smart TV. Most people watch | via smart tv/streaming box (roku, google tv, etc), so the | players work for them there. | | The real competition is Plex/Emby/Jellyfin allowing access to | people's media libraries in a way that's mostly on-par with | existing services, and the added benefit of having all content | truly in one place. The issue is that there isn't a completely | legal way to get media content as unencrypted files (since | ripping blu-rays is legal, but breaking the software | protections to do it isn't). | asdff wrote: | If you know how to install mpv you know how to hook up a | laptop to a TV. | JakeAl wrote: | This isn't entirely the corps fault, but legacy legal licensing | agreements on each. and every. piece. of content. Not to | mention all the unions you ave to deal with to make sure all | the talent in the content gets paid. Clearances AND tracking | can be a nightmare. A lot of that has improved in the pat | decade as digital/streaming agreements are now standard, but | getting content (like the music in a show for example) cleared | for all territories can still be a headache. | iso1210 wrote: | Meh, I'm winning, at least here in the UK. I have Disney, Apple, | Netflix, Amazon and BBC, including the option to buy/rent new | stuff on amazon, giving me massive amounts of choice for less | than mother-in-law pays for her Boomer TV package with Sky, and | she gets adverts! | | Apple was 'free' with the last phone I bought, but I'll pay for | it when the next season of For All Mankind is on. | | Still have to torrent stuff. Paramount literally won't let me buy | the latest version of Discovery after their shocking "fuck you" | to the world this week. | julienb_sea wrote: | I will say its hard to beat the torrent pipeline. Quality VPNs | are dirt cheap, and with a solid connection, you can sequentially | download and start watching almost immediately, essentially just | like streaming. | wccrawford wrote: | The predicted fracture has started, with different networks | starting their own streaming services. Luckily, there seems to be | an acceptable minimum level of quality in the UI and service so | far, which was one of my fears. | | We subscribe to a number of the services, but it's _still_ | cheaper than cable TV and there are no commercials, and it 's all | "on demand" which still seems to be pretty iffy on cable | directly. | | I feel like it's going to be a constant struggle to only | subscribe to the ones that we're actually using, but it isn't as | bad as I feared yet. | | I'm still predicting that they'll get ridiculously fractured, and | then realize their mistake and start bundling together again. | | It has kind of already happened with Paramount+ and Showtime's | bundle, and I think some of the others were doing it before them | even. But these bundles are just a bandaid. You still need to | actually use 2 different sites/apps to view your TV, and it's | hard to get a list of what shows have new episodes across all the | sites/apps. We end up just starting up each app and checking | until we find something we want to watch right then. | Iefthandrule wrote: | What services are you using that have no commercials? I would | definitely consider Netflix auto-playing content by default a | type of commercial. | | I must have touched a nerve among the Netflix base | JKCalhoun wrote: | > The predicted fracture has started | | They'll eat themselves then. We're being nickeled and dimed to | death with all the streaming services and the kids at least are | not going to pay: they'll share accounts. And when that stops | working they'll just go somewhere else where the content is | free. | elliekelly wrote: | Have you tried Peacock's UI yet? | e40 wrote: | The predicted fracture and uptick in downloading. I subscribe | to several services, yet I still download copies to watch in | Plex because it's so much easier. Some of the streaming apps | (HBO Max, looking at you) are horrible. I don't feel bad | shifting my usage to a working app. | asdff wrote: | The anticipation on the executives part is probably something | like a total squeeze on consumers, where they have no other | option but to pay for these services to be in the know with the | times or whatever (like how _Squid Game_ memes have popped up | everywhere overnight). | | The reality on the consumer end is that people are paying less | money over all. Me personally I pay for like one service and | have the logins from like six family and friends. I don't even | know who is paying for the underlying account, someone's mother | down the line I'm sure. I'm not alone with this either. As more | services pop up, people become less likely to want to have yet | another individual subscription, and its very common to hear | about people sharing account info among friends and family. | | However it's gotten to the point of annoyance where even I will | just resort to piracy half the time, with access to every | streaming service at my fingertips, because there are still | some movies that for whatever reason are rented digitally for | something like $4 for 72 hours as if we've stepped back in time | and reverted to the brick and mortar blockbuster business model | for the information age vs offering a sane alternative. | | It really blows my mind how merciful the RIAA has been on the | otherhand allowing Spotify and Apple Music to have such a vast | and unsplintered catalog. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > The predicted fracture has started, with different networks | starting their own streaming services. | | I do not understand why anyone would have expected any | different. Is that not the beauty of the internet? That you can | consume the content from anyone, regardless of the owner of the | wire coming into your house? (which should not be a private | entity in the first place, but that is a different topic) | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I think that the hope was that you could pick a single | service, pay them, and access anything. | | When stated that baldly, it's fairly clear that this was | never going to happen. Nevertheless, I think many of us would | have preferred if, for example, content _creators_ [0] did | not all have their own streaming service, and cross-licensed | to different streaming services, meaning that stuff wasn 't | available on only 1 such service. | | [0] of course, in reality, no content creators have their own | streaming service. They strike up deals with production | companies, who strike up deals with distribution companies, | some of whom have a streaming service, and those that don't | strike deals with streaming services. | Raidion wrote: | I think people clearly want something like a Spotify or | YouTube music, but for video content. You can host videos all | you want on the internet, but YouTube and Spotify are popular | because of it's aggregation and suggestions. | | I want to watch shows that I'd like, I don't care who makes | them. Finding good stuff to watch is harder than watching it, | and people would clearly pay for a unified service that | recommended you (and enabled 1 click viewing) of content | regardless of license holder. | | You can clearly see why content owners wouldn't want to do | it, you lose the "stickiness" of your product, and have to | compete with other shows for eyes, without the friction of | "exit the app, open another app, find what you manually have | discovered". | | There's probably a 9 figure startup idea in there if you can | figure out how to do it without getting sued. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Your last two lines here co-explain each other. You will | get sued, bceause content owners like their "sticky" to | remain "sticky". | majormajor wrote: | Hulu, for Showtime and HBO pre-HBO-Max, had the best approach | I've seen to bundling. Amazon offered the same stuff - and more | add-ons, even - but their UI is godawful, while Hulu's has | improved a lot since it's crazy redesign. | | Disney doesn't seem interested in keeping a one-stop-shop, | though. There's weird crosstalk where I can see NHL games from | my ESPN+ subsciption on Hulu, apparently, now, but not Disney's | own Disney+ stuff? And the HBO deal seems unlikely to live | forever with HBO Max being its own thing now, with its own | separate set of content. | jandrese wrote: | This is true and it is annoying, but there is an upside. When a | streaming service starts to suck, it is super easy to cancel | just that one service. Consumers finally have some pushback on | the programming. | | Cable ate itself when most channels realized that reality | programming is astoundingly cheap to produce and it made no | difference on their income. If you are subscribed to the Sci-Fi | streaming service and it switches to pro wrestling content, you | just cancel the service. | baby wrote: | Personally I stick to netflix and pirate other content. | humaniania wrote: | Selfish. Pay for what you're watching or find something else | to do. | colinmhayes wrote: | How does not paying for something you weren't going to pay | for anyway harm anyone? If it was a physical good, sure. | But a zero marginal cost good? nah that's not selfish at | all. | baby wrote: | I'd add that I watch it, and then I talk about it, making | more people want to watch it. | danbolt wrote: | I think if the copyright on the work is older than 25 | years, its immoral to extract rent on it. As much as a lot | of Netflix's stuff isn't that great, at least they're | making new content to talk about. Disney doesn't really | deserve any more money for A New Hope. