5 ms·

> Pay-per-view is probably more appropriate for those who only want to watch a couple movies every month, put ppv isn't available. Customers instead share their

> Pay-per-view is probably more appropriate for those who only want to watch a couple movies every month, put ppv isn't available. Customers instead share their accounts with family members PPV is available for most movies, you can rent them from iTunes or amazon for $3-5 for a single watch in my experience. Ultimately the best delivery model for the customer would be $0 for unlimited free streaming of movies and music, of course that would tank the industry and stop new production so a balance must be found in terms of what customers will tolerate vs what is needed to fund new content production.

leereeves 6y ago
> PPV is available for most movies, you can rent them from iTunes or amazon for $3-5 for a single watch in my experience. Which is insanely expensive. $5 buys a month of Apple TV+, almost 2 weeks of Netflix, or 2 hours of PPV.
- photojosh 6y ago
  But this was in response to: > Should my grandma pay $240 per year, to watch two movies I recommend to her (and are ONLY watchable on Netflix)? So that's $10. Or sign up for just a month and then cancel. I know people who have Netflix for a few months, and then another service for a few months and so on. I still remember having to rent movies/TV or buying on DVD as my main way of watching... at 4-6 movies a month and ~$20-30 per season of TV, you'd have to have quite a few streaming services to match that. It's all about convenience vs cost.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    It was more directly in response to: > Pay-per-view is probably more appropriate for those who only want to watch a couple movies every month, put ppv isn't available. and > PPV is available for most movies, you can rent them from iTunes or amazon for $3-5 for a single watch in my experience. Yes, PPV is available, but it costs the same to watch a couple movies every month as to subscribe to a whole streaming service. That makes it effectively unavailable (at a reasonable price) for many consumers. Why isn't a la carte video available at a reasonable markup (say, 200% the cost of 2 hours of a streaming service given the average monthly viewing time)?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Costs like those of the Netflix hardware deployed to the edge, including maintenance (and business relation maintenance) don't scale down anywhere near linearly with hours of content watched, neither does the cost of content licensing (especially, I would assume, exclusives). So, expecting prices to scale that way for limited-quantity purchases is unreasonable.
      - leereeves 6y ago
        I think customers end up achieving similar costs by sharing accounts, or by signing up for one month per year, or by skipping Netflix altogether because there isn't enough content they want to watch to justify the monthly fee.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
  I think this reflects the reality that for a product with low marginal costs, bundling provides better value for the consumer. If a company is going make the investment to build and operate a video streaming service and acquire you as a customer, it only costs them a few dollars more to let you watch the whole catalogue on demand (the effort to amass this catalog is largely amortized across the customer base). Competing for each individual pay per view purchase is a much worse business to be in, and that’s reflected in the poorer value proposition offered to customers. There’s also some price discrimination occurring (selling to people who really want to watch this specific movie that isn’t offered in their favorite streaming service, or who don’t watch enough movies to subscribe). The same can be observed in some other industries: museum membership, ski pass.

leereeves 6y ago

> PPV is available for most movies, you can rent them from iTunes or amazon for $3-5 for a single watch in my experience. Which is insanely expensive. $5 buys a month of Apple TV+, almost 2 weeks of Netflix, or 2 hours of PPV.

photojosh 6y ago
But this was in response to: > Should my grandma pay $240 per year, to watch two movies I recommend to her (and are ONLY watchable on Netflix)? So that's $10. Or sign up for just a month and then cancel. I know people who have Netflix for a few months, and then another service for a few months and so on. I still remember having to rent movies/TV or buying on DVD as my main way of watching... at 4-6 movies a month and ~$20-30 per season of TV, you'd have to have quite a few streaming services to match that. It's all about convenience vs cost.
- leereeves 6y ago
  It was more directly in response to: > Pay-per-view is probably more appropriate for those who only want to watch a couple movies every month, put ppv isn't available. and > PPV is available for most movies, you can rent them from iTunes or amazon for $3-5 for a single watch in my experience. Yes, PPV is available, but it costs the same to watch a couple movies every month as to subscribe to a whole streaming service. That makes it effectively unavailable (at a reasonable price) for many consumers. Why isn't a la carte video available at a reasonable markup (say, 200% the cost of 2 hours of a streaming service given the average monthly viewing time)?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Costs like those of the Netflix hardware deployed to the edge, including maintenance (and business relation maintenance) don't scale down anywhere near linearly with hours of content watched, neither does the cost of content licensing (especially, I would assume, exclusives). So, expecting prices to scale that way for limited-quantity purchases is unreasonable.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      I think customers end up achieving similar costs by sharing accounts, or by signing up for one month per year, or by skipping Netflix altogether because there isn't enough content they want to watch to justify the monthly fee.
fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
I think this reflects the reality that for a product with low marginal costs, bundling provides better value for the consumer. If a company is going make the investment to build and operate a video streaming service and acquire you as a customer, it only costs them a few dollars more to let you watch the whole catalogue on demand (the effort to amass this catalog is largely amortized across the customer base). Competing for each individual pay per view purchase is a much worse business to be in, and that’s reflected in the poorer value proposition offered to customers. There’s also some price discrimination occurring (selling to people who really want to watch this specific movie that isn’t offered in their favorite streaming service, or who don’t watch enough movies to subscribe). The same can be observed in some other industries: museum membership, ski pass.