6 ms·

> An actual 'A la carte' situation is that of the consumer being able to actually handpick the shows they want and only pay for those. This will never happen du

> An actual 'A la carte' situation is that of the consumer being able to actually handpick the shows they want and only pay for those. This will never happen due to the industry being absolutely hostile to the idea... We've been able to do this with a substantial number of shows for years, though, by buying individual episodes or "season passes" on Amazon and iTunes. Maybe people just don't know, maybe people think the prices are too high, but more than likely the market has just largely moved on from this model for much the same reason that it moved on from CDs: the rise of streaming. (But put a pin in that for a second...) > ...second best from a consumer standpoint is a single huge distributor like Netflix where you would pay larger fee but have access to practically everything you want... This is what we all want price-wise, but would we really, truly want to turn Netflix into the equivalent of the iOS App Store for essentially all legal streaming movies and television? Everyone blames the proliferation of streaming services on rapacious greed, and, I mean, sure, the profit motive is mighty. But it's also a matter of keeping control. Broadcast networks and cable companies are middlemen who not only take a cut of the profit but who also act as gatekeepers; it's a little mad to think that producers would want to free themselves from that system only to rebuild it with a single all-powerful company in the command seat. Sure, not all the streaming services will survive, especially at the prices Netflix is currently charging. But I'm not convinced that the world is really going to rise up and rebel against having to pay $50 or $60 a month total to a half-dozen providers for commercial-free, on-demand access to hundreds of thousand of shows versus paying $100+ a month to a single provider.

