13 ms·

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

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.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    I've heard it here on HN that some buy the show then just pirate it when they watch it. Just because pirated content has a uniform interface, and a better overall user experience.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      I hear that too, and I mostly agree with doing it, but I kind of feel it's a problem: It tells amazon "Oh, sure, your system is fine, I don't mind paying for DRM!" when in reality we shouldn't encourage DRM. I wish I could go to the studio/artist/creator directly and say "Hey, I would like to pirate your content, here's some money", but outside of Patreon or the like, there's usually not an option to do that.
      - dageshi 9y ago
        I've no doubt if amazon could just sell the raw file they would. It's rights holders who demand DRM and if amazon refuses itunes or someone else will happily step in and provide it.
        jpindar 9y ago
        And in fact Amazon does sell music like that, as downloadable mp3s.
    - kyriakos 9y ago
      I actually do that, I have legal access to Game of Thrones on cable but I still pirate it cause I want to watch it on the go on my laptop.
      - seanp2k2 9y ago
        Putting the GO in HBO GO. Their naming scheme between HBO NOW and GO is also awful, and they even have separate apps.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  you never own anything you buy online these days. its only a license to watch stuff that can be taken from you at any time.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    ... but so far no event has made that really clear to the masses. That's coming, of course. Although I must say I have an Apple account and made the mistake of switching countries (dialog box on iPad). Half the shows disappeared. No refund, no way to get them back.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      Well there was Amazon removing some books once from Kindle accounts, and I think there were already several cases on Steam where a couple of games stopped being available as well. There is no reason why this kind of behavior would end anytime soon, and not spread further. After all, all the EULAs make it very clear the user has no rights at all when it comes to what they purchased. I'd really like stores to remove the term "buy" and replace it by "buy a license" to make it very clear that you never own anything. And on top of that, you can never resell what you buy, so it's definitely NOT ownership in any way.
Retric 9y ago
The problem is there is going to be a minimum monthly fee of around 10$ to keep the lights on. So, fragmentation just increases prices without any net benefit for the consumer. The real killer IMO is most young adults just don't watch much TV in any form. If your watching ~10 hours a month then paying for more than one streaming service is just a waste. Don't forget it's the median viewer that's important not the average of 0, 1, 2, 3, 100.
- wybiral 9y ago
  Plus I don't want to manage subscriptions in a bunch of different places. For instance, on Amazon I can add/remove things like HBO and Showtime and have it all in one place. As much as I like Twin Peaks, I'm not sure I would have signed up for Showtime to watch it weekly unless it were right there with the rest of my content.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    Except for Sling, I manage all of my subscriptions through iTunes -- Netflix, Hulu, Starz (during the summer), CBS All Access, and PluralSight (yeah it's still video content). I can still use the subscriptions on any device, including my Rokus.
    - wybiral 9y ago
      Exactly. I'm not going to go to Disney or Showtime and subscribe on everyone's platform to watch the one or two shows I would watch. But if it's a reasonably priced addition to whatever streaming service I regularly use... I'm more likely to.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  The min price is about $10 because there isnt that much competition yet. I suspect if the author's fragmentation comes true, it will go down for single studi/channel offerings.
  - emsy 9y ago
Animats 9y ago
It seems to me like more of this fragmentation will make streaming less like cable. It looks like disintermediation, which is what the Internet was supposed to do. Direct from the studio to the consumer. But the reason probably comes from a bad deal. One would think the NFL would run their own network. Major League Baseball does. But ESPN (owned by Disney) way overpaid for rights to show NFL games, for which viewership is declining. ESPN subscribers are down 13 million from the peak. They bought NFL rights near the top, so the NFL has a great deal for a few years. ESPN had to downsize substantially because of that mistake.[1] On top of that, ESPN also apparently made a bad deal to broadcast NBA games. The phrase "sports rights bubble" is used. This activity at Disney may be trying to dig out of the ESPN hole. [1] https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-cutting-nearly-100-million-in-on-air-talent-030617/ https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-cutting-nearly-100-m...
- techsupporter 9y ago
  > One would think the NFL would run their own network. Doesn't the NFL have NFL Network, RedZone, and NFL Sunday Ticket? I think Major League Baseball wound up on the better end of the deal because they decided to not try to chase the dollars that the National Football League was racking up. They realized early on that they have (actual) thousands of events so if they go for the margin instead of the lump sum, awesome. It's why, even with the absurd blackout rules, MLB games are the most widely available...it doesn't pay for it to be any other way. Now that Bud Selig is gone, I really think MLB is finally going to crack the in-market-but-not-on-cable streaming niche. The signs have been there for a couple of years, what with "follow a single team" MLB.tv packages and "watch your team anywhere, with a cable subscription." Several teams now allow buying in-market streaming through the team's web site...it just takes the willingness to do it and I think MLB Advanced Media is twisting some arms. It wouldn't shock me to see several teams with owned regional sports networks, like the Mariners (Root Sports Northwest), Orioles (MASN), or Red Sox (NESN), come out and allow purchasing standalone access to their channels next season. The money is there for the taking...
  - jpindar 9y ago
    I believe the parent was talking about the NFL selling its content directly to viewers* which they refuse to do despite fans begging them to PLEASE TAKE OUR MONEY! *In the US. NFL games are more easily available outside of the US than in.
ngold 9y ago
If you remember the days when cable first came out it was a mess as well. Every company like MGM with Epix is dumping their library behind a paywall waiting for the great consolidation to come and buy licenses to all the libraries or just buy the library outright.
libeclipse 9y ago
Pfft, allow that. I don't want to subscribe to 20 different streaming services because what I want is scattered across them. This is why piracy is so rampant: god damned convenience.

