5 ms·

This goes to show people are sick of having to buy 5-10 services just to see all their things, they'd rather get a single pirate stream with them all. Just if y

This goes to show people are sick of having to buy 5-10 services just to see all their things, they'd rather get a single pirate stream with them all. Just if you watch US football, you have to subscribe to no less than 5 services to get them all, and international sports are even worse for their football or whatever. Even one of the Seattle Seahawks players got caught watching his own games on a pirate source because even the rich ballers are sick of the all services. It's just far too easy for me to go download whatever I want to even pay for services, pirate or the real media cartels.

brandonmenc 2y ago
"Why can't I just buy cable channels à la carte?!" - everyone circa early 2000s We got exactly what we begged for.
- Pigalowda 2y ago
  Cable tv sucks. It still exists and still sucks. I don’t think anyone was begging for the fragmented options we have now. Ideally people want to buy what they want to consume/use. Instead they make us pay fees for a bundle of garbage product rather than sell us the actual product we want. Everything as pay per view would be great. Maybe even include dynamic pricing.
  - flir 2y ago
    > Everything as pay per view would be great. I really really don't want this. I want a flat monthly rate for all the things.
  - inopinatus 2y ago
    “shall we watch that new show?” “which one” “the Papacy one” “you mean pay-per-view”
- atrus 2y ago
  Except we didn't. Instead of 500 channels we don't want, we have 10 services with 50 channels. We've managed to actually find the worst of both worlds, which in of itself is an impressive accomplishment.
  - TylerE 2y ago
    Most of those 500 were paying to be carried, not the other way around.
- technofiend 2y ago
  I realize this is ancient history, but prior to cable people got Big Ugly Dishes aka C Band dishes and at the time you could subscribe ala carte. When cable came along they practically doubled prices when they also bundled channels ostensibly for convenience but also allegedly due to bundling/license agreements with content providers. The grumbling about unbundling then was due to the price hikes.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    I do remember a lot of people complaining about paying for all those channels when all they really wanted was sports. Without realizing that sports was what cost so much, the rest of the channels were almost free.
    - technofiend 2y ago
      Yes, true today and the opposite for many: they don't want an expensive bundled subscription to subsidize sports when they don't watch sports themselves.
- Refusing23 2y ago
  people begged for 1 streaming service that had ALL The content instead we got ~25 different streaming services that varies from country to country, and end up costing more than cable tv, if you want them all.
- bawolff 2y ago
  In 2008 it was about $60 for ~118 channels ( my source is https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/technology/24cable.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/technology/24cable.html which isn't very good arguably). So lets round and say $0.50 a channel. If netflix et al only cost $0.50, i'd have no problem subscribing to 10 services. Really, the whole cable a la carte thing was really a response to false advertising. Cable liked to advertise each channel as being equal - as if you were spending $0.50 per channel when really you were spending $50 on the good channels, and the other junk was free.
- bastard_op 2y ago
  We wanted a cheaper cable bill when they were 100-150/mo usd, and as you said we got them in the form of all the media cartel services for $10-20/mo each + 50-150/mo internet data. It's still the same problem. Cable is nothing but a streaming service itself, a cable box is nothing more than a cable modem getting online the same way your data modem does, and streams video the same way as streaming services do, but it's 1000 channels of random crap full of commercials instead of just one media brand in streaming.
- pempem 2y ago
