9 ms·

I need a cheap streaming service which has a huge catalog of movies and shows from other producers and distributors that doesn't keep vanishing regularly. Netfl

I need a cheap streaming service which has a huge catalog of movies and shows from other producers and distributors that doesn't keep vanishing regularly. Netflix seems to be less and less of this as time passes, and is relying way too much on original content (which is mostly great) to attract new subscribers and retain them. I don't think this party can last very long. With every content producer or distributor starting or wanting to start their own streaming service, the customer experience becomes very painful from two counts — high price and not knowing where to find a specific piece of content. As much as I hate huge companies and consolidation of companies, this is one area where some consolidation could make it better for customers. I'm not sure if this is the right hope to have though.

ethbro 9y ago
Netflix rightly saw that there was no independent end game if they continued licensing other owners' content. Eventually, revenues go up and licensing deals expire. Then, either the owners increase the price for licensing their content, or they refuse to license it and start their own service. Lose/lose Netflix realized the only blue sky was owning a large catalog of their own content, ideally used to retain users and starve other services, and then license content when they have the upper hand.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  That’s not how Spotify played it. Spotify bet the farm on discovery and won, with users marveling at how good their playlist selections are. When people are using Spotify recommendations, they become immune to content creators threatening to terminate deals because their users are listening to “Spotify” rather than going and specifically searching Taylor Swift.
  - dforrestwilson 9y ago
    Immune? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/ruling-raises-songwriter-royalties-from-spotify-apple-music-by-44/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/ruling-raises-songwr...
    - ggg9990 9y ago
      That’s a coordinated action (through the courts) which is a good point... if the four major labels collude they can fuck over Spotify and the DOJ sure as shit isn’t going to care one whit.
  - twblalock 9y ago
    Spotify has done well, but what is their moat? If another service becomes better at discovery, won't most of Spotify's users switch to it?
    - ggg9990 9y ago
      Their moat is that discovery is fueled by listener data, so it will be very hard to get better at discovery than them. Apple Music tried and failed: their success comes from device bundling and most evaluators of both agree that Spotify’s discovery is far better (I have not personally evaluated Apple Music).
      - e_b 9y ago
        Spotify doesn't have a moat. They're not profitable.
      - timc3 9y ago
        Most evaluators? I have both, and for discovery spotify is way behind Apple Music, and i often find things on Apple Music that i cant get on Spotify. But one of those factors maybe my taste, but i have one friend with totally opposite taste to me that has had the exact same experience.
        doikor 9y ago
        > i often find things on Apple Music that i cant get on Spotify You are not using discovery really if you are doing the finding. It should be automatic in that just play one of the daily or weekly lists and music that you like (some old some new) should be played. I tried Apple Music for its free trial and switched back to Spotify as I just can't be bothered to choose what I listen to myself.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      I would believe what the parent is alluding to is that "sufficiently good" discovery is enough, in that if trusted, it turns music into a fungible good. If Taylor Swift pulls out of Spotify, but Spotify's users are listening to "Discover" not "Taylor Swift", then Spotify is afforded with the opportunity to play "something that sounds like Taylor Swift." And god knows there are enough hungry and talented bands out there looking for a break... Admittedly, it's been awhile since I was in grade school and marched in musical lockstep with my peers, but it seems as decent of an idea for disempowering major, advertising-heavy record labels as anything.
  - nitwit005 9y ago
    It's been heading the same direction. There have been a number of artists that pulled out after the Taylor Swift bit, and the Beetles albums are still iTunes only due to an exclusive deal. You'll see there are quite a few bitter complaints online: https://community.spotify.com/t5/Content-Questions/WHY-do-you-keep-removing-songs/td-p/692706 https://community.spotify.com/t5/Content-Questions/WHY-do-yo...
    - usuallymatt 9y ago
      The Beatles are not exclusive to iTunes. I can access a tonne of their albums on Deezer.
      - nitwit005 9y ago
