Hacker News Reader

Comment by 15charlimit | Hacker News Reader

Nobody wants a dozen different "movie subscriptions" just like nobody wants a dozen different "streaming service" subscriptions.

The value of the early movers/original services is that they gave access to EVERYTHING (or nearly everything) with a single login/payment.

Whatever value was originally generated by the first service is quickly lost as soon as everyone and their dog gets greedy, spins up their own special snowflake version of (service), and pulls their content out of the original service. This forces consumers to choose between signing up & paying for a dozen different services, or canceling everything and simply going back to the convenience & ease of piracy, which, incidentally, makes everything from everywhere available in a single location (value!).

View on HN

It's at least worth asking if the streaming future you implicitly envision here -- where one service, presumably Netflix, becomes the gatekeeper for nearly all commercial streaming content, dictating what is available to us to watch and, by virtue of their market power, effectively dictating what producers will be paid -- is really all silver lining and no cloud. (There are also downsides to advocating piracy as the solution, and whether it's convenient and easy is definitely in the eye of the beholder, but that's a different discussion.)

For MoviePass vs. AMC Stubs Plus or whatever they're calling it, the market dynamics are different from streaming, anyway; while there are movies that are released exclusively to specific theatre chains, they're few and far between. So in practice, very few people are going to feel compelled to subscribe to both services in order to see all movies -- they're going to subscribe to one or the other.

Also, last but not least, there's strong evidence that the value to moviegoers that MoviePass represents comes from a "the more you use our service, the more money we lose" model. I am not sure that I would sneer at AMC as a "special snowflake" for questioning the wisdom there.

The answer is simple, non-lockin to any particular theater chain. Revenue of the $20/mo is split across multiple theatre chains, and goers can see a movie at any participating chain.

Theaters get predictable revenue and guaranteed income, and viewers get a bulk discount.

All you can 'eat', and theater chain freedom are two different features. They can still keep both.

Except why would the big chains want to be involved, when they could create their own with lock-in to their chain?

Because their own chain versions are bad ($20/month for 3 movies/week for just AMC vs $10/month for 1movie/day anywhere) and will not be successful with consumers.

This reminds me of the late 90s/early 2000s when record company’s response to Napster/mp3 was to make worse services for more money. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PressPlay

I'm a Moviepass holder myself, and I love it, but let's face it. It's not going to last. It's losing money and the chains don't like it. Yes, I'd prefer a future with Moviepass, just as I'd like everything to be on Netflix, but neither are going to be the future. Like it or not, multiple streaming services and (likely) multiple movie subscriptions are the future. What this will mean is that people will only have one or two just like they have one or two streaming services.

"Because their own chain versions are bad ($20/month for 3 movies/week for just AMC vs $10/month for 1movie/day anywhere) and will not be successful with consumers."

The AMC one also doesn't involve the dog and pony show you have to pull off with MoviePass, it includes premium showings like IMAX and stuff, and if you're in a place where most, if not all of your local theaters are AMC, it's not a problem.

There are likely a few conditions where this made sense. Just like Pressplay also had a few users.

But I’m willing to bet anyone a $100 value smart contract that this thing will not exist for long.

In your case, there is no guaranteed income for any participating exhibitor because they still have to compete to get viewers in their theater for their share of the $20.

Alaa,the income is lower and not predictable.

> It's at least worth asking if the streaming future you implicitly envision here -- where one service, presumably Netflix, becomes the gatekeeper for nearly all commercial streaming content, dictating what is available to us to watch and, by virtue of their market power, effectively dictating what producers will be paid -- is really all silver lining and no cloud. (There are also downsides to advocating piracy as the solution, and whether it's convenient and easy is definitely in the eye of the beholder, but that's a different discussion.)

It would be nice if there was a universal protocol for streaming music, video, movies, and etc. It'd create something that people can build hardware gateways to spec.

