10 ms·

Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

161 points by frostmatthew 9y ago

PaulHoule 9y ago
Stupid article. There is the atavistic fantasy of "you can watch everything you want at one low price", except the price is not a low price, it is a high price. The big anti-competitive problem with cable is that cable and satellite providers do not offer a choice of packages. You get basically the same thing with all providers. Hollywood loves it because they get paid no matter how good or bad the stuff they make is, but long term it is bad because there is no market discipline. Some people with kids will love a Disney-branded streaming bundle and find a lot of value in it. Sports fans will see value in getting the games and commentary they want from ESPN. Note Disney hasn't announced a "Marvel" or "Star Wars" bundle because in those cases they probably will need to partner with other companies. For instance, what kind of Marvel bundle doesn't have Spider-Man or the X-Men? Sony has the film rights for Spidey, Fox has the rights for the X-Men. To make a really appealing "Superhero" bundle, Disney may need to team up with other companies...
- calafrax 9y ago
  don't forget that producing all this content costs 10's of billions per year so someone has to pay for it. both the cost of production and the amount produced keeps increasing so prices need to go up to.
  - a3n 9y ago
    Unless demand goes down.
  - tomjen3 9y ago
    Sure, but they can sell the content many times for one upfront investment.
  - nebabyte 9y ago
    Up to what?
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    I find the costs for producing films and TV shows a bit absurd. I'm sure they can optimise a lot, but they don't because they're used to paying 100 million dollars for a superhero movie. They can easily get 99% of the production value at far lower cost.
    - jseliger 9y ago
      I find the costs for producing films and TV shows a bit absurd I'm sure that if you, dingo_bat, were in charge of a film studio or TV company, you'd no doubt find incredible ways, overlooked by everyone else in the industry, to dramatically cut costs and increase profits.
- Mathnerd314 9y ago
  well, there is a way to fulfill that fantasy: piracy. pretty much everything anyone wants, at the low, low price of free. Piracy's been declining, but only by around 6%, according to this report ("Daily visits to piracy sites", pg 8): https://www.muso.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MUSO_2017_Global_Sample_Market_Insights_report.pdf https://www.muso.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MUSO_2017_Gl... And with VPN's, stream ripping, etc. getting more popular & copyright enforcement getting even more lackadaisical it's not clear if that's due to measurement bias or actually represents a decline. (And I don't know why it disagrees with the article's linked stats of 18% to 15% or 12% to 10%: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/07/04/internet-piracy-falls-to-record-lows-amid-rise-of-spotify-and-ne/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/07/04/internet-pi...) It's not really clear if piracy's sustainable... will the free/illegal + paid/legal split continue forever? Or will the different sites continue to merge together somehow, despite the failure of streaming sites to offer 'all in one' deals? They almost seem like two different markets, with minimal overlap: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/05/16/box-office-disney-pirates-of-the-caribbean-johnny-depp-hackers/#4dcd320c2aab https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/05/16/box-o...
nerdponx 9y ago
These "bloated" packages exist specifically to force you into buying more than you need. It's a standard monopoly pricing technique, and the presence of bundled packages indicates monopoly power in the market.
- calafrax 9y ago
  i am not sure that it is directly tied to monopoly. paying for a subscription reduces friction for watching individual shows/channels so it increased total viewership and total consumption. every pay point you add adds more friction so will reduce consumption. that is true whether you have monopolies or not. you could have 5 competitors and they would all maximize profit by selling bundles.
usaphp 9y ago
I have a question to US people, when you say "cord cutter" - what exactly do you mean? Because you still need to pay for internet to the same cable company, and the price is only 5-10% cheaper compared to the same plan with cable box? Am I not understanding it correctly?
- ben1040 9y ago
  The "cord cutter" term is a little odd because you're still probably buying internet from the cable company; you're just not buying their video services. When I first signed up for cable, Charter Spectrum had me on a promotional plan - 130/5 internet and extended basic cable (essentially everything but HBO/Cinemax/Starz/Encore), for around $110/month. This was a 1-year promotional price offered only to new customers. After 12 months, it went up to $65/month for the internet and an additional $90/month for the TV. I chose instead to sign up for DirecTV Now streaming, because even at buying a "bundle" of channels, it was significantly cheaper at $35/month vs the cable company's offering.
  - usaphp 9y ago
    I am paying $120 for 300mbps internet + TV + phone and some soccer sport pass right now, I just contacted Charter (who bought TWC here) to ask how much just the internet would cost me, and they told me it is going to cost $105 just for the internet. So by "cord cutting" I actually only hurting myself here, no?
    - ghaff 9y ago
      Yes. The details will vary--and I've been meaning to look into what my options are--but you probably won't save nearly as much by switching away from Triple-play type deals to straight Internet as you might assume.
    - votepaunchy 9y ago
      Are you paying for a DVR? Verizon and Commcast charge about $15/month per TV.
cyanexttuesday 9y ago
It's going to be more expensive than cable since you have to Internet(many of which providers are monopolies in the us) and pay 10 usd a month per various premium channel access. Unless people just stop consuming media, and regain financial leverage.
tested23 9y ago
I remember how people on the internet used to complain about how they didn’t want all of the garbage channels that were bundled with cable. Now they are complaining about being able to pick and choose what they pay for. (Yes you don’t need to have access to every subscription service) Two things to note, pirates will always find some way to rationalize their theft and the consumer is a child that wants to have their cake and eat it too.
- bencoder 9y ago
  The problem with the cable bundles is they bundled maybe one thing/channel you want with a bunch of crap you don't to bulk it out and make it seem worth it. Honestly I'm happy to pay for the different 'bundles' like Netflix, prime and hbo (and Disney if I had kids). But I want it under one service, with the ability to pay a one-off fee to watch something I'm not subscribed to. At the moment the fragmentation is crazy, and Netflix wins so if it's not there I'll rarely go looking on Amazon to see if they have it, even though I pay for that service. I really think there is a good opportunity for someone to unify these services, but it probably has to come from inside the industry. Hopefully in a few years when they realise that less friction will win in the long run
