3 ms·
"I can pay $15 a month" is literally ignore the article we're commenting on. Can you pay $100 a month for TV? Because many households can't. Streaming briefly m
by TheRealPomax 4y ago
"I can pay $15 a month" is literally ignore the article we're commenting on. Can you pay $100 a month for TV? Because many households can't. Streaming briefly made it affordable for them, and then everyone went "actually, no, instead of paying service X, who pays us a license fee, you get to pay service X without our content, and then the same amount on top for our own service Y". Repeat some ten times, and we're right back to "guess I'll just pirate everything, because I can afford internet, but not internet plus another $100 for all the streaming services because the five shows I like are all on different platforms".
- powerhour 4y ago> Repeat some ten times, and we're right back to "guess I'll just pirate everything, because I can afford internet, but not internet plus another $100 for all the streaming services because the five shows I like are all on different platforms". ... or you wait to watch a show when you subscribe to the platform it is on. I just don't buy the argument that we must have access to everything at every moment from a single provider.
- int_19h 4y agoIt's not a given that a show will ever end up on the platform you already subscribe to. And this seems to be increasingly more likely with the ongoing emphasis on exclusivity as a way to lock in users. The obvious alternative is for the platforms to charge for actual use, and then they'll get paid for the fair share of my attention that they manage to attract. But their pricing kind of implies that they expect most people to only have one subscription.