5 ms·

It's amusing watching people complain about how we're headed to a world where the streaming services are no better than cable TV. Netflix is $10 / month. Pile o

It's amusing watching people complain about how we're headed to a world where the streaming services are no better than cable TV. Netflix is $10 / month. Pile on a half dozen services like that, and you're still only around 50-60% of what the average cable bill in the US is (just over $100 / month). Did you really think that all these media companies were going to magically shed 90% of their revenue? The user experience does kinda suck, but I think Apple TV, Roku, and other meta-streaming-platforms will solve most of that in the long run. They'll be the new cable companies, essentially. But I bet you'll get less bundling than cable has now. Although I constantly see people saying that they want bundling. "I'd love to just pay $100 / month for every tv show, movie, song, etc. out there..." That's the ultimate bundling :) Also, for the people who keep saying they want to just pay for a single show, can't you do that on iTunes and Amazon? Buy a season pass for a show? I haven't really done this much, so maybe it's outlandishly expensive, or they have poor coverage of shows people want.

marcell 9y ago
Also, while its hard to measure objectively, I would expect quality to be higher, because of the incentives. There is a higher pay off to a hit show because it can attract subscribers directly to your stream. In the old model, there is a layer of instruction (cable companies) which blunts the effect.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
BeetleB 9y ago
>It's amusing watching people complain about how we're headed to a world where the streaming services are no better than cable TV. Netflix is $10 / month. Pile on a half dozen services like that, and you're still only around 50-60% of what the average cable bill in the US is (just over $100 / month). People are crazy to pay over $100/month. A half a dozen similar services + Netflix would already exceed any cable TV plan I've ever had. And for less than $60/mo, I will get more content than I would if I just sign up for individual services. The reason I don't bother is that the content is pretty poor regardless.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
acchow 9y ago
> Did you really think that all these media companies were going to magically shed 90% of their revenue? This is exactly what happened with print media. Why is film media immune from the internet revolution?
- rayiner 9y ago
  The two situations are completely different. With print media, the Internet showed that the public was willing to forgo an expensive, high-quality product (e.g. the NYT) for a much cheaper, low-quality product (e.g. Buzzfeed). That hasn't happened in television and film. To the contrary, peoples' expectations have only gone up. The production value (and production costs!) of television shows these days is up there with that of movies 10-15 years ago. Netflix's pivot to original content shows that consumers want high-budget, high-production-quality original content more than ever.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Attendance at theaters is also reaching new lows, though. So it's not just about production quality.
    - HelloMcFly 9y ago
      I would hypothesize - non-falsifiably - that moves are suffering in part because TV production quality has increased so dramatically.
      - ghaff 9y ago
        I haven't gone to movie theaters much in years anyway. But in terms of screen-hours, I've definitely shifted the mix from movies to streaming TV over the past few years. I certainly still watch movies, but I'm mostly not a big fan of blockbuster action films and there's an almost limitless supply of quality well-written TV.
      - throwaway91111 9y ago
        More than that, there are "straight to streaming" movies that are really good—people don't need the theater.
ClassyJacket 9y ago
"Also, for the people who keep saying they want to just pay for a single show, can't you do that on iTunes and Amazon? Buy a season pass for a show? I haven't really done this much, so maybe it's outlandishly expensive, or they have poor coverage of shows people want." It's outlandishly expensive on iTunes and Google Play for shows - movies are okay. Also, the quality of the file is horrendous. We're talking full length movies at less than 2GB. You can get better from a torrent, easily. That's why I don't use it for movies.
kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
What is stopping them from slowly pricing their services around the $20 p.m. mark?

marcell 9y ago

Also, while its hard to measure objectively, I would expect quality to be higher, because of the incentives. There is a higher pay off to a hit show because it can attract subscribers directly to your stream. In the old model, there is a layer of instruction (cable companies) which blunts the effect.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

BeetleB 9y ago

>It's amusing watching people complain about how we're headed to a world where the streaming services are no better than cable TV. Netflix is $10 / month. Pile on a half dozen services like that, and you're still only around 50-60% of what the average cable bill in the US is (just over $100 / month). People are crazy to pay over $100/month. A half a dozen similar services + Netflix would already exceed any cable TV plan I've ever had. And for less than $60/mo, I will get more content than I would if I just sign up for individual services. The reason I don't bother is that the content is pretty poor regardless.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

acchow 9y ago

> Did you really think that all these media companies were going to magically shed 90% of their revenue? This is exactly what happened with print media. Why is film media immune from the internet revolution?

rayiner 9y ago
The two situations are completely different. With print media, the Internet showed that the public was willing to forgo an expensive, high-quality product (e.g. the NYT) for a much cheaper, low-quality product (e.g. Buzzfeed). That hasn't happened in television and film. To the contrary, peoples' expectations have only gone up. The production value (and production costs!) of television shows these days is up there with that of movies 10-15 years ago. Netflix's pivot to original content shows that consumers want high-budget, high-production-quality original content more than ever.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Attendance at theaters is also reaching new lows, though. So it's not just about production quality.
  - HelloMcFly 9y ago
    I would hypothesize - non-falsifiably - that moves are suffering in part because TV production quality has increased so dramatically.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      I haven't gone to movie theaters much in years anyway. But in terms of screen-hours, I've definitely shifted the mix from movies to streaming TV over the past few years. I certainly still watch movies, but I'm mostly not a big fan of blockbuster action films and there's an almost limitless supply of quality well-written TV.
    - throwaway91111 9y ago
      More than that, there are "straight to streaming" movies that are really good—people don't need the theater.

ClassyJacket 9y ago

"Also, for the people who keep saying they want to just pay for a single show, can't you do that on iTunes and Amazon? Buy a season pass for a show? I haven't really done this much, so maybe it's outlandishly expensive, or they have poor coverage of shows people want." It's outlandishly expensive on iTunes and Google Play for shows - movies are okay. Also, the quality of the file is horrendous. We're talking full length movies at less than 2GB. You can get better from a torrent, easily. That's why I don't use it for movies.

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago

What is stopping them from slowly pricing their services around the $20 p.m. mark?