
Too Many Video Streaming Choices May Drive Users Back To Piracy - kamiYcombi
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190320/07442041832/ironically-too-many-video-streaming-choices-may-drive-users-back-to-piracy.shtml
======
sbarre
"May" drive them back?

This has already happened in my circles..

People who had cut the cord but all but walked away from casual piracy and
signed up for Netflix and HBO (and probably Prime Video because they had
Amazon Prime already) are openly talking about the fact they're definitely not
signing up for more streaming services, and are seeking out torrenting again
for the stuff that's being pulled from Netflix (especially Disney shows).

I feel like there's a business opportunity for a meta-service that
automatically manages monthly subscriptions for you on different services. You
queue up a catalog of shows you want to watch, and it creates an optimized
schedule for you and helps sign up for the individual streaming service on a
given month in order to watch the show you want.

As long as you don't care about the zeitgeist, this would probably be fine for
a lot of people.

~~~
scarface74
“Your circle” unless it includes families with small kids, isn’t Disney’s
primary audience. Most normal middle class people aren’t going to go through
the trouble of pirating movies and setting up a Plex server and then worry
about setting up their router to get a good connection while they are away
from home and even then deal with the abysmally slow upload speed of the
typical home network instead of spending $8 a month to just have the
convenience of Disney+ to be a glorified babysitter.

In 2003, people said that the iTunes music store was going to be a disaster.
Who would pay to download music when they could get it for free. That worked
out pretty well.

~~~
coldtea
> _Most normal middle class people aren’t going to go through the trouble of
> pirating movies and setting up a Plex server and then worry about setting up
> their router to get a good connection while they are away from home and even
> then deal with the abysmally slow upload speed of the typical home network
> instead of spending $8 a month to just have the convenience of Disney+ to be
> a glorified babysitter._

Depending on the country, you'd be surprised.

I'm not sure why Disney has the hold it has in the US, but in most of Europe I
know it's nothing special (to the point of being a "must have" brand). Kids
can just sit in front of regular kids TV channels. And normal middle class
families can and do pirate all the time...

~~~
cptskippy
Sadly Disney is a lifestyle choice for a lot of people and the passion they
have for the brand can be downright cultish and creepy at times.

Groups like hardcore Disney fans, R. Kelly fans, and Evangelical Christians
all share a very similar devotion and loyalty to their idols.

~~~
beardedwizard
Tell me more about how R. Kelly and Disney fans are similar. Share your point
by point analysis and include examples. Maybe you would like to bring Taylor
Swift into the discussion?

Your comment is a poorly disguised insult.

~~~
cptskippy
It's unclear which you ascribe to but it's curious that you don't take offense
to either being compared to Evangelicals.

In either case, they're both almost a Cult of personality. The fans are so
adorant of their object that they often overlook glaringly evil deeds. At the
same time, the level of manipulation exhibited and the devotion demanded by
the personality is extreme to the point that outsiders see it as absurd.

Idk, maybe it's just me but I find fanaticism to be very off putting in
general. When the idol asks fans to make sacrifices to stay it in their favor,
that's when it crosses a line into creepy.

Disney walks a fine line where it expertly cultivates that culture while
simultaneously pretending it doesn't exist and remaining open and accessible
to everyone.

~~~
jerf
"The fans are so adorant of their object that they often overlook glaringly
evil deeds."

This verges on the tautological though, given that "fan" is short for
"fanatic"; you're complaining that fanatics are fanatics. Well... yeah, but
so? I don't think you can directly impute the behavior of the fans on to the
target of their fandom. (You can draw some indirect conclusions, but it
involves at least a few steps of lower reliability and propositions people
will find debatable.)

~~~
icebraining
> that "fan" is short for "fanatic"

Eh, that's its (probable) origin, but I'd say the two have diverged in
meaning; "fan" nowadays doesn't have the same connotation of extreme and
uncritical zeal of "fanatic."

~~~
jerf
Hence the "verges", rather than simply saying it "is". It's as close to a
complaint about it as you can get without quite 100% being there.

------
AnIdiotOnTheNet
No shit. Valve worked out the key to combating piracy in the early 2000s. To
quote Gaben himself:

"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost
always a service problem and not a pricing problem. If a pirate offers a
product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of
your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-
locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only
be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more
valuable."

