5 ms·

Streaming companies just can’t help themselves. There’s Disney+, Netflix, HBO Max, Paramount+, Hulu, ESPN+, Apple TV+, Prime Video, and I think Peacock (for now

Streaming companies just can’t help themselves. There’s Disney+, Netflix, HBO Max, Paramount+, Hulu, ESPN+, Apple TV+, Prime Video, and I think Peacock (for now?). The industry self-own is hilarious. It’s easier to just pirate or rent than deal with this many random services. And Netflix just keeps dumping out algorithmically generated focus grouped content. There is plenty of good content on Netflix but not enough to justify a monthly costs. Most of what I actually want to watch is spread out across a dozen different services. And now Netflix wants to try and kill one of the last things that kept me as a customer. If I share the account I can stomach the costs. If I have to pay for the full account by myself, I’m canceling. Perhaps Netflix should focus on partnerships and bundles. Ads, any ads at all, is an instant dealbreaker for me.

BaculumMeumEst 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand how you think this is an "industry self-own", or why you find it hilarious. Presumably, these companies are taking this approach because they realized they stand to make more money by creating their own streaming service and leveraging their catalogs than outsourcing them. Those that stay in business are presumably making quite a lot of money. The only people getting "owned" here are consumers.
- zinekeller 5y ago
  As you pointed out, consumers will feel the brunt at first, but when there's another economic event that tighten everyone's wallet, then some of those consumers, little-by-little, will return to piracy permanently, unless there's a single service to go to (basically music streaming now).
- Freak_NL 5y ago
  It's clever too. There are some more tech-minded and risk-aware folk who can turn to copyright infringement via torrents, but those are a negligible minority. The days of widespread 'piracy' practices by every next household are long gone. There are some who can manage cleverly hopping from subscription to subscription to get varying content (three months Netflix, then three months Disney+, etc.), but those too are too few for the streaming companies to care about. For now the bulk of their customers will pick one or more services, and subscribe for longer periods (years often). And unlike cable, people don't pay a huge lump sum each month, but an increasing number of small-ish fees each small enough not to be too critically evaluated by subscribers when reviewing their home finances. It will probably stay like this for quite a while. A shame. I really would have liked a way to fairly pay for any content at all via a single subscription.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Pretty much describes me. I get a handful of services. It's more content than I remotely have time to watch. I can't really be bothered spending more or chasing down torrents for some other random show; it's just not really something I care enough about. Would a single streaming service be better? Probably. But I wouldn't pay a premium for it. After all, I dropped cable entirely and while I'd like real-time TV now and then, that like isn't enough for me to pay for it.
  - soneil 5y ago
    I'm not sure I agree on the piracy front. Everyone I know who's young enough to have been college aged since about 1998, knows exactly how and where to turn. This is an age bracket running into early-40s now. I think what's stopped more and more people from piracy has been all-you-can-eat subscriptions. Not that they can't, or won't, but that spotify + netflix took care of a huge portion of consumption. From this perspective, taking more and more things off the menu has a huge potential to turn the tide. This show's only on Disney, that show's only on HBO - and HBO isn't available here. This season's on netflix but next season's on prime ..
- parkingrift 5y ago
  >I'm not sure I understand how you think this is an "industry self-own", or why you find it hilarious. It's hilarious because it's a retreat to the model we had before Netflix disrupted television with streaming. Now we're back to disparate channels and bundles. And it's a self-own because consumers don't want this, and will take the path of least resistance. There is no reality where consumers will pay for a dozen streaming services. Pirating will pick up again and then someone will come along to try and consolidate or disrupt and the cycle will continue.
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
I imagine pirating is going to see a massive resurgence in the next 3 years. The software around pirating has gotten so good, it's nearly as good as apps like Netflix & HBO Max now.
- smileybarry 5y ago
  You also have some seedbox services that locally cache frequently downloaded torrents on a file level, so if you "download" them to your box/account, they just instantly appear. Essentially a Netflix-style service powered by piracy.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
    This seems quite risky. Legally, how does this work?? In The Netherlands & Spain, you're allowed to pirate for personal use. But it is still illegal to DISTRIBUTE copyrighted work. I'm curious how companies doing this don't get sued into oblivion. That seems like a clear breach of the law, and it's for profit.
temp8964 5y ago
I am thinking that when there are so many streaming services, maybe subscription is the wrong model? Maybe an on-demand plan like $0.50/hour (can also vary by content) would be better for customers?
smileybarry 5y ago
And their obsession with "streaming exclusivity" means they launch in maybe 8 countries around the world and refuse to sell broadcast rights to the rest. Only way I could watch The Flight Attendant (HBO Max) a year ago was pirate it.

