The TV Industry Will Unravel Faster Than People Think | Hacker News Reader

The TV Industry Will Unravel Faster Than People Think

medium.com

31 pointsDoubleguitars18 comments

While TV mega-conglomerates transition into the future focusing on what they think works best for their business model to maintain/increase revenue, others like myself see what it should be, access to everything whenever access is wanted.

"Unraveling" television isn't what's happening, it's a huge knot that needs to be cut out. Netflix is now successful as a content producer, not just a distributor. Netflix has become a channel, and I'm okay with a handful of channels that collectively have all of the content that I get to choose which I subscribe. Make it simple:

Two all you can eat options: 1) Subscription w/ no ads 2) No subscription w/ ads.

- Any pre-recorded video content should be on demand through a subscription service or rental service.

- Any live content should be streamed online, with rental/purchase access for the time of the content, unless content is under one of the subscription umbrellas

- Implement better filtering systems to find content based on studio, talent, reviews/ratings, date, and the other categories already established

- Major networks need to pull the bandaid off, and stop this confusing business of licensing per device (content removal after expiration, only on web not on mobile)

While I understand this is easier said than done, we all know what the best experience would be in the end, and eventually we'll get there, but communicating that to the TV heads of yesterday shouldn't take stripping them of viewers and revenue by moving over to services such as Netflix. It's such a slow transition this way.

I think the idea that Facebook, Snapchat and Twitter would be the biggest beneficiaries is mistaken. Facebook is obviously a behemoth in anything it does just because its user base is so huge right now, but it is in decline. The future of anything is not in Facebook. Young people know Facebook isn't cool.

Snapchat is cute but it's never going to be the dominant anything. It's an app for seeing pictures of naked girls that people also use to share pictures of food and stuff.

Twitter has also stagnated and Periscope was a still birth.

Youtube is the king of online video, and will continue to be so for some time. Twitch is the king of streaming live gaming video, and will continue to dominate that space. Its efforts to expand into other areas have been hindered by the fact that a) the audience for watching people do other stuff besides play games live is not as big and b) for things that might have some audience appeal like say cooking or whatever, Twitch hasn't reached those audiences (and its not friendly to those audiences since everything about Twitch screams gaming. Which it should since that's where its money is.)

The place where Youtube and Twitch fall flat is narrative entertainment video. Netflix, Hulu and Amazon obviously dominate that space. I agree with the analysis that the current industry mindset of "We all make our own apps and make our own money!" is not the future. Everybody's only limiting their own audiences there. If anyone can manage to bundle multiple quality video subscription services (e.g. if Amazon could bundle Hulu + HBO) of your choosing they would see massive subscriber increases.

That's the thing that's missing right now, is a la cart bundling. And why the cable industry is dying. We by default have a la cart bundling online right now but there's no discount for doing multiple. If someone can manage that (i.e. Apple) they're in a good state.

> The future of anything is not in Facebook. Young people know Facebook isn't cool.

The future doesn't have to be cool, though. Facebook is nearing the position of just being a universal social platform. Not "buzzy" and "cool", but nonetheless something everyone uses.

> Snapchat is cute but it's never going to be the dominant anything. It's an app for seeing pictures of naked girls that people also use to share pictures of food and stuff.

OK, you lost me there. I don't use Snapchat myself, but even at a quick glance it's clear that the younger generation use it obsessively, for everything. The "naked pics" argument hasn't been true in years.

It's past the point of being something everybody uses, that's what I was getting at. Young people don't use Facebook and more and more people are leaving it. I think we are past Peak Facebook. :)

Snapchat has high usage right now but it's like Instagram or Flickr or Yahoo Images before it, it's not a social network and it's easily abandoned at a moment. In fact, even more easily than any of those since you don't have a library of content on it that you are tied to.

It's not that FB isn't cool. Facebook is something for people who have established identities. It's not a place where you can experiment with different identities. Young people have FB accounts, but they don't spend much time there b/c youth is the time you have to establish an identity of your own.