  I dont know why consumers have such a hard-on to blame other consumers. Are you, brandonmenc a cable CEO? Are you make $$$ from gouging subscribers? I highly doubt it. So why the affinity? Certainly you can see that the cable channels were overcharging, we had 100s of channels like the 'golf channel' with useless programming that were part of 'bundles' you couldn't unbundle and frankly, there were multiple lawsuits of cable companies overcharging incorrectly, not letting people out of contracts etc. Consumers wanted more choice and control. For the briefest second they got it, but at that very moment when Hulu was independent and Netflix was streaming and GoogleTV was just starting to make a run for it. At that moment, before Google even thought of chromecast and ABC couldn't give a shit about buying Hulu and telecom executives couldn't not understand dual screen viewing (where you're on your phone and watching TV at the same time) there were massive consulting and strategy meetings about not only recapturing the 'wallet' of spend, but increasing it. Discussing how to bring the spend of a household on cable (say 45-100/mo) to a higher number, to a per person segmentation rather than household. Even if we did 'beg' for it. I dont think we begged to sift through titles and memberships in a way thats worse than blockbuster some nights. Source: Was responsible for defining the second screen experience, merchandising shows in real time, etc.
  - brandonmenc 2y ago
    > we had 100s of channels like the 'golf channel' with useless programming Hey, I like the golf channel. I'm not sure what the complaint is here. People wanted individual channels. Now at last they can buy just the Disney channel for ten bucks a month and get all the latest lame Star Wars miniseries without yucky sports. How is this not a deal? Is that not what everyone wanted? If people are now saying they want to just like, pay a dollar for a single Star War, well, good luck.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
These takes are so overly simplistic. People like free/cheap stuff, no shit. I'm not saying that having lots of subscription services isn't annoying, but your argument could easily apply to lots of things that people pay money for that they would rather get for free if they had the chance.
- BLKNSLVR 2y ago
  What I think bastard_op means is that more people would be more likely to pay for a legitimate services if it was a better aggregator of content. Navigating between the X services available to find 'thing you want to watch' is frustrating, time consuming, and expensive. You appear to be simplifiying it down to only the 'expensive' aspect. And more than likely that's the primary motivator, but the other factors aren't nothing. Additionally, the customers are paying at least something for this service, so it's not free. In this instance there happens to be an (illegitimate, but still) alternative that's easy enough for 22 million customers to have worked out how to set up, operate, and prefer.
  - Aurornis 2y ago
    > Navigating between the X services available to find 'thing you want to watch' is frustrating, time consuming, and expensive. Apple TV and other TV boxes have aggregated services for a long time now. You can search for content across providers from one interface. Pirate streaming sites aren’t exactly known for their quality, consistency, reliability, and ease of use. I bet it was more frustrating to use the pirate service, especially for those dealing with subtitles and alternate audio. This really does come down to expense.
    - Shugarl 2y ago
      > Pirate streaming sites aren’t exactly known for their quality, consistency, reliability, and ease of use. The great ones, that gets a lot of word of mouth recommandations, are definitely better in my experience.
- ANewFormation 2y ago
emmelaich 2y ago
There'd be a market here for a single service for which you could add individual shows from any other streaming service. You'd pay more per show, but that would be perfectly ok for many people. Unfortunately vested interests within each service would make this impossible due to the level of cooperation required.
- arlcode 2y ago
  I mean it makes sense. Everyone can see what ridiculous power apple and Google have gained over "their" developers and the steep fees they demand. TV content producers wouldn't want to put themselves in a similar position if they can avoid it.
- lithos 2y ago
