4 ms·

Music industry size is 47.5 billion a year and streaming services cost 10$ a month [0]. The movie and TV industry size is 287 billion a year [1]. Paying the s

by mrep 9y ago

Music industry size is 47.5 billion a year and streaming services cost 10$ a month [0]. The movie and TV industry size is 287 billion a year [1]. Paying the same subscription price proportional to the industry size would be 60$ a month. Netflix + hulu plus + amazon prime come in under 30$ a month which leaves you with 30$ to rent the movies/shows that are not covered in those plans. It sounds like you just don't like how much it costs to support high quality television/movies. Granted, one 60$ a month service that offered everything would be more convenient. [0]: https://www.statista.com/topics/1639/music/ https://www.statista.com/topics/1639/music/ [1]: https://www.statista.com/topics/964/film/ https://www.statista.com/topics/964/film/

icebraining 9y ago
Except if your taste is not right smack in the mainstream, those services have a terrible selection even combined. I went to JustWatch and even pretended to be an American, just to make it easier on them. First option, The Exterminating Angel. It's a classic, part of the list of 1000 best films by the NYT, and less than 60 years old. Nope, not even one service has it. Second choice, Lore; still foreign, but it's a film from 2012, made already in the streaming era! Apparently I got to subscribe to "Fandor", so the price is now $40/month. Third, let's give them an easy win: Missing, made in the US and owned by Universal! Yet another service, so called "Starz", for $9/month more. Fourth, an American classic, they have to have Raging Bull... and no. Now it's something called "MaxGo", which from what I can tell costs another $10/m. These were literally 4 of the 5 first movies I searched for, and we're already at your $60/month, and still missing one! It's not reasonable.
newscracker 9y ago
I'm not going to argue on the stats, but some assumptions you have made are that I (or anyone else commenting here) live or have a livelihood in the U.S. or that I (or anyone else commenting here) can afford the $30 or so a month. I won't go into details, but these three services alone are not adequate, and the remaining $30 as per your calculation wouldn't be enough. There are great shows from HBO, ShowTime, etc. For someone who likes good content from different sources, the current crop of services are not yet suitable (speaking solely for myself). FWIW, I do have Netflix and Amazon Prime, but still don't get everything I'd like to have (and the bigger headache of knowing what's where adds to the frustration). Of course, I have seen people make the argument that one shouldn't wish for things one cannot afford. For digital content though, I believe the companies are leaving a lot of money on the table by not expanding their customer base and making it easier to subscribe and use (vs. say, downloading content from elsewhere).
paulddraper 9y ago
Okay... But I'm saying the industry is losing money to far easier-to-use pirating. I don't see how the current size matters for that.

by mrep 9y ago

icebraining 9y ago

Except if your taste is not right smack in the mainstream, those services have a terrible selection even combined. I went to JustWatch and even pretended to be an American, just to make it easier on them. First option, The Exterminating Angel. It's a classic, part of the list of 1000 best films by the NYT, and less than 60 years old. Nope, not even one service has it. Second choice, Lore; still foreign, but it's a film from 2012, made already in the streaming era! Apparently I got to subscribe to "Fandor", so the price is now $40/month. Third, let's give them an easy win: Missing, made in the US and owned by Universal! Yet another service, so called "Starz", for $9/month more. Fourth, an American classic, they have to have Raging Bull... and no. Now it's something called "MaxGo", which from what I can tell costs another $10/m. These were literally 4 of the 5 first movies I searched for, and we're already at your $60/month, and still missing one! It's not reasonable.

newscracker 9y ago

I'm not going to argue on the stats, but some assumptions you have made are that I (or anyone else commenting here) live or have a livelihood in the U.S. or that I (or anyone else commenting here) can afford the $30 or so a month. I won't go into details, but these three services alone are not adequate, and the remaining $30 as per your calculation wouldn't be enough. There are great shows from HBO, ShowTime, etc. For someone who likes good content from different sources, the current crop of services are not yet suitable (speaking solely for myself). FWIW, I do have Netflix and Amazon Prime, but still don't get everything I'd like to have (and the bigger headache of knowing what's where adds to the frustration). Of course, I have seen people make the argument that one shouldn't wish for things one cannot afford. For digital content though, I believe the companies are leaving a lot of money on the table by not expanding their customer base and making it easier to subscribe and use (vs. say, downloading content from elsewhere).

paulddraper 9y ago

Okay... But I'm saying the industry is losing money to far easier-to-use pirating. I don't see how the current size matters for that.