3 ms·
You're missing an important detail, video is arguably a different market but it's still a digital good and it basically costs a company 0 to stream it to a new
by Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
You're missing an important detail, video is arguably a different market but it's still a digital good and it basically costs a company 0 to stream it to a new user. If i had one provider where i could get everything i'd gladly pay allot more than 15$ and i'd probably keep my subscription as everything new would be released on said platform. You could even combine this with a pay as you go model to only pay to stream a certain show without subscribing. My logic is that if you could get enough subscribers 30-50$ a month could be good business.
- josteink 4y ago> it basically costs a company 0 to stream it to a new user But the company providing the stream need to recoup the cost of making that episode, not just the cost of streaming it. That means that the costs of making that episode has to be baked into the cost of the streaming-fee you are paying. > My logic is that if you could get enough subscribers 30-50$ a month could be good business. You won't, and it's still too low. At this point, just having 3 regular streaming-services will cost you this much and it still gets you less than half the content out there. Having it all would be $100+, and I can assure you that at such a price, most people would say "Why can't I just pay for the things I want to watch instead"? You know, before streaming, like people did with cable.
- Galaxeblaffer 4y agoWhat i'm trying to say is that if you can convince enough people to subscribe, the price could be 20$ but the video media industry keeps clinging to the dream of exclusives which will in turn make people turn to piracy again. It might be much more expensive to produce music, but that also results in allot of music being produced compared to tv shows