4 ms·

Each streaming service has unique content. So each one is completely different. It isn’t like which grocery store has the better price for bananas. There’s no n

Each streaming service has unique content. So each one is completely different. It isn’t like which grocery store has the better price for bananas. There’s no need for streaming services to compete on price because no one else has the same product.

gonzo41 2y ago
I would also add that people actually like movies and shows. But Netflix and the finance bro's who run Hollywood now seem hell bent on just taking quick speculative punts on shows and then running away after 1 season and no advertisement. Personally, I'd be happier if there wasn't multiple streamers and just one big marketplace I could access. And for a lot of people that's bit torrent.
- usrusr 2y ago
  Amazon seems to be the closest thing, with its studio channel subscription modules. If only it wasn't world-eating Amazon! (and if only the implementation did not suck: there are shows on "BBC player", of all things, that I can't get with an English audio track, only an atrocious German dub. Some even start perfectly fine and then surprise-switch to dub only in some later season)
- nicolas_t 2y ago
  And the practice of cancelling shows from Netflix is why I keep cancelling my subscription and waiting for them to have a show I actually like that has more than 1 season before I resubscribe. I have apple tv (because I like For all mankind, Acapulco, Trying, Severance and liked Ted Lasso) and I keep my subscription because they haven't casually cancelled something I liked immediately after engaging my interest. I have Disney plus because we want our son to speak Cantonese and Disney has actually invested in dubbing their cartoons in Cantonese despite the relatively small size of the market. Netflix just pisses me off and doesn't make me want to keep paying. I have bittorrent for things that are not available by streaming (and it amazes me how much content is available thanks to private trackers like PTP) but if a company invests money in providing me with a show I like (Apple TV, amazon occasionally) or preserving a language I care about, I'm going to vote with my wallet for this behavior.
nemomarx 2y ago
Why is this the case, anyway? Music streaming services and ebook stores generally do compete on price or convenience and mostly all have the same content, and they have similar licensing agreements to movies and tv, right?
- Mindwipe 2y ago
  > Music streaming services and ebook stores generally do compete on price or convenience and mostly all have the same content, and they have similar licensing agreements to movies and tv, right? Broadly music licensing was dealt with by collective management because a) music is cheaper and has fewer rightsowners as they are simpler works and b) because radio was the primary means of consumption rather than single asset sales. And such collective schemes generally had legal backing. And ultimately the music model doesn't work - Spotify is slowly drowning financially, which is why they are so desperate to try and do other things where they can get exclusivity - first their push for exclusive podcasts and now their push for exclusive training courses and audiobooks.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  Because book and music publishers generally don't run their own streaming services. We're back to the equivalent of when movie studios owned their own theatre chains. Something that was eventually found to be a violation of antitrust law[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P....
- jasode 2y ago
  >Why is this the case, anyway? Music streaming services [...] mostly all have the same content, Producing song tracks or books is "cheap" compared to tv & films. Because tv series episodes cost more than $1 million each and movies productions can cost over $300 million, the studios are more tightfisted and financially incentivized to hold on to them exclusively for their own networks & streaming platforms instead of licensing it out to all the other streaming services. Right now, the studios believe they can get more $$$ by using their exclusives to attract more subscribers rather than the sum of licensing money they could realistically negotiate from all their competitors. (The streaming competitors all want to underpay for licenses which contradicts the ip owners wanting max dollars.) E.g. Disney thought the old Netflix license contract was too much in favor of Netflix so Disney pulled their content and used it as "exclusives" on their own streaming service to attract subscription revenue. In other words, the early years of Netflix streaming where they seemingly had "everything" (that consumers look back on with fondness) ... was also the time period where Disney/HBO/etc thought they were getting financially shafted by Netflix. Music doesn't have the same economics so the content owners are more willing to syndicate across all music streaming platforms. Nevertheless, there are a few "exclusive" arrangements such as Garth Brooks only offering his studio albums on Amazon Music and rejecting Spotify and Apple Music. It's definitely not the norm compared to tv & movies.

gonzo41 2y ago

I would also add that people actually like movies and shows. But Netflix and the finance bro's who run Hollywood now seem hell bent on just taking quick speculative punts on shows and then running away after 1 season and no advertisement. Personally, I'd be happier if there wasn't multiple streamers and just one big marketplace I could access. And for a lot of people that's bit torrent.

usrusr 2y ago
Amazon seems to be the closest thing, with its studio channel subscription modules. If only it wasn't world-eating Amazon! (and if only the implementation did not suck: there are shows on "BBC player", of all things, that I can't get with an English audio track, only an atrocious German dub. Some even start perfectly fine and then surprise-switch to dub only in some later season)
nicolas_t 2y ago
And the practice of cancelling shows from Netflix is why I keep cancelling my subscription and waiting for them to have a show I actually like that has more than 1 season before I resubscribe. I have apple tv (because I like For all mankind, Acapulco, Trying, Severance and liked Ted Lasso) and I keep my subscription because they haven't casually cancelled something I liked immediately after engaging my interest. I have Disney plus because we want our son to speak Cantonese and Disney has actually invested in dubbing their cartoons in Cantonese despite the relatively small size of the market. Netflix just pisses me off and doesn't make me want to keep paying. I have bittorrent for things that are not available by streaming (and it amazes me how much content is available thanks to private trackers like PTP) but if a company invests money in providing me with a show I like (Apple TV, amazon occasionally) or preserving a language I care about, I'm going to vote with my wallet for this behavior.

nemomarx 2y ago

Why is this the case, anyway? Music streaming services and ebook stores generally do compete on price or convenience and mostly all have the same content, and they have similar licensing agreements to movies and tv, right?

Mindwipe 2y ago
> Music streaming services and ebook stores generally do compete on price or convenience and mostly all have the same content, and they have similar licensing agreements to movies and tv, right? Broadly music licensing was dealt with by collective management because a) music is cheaper and has fewer rightsowners as they are simpler works and b) because radio was the primary means of consumption rather than single asset sales. And such collective schemes generally had legal backing. And ultimately the music model doesn't work - Spotify is slowly drowning financially, which is why they are so desperate to try and do other things where they can get exclusivity - first their push for exclusive podcasts and now their push for exclusive training courses and audiobooks.
AlexandrB 2y ago
Because book and music publishers generally don't run their own streaming services. We're back to the equivalent of when movie studios owned their own theatre chains. Something that was eventually found to be a violation of antitrust law[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P....
jasode 2y ago
>Why is this the case, anyway? Music streaming services [...] mostly all have the same content, Producing song tracks or books is "cheap" compared to tv & films. Because tv series episodes cost more than $1 million each and movies productions can cost over $300 million, the studios are more tightfisted and financially incentivized to hold on to them exclusively for their own networks & streaming platforms instead of licensing it out to all the other streaming services. Right now, the studios believe they can get more $$$ by using their exclusives to attract more subscribers rather than the sum of licensing money they could realistically negotiate from all their competitors. (The streaming competitors all want to underpay for licenses which contradicts the ip owners wanting max dollars.) E.g. Disney thought the old Netflix license contract was too much in favor of Netflix so Disney pulled their content and used it as "exclusives" on their own streaming service to attract subscription revenue. In other words, the early years of Netflix streaming where they seemingly had "everything" (that consumers look back on with fondness) ... was also the time period where Disney/HBO/etc thought they were getting financially shafted by Netflix. Music doesn't have the same economics so the content owners are more willing to syndicate across all music streaming platforms. Nevertheless, there are a few "exclusive" arrangements such as Garth Brooks only offering his studio albums on Amazon Music and rejecting Spotify and Apple Music. It's definitely not the norm compared to tv & movies.