        You're right, it seems they only ran some things exclusively temporarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Bootleg_Recordings_1963 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Bootleg_Recordings...
    - toomanybeersies 9y ago
      The Beatles are on Spotify. Taylor Swift has even rejoined Spotify, obviously it was worth it for her in the end. There are only a few artists who are Apple Music or Tidal exclusive, in an attempt drive users to those platforms.
      - mos_basik 9y ago
        Tool is not on Spotify or Google Play Music. I'm not sure if they are on Apple Music or Tidal. If anyone knows for sure, please do comment, I'm interested to know. Also, Spotify has 3 Volor Flex albums, but is missing the one I usually want - "Unlit". I'm pretty sure that specific album is on Amazon Music though, oddly enough. This isn't a particularly substantiative comment, just some datapoints that irk me about Spotify's inventory.
        toomanybeersies 9y ago
  - toast0 9y ago
    Spotify is a music service with the background of compulsory licensing. If we had compulsory licensing for motion pictures, the landscape would be a lot different.
    - ggg9990 9y ago
      Only the publishing is compulsory license. The performance is not — if Spotify wanted to carry Taylor Swift songs against her wishes, it would need to hire a musician to re-record the tracks.
      - toast0 9y ago
        Can't they carry anything that was released commercially under the non-interactive rules if they play it in the Radio portion, or a 'Taylor Swift Fan station? I agree they wouldn't be able to play it for on demand without a bilateral agreement.
      - rainbowmverse 9y ago
        I think they're already moving this way. Most of the things in my "Discover Weekly" for the last several months have been covers of popular songs. I haven't opened Spotify in weeks. When I want music these days, I go to Bandcamp.
  - adventured 9y ago
    > That’s not how Spotify played it. Spotify bet the farm on discovery and won Spotify has a horrifically bad business. They're bleeding to death financially, having never earned a profit in their entire existence; they've burned through billions in financing and are still burning at a similarly high rate. Simultaneously Apple is likely to catch up in subscribers in the near future, diluting the leverage Spotify desperately needs to improve its bargaining situation. Apple can afford to burn billions to bury Spotify (likely force them into a sale/acquisition). Spotify is in a no win scenario. They'll never have enough margin to earn a profit via licensing all of their most heavily listened-to content. The content owners will perpetually squeeze Spotify. This is the fate that Netflix understood to attempt to avoid, which Spotify has entirely failed to avoid. Meanwhile all of largest competitors to Spotify actually make money (Sirius as one example is very profitable). Spotify's only possible future is in the belly of one of the tech or media giants.
- dforrestwilson 9y ago
  The real beauty that enables this blue sky opportunity is the personalized targeting Netflix can do AT GLOBAL SCALE! The old school Hollywood model for creating shows and movies is getting turned on its face. Critics will hate a lot of what Netflix puts out, and it won't matter at all to the fans who can get exactly what they want in the comfort of their home free from judgement and peer pressure.
  - e_b 9y ago
    There's no personalized targetting in content. It's really one size fits all, or at least the regular S-M-L. It is, obviously, impossible to make different shows for millions of individuals. What Netflix has is more detailed data of what people watch. So will its competitors is just a few years. What matters in content is the content of that content. Ideas, emotions, excitement. Technology is irrelevant.
    - golergka 9y ago
      Can't we expect in a few years to dynamically change what actors have been cast as what charavters with a flip of a button? Deep fakes already look pretty convincing. Also, insert some scenes, remove others, change the cut a little bit, change color grading, music mix – all these changes look like something modern AI could learn to do.
      - e_b 9y ago
        Absolutely not. None of this is possible or even desirable. We don't want to watch optimized video. We want to watch stories that move us, created by geniuses like Coppola, or whoever you think is good.
        doyoulikeworms 9y ago
        What if a story could be modified dynamically in order to maximize the chance that it moves you? Or to deepen its impact? I figured that’s what the GP post was getting at. Just more tools for geniuses to use to move us and move us more deeply.
- guelo 9y ago
  I'd just like to add that Netflix's vision and foresight and courage has been consistently amazing for years at every stage of their phenomenal growth. Hats off to their leadership.
  - newscracker 9y ago