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I think this is a reasonable point. There is no cogent | argument that society benefits from Disney having a 100+ | year copyright term. | 9679467j9464 wrote: | Hey, I got some boots that need licking too... | baby wrote: | Na, I want to watch what my friends are watching without | paying for 6 different streaming services. Do you have a | problem with that? | lp0_on_fire wrote: | Agreed. I always find this argument from people really odd. | | "They don't sell what I want in the form that I want | therefore it's OK for me to steal what I want in the form I | want" | | Would they apply to same logic to Costco for instance? | "Costco only sells the widget I want in 10 packs so that | gives me the (moral) license to steal one widget from the | producer" | ripdog wrote: | Theft deprives the seller of the object, causing direct | financial losses. With piracy, there's no difference | between someone who doesn't consume the media and someone | who pirates. | | If consuming media without paying the copyright holder is | morally wrong, then so is second hand purchasing and | selling, as well as rentals. Indeed, copyright industries | have a long and storied history of trying to shut down | rental chains, to some success in Japan. | | Just because you paid someone some money to view a TV | series, doesn't mean you paid the people who funded | production. | baby wrote: | No, but I would go and buy that from Amazon. Because | Amazon is practical. Like pirating. | yakubin wrote: | I pay for Netflix and pirate what is available on Netflix, | because my local video player has much better hardware | acceleration than web browsers, is more efficient and as a | byproduct gives me better video quality. | slothtrop wrote: | Occasionally do this because I don't want to give Disney and | Amazon another cent. Sometimes you can pay content creators | directly, but not always. | dymk wrote: | But you still want to consume the media that Disney and | Amazon makes (and at the end of the day, is hiring artists, | writers, and animators), so you see some value in it. | | Kind of muddies this righteous stance you're pretending to | take. | slothtrop wrote: | > Kind of muddies this righteous stance you're pretending | to take. | | You're projecting. | | > But you still want to consume the media that Disney and | Amazon makes | | Barely. I'd never pay for it, except as stand-alone | content. | Brendinooo wrote: | This isn't a very strong post. Customers are losing because you | can't access an episode of a show you like? | | Difficulty in watching some things has been present from the | earliest days of streaming, and has only been less of a pain as | the world has moved away from cable. (I never had DVR, so the | pre-streaming world for me meant either watch it live, record it | to VHS, or maybe catch it "On Demand".) | | I know what it's like to be in your situation (usually when | trying to stream live sports), but the remedy is almost always to | do a bit of research and decide if you want to take the path they | want you to take. | | I'm very happy with the streaming landscape right now, and I | think it's way better than it was five years ago. | CyanLite4 wrote: | It's a little more complicated than "an episode". For instance, | the most popular cable program "Yellowstone" is on the | Paramount Network. New episodes are shown there for a few days, | but prior episodes are on NBC's Peacock network. Many other | popular shows are that way--new episodes on one platform | (Chicago Med on Hulu), prior episodes on another platform | (earlier eps in Netflix). | | The Star Trek franchise is a grab bag between Amazon Prime, | Netflix, Hulu and Paramount+. | lotsofpulp wrote: | TV app on macOS and iOS solves this problem, outside of stuff | on Netflix. I know it is a solution only for Apple users, but | if a content owner does not want to make it easy for people, | then that is the content owner's problem. | LanceH wrote: | There are some college sports that are maddening. Need cable | type subscription to get the Big Ten Network, but some of the | games appear on the subscription service B1G. Their presence | on one or the other is mutually exclusive. Then some matches | will appear on ESPN, or if somehow popular enough on an | actual network. And that's just to follow a single team. | | The thing is that everything is sliced up and packaged not to | present a single package of what the customer wants. Rather, | it is packaged so that what the customer wants is distributed | across multiple packages which must all be purchased | separately. Look at the NFL - Monday night football ESPN, | Thursday Amazon Prime, Sunday Night - NBC, Sunday Day - | various. | | I'm just done chasing. Bring me my entire team's season or | get no money from me at all. I can understand the odd game | out, but this has been deliberate. | xhevahir wrote: | This person goes to great lengths to catch an episode of | Survivor. They worry about how they're going to watch movies | during a camping trip. I know it's not the point of the article, | but maybe this problem would be less onerous if one could just | unplug, and do something else for fun. | threevox wrote: | There's no point in paying for essentially any streaming service | these days. Piracy legitimately provides a better user experience | for free if you know how to do it right | post_break wrote: | I used to pirate everything. Now it's easier to just pay for a | subscription and get what I want in the highest quality ever. I | will say though, I will never "buy" something digitally like on | iTunes or whatever. | baq wrote: | Outside of the US it just isn't possible to sign up to some | services! | lotsofpulp wrote: | I disagree. I want to support the content I like. So I type it | into my browser, find the content owner, see if they have a | quick and easy way to buy it directly from them, and then watch | it. | | If that takes more than a few seconds, I open up TV app on my | phone, search it, and decide if it is worth buying. | | If it is any more difficult than that, I spend my time doing | something else. The situation is much better than the old days | of relying on Comcast. | cardanome wrote: | > I disagree. I want to support the content I like. So I type | it into my browser, find the content owner, see if they have | a quick and easy way to buy it directly from them, and then | watch it. | | How often can you just buy the content? There are many movies | that I would love to buy and own but there is no option. It | is either lend them for streaming or buy a super expensive | blue ray which I don't get to own because of DRM. I wish | there was a gog.com kind of solution. | | The only way I can truly own a movie is to pirate it. | | I get wanting to help content creators but I think it is fine | to help just some of them (especially the smaller ones). | There is no reason to feel bad about not helping all of them. | Pirating something can still help the creators buy creating | more attention. You might not pay for it but the friend you | are telling about it, might. Or you might pay later after | having more money. | softwaredoug wrote: | Pre-streaming watching episode 9 looked like waiting and hoping | the DVDs would come out for this show. They'd cost about $50 for | a season. | | Pre-DVD you'd just be screwed. Your show would be episodic (much | of Star Trek TNG) and you'd hope to catch as much as you can on | syndication or reruns. | lapetitejort wrote: | Shows on VHS existed. I watched all of Twin Peaks Season 2 that | way before it released on DVD. | majormajor wrote: | It was very sparse. "Episode bundles" were common, like | "here's two TNG episodes" that might be thematically but not | necessarily chronologically linked, more like "best of" | releases. Getting complete sets of many shows meant recording | them yourselves. | drewg123 wrote: | I was kind of agreeing with the author, right up until he talked | about setting up a pipeline involving Plex to have a good UX. | Maybe I'm in the minority, and maybe I'll get downvoted, but to | me, Plex has a horrific UX. | | 1) If I import something its scanners cant' scrape metadata for, | it might as well not even exist. Its not displayed to me at all. | I have to fiddle with title and re-scan until its metatdata | scraper finally realizes what it is. | | 2) They've gone to some dark patterns to convince you to make a | plex account and log in, just to talk to a server on the same | LAN. | | 3) They now hide your content and promote their own streaming | content in a tv-channels like grid. I don't want any of that, I | just want my movie library, don't make me scroll for it. | | There are other frustrations, but these are the high points. I | need to find time to setup kodi again.. | seanalltogether wrote: | 1. I completely agree. It's super frustrating that all these | random kids videos I have I can't just drop in a folder and | have Plex pick them up and just show them in alphabetic order. | jjulius wrote: | I use Plex (I don't pay for a Plex Pass) too, and I don't have | the same issues. | | 1.) This only happens for me if, say, I use youtube-dl to | download a music performance and then drop it in. Every time | I've gone outside of my Sonarr/Radarr setup to manually add a | TV show or movie, it's always handled the metadata just fine. | It's when I throw it a curveball (that, tbh, I expected) that | it doesn't handle it for me. Maybe I've just been lucky? | | 2.) Completely agree with you here. I'd love to know if there's | a workaround, though I haven't spent any time looking into it. | | 3.) Not the case for me. My home page goes Recently Watched -> | Recently Added Movies -> Recently Added TV -> the streaming | bullshit you mentioned. The UI loads with the left menu open, | and all I need to do is hit "down" one for TV, twice for | movies; no scrolling necessary. To your point, I wish that it | didn't show those extra streaming options _at all_. | sbierwagen wrote: | 4) Plex only supports some codecs. Oddly enough, my Samsung TV | seems more flexible than Plex. For a handful of video files | it's easier to just stick them on a USB stick and walk over to | the TV than to wander lost in the dark forest of video | transcoding. | AndroidKitKat wrote: | Have you looked into Jellyfin? It's not got quite the same | polish, but I've been using it pretty happily for about 7 | months now. | handrous wrote: | Seconded. Happily running it in a Docker container on an old | Linux box. Set-up took minutes and it's been working, through | occasional upgrades, for something