That's not it at all. FB is just lame. It's the place where your grandma posts rants about Obama being Hitler. It's the place where your mom comments on all your pictures with your friends.

It has nothing to do with establishing an identity and everything to do with it being the online equivalent of your Aunt's living room on Thanksgiving.

Defining and expressing "coolness" is an essential part of articulating an identity. As is curating your relationships to different audiences.

I agree with the premise. People aren't going to pay 5-10/monthly for each channel/studio/etc. So the "BIG" networks are in for some hurt. Maybe customers will "rotate" and buy 6 months of CBS, binge, then cancel and do 6 months of FOX, etc???

What I see over the next 5-10 years is a bunch of exclusives happening as each new/current streaming service attempts to grab users by having the best content.

However, I think content creators will wake up and instead see their share can increase by selling the same content to multiple streaming services.

I see the transition between these two taking close to a decade for many reasons:

1) There aren't many major streaming companies YET. So they each have huge sums to slosh around for exclusivity.

2) Current contracts are multi-year.

3) Each channel/studio hasn't created its own online platform (app) yet. Attempting to be its own HBO/Netflix. This is coming, some are quicker than others.

I guess the real question is, what happens when every broadcast channel has its own online "app" available for 5-10/month, with only its own content? I personally think they capitulate and license their content to as many other streaming providers as possible to increase revenue. This leads consumers to pick streaming providers based on which "channels/studios" they have. And now we're back to channel packages. Except on the internet.

Except this time, maybe no commercials?? And less fixed on time (ie not every series must have episodes be either 22/30 or 44/60 minutes long).

All that's changing is the medium. The media aren't even that different -- the same coaxial I plugged into for television and internet now gives me just internet which I use to view the same content as before via Netflix, PSVue, HBO Go, etc.

As for financial news, I watch Bloomberg which has already streamed on many devices including Roku for years.

I don't want to watch television on my laptop or phone either. I want it on my television.

> All that's changing is the medium.

This is not a minor thing. The competitive landscape and barrier to entry is completely different on an open platform like the web.

this is just a blog post from an investor who wants this to happen.

> It seeks to reinvent financials news for the millennial generation.

Is it horribly cynical to think this is just going to be an even worse version of something like CNN?

Am I completely off by thinking that good content will be popular across generations without needing to focus on only one?

I just wish I could pay 20-30 bucks per month, and stream all sport live.

> The most obvious beneficiaries of the decline of old TV media will be the dominant social networks who nail video: Facebook, Snapchat,* and perhaps Twitter, if the whole Periscope thing works out.

I did a double take at this. Snapchat and Twitter? Where are Youtube, Netflix, Hulu, or Twitch?

I am not able to load chedder.com, hopefully they can bounce back relatively quickly. [1]

Generally, I think this is a pretty good analysis. I think that it's very difficult to predict when this shift is going to happen though. Clearly the demographics are not in traditional TVs favor, but there are still significant lock-in effects due to sports and other live events. There is also a tremendous amount of media content that is owned by these traditional networks, and on top of that they seem to be verticalizing.

As a milllenial, I don't have a cable TV subscription, I pay for Netflix/Amazon due to the amazing original content and the non-stupid delivery on my internet devices. I do watch a ton of TV shows through 'alternative' means. For live sports, I either opt-out of the sport altogether, go to a bar, or go to excruciating lengths to pick up an online stream. There is no easy way to be a cord cutter due to a cluster-f* of blackouts, poor distribution systems, and ancient players trying desperately to cling to their old business models. My household is probably worth another $20-$50 a month for a competent streaming service. I will check out Cheddar. I'm also not alone, basically everyone in my income, age, and geographic breakdown is the same.

1. I work for the CDN Fastly, if you are from Chedder we can help get your site back online, email me at [myusername] @ fastly.com if you need assistance.

it's http://www.cheddar.com/ not chedder.

Ahh, I see that now, Thank you! I went off the spelling and the link from the Medium article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com