  - votepaunchy 9y ago
    This aggregation of services is what Apple is doing with their TV app. And with iOS 11 the major providers will be in on SSO.
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  Copyright infringement isn't theft.
  - calafrax 9y ago
    word. unlicensed content delivery platforms still vastly superior in terms of quality and depth of content after over a decade and billions spent by netflix, hulu, etc. if you really want people to pay for a product you should offer better quality than the people who give it away.
mabub24 9y ago
So the author instead wants everything to go through Netflix and Spotify? Why would Disney care? Their product practically prints money for them. Unlike Netflix, Disney doesn't need to constantly make fresh content for new subscribers. It makes business sense to just park it into a service and let the money roll in. That's what they do with their "vault." The real question will be how much it costs for a subscription. People are honestly okay with fragmentation. It's the cost they mind. But even then families are 100% shelling out for that sweet sweet Disney content.
- ebola1717 9y ago
  But people aren't gonna pay $10 or even $5 every month for a disney-only streaming subscription, if disney doesn't put out new content for it. It's way cheaper to just buy your favorite disney shows & movies. Disney is more established in producing fresh content for their subscribers - cause they're a studio - but that's a different question.
  - mattnewton 9y ago
    I don't think that's true, I bet at Disney's size and the sheer number of franchises they own they could continue to just put out movies and shows at the same rate they do now and keep them exclusive to the the Disney service. Their back catalog is enormous- we're talking Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar all under the same umbrella as the Lion King. If any company could go at it alone on the strength of their portfolio it's Disney.
    - fweespeech 9y ago
      Also all the sports games via ESPN.
  - mehwoot 9y ago
    Disney makes a lot of content. You might think of Disney as Disney animation studios, but the company makes a lot of stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Pictures_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Pictures_f... That doesn't even count Marvel, and LucasFilm, etc, etc. That's more than 1 feature film released every month, and then all the TV content... $5 a month wouldn't be unreasonable, especially if you have kids.
ghaff 9y ago
There's possibly some opportunity that, if you really don't want any real-time sports, you could possibly save some money by stripping that from subscription offerings. But fantasies that removing the Home and Garden Channel from bundles reduces the monthly bill are just fantasies. In some respects, fragmentation is a mental overhead. But that's going to be the reality and the end result isn't going to be any cheaper for anyone who really cares about getting access to anything they want to watch.
- sverige 9y ago
  ESPN accounts for a huge percentage of most monthly cable bill cost. I never watch live sports, nor do a pretty good percentage of cable subscribers. Just cutting ESPN could reduce cable bills by a third to a half in a lot of markets. This is why ESPN is suffering financially as cord cutting increases.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    The cost for ESPN is something like $8-$9 per month so a lot but not the overwhelming cost of a cable TV bill. I also think you overestimate the number of people willing to totally give up being able to watch sports. I know I watch very little but I hesitate to totally cut the cord.
    - sverige 9y ago
      In some markets, ESPN and other sports channels accounts for as much as $20 per month of the standard cable bill, and those costs are rising. [1] And I don't think I'm overestimating the number of people willing to give up paying for sports on cable. It's somewhere between 57% and 80% of cable subscribers. [2] That's a giant subsidy for an entertainment industry based on watching adults play children's games. Of course, if you're a sportsman, you won't see it that way, but if you're not, it may create a different reaction. [1] http://time.com/money/4590614/cable-bill-sports-cord-cutting-streaming/ http://time.com/money/4590614/cable-bill-sports-cord-cutting... [2] "This is the heart of the Sports Cable Bubble: Tens of millions of pay television viewers spending what Thompson estimates is at least $100 a year on sports programming they have no intention of ever watching, pumping billions into games enjoyed by others, enriching networks, leagues, teams and athletes all the while. (The exact number of non-sports fans is difficult to peg: A recent Harris Interactive poll found that 43 percent of Americans won't cancel cable and satellite television simply because of live sports, which also suggests that the majority of the country could be perfectly happy not paying for ESPN; industry analyst David Bank told Bloomberg Businessweek that 80 percent of basic-cable customers would decline to pay for sports if given a choice; Forbes writer Alan McGlade figures that no more than 10 million homes are regular ESPN viewers, about 10 percent of the total pay TV market.)" --from http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/53498716/ http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/53498716/
bunderbunder 9y ago
It seems to me like more of this fragmentation will make streaming less like cable. I don't care much for Disney content. Now that Disney's leaving, that frees up Netflix resources to (hopefully) get more of the content that I want. Realistically I'm not fond of Netflix's offerings of late, so I don't have high hopes. It's like basic cable these days; very shallow coverage of a lot of different things, so my interest tends to evaporate quickly. But the more that more focused Netflix alternatives pop up, the more I can find things that do suit my interests. In summary, yes, please do "ruin" streaming for the author. It'll make streaming all the better for me.
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  Couldn't agree more. I'd like to see this go even further and have nothing bundled. I much rather pay straight up for the shows I'm watching than get some bundle. Many shows are about $20 on Amazon or Play which is totally reasonable; you end up owning it and only pay for what you want. That's the model I like best. Unlikely to get everyone on that boat though. EDIT: typos
  - hamandcheese 9y ago
    Hasn't that model existed for a while now?
    - ajmurmann 9y ago
      Yes, but lots of content cannot be accessed that way. Especially not live sports events.
  - LeoPanthera 9y ago
    Can you download the video files for the shows you buy, DRM-free? If not, you don't "own" them at all. The encryption on DVD and blu-ray discs is easily broken, so that's still a reasonable way to "own" your favorite shows. As far as I know, 4K blu-ray hasn't been cracked yet, so avoid those.