like two years now without | a hiccup. I mostly use the Roku and Web clients. | | I spent years trying to get Kodi how I wanted it and it just | never worked out. Between the jank and the way they've chosen | to structure the UI, I don't think I'll _ever_ like Kodi. | Jellyfin is a much better fit for me, with no tweaking at | all. | sokoloff wrote: | I'm pretty happy with Plex, happy enough to buy a lifetime sub | a few years back. I didn't like when they started to mix in | some of their Plex TV or whatever it is, but I (and my kids) | find it pretty damn easy to use and at this point, I think I've | paid around $3/mo for it. | MivLives wrote: | I switched to Emby for these reasons. It works like Plex did | six or seven years ago. The one downside is they charge for the | android tv app, but otherwise I haven't run into many problems. | It seemed a bit more feature complete then Jellyfin last time I | looked. | anderspitman wrote: | Apologies if anyone is having issues with my site. It was down | for a bit while I was on the road earlier, but seems to be | working now. Here's an archive just in case it happens again: | | https://web.archive.org/web/20211119221003/https://apitman.c... | majormajor wrote: | If you look at twenty years ago, there's far more content | available now, for far less money. Your minimum cable outlay back | then would still cover the cost of a couple streaming services. | | What there _isn 't_ is a good way to get a single subscription to | watch anything you want. The cable bundle was close to that for | TV content, but very lacking for movies. So if you want to watch | a really wide sampling of TV content, it can feel like we're | going backward, since there's no more one-stop-shop. | | Careful what you wish for? The big desire then was a la carte, | and right now you can bounce between streaming services at will, | and they're all still far easier to cancel than cable. | | Some things have fallen through the cracks, particularly long- | running (going back to the pre-streaming era) major-network | content like the aforementioned Survivor (a random missing | episode seems like a weird problem, would love to know what was | going on). And getting US content stuff internationally is often | sub-par, although... I don't recall stories of this being easy at | all two decades ago. | | So consumers are overall definitely winning, but it's not a | perfect victory for everyone. | ZetaZero wrote: | I want more a la carte. Give me one service without bundles | where every "channel" has a price. I don't want my provider | negotiating a 14-channel package for every viewer (YouTubeTV | and NBC Universal). I don't want MTV and VH1, but I do want | Tennis Channel (which isn't an option). | lotsofpulp wrote: | > I don't want MTV and VH1, but I do want Tennis Channel | (which isn't an option). | | Do not pay Disney, and send an email to the US Tennis | Association or whoever keeps contracting with ESPN. | | If you keep paying Disney to watch Tennis, you will never get | it a la carte. | smugglerFlynn wrote: | Apple TV did just that, but you have to manually purchase all | the separate streaming services available locally | II2II wrote: | People seem to forget how bad things used to be. We are | extremely fortunate with the ability to watch what we want, | when we want, without being interrupted by commercials, for an | extremely low cost. There also appears to be a great deal of | progress with respect to being able to view programs/movies | produced for foreign markets. But the best thing is: | | > you can bounce between streaming services at will, and | they're all still far easier to cancel than cable. | | Add to that cheaper, since you don't have to deal with | connection fees. If you know that you're not going to have the | time to use the service for a couple of months because you're | too busy with work, you don't have to pay for it. If you have | decided that you are going to spend most of your summer | pursuing outdoor recreational activities, you don't have to pay | for it. If you're going on the road for a few weeks (vacation | or business), you don't have to pay for it. If you decide that | you want to watch programming on two different streaming | services, you can simply rotate through the services on a | monthly basis and only pay for one service at a time. | | Why do I bring all of this up when it's not directly related to | the article: it's because these articles reek of entitlement. | Yes, there are times when licensing causes shows or movies to | fall through the cracks. On the other hand, the situation is | also far better than it used to be when using the same metrics. | Not only that, but it can be a heck of a lot less expensive | even when factoring in the cost of an Internet connection. | maxerickson wrote: | My internet provider is the cable monopoly, so they win | anyway. | | I could get DSL, but it's shit here and anyway only ~$25 | cheaper than the cable (which is 5x faster...). | | For $15, I could get cable tv, apparently diverting what I | currently pay for internet away from profit and over towards | channel fees. | | I've never fully digested them, but Michigan seems to have | shitty franchise laws written in service of the large cable | companies. | citizenkeen wrote: | On the one hand, we got what we asked for: _a la carte_. | | I think what makes people frustrated is that cable channels | were _themed_. I was frustrated that I was paying for TLC and | Bravo because I didn't watch reality tv. I was paying for | Discovery even though I didn't watch nature shows. I was | paying for Lifetime even though I didn't watch cheap shows | for women. I was paying for ESPN even though I didn't watch | sports. | | I wanted to pay for the comedy, the scifi/syfy, the cartoons, | and the kids programming. That was, like, five or six | channels. | | Which streaming service do I go to now for the science | fiction? Which streaming service do I go to now for the | horror or the feel-good sitcoms? | | Streaming arose during the collapse of genre channels. There | are now three genres of programming: prestige, drek, and | children's. | mortenjorck wrote: | _> There are now three genres of programming: prestige, | drek, and children 's._ | | This is something I've been feeling for awhile but haven't | managed to articulate this clearly. All new programming is | either a mega-budget tentpole or it's something to fill out | the menus. | ethbr0 wrote: | I think of that as "Look at all the new shows Netflix | has" -> "95% of new Netflix shows wouldn't have been | funded under the old model, because they're bad" | jfengel wrote: | Most of them aren't so much "bad" as "of narrow taste". | They certainly look awful to me, but Netflix isn't just | throwing money away. They've got a ton of data on what | people want to watch. Somebody is watching this dreck. | | Some of it is genuinely a failure. Funding an | entertainment project is always a pig in a poke. Even | promising things sometimes just flop. But streaming makes | it possible to lower the opportunity costs of those | flops, so they can take bigger chances. | henrikschroder wrote: | One thing I actually miss from themed channels is that they | selected content for you, which is actually nice sometimes. | | Yes, sometimes you just want to watch a specific show and | you want to watch it _now_ , and the streaming services are | great for that. | | But sometimes you just want to turn on the TV and watch | something, anything, without really making a choice. I | still have cable because it's included in the rent, and | sometimes it's nice to just switch the channel to FXX or | something and get maybe an old episode of the Simpsons, or | a new episode, or maybe some Family guy, or maybe an old | episode of some other comedy series, or maybe something | completely new. | | And that's nice and has value, but streaming services | absolutely suck at that, because you always have to make a | choice yourself with them. | ethbr0 wrote: | I realized exactly this recently: people don't channel | surf anymore, and I kind of miss it. | | It was relaxing to me, post- many cable channels (81?), | pre- guide/DVR, to just click through. | | "Oh, Armageddon is on again. Hercules. (flip, flip, | flip)" and then settle on something random, pulled from | what's currently playing. | | It used to be: survey and then choose from a very limited | but rotating subset of all content. | | Now it's: choose from all content ever and then find | where the content lives and then figure out how much of | it you want to watch. | | For movies, the new way seems superior. For TV, it feels | like a lot has been lost. And overall, I feel like the | new system definitely leads to winner-take-all. | Aloha wrote: | I miss just being able to "watch what's on" | | It's why I still subscribe to satellite radio. | | (and yes, I've thought about subscribing to video service | from Spectrum, but I'm not a huge TV watcher) | abruzzi wrote: | Its funny, but I never watched broadcast TV or Cable | primarily becuase "just watching whats on" meant a 99% | chance of sitting through dreck that I can't stand, so I | never did it. In 1995, I had a collection of over 200 VHS | tapes of movies I loved (all purchased, not copied.) In | 2005 I had a collection of 500 DVDs that I had purchased. | | Today, I have about 700 movied ripped from DVDs (and the | DVDs still in boxes somewhere), and 500 movies purchased | on iTunes. I don't subscribe to Netflix, Amazon Prime, | HBO, or any other streaming service because, again, 99% | of it is dreck I can't stand. So instead I have a | collection of 1200 movies that I like and specifically | chose and purchased. Some are better than others, but | they're all ones I like. | tomnipotent wrote: | > 500 movies purchased on iTunes | | iTunes sells licenses, not movies. Providers can pull | content from iTunes and you lose access to whatever you | paid for. | jfengel wrote: | Netflix has a "Play Something" button for precisely that | situation. | | https://about.netflix.com/en/news/play-something-netflix- | doe... | | It can pick