We reached the point were price is almost as high as cable was (with the standard 4-5 subscriptions), and we have ads. This is not a surprise to most though, the question has always been when would it happen.
Did you mean premium channels, or was there a time in the early 80s when >50% of channels carried by your provider didn't have ads?
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...
I wonder if entertainment brand loyalty is going to be affected by the diversification of streaming services. I only have Netflix and Amazon Prime (only because I already pay for Prime) and I have no desire to add another streaming service for another show or franchise. I'm happy to just consume what I can find on those two services and call it good. At what point does the desire to watch a specific TV series or movie franchise stop being worth the cost of yet another service?
But then I'm an atypical customer since I only watch maybe 4 hours of content a week on average, at most.
You can thank shareholders and the stock market in general with their lunatic "perpetual growth" bullshit for the enshittification of everything.
Licensing fees/production costs/royalties eat a bunch of the money, but the infrastructure to run a streaming service isn't cheap. I know at least one of the competitors that people would call the most successful is paying a 9 figure AWS bill, plus whatever the costs are for all the caching setup that makes most popular content live in ISPs. Add the typical army of developers building apps for the mobile devices, the billing team, people doing recommendation engines, fraud detection/security team, tagging all content, and translating every blurb in a bunch of languages, possibly pay for creating subtitles for all of those languages... it's not cheap.
What is so frustrating about this is that so many of the costs would go down with consolidation. Every company has to handle the fact that age verification and privacy legislation in South Korea has to work in a just-so way, but every streaming service has to duplicate the logic. While the Netflix recommendation system probably can use some tweaks to take on all of D+'s content, I bet it'd be easier to tweak their system than to have every company have their own ML team handling recommendations. A lot of relatively low quality content wouldn't have to be made if we didn't need to make 'filler' to keep people spending sufficient time on a given streaming service while the next top quality release comes out.
In a happy world, competition brings more better content at a cheaper price for consumers, but when I look at the state of streaming, what we have is many competitors that aren't breaking even, in exchange for a streaming experience that keeps getting worse. And there's little chance it's going to get better until at least half of the worst competitors give up and go back to licensing their content to whatever the big 3 end up being.
And yes, we'd all be better off if we moved to the music model, where any subscription has 90% of the content, but do you really see, say, Apple, Netflix and Disney doing worldwide, full catalog cross-licensing deals?
(1) Netflix?
(2) "9 figure". Just say 1B or 5B? There is a big difference.
Even with what I'm sure is bulk negotiated bandwidth pricing there is no way this is an economical way to serve bulk content. For those prices you could build out a whole physical IT operation to rack stuff up in data centers and maintain it for a lot less and your bandwidth costs will be a minute fraction of AWS. There's also tons of CDNs that specialize in blasting out bandwidth.
Putting command and control, accounting, signup / signin, etc. on AWS may make a lot of sense. Those are both more complex to run and lower bandwidth work loads.
This is why streaming is so expensive.