4 ms·

I'm happy to pay Spotify a monthly fee. It is more than I ever spent on music before though (not a pirate, just didn't buy much music.) Same with netflix. I'

I'm happy to pay Spotify a monthly fee. It is more than I ever spent on music before though (not a pirate, just didn't buy much music.) Same with netflix. I'll not be happy with paying monthly for n different channels to watch a film. I want to pay. But either one service with all I need like Spotify or paying for the stiff I actually watch.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
This used to be a thing. It was when you paid $60-120 a month for your cable TV package. Did you really think everyone was gonna let you cut that down to $10 a month?
- reitanqild 9y ago
  It is still more than they would get from many of us any other way. Before Spotify I'll buy less than a cd every second or third month maybe. Now I'd probably just stop watching movies. Others will start pirating again.
  - jtbayly 9y ago
    Spotify also doesn't pay the artists enough for most of them to survive. Studios know this. They know that $10/month isn't enough to support the creation of all the original content that has been supported in the past by $100/month.
    - NegatioN 9y ago
      I have a hunch that studios will find a way to pocket about the same amount of money that Spotify already does. Just based on the reports of how they treat non-superstar artists already with hollywood acounting [0]. They want more money for the studio to survive, not artists. Artists are probably "a dime a dozen", and possible to manufacture from a studios perspective. [0]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
kbenson 9y ago
Maybe one day we'll get to the point where the content is mostly commoditized, and we'll simple be paying for whichever aggregating service provides the best usability (such as searching, recommendation, shared watching with remote friends, etc) will be leading instead. I don't think it will be anytime soon though.
- fullshark 9y ago
  Not as long as people want to watch stories about particular IP.
  - kbutler 9y ago
    I don't see how that is qualitatively different from wanting to listen to music from specific artists. The music industry has been able to work with aggregators, movies can, too.
    - jpalomaki 9y ago
      One big difference is the production costs. Much cheaper to procedure two hour record that a block buster movie. And people are happy to consume the same music content over and over again. With movies and series most people won't do that.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
PretzelPirate 9y ago
I'm happy to pay extra for content from Disney or HBO, but I just want a consistent user experience. I was a single app that will let me access all of this content.
- Eridrus 9y ago
  Interestingly HBO just did this: They put HGO Go into Hulu. $15/month is still a lot though.
  - TheGRS 9y ago
    Maybe, but they put out good content that I personally think is worth the price of admission.
- chrismanfrank 9y ago
  I just subscribed to HBO through Amazon for this reason. It's really great. Amazon user experience and streaming capabilities seem better than HBO. But HBO is the only place you can get Game of Thrones. Win-win :)
- brightball 9y ago
  For the most part, that has been TiVo for the last 4-5 years.
- rwc 9y ago
  That's the concept behind the "TV" app on Apple TV/iOS.
  - ianai 9y ago
    Also Roku.
    - kbutler 9y ago
      Except every channel on Roku is a different app with a different experience - Netflix, Amazon, Google Play, YouTube, ... all provide similar functionality, bit with differences in UI. Just give me a best-of-breed UI that lets me watch all the things.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
samclearman 9y ago
Maybe you never used to spend more than $10/month on video, but most Americans have been spending an order of magnitude more than that.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Some stats too back that up? More than 50% of USA population spend >$100 per month on video? A family of 4 would be spending $400+ on video??
  - samclearman 9y ago
    Pricing is per household, so a family of four spends the same as an single individual.
- adventurer 9y ago
  People pay 10-20 times that for cable. It surprises me when people commenting think no one will pay for multiple services. Sure you will, but which ones will make the cut?
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    Ok, don’t get me wrong: I pay for the basic tv package as well. My point is I don’t watch enough on-demand video to justify another 2 Netflixes on top of that.
prawn 9y ago
I think they're betting that many people will eventually drop Netflix and push their $10/mo towards Disney/etc.
gcb0 9y ago
free marketing lesson: you (or the statistical significant you :) started paying for music because you aged. not because Spotify changed the game. before and after Spotify and such, older demographics are the ones buying vinyls, cds, subscriptions, etc. the business model is to bombard you with free exposure during your teens, and hopefully sell you concert tickets, to later cash in you buying media.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