    I agree. The expansion of Netflix to 130 countries was a great move! The content isn't the same in all locations, but it's better than incentivizing people to download from elsewhere by keeping content closed and restricted.
paulddraper 9y ago
Hell, I don't even need a cheap service. Take my money! I just want to be able to watch stuff. "Let's watch X" "Darn it. It's not on Netflix" "Not on Hulu" "Not on Google Video either" "Try VidAngel" "No, they got shut down by Disney" "Oh, doesn't Disney have a service?" "Not yet." "Oh look it's on Amazon video!" "Oh, but we have Vizio Smartcast. Can't get it from the phone to the TV because Vizio uses Google and Amazon has some sort of blood feud." "F--- it, not worth the hassle. We're pirating this."
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  Caavo seems to have an interesting idea on how to solve that problem. Early reviews are mixed.
  - newscracker 9y ago
    Looks interesting, but I'm not sure if people would want yet another box or yet another stick in their rooms just so they can watch what they want, what with all the apps for the streaming services already available on different hardware platforms. At $399, this is very expensive! I certainly don't want yet another box, and the TV app on Apple TV has kind of solved this problem (to the extent that services support the search).
    - bryanlarsen 9y ago
      If it's done correctly, the Caavo should effectively make your other boxes "disappear".
- newscracker 9y ago
  Right. When I said "cheap", I was actually referring to something reasonably priced, compared to subscribing to several services individually. Unfortunately, the industry seems bent on proving time and again that pirating content is still the easiest, most user friendly (and not user hostile), most device friendly (supporting almost all devices) way to get to content.
throwaway287391 9y ago
> As much as I hate huge companies and consolidation of companies, this is one area where some consolidation could make it better for customers. I'm not sure if this is the right hope to have though. This is basically what Hulu is -- NBC, ABC, and FOX consolidating their online streaming content into a single service. (I don't think it would be better for consumers if any of the three corporations that own those networks actually merged.)
andrei_says_ 9y ago
If you are into foreign and criterion collection movies, I recommend FilmStruck. Netflix is popular and needs to cater to the popular tastes, in an environment of content owning launching their own streaming services.
- newscracker 9y ago
  Thanks for mentioning FilmStruck! It looks interesting, and getting foreign movies is not easy. So I see this as a great option (though yet another steaming service is something I'd rather not have at this point).
BurningFrog 9y ago
There are several, including Amazon, that will stream most any movie for $3-5 a pop. If you think that's worth it up to you, you can watch pretty much any movie at any time if you accept this price range.
- chrisper 9y ago
  Around holidays Google Play Movies usually has coupons that let you rent any movie for 99ct.
f_allwein 9y ago
> not knowing where to find a specific piece of content That bit is addressed by https://www.justwatch.com https://www.justwatch.com, which shows you where to legally watch any movie / show. Very useful.
- rendaw 9y ago
  Thank you for that resource, but I think it validates the parent's post. I just searched for Miami Vice (the original) and got 0 results. A few years ago Hulu had everything except the first season (??).
  - johnbatch 9y ago
    I use trakt.tv https://trakt.tv/shows/miami-vice https://trakt.tv/shows/miami-vice looks like it’s on NBC.com for free. (At least in the US) https://www.nbc.com/classic-tv/miami-vice https://www.nbc.com/classic-tv/miami-vice
    - newscracker 9y ago
      This comment nicely brings in the pain of geo-restrictions. There are services that would accept payments when done from the local country (say, with a billing address there), but wouldn't allow streaming for IP addresses believed to be somewhere else. And now the customer has to bother about getting a VPN service on top of streaming service subscriptions. This game that's being played, with "get this, and this, and this, and also that, plus something else", gets annoying quite fast.
hvidgaard 9y ago
What we need is two tiered model. Use your favorite frontend, and subscribe to the content networks you want content from. I doubt we get there, but it's certainly possible.
- jon-wood 9y ago
  Amazon have something close now in the form of their channels service, which allows you to subscribe to specific providers who’s content then becomes available in the same way as Amazon Prime Video
  - hvidgaard 9y ago
    That still a kinda walled garden. What I'm imagining is like email. You choose your prefered frontend (email client), and pay for x vendors content (email providers). The communication between client and providers is standardized.