  YouTube does this as a feature that randomly gets advertised hard, then completely disappears into Google idiotic GUI design.
Aurornis 2y ago
> This goes to show people are sick of having to buy 5-10 services just to see all their things, they'd rather get a single pirate stream with them all. I don’t understand this desire to do mental gymnastics to ignore the elephant in the room: The primary driver for these people was not convenience. Pirate services are flakey, don’t always have the content you want, have quirky content, and generally require some work to navigate. These people weren’t seeking convenience. They signed up because it was cheap. They wanted to save money and they’d give up some of the polish and convenience of a mainstream app and service to save that money.
- vunderba 2y ago
  I don't think you (or anyone else) can speak authoritatively on why people were flocking to this particular service. It could be a thousand different reasons - As somebody who HAS ACTUALLY lived abroad for years, paying for a streaming service and still being region locked is pretty damn annoying - Quality of the service. Some pirate sites are flaky, but seedbox style or popcorn time style services are pretty solid. Maybe you're thinking of just a random streaming website? etc. etc.
- rescbr 2y ago
  You can trade money for convenience. People that simply want stuff for free can waste 5 minutes to figure out how to use a torrent client. Hell, 20 years ago I had to invest time and trust to get the connections to proper IRC distribution channels to get releases as soon as they were made available by the scene. Yeah, I was a teenager without money to pay for a proper Usenet subscription to download Linux ISOs. :) As soon as Netflix entered the streaming market in my country, it didn't take long for me to stop sailing the seas. I bet these pirates got a nice and shiny app to make official streaming platforms envious.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  You're missing a case where the paid option just isn't offered. Sports events in particular are often blacked out in certain areas. Other content is also blocked by region. There are thousands of people who would gladly pay to watch this content legitmately, but it isn't an option. So you find them on a pirate service.
MrMember 2y ago
There was a brief period of time where Netflix was the absolute peak of online streaming. Most of the major studios were putting their movies and shows there, Netflix was starting to dip their toes in creating original high quality content, and all of it was available for a reasonable monthly price. Now when I want to watch something I don't even bother trying to figure out what service it's on (if any), I just grab a torrent. Managing subscriptions for a dozen different services and trying to keep track of what I'm subscribed to and why is laughable when it's so easy to get it for free.
- bastard_op 2y ago
  These days it's automatic too, the episodes just show up on your hard drive as soon as they're released for whatever you subscribe to or put on your wanted list. If more people did that, maybe the media cartels will humble some.
lm28469 2y ago
Exactly, on average I watch a movie per week, if not less, I'm not going to spend $25-100/month and sacrifice a goat in the hope that whatever I want to watch on that specific day is available in my region/language. I could rent them but most providers either don't have what I want to watch or only provide it in my local language, which is neither the original version nor my native language. Sometimes I meet with friends who have all the services and we still end up torrenting because there are issues 50% of the time (technical problems, availability, geolock, subtitles only available in local languages, &c.)
thedrbrian 2y ago
even worse than that is how the sports get blocked out depending on who has sold what rights to who. Eg . the uk premier league has sold the rights to uk teams to sky and bt but sky and bt won't always show all 10 of the days games. so you can be in the situation where your team are playing a game you can't get tickets to[all sold out] that you can't pay anyone legally to watch. yet you go on holiday to Europe and every bar will have Bein or ESPN or whatever showing every.single.match. live

