5 ms·

What would you prefer instead? Everything to be available via Netflix?

amelius 10y ago
That would be really bad for competition. I'm thinking we should have a different distribution model. One without gatekeepers. But with fair payment of content producers. Perhaps the government should step in because the market doesn't seem to be able to sort this out (see also Uber, App stores, Amazon, with their internalized non-free markets).
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  I don't think we need the government to step in. What we should be aiming for are solutions based on decentralised apps. The groundwork for this has already started to emerge.
ekianjo 10y ago
The solution would be for the content to be decentralized and simply available through an API with licensing fees for each program you want to watch, and stores would basically talk to each API and would be dissociated from the content distribution. That way stores could compete on the better UI and payment systems and everyone could have access to the same movie collection. I don't think this is going to happen, though. Companies love walled gardens too much.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  It might even be a tenable system if exclusives were permitted for a limited period. That way Netflix or any competitor could invest in their own content and attract customers with it for, say, eight years after release. After that period, the content becomes available to all services, and Netflix gets paid royalties. Right now the closest you can get is paying one of the content services (often Netflix) their monthly tribute and treating it as such a hypothetical service. For any content not offered there you simply sail to any old bay of pirates that does have it. It may be illegal, but I find it morally defensible at this stage. It doesn't make a lot of sense from a consumer standpoint. Any royalties 'owed' to anyone for watching some thirty year old film could easily be covered by a reasonable flat monthly fee (like Netflix' $10/€10), but the content owners seem afraid to make any rational steps toward a system that would actually gain them a steady income on their back catalogues!
- jhbadger 10y ago
  If you want the pay-per-view model, Google, Apple, and Amazon all feature this today with a much larger library of films than are on the subscription streaming services.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    But the prices are ridiculous.
    - jhbadger 10y ago
      The prices for "purchasing" often seem absurd -- as much as buying a DVD, with no guarantee that the service will have the movie forever. But rental is typically only $2-$3 dollars -- basically what renting a movie from a video rental store used to cost, so not that unreasonable

That would be really bad for competition. I'm thinking we should have a different distribution model. One without gatekeepers. But with fair payment of content producers. Perhaps the government should step in because the market doesn't seem to be able to sort this out (see also Uber, App stores, Amazon, with their internalized non-free markets).

ZenoArrow 10y ago
I don't think we need the government to step in. What we should be aiming for are solutions based on decentralised apps. The groundwork for this has already started to emerge.

ekianjo 10y ago

The solution would be for the content to be decentralized and simply available through an API with licensing fees for each program you want to watch, and stores would basically talk to each API and would be dissociated from the content distribution. That way stores could compete on the better UI and payment systems and everyone could have access to the same movie collection. I don't think this is going to happen, though. Companies love walled gardens too much.

Freak_NL 10y ago
It might even be a tenable system if exclusives were permitted for a limited period. That way Netflix or any competitor could invest in their own content and attract customers with it for, say, eight years after release. After that period, the content becomes available to all services, and Netflix gets paid royalties. Right now the closest you can get is paying one of the content services (often Netflix) their monthly tribute and treating it as such a hypothetical service. For any content not offered there you simply sail to any old bay of pirates that does have it. It may be illegal, but I find it morally defensible at this stage. It doesn't make a lot of sense from a consumer standpoint. Any royalties 'owed' to anyone for watching some thirty year old film could easily be covered by a reasonable flat monthly fee (like Netflix' $10/€10), but the content owners seem afraid to make any rational steps toward a system that would actually gain them a steady income on their back catalogues!
jhbadger 10y ago
If you want the pay-per-view model, Google, Apple, and Amazon all feature this today with a much larger library of films than are on the subscription streaming services.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  But the prices are ridiculous.
  - jhbadger 10y ago
    The prices for "purchasing" often seem absurd -- as much as buying a DVD, with no guarantee that the service will have the movie forever. But rental is typically only $2-$3 dollars -- basically what renting a movie from a video rental store used to cost, so not that unreasonable