Fair enough if Disney etc. want to keep new stuff exclusive to them. Also, fair enough if certain big evergreen content is kept exclusive (Star Wars, classic Disney movies etc.).
But, seriously, why can't I go to one service and watch every Cary Grant movie, or every movie directed by John Ford, or every episode of Remington Steele, or every episode of Matlock or whatever.
I wrote an app that is playing them (according to a schedule I created) on a Raspberry Pi from a 5TB drive (they're ripped to drive). It's kind of fun to walk by the TV downstairs and see the original "The Fly" or whatever on. No fast-forward or pause, but no internet required either (no ads, of course).
(I remember Classic Netflix, where I could get 99% of what I wanted … or, in many cases, over 100% of what I wanted!)
Also Spotify is losing money and can never be truly profitable with 70% of everything they make contractually going back to the labels. Subscription music is a sucky business and it only makes sense as a feature for a larger platform
Video was much more fragmented and a lot of older content licensing never envisioned non-broadcast availability at all.
(The numbers also probably don't work. I'm guessing a hypothetical all-you-can-eat subscription would be in the hundreds of dollars a month.
They were the ~first.
ADDED: The basic point is that there was a pretty natural path from radio to personalized radio streaming to streaming that brought a modified version of the same royalty system along with it.
Not being able to pick specific songs is a huge difference.
They still don't have have 90% of filk songs.
The irony is I was introduced to this through YouTube and Grooveshark (which was still better than Spotify is now), if it hadn't been for these pirate services I wouldn't have known about Julia Ecklar.
Even then, Spotify is far better than the TV streaming situation.