4 ms·

With the rise of all of these new streaming services I wonder if we will see a golden age of internet piracy. No one is going to want to pay hundreds of dollars

With the rise of all of these new streaming services I wonder if we will see a golden age of internet piracy. No one is going to want to pay hundreds of dollars a month just to get different brands of content.

QAPereo 9y ago
It's funny because I came from being a huge pirate as a young man, and then like most people made the transition to paying for content once I had the money to pay for content. Now it is beginning to swing the other way, and I'm wondering why I pay three different services for essentially the same thing, they all downgrade the video file, and this just so the same studio execs who always fucked us decided to have another go?
- plopz 9y ago
  I think its better this way, coming closer to a la carte content, since I can more accurately vote with my wallet and viewing habits and no longer subsidize content I'm not interested in. I'm willing to accept a higher price for the stuff I actually watch as a result.
  - codyb 9y ago
    I think the subsidation is actually kind of neat actually. I may subsidize a ton of stuff I'll never watch for a bunch of other people but they're simultaneously subsidizing a bunch of niche programs for me which may never have been produced otherwise due to the niche nature of the content. Similarly by buying the package deal instead of the individual content there's mors opportunity for me to discover content I might otherwise never come across just by having access to the opportunity to browse big long lists of random stuff available to me. In a way it allows me to both delve deeper into my bubble while also giving me ways to escape it. That being said, I kind of miss and sometimes return to the good ol' antenna where a show may play once or twice and turn off. I never find binging a show actually provides me anywhere near the enjoyment that watching a show once a week and building anticipation does.
  - tinus_hn 9y ago
    Unfortunately that is how you get clickbait and cookie cutter risk free sequels.
- hellbanner 9y ago
  Markets need to figure out a way for good artists to get discovered + profit from that since if everyone pirated, no revenue from transacting the stream.
dionidium 9y ago
"No one is going to want to pay hundreds of dollars a month just to get different brands of content." Hundreds of dollars? No. But $10/mo here and there? Sure, yes, of course. The only people for whom that's not true are people who value money more than their time (i.e. young people, college kids, etc) and those people have always preferred piracy. I'm in my mid-30s, with a career, and other interests. The value of piracy would have to swing wildly in the other direction before I'd be even a little bit interested (and this equation is only going to become less balanced as I start a family). I'd rather just pay.
- H1Supreme 9y ago
  This is true. I don't have cable, but I do Netflix, and buy shows/movies I want from Google Play. I could spend hours looking for a rip of the last MotoGp race, which takes equally long to download, or spend $1.99 on it.
sharkweek 9y ago
Vudu is more like... an iTunes than a Netflix though. I'm actually a little surprised they reached an agreement here.
- chaostheory 9y ago
  imo Apple TV is superior to either Fire TV or Android TV. However the problem with Apple TV is that until this fall it didn't have enough cheap content beyond Hulu and Netflix. I don't recall iTunes having regular sales like either Amazon Prime or Vudu. Bringing in Vudu and Amazon Video solves this problem.
  - codyb 9y ago
    Everything except that damn remote.
sib 9y ago
While Vudu is a streaming service, it operates on a transaction model, rather than a subscription one. Customers pay for only what they use. Because of that, and similar to iTunes, Vudu customers get access to movies very soon after the theatrical release, as opposed to most licensed content on subscription services, which is typically years old.
X86BSD 9y ago
It's funny, there were people saying this exact thing 20 years ago when people were demanding ala carte channel buying from cable companies. They were saying "yeah you are not going to like paying $x per channel." I was not one of them but they turned out to be right. When this gains momentum people are going to be subscribing to like 5 channels at $5/mo each before they think they are paying to much. And you will have to decide between those 5 channels or say NHL for the year @ $100 USD. Or maybe you want NFL for $150 or whatever crazy rate they charge. HBO? It's going to add up fast and most people are not going to like the fact that to get all the channels they want they are going to need to pony up some hefty cash per month. IMO.
- rconti 9y ago
  Still seems pretty cheap to me. I pay $12 to Netfix, HBO GO is free with my internet subscription (okay, the Cable co gives me "free" lifeline cable + HBO GO for less money than internet-only, they're that desperate to count me as a subscriber).. and $100/yr to NFL.com to stream games. Plus whatever I pay for in Prime/AppleTV content. $20/mo is a hell of a lot cheaper than I've ever gotten out the door for with Cable TV.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  It's pretty easy to rack up a streaming bill already. Hulu + Netflix + HBO is like $40/mo. When we tried Swing for sports, it was up to like $70/mo. Funimation was another $10/mo -- bringing it up to like $80/mo. You get better service than cable (especially for more niche things), but it can be expensive and sports aren't quite there yet.