    - 9y ago
HarryBryant 9y ago
There's never going to be a "catch-all" service. Why would these other players resign themselves to the idea that Amazon and Netflix are the only streaming services that should exist. We've begun the cord-cutting process. We still have Spectrum, but a super-cheap package that you can only get by getting to the 2nd tier customer service and threaten to cancel. It comes with like 10 channels and HBO for $20 or so. We also have Netflix and Amazon. The Roku has the Sprectrum, Amazon, and Netflix apps, so we don't have to use multiple devices. Our Samsung has the apps too, but not a big fan of Samsung apps. But the point is that we're at least getting closer to a la carte, so not getting the author's point at all.
gbacon 9y ago
It's capitalism. If you have a valid complaint, it can be rephrased as a business plan.
- Mathnerd314 9y ago
  You're assuming an efficient market, when many deficits of market economics are already well-known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure The information economy has fixed some of those, but it would be more surprising if there weren't new types of deficits to take their place.
  - gbacon 9y ago
    This alleged assumption that in fact I did not make would contradict the principle above. If the market were always and everywhere at every instant of time efficiently allocated, there would be no valid complaints.
    - Mathnerd314 9y ago
      My point here is that, even if a business plan could be written for every complaint, the business plan produced isn't necessarily viable or actionable, e.g. if there's a monopoly in that particular industry. Usually the word 'plan' implies that there's a reasonable chance of success, hence my disagreement.
inlined 9y ago
Studios used to run their own theaters and that vertical integration was found to be uncompetitive. What is the rationale that doesn't apply here?
haberman 9y ago
I just moved to a place where I can get gigabit fiber and spent a lot of time looking into how I want to get TV. So far the cord-cutting options that look most compelling to me are Hulu Live TV (Beta) and YouTube TV (sadly not available in my area yet). Things I care about are: ability to watch live TV, access to the major TV networks, ability to DVR, ability to watch things from other devices (like "I'm traveling but want to watch my DVR'd program). Sling was looking good but doesn't include the major networks and only some of its channels can be DVR'd. I thought about using an HD antenna and getting a hardware DVR like a Tivo or Channel Master DVR+, but then you can only DVR the major networks. If you try to supplement that with Sling, you're back to the same problem that only some things can be DVR'd. Also the hardware DVRs don't generally let you watch remotely, and the ones that do aren't as good at live TV. Hulu Live TV seems good so far. You get access to live TV and DVR and you can watch from anywhere. But it also gives you access to its existing streaming library, so you have access to a lot of shows even if you didn't think to DVR them before they happened. At $40/month it seems like a pretty good deal (that gives you 50 hours of DVR). It's $44 to have "No Commercials" (this removes commercials from the streaming content I believe). If you want to skip past commercials in content you have DVR'd, you need to pay an extra $15/month, which seems kind of lame. I wish I could try YouTube TV but it's not available in Seattle yet!
- Rohccoo 9y ago
  Checkout Playstaion Vue
mosselman 9y ago
This isn't a very good article. The analysis of the issue is very shallow and the author is stating the obvious: 'It would be easier for users if everything can be found on one service that costs $10/month' and 'more publishers are getting into their own streaming business and that is the opposite'. Yes, thank you, we are all quite aware of that. That being said I am surprised by the comments here. Quite a few people seem to be arguing FOR a situation where lots of content leaves bigger providers so that it can be hosted in separate streaming services like Disney is now doing. Why? Are you all just being recalcitrant or am I to believe that you'd prefer paying (3 * $10)/month for a decent content coverage (assuming 3 different providers) instead of just $10/month? . Another strange 'opinion' that is being shared here is that it would be better to pay only for the things you want to watch. a. This has been around for quite a while already, so it is unclear to me why this is being brought up as something that Netflix should do suddenly and b. I don't see how this would be an alternative to someone who is happily paying Netflix's ~$10/month. I myself find that a big value that Netflix has for me is the complete library of movies, series and stand-up they have and that I can freely watch anything they offer without having to pay for individual viewing sessions. I, for example, often put on something I have already seen or some stand-up while doing chores around the house. I would never do this if I had to pay for this content on top of what I would already be paying for the things that I actively watch. Apart from the practical implications of pay-per-view in my example I also think that the quality of the content would suffer. Right now it is very easy for me to watch some experimental content on Netflix. Some Netflix originals are not your typical series or film and I quite enjoy the more different content as an addition to the more popular series. If people will have to start picking the things they want to watch and pay for every view these series will not get watched at all and therefore not be made at all. The advantage that Netflix has is that they try to persuade people to come to them for a variety of content that is interesting and unique to Netflix. This is how they grow and retain their user base. If you get rid of this model and start asking people to pay-per-view there would be no reason for them to keep making their own unique content anymore as you'd choose your provider on a view per view basis.
anindha 9y ago
Having multiple streaming providers will lead to more original content since streaming infrastructure alone is not defensibility. Hopefully each streaming provider will share older seasons similar to how Netflix has acquired content currently. I have Amazon, HBO, Netflix, and YouTube Red. I am happier than when I had a cable package - there is much more content I want to watch.
jshaqaw 9y ago
The bundling model whether streaming or cable is obsolete. The iTunes model of pay per episode makes much more sense - although it was much preferable when you could rent an episode for .99 rather than buy it for 2.99.
Aron 9y ago
Netflix at 10$ is severely underpriced relative to any competition. I've been curious just what their next move is.
- jamie_ca 9y ago
  Slowly bump prices. It's going up by $1 ($2 for the high tier) in Canada this month, I hear.
  - Aron 9y ago
    So simple it might just work. I keep expecting something more dramatic, but they seem to be the opposing dipole of Amazon.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    Though whether that's an active bump depends on whether the price hikes beat out inflation over the long term.
