4 ms·

The site looks beautiful and the load time is terrific. You probably shouldn't have invoked Popcorn Time in comparison though because the value prop is totally

The site looks beautiful and the load time is terrific. You probably shouldn't have invoked Popcorn Time in comparison though because the value prop is totally different. This isn't streaming - it's aggregating. This isn't free - it's very expensive. I think you lose the comparison pretty handedly. EDIT: Just to be clear, I do think this site offers a lot of value as an aggregator. I just think inviting the comparison to Popcorn Time is a mistake because, to the limited extent that they are comparable, Popcorn Time is better.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rkangel 12y ago
The remarkable thing about Popcorn Time was how easy it made watching anything you wanted to. To me, the fact that it could only do that by pirating was a downside. I don't want to pirate, I want to pay, but there's nothing on the market that has the range. This solves a major current usability issue with the legal streaming market - that different providers have different things on offer and you have to go and search around to find whether you want to be on Netflix or Amazon Prime. What it doesn't solve is the major issue with the streaming market - watching TV shows as they are broadcast rather than 6 months later as a box set.
- quadrangle 12y ago
  > To me, the fact that it could only do that by sharing was a downside… I don't want to freeride, I want to pay. FTFY
- avalaunch 12y ago
  I agree with all of that. I think this site has a lot of value as an aggregator. It doesn't solve the Popcorn Time problem though because it doesn't make legally streaming movies easy. It just makes them easier to find them. That's not the same. It feels too much like they're trying to ride the wave of Popcorn time's success despite having very little in common. My main point in writing the critique is just that if you invite a comparison between your product and another you should make sure that they're actually comparable and that yours will come out on top. Otherwise you'll turn what could have been a warm reception into a cold one.
  - stalowa29 12y ago
    For me Popcorn Time's biggest value proposition is not free content, but ability the selection and ability to watch with one click. Most media companies, with all the resources at their hands still haven't nail the experience. To find the movie I want I really need to browse multiple catalogues (itunes, amazon, netflix) - neither of them always have what I want. Then you have to login, updates cards and all this hassle. So although right now their sites just aggregates, in the future it could allow you to prepay/buy credits which would be used to pay off the content owner/distributor (i.e amazon) each time you click Play. Point being - to me it make complete sense to compare it PT
- soylentcola 12y ago
  Wasn't that one of the original aims of GoogleTV? There were loads of shows legally available for streaming on network sites and on subscription services (in addition to live broadcast or cable) so you could search for a show or a movie and it would list all the places you could watch it at that time. Alternately you could browse by other criteria. If I remember correctly, network sites and services like Hulu blocked GoogleTV via user agent strings and other methods because they wanted their streaming content to only be used as a secondary method of watching while at your computer, not on your living room TV and placed on and even footing with cable or (heaven forbid) independent/user-generated content. Seems that happened pretty early on in GTV's product history and essentially put a damper on the sort of adoption that would have warranted further improvement of the service.
malandrew 12y ago
I would love something like this where you try to drive traffic to legitimate sources where the content is paid, but when it isn't, you get torrents. i.e. the torrents are only there to meet demand when the industry is too stubborn to do so. This would never happen because you'd get sued into oblivion, but one can dream.
- rhino369 12y ago
  Piracy is the reason you can't stream a movie the day it comes out. Movie theaters are the best DRM available.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  For the nth time, 'the industry' is not monolithic. There isn't some collective bargaining agreement tying up the rights of all the films you want to watch but which are held hostage by mustachio-twirling villains. Every film offered for commercial sale is a separate financial asset of a company, typically the sole asset of the company that owns it, which then licenses it to a distributor within individual countries. Publication and distribution are largely separate economic entities, due to a combination of legal history (studios forbidden to own exhibition chains in the US), regional market knowledge, and language barriers (no studio has the capability to produce subtitles/dub tracks in every potential market). All the legal paperwork for a small independent film is very substantial, and would fill most of a typical bookshelf. I shudder to think what the legal paperwork for a blockbuster looks like, it's probably enough to fill several bookcases. Of course it would be nice if one single service/platform was able to deliver any movie imaginable to some objective standard of quality. But it's not going to happen absent some sort of compulsory licensing scheme, which would run into huge legal/constitutional obstacles in many jurisdictions. Imagine you're the publisher of the film and SuperFilmPlatform.com can start start streaming it without your permission and without you having any say in what you get paid - you'd want to bomb their offices and/or exit the market. How would you ensure fair compensation in an environment that allowed compulsory licensing? Through government price controls? That's basically communism for artists/publishers, capitalism for the distributors. As you're no doubt aware, communism and free artistic expression have a poor record of compatibility.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rkangel 12y ago

