4 ms·

Most of these services are the same a la carte premium channels that already existed 10 years ago for roughly the same price (HBO, Starz, Cinemax, and Showtime)

Most of these services are the same a la carte premium channels that already existed 10 years ago for roughly the same price (HBO, Starz, Cinemax, and Showtime). Little has changed except the content delivery mechanism and availability of content on demand.

rayiner 8y ago
It’s completely different now—they’re no longer tied to an expensive cable package with a bunch of other channels you don’t want.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  Right. They are instead tied to slightly less expensive streaming bundles with a bunch of other content you don’t want. Completely different.
friedman23 8y ago
> Little has changed except the content delivery mechanism and availability of content on demand. What? You don't need to pay $100 for cable anymore, how is it that nothing has changed? Anyway, I think arguing with you is pointless, pirates will always find a way to justify their behavior.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  Right, now you spend for Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, HBO, Showtime, Stars, CBS, and soon Disney. Plus Crunchyroll if you like anime, plus a sports package for sports. If this keeps going $100 will seem like a bargain, and piracy will surge. I also think it’s rude and out of line to tell someone that arguing with them is pointless. Do the mature thing and just stop responding, or the even more useful thing and actually try to have the conversation.
  - friedman23 8y ago
    >Right, now you spend for Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, HBO, Showtime, Stars, CBS, and soon Disney. Plus Crunchyroll if you like anime, plus a sports package for sports. And why are you subscribed to every single streaming platform? Do you actually need to watch every single show you might possibly like?
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      I think he is simply addressing the argument that today’s environment (multiple streaming services each with exclusive content) is any different than yesterday when it was multiple cable bundles each with exclusive channels.
      - friedman23 8y ago
        Of course it is different, today you can pick and choose what you want whereas before you needed to buy the entire thing
        Thriptic 8y ago
        You're speaking as if there are only two models: pay a lot for everything or pay for individual channels or shows. I want neither of those things. I want the Spotify model, where I pay 9.99 per month and I get 80% of all music across genres. I'm willing to pay for 1-2 of such services but not 5-6.
    - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
      I’m not, but neither is that the point. Obviously no one needs any of this, it’s always a matter of want. The question is how much it costs to get it, today, yesterday, and tomorrow. People crowing about the downfall of cable packages while ignoring splintering subscriptions for the same content are missing that point, don’t you think? The point is that it seems media companies, in their greed, have forgotten that streaming only works when it offers something better than piracy. A dozen subscriptions that cost more than a cable package did is offering less, with more impediments to use than a Kodi box. The model will, as a previous poster said, fail. The attempt turn everything from software to hardware into a subscription service, because it’s the easiest way to milk money isn’t some god-given right of corporations either. Now you can yell about entitlement and whatever else, and I’m not wading into that mess, just explaining how it is based on past precedent.
- Thriptic 8y ago
  A. I've never advocated for piracy anywhere here, so I'm very confused as to where you got that from. If my intent was to pirate, why would I even be a part of this discussion? Please engage in honest discourse or don't bother posting. B. If I have to pay for a live sports package and 5 streaming networks to watch what I want, then I'm not really saving much money (if any). A move to a la carte content should result in a substantial cost savings, not a marginal cost savings. Netflix has set the bar at $10 per month for access to a massive catalog of content across networks. By default, this means no one (except maybe HBO) should be charging anywhere near this amount of money for access to their content library which is not nearly as deep or as high quality.

rayiner 8y ago

It’s completely different now—they’re no longer tied to an expensive cable package with a bunch of other channels you don’t want.

ryandrake 8y ago
Right. They are instead tied to slightly less expensive streaming bundles with a bunch of other content you don’t want. Completely different.

friedman23 8y ago

> Little has changed except the content delivery mechanism and availability of content on demand. What? You don't need to pay $100 for cable anymore, how is it that nothing has changed? Anyway, I think arguing with you is pointless, pirates will always find a way to justify their behavior.

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
Right, now you spend for Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, HBO, Showtime, Stars, CBS, and soon Disney. Plus Crunchyroll if you like anime, plus a sports package for sports. If this keeps going $100 will seem like a bargain, and piracy will surge. I also think it’s rude and out of line to tell someone that arguing with them is pointless. Do the mature thing and just stop responding, or the even more useful thing and actually try to have the conversation.
- friedman23 8y ago
  >Right, now you spend for Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, HBO, Showtime, Stars, CBS, and soon Disney. Plus Crunchyroll if you like anime, plus a sports package for sports. And why are you subscribed to every single streaming platform? Do you actually need to watch every single show you might possibly like?
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    I think he is simply addressing the argument that today’s environment (multiple streaming services each with exclusive content) is any different than yesterday when it was multiple cable bundles each with exclusive channels.
    - friedman23 8y ago
      Of course it is different, today you can pick and choose what you want whereas before you needed to buy the entire thing
      - Thriptic 8y ago
        You're speaking as if there are only two models: pay a lot for everything or pay for individual channels or shows. I want neither of those things. I want the Spotify model, where I pay 9.99 per month and I get 80% of all music across genres. I'm willing to pay for 1-2 of such services but not 5-6.
  - DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
    I’m not, but neither is that the point. Obviously no one needs any of this, it’s always a matter of want. The question is how much it costs to get it, today, yesterday, and tomorrow. People crowing about the downfall of cable packages while ignoring splintering subscriptions for the same content are missing that point, don’t you think? The point is that it seems media companies, in their greed, have forgotten that streaming only works when it offers something better than piracy. A dozen subscriptions that cost more than a cable package did is offering less, with more impediments to use than a Kodi box. The model will, as a previous poster said, fail. The attempt turn everything from software to hardware into a subscription service, because it’s the easiest way to milk money isn’t some god-given right of corporations either. Now you can yell about entitlement and whatever else, and I’m not wading into that mess, just explaining how it is based on past precedent.
Thriptic 8y ago
A. I've never advocated for piracy anywhere here, so I'm very confused as to where you got that from. If my intent was to pirate, why would I even be a part of this discussion? Please engage in honest discourse or don't bother posting. B. If I have to pay for a live sports package and 5 streaming networks to watch what I want, then I'm not really saving much money (if any). A move to a la carte content should result in a substantial cost savings, not a marginal cost savings. Netflix has set the bar at $10 per month for access to a massive catalog of content across networks. By default, this means no one (except maybe HBO) should be charging anywhere near this amount of money for access to their content library which is not nearly as deep or as high quality.