joshribakoff 9y ago
I just signed up for HBO Now. The streaming does not work as good as Netflix. Neither do the browse/search features. It would be nice to have a streaming platform that just worked, and was a marketplace for all the content providers. I couldn't even sign up for HBO now via webpage, I had to download their app, just to sign up. Terrible UI. Terrible platform, but its the only option to watch their content [legally].
ihsw2 9y ago
The solution is, of course, for Netflix to open up to pricing differentiation. There is no reason for HBO Now to be offered outside of Netflix other than haggling over pricing. What's wrong with Netflix rising above the rabble and focusing instead on providing excellent user experiences and rock-solid world-class reliability? Just put in a checkbox somewhere that, when checked, added HBO for $X/month. Boom, it's opt-in and a-la-carte, the holy grail desired by cord-cutters everywhere. At this point it's only Netflix's fault that the content owners are running away and it's within their capability to remedy the situation while keeping everybody happy. Let the children have their candy!
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  Amazon is already doing this; if you have Prime, you can add on subscriptions to HBO, Starz, Cinemax, and a bunch of other channels for a monthly fee.
  - foobarian 9y ago
    So is Hulu. Showtime + HBO for now.
  - codingdave 9y ago
    Amazon would crush Netflix if they would just build a good UX for their streaming. We have both Prime and Netflix and literally the only reason we don't cancel Netflix is because browsing the available content on Amazon is just painful in comparison.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
bad_hairpiece 9y ago
If this segmentation continues, it'll be interesting to see how streaming devices adapt. Requiring a separate app for each content provider is a pain and makes browsing for content much less pleasant, especially when interfaces differ amongst apps. I think it'd be ideal to have a single app to access content. Users would purchase their desired networks from within this app and would have a unified viewing experience.
- snaoe89rrht 9y ago
  This exists. On the Apple TV it's called the "TV" app. I'm sure other devices have something similar. On my Apple TV I see all the shows and movies I'm watching on HBO Now, Showtime, iTunes, and most other services in one spot. Netflix is the only holdout I've run into, and it pisses me off, but that's their prerogative I guess.
baron816 9y ago
There's a very simple solution for anyone worried about fragmentation: don't buy it. We got into a bad situation with cable because we didn't have a choice. It was either pay $80 per month for everything, or not watch TV at all. We have choices now, and Disney isn't going to be able to force their service on anyone. If people really like their new products and think it's worth the money, then fine. If people hate having to pay them separately and no one signs up, then they'll shut it down and go back to how it is now. Consumers have a lot of power now, and whatever happens will likely be in their interests. I personally would be willing to pay a good bit of money to have access to the full back catalog of films from all the major studios. The streaming services' catalogs are very limited, and I'm often in the mood to watch one particular movie that isn't available. Spotify has nearly every song I ever want to listen to. Nothing exists like that for movies.
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  I already buy netflix and Spotify. There is zero chance I'll buy another service. If it's not in either of these and i absolutely must consume it (unlikely) then I'll get it somewhere for free. No way I'll buy another service. With av content netflix already offers more than i have time to watch. Music is different in that i still pass mixtapes (digital versions) around but there is little chance you'd find any of that content anywhere (except maybe soundcloud before it died)
- seanp2k2 9y ago
  I agree on all accounts, however, movies aren't really comparable to music. An episode of a show costs a ton more than a song to make (typically vs typically, there are cheap shows and expensive songs, sure). A movie costs a lot more than an album to produce. http://mentalfloss.com/article/57656/15-albums-cost-fortune-make http://mentalfloss.com/article/57656/15-albums-cost-fortune-... has an album costing $15m to produce which was a huge outlier. Most expensive albums are in the $1-$2mm range. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films has the most expensive films above $300mm a pop. That's two orders of magnitude, and granted there are way fewer movies than albums (I think), a Spotify for movies with tons of back catalogue coverage would probably need to cost $100-$1000/month to make it worth it to the studios. Actually, $150 a month to legally watch almost anything ever made would be a fairly appealing option. Good luck getting even a few studios on board, though. Pricing in future expected rev into it, it'd probably need to be closer to the $1k/month mark to make it worth it. It'll never happen.
froo 9y ago
To be honest, I think catchall solutions work best. I'm more likely to pay for content, if I can just pay 1 or 2 places. When I heard that Disney was leaving Netflix, I'm not inclined to sign up to Disney as well. To be honest, unless they give me a unique value proposition (like having their feature films available on site weeks after theatrical release) I'm unlikely to want to fork out extra bucks for the one studio. If they give me something that is a better experience than the competition, I'll throw my money at them. Other than that, meh
- mrexroad 9y ago
  Assuming you don’t have a 4 year old that collects over surprisingly deep conversations about motivations of random minor characters in animated Disney films?
- bunderbunder 9y ago
  Disney's deal with Netflix was estimated to have netted them $300M (per year, I'm guessing, but I'm not sure), and Netflix is estimated to have 100M users. Assume that Disney would only take home half their revenues from running their own streaming service. That puts their financial break-even point at 300M / (5*12) = 5 million people signing up. 5 million US families attracted to this as an easy way to keep their kids entertained? Doesn't seem a huge stretch to me.
FraKtus 9y ago
There is a nice French service that is trying to regroup most french channels : molotov.tv But for me the nicest is the concept of their application that I use on Apple TV, the way they do replay, link to other shows on replay on the same channel... record your shows on the cloud...That's a nice evolution of streaming... Now, if something like that would exist in the US that would be a killer app!
EddieSpeaks 9y ago
All I want is a paid for Kodi+Exodus mod that is legal. They can have my $20 a month for that.
nebabyte 9y ago
> Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable You're about a few years too late on this. Snowballs don't roll uphill.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 9y ago
Don't ruin the Internet by turning it into streaming.

