4 ms·

Other side of the equation is - Production of Content has become cheap. Distribution has become free with global reach. So we have Infinite amount of content

by jdhbb 3y ago

Other side of the equation is - Production of Content has become cheap. Distribution has become free with global reach. So we have Infinite amount of content floating about. Not even bringing generative AI into the picture. So infinite growing Supply. Finite demand.

jpc0 3y ago
> Other side of the equation is - Production of Content has become cheap I spend a lot of time in both production and post production. The price for good content has certianly decreased but it most certianly hasn't become any definition of cheap. Consumers want very hogh quality content these days and that only comes with experienced staff, you can use cheaper gear. > Distribution has become free with global reach Every time someone says this I want to know what where they get this information. So now I am going to ask, prove it. Show me the VOD service or streaming service that is free with global reach. Even network egress from any provider costs a ton of money nevermind compute for transcoding and storage costs. Again prove it.
- jdhbb 3y ago
  Porn is free. They are running the same services. They have proved global distribution is possible. Pretty much like Youtube and Tiktok. Media and Entertainment sector has all kinds of bizarre economics cause it's used by the Telcos(check what AT&T and Comcast own in ME sector), the Tech firms (google/youtube, amazon, netflix, apple) to play empire defense and market capture games. Demand is not decided by the consumer. Or marketing depts won't be getting the budgets they do for demand engineering from their tech and telco overloads. But all that free cash dries up or slows downs once the market capture phase is over which is what has happened with the end of the streaming wars. Disney, Viacom et al have realized they can't compete against tech platforms or telco subsidized shops on the distribution front.
  - jpc0 3y ago
    > Porn is free Open an incognito tab, open <insert popular porn site> what is the very first thing on the page after the age disclaimer. Let me give you a hint, "Meet sexy single in your area" isn't a meme for nothing. Porn is far from free, it is paid for by advertising, and from my recollection they are the ones that revolutionised the ad industry by bringing in pre-roll ads. Regardless, if video distribution is free at a global scale, then go do it. Create a video hosting service with global scale with any video, not even ones people want to watch, create one that serves 40 views a month. Then come back with an income statement that proves your point. That is the point I'm trying to make, you claim it's free purely because you don't know what the actual cost is. I'm not saying the current providers are doing the correct thing. I end up sailing the 7 seas far more than I like purely because I don't even know which one of the 40 services even have the series I want to watch. You know what does? <Insert streaming site with dubious legality> Ps: The majority of porn content is user submitted, you knoe we already have a free video service that does the same thing as porn, it's called YouTube.
- michaelt 3y ago
  > The price for good content has certianly decreased but it most certianly hasn't become any definition of cheap. Big-budget entertainment certainly remains extremely relevant for things like star wars and marvel movies, I agree. Not to mention sports! But the rise of Youtube and Twitch and suchlike have shown there is a great appetite for cheaply produced niche content. Linear TV would never have considered it economical to air 30 minutes of chess coverage every day. But it turns out there's a market for 30+ minutes of chess-themed entertainment per day, paying in the low seven figures annually. And the viewers really don't mind if the mic is in shot or the guy flubs his lines, they'll do the whole thing in one take. And sure it's not literally one guy, I know that low-seven-figures has to pay for video editing and community chat moderation and enough of a creative team to keep things fresh and so on - but compared to the production standards of linear TV, even way back in the 1990s, this stuff is very cheaply produced.
  - jpc0 3y ago
    I completely agree with you on this. We can do phenomenal things for cheao these days. But cheap still isn't that cheap. Just a few 0s disappeared from the end. Let me put it this way, it's unlikely even a large YouTube channel is creating The Mandalorian or The Witcher or The Boys anytime soon with a budget that only advertising will be covering. YouTube is an amazing niche and is the only subscription I will happily pay for monthly. But when I want to see creativity who are truly inspiring it's unlikely YouTube is funding it and I will need to have one of the big providers do that.

by jdhbb 3y ago

jpc0 3y ago

> Other side of the equation is - Production of Content has become cheap I spend a lot of time in both production and post production. The price for good content has certianly decreased but it most certianly hasn't become any definition of cheap. Consumers want very hogh quality content these days and that only comes with experienced staff, you can use cheaper gear. > Distribution has become free with global reach Every time someone says this I want to know what where they get this information. So now I am going to ask, prove it. Show me the VOD service or streaming service that is free with global reach. Even network egress from any provider costs a ton of money nevermind compute for transcoding and storage costs. Again prove it.

jdhbb 3y ago
Porn is free. They are running the same services. They have proved global distribution is possible. Pretty much like Youtube and Tiktok. Media and Entertainment sector has all kinds of bizarre economics cause it's used by the Telcos(check what AT&T and Comcast own in ME sector), the Tech firms (google/youtube, amazon, netflix, apple) to play empire defense and market capture games. Demand is not decided by the consumer. Or marketing depts won't be getting the budgets they do for demand engineering from their tech and telco overloads. But all that free cash dries up or slows downs once the market capture phase is over which is what has happened with the end of the streaming wars. Disney, Viacom et al have realized they can't compete against tech platforms or telco subsidized shops on the distribution front.
- jpc0 3y ago
  > Porn is free Open an incognito tab, open <insert popular porn site> what is the very first thing on the page after the age disclaimer. Let me give you a hint, "Meet sexy single in your area" isn't a meme for nothing. Porn is far from free, it is paid for by advertising, and from my recollection they are the ones that revolutionised the ad industry by bringing in pre-roll ads. Regardless, if video distribution is free at a global scale, then go do it. Create a video hosting service with global scale with any video, not even ones people want to watch, create one that serves 40 views a month. Then come back with an income statement that proves your point. That is the point I'm trying to make, you claim it's free purely because you don't know what the actual cost is. I'm not saying the current providers are doing the correct thing. I end up sailing the 7 seas far more than I like purely because I don't even know which one of the 40 services even have the series I want to watch. You know what does? <Insert streaming site with dubious legality> Ps: The majority of porn content is user submitted, you knoe we already have a free video service that does the same thing as porn, it's called YouTube.
michaelt 3y ago
> The price for good content has certianly decreased but it most certianly hasn't become any definition of cheap. Big-budget entertainment certainly remains extremely relevant for things like star wars and marvel movies, I agree. Not to mention sports! But the rise of Youtube and Twitch and suchlike have shown there is a great appetite for cheaply produced niche content. Linear TV would never have considered it economical to air 30 minutes of chess coverage every day. But it turns out there's a market for 30+ minutes of chess-themed entertainment per day, paying in the low seven figures annually. And the viewers really don't mind if the mic is in shot or the guy flubs his lines, they'll do the whole thing in one take. And sure it's not literally one guy, I know that low-seven-figures has to pay for video editing and community chat moderation and enough of a creative team to keep things fresh and so on - but compared to the production standards of linear TV, even way back in the 1990s, this stuff is very cheaply produced.
- jpc0 3y ago
  I completely agree with you on this. We can do phenomenal things for cheao these days. But cheap still isn't that cheap. Just a few 0s disappeared from the end. Let me put it this way, it's unlikely even a large YouTube channel is creating The Mandalorian or The Witcher or The Boys anytime soon with a budget that only advertising will be covering. YouTube is an amazing niche and is the only subscription I will happily pay for monthly. But when I want to see creativity who are truly inspiring it's unlikely YouTube is funding it and I will need to have one of the big providers do that.