QAPereo 9y ago

It's funny because I came from being a huge pirate as a young man, and then like most people made the transition to paying for content once I had the money to pay for content. Now it is beginning to swing the other way, and I'm wondering why I pay three different services for essentially the same thing, they all downgrade the video file, and this just so the same studio execs who always fucked us decided to have another go?

plopz 9y ago
I think its better this way, coming closer to a la carte content, since I can more accurately vote with my wallet and viewing habits and no longer subsidize content I'm not interested in. I'm willing to accept a higher price for the stuff I actually watch as a result.
- codyb 9y ago
  I think the subsidation is actually kind of neat actually. I may subsidize a ton of stuff I'll never watch for a bunch of other people but they're simultaneously subsidizing a bunch of niche programs for me which may never have been produced otherwise due to the niche nature of the content. Similarly by buying the package deal instead of the individual content there's mors opportunity for me to discover content I might otherwise never come across just by having access to the opportunity to browse big long lists of random stuff available to me. In a way it allows me to both delve deeper into my bubble while also giving me ways to escape it. That being said, I kind of miss and sometimes return to the good ol' antenna where a show may play once or twice and turn off. I never find binging a show actually provides me anywhere near the enjoyment that watching a show once a week and building anticipation does.
- tinus_hn 9y ago
  Unfortunately that is how you get clickbait and cookie cutter risk free sequels.
hellbanner 9y ago
Markets need to figure out a way for good artists to get discovered + profit from that since if everyone pirated, no revenue from transacting the stream.

dionidium 9y ago

"No one is going to want to pay hundreds of dollars a month just to get different brands of content." Hundreds of dollars? No. But $10/mo here and there? Sure, yes, of course. The only people for whom that's not true are people who value money more than their time (i.e. young people, college kids, etc) and those people have always preferred piracy. I'm in my mid-30s, with a career, and other interests. The value of piracy would have to swing wildly in the other direction before I'd be even a little bit interested (and this equation is only going to become less balanced as I start a family). I'd rather just pay.

H1Supreme 9y ago
This is true. I don't have cable, but I do Netflix, and buy shows/movies I want from Google Play. I could spend hours looking for a rip of the last MotoGp race, which takes equally long to download, or spend $1.99 on it.

sharkweek 9y ago

Vudu is more like... an iTunes than a Netflix though. I'm actually a little surprised they reached an agreement here.

chaostheory 9y ago
imo Apple TV is superior to either Fire TV or Android TV. However the problem with Apple TV is that until this fall it didn't have enough cheap content beyond Hulu and Netflix. I don't recall iTunes having regular sales like either Amazon Prime or Vudu. Bringing in Vudu and Amazon Video solves this problem.
- codyb 9y ago
  Everything except that damn remote.

sib 9y ago

While Vudu is a streaming service, it operates on a transaction model, rather than a subscription one. Customers pay for only what they use. Because of that, and similar to iTunes, Vudu customers get access to movies very soon after the theatrical release, as opposed to most licensed content on subscription services, which is typically years old.

X86BSD 9y ago

It's funny, there were people saying this exact thing 20 years ago when people were demanding ala carte channel buying from cable companies. They were saying "yeah you are not going to like paying $x per channel." I was not one of them but they turned out to be right. When this gains momentum people are going to be subscribing to like 5 channels at $5/mo each before they think they are paying to much. And you will have to decide between those 5 channels or say NHL for the year @ $100 USD. Or maybe you want NFL for $150 or whatever crazy rate they charge. HBO? It's going to add up fast and most people are not going to like the fact that to get all the channels they want they are going to need to pony up some hefty cash per month. IMO.

rconti 9y ago
Still seems pretty cheap to me. I pay $12 to Netfix, HBO GO is free with my internet subscription (okay, the Cable co gives me "free" lifeline cable + HBO GO for less money than internet-only, they're that desperate to count me as a subscriber).. and $100/yr to NFL.com to stream games. Plus whatever I pay for in Prime/AppleTV content. $20/mo is a hell of a lot cheaper than I've ever gotten out the door for with Cable TV.
SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
It's pretty easy to rack up a streaming bill already. Hulu + Netflix + HBO is like $40/mo. When we tried Swing for sports, it was up to like $70/mo. Funimation was another $10/mo -- bringing it up to like $80/mo. You get better service than cable (especially for more niche things), but it can be expensive and sports aren't quite there yet.