either something you're already watching (TV | series or unfinished movie), or guess something based on | what it has learned about you. Of course it's just the | Netflix catalog, but that's pretty extensive. | | It sounds godawful to me, so I've never used it. But it | sounds like almost precisely what you just asked for. | techsupporter wrote: | > Which streaming service do I go to now for the science | fiction? | | Exactly. Every company has segmented their content _by | company_ , not by type. Sure, I can buy a subscription to | Boomerang and get a lot of cartoons, but it's just the | cartoons owned by Warner. But not all of them, because | they've moved some of them--like Dexter's Laboratory--off | to be HBO Max exclusives. | | There's no way to say "I want a science fiction themed | service" that includes Paramount and HBO and the old PTEN | and the like, because no company would stand for another | service mixing their IP like that. | II2II wrote: | Cable channels were themed, but cable packages were not. | There was not a realistic chance of that changing. The | technology was not good enough for that. If I recall | correctly, analog cable depended upon bandpass filters that | were rarely perfect so it was best to group channels in | blocks. When digital cable entered the fray, the other | motivation entered the forefront: it simply didn't make | business sense to sell individual channels. | | When it comes to that business sense, we probably have the | closest thing to perfection today. Streaming services are | forced to compete against each other, with the only real | constraints being the cost/restrictions of licensing | content and the cost of distribution (i.e. not controlling | infrastructure to the home). It is very easy and relatively | inexpensive to pick and choose, provided that you are | willing to defer your viewing. You also have the choice | between large streaming services that offer a broad range | of genres and smaller ones that offer more specialized | programming. | | Yes, that closest thing to perfection is far from perfect. | On the other hand, I very much doubt that we are going to | get anything closer unless we are willing to pay the price. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Cable channels were themed, but cable packages were | not. | | Themed packages did and do exist, though most channels | for cable were normally available mainly through stacked | tiers. But alongside the main generic tiers, language- | specific (especially spanish language) and some other | (sports, often) themed packages were available from many | cable providers, and premium channels were often | available in themed groups as well as individually. | nvarsj wrote: | Is that true? | | I remember most people, including myself, would get the full | DirectTV/Cable subscription, hook up TiVo, and just | record/watch on demand whatever you want. Those days seem | impossible now. It certainly feels like things have | regressed. | ghaff wrote: | Well, anything that was part of the cable package--which | increasingly was not where a significant amount of top TV | (and certainly films) were available from, especially | without adding on a lot of premium content like HBO. | | I canceled my cable TV as I increasingly realized I simply | was watching either live or recorded on my TiVo stuff once | in a blue moon. | wintermutestwin wrote: | >Careful what you wish for? The big desire then was a la carte, | and right now you can bounce between streaming services at | will, and they're all still far easier to cancel than cable. | | "a la carte" means I don't subscribe to anything and instead I | have access to "all the things" with a separate charge for each | thing. The whole idea back then was to compete with the ease | and access of piracy like Steam did. | | That said, "careful what you wish for" currently applies to | sitcom episodes for rent on Amazon costing more per minute than | mega budget movies. | bamboozled wrote: | If you're living outside the US getting content in English | isn't anywhere as easy as it should be. These services are | definitely America centric. | | It's been good for me, I just watch a whole lot less crap and | get more sleep. | dnissley wrote: | I think this is an apples to oranges comparison, since single | episodes of tv shows aren't generally available to rent, | unlike movies. | mynameisash wrote: | > What there isn't is a good way to get a single subscription | to watch anything you want. | | I would even settle for a way where I can ask, " _Where_ can I | stream X? " There used to be canistream.it -- which is | apparently now being rebuilt but has long been mostly useless. | Fingers crossed that it becomes useful. | baq wrote: | They funniest (saddest) answer is the Pirate Bay. | jwcooper wrote: | justwatch.com works pretty well, at least in the USA. | jbay808 wrote: | Works well in Canada too (as long as you are on their | Canadian site). | nefitty wrote: | JustWatch is pretty good. | | https://www.justwatch.com/ | delecti wrote: | The Google TV app does a good job at that. It checks all my | installed apps and links directly to the media item in that | app if I pick a piece of media on one. It will also link to | services I don't have, or offer a pay-to-play through Google | itself. | javajosh wrote: | I did a search for "streaming search" and got | https://reelgood.com/ and https://www.justwatch.com/. Roku | also has a search engine called "What's On". | https://www.roku.com/whats-on. | | Now if only someone would combine all of these search | engines... | anothernewdude wrote: | What bothers me is missing shows from my Countries' offerings. | Netflix is supposed to have Arrested Development. Not from my | Country. Why? No information. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | The answer is always the same: no licensing deal could be | arranged. The precise reasons for that may vary, and | certainly the license holders will vary, but since there's | essentially nothing you could do about that, there seems to | be little point in Netflix telling you over and over "this | would be available if we could get a license deal" | Hypx_ wrote: | I suspect cost of streaming services will increase though. | Cable didn't get as expensive as it did overnight after all. | ryandrake wrote: | There is also too much "content" being made, and not enough | quality movies to watch. There's a recent reddit thread[1] | about this weird trend lately where more and more of what's | offered is junk "made for TV" quality content. Even the word we | use for it is revealing: Content. So boring. So gray and bland. | Like a dry cardboard media ration made specifically to be | consumed by some global ISO-standard Consumer. Everything has | this odd B-movie With Big Stars hue. But two months after you | view it, you struggle to even remember what it was about. | Polished, featureless content, but hey, it's in 4K and stars | Dwayne Johnson. | | High-quality, daring, inspired, more than superficially | controversial, world-changing movies are another casualty of | the rise of streaming. | | 1: | https://old.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/qx4rtu/i_think_movi... | tenebrisalietum wrote: | > High-quality, daring, more than superficially | controversial, world-changing movies are another casualty of | the rise of streaming. | | Yes, but what has maybe replaced the movie is the high- | quality, daring, world-changing series. Squid Game, | Outlander, etc. Directors and consumers are now no longer | limited to a 3 hour time in the theater, as far as the art of | the motion picture is concerned. | vlunkr wrote: | I don't see why you would blame that on streaming. There was | plenty of low-quality content before netflix. Movie budgets | have gotten huge, in order to guarantee a return, they play | to the lowest common denominator, including international | audiences. | asdff wrote: | Movie budgets don't have to be huge. Most A24 films cost 10 | million to make. | antasvara wrote: | Is there some difference between streaming companies and | classic movie studios that makes this the case? Arguably, the | current state of movies is a direct result of studios | realizing that well-produced, middle of the road content is | the most profitable. | | Of course, I could be missing something about the industry | and how streaming has shaped it. I just struggle to see how | the streaming ecosystem has different content requirements | than a normal movie studio. | vineyardmike wrote: | > Is there some difference between streaming companies and | classic movie studios that makes this the case? | | Yes. Movie studios and streamers have different business | models. Movie studios also deal with more "legacy" actor | contract negotiations and the like (see disney v scarlet). | Theater released movies make most of their money upfront, | and make money out on a per-view basis. So they need as | many viewers as early as possible. | | With streamers, they can lose the subscription any month, | and only gain it back if they lure you - so they're | incentivized to give you "anchors" that keep you there. | Think game of thrones keeping people subscribed to HBO | month over month or Squid Games that gets lots of | attention. Once you're there, they just have to have | "something" for those days you don't really know what to | watch. That "something" is different for everyone, so they | have to make lots of low budget generic stuff that appeals, | collectively, to a wide audience. Each show/movie can have | few viewers, because its going for niche targeting en mass | - think themed cable channels but one company has to make | something for each theme. Once a streamer makes a show, its | "free" to them to share it with as many people as possible, | but also doesn't cost them anything to not show it. | | Ben Thompson (stratechery) has talked about this a lot, | check him out! | ethbr0 wrote: | Summary: streamers are valued by how long their tail is, | movie studios are valued by how high their ceiling is. | asdff wrote: | The big difference is that movie studios actually directly | offer higher quality content, simply due to the fact that | they make a side business of selling their low quality | content to companies like Netflix who are more than happy | to purchase a finished film and throw it on the front page | for all their subscribers to see even if its crap. The | movie studio is able to get a return on a steaming pile of | crap film that was probably super cheap to produce and | avoids the reputation tarnish, netflix is able to advertise | a wider catalog and hey, sometimes these junk films really | do pop off for netflix like what happened with _Kissing | Booth._ | joe_guy wrote: | > Is there some difference between streaming companies and | classic movie studios that makes this the case? | | I have no inside knowledge and am fully speculating, | including some random tidbits I've read here and there. | | Think about how Netflix changed when moving from DVD to | streaming. They used to optimize for recommending you | movies you would rate highly. Now it's all about what keeps | people viewing the longest. | | 2 middle of the road acceptable movies that you rate a 6/10 | is more viewing time than 1 higher quality production that | you'd rate a 9/10 -- I doubt the costs are they cut and dry | but I think that's the idea. More content that is passable | wins out against less content that is of higher quality. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | >Arguably, the current state of movies is a direct result | of studios realizing that well-produced, middle of the road | content is the most profitable. | | yes, if streaming movies well-produced, middle of the road, | not terribly expensive is most profitable - as per this | recent discussion | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29247571 on red notice | | if cinema, big expansive events most profitable (currently) | | if shows, high quality addictive, dramatic, character | driven, etc. is most profitable | | why is quality series more profitable than middle of road? | because you have to get people to make the investment of | spending 10+ hours. | | why are medium quality competence streaming movies most | profitable? because many people are willing to spend 90 | minutes passing the time with something mildly enjoyable, | despite the many draws on our time it's still not seen as a | serious investment. | | why are big events blah blah blah - because it costs a lot | to go out it is a hassle compared to staying home, I tend | to go to restaurant as well when I do it so for me at least | it definitely has to have been a night worth it at the end, | and something big is more likely to make everyone like whoa | I had an experience I can't have at home. | stefan_ wrote: | Can I intercede and say that $170 cable bills were never a | thing outside the US? | jen20 wrote: | This is only true in letter (rather than spirit) because | subscription television in the UK was delivered by satellite | ("Sky") rather than cable - a fully loaded sports and movies | package would easily dwarf $170/mo, and still required a | separate phone line from BT in addition. | switch007 wrote: | I've never met anyone paying >PS100/mo for Sky. Is/was that | a thing? | rhino369 wrote: | They weren't a thing inside the USA unless you loaded up on | premium movie and sports channels. From 2004~2018 I always | paid around 45-60 for basic cable. Sometimes less if I | bundled with internet. | the_only_law wrote: | Interestingly, much higher quality internet/mobile network | access seems to also be cheaper outside the US. I was kinda | shocked when I heard how much some acquaintance paid for | gigabit internet/ 4G mobile in Spain. | hackingforfun wrote: | Canadian mobile networks are more expensive than the US, | and are some of the most expensive in the world [1]. | | [1] https://openmedia.org/article/item/2021-rewheel-report- | shows... | laurent92 wrote: | Yes. Internet has always been 30EUR here in France, and | nowadays 20EUR per month for fibre. Mobile is 12EUR for | 50-100GB. Many people thank the EU's competition watchdog | for that, and it's probably politically desired. It still | didn't create a Silicon Valley ecosystem, though ;) | brewdad wrote: | Surely you mean outside of North America. From my | understanding, the cable situation was always even worse in | Canada. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Media content is typically sold based on the populations' | purchasing power. It is why the same book is sold in Asia for | $5 that is $50 in the US. | | Since the marginal cost of selling an additional unit is near | zero, it makes sense for sellers to heavily price | discriminate such that poorer people are charged what they | can afford and richer people are charged what they can | afford. | laurent92 wrote: | Would it be legal to ask for a paysheet and determine the | price based on that? When I hear price discrimination, I do | understand that it's always been the deal, but I wonder | whether we're trending towards something proportional to | salary. | PeterisP wrote: | That would not be prohibited, but it might not be a good | business idea due to customer resistance. | | Classic economic theory on pricing lists commonly used | options that essentially try to achieve that but with | various indirect methods: | | 1. provide discounts to various demographics that are | known afford less - e.g. students, seniors, etc. | | 2. provide different prices at times or places that have | customers with different average ability to pay - e.g. | geographic discrimination, and also discounts provided at | times when traditionally employed people can't take them. | | 3. simple "inconvenient obstacles" e.g. coupon schemes, | intentionally created queues, etc where people who accept | the inconvenience get a better price, and people who can | afford to pay more simply don't bother and pay. | | 4. Direct, prolonged, serious personal bargaining and | haggling, resulting in an individually negotiated price | that depends on your willingness to pay. | | But IMHO people would not like if it was explicitly based | on their ability to pay, so companies try to disguise | that. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I am sure it is legal to ask for the pay sheet, but no | seller would give you that. Sellers usually do not price | discriminate merchandise that is not differentials within | the same country since commerce within the country cannot | be easily restricted. | | That is where brands come in for differentiable products. | The generic brand lotion and the name brand lotion might | come from the same factory. Maybe it is even the same | product, or the different in quality is only slightly | better for the name brand. But now the seller can target | people willing to pay $x for lotion, and people willing | to pay $2x for basically the same lotion. | | Or you implement "binning", where products of worse | quality get branded differently, even though the sale | price difference between the better quality product and | the generic quality product is disproportionately larger | than the cost to produce the better quality product than | the generic product. | | Anyway, you cannot do this for a movie or tv show, so the | sellers of movies/tv shows do it more crudely via country | or region of the world. | majormajor wrote: | Sure, but even the $20/$30 minimum cable packages in the US | were more than Netflix is today, without even including | inflation. | | What was the situation outside of the US if you wanted to | watch The Sopranos or Sex and the City or something else on | HBO back then? My assumption is that this wasn't all free and | over the air? | tuatoru wrote: | No. In NZ we only got what the local broadcasters had | licensed. | | In retrospect, they did a great job of curation.* I seem to | spend more time looking for something to watch than | watching, and often just give up and go to bed. | | * Up til subscription satellite TV became available. | Quality was inversely related to the number of available | channels. | ssivark wrote: | But any payment to Netflix is on top of the (significantly | higher) ransom one pays to Comcast/Spectrum/etc for leasing | bandwidth on the pipes (which cable bills include in the | default). So cost of streaming content today is Netflix + | internet connection with enough bandwidth. | dwighttk wrote: | >Your minimum cable outlay back then would still cover the cost | of a couple streaming services. | | I'm paying twice as much for cable internet as I used to pay | for basic cable, before even starting to pay for a streaming | service. | slothtrop wrote: | I think the archaic system with tv/movies that does not exist | (in the same capacity) with games and music is the point of | frustration with customers. The barriers are a bit strange. | Consumers aren't really averse to spending money for content | they want, as evidenced not just from streaming but Steam/GOG, | which by contrast directly benefits creators more. With paid | streaming it's more abstracted. You're paying, but with the | machinations it's unclear how well content creators are | compensated or how it will eventually benefit them. Even with | music the option to directly support artists, with digital | download purchases, is dead easy between Bandcamp and other | options. Can't do that with film, have to buy a physical copy | that will be eventually be obsolete hardware, and costs more. | To be fair I think there's more of a "one and done" attitude | people have towards film, consumed then disposed, so streaming | lends better to it. | fragmede wrote: | Per https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ a $50 cable bill | from 1990 is about $110 now. Depending on where your reference | point is, more streaming for less money _sounds_ good, but don | 't forget Netflix was around with no real competition for a | _long_ while, and at $10 /month. $50 (for | Netflix+Hulu+Paramount+Disney/whatever vs $10 is quite the | increase! | mdasen wrote: | I think expecting Netflix to stick around at $10/mo with such | a library of content was unrealistic. Sometimes there are