ethbro 9y ago

Netflix rightly saw that there was no independent end game if they continued licensing other owners' content. Eventually, revenues go up and licensing deals expire. Then, either the owners increase the price for licensing their content, or they refuse to license it and start their own service. Lose/lose Netflix realized the only blue sky was owning a large catalog of their own content, ideally used to retain users and starve other services, and then license content when they have the upper hand.

ggg9990 9y ago
That’s not how Spotify played it. Spotify bet the farm on discovery and won, with users marveling at how good their playlist selections are. When people are using Spotify recommendations, they become immune to content creators threatening to terminate deals because their users are listening to “Spotify” rather than going and specifically searching Taylor Swift.
- dforrestwilson 9y ago
  Immune? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/ruling-raises-songwriter-royalties-from-spotify-apple-music-by-44/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/ruling-raises-songwr...
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    That’s a coordinated action (through the courts) which is a good point... if the four major labels collude they can fuck over Spotify and the DOJ sure as shit isn’t going to care one whit.
- twblalock 9y ago
  Spotify has done well, but what is their moat? If another service becomes better at discovery, won't most of Spotify's users switch to it?
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    Their moat is that discovery is fueled by listener data, so it will be very hard to get better at discovery than them. Apple Music tried and failed: their success comes from device bundling and most evaluators of both agree that Spotify’s discovery is far better (I have not personally evaluated Apple Music).
    - e_b 9y ago
      Spotify doesn't have a moat. They're not profitable.
    - timc3 9y ago
      Most evaluators? I have both, and for discovery spotify is way behind Apple Music, and i often find things on Apple Music that i cant get on Spotify. But one of those factors maybe my taste, but i have one friend with totally opposite taste to me that has had the exact same experience.
      - doikor 9y ago
        > i often find things on Apple Music that i cant get on Spotify You are not using discovery really if you are doing the finding. It should be automatic in that just play one of the daily or weekly lists and music that you like (some old some new) should be played. I tried Apple Music for its free trial and switched back to Spotify as I just can't be bothered to choose what I listen to myself.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I would believe what the parent is alluding to is that "sufficiently good" discovery is enough, in that if trusted, it turns music into a fungible good. If Taylor Swift pulls out of Spotify, but Spotify's users are listening to "Discover" not "Taylor Swift", then Spotify is afforded with the opportunity to play "something that sounds like Taylor Swift." And god knows there are enough hungry and talented bands out there looking for a break... Admittedly, it's been awhile since I was in grade school and marched in musical lockstep with my peers, but it seems as decent of an idea for disempowering major, advertising-heavy record labels as anything.
- nitwit005 9y ago
  It's been heading the same direction. There have been a number of artists that pulled out after the Taylor Swift bit, and the Beetles albums are still iTunes only due to an exclusive deal. You'll see there are quite a few bitter complaints online: https://community.spotify.com/t5/Content-Questions/WHY-do-you-keep-removing-songs/td-p/692706 https://community.spotify.com/t5/Content-Questions/WHY-do-yo...
  - usuallymatt 9y ago
    The Beatles are not exclusive to iTunes. I can access a tonne of their albums on Deezer.
    - nitwit005 9y ago
      You're right, it seems they only ran some things exclusively temporarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Bootleg_Recordings_1963 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Bootleg_Recordings...
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    The Beatles are on Spotify. Taylor Swift has even rejoined Spotify, obviously it was worth it for her in the end. There are only a few artists who are Apple Music or Tidal exclusive, in an attempt drive users to those platforms.
    - mos_basik 9y ago
