3 ms·

Nowadays every media company wants their own streaming service. That means Netflix has to scramble for content. And when starting out they were careful in selec

Nowadays every media company wants their own streaming service. That means Netflix has to scramble for content. And when starting out they were careful in selecting projects. But once they got a taste for success they have been green-lighting projects left and right. But, they are not going to select winners every time. Stuff like Bright, the Will Smith movie, relied solely on the star power. It will be interesting to see if Netflix imposes some kind quality bar to ensure things don't go even worse.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> Nowadays every media company wants their own streaming service. I wonder how this will evolve. Short-term, it looks like self-destructing greed to me. People are not going to subscribe to shit ton of services because each of them has a small slice of movies they might want to watch.
- repolfx 8y ago
  It's easier to create a streaming service than a content house, apparently. So it's clear that this is the way things will go. Ultimately video streaming is a commodity technology and there are lots of engineers who can build such things. It's not like web search or AI. The too-many-subscriptions problem could be solved in a variety of commercial ways, like simply offering charging for how much you watch rather than a flat rate.
- lozenge 8y ago
  People are spending just as much time watching TV as they ever did. If they've always paid $70/month for it, why would the entertainment companies settle for people paying less now?
  - majewsky 8y ago
    People are paying $70/month for TV in the US!? In Germany, the basic HD TV package costs €60/year (not per month) if you want it. And also you have to pay €18/month for the public broadcasts (that part is non-negotiable). So that comes out to €23/month if you're watching over satellite. Cable TV sometimes imposes additional fees (€8/month in my apartment building). There is also Sky, a pay-TV provider, but I don't know any subscribers except for soccer fans and sports bars.
    - axaxs 8y ago
      Some people pay even more! I had relatives paying well over 120 dollars per month! The general pricing scheme for both phone and cable, well really most private subscription companies, is to hook people in with a deal with an absurd price after a set time is over, and tack on tons of little gotchas. It's borderline theft IMO. Those who know better then have to decide whether it's worth the hassle of threatening to cancel each year...
    - 1123581321 8y ago
      Sky has five million subscribers in Germany. That looks like about 12% of your households. Basic TV in the US is free. Basic cable is about $30/mo. Case bundled with Internet is $50-100. There are some premium equivalents to Sky that top out around $200/mo. About 75% of US households pay for TV in some way. I’d say our mean and median household spending on TV is higher but there is a greater range of pricing, with $0 being quite viable if your tastes are simple.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > If they've always paid $70/month for it, why would the entertainment companies settle for people paying less now? The usual reason in a normal product market would be efficiencies developed over time reducing costs and competition driving prices down to marginally over cost.
- krageon 8y ago
  It was the same way in games for a long time. A platform becomes dominant (because it is the best), then others want to emulate it (poorly). Eventually competitors do pop up, but the ones that don't fill a specific niche generally don't become incredibly popular. The difference with movies/series is that the licensing situation is significantly more retarded. This will probably end up meaning we will end up with a million different streaming services (with different catalogues for different countries, or more accurately a good catalog in the US and a poor one everywhere else). This will drive more people to pirating, with predictable results.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> Nowadays every media company wants their own streaming service. I wonder how this will evolve. Short-term, it looks like self-destructing greed to me. People are not going to subscribe to shit ton of services because each of them has a small slice of movies they might want to watch.

repolfx 8y ago
It's easier to create a streaming service than a content house, apparently. So it's clear that this is the way things will go. Ultimately video streaming is a commodity technology and there are lots of engineers who can build such things. It's not like web search or AI. The too-many-subscriptions problem could be solved in a variety of commercial ways, like simply offering charging for how much you watch rather than a flat rate.
lozenge 8y ago
People are spending just as much time watching TV as they ever did. If they've always paid $70/month for it, why would the entertainment companies settle for people paying less now?
- majewsky 8y ago
  People are paying $70/month for TV in the US!? In Germany, the basic HD TV package costs €60/year (not per month) if you want it. And also you have to pay €18/month for the public broadcasts (that part is non-negotiable). So that comes out to €23/month if you're watching over satellite. Cable TV sometimes imposes additional fees (€8/month in my apartment building). There is also Sky, a pay-TV provider, but I don't know any subscribers except for soccer fans and sports bars.
  - axaxs 8y ago
    Some people pay even more! I had relatives paying well over 120 dollars per month! The general pricing scheme for both phone and cable, well really most private subscription companies, is to hook people in with a deal with an absurd price after a set time is over, and tack on tons of little gotchas. It's borderline theft IMO. Those who know better then have to decide whether it's worth the hassle of threatening to cancel each year...
  - 1123581321 8y ago
    Sky has five million subscribers in Germany. That looks like about 12% of your households. Basic TV in the US is free. Basic cable is about $30/mo. Case bundled with Internet is $50-100. There are some premium equivalents to Sky that top out around $200/mo. About 75% of US households pay for TV in some way. I’d say our mean and median household spending on TV is higher but there is a greater range of pricing, with $0 being quite viable if your tastes are simple.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If they've always paid $70/month for it, why would the entertainment companies settle for people paying less now? The usual reason in a normal product market would be efficiencies developed over time reducing costs and competition driving prices down to marginally over cost.
krageon 8y ago
It was the same way in games for a long time. A platform becomes dominant (because it is the best), then others want to emulate it (poorly). Eventually competitors do pop up, but the ones that don't fill a specific niche generally don't become incredibly popular. The difference with movies/series is that the licensing situation is significantly more retarded. This will probably end up meaning we will end up with a million different streaming services (with different catalogues for different countries, or more accurately a good catalog in the US and a poor one everywhere else). This will drive more people to pirating, with predictable results.