BaculumMeumEst 5y ago

I'm not sure I understand how you think this is an "industry self-own", or why you find it hilarious. Presumably, these companies are taking this approach because they realized they stand to make more money by creating their own streaming service and leveraging their catalogs than outsourcing them. Those that stay in business are presumably making quite a lot of money. The only people getting "owned" here are consumers.

zinekeller 5y ago
As you pointed out, consumers will feel the brunt at first, but when there's another economic event that tighten everyone's wallet, then some of those consumers, little-by-little, will return to piracy permanently, unless there's a single service to go to (basically music streaming now).
Freak_NL 5y ago
It's clever too. There are some more tech-minded and risk-aware folk who can turn to copyright infringement via torrents, but those are a negligible minority. The days of widespread 'piracy' practices by every next household are long gone. There are some who can manage cleverly hopping from subscription to subscription to get varying content (three months Netflix, then three months Disney+, etc.), but those too are too few for the streaming companies to care about. For now the bulk of their customers will pick one or more services, and subscribe for longer periods (years often). And unlike cable, people don't pay a huge lump sum each month, but an increasing number of small-ish fees each small enough not to be too critically evaluated by subscribers when reviewing their home finances. It will probably stay like this for quite a while. A shame. I really would have liked a way to fairly pay for any content at all via a single subscription.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Pretty much describes me. I get a handful of services. It's more content than I remotely have time to watch. I can't really be bothered spending more or chasing down torrents for some other random show; it's just not really something I care enough about. Would a single streaming service be better? Probably. But I wouldn't pay a premium for it. After all, I dropped cable entirely and while I'd like real-time TV now and then, that like isn't enough for me to pay for it.
- soneil 5y ago
  I'm not sure I agree on the piracy front. Everyone I know who's young enough to have been college aged since about 1998, knows exactly how and where to turn. This is an age bracket running into early-40s now. I think what's stopped more and more people from piracy has been all-you-can-eat subscriptions. Not that they can't, or won't, but that spotify + netflix took care of a huge portion of consumption. From this perspective, taking more and more things off the menu has a huge potential to turn the tide. This show's only on Disney, that show's only on HBO - and HBO isn't available here. This season's on netflix but next season's on prime ..
parkingrift 5y ago
>I'm not sure I understand how you think this is an "industry self-own", or why you find it hilarious. It's hilarious because it's a retreat to the model we had before Netflix disrupted television with streaming. Now we're back to disparate channels and bundles. And it's a self-own because consumers don't want this, and will take the path of least resistance. There is no reality where consumers will pay for a dozen streaming services. Pirating will pick up again and then someone will come along to try and consolidate or disrupt and the cycle will continue.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

I imagine pirating is going to see a massive resurgence in the next 3 years. The software around pirating has gotten so good, it's nearly as good as apps like Netflix & HBO Max now.

smileybarry 5y ago
You also have some seedbox services that locally cache frequently downloaded torrents on a file level, so if you "download" them to your box/account, they just instantly appear. Essentially a Netflix-style service powered by piracy.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  This seems quite risky. Legally, how does this work?? In The Netherlands & Spain, you're allowed to pirate for personal use. But it is still illegal to DISTRIBUTE copyrighted work. I'm curious how companies doing this don't get sued into oblivion. That seems like a clear breach of the law, and it's for profit.

temp8964 5y ago

I am thinking that when there are so many streaming services, maybe subscription is the wrong model? Maybe an on-demand plan like $0.50/hour (can also vary by content) would be better for customers?

smileybarry 5y ago

And their obsession with "streaming exclusivity" means they launch in maybe 8 countries around the world and refuse to sell broadcast rights to the rest. Only way I could watch The Flight Attendant (HBO Max) a year ago was pirate it.