3 ms·
Music seems to have no trouble competing on quality content despite the nearly identical catalogs of the various streaming services. You just allocate subscript
by mikeash 8y ago
Music seems to have no trouble competing on quality content despite the nearly identical catalogs of the various streaming services. You just allocate subscription money based on plays (or whatever other metric approximates “how much the paying customers like this”) and it works fine.
- AnAfrican 8y agoMusic production costs are much much lower than TV/Movies. The argument is that differentiation (and then exclusive content) is the reason why content distributors are willing to take risks.
- mikeash 8y agoTV production has typically been tied to consumer channels, but movies certainly haven't. Back in the day, we'd go to the video store and find tapes (and later DVDs) from all the major studies. Today, you'll find them all on places like the iTunes store. Throughout that time, theaters have carried movies from many different studios. It seems to work fine, and I don't see why subscription services would be different. (Netflix did a DVD subscription service for years, still does, with a broad catalog.) Content distributors don't need to take risks. Theaters do a bit, because screens are limited. Stores do a tiny bit, because shelf space is limited. Online services don't have to at all. The producers take the big risks, but I don't see why that should imply that streaming services have to involve exclusivity agreements.