odd | fluctuations in markets. | | For example, the current used car market has insane values | with used vehicles costing more than the MSRP on new ones | sometimes. Likewise, when Netflix had no competition, they | were able to sign deals with content providers for almost | nothing because content providers thought streaming was | worthless. Either streaming was going to fail and that $10 | deal would go away or streaming was going to succeed and | content providers wouldn't license content so cheaply. That | era was an odd thing in the market before content owners | realized that streaming wasn't just a little additional | revenue, but a replacement for their service. | | I don't think you can really compare a market blip to a | sustainable business model. HBO and others weren't going to | continue licensing their catalogues to Netflix once it was | clear that streaming was popular. They made the mistake of | licensing to Netflix assuming that they'd be getting a little | extra pocket money rather than cannibalizing their services. | That mistake is probably the reason Netflix is the giant it | is today. Netflix signed deals to license content before | content owners realized the value of streaming. They used | that content to gain subscribers until they could afford to | build their own library of first-party content. | | Even from Netflix's side, they might have been spending more | on content than they wanted to long-term to try and gain | subscribers that would be sticky as their library waned and | they transformed from "we licensed most of the content you | want" to "we're another HBO with a limited content | selection". | | These things happen. We saw MoviePass come and go because it | was an unsustainably good deal. | | I think it's also important to remember that back in that era | of Netflix, most people were still paying for cable and | renting DVDs. Maybe you weren't, but most people were. I | think it's important to think about the whole amount that | people were spending and people were spending a lot on their | entertainment. It was perfectly normal to head to a | Blockbuster and spend $10 renting two DVDs each weekend. That | feels like such an alien concept today, but people were | spending $100 on cable plus $40 on rentals and getting a lot | less entertainment than they are today. | | Sure, if you were one of the few that only had Netflix, it | was a glorious time. $10/mo never bought so much | entertainment! Likewise, if you were a MoviePass subscriber, | no one had ever gotten so many theater tickets for so little | money. But it wasn't going to last because it was | unsustainably good. Once MoviePass found that people would | actually use the service, it was dead in the water. Once | content owners saw that people would cancel their HBO | subscription because Netflix had HBO's content, the era of | Netflix having such an expansive library for so cheap would | end as the deals ran out. | | Comparing current prices to a market blip isn't really a fair | comparison - but there was a pretty great 5 years in there. | majormajor wrote: | You could definitely pay less than $50 for cable throughout | the 90s, it's HD which I remember pushing prices up. But | those would be your basic packages, without addons, and | especially without HBO and such. | | But now if all you wanted was HBO, you could get it for under | 20 bucks if you have anything but the slowest internet | packages! | ghaff wrote: | Except Netflix never had the streaming content that you can | get today for $50--both because of its own original content | and because a lot of content (especially films) was never | available on Netflix streaming. | | I agree with the parent. Without live TV, a streaming bundle | you assemble is clearly cheaper than you were paying for | cable TV (or cable TV plus Netflix) in the US. Today, add a | live TV streaming service and you're probably back to about | price parity with a lot more choice of content. | stocknoob wrote: | Plus, you can share it with family members. And watch on | multiple devices. And turn services on/off without having to | get on the phone. It's much, much better. | fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: | > Survivor (a random missing episode seems like a weird | problem, would love to know what was going on) | | Music licensing? | majormajor wrote: | I think that's pretty unlikely for something made this year. | YoutubeTV and other Cable co's should be pretty similar in | that regard. Buying the music for availability on "cable | cable" and "CBS's own app" but not "streaming cable" would be | baffling. | freetinker wrote: | Not to mention 4K HDR, spatial audio, etc. How quickly we take | things for granted. | OminousWeapons wrote: | > Careful what you wish for? The big desire then was a la | carte, and right now you can bounce between streaming services | at will, and they're all still far easier to cancel than cable. | | I feel like people say they want a la carte but that's not | actually what they want. What they want is all the good content | and none of the crap filler content, for cheap. People pushed | for a la carte because in their mind all content costs the | same, so they figured that by removing the content they don't | want and only keeping the content they do want, they would save | tons of money. They don't understand that the good content | (live sports, FX, AMC, HBO, et al) is precisely what studios | are charging a premium for and what is driving most of the cost | in packages in the first place. | | It's roughly akin to someone looking at a Vegas buffet that | costs $100 and features 100 entrees and saying "well there are | 100 entrees but really all I want is the cheese, prime rib, | crab legs, and caviar, so if I remove the other 96 entrees then | this should cost $4" then being shocked when they are still | charged 40 dollars. Sure it's cheaper but in their minds it | should be an order of magnitude cheaper than it is. | baq wrote: | Remember that streaming services don't only compete with each | other, but they also compete with torrents. Netflix won not | because of being cool or good, but because it was way more | convenient than torrents for the majority of content. This | isn't true anymore, as all major studios want in on the | market, which makes the TAM _smaller_ due to fragmentation | and lost network effects. (It is common to hear people saying | they won't pay for more than 1, 2, maybe 3 services.) Ice is | thinner than it seems, but streaming services know this. | margalabargala wrote: | > Your minimum cable outlay back then would still cover the | cost of a couple streaming services. | | It would not cover a typical US internet bill with speeds to | support streaming, plus a couple streaming services. | majormajor wrote: | True, the edge case of "I want TV but not internet" users are | not in a great place to access streaming content. They still | have all their existing cable content, though, at least? And | in 2001, good chance they were already paying for internet | back then too. | | I don't think it's realistic to assume "no internet" is a | standard default these days, though, regardless of if/how you | watch TV. | HWR_14 wrote: | It's not "no internet". It's "low bandwidth" internet. If | it wasn't for streaming or downloading OS updates, would | most people need fast internet? | majormajor wrote: | What do you mean by low bandwidth? 56K dialup? 1.5Mbps | DSL? 10Mbit? | | Streaming only was able to take off because broadband | (back then this wouldn't even have been that much, | >~2Mbps) was already widespread. So I'd say yes, nobody | liked waiting for slow connections. | sokoloff wrote: | Most people working from home (or remote schooling, even | occasionally) would need more than low bandwidth | internet. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Yes? HD video calls and backing up your personal media. | Even an old person can benefit from high upload being | able to do a remote doctor visit with an HD camera. | _jal wrote: | I'm the opposite. I want "internet but not TV". If you're | in Comcast land, you'll pay for cable either way. | | > I don't think it's realistic to assume "no internet" is a | standard default these days | | About 1 in 6 US households has no internet access, nowhere | near a small enough number to start rolling up | alternatives. | margalabargala wrote: | Do you have more details or a source on this? I'm | wondering if the 1 in 6 is no centralized household | internet, or no access whatsoever e.g. via a smartphone | with a data plan. | _jal wrote: | The info I'm thinking of came from a Pew report that went | around work, I'm not finding that on the public internet. | There is this, which comes up with a similar number: | | https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-united- | states-... | | That also claims: | | "The number of mobile connections in the United States of | America in January 2020 was equivalent to 107% of the | total population." | | I'm not sure how to disaggregate that to humans. I do | personally have more than one device with a data plan, | although I'm not sure how typical that is. | ghaff wrote: | Not sure I understand. I pay Comcast for Internet but | dropped both cable TV and landline a couple years ago and | cut the bill in about half. | readflaggedcomm wrote: | That's not my experience with decades of different | Comcast subscriptions in one city. | II2II wrote: | I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but in | Canada: the typical cost of basic cable service plus a couple | of cable packages in 1990 cost roughly the same as basic | internet service plus a streaming service today. It is | difficult to even claim that this comparison is even remotely | fair for a variety of reasons. | | - The only major loss with the current system is local | programming. You may be able to get it with free OTA | channels, but people subscribed to basic cable in the 1980's | and 1990's simply because cable was more reliable than a good | residential antenna tower so it is justifiable to count this | as a loss. | | - The