The remarkable thing about Popcorn Time was how easy it made watching anything you wanted to. To me, the fact that it could only do that by pirating was a downside. I don't want to pirate, I want to pay, but there's nothing on the market that has the range. This solves a major current usability issue with the legal streaming market - that different providers have different things on offer and you have to go and search around to find whether you want to be on Netflix or Amazon Prime. What it doesn't solve is the major issue with the streaming market - watching TV shows as they are broadcast rather than 6 months later as a box set.

quadrangle 12y ago
> To me, the fact that it could only do that by sharing was a downside… I don't want to freeride, I want to pay. FTFY
avalaunch 12y ago
I agree with all of that. I think this site has a lot of value as an aggregator. It doesn't solve the Popcorn Time problem though because it doesn't make legally streaming movies easy. It just makes them easier to find them. That's not the same. It feels too much like they're trying to ride the wave of Popcorn time's success despite having very little in common. My main point in writing the critique is just that if you invite a comparison between your product and another you should make sure that they're actually comparable and that yours will come out on top. Otherwise you'll turn what could have been a warm reception into a cold one.
- stalowa29 12y ago
  For me Popcorn Time's biggest value proposition is not free content, but ability the selection and ability to watch with one click. Most media companies, with all the resources at their hands still haven't nail the experience. To find the movie I want I really need to browse multiple catalogues (itunes, amazon, netflix) - neither of them always have what I want. Then you have to login, updates cards and all this hassle. So although right now their sites just aggregates, in the future it could allow you to prepay/buy credits which would be used to pay off the content owner/distributor (i.e amazon) each time you click Play. Point being - to me it make complete sense to compare it PT
soylentcola 12y ago
Wasn't that one of the original aims of GoogleTV? There were loads of shows legally available for streaming on network sites and on subscription services (in addition to live broadcast or cable) so you could search for a show or a movie and it would list all the places you could watch it at that time. Alternately you could browse by other criteria. If I remember correctly, network sites and services like Hulu blocked GoogleTV via user agent strings and other methods because they wanted their streaming content to only be used as a secondary method of watching while at your computer, not on your living room TV and placed on and even footing with cable or (heaven forbid) independent/user-generated content. Seems that happened pretty early on in GTV's product history and essentially put a damper on the sort of adoption that would have warranted further improvement of the service.

malandrew 12y ago

I would love something like this where you try to drive traffic to legitimate sources where the content is paid, but when it isn't, you get torrents. i.e. the torrents are only there to meet demand when the industry is too stubborn to do so. This would never happen because you'd get sued into oblivion, but one can dream.

rhino369 12y ago
Piracy is the reason you can't stream a movie the day it comes out. Movie theaters are the best DRM available.
anigbrowl 12y ago
For the nth time, 'the industry' is not monolithic. There isn't some collective bargaining agreement tying up the rights of all the films you want to watch but which are held hostage by mustachio-twirling villains. Every film offered for commercial sale is a separate financial asset of a company, typically the sole asset of the company that owns it, which then licenses it to a distributor within individual countries. Publication and distribution are largely separate economic entities, due to a combination of legal history (studios forbidden to own exhibition chains in the US), regional market knowledge, and language barriers (no studio has the capability to produce subtitles/dub tracks in every potential market). All the legal paperwork for a small independent film is very substantial, and would fill most of a typical bookshelf. I shudder to think what the legal paperwork for a blockbuster looks like, it's probably enough to fill several bookcases. Of course it would be nice if one single service/platform was able to deliver any movie imaginable to some objective standard of quality. But it's not going to happen absent some sort of compulsory licensing scheme, which would run into huge legal/constitutional obstacles in many jurisdictions. Imagine you're the publisher of the film and SuperFilmPlatform.com can start start streaming it without your permission and without you having any say in what you get paid - you'd want to bomb their offices and/or exit the market. How would you ensure fair compensation in an environment that allowed compulsory licensing? Through government price controls? That's basically communism for artists/publishers, capitalism for the distributors. As you're no doubt aware, communism and free artistic expression have a poor record of compatibility.