paranoidrobot 7y ago
The problem with buying Season Passes is that they're usually a terrible option for many reasons. They're usually not available until well after the season premiered (12+ months later), roughly at the same time that the DVD/Bluray comes out. The quality of them is iffy, at best - SD or HD at poor bitrates. Fine for watching on a tablet or laptop, marginal at best on a TV/Surround system. They're tied to watching on that specific platform, and you're fucked if you wanted to watch on another platform, and if that platform goes away so do all your purchases. They're region locked, so if you went overseas for a bit, you can't access them. They're often either as expensive, or more, than the physical Bluray.
- Mindwipe 7y ago
  All those also apply to subscription services, and subscription services remain significantly more popular with users. Sometimes people on HN might have to accept they are not typical users a bit.
  - concerned_user 7y ago
    Subscription services at least don't lie to you by disguising themselves as if they sell you dvd/bluray but in digital form, and all the process resembling that of dealing with a tangible item.
  - Goladus 7y ago
    > All those also apply to subscription services They quite obviously don't. Perhaps most notably availability at premier, which tends to matter a lot for TV shows if you have any desire to be part of the conversation about them.
- Benji_San 7y ago
  I'm still waiting for "Steam for TV series/Films". I've always felt that that approach would work better as we're unlikely to get a single streaming service with "most content" akin to music streaming". The model works well for distributing games and doesn't have any of the deal breaking problems that you listed (well except for it going out of business, but should not be a problem as long as you have access to the files). I can't really see a reason why it would not work for films or TV series. Just provide something that isn't worse than torrents and reasonably priced and I'll happily buy the content I'm interested in.
  - sammorrowdrums 7y ago
    Incidentally, steam does stream both standard film and VR content - just not much of it. (So steam is already steam for TV/Films in theory) For example: https://store.steampowered.com/app/468060/PADAK/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/468060/PADAK/
httpsterio 7y ago
There's only so many hours in a day that can be spent on streaming. I think I have something streaming for about four hours a day (I usually work or so something else at the same time) and so far Netflix's offering has been good enough that I don't have any additional subscribes. If I want to watch something else, those hours are away from my Netflix usage and I get less for my money in those cases. I don't think that a large offering is what should raise the price, rather the hours I spend watching. If I only watch an hour a day Netflix and Hulu for 3, I think the 10USD or so should be split into 25/75 between those providers. Splice kinda has a pricing model for their samples and presets that could be applied here. A fixed monthly cost will give me credits with which I can purchase what I want and leftovers from that month gets rolled into the next month. If I could pay 10 dollars and get 10 hours of any content on any provider, I'd buy it. I'd most likely end up paying more each month but at least I wouldn't feel like wasting my money paying a fee for content I'm not gonna watch and feeling like needing to have multiple subscriptions rolling all the time.
josteink 7y ago
> This is what we all want price-wise, but would we really, truly want to turn Netflix into the equivalent of the iOS App Store for essentially all legal streaming movies and television? You mean like the music industry has Spotify, Google Music, Deezer, Tidal, Apple Music and many many more, and everyone has a 99% full catalog? You better motherfucking believe it. This is the only thing people want in the ultra laggard video-streaming market.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  Of the services you listed, to the best my knowledge, exactly zero of them are profitable yet. Tidal is eternally on the brink of bankruptcy. Deezer's situation has been so bleak they pulled their IPO a few years ago. Google Music and Apple Music are essentially loss leaders being subsidized by their owners. Spotify has always burned through money like it was going out of style. And artists are eternally complaining -- with cause -- that nearly all of them make less money under this system than they did under the old one. You know what Spotify thinks is the way forward for them? Exclusives. That's why they've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on podcasts. You may love it if they're functionally undifferentiated from their competitors, but they don't. Apple and Google can slide because they're Apple and Google, but services that actually need to pay their own way need to give you a reason to pay them, not Apple or Google. So, sure. Consumers love "pay $10 a month to whoever you want, eh, it's all the same, tomato, tomahto." But it's not at all clear to me that it's a sustainable model in the long run. And I'm pretty sure the reason the video streaming world didn't even pretend to take a stab at that business model is they don't think it is, either.
erik_seaberg 7y ago
> maybe people think the prices are too high Absurdly high. Game of Thrones costs $167 on Amazon, which is more than binge-watching it eleven times using one-month HBO subscriptions.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  How many hundreds of hours of entertainment for $167? Granted it has almost no marginal cost for the seller, but as you said, you can buy HBO for a fraction of $167 and still watch it. People just like to complain. It has never been cheaper or easier to instantly consume media, yet there is no satisfaction (because they’re comparing it to stealing the media, which is illogical of course). Of course, there are legitimate issues in countries that have BS licensing restrictions forcing people to use a middle man such as cable or satellite TV providers. Also, copyright terms are far too long in the US, so there are valid reasons to pirate. But price/availability in US usually aren’t it, in my opinion.
  - cyborgx7 7y ago
    > It has never been cheaper or easier That's exactly the thing though. It has been easier. We all remember it being easier, when we pirated something. The actual sentence should be "it has never been easier while also getting to pay for it". That's just not a very compelling case.
    - alistairSH 7y ago
      Is pirating something really easier? Maybe I've been out of that game for too long, but between finding good/complete torrents of content, avoiding my ISP finding out I was doing it (and sending me nastygrams), needing to keep a server up and running to download/store media, juggling front-ends as they evolved (Plex hasn't always been around), ... Today, I have a single device (AppleTV), a single remote, and can stream just about anything I want. And that content is either bundled with Netflix or Amazon, or available to rent for $5 or so. And I don't have to break the law to do it.

paranoidrobot 7y ago

The problem with buying Season Passes is that they're usually a terrible option for many reasons. They're usually not available until well after the season premiered (12+ months later), roughly at the same time that the DVD/Bluray comes out. The quality of them is iffy, at best - SD or HD at poor bitrates. Fine for watching on a tablet or laptop, marginal at best on a TV/Surround system. They're tied to watching on that specific platform, and you're fucked if you wanted to watch on another platform, and if that platform goes away so do all your purchases. They're region locked, so if you went overseas for a bit, you can't access them. They're often either as expensive, or more, than the physical Bluray.

Mindwipe 7y ago
All those also apply to subscription services, and subscription services remain significantly more popular with users. Sometimes people on HN might have to accept they are not typical users a bit.
- concerned_user 7y ago
  Subscription services at least don't lie to you by disguising themselves as if they sell you dvd/bluray but in digital form, and all the process resembling that of dealing with a tangible item.
- Goladus 7y ago
  > All those also apply to subscription services They quite obviously don't. Perhaps most notably availability at premier, which tends to matter a lot for TV shows if you have any desire to be part of the conversation about them.
Benji_San 7y ago
I'm still waiting for "Steam for TV series/Films". I've always felt that that approach would work better as we're unlikely to get a single streaming service with "most content" akin to music streaming". The model works well for distributing games and doesn't have any of the deal breaking problems that you listed (well except for it going out of business, but should not be a problem as long as you have access to the files). I can't really see a reason why it would not work for films or TV series. Just provide something that isn't worse than torrents and reasonably priced and I'll happily buy the content I'm interested in.
- sammorrowdrums 7y ago
  Incidentally, steam does stream both standard film and VR content - just not much of it. (So steam is already steam for TV/Films in theory) For example: https://store.steampowered.com/app/468060/PADAK/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/468060/PADAK/