      Tool is not on Spotify or Google Play Music. I'm not sure if they are on Apple Music or Tidal. If anyone knows for sure, please do comment, I'm interested to know. Also, Spotify has 3 Volor Flex albums, but is missing the one I usually want - "Unlit". I'm pretty sure that specific album is on Amazon Music though, oddly enough. This isn't a particularly substantiative comment, just some datapoints that irk me about Spotify's inventory.
      - toomanybeersies 9y ago
- toast0 9y ago
  Spotify is a music service with the background of compulsory licensing. If we had compulsory licensing for motion pictures, the landscape would be a lot different.
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    Only the publishing is compulsory license. The performance is not — if Spotify wanted to carry Taylor Swift songs against her wishes, it would need to hire a musician to re-record the tracks.
    - toast0 9y ago
      Can't they carry anything that was released commercially under the non-interactive rules if they play it in the Radio portion, or a 'Taylor Swift Fan station? I agree they wouldn't be able to play it for on demand without a bilateral agreement.
    - rainbowmverse 9y ago
      I think they're already moving this way. Most of the things in my "Discover Weekly" for the last several months have been covers of popular songs. I haven't opened Spotify in weeks. When I want music these days, I go to Bandcamp.
- adventured 9y ago
  > That’s not how Spotify played it. Spotify bet the farm on discovery and won Spotify has a horrifically bad business. They're bleeding to death financially, having never earned a profit in their entire existence; they've burned through billions in financing and are still burning at a similarly high rate. Simultaneously Apple is likely to catch up in subscribers in the near future, diluting the leverage Spotify desperately needs to improve its bargaining situation. Apple can afford to burn billions to bury Spotify (likely force them into a sale/acquisition). Spotify is in a no win scenario. They'll never have enough margin to earn a profit via licensing all of their most heavily listened-to content. The content owners will perpetually squeeze Spotify. This is the fate that Netflix understood to attempt to avoid, which Spotify has entirely failed to avoid. Meanwhile all of largest competitors to Spotify actually make money (Sirius as one example is very profitable). Spotify's only possible future is in the belly of one of the tech or media giants.
dforrestwilson 9y ago
The real beauty that enables this blue sky opportunity is the personalized targeting Netflix can do AT GLOBAL SCALE! The old school Hollywood model for creating shows and movies is getting turned on its face. Critics will hate a lot of what Netflix puts out, and it won't matter at all to the fans who can get exactly what they want in the comfort of their home free from judgement and peer pressure.
- e_b 9y ago
  There's no personalized targetting in content. It's really one size fits all, or at least the regular S-M-L. It is, obviously, impossible to make different shows for millions of individuals. What Netflix has is more detailed data of what people watch. So will its competitors is just a few years. What matters in content is the content of that content. Ideas, emotions, excitement. Technology is irrelevant.
  - golergka 9y ago
    Can't we expect in a few years to dynamically change what actors have been cast as what charavters with a flip of a button? Deep fakes already look pretty convincing. Also, insert some scenes, remove others, change the cut a little bit, change color grading, music mix – all these changes look like something modern AI could learn to do.
    - e_b 9y ago
      Absolutely not. None of this is possible or even desirable. We don't want to watch optimized video. We want to watch stories that move us, created by geniuses like Coppola, or whoever you think is good.
      - doyoulikeworms 9y ago
        What if a story could be modified dynamically in order to maximize the chance that it moves you? Or to deepen its impact? I figured that’s what the GP post was getting at. Just more tools for geniuses to use to move us and move us more deeply.
guelo 9y ago
I'd just like to add that Netflix's vision and foresight and courage has been consistently amazing for years at every stage of their phenomenal growth. Hats off to their leadership.
- newscracker 9y ago
  I agree. The expansion of Netflix to 130 countries was a great move! The content isn't the same in all locations, but it's better than incentivizing people to download from elsewhere by keeping content closed and restricted.