161 points by frostmatthew 9y ago

Stupid article. There is the atavistic fantasy of "you can watch everything you want at one low price", except the price is not a low price, it is a high price. The big anti-competitive problem with cable is that cable and satellite providers do not offer a choice of packages. You get basically the same thing with all providers. Hollywood loves it because they get paid no matter how good or bad the stuff they make is, but long term it is bad because there is no market discipline. Some people with kids will love a Disney-branded streaming bundle and find a lot of value in it. Sports fans will see value in getting the games and commentary they want from ESPN. Note Disney hasn't announced a "Marvel" or "Star Wars" bundle because in those cases they probably will need to partner with other companies. For instance, what kind of Marvel bundle doesn't have Spider-Man or the X-Men? Sony has the film rights for Spidey, Fox has the rights for the X-Men. To make a really appealing "Superhero" bundle, Disney may need to team up with other companies...

calafrax 9y ago
don't forget that producing all this content costs 10's of billions per year so someone has to pay for it. both the cost of production and the amount produced keeps increasing so prices need to go up to.
- a3n 9y ago
  Unless demand goes down.
- tomjen3 9y ago
  Sure, but they can sell the content many times for one upfront investment.
- nebabyte 9y ago
  Up to what?
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  I find the costs for producing films and TV shows a bit absurd. I'm sure they can optimise a lot, but they don't because they're used to paying 100 million dollars for a superhero movie. They can easily get 99% of the production value at far lower cost.
  - jseliger 9y ago
    I find the costs for producing films and TV shows a bit absurd I'm sure that if you, dingo_bat, were in charge of a film studio or TV company, you'd no doubt find incredible ways, overlooked by everyone else in the industry, to dramatically cut costs and increase profits.
Mathnerd314 9y ago
well, there is a way to fulfill that fantasy: piracy. pretty much everything anyone wants, at the low, low price of free. Piracy's been declining, but only by around 6%, according to this report ("Daily visits to piracy sites", pg 8): https://www.muso.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MUSO_2017_Global_Sample_Market_Insights_report.pdf https://www.muso.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MUSO_2017_Gl... And with VPN's, stream ripping, etc. getting more popular & copyright enforcement getting even more lackadaisical it's not clear if that's due to measurement bias or actually represents a decline. (And I don't know why it disagrees with the article's linked stats of 18% to 15% or 12% to 10%: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/07/04/internet-piracy-falls-to-record-lows-amid-rise-of-spotify-and-ne/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/07/04/internet-pi...) It's not really clear if piracy's sustainable... will the free/illegal + paid/legal split continue forever? Or will the different sites continue to merge together somehow, despite the failure of streaming sites to offer 'all in one' deals? They almost seem like two different markets, with minimal overlap: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/05/16/box-office-disney-pirates-of-the-caribbean-johnny-depp-hackers/#4dcd320c2aab https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/05/16/box-o...

nerdponx 9y ago

These "bloated" packages exist specifically to force you into buying more than you need. It's a standard monopoly pricing technique, and the presence of bundled packages indicates monopoly power in the market.

calafrax 9y ago
i am not sure that it is directly tied to monopoly. paying for a subscription reduces friction for watching individual shows/channels so it increased total viewership and total consumption. every pay point you add adds more friction so will reduce consumption. that is true whether you have monopolies or not. you could have 5 competitors and they would all maximize profit by selling bundles.

usaphp 9y ago

I have a question to US people, when you say "cord cutter" - what exactly do you mean? Because you still need to pay for internet to the same cable company, and the price is only 5-10% cheaper compared to the same plan with cable box? Am I not understanding it correctly?

ben1040 9y ago
The "cord cutter" term is a little odd because you're still probably buying internet from the cable company; you're just not buying their video services. When I first signed up for cable, Charter Spectrum had me on a promotional plan - 130/5 internet and extended basic cable (essentially everything but HBO/Cinemax/Starz/Encore), for around $110/month. This was a 1-year promotional price offered only to new customers. After 12 months, it went up to $65/month for the internet and an additional $90/month for the TV. I chose instead to sign up for DirecTV Now streaming, because even at buying a "bundle" of channels, it was significantly cheaper at $35/month vs the cable company's offering.
- usaphp 9y ago
  I am paying $120 for 300mbps internet + TV + phone and some soccer sport pass right now, I just contacted Charter (who bought TWC here) to ask how much just the internet would cost me, and they told me it is going to cost $105 just for the internet. So by "cord cutting" I actually only hurting myself here, no?
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Yes. The details will vary--and I've been meaning to look into what my options are--but you probably won't save nearly as much by switching away from Triple-play type deals to straight Internet as you might assume.
  - votepaunchy 9y ago
    Are you paying for a DVR? Verizon and Commcast charge about $15/month per TV.

cyanexttuesday 9y ago

It's going to be more expensive than cable since you have to Internet(many of which providers are monopolies in the us) and pay 10 usd a month per various premium channel access. Unless people just stop consuming media, and regain financial leverage.

tested23 9y ago

I remember how people on the internet used to complain about how they didn’t want all of the garbage channels that were bundled with cable. Now they are complaining about being able to pick and choose what they pay for. (Yes you don’t need to have access to every subscription service) Two things to note, pirates will always find some way to rationalize their theft and the consumer is a child that wants to have their cake and eat it too.