brandonmenc 2y ago

"Why can't I just buy cable channels à la carte?!" - everyone circa early 2000s We got exactly what we begged for.

Pigalowda 2y ago
Cable tv sucks. It still exists and still sucks. I don’t think anyone was begging for the fragmented options we have now. Ideally people want to buy what they want to consume/use. Instead they make us pay fees for a bundle of garbage product rather than sell us the actual product we want. Everything as pay per view would be great. Maybe even include dynamic pricing.
- flir 2y ago
  > Everything as pay per view would be great. I really really don't want this. I want a flat monthly rate for all the things.
- inopinatus 2y ago
  “shall we watch that new show?” “which one” “the Papacy one” “you mean pay-per-view”
atrus 2y ago
Except we didn't. Instead of 500 channels we don't want, we have 10 services with 50 channels. We've managed to actually find the worst of both worlds, which in of itself is an impressive accomplishment.
- TylerE 2y ago
  Most of those 500 were paying to be carried, not the other way around.
technofiend 2y ago
I realize this is ancient history, but prior to cable people got Big Ugly Dishes aka C Band dishes and at the time you could subscribe ala carte. When cable came along they practically doubled prices when they also bundled channels ostensibly for convenience but also allegedly due to bundling/license agreements with content providers. The grumbling about unbundling then was due to the price hikes.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  I do remember a lot of people complaining about paying for all those channels when all they really wanted was sports. Without realizing that sports was what cost so much, the rest of the channels were almost free.
  - technofiend 2y ago
    Yes, true today and the opposite for many: they don't want an expensive bundled subscription to subsidize sports when they don't watch sports themselves.
Refusing23 2y ago
people begged for 1 streaming service that had ALL The content instead we got ~25 different streaming services that varies from country to country, and end up costing more than cable tv, if you want them all.
bawolff 2y ago
In 2008 it was about $60 for ~118 channels ( my source is https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/technology/24cable.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/technology/24cable.html which isn't very good arguably). So lets round and say $0.50 a channel. If netflix et al only cost $0.50, i'd have no problem subscribing to 10 services. Really, the whole cable a la carte thing was really a response to false advertising. Cable liked to advertise each channel as being equal - as if you were spending $0.50 per channel when really you were spending $50 on the good channels, and the other junk was free.
bastard_op 2y ago
We wanted a cheaper cable bill when they were 100-150/mo usd, and as you said we got them in the form of all the media cartel services for $10-20/mo each + 50-150/mo internet data. It's still the same problem. Cable is nothing but a streaming service itself, a cable box is nothing more than a cable modem getting online the same way your data modem does, and streams video the same way as streaming services do, but it's 1000 channels of random crap full of commercials instead of just one media brand in streaming.
pempem 2y ago
I dont know why consumers have such a hard-on to blame other consumers. Are you, brandonmenc a cable CEO? Are you make $$$ from gouging subscribers? I highly doubt it. So why the affinity? Certainly you can see that the cable channels were overcharging, we had 100s of channels like the 'golf channel' with useless programming that were part of 'bundles' you couldn't unbundle and frankly, there were multiple lawsuits of cable companies overcharging incorrectly, not letting people out of contracts etc. Consumers wanted more choice and control. For the briefest second they got it, but at that very moment when Hulu was independent and Netflix was streaming and GoogleTV was just starting to make a run for it. At that moment, before Google even thought of chromecast and ABC couldn't give a shit about buying Hulu and telecom executives couldn't not understand dual screen viewing (where you're on your phone and watching TV at the same time) there were massive consulting and strategy meetings about not only recapturing the 'wallet' of spend, but increasing it. Discussing how to bring the spend of a household on cable (say 45-100/mo) to a higher number, to a per person segmentation rather than household. Even if we did 'beg' for it. I dont think we begged to sift through titles and memberships in a way thats worse than blockbuster some nights. Source: Was responsible for defining the second screen experience, merchandising shows in real time, etc.
- brandonmenc 2y ago
  > we had 100s of channels like the 'golf channel' with useless programming Hey, I like the golf channel. I'm not sure what the complaint is here. People wanted individual channels. Now at last they can buy just the Disney channel for ten bucks a month and get all the latest lame Star Wars miniseries without yucky sports. How is this not a deal? Is that not what everyone wanted? If people are now saying they want to just like, pay a dollar for a single Star War, well, good luck.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

These takes are so overly simplistic. People like free/cheap stuff, no shit. I'm not saying that having lots of subscription services isn't annoying, but your argument could easily apply to lots of things that people pay money for that they would rather get for free if they had the chance.

BLKNSLVR 2y ago
What I think bastard_op means is that more people would be more likely to pay for a legitimate services if it was a better aggregator of content. Navigating between the X services available to find 'thing you want to watch' is frustrating, time consuming, and expensive. You appear to be simplifiying it down to only the 'expensive' aspect. And more than likely that's the primary motivator, but the other factors aren't nothing. Additionally, the customers are paying at least something for this service, so it's not free. In this instance there happens to be an (illegitimate, but still) alternative that's easy enough for 22 million customers to have worked out how to set up, operate, and prefer.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  > Navigating between the X services available to find 'thing you want to watch' is frustrating, time consuming, and expensive. Apple TV and other TV boxes have aggregated services for a long time now. You can search for content across providers from one interface. Pirate streaming sites aren’t exactly known for their quality, consistency, reliability, and ease of use. I bet it was more frustrating to use the pirate service, especially for those dealing with subtitles and alternate audio. This really does come down to expense.
  - Shugarl 2y ago
    > Pirate streaming sites aren’t exactly known for their quality, consistency, reliability, and ease of use. The great ones, that gets a lot of word of mouth recommandations, are definitely better in my experience.
ANewFormation 2y ago

emmelaich 2y ago

There'd be a market here for a single service for which you could add individual shows from any other streaming service. You'd pay more per show, but that would be perfectly ok for many people. Unfortunately vested interests within each service would make this impossible due to the level of cooperation required.