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.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  I've heard it here on HN that some buy the show then just pirate it when they watch it. Just because pirated content has a uniform interface, and a better overall user experience.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    I hear that too, and I mostly agree with doing it, but I kind of feel it's a problem: It tells amazon "Oh, sure, your system is fine, I don't mind paying for DRM!" when in reality we shouldn't encourage DRM. I wish I could go to the studio/artist/creator directly and say "Hey, I would like to pirate your content, here's some money", but outside of Patreon or the like, there's usually not an option to do that.
    - dageshi 9y ago
      I've no doubt if amazon could just sell the raw file they would. It's rights holders who demand DRM and if amazon refuses itunes or someone else will happily step in and provide it.
      - jpindar 9y ago
        And in fact Amazon does sell music like that, as downloadable mp3s.
  - kyriakos 9y ago
    I actually do that, I have legal access to Game of Thrones on cable but I still pirate it cause I want to watch it on the go on my laptop.
    - seanp2k2 9y ago
      Putting the GO in HBO GO. Their naming scheme between HBO NOW and GO is also awful, and they even have separate apps.
ekianjo 9y ago
you never own anything you buy online these days. its only a license to watch stuff that can be taken from you at any time.
- candiodari 9y ago
  ... but so far no event has made that really clear to the masses. That's coming, of course. Although I must say I have an Apple account and made the mistake of switching countries (dialog box on iPad). Half the shows disappeared. No refund, no way to get them back.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    Well there was Amazon removing some books once from Kindle accounts, and I think there were already several cases on Steam where a couple of games stopped being available as well. There is no reason why this kind of behavior would end anytime soon, and not spread further. After all, all the EULAs make it very clear the user has no rights at all when it comes to what they purchased. I'd really like stores to remove the term "buy" and replace it by "buy a license" to make it very clear that you never own anything. And on top of that, you can never resell what you buy, so it's definitely NOT ownership in any way.

Retric 9y ago

The problem is there is going to be a minimum monthly fee of around 10$ to keep the lights on. So, fragmentation just increases prices without any net benefit for the consumer. The real killer IMO is most young adults just don't watch much TV in any form. If your watching ~10 hours a month then paying for more than one streaming service is just a waste. Don't forget it's the median viewer that's important not the average of 0, 1, 2, 3, 100.

wybiral 9y ago
Plus I don't want to manage subscriptions in a bunch of different places. For instance, on Amazon I can add/remove things like HBO and Showtime and have it all in one place. As much as I like Twin Peaks, I'm not sure I would have signed up for Showtime to watch it weekly unless it were right there with the rest of my content.
- scarface74 9y ago
  Except for Sling, I manage all of my subscriptions through iTunes -- Netflix, Hulu, Starz (during the summer), CBS All Access, and PluralSight (yeah it's still video content). I can still use the subscriptions on any device, including my Rokus.
  - wybiral 9y ago
    Exactly. I'm not going to go to Disney or Showtime and subscribe on everyone's platform to watch the one or two shows I would watch. But if it's a reasonably priced addition to whatever streaming service I regularly use... I'm more likely to.
SubiculumCode 9y ago
The min price is about $10 because there isnt that much competition yet. I suspect if the author's fragmentation comes true, it will go down for single studi/channel offerings.
- emsy 9y ago

Animats 9y ago

It seems to me like more of this fragmentation will make streaming less like cable. It looks like disintermediation, which is what the Internet was supposed to do. Direct from the studio to the consumer. But the reason probably comes from a bad deal. One would think the NFL would run their own network. Major League Baseball does. But ESPN (owned by Disney) way overpaid for rights to show NFL games, for which viewership is declining. ESPN subscribers are down 13 million from the peak. They bought NFL rights near the top, so the NFL has a great deal for a few years. ESPN had to downsize substantially because of that mistake.[1] On top of that, ESPN also apparently made a bad deal to broadcast NBA games. The phrase "sports rights bubble" is used. This activity at Disney may be trying to dig out of the ESPN hole. [1] https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-cutting-nearly-100-million-in-on-air-talent-030617/ https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-cutting-nearly-100-m...

techsupporter 9y ago
> One would think the NFL would run their own network. Doesn't the NFL have NFL Network, RedZone, and NFL Sunday Ticket? I think Major League Baseball wound up on the better end of the deal because they decided to not try to chase the dollars that the National Football League was racking up. They realized early on that they have (actual) thousands of events so if they go for the margin instead of the lump sum, awesome. It's why, even with the absurd blackout rules, MLB games are the most widely available...it doesn't pay for it to be any other way. Now that Bud Selig is gone, I really think MLB is finally going to crack the in-market-but-not-on-cable streaming niche. The signs have been there for a couple of years, what with "follow a single team" MLB.tv packages and "watch your team anywhere, with a cable subscription." Several teams now allow buying in-market streaming through the team's web site...it just takes the willingness to do it and I think MLB Advanced Media is twisting some arms. It wouldn't shock me to see several teams with owned regional sports networks, like the Mariners (Root Sports Northwest), Orioles (MASN), or Red Sox (NESN), come out and allow purchasing standalone access to their channels next season. The money is there for the taking...
- jpindar 9y ago
  I believe the parent was talking about the NFL selling its content directly to viewers* which they refuse to do despite fans begging them to PLEASE TAKE OUR MONEY! *In the US. NFL games are more easily available outside of the US than in.

ngold 9y ago

If you remember the days when cable first came out it was a mess as well. Every company like MGM with Epix is dumping their library behind a paywall waiting for the great consolidation to come and buy licenses to all the libraries or just buy the library outright.

libeclipse 9y ago

Pfft, allow that. I don't want to subscribe to 20 different streaming services because what I want is scattered across them. This is why piracy is so rampant: god damned convenience.