4 ms·

Why would you want even more consolidation? The other content owners (Disney, WB, etc.) have already pulled all their content from 3rd parties (including Netfli

by izacus 5y ago

Why would you want even more consolidation? The other content owners (Disney, WB, etc.) have already pulled all their content from 3rd parties (including Netflix) to destroy competition. Why is there so many people on HN that want less market competition and cheer when corporations consolidate?

sliken 5y ago
Because people want to watch the leading shows in their area of interest and not have to pay 10+ services $10-$20 a month. As it gets increasingly hard/expensive, not to mention the bickering between services and platforms and services and markets to watch them on, customers are resorting to piracy as a way to get the content they want.
- francisofascii 5y ago
  Agree with this sentiment, but if they consolidate, the price may go from $10-20/month to $20-40/month. And then we are back to cable.
  - wombatpm 5y ago
    But without the 50 shopping channels
- mhitza 5y ago
  All these streaming companies battle for long term user acquisition, thus perpetual $10/month subscription per service for X providers is definitely a no-go long term. I think a middle ground would be shareware-like pay-per-view type model. Are you creating a new series? Make the first episode freely watchable, and then don't price excessively the entire season. As a consumer would make sense for me to pay 5$ for a season of show X on Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max/etc. But allow me to watch the thing I payed for perpetually in the future, as long as the show is still on the platform. And when I'm looking for something new to pay for, allow me to see the first episode of existing shows for free. Would that work for all consumers? I don't know, most people I know with streaming subscriptions, barely actively watch shows and very often those are standins for background noise.
  - sliken 5y ago
    I was hoping for something like $50 a month and pay the creators accordingly. If I spend 10% of my viewing hours watching a particular series then the creator+provide can split the $5. I wish the internet ads worked the same way. I'd happily pay any website 2x whatever google or similar ad networks pay, to avoid ads. Seems like it would help reduce clickbait as well.
whoisjuan 5y ago
This is one of those cases where I believe consolidation helps the users instead of harming them. Fragmentation in VOD is taking us back to the cable era where you had to pay extra for different content packages. High quality content is spread across multiple platforms so users have to pay more for other services or simply miss out on that content.
at_a_remove 5y ago
You're asking, so I guess I will lay out some reasons. 1) Choice fatigue. 2) The annoyance of wanting to watch a specific thing and then hunt it down, hoping it is on your service. 3) The costs (financial, time, irritation) of subscribing to multiple services to combat #2.
fullshark 5y ago
It’s inevitable, consumers aren’t gonna support all these (subscription) streaming services. Gonna be Disney and one or two other streaming services in 10 years.
jfengel 5y ago
I read it as "I want there to be less content, but more content that appeals to me."

by izacus 5y ago

sliken 5y ago

Because people want to watch the leading shows in their area of interest and not have to pay 10+ services $10-$20 a month. As it gets increasingly hard/expensive, not to mention the bickering between services and platforms and services and markets to watch them on, customers are resorting to piracy as a way to get the content they want.

francisofascii 5y ago
Agree with this sentiment, but if they consolidate, the price may go from $10-20/month to $20-40/month. And then we are back to cable.
- wombatpm 5y ago
  But without the 50 shopping channels
mhitza 5y ago
All these streaming companies battle for long term user acquisition, thus perpetual $10/month subscription per service for X providers is definitely a no-go long term. I think a middle ground would be shareware-like pay-per-view type model. Are you creating a new series? Make the first episode freely watchable, and then don't price excessively the entire season. As a consumer would make sense for me to pay 5$ for a season of show X on Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max/etc. But allow me to watch the thing I payed for perpetually in the future, as long as the show is still on the platform. And when I'm looking for something new to pay for, allow me to see the first episode of existing shows for free. Would that work for all consumers? I don't know, most people I know with streaming subscriptions, barely actively watch shows and very often those are standins for background noise.
- sliken 5y ago
  I was hoping for something like $50 a month and pay the creators accordingly. If I spend 10% of my viewing hours watching a particular series then the creator+provide can split the $5. I wish the internet ads worked the same way. I'd happily pay any website 2x whatever google or similar ad networks pay, to avoid ads. Seems like it would help reduce clickbait as well.

whoisjuan 5y ago

This is one of those cases where I believe consolidation helps the users instead of harming them. Fragmentation in VOD is taking us back to the cable era where you had to pay extra for different content packages. High quality content is spread across multiple platforms so users have to pay more for other services or simply miss out on that content.

at_a_remove 5y ago

You're asking, so I guess I will lay out some reasons. 1) Choice fatigue. 2) The annoyance of wanting to watch a specific thing and then hunt it down, hoping it is on your service. 3) The costs (financial, time, irritation) of subscribing to multiple services to combat #2.

fullshark 5y ago

It’s inevitable, consumers aren’t gonna support all these (subscription) streaming services. Gonna be Disney and one or two other streaming services in 10 years.

jfengel 5y ago

I read it as "I want there to be less content, but more content that appeals to me."