People pirate media more for convenience than to save money.

~~~
tombert
I've said this for years.

Piracy, in many cases, offers a superior product to streaming. If I go to
ThePirateBay, I'm virtually guaranteed to find whatever movie I'm looking for,
in 1080p (or even 4k nowadays) quality, without any DRM, which can then be
easily streamed from Plex or Emby on any of my devices with no regards to
regions, often with more options for subtitles and audio tracks (if you're
watching anime).

I have Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime, and frankly I already hate having to
search all three for a movie, just to find that they don't have it anyway; I
already pay enough for these services, I really have no interest in signing up
for yet another just to make my search for a movie even longer.

Spotify (and nowadays Apple Music for me) has made it so that I've completely
stopped torrenting music, since they offer a superior product to ThePirateBay.
It has nearly any song I'm looking for, in decent quality, and there aren't
banner ads for "Hot MILFs in my area!" all over the place in a convenient app
that works well on my phone. They made the _legal_ option superior, and as a
result I don't mind paying the ten bucks a month for it.

~~~
fragsworth
> It has nearly any song I'm looking for

Why has Spotify/Apple Music been able to accomplish this while TV/movie
services can't?

~~~
tombert
This is speculation on my end, but I'm assuming it has to do with TV and
Movies being more expensive to produce and therefore more expensive to
license?

~~~
fragsworth
Speculation here too, maybe it has something to do with very little
willingness to put up with missing songs from users, while it's somewhat
acceptable to go to another site to watch a new show?

I haven't wrapped my head around how this could influence the creators and
services enough to work together, though.

------
jasonkester
Another factor in the mix is how poor a job a lot of the streaming services do
at the mechanics of running their business.

I, for instance, pay for streaming packages from both the NFL and Formula 1,
but more often than not the best way to watch the actual events is to download
a torrent that some random guy recorded, edited, and posted. The video quality
is just plain better. It's not missing the pre-event buildup coverage. And it
doesn't randomly cut out and drop down to 160p all the time.

Now I say I pay for these services, but actually as of a couple months ago I
can't even convince Formula 1 to take my money anymore. I live in France and
first signed up using a US credit card. Now they won't let me put my card back
in to renew, because it's not to a French address. And they won't let me buy
the US or UK version of the service (as I have cards and mailing addresses in
both), because my history shows I previously bought the French one.

But then really, it's not that much of a pain, since even for the couple years
I paid for it I don't think I actually streamed more than a couple races. The
product itself was just that awful, but still it'd be nice to be able to give
them some money...

~~~
rolltiide
Thats because there is more competition amongst pirates than rights holders

Turns out complaining about free things is actually an effective strategy for
improving quality

~~~
vanderZwan
Not that surprising since the "currency" is basically pride and appreciation
for your work (insofar as you can really apply that kind of thinking to these
social situations)

------
eitland
No surprise. Even we (HN) predicted this the moment the first content company
withdrew their content from Netflix.

Two reasons:

1\. People only have so much money.

2\. When people compare it to what they used to payit seems unfair. People
complain when gas prices increases by a few percent, no wonder they complain
when they suddenly have to pay twice or even three times for the same content
they used to pay one low monthly fee from.

Oh, and they probably also compare to Spotify.

I see three ways this market can work that immediately feels fair to me:

\- all you can eat/listen/watch (Spotify model)

\- pay per view but a lot lower than today. (Can work even with multiple
streaming sites.)

\- a hybrid approach where you pay for a number of monthly credits that works
(should be somewhat cheaper than the Spotify model)

~~~
akhilcacharya
I remember the days (circa 2009/2010) where the main complaint about streaming
Netflix was that there was nothing on it compared to the disk collection. When
exactly did that change?

There must have been a brief “monopoly period” when Netflix had all of the
content, but I don’t remember it.

~~~
matwood
> There must have been a brief “monopoly period” when Netflix had all of the
> content, but I don’t remember it.

I think it's important to segment the content into movies and TV shows. At one
point Netflix did have a lot of popular TV shows, and new seasons seem to show
up pretty quickly. Netflix never really had a huge selection of popular
movies. Some here and there, but never a deep catalog.

~~~
mattkrause
Streaming didn't, but the DVD service had an absurdly deep catalog.

------
Qwertystop
> _“Consumers want choice — but only up to a point,” said Kevin Westcott,
> Deloitte vice chairman and U.S. telecom and media and entertainment leader,
> who oversees the study. “We may be entering a time of ‘subscription fatigue.
> '” _

Missing the point _hard_ here. To the degree that "consumers want choice", I
would expect the choice they want is the choice of media, not the choice of
subscription services. People don't subscribe to Netflix for its own sake,
they subscribe because it lets them watch something they want to see.

~~~
guitarbill
Right. It isn't a choice if I can only watch/play/listen to/consume <x> in one
place.

