3 ms·

> While there are exclusives, one of the reasons Netflix, for example, doesn't have more content is that it has to balance the size of its catalog with the fact

> While there are exclusives, one of the reasons Netflix, for example, doesn't have more content is that it has to balance the size of its catalog with the fact that consumers probably aren't mostly willing to pay $100/month. I'm thinking more of the example of Disney changing the licensing terms on Netflix's former slate of Marvel based live action shows, before creating their own streaming service. Streaming services want exclusives, even if it means buying the production company. Netflix has been warning shareholders for several years of what it sees coming. >“Our early investment in doing original content more than six years ago was betting that… there would come a day when the studios and networks may opt not to license us content in favor of maybe creating their own services.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/03/08/loss-of-licensed-content-is-an-underrated-crisis-for-netflix/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/03/08/lo...

ghaff 5y ago
Certainly we're moving towards a more fragmented landscape although it's also the case that Netflix (for example) will only pay so much for the rights to stream content at any given time. I daresay many of the same people who complained about the cable bundle are now complaining about having to manage a bunch of different streaming services, a la carte streaming, and yes torrents. Although, to be honest, it's cheaper overall if you can do without live TV (or can get over the air).
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  I agree that streaming is still cheaper, but some sort of mandatory licensing scheme for video content would be able to put a stop to the current balkanization of television content.
  - dageshi 5y ago
    In any other industry, having companies compete against each other to create the best product in order to attract customers is the ideal situation... except television? People might not like balkanization of content, but it forces different services to compete against each other in a way that produces more and better content overall. More to the point, it's frankly no different to how TV channels used to work in the past.
    - GeekyBear 5y ago
      >it forces different services to compete against each other in a way that produces more and better content overall It seems more like another avenue through which a small number of mega-corporations can control ever increasing shares of the media marketplace to me. In my view, some sort of mandatory licensing scheme would force individually owned production companies to compete against each other to produce the best product.
      - dageshi 5y ago
        A small number of mega corporations have always controlled the media marketplace, the difference is streaming is shaking things up and making a new set of mega-corporations in addition to the existing ones.
        GeekyBear 5y ago
        >A small number of mega corporations have always controlled the media marketplace Always? No. After the deregulation of the Clinton era? Yes. Fun fact: At the start of the Clinton administration, banks could not operate in more than one state.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      I wonder how many people who complain about the balkanization of content across multiple streaming services also weren't a fan of the cable bundle. Presumably, if you had mandatory licensing, you end up with a monopoly or duopoly of streaming services. (Which is more or less what you have in music--though it's arguably a triopoly if you count Amazon.) That's not necessarily bad; it's been pretty much OK (for consumers if not creators) in music. Though it would presumably reduce the incentive to produce tentpole content that brings people to your specific service.

ghaff 5y ago

Certainly we're moving towards a more fragmented landscape although it's also the case that Netflix (for example) will only pay so much for the rights to stream content at any given time. I daresay many of the same people who complained about the cable bundle are now complaining about having to manage a bunch of different streaming services, a la carte streaming, and yes torrents. Although, to be honest, it's cheaper overall if you can do without live TV (or can get over the air).

GeekyBear 5y ago
I agree that streaming is still cheaper, but some sort of mandatory licensing scheme for video content would be able to put a stop to the current balkanization of television content.
- dageshi 5y ago
  In any other industry, having companies compete against each other to create the best product in order to attract customers is the ideal situation... except television? People might not like balkanization of content, but it forces different services to compete against each other in a way that produces more and better content overall. More to the point, it's frankly no different to how TV channels used to work in the past.
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    >it forces different services to compete against each other in a way that produces more and better content overall It seems more like another avenue through which a small number of mega-corporations can control ever increasing shares of the media marketplace to me. In my view, some sort of mandatory licensing scheme would force individually owned production companies to compete against each other to produce the best product.
    - dageshi 5y ago
      A small number of mega corporations have always controlled the media marketplace, the difference is streaming is shaking things up and making a new set of mega-corporations in addition to the existing ones.
      - GeekyBear 5y ago
        >A small number of mega corporations have always controlled the media marketplace Always? No. After the deregulation of the Clinton era? Yes. Fun fact: At the start of the Clinton administration, banks could not operate in more than one state.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    I wonder how many people who complain about the balkanization of content across multiple streaming services also weren't a fan of the cable bundle. Presumably, if you had mandatory licensing, you end up with a monopoly or duopoly of streaming services. (Which is more or less what you have in music--though it's arguably a triopoly if you count Amazon.) That's not necessarily bad; it's been pretty much OK (for consumers if not creators) in music. Though it would presumably reduce the incentive to produce tentpole content that brings people to your specific service.