httpsterio 7y ago

There's only so many hours in a day that can be spent on streaming. I think I have something streaming for about four hours a day (I usually work or so something else at the same time) and so far Netflix's offering has been good enough that I don't have any additional subscribes. If I want to watch something else, those hours are away from my Netflix usage and I get less for my money in those cases. I don't think that a large offering is what should raise the price, rather the hours I spend watching. If I only watch an hour a day Netflix and Hulu for 3, I think the 10USD or so should be split into 25/75 between those providers. Splice kinda has a pricing model for their samples and presets that could be applied here. A fixed monthly cost will give me credits with which I can purchase what I want and leftovers from that month gets rolled into the next month. If I could pay 10 dollars and get 10 hours of any content on any provider, I'd buy it. I'd most likely end up paying more each month but at least I wouldn't feel like wasting my money paying a fee for content I'm not gonna watch and feeling like needing to have multiple subscriptions rolling all the time.

josteink 7y ago

> This is what we all want price-wise, but would we really, truly want to turn Netflix into the equivalent of the iOS App Store for essentially all legal streaming movies and television? You mean like the music industry has Spotify, Google Music, Deezer, Tidal, Apple Music and many many more, and everyone has a 99% full catalog? You better motherfucking believe it. This is the only thing people want in the ultra laggard video-streaming market.

chipotle_coyote 7y ago
Of the services you listed, to the best my knowledge, exactly zero of them are profitable yet. Tidal is eternally on the brink of bankruptcy. Deezer's situation has been so bleak they pulled their IPO a few years ago. Google Music and Apple Music are essentially loss leaders being subsidized by their owners. Spotify has always burned through money like it was going out of style. And artists are eternally complaining -- with cause -- that nearly all of them make less money under this system than they did under the old one. You know what Spotify thinks is the way forward for them? Exclusives. That's why they've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on podcasts. You may love it if they're functionally undifferentiated from their competitors, but they don't. Apple and Google can slide because they're Apple and Google, but services that actually need to pay their own way need to give you a reason to pay them, not Apple or Google. So, sure. Consumers love "pay $10 a month to whoever you want, eh, it's all the same, tomato, tomahto." But it's not at all clear to me that it's a sustainable model in the long run. And I'm pretty sure the reason the video streaming world didn't even pretend to take a stab at that business model is they don't think it is, either.

erik_seaberg 7y ago

> maybe people think the prices are too high Absurdly high. Game of Thrones costs $167 on Amazon, which is more than binge-watching it eleven times using one-month HBO subscriptions.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
How many hundreds of hours of entertainment for $167? Granted it has almost no marginal cost for the seller, but as you said, you can buy HBO for a fraction of $167 and still watch it. People just like to complain. It has never been cheaper or easier to instantly consume media, yet there is no satisfaction (because they’re comparing it to stealing the media, which is illogical of course). Of course, there are legitimate issues in countries that have BS licensing restrictions forcing people to use a middle man such as cable or satellite TV providers. Also, copyright terms are far too long in the US, so there are valid reasons to pirate. But price/availability in US usually aren’t it, in my opinion.
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  > It has never been cheaper or easier That's exactly the thing though. It has been easier. We all remember it being easier, when we pirated something. The actual sentence should be "it has never been easier while also getting to pay for it". That's just not a very compelling case.
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    Is pirating something really easier? Maybe I've been out of that game for too long, but between finding good/complete torrents of content, avoiding my ISP finding out I was doing it (and sending me nastygrams), needing to keep a server up and running to download/store media, juggling front-ends as they evolved (Plex hasn't always been around), ... Today, I have a single device (AppleTV), a single remote, and can stream just about anything I want. And that content is either bundled with Netflix or Amazon, or available to rent for $5 or so. And I don't have to break the law to do it.