paulddraper 9y ago

Hell, I don't even need a cheap service. Take my money! I just want to be able to watch stuff. "Let's watch X" "Darn it. It's not on Netflix" "Not on Hulu" "Not on Google Video either" "Try VidAngel" "No, they got shut down by Disney" "Oh, doesn't Disney have a service?" "Not yet." "Oh look it's on Amazon video!" "Oh, but we have Vizio Smartcast. Can't get it from the phone to the TV because Vizio uses Google and Amazon has some sort of blood feud." "F--- it, not worth the hassle. We're pirating this."

bryanlarsen 9y ago
Caavo seems to have an interesting idea on how to solve that problem. Early reviews are mixed.
- newscracker 9y ago
  Looks interesting, but I'm not sure if people would want yet another box or yet another stick in their rooms just so they can watch what they want, what with all the apps for the streaming services already available on different hardware platforms. At $399, this is very expensive! I certainly don't want yet another box, and the TV app on Apple TV has kind of solved this problem (to the extent that services support the search).
  - bryanlarsen 9y ago
    If it's done correctly, the Caavo should effectively make your other boxes "disappear".
newscracker 9y ago
Right. When I said "cheap", I was actually referring to something reasonably priced, compared to subscribing to several services individually. Unfortunately, the industry seems bent on proving time and again that pirating content is still the easiest, most user friendly (and not user hostile), most device friendly (supporting almost all devices) way to get to content.

throwaway287391 9y ago

> As much as I hate huge companies and consolidation of companies, this is one area where some consolidation could make it better for customers. I'm not sure if this is the right hope to have though. This is basically what Hulu is -- NBC, ABC, and FOX consolidating their online streaming content into a single service. (I don't think it would be better for consumers if any of the three corporations that own those networks actually merged.)

andrei_says_ 9y ago

If you are into foreign and criterion collection movies, I recommend FilmStruck. Netflix is popular and needs to cater to the popular tastes, in an environment of content owning launching their own streaming services.

newscracker 9y ago
Thanks for mentioning FilmStruck! It looks interesting, and getting foreign movies is not easy. So I see this as a great option (though yet another steaming service is something I'd rather not have at this point).

BurningFrog 9y ago

There are several, including Amazon, that will stream most any movie for $3-5 a pop. If you think that's worth it up to you, you can watch pretty much any movie at any time if you accept this price range.

chrisper 9y ago
Around holidays Google Play Movies usually has coupons that let you rent any movie for 99ct.

f_allwein 9y ago

> not knowing where to find a specific piece of content That bit is addressed by https://www.justwatch.com https://www.justwatch.com, which shows you where to legally watch any movie / show. Very useful.

rendaw 9y ago
Thank you for that resource, but I think it validates the parent's post. I just searched for Miami Vice (the original) and got 0 results. A few years ago Hulu had everything except the first season (??).
- johnbatch 9y ago
  I use trakt.tv https://trakt.tv/shows/miami-vice https://trakt.tv/shows/miami-vice looks like it’s on NBC.com for free. (At least in the US) https://www.nbc.com/classic-tv/miami-vice https://www.nbc.com/classic-tv/miami-vice
  - newscracker 9y ago
    This comment nicely brings in the pain of geo-restrictions. There are services that would accept payments when done from the local country (say, with a billing address there), but wouldn't allow streaming for IP addresses believed to be somewhere else. And now the customer has to bother about getting a VPN service on top of streaming service subscriptions. This game that's being played, with "get this, and this, and this, and also that, plus something else", gets annoying quite fast.

hvidgaard 9y ago

What we need is two tiered model. Use your favorite frontend, and subscribe to the content networks you want content from. I doubt we get there, but it's certainly possible.

jon-wood 9y ago
Amazon have something close now in the form of their channels service, which allows you to subscribe to specific providers who’s content then becomes available in the same way as Amazon Prime Video
- hvidgaard 9y ago
  That still a kinda walled garden. What I'm imagining is like email. You choose your prefered frontend (email client), and pay for x vendors content (email providers). The communication between client and providers is standardized.