3 ms·

> Hollywood, HBO, Netflix, Amazon. That's not nearly enough. Except I don't want to pay for another service. I already pay for Netflix and Amazon and one of th

> Hollywood, HBO, Netflix, Amazon. That's not nearly enough. Except I don't want to pay for another service. I already pay for Netflix and Amazon and one of the reasons streaming was appealing is that it was different from cable. If we multiply streaming services, pretty soon I'm paying $5/month here and $10/month there and much of that for one thing I'd like to see on that service. I'd like to see production and distribution separated, though I recognize that's probably a pipe dream.

Neliquat 10y ago
1. Is this not what cable subscribers always wanted? 2. You can just buy the show in most cases if a sub does not suit you. 3. The nickle and diming is real. I still do not spend as much, but its getting close. I feel the quality (compared preimum cable) is higher however.
rhino369 10y ago
So only pay for Netflix and just accept that you won't get everything available. There is already too much content to watch. Netflix and Amazon aren't magic. Sure there is some industry of scale by selling their wares internationally and some savings by letting ISPs distribute their content, but fundamentally TV hasn't become cheaper to make. If anything, Netflix and Amazon are spending more than average amounts of money on their new content. That results in beautiful shows, but it's not cheap. And those services don't use commercials, which means they'll be more expensive than cable content that does. You can get production and distribution separated, by paying per episode on itunes or amazon. But that is more expensive for heavy users because they can't bake in an unlimited plan. You can use these services to get the handful of shows you really want to watch but aren't on netflix or amazon.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  I suppose I meant that in response to "the establishment taking a beating". It's taking a beating, but leading to a new establishment that's much the same as the old one. Yes, I get a lot of content with Netflix, but since content is scattered and exclusive, I end up paying for much that I don't want across many services. Much like if I want to watch network "x" on cable, I also need to get network "y". To watch show "w", I need to get show "x" on network "y". Of course, I can buy show by show, but since a single season of a show costs as much as several months of a subscription, that shows there's much to be gained in "bundling" for providers and I suppose we'll need to accept that (like I said, it's a pipe dream). I think in a few years time this will all start to become more complicated. For a younger generation, the content is in independent products distributed on YouTube rather than professional productions on subscriptions networks. If the YouTube model becomes popular, TV will become cheaper to make and then costs shift to distribution.

Neliquat 10y ago

1. Is this not what cable subscribers always wanted? 2. You can just buy the show in most cases if a sub does not suit you. 3. The nickle and diming is real. I still do not spend as much, but its getting close. I feel the quality (compared preimum cable) is higher however.

rhino369 10y ago

So only pay for Netflix and just accept that you won't get everything available. There is already too much content to watch. Netflix and Amazon aren't magic. Sure there is some industry of scale by selling their wares internationally and some savings by letting ISPs distribute their content, but fundamentally TV hasn't become cheaper to make. If anything, Netflix and Amazon are spending more than average amounts of money on their new content. That results in beautiful shows, but it's not cheap. And those services don't use commercials, which means they'll be more expensive than cable content that does. You can get production and distribution separated, by paying per episode on itunes or amazon. But that is more expensive for heavy users because they can't bake in an unlimited plan. You can use these services to get the handful of shows you really want to watch but aren't on netflix or amazon.

stinkytaco 10y ago
I suppose I meant that in response to "the establishment taking a beating". It's taking a beating, but leading to a new establishment that's much the same as the old one. Yes, I get a lot of content with Netflix, but since content is scattered and exclusive, I end up paying for much that I don't want across many services. Much like if I want to watch network "x" on cable, I also need to get network "y". To watch show "w", I need to get show "x" on network "y". Of course, I can buy show by show, but since a single season of a show costs as much as several months of a subscription, that shows there's much to be gained in "bundling" for providers and I suppose we'll need to accept that (like I said, it's a pipe dream). I think in a few years time this will all start to become more complicated. For a younger generation, the content is in independent products distributed on YouTube rather than professional productions on subscriptions networks. If the YouTube model becomes popular, TV will become cheaper to make and then costs shift to distribution.