current system is much better in that you can watch | commercial free programs when you please, any given streaming | service is usually less expensive than any given cable | bundle, and the content in any given streaming service will | usually have more in common than the channels in any given | cable bundle. (Cable companies were notorious for putting | similar channels in different packages.) As an added bonus: | the "watch when you please" aspect means that you can defer | viewing, may that be to switch between streaming services to | keep monthly costs down or to simply cancel during the months | when you have better things to do than watch television. | | - The current system is also better in that Internet service | can replace many other products and services. Subscribing to | newspapers is a novelty these days. If it wasn't for societal | expectations, people would have dropped phone service since | the Internet provides far better communications options than | traditional landlines. | _dark_matter_ wrote: | Huh, this is a good point actually. I was going to argue that | people have internet anyways, but that's not always the case. | My FIL would have to both lay an internet cable, pay for | internet, and pay for streaming to switch. | blacksmith_tb wrote: | True, but the cost of that connection also covers plenty of | non-watching, so it would be fairer to add only a portion. I | suppose if you measured it by data transfer watching is | likely a large chunk, but you wouldn't choose to go without | any kind of connection, even if you weren't interested in | streaming, unless you really couldn't afford it. | thegginthesky wrote: | The biggest difference is that people use the internet for | far more things than just streaming, so the internet bill is | diluted into the overall utility. For example, without good | internet speeds you couldn't attend classes properly in lock | down, nor attend meetings with people across the country or | world. | | Good internet is becoming more of an overall utility than | just a luxury. | margalabargala wrote: | Fair point, I suppose that would be kinda like including | the price of a TV onto the cable bill comparison, and then | the computer on streaming, and etc etc. | agumonkey wrote: | I've seen teachers and young students during covid, it | wasn't pretty. | | I have that feeling that internet is boiling frogs making | people think it's that amazing christic thing when a few | phone calls and organization would go as deep. Plus kids | and teachers are often computer illiterate, a single file | format can delay information for days if not weeks because | people don't know how to mail or open something. | [deleted] | jedberg wrote: | > a random missing episode seems like a weird problem, would | love to know what was going on | | In almost every case like that, the answer is "we can't figure | out if this is licensed for streaming because it didn't exist | yet". Usually it's music, which they licensed for "broadcast | and video cassette release" or some similar language. In most | cases they've decided DVD is close enough to VHS to still | count, but is streaming? Courts haven't really decided yet. | majormajor wrote: | That's why this case is weird: it's a brand new episode. And | it is in the CBS streaming app. Just missing from YouTube's | cable product. | foobarian wrote: | Maybe there is a dollar sign or backslash or something in | the title/description. Or a rogue UTF8 byte order mark [1] | throwing off some comparison :-) | | [1] https://www.markhneedham.com/blog/2012/09/03/a-rogue-35 | 72732... | FroshKiller wrote: | The season 8 premiere of Forged in Fire last year got | pulled because one of the contestants turned out to be a | neo-Nazi with a visible neo-Nazi tattoo. | jedberg wrote: | Ah. That is odd. Maybe there was an error in the master | file given to YouTube or a glitch in their encoder that | skipped it. | dools wrote: | Apple TV is a one stop shop to see what's available then you | can choose to subscribe to stuff if you want | paconbork wrote: | I'm just waiting until we come full circle and can purchase a | bundle of streaming services. Maybe it will come with phone and | internet | yellow_postit wrote: | This is happening already -- with some T Mobile packages I get | Netflix and Spotify included. | Shadonototra wrote: | i still torrent my media consumption not because it's free, but | because it's hassle free, it works the same way it worked decades | ago | Futurebot wrote: | Licensing, copyright takedowns, and partnership agreements make | things that appear seemingly simple in fact quite complicated. | That, and supporting a myriad of devices (plus different versions | of those devices with different capabilities, plus all the | different store integrations and their quirks) make for a very | complicated set of organizational requirements. | | There's no good answer here in markets this complicated | oxymoran wrote: | 1) eww, too many Google products 2) you can't go camping without | watching movies??? Maybe you need a little tech break... | jedberg wrote: | What we need is a company to come together and make deals with | all the different streaming services and put them into one | interface. The could charge like $100/mo and share the fees with | all the other companies. | | This is obviously a joke, but honestly, it seems like the | direction we are heading -- cable V2. | | I really wish streaming video had a similar licensing model to | audio -- pay a central licensing authority for the content, and | it's the same price for everyone. Then the streaming services | could compete on their UI and the content creators will compete | on making popular content. | nvarsj wrote: | Whoever can pull this off will be the next iTunes/Spotify. But | I don't think it will happen until piracy starts becoming a | major problem and streaming services are pressured to | consolidate to compete. Plex shows there is a larger potential | here. | lotsofpulp wrote: | That is not cable v2. | | The distinguishing feature of cable (and satellite) was that | you had no option to instantly play what you want when you want | where you want. And no option to instantly watch from the media | owner and cut out middlemen. And no option to watch select | episodes or subscribe for only 1 month. | jedberg wrote: | No, that was the distinguishing feature of linear TV. You can | tell because cable has those features now too, for the | content that is already in their system. They are now trying | to get more content in to their system. | | What cable did was bring multiple networks together into a | single interface which had never been done before. | asdff wrote: | The other big thing that cable did when it first came out | to stand out vs free over the air TV was that it didn't | have ads initially. | lotsofpulp wrote: | A TV antenna plugged into a TV that can change channels | brings multiple networks together in a single interface. | | But the point is all those bundles were only necessary due | to lack of technology that could connect content owners | directly to content viewers. We even have search engines | that, theoretically, you should be able to search the | content's name, get to the content owner's website, and be | presented with the options of how you can watch it. | | Edit: I think I get your point, that bundling might be more | economical for content owners. And that cable facilitated | that by subsidizing less watched content with more watched | content. But I guess in that case, I am guessing the cable | company just becomes the content owner (like Comcast) and | the various content owners get big and produce a variety of | media. | colinmhayes wrote: | I don't understand what the problem with multiple services is. | Is going to a different site really that difficult? There are | plenty of aggregators that tell you the good stuff on each | site, and their recommendations are usually better than each | sites' anyway. | jedberg wrote: | It's a logistical nightmare. It's fine perhaps for a single | person, but with kids and less technical elderly parents, it | becomes troublesome. | | Every new device requires logging into a bunch of services. | When a login expires I have to explain how to log in again | and what the password is. The kids (and I!) have to remember | which content they want to watch right now is on which | service. | | At least with cable I could just leave a single page | instruction sheet that said "press this button on the remote, | and the cable will turn on, here are the channel numbers you | care about". | baq wrote: | Guessing what is where is the worst part. It's (again) | easier to pirate everything even if you're paying for | subscriptions. | bungledash wrote: | SoundExchange kind of works like you describe but not quite. | You report to them "I played X for user Y at time Z," and they | go cool, for the billing period and that play count, it's | $4,000 to clear your rights. What's left unspoken is you still | need a redistributable copy of the _recording_ before you can | do that. SoundExchange does not provide that and buying | something from iTunes or Amazon, for example, still doesn't get | you legal in most cases. You're looking at Beatport Pro and | even more expensive things like that designed for | professionals. | | Worse: SX only covers the recording. You still have to talk to | the big three licensing agencies about the written music. (That | was my understanding about 15 years ago in Internet radio. This | point might have changed.) | | There isn't an insert coin receive MP3 with all rights attached | service, which sounds like how you've understood SoundExchange | to work, and what you're lobbying for in video. I agree that | would be cool but it's extremely unlikely for the same reason | you can't do it with SX. | jedberg wrote: | I'm talking more about the system that radio uses, where | anyone who wants to run a radio station has a place to get | the content and pay the same fee. | bungledash wrote: | Oh yeah, I'm familiar with that, too. That makes more | sense. Believe it or not