4 ms·

As a user here is what I want: * I search for movie/TV series title using Google what I want to watch, * I find it, * I type my credit card number a

by tlogan 15y ago

As a user here is what I want: * I search for movie/TV series title using Google what I want to watch, * I find it, * I type my credit card number and * I watch. But no - I cannot. I don't need special features or other things: I have money - you have the movie I want to watch.

ctdonath 15y ago
AppleTV. 'nuf said. OK, so it doesn't have everything yet, but between that & Netflix there's more than enough to keep most satisfied, and more content is always being added. And you don't have to enter your CC# more than once. Funny, Apple is making crazy money by offering customers the best implementation of what you want, rather than cutting them off...
- chc 15y ago
  If by "AppleTV" you mean the iTunes Store (since AppleTV does not provide its own content), you have to be joking. No wonder the content companies are most friendly to that place — it makes their old distribution channels look downright cheap. Three episodes of "Whitney" costs as much as a month's subscription to Netflix.
  - tomkinstinch 15y ago
    Perhaps this is the problem. Does content have inherently lower value now that it is abundant, and distributed for (nearly) free? If content providers charged say, (cost of bandwidth)+10%, for each item rather than arbitrary whole-dollar prices, they would certainly see more takers--and perhaps higher profit.
    - chc 15y ago
      I don't think cost-based pricing is the answer. Cost-based pricing is almost never the answer unless you're a charity, and it creates some really perverse incentives for the producer (for example, if I'm running my web service as cost-plus, it's in my interest to buy gold-plated servers cooled by ice hauled in from Antarctica — 10% of that is a lot more than 10% of $200). I do think the value of entertainment has dropped as the supply has ballooned. The problem is basically just that they're stubborn as a mule and refuse to seriously compete in the market that exists today. They want to keep things the way they were, and if you ask for something else, they'd rather just take their ball and go home than negotiate. And I mean, that's their right, but when they do that, they are really the ones who are undermining their business model.
      - tomkinstinch 15y ago
        Quite right about the perverse side of cost-plus pricing.
  - greyish_water 15y ago
    You're comparing purchase with subscription.
  - ctdonath 15y ago
    Supply and demand. You're paying that for "Whitney" because three episodes is worth more to you than a month's subscription to Netflix. For some, a flat-rate cable TV subscription is cost effective. For others (me), Netflix + iTunes is a lot less - and yes that includes impulsive $5 rentals; some of us just don't watch that much TV and don't demand the latest high-profile network shows when we do (BTW: what's "Whitney"?).
mikeryan 15y ago
Have you tried Amazon's streaming service? 56,000 titles and counting. You can generally stream to your laptop, Roku device etc. One step further, of the current top 5 or so Movies on the Pirate Bay all the ones that are currently available on DVD are available via Amazon Instant Streaming.
hello_moto 15y ago
In most cases (99.5%, except for foreign movies), you can. The better question is: are you truly willing to pay or are you just like the "I'm a vegetarian meat-eating" guy? You know... wanting to be labelled as "I have CC but no way to spend easily".

by tlogan 15y ago

ctdonath 15y ago

AppleTV. 'nuf said. OK, so it doesn't have everything yet, but between that & Netflix there's more than enough to keep most satisfied, and more content is always being added. And you don't have to enter your CC# more than once. Funny, Apple is making crazy money by offering customers the best implementation of what you want, rather than cutting them off...

chc 15y ago
If by "AppleTV" you mean the iTunes Store (since AppleTV does not provide its own content), you have to be joking. No wonder the content companies are most friendly to that place — it makes their old distribution channels look downright cheap. Three episodes of "Whitney" costs as much as a month's subscription to Netflix.
- tomkinstinch 15y ago
  Perhaps this is the problem. Does content have inherently lower value now that it is abundant, and distributed for (nearly) free? If content providers charged say, (cost of bandwidth)+10%, for each item rather than arbitrary whole-dollar prices, they would certainly see more takers--and perhaps higher profit.
  - chc 15y ago
    I don't think cost-based pricing is the answer. Cost-based pricing is almost never the answer unless you're a charity, and it creates some really perverse incentives for the producer (for example, if I'm running my web service as cost-plus, it's in my interest to buy gold-plated servers cooled by ice hauled in from Antarctica — 10% of that is a lot more than 10% of $200). I do think the value of entertainment has dropped as the supply has ballooned. The problem is basically just that they're stubborn as a mule and refuse to seriously compete in the market that exists today. They want to keep things the way they were, and if you ask for something else, they'd rather just take their ball and go home than negotiate. And I mean, that's their right, but when they do that, they are really the ones who are undermining their business model.
    - tomkinstinch 15y ago
      Quite right about the perverse side of cost-plus pricing.
- greyish_water 15y ago
  You're comparing purchase with subscription.
- ctdonath 15y ago
  Supply and demand. You're paying that for "Whitney" because three episodes is worth more to you than a month's subscription to Netflix. For some, a flat-rate cable TV subscription is cost effective. For others (me), Netflix + iTunes is a lot less - and yes that includes impulsive $5 rentals; some of us just don't watch that much TV and don't demand the latest high-profile network shows when we do (BTW: what's "Whitney"?).

mikeryan 15y ago

Have you tried Amazon's streaming service? 56,000 titles and counting. You can generally stream to your laptop, Roku device etc. One step further, of the current top 5 or so Movies on the Pirate Bay all the ones that are currently available on DVD are available via Amazon Instant Streaming.

hello_moto 15y ago

In most cases (99.5%, except for foreign movies), you can. The better question is: are you truly willing to pay or are you just like the "I'm a vegetarian meat-eating" guy? You know... wanting to be labelled as "I have CC but no way to spend easily".