This used to be a thing. It was when you paid $60-120 a month for your cable TV package. Did you really think everyone was gonna let you cut that down to $10 a month?

reitanqild 9y ago
It is still more than they would get from many of us any other way. Before Spotify I'll buy less than a cd every second or third month maybe. Now I'd probably just stop watching movies. Others will start pirating again.
- jtbayly 9y ago
  Spotify also doesn't pay the artists enough for most of them to survive. Studios know this. They know that $10/month isn't enough to support the creation of all the original content that has been supported in the past by $100/month.
  - NegatioN 9y ago
    I have a hunch that studios will find a way to pocket about the same amount of money that Spotify already does. Just based on the reports of how they treat non-superstar artists already with hollywood acounting [0]. They want more money for the studio to survive, not artists. Artists are probably "a dime a dozen", and possible to manufacture from a studios perspective. [0]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml

kbenson 9y ago

Maybe one day we'll get to the point where the content is mostly commoditized, and we'll simple be paying for whichever aggregating service provides the best usability (such as searching, recommendation, shared watching with remote friends, etc) will be leading instead. I don't think it will be anytime soon though.

fullshark 9y ago
Not as long as people want to watch stories about particular IP.
- kbutler 9y ago
  I don't see how that is qualitatively different from wanting to listen to music from specific artists. The music industry has been able to work with aggregators, movies can, too.
  - jpalomaki 9y ago
    One big difference is the production costs. Much cheaper to procedure two hour record that a block buster movie. And people are happy to consume the same music content over and over again. With movies and series most people won't do that.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

PretzelPirate 9y ago

I'm happy to pay extra for content from Disney or HBO, but I just want a consistent user experience. I was a single app that will let me access all of this content.

Eridrus 9y ago
Interestingly HBO just did this: They put HGO Go into Hulu. $15/month is still a lot though.
- TheGRS 9y ago
  Maybe, but they put out good content that I personally think is worth the price of admission.
chrismanfrank 9y ago
I just subscribed to HBO through Amazon for this reason. It's really great. Amazon user experience and streaming capabilities seem better than HBO. But HBO is the only place you can get Game of Thrones. Win-win :)
brightball 9y ago
For the most part, that has been TiVo for the last 4-5 years.
rwc 9y ago
That's the concept behind the "TV" app on Apple TV/iOS.
- ianai 9y ago
  Also Roku.
  - kbutler 9y ago
    Except every channel on Roku is a different app with a different experience - Netflix, Amazon, Google Play, YouTube, ... all provide similar functionality, bit with differences in UI. Just give me a best-of-breed UI that lets me watch all the things.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

samclearman 9y ago

Maybe you never used to spend more than $10/month on video, but most Americans have been spending an order of magnitude more than that.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Some stats too back that up? More than 50% of USA population spend >$100 per month on video? A family of 4 would be spending $400+ on video??
- samclearman 9y ago
  Pricing is per household, so a family of four spends the same as an single individual.
adventurer 9y ago
People pay 10-20 times that for cable. It surprises me when people commenting think no one will pay for multiple services. Sure you will, but which ones will make the cut?
- reitanqild 9y ago
  Ok, don’t get me wrong: I pay for the basic tv package as well. My point is I don’t watch enough on-demand video to justify another 2 Netflixes on top of that.

prawn 9y ago

I think they're betting that many people will eventually drop Netflix and push their $10/mo towards Disney/etc.

gcb0 9y ago

free marketing lesson: you (or the statistical significant you :) started paying for music because you aged. not because Spotify changed the game. before and after Spotify and such, older demographics are the ones buying vinyls, cds, subscriptions, etc. the business model is to bombard you with free exposure during your teens, and hopefully sell you concert tickets, to later cash in you buying media.