Hacker News Reader

Comment by dclusin | Hacker News Reader

It feels to me like the balkanization of streaming services was inevitable and Netflix getting into the content game was just a logical response to remain relevant. If the catalog is what garners subscribers then a streaming service without its own catalog is basically fucked in the long term.

View on HN

This balkanization is a good thing. I'd far rather have the choice between many competing providers each offering a service at £8/month, than have the choice to take or leave a single expensive all-in-one subscription, like cable.

It's also good that market forces are driving content-creation.

Competition is good, but each of the competitors are creating their own shows. This potentially requires you to buy multiple services to view all the content you want.

I would prefer the competition to not be content but on UI, speed, downtime, viewing suggestions, etc.

The best part of cable was that you could get any channel regardless of your provider. You could have Spectrum, AT&T, Direct TV or whoever and get any channel you wanted.

The problem was that you usually could not do al la carte and when you could it would not be cheap enough to justify losing all the other channels.

Imagine if you had to pay for Time Warner cable to get CNN, AT&T to get HBO, and Comcast to get NBC.

It’s just the opposite now. You use to have to pay for cable to get HBO, CNN and NBC (if you didn’t live in a good coverage area.) and you were stuck paying sports fees, broadcast fees, franchise fees, etc.

Now you can get HBO a la carte, NBC prime time either for free on their website or with no commercials or with Hulu for $12.

Really there is little on network TV that I care to watch anymore. Between Netflix ($5 with Tmobile), Hulu w/ no commercials, Amazon Prime, AppleTV+ (free for now), and Disney+ (Mostly for the kids), I have plenty to watch. I sign up for other services (Starz, CBS, DCUniverse) occasionally to binge and then cancel.

I didn't mean to suggest that you couldn't currently pay for whatever you want a la carte. It is of course better that you don't have to pay for cable but worse that you have to pay multiple content providers (Netflix, Hulu, CBS, HBO) to get the shows you want.

When you pay for Spectrum you get TBS, CW, Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. When you pay for AT&T you get the same channels. It doesn't matter your cable provider, you would have access to pretty much any channel you wanted.

With Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, HBO, etc you have to pay for all of the services to get the content you want. This is beneficial for people who only want shows on a few streaming services but bad for people who now have to pay 10 different companies.

Ideally all the content creators would work together and make their content available to all of the streaming companies at a reasonable price even if they had their own streaming product. Paying for Netflix would provide the same shows as paying for Hulu.

Each of the streaming companies would then allow you to pay a set price for all the content like a traditional cable company (and their current business model) or allow you to pay for the shows you want. If you only want 5 shows you shouldn't have to subscribe to Netflix, Hulu and Disney+. You could pay Netflix and get all 5 shows instead of paying 3 different companies. Since you don't care about the other shows you shouldn't have to pay for the streaming company to obtain / keep the rights of those shows or to pay for them to create content you don't care about.

This is a pipe dream and will likely never happen.

No, it is not.

Not when they compete with exclusive content.

It would be good if they had the same content but compete with the UI (in such case Netflix would win, and HBO would loose, as they have the worst possible UI), streaming content etc.

After critical mass of number of movie providers one will just go back to piracy.

There is only so much one can stand. If the market is spread to thin then pirating content will be less frustrating than getting it on streaming service (if you have to subscribe to 8 of them).

Not as bad as some others I have tried. Disney Plus gets on my last nerve at times. Just try to rewind like you would in other apps with a bluetooth remote.

Most (all?) of that exclusive content only gets produced because of exclusivity, I’d think. I.e. we get a greater number of shows because of exclusivity.

The gaming industry has move (largely) away from exclusives and that has been a net improvement for content.

I suspect the pendulum will swing away from exclusive content for television shows. Producers might make more money up front from the deals, but the long game favors those who establish brands with broad market appeal, and the way to do that is to get your content in front of as many eyes as possible.

The exclusives fight in gaming is ramping up again with the cloud streaming services. Google's Stadia and Nvidia are racing to lock up content. Microsoft is about to launch out of beta as well and each service will compete on their library.

Huh? The most popular console (Nintendo) is almost entirely exclusive games. Playstation and XBox are less exclusive than they've been, but not by much (FF7 Remake was PS4 exclusive as well).

Ten+ years ago, it was common for best selling games of the year to be a console exclusives. Today is much more rare.

The Switch may be the most popular console, but it's install base is a small fraction of PS4+XBone+PC+Switch. So even Nintendo exclusives purchased by the majority of owners can't sell as many units as the latest Call of Duty. Heck, even the The Witcher 3 has sold more units than the best selling Switch game.

Timed exclusive is not the same as permanent exclusive though.

Ff7 remake is coming to pc, they just haven't figured out when.

Sure, permanent exclusives are generally only first party. Bungie/halo was one but thats because MS at the time didn't have enough first party studios.

Well the big difference is Nintendo, they have a large amount of permanent exclusives.

Do we really want to go back to aggregators?

If only the prices were lower to reflect that competition. There seems to be a tacit agreement that streamers will pay 6-12 USD a month per service. Netflix began at $8 with almost all popular content available (which could be streamed).

Edit: cut extra word

The prices are much lower than a cable package.

Many Americans are still paying for cable they never use because comcast won't discount an internet only offer.

Disney+ with Hulu, Netflix, HBO, Apple+, Amazon Prime, Starz, adds up if you want full coverage.

Can you even watch that much content? I would expect that you only keep 1-3 subscriptions at the same time, and juggle between the different platforms when you want to watch some exclusive content. Like, Netflix for 1-2 month to watch some exclusives, then you cancel until the next time something seems interesting enough.

I don't want to have to manage it on this level, the metagame kills the experience. I wish movies and tv had compulsory licensing like music, because the pick your music service and they have access to almost everything is much better for consumers.

Somewhat related: it's curious that Netflix are so coy about their catalogue. Without signing in, they refuse to show what they offer in your region. You have to make do with a third-party listing site like JustWatch.com

As it should. Under no business model should you expect to get access to all providers' content for a minimal price.

By the time you check you might be paying more than cable. We all hoped to have a cheaper alternative to cable. Not a fragmented variation of it.

How much is cable those days? That would require at least 10-12 streaming services.

Throw in one of the streaming services that support 'live' cable TV and that hikes up the prices, plus adding things like HBO, Showtime, etc to a Hulu subscription, and you get there rather quickly.

Personally I try to keep the number of services I'm subscribed to to a sane minimum.

It's interesting that HBO reached agreement to stream trough Hulu (Disney) even when WarnerMedia is trying to push their own competitor HBO Max.

It makes a lot of sense IMO. They can immediately make more money in the short term, and after their competing product is ready they can negotiate more favorable terms with Hulu or not renew their agreement, which will direct a portion of people that discovered their content through Hulu to their own platform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com