that doesn't clear the big three | for music either, or at least didn't when I got out of the | business a decade ago. But BMI and such have special deals | with real radio that would make Internet radio weep, so | you're right it's better. (Former MD here.) | | That's the likely outcome. They'll probably push for the | mechanical video recording and the creative content within | it to be different licenses just like music. And then | you'll still have to license the music within it, probably | both the recording and the creative. IP structure in | complex media is so entwined there won't be a simple answer | here, I'm afraid. I wish it weren't so. | | The worst outcome possible would be a lot of creative folks | in a television production realizing the distinction | between the two music licenses and creating a setup where | there is five or six for video (script license, series | license, translation license, likeness licenses, blah | blah). | horsawlarway wrote: | I cannot agree strongly enough on this. | | It's really, really shitty that media consumption has been | commoditized in the way it has - with every service having | to secure rights (at different times and varying prices), | and users constantly being forced to either add an | additional service or cancel a service to watch the content | they actually want to watch. | | The radio licensing model would have (and still would be) | SO much freaking better. | lapetitejort wrote: | Quick, find me the 90's era SNL character movie _Bob Roberts_ , | starring Tim Robbins, Giancarlo Esposito, and Gore Vidal. It's | not available anywhere. Until obscure movies like this are a few | taps away, streaming services will have not met their true | potential. | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | Lately none of the movies I am looking for are available. I've | been starting to think of classics I should watch with my kids. | Ruefully buying DVDs again. | skinnymuch wrote: | The Critereon Collection might be able to handle a lot of | classics. I've never checked it out personally. Only heard | about it. | capitainenemo wrote: | Netflix DVD service does in fact still exist... They even | have an android app. | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | Interesting. I'm in Germany, will see what I can find. | nickthegreek wrote: | googled it to find the whole thing is on vimeo. So... | technically its on a streaming service. | jeroenhd wrote: | Star Trek Discovery started a new season this week. Usually here | in the Netherlands episodes come out a day later, so I thought | I'd watch the last season finale the day before it came out so I | was up to speed. | | Turns out Paramount pulled the show from Netflix to put it on | Paramount+ | | As a Star Trek fan, j thought what the heck, let's see how | expensive a subscription to that is. Turns out it's not available | in this country. It'll launch as part of something called | SkyShowtime, a separate service including multiple American | streaming platforms, somewhere in 2022. | | So I shrugged and added the show to Sonarr. Within minutes, I had | all the episodes available for my viewing pleasure. | | It's like these companies don't want my business. They pull | content from my existing subscription, make it impossible for me | to buy their service and then complain about the terrible threat | of piracy at the same time. | | It's time for someone to set up a service that aggregates all | other services so viewers can enjoy their content without chasing | platforms. I'll pay for the extra services once content isn't | being shifted around anymore, which is clearly going to take | another decade. | baby wrote: | Competition is giving us better and more content. | lordnacho wrote: | As a father my guess is Disney is winning. They'd get 2X my money | if they had fine print that said "You have to pay again for | Frozen". Basically they just have to hook your kid on one thing | and then they're getting your subscription. The number of | rewatches of the same content has got to be through the roof for | them. | | All the other streaming services are fighting over your remaining | 1-3 slots in your household. Of them it would seem Amazon looks | good because they make you think you're getting a deal with | Prime, but it doesn't seem to have the same pull as a 5 year old | who needs to watch Disney. | | The others also have the disadvantage that adults are going to | know how to share an account. With kids you don't want to be | coordinating it. | | As for UX, I don't quite understand why anything is ever taken | off the streaming service. Isn't it one of the things that makes | it better than a Blockbuster? Every movie you've ever had on can | be left there. There's gotta be a way to shove the long tail | content on some slower/less replicated infrastructure, but maybe | it isn't a technical consideration. | oezi wrote: | I don't get Disney+ at all, exactely because of this: if you | want to watch Frozen 50 times, a DVD is a much better deal. You | can get the entire Disney/Pixar catalog of kids movies for the | price of a year's subscription. | vlovich123 wrote: | It's complex licensing deals and other revenue streams (hotels, | airplanes, foreign broadcasts, regional monopolies etc) that | are the reason. You accessing some cold content is not an issue | for them. They have enough spare capacity to handle small | volume requests like that easily. | judge2020 wrote: | > I don't quite understand why anything is ever taken off the | streaming service. | | Probably won't happen for the first-party services like Disney | Plus, Paramount, etc. but things leave Netflix because the | deals for streaming usually last 5-15 years; no studio exec | wants to be the name attached to something like "Netflix gets | exclusive streaming rights to this film in perpetuity" when 50 | years down the line it would've made more sense to relicense it | to X other company or bring it into your own streaming library. | It's not anywhere near a technical limitation like you suggest, | it's a money issue. | [deleted] | arnvald wrote: | Disney should easily be winning globally, but outside of | America they're failing to launch their service in new | countries. I have friends in Europe who'd pay for Disney+ to be | able to watch Star Wars and Marvel series but they can't, | because the launch is postponed until mid-2022. I'm quite | surprised they haven't tried to launch faster, seeing that we | have more lockdowns coming and people will be spending more | time in front of tv again | baby wrote: | Really? I don't know anyone with Disney and everyone I know has | netflix. Maybe for families with kids. | [deleted] | shoto_io wrote: | Star Trek new season got canceled just recently, because | Paramount pulled it off Netflix. It was due to start coming days. | Now people have ti wait until 2022 and get the then available | paramount subscription on top of Netflix, Disney, and A+. | | Who is willing to do that? I bet many people will opt for illegal | downloads again. | 6chars wrote: | To clarify for anyone in the US, this applies to everyone | _outside_ the US. Previously, Paramount released Star Trek: | Discovery on Paramount+ in the US and Netflix everywhere else. | Now it's Paramount+ everywhere, only that doesn't exist | everywhere yet. | | It's amazing to me that the company feels that the benefits of | this outweigh the goodwill it costs them among the fanbase. | Trekkies are going apeshit over this. It makes me more hesitant | to buy Star Trek media in the future, and I'll admit I'm not | one to change my buying patterns based on companies' behavior | ordinarily. | LinAGKar wrote: | Not just that, they're not releasing them yet outside the USA | and Canada even in places that do have Paramount+, such as | the Nordics. So outside the USA and Canada, Prodigy and | Discovery are pirate-exclusives even if you are subscribed to | Paramount+. | mattnewton wrote: | Why would they pull it before having a replacement ready? Is | this just classic US-first thinking where the rest of the | world kinda fell through the cracks? | comeonseriously wrote: | The only winning move is not to play. | | I think a lot of people will just do without. | HWR_14 wrote: | I thought Paramount didn't put any of their new Star Trek shows | on Netflix. | easton wrote: | They only did that in the US, Netflix had international | distribution rights. | criddell wrote: | If it's easy enough to start and stop a subscription, lots of | people will do it. | | My family wanted to watch Mandalorian so we subscribed to | Disney+. It took us two months to get through the series so it | only cost $15 or so which seems like a pretty good deal for | that many hours of TV. Since I subscribed via Apple, cancelling | was painless. We did the same with Peacock for a different | show. | | HBO, Hulu, and Netflix seem to have enough stuff that we watch | that we've stayed subscribed to those for years now. | ChrisLTD wrote: | Which Star Trek season was cancelled? I can't find any news on | it. | spicyramen wrote: | Quality content: HBO > Disney+ > Amazon Prime > Netflix | tpmx wrote: | Disney+ is mostly for kids and Star Wars remake fans, right? | | HBO, Apple TV+ and Netflix have all mostly fallen into this | trap of producing really elaborate, super expensive drama shows | that are mostly really depressing, boring and dystopic. | Fantastic HDR cinematography though. | skinnymuch wrote: | Interesting. I haven't had a reason to open Disney+ up after | the first day. Is Disney+ relevant if you don't enjoy Marvel or | Star Wars, nor children's shows? I know it has Simpsons, Pixar, | and more. That's pretty slim pickings compared to any other | service though if you care for the three major categories | above. | | I did watch some of the Marvel tv content as it got a lot of | hype. I don't get it. The production quality is insanely high, | but the shows and pacing seemed pretty tame. If that sort of | action isn't your thing, Netflix stuff blows it out of the | water in my opinion. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-19 23:00 UTC)