bencoder 9y ago
The problem with the cable bundles is they bundled maybe one thing/channel you want with a bunch of crap you don't to bulk it out and make it seem worth it. Honestly I'm happy to pay for the different 'bundles' like Netflix, prime and hbo (and Disney if I had kids). But I want it under one service, with the ability to pay a one-off fee to watch something I'm not subscribed to. At the moment the fragmentation is crazy, and Netflix wins so if it's not there I'll rarely go looking on Amazon to see if they have it, even though I pay for that service. I really think there is a good opportunity for someone to unify these services, but it probably has to come from inside the industry. Hopefully in a few years when they realise that less friction will win in the long run
- votepaunchy 9y ago
  This aggregation of services is what Apple is doing with their TV app. And with iOS 11 the major providers will be in on SSO.
hyperdunc 9y ago
Copyright infringement isn't theft.
- calafrax 9y ago
  word. unlicensed content delivery platforms still vastly superior in terms of quality and depth of content after over a decade and billions spent by netflix, hulu, etc. if you really want people to pay for a product you should offer better quality than the people who give it away.

mabub24 9y ago

So the author instead wants everything to go through Netflix and Spotify? Why would Disney care? Their product practically prints money for them. Unlike Netflix, Disney doesn't need to constantly make fresh content for new subscribers. It makes business sense to just park it into a service and let the money roll in. That's what they do with their "vault." The real question will be how much it costs for a subscription. People are honestly okay with fragmentation. It's the cost they mind. But even then families are 100% shelling out for that sweet sweet Disney content.

ebola1717 9y ago
But people aren't gonna pay $10 or even $5 every month for a disney-only streaming subscription, if disney doesn't put out new content for it. It's way cheaper to just buy your favorite disney shows & movies. Disney is more established in producing fresh content for their subscribers - cause they're a studio - but that's a different question.
- mattnewton 9y ago
  I don't think that's true, I bet at Disney's size and the sheer number of franchises they own they could continue to just put out movies and shows at the same rate they do now and keep them exclusive to the the Disney service. Their back catalog is enormous- we're talking Star Wars, Marvel, and Pixar all under the same umbrella as the Lion King. If any company could go at it alone on the strength of their portfolio it's Disney.
  - fweespeech 9y ago
    Also all the sports games via ESPN.
- mehwoot 9y ago
  Disney makes a lot of content. You might think of Disney as Disney animation studios, but the company makes a lot of stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Pictures_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Pictures_f... That doesn't even count Marvel, and LucasFilm, etc, etc. That's more than 1 feature film released every month, and then all the TV content... $5 a month wouldn't be unreasonable, especially if you have kids.

ghaff 9y ago

There's possibly some opportunity that, if you really don't want any real-time sports, you could possibly save some money by stripping that from subscription offerings. But fantasies that removing the Home and Garden Channel from bundles reduces the monthly bill are just fantasies. In some respects, fragmentation is a mental overhead. But that's going to be the reality and the end result isn't going to be any cheaper for anyone who really cares about getting access to anything they want to watch.

sverige 9y ago
ESPN accounts for a huge percentage of most monthly cable bill cost. I never watch live sports, nor do a pretty good percentage of cable subscribers. Just cutting ESPN could reduce cable bills by a third to a half in a lot of markets. This is why ESPN is suffering financially as cord cutting increases.
- ghaff 9y ago
  The cost for ESPN is something like $8-$9 per month so a lot but not the overwhelming cost of a cable TV bill. I also think you overestimate the number of people willing to totally give up being able to watch sports. I know I watch very little but I hesitate to totally cut the cord.
  - sverige 9y ago
    In some markets, ESPN and other sports channels accounts for as much as $20 per month of the standard cable bill, and those costs are rising. [1] And I don't think I'm overestimating the number of people willing to give up paying for sports on cable. It's somewhere between 57% and 80% of cable subscribers. [2] That's a giant subsidy for an entertainment industry based on watching adults play children's games. Of course, if you're a sportsman, you won't see it that way, but if you're not, it may create a different reaction. [1] http://time.com/money/4590614/cable-bill-sports-cord-cutting-streaming/ http://time.com/money/4590614/cable-bill-sports-cord-cutting... [2] "This is the heart of the Sports Cable Bubble: Tens of millions of pay television viewers spending what Thompson estimates is at least $100 a year on sports programming they have no intention of ever watching, pumping billions into games enjoyed by others, enriching networks, leagues, teams and athletes all the while. (The exact number of non-sports fans is difficult to peg: A recent Harris Interactive poll found that 43 percent of Americans won't cancel cable and satellite television simply because of live sports, which also suggests that the majority of the country could be perfectly happy not paying for ESPN; industry analyst David Bank told Bloomberg Businessweek that 80 percent of basic-cable customers would decline to pay for sports if given a choice; Forbes writer Alan McGlade figures that no more than 10 million homes are regular ESPN viewers, about 10 percent of the total pay TV market.)" --from http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/53498716/ http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/53498716/

bunderbunder 9y ago

It seems to me like more of this fragmentation will make streaming less like cable. I don't care much for Disney content. Now that Disney's leaving, that frees up Netflix resources to (hopefully) get more of the content that I want. Realistically I'm not fond of Netflix's offerings of late, so I don't have high hopes. It's like basic cable these days; very shallow coverage of a lot of different things, so my interest tends to evaporate quickly. But the more that more focused Netflix alternatives pop up, the more I can find things that do suit my interests. In summary, yes, please do "ruin" streaming for the author. It'll make streaming all the better for me.

ajmurmann 9y ago
Couldn't agree more. I'd like to see this go even further and have nothing bundled. I much rather pay straight up for the shows I'm watching than get some bundle. Many shows are about $20 on Amazon or Play which is totally reasonable; you end up owning it and only pay for what you want. That's the model I like best. Unlikely to get everyone on that boat though. EDIT: typos
- hamandcheese 9y ago
  Hasn't that model existed for a while now?
  - ajmurmann 9y ago
    Yes, but lots of content cannot be accessed that way. Especially not live sports events.
- LeoPanthera 9y ago
  Can you download the video files for the shows you buy, DRM-free? If not, you don't "own" them at all. The encryption on DVD and blu-ray discs is easily broken, so that's still a reasonable way to "own" your favorite shows. As far as I know, 4K blu-ray hasn't been cracked yet, so avoid those.
  - 9y ago

HarryBryant 9y ago

There's never going to be a "catch-all" service. Why would these other players resign themselves to the idea that Amazon and Netflix are the only streaming services that should exist. We've begun the cord-cutting process. We still have Spectrum, but a super-cheap package that you can only get by getting to the 2nd tier customer service and threaten to cancel. It comes with like 10 channels and HBO for $20 or so. We also have Netflix and Amazon. The Roku has the Sprectrum, Amazon, and Netflix apps, so we don't have to use multiple devices. Our Samsung has the apps too, but not a big fan of Samsung apps. But the point is that we're at least getting closer to a la carte, so not getting the author's point at all.

gbacon 9y ago

It's capitalism. If you have a valid complaint, it can be rephrased as a business plan.

