3 ms·

There will be people who cannot afford entertainment and will pirate no matter what. That a red hearing and it doesn't matter. I don't care about bundles/deal/

There will be people who cannot afford entertainment and will pirate no matter what. That a red hearing and it doesn't matter. I don't care about bundles/deal/special arrangement all I care about is convenience. Netflix used to be more convenient to watch quality series and I was using it exclusively. I paid fair price for convenience. Starting show where you left of skipping intros etc, all of those things made me pick netfilx over torrents. But now the scales are tipping other way as EVERYONE wants a piece of pie, making exclusive deals with a single platform (plus amount of crappy show on netfilx making it time consuming to find new stuff to watch there, and their terrible recommendation algorithm, if you can call it an algorithm). I still use netflix, but I can see myself dropping it in the future and stick to one place that have all.

ryandrake 7y ago
So far no solution besides “pirating” has met this one simple requirement: “On-demand access to any movie or TV show I can think of that has ever been digitized, from one service.” That’s it. If you can provide that, take my money. In the, say 20 years since broadband existed, literally no legit company has offered this yet, for any price.
- Infernal 7y ago
  I find it interesting that Spotify, Apple, Pandora and others can do this for (95%+ of) music, but no one can do it for movies or TV.
  - selectodude 7y ago
    People listen to the same songs a couple dozen times. Maybe more. They watch the same show once, maybe twice. So the opportunity to monetize is far lower and the cost to produce is far higher. It never takes $1m to make a song, now we have television shows with million dollar per episode production budgets.
- shantly 7y ago
  > That’s it. If you can provide that, take my money. In the, say 20 years since broadband existed, literally no legit company has offered this yet, for any price. That's because they insist on (and we permit) keeping control of both licensing and distribution. If content companies couldn't distribute themselves, or make exclusive deals for distribution, and just had to say "here's the price sheet, anyone who wants our stuff and can pay our rates can distribute it" there'd probably be such a pay-one-bill-and-watch-anything service—but it'd own no content itself. There'd also probably be a few cheaper ones licensing a wide variety of cheaper content—a single, cheapish streaming service with damn near every B-movie and failed or obscure TV show ever made, as an example. The services would have to compete on price and UX, not primarily by which content they can prevent other services from accessing—so, better for the viewer than the current situation. Given that entertainment media aren't like other goods (you can't just go find someone else to make you a satisfactory replacement for Casablanca, say) and we grant legal monopolies on copyright, it seems anti-consumer and anti-competitive to allow same entities to also own & control distribution.
- papln 7y ago
  Maybe it's not such a "simple" requirement.
- lazerpants 7y ago
  Amazon on demand (yes you have to pay for all content) is pretty damn close to this.

ryandrake 7y ago

So far no solution besides “pirating” has met this one simple requirement: “On-demand access to any movie or TV show I can think of that has ever been digitized, from one service.” That’s it. If you can provide that, take my money. In the, say 20 years since broadband existed, literally no legit company has offered this yet, for any price.

Infernal 7y ago
I find it interesting that Spotify, Apple, Pandora and others can do this for (95%+ of) music, but no one can do it for movies or TV.
- selectodude 7y ago
  People listen to the same songs a couple dozen times. Maybe more. They watch the same show once, maybe twice. So the opportunity to monetize is far lower and the cost to produce is far higher. It never takes $1m to make a song, now we have television shows with million dollar per episode production budgets.
shantly 7y ago
> That’s it. If you can provide that, take my money. In the, say 20 years since broadband existed, literally no legit company has offered this yet, for any price. That's because they insist on (and we permit) keeping control of both licensing and distribution. If content companies couldn't distribute themselves, or make exclusive deals for distribution, and just had to say "here's the price sheet, anyone who wants our stuff and can pay our rates can distribute it" there'd probably be such a pay-one-bill-and-watch-anything service—but it'd own no content itself. There'd also probably be a few cheaper ones licensing a wide variety of cheaper content—a single, cheapish streaming service with damn near every B-movie and failed or obscure TV show ever made, as an example. The services would have to compete on price and UX, not primarily by which content they can prevent other services from accessing—so, better for the viewer than the current situation. Given that entertainment media aren't like other goods (you can't just go find someone else to make you a satisfactory replacement for Casablanca, say) and we grant legal monopolies on copyright, it seems anti-consumer and anti-competitive to allow same entities to also own & control distribution.
papln 7y ago
Maybe it's not such a "simple" requirement.
lazerpants 7y ago
Amazon on demand (yes you have to pay for all content) is pretty damn close to this.