arlcode 2y ago
I mean it makes sense. Everyone can see what ridiculous power apple and Google have gained over "their" developers and the steep fees they demand. TV content producers wouldn't want to put themselves in a similar position if they can avoid it.
lithos 2y ago
YouTube does this as a feature that randomly gets advertised hard, then completely disappears into Google idiotic GUI design.

Aurornis 2y ago

> This goes to show people are sick of having to buy 5-10 services just to see all their things, they'd rather get a single pirate stream with them all. I don’t understand this desire to do mental gymnastics to ignore the elephant in the room: The primary driver for these people was not convenience. Pirate services are flakey, don’t always have the content you want, have quirky content, and generally require some work to navigate. These people weren’t seeking convenience. They signed up because it was cheap. They wanted to save money and they’d give up some of the polish and convenience of a mainstream app and service to save that money.

vunderba 2y ago
I don't think you (or anyone else) can speak authoritatively on why people were flocking to this particular service. It could be a thousand different reasons - As somebody who HAS ACTUALLY lived abroad for years, paying for a streaming service and still being region locked is pretty damn annoying - Quality of the service. Some pirate sites are flaky, but seedbox style or popcorn time style services are pretty solid. Maybe you're thinking of just a random streaming website? etc. etc.
rescbr 2y ago
You can trade money for convenience. People that simply want stuff for free can waste 5 minutes to figure out how to use a torrent client. Hell, 20 years ago I had to invest time and trust to get the connections to proper IRC distribution channels to get releases as soon as they were made available by the scene. Yeah, I was a teenager without money to pay for a proper Usenet subscription to download Linux ISOs. :) As soon as Netflix entered the streaming market in my country, it didn't take long for me to stop sailing the seas. I bet these pirates got a nice and shiny app to make official streaming platforms envious.
SoftTalker 2y ago
You're missing a case where the paid option just isn't offered. Sports events in particular are often blacked out in certain areas. Other content is also blocked by region. There are thousands of people who would gladly pay to watch this content legitmately, but it isn't an option. So you find them on a pirate service.

MrMember 2y ago

There was a brief period of time where Netflix was the absolute peak of online streaming. Most of the major studios were putting their movies and shows there, Netflix was starting to dip their toes in creating original high quality content, and all of it was available for a reasonable monthly price. Now when I want to watch something I don't even bother trying to figure out what service it's on (if any), I just grab a torrent. Managing subscriptions for a dozen different services and trying to keep track of what I'm subscribed to and why is laughable when it's so easy to get it for free.

bastard_op 2y ago
These days it's automatic too, the episodes just show up on your hard drive as soon as they're released for whatever you subscribe to or put on your wanted list. If more people did that, maybe the media cartels will humble some.

lm28469 2y ago

Exactly, on average I watch a movie per week, if not less, I'm not going to spend $25-100/month and sacrifice a goat in the hope that whatever I want to watch on that specific day is available in my region/language. I could rent them but most providers either don't have what I want to watch or only provide it in my local language, which is neither the original version nor my native language. Sometimes I meet with friends who have all the services and we still end up torrenting because there are issues 50% of the time (technical problems, availability, geolock, subtitles only available in local languages, &c.)

thedrbrian 2y ago

even worse than that is how the sports get blocked out depending on who has sold what rights to who. Eg . the uk premier league has sold the rights to uk teams to sky and bt but sky and bt won't always show all 10 of the days games. so you can be in the situation where your team are playing a game you can't get tickets to[all sold out] that you can't pay anyone legally to watch. yet you go on holiday to Europe and every bar will have Bein or ESPN or whatever showing every.single.match. live