Netflix is only a gatekeeper to their own content. The licensed library isn't allowed to grow because they don't have the cash to let it become a one stop shop. They did have it with their original DVD model but that's being killed off.

How many different theater chains are around you? This isn't like streaming services where it may not make sense to have Streaming Pass A and Streaming Pass B if they primarily share content.

Quality ones here, 2. Total this-or-that proposition here as they have the same offerings.

Why I didn't do MoviePass (beyond the unsustainable nature of it and the seemingly cutthroat nature by which they try to get theaters to essentially profit share) but am really considering this is if: 1) it is painless. MoviePass appears to require a bit more effort than I'd like. 2) IMAX/3D/etc.

Around me there are 3 "major" multiplex cinemas as well as 2 smaller independent theaters. Having moviepass is helpful in this case. While the major ones have some overlapping content each of them also seem to have some unique movies that only they show.

On top of this I get the benefit of being able to see a movie when traveling. Granted this may not be on everyone's list of things to do when traveling. For me going to see a movie with family a few hours away and doing something before/after is something nice to do. This doesn't work well if the theater branded movie subscription doesn't have a theater in the location you are going to. However with moviepass it is never an issue for me.

There is an appeal for me for AMC's special snowflake. I have been going to AMC exclusively for the past 10 years or so because I like their ICEE flavors; I'm quite sad that White Cherry is being removed nationwide. I will go to other theatres if I need too but even before I got a movie pass I've been going to AMC. I'm a Stub's member too, so right now my question is if the points I get from my subscription vs the points from using my stubs card and movie pass debt card is better. I also tend to only go to one or two movies each weekend and max at three.

I'm not the only one like this, but I am a minority.

AMC was doomed they replaced their MovieWatcher program (pro consumer) that was great with their Stubs program (rent seeking) that sucks and changes quite a bit.

It reflected a change from a useful service for movie fans, to a service trying to extract recurring revenue from customers.

That was very true this evening. You can no longer get points with your MoviePass card.

This makes no sense to me. People go to movies near where they live.

This is like blasting gym memberships for being limited to one chain.

Do most people have more than one theater that they visit frequently? I'd personally be fine with a subscription to just one chain, since almost all chains have almost all of the content.

I only have 3 chains near me, but I visit different ones based on schedule. Theaters are a commodity to me, except for a few drafthouses that play special movies.

Well, there are standard theaters that have the blockbusters, and you are right that the chain really doesn't matter, but there are also art theaters that have the more intellectual films not shown in the big theaters. Those generally aren't owned by chains. Currently MoviePass works with both the chains and the indies in my area. Which is great for as long as it lasts.

Most people likely have one brand of theater around them. For them, there isn't much difference in availability between MoviePass and that chain's offering.

The population is heavily weighted to urban areas, and urban areas tend to have multiple major chains, multiple local independents, and possibly regional chains.

I doubt very much that most people only have a single “brand of theater” (or even single firm, since some firms of multiple brands) around them, for ant reasonable definition of “around”.

Where I'm at, while there are a couple AMC theaters, the place is heavily dominated by Edwards/Regal theaters. While yes, there would be more places that accept MoviePass, effectively for me, there wouldn't be much difference between availability. In fact, if the Edwards/Regal one were to offer something similar to AMC (allowing IMAX and other premium showings), it would be more appealing to me.

And yet, I have both a Netflix and a Hulu subscription, and we get some access to Amazon's video selection via Prime.

And yet, two (maybe two and a half) isn't the "dozen" the grandparent post is discussing.

There's room for a couple services with good content libraries. I don't know that there's room for each major media company to have their own. I've personally opted to skip the new Star Trek series because I have no interest in a CBS-specific streaming service.

Same, but there aren't that many large movie theater companies. AMC competing against a third-party "shitload of movies" provider isn't diluting the pool too much.

Its not fragmented enough, and prices are still dirt cheap.

AV subscriptions are 20-50 dollars per month.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com