4 ms·
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 av
by 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 agoCosts 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 agoI 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.