Mathnerd314 9y ago
You're assuming an efficient market, when many deficits of market economics are already well-known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure The information economy has fixed some of those, but it would be more surprising if there weren't new types of deficits to take their place.
- gbacon 9y ago
  This alleged assumption that in fact I did not make would contradict the principle above. If the market were always and everywhere at every instant of time efficiently allocated, there would be no valid complaints.
  - Mathnerd314 9y ago
    My point here is that, even if a business plan could be written for every complaint, the business plan produced isn't necessarily viable or actionable, e.g. if there's a monopoly in that particular industry. Usually the word 'plan' implies that there's a reasonable chance of success, hence my disagreement.

inlined 9y ago

Studios used to run their own theaters and that vertical integration was found to be uncompetitive. What is the rationale that doesn't apply here?

haberman 9y ago

I just moved to a place where I can get gigabit fiber and spent a lot of time looking into how I want to get TV. So far the cord-cutting options that look most compelling to me are Hulu Live TV (Beta) and YouTube TV (sadly not available in my area yet). Things I care about are: ability to watch live TV, access to the major TV networks, ability to DVR, ability to watch things from other devices (like "I'm traveling but want to watch my DVR'd program). Sling was looking good but doesn't include the major networks and only some of its channels can be DVR'd. I thought about using an HD antenna and getting a hardware DVR like a Tivo or Channel Master DVR+, but then you can only DVR the major networks. If you try to supplement that with Sling, you're back to the same problem that only some things can be DVR'd. Also the hardware DVRs don't generally let you watch remotely, and the ones that do aren't as good at live TV. Hulu Live TV seems good so far. You get access to live TV and DVR and you can watch from anywhere. But it also gives you access to its existing streaming library, so you have access to a lot of shows even if you didn't think to DVR them before they happened. At $40/month it seems like a pretty good deal (that gives you 50 hours of DVR). It's $44 to have "No Commercials" (this removes commercials from the streaming content I believe). If you want to skip past commercials in content you have DVR'd, you need to pay an extra $15/month, which seems kind of lame. I wish I could try YouTube TV but it's not available in Seattle yet!

Rohccoo 9y ago
Checkout Playstaion Vue

mosselman 9y ago

This isn't a very good article. The analysis of the issue is very shallow and the author is stating the obvious: 'It would be easier for users if everything can be found on one service that costs $10/month' and 'more publishers are getting into their own streaming business and that is the opposite'. Yes, thank you, we are all quite aware of that. That being said I am surprised by the comments here. Quite a few people seem to be arguing FOR a situation where lots of content leaves bigger providers so that it can be hosted in separate streaming services like Disney is now doing. Why? Are you all just being recalcitrant or am I to believe that you'd prefer paying (3 * $10)/month for a decent content coverage (assuming 3 different providers) instead of just $10/month? . Another strange 'opinion' that is being shared here is that it would be better to pay only for the things you want to watch. a. This has been around for quite a while already, so it is unclear to me why this is being brought up as something that Netflix should do suddenly and b. I don't see how this would be an alternative to someone who is happily paying Netflix's ~$10/month. I myself find that a big value that Netflix has for me is the complete library of movies, series and stand-up they have and that I can freely watch anything they offer without having to pay for individual viewing sessions. I, for example, often put on something I have already seen or some stand-up while doing chores around the house. I would never do this if I had to pay for this content on top of what I would already be paying for the things that I actively watch. Apart from the practical implications of pay-per-view in my example I also think that the quality of the content would suffer. Right now it is very easy for me to watch some experimental content on Netflix. Some Netflix originals are not your typical series or film and I quite enjoy the more different content as an addition to the more popular series. If people will have to start picking the things they want to watch and pay for every view these series will not get watched at all and therefore not be made at all. The advantage that Netflix has is that they try to persuade people to come to them for a variety of content that is interesting and unique to Netflix. This is how they grow and retain their user base. If you get rid of this model and start asking people to pay-per-view there would be no reason for them to keep making their own unique content anymore as you'd choose your provider on a view per view basis.

anindha 9y ago

Having multiple streaming providers will lead to more original content since streaming infrastructure alone is not defensibility. Hopefully each streaming provider will share older seasons similar to how Netflix has acquired content currently. I have Amazon, HBO, Netflix, and YouTube Red. I am happier than when I had a cable package - there is much more content I want to watch.

jshaqaw 9y ago

The bundling model whether streaming or cable is obsolete. The iTunes model of pay per episode makes much more sense - although it was much preferable when you could rent an episode for .99 rather than buy it for 2.99.