------
neuronic
Germans/Europeans might feel with me: I had the pleasure of using Sky to watch
Game of Thrones and a few movies and it was the most abysmal experience I have
ever had.

Your account is an email combined with a 4-digit NUMERIC-ONLY (!) "password"
and once you are hyper-securely logged in the amount of usability pain a
single piece of software can cause will immediately become apparent.

How can anything paid by a big corporation be anywhere near as bad as the Sky
apps is completely beyond me.

Their iOS app is somewhat usable and I was happy I could just cast GoT using
my Google Chrome until I noticed that casting can only be done in German. The
English original version wasn't available for casting but perfectly accessible
on PS4 app, Mac app and web app.

~~~
thirdsun
Sky used to have a web client. Now you have to use their apps, even on the
desktop, which come with a suite of monitoring services (Cisco Videoguard) to
prevent people from streaming their content. On my Mac Mini the video player
takes up easily 80-100% of the 6-core/12-threads i7.

It's almost unwatchable. Unfortuantely it's a requirement if you're into
german soccer.

~~~
neuronic
Not really in the spin, but what about DAZN?

~~~
thirdsun
Love it. Great content, good streaming quality, fair price. Unfortuantely they
lost the Premier League rights to Sky this season which is fine whenever I
turn on my projector for the big picture - after all Sky's satellite video
quality obviously is superior to a stream, but casual watching at the desk is
rendered almost unbearable due to Sky's abysmal apps and streaming technology.
In that regard DAZN is far superior.

Anyway, when it comes to content spanish La Liga as well as other top european
soccer leagues make up for the loss of the Premier League. However as someone
who enjoys watching soccer I still need both, DAZN and Sky, since there's
hardly any overlap in their content and rights.

------
lm28469
I watch movies once a week with a few friends. We have Netflix, Prime and 3
other smaller providers I can't recall the name of. We still have to look for
50% of the movies we want to watch "somewhere else".

It's even worse because most providers geo lock their content. So the movie
might be available on Netflix US but isn't on Netflix Spain, or it's available
on prime but only in _foreign language_. When the movie is available the
service is slow, you get intermittent disconnections, the subtitles aren't
available, &c. It's a running joke for us now, we have an hassle free movie
night once every three month I'd say.

It's basically cable TV 2.0, it's such a pain in the ass.

~~~
blattimwind
> or it's available on prime but only in _foreign language_

or it's only available in a dub.

------
MisterTea
Perfect example. I have Netflix, Prime and Hulu. Thats already too many as
most have a bunch of crap and a few shows I like, some have duplicate content.

I watched One Punch man on Netflix and can also watch on Hulu. Season Two was
released on Hulu. Well that works for me but what about people who had
Netflix, Like OPM and now want to watch season 2?

I've been binging Star Trek. I'd also like to watch the new series on CBS. Of
course CBS had the bright odea of starting their own streaming service. The
cost is $5.99/mo with commercials or 9.99/mo without commercials. No.

So all the idiots taking their toys home and starting their own streaming biz
are driving piracy. I used to download TV shows all the time but streaming
made that unnecessary as I could pay a little money to have legal access to
plenty of things I want to watch. No one wants to juggle multiple streaming
services just to watch a few shows. People don't want to go back to spending
$200 on TV and internet. I'd rather spend no more than $25/mo on tv and $50
for >=100mbit internet. Thats an ideal number considering I spend less on
electricity each month.

~~~
fucking_tragedy
> _I 'd rather spend no more than $25/mo on tv and $50 for >=100mbit internet.
> Thats an ideal number considering I spend less on electricity each month._

Agreed. Other countries are able to do it, but cable companies and ISPs have
monopolies in different regions of the US.

------
dathinab
The problem is not to many streaming choices but the increasing fragmentation
of which videos are available on which platforms.

IMHO the increasing coupling of video producers and streaming services isn't a
good idea at all as it again produces (quasi)monopoles for certain
brands/shows (e.g. Disney).

Through then IMHO the trend of tech companies increasingly expanding in a way
which couples different kind products together is a worrisome trend (e.g.
hardware producer couples with os producer coupled with application producer,
or content producer coupled with content delivery services, or "shared" online
marked places coupled with them starting to sell their own "featured"
products, or coupling of ebook store with ebook reader, etc.).

My guess is that this will lead to increasingly large companies with
increasingly less chances for real competition giving this companies more and
more (mainly implicit) power over people and economy and with this also
influence in politic.

Sure currently for streaming services it looks like it will lead to better
competition, but my guess is