Aron 9y ago

Netflix at 10$ is severely underpriced relative to any competition. I've been curious just what their next move is.

jamie_ca 9y ago
Slowly bump prices. It's going up by $1 ($2 for the high tier) in Canada this month, I hear.
- Aron 9y ago
  So simple it might just work. I keep expecting something more dramatic, but they seem to be the opposing dipole of Amazon.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  Though whether that's an active bump depends on whether the price hikes beat out inflation over the long term.

joshribakoff 9y ago

I just signed up for HBO Now. The streaming does not work as good as Netflix. Neither do the browse/search features. It would be nice to have a streaming platform that just worked, and was a marketplace for all the content providers. I couldn't even sign up for HBO now via webpage, I had to download their app, just to sign up. Terrible UI. Terrible platform, but its the only option to watch their content [legally].

ihsw2 9y ago

The solution is, of course, for Netflix to open up to pricing differentiation. There is no reason for HBO Now to be offered outside of Netflix other than haggling over pricing. What's wrong with Netflix rising above the rabble and focusing instead on providing excellent user experiences and rock-solid world-class reliability? Just put in a checkbox somewhere that, when checked, added HBO for $X/month. Boom, it's opt-in and a-la-carte, the holy grail desired by cord-cutters everywhere. At this point it's only Netflix's fault that the content owners are running away and it's within their capability to remedy the situation while keeping everybody happy. Let the children have their candy!

ubernostrum 9y ago
Amazon is already doing this; if you have Prime, you can add on subscriptions to HBO, Starz, Cinemax, and a bunch of other channels for a monthly fee.
- foobarian 9y ago
  So is Hulu. Showtime + HBO for now.
- codingdave 9y ago
  Amazon would crush Netflix if they would just build a good UX for their streaming. We have both Prime and Netflix and literally the only reason we don't cancel Netflix is because browsing the available content on Amazon is just painful in comparison.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

bad_hairpiece 9y ago

If this segmentation continues, it'll be interesting to see how streaming devices adapt. Requiring a separate app for each content provider is a pain and makes browsing for content much less pleasant, especially when interfaces differ amongst apps. I think it'd be ideal to have a single app to access content. Users would purchase their desired networks from within this app and would have a unified viewing experience.

snaoe89rrht 9y ago
This exists. On the Apple TV it's called the "TV" app. I'm sure other devices have something similar. On my Apple TV I see all the shows and movies I'm watching on HBO Now, Showtime, iTunes, and most other services in one spot. Netflix is the only holdout I've run into, and it pisses me off, but that's their prerogative I guess.

baron816 9y ago

There's a very simple solution for anyone worried about fragmentation: don't buy it. We got into a bad situation with cable because we didn't have a choice. It was either pay $80 per month for everything, or not watch TV at all. We have choices now, and Disney isn't going to be able to force their service on anyone. If people really like their new products and think it's worth the money, then fine. If people hate having to pay them separately and no one signs up, then they'll shut it down and go back to how it is now. Consumers have a lot of power now, and whatever happens will likely be in their interests. I personally would be willing to pay a good bit of money to have access to the full back catalog of films from all the major studios. The streaming services' catalogs are very limited, and I'm often in the mood to watch one particular movie that isn't available. Spotify has nearly every song I ever want to listen to. Nothing exists like that for movies.

rorykoehler 9y ago
I already buy netflix and Spotify. There is zero chance I'll buy another service. If it's not in either of these and i absolutely must consume it (unlikely) then I'll get it somewhere for free. No way I'll buy another service. With av content netflix already offers more than i have time to watch. Music is different in that i still pass mixtapes (digital versions) around but there is little chance you'd find any of that content anywhere (except maybe soundcloud before it died)
seanp2k2 9y ago
I agree on all accounts, however, movies aren't really comparable to music. An episode of a show costs a ton more than a song to make (typically vs typically, there are cheap shows and expensive songs, sure). A movie costs a lot more than an album to produce. http://mentalfloss.com/article/57656/15-albums-cost-fortune-make http://mentalfloss.com/article/57656/15-albums-cost-fortune-... has an album costing $15m to produce which was a huge outlier. Most expensive albums are in the $1-$2mm range. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films has the most expensive films above $300mm a pop. That's two orders of magnitude, and granted there are way fewer movies than albums (I think), a Spotify for movies with tons of back catalogue coverage would probably need to cost $100-$1000/month to make it worth it to the studios. Actually, $150 a month to legally watch almost anything ever made would be a fairly appealing option. Good luck getting even a few studios on board, though. Pricing in future expected rev into it, it'd probably need to be closer to the $1k/month mark to make it worth it. It'll never happen.

froo 9y ago

To be honest, I think catchall solutions work best. I'm more likely to pay for content, if I can just pay 1 or 2 places. When I heard that Disney was leaving Netflix, I'm not inclined to sign up to Disney as well. To be honest, unless they give me a unique value proposition (like having their feature films available on site weeks after theatrical release) I'm unlikely to want to fork out extra bucks for the one studio. If they give me something that is a better experience than the competition, I'll throw my money at them. Other than that, meh

mrexroad 9y ago
Assuming you don’t have a 4 year old that collects over surprisingly deep conversations about motivations of random minor characters in animated Disney films?
bunderbunder 9y ago
Disney's deal with Netflix was estimated to have netted them $300M (per year, I'm guessing, but I'm not sure), and Netflix is estimated to have 100M users. Assume that Disney would only take home half their revenues from running their own streaming service. That puts their financial break-even point at 300M / (5*12) = 5 million people signing up. 5 million US families attracted to this as an easy way to keep their kids entertained? Doesn't seem a huge stretch to me.

FraKtus 9y ago

There is a nice French service that is trying to regroup most french channels : molotov.tv But for me the nicest is the concept of their application that I use on Apple TV, the way they do replay, link to other shows on replay on the same channel... record your shows on the cloud...That's a nice evolution of streaming... Now, if something like that would exist in the US that would be a killer app!

EddieSpeaks 9y ago

All I want is a paid for Kodi+Exodus mod that is legal. They can have my $20 a month for that.

nebabyte 9y ago

> Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable You're about a few years too late on this. Snowballs don't roll uphill.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mindslight 9y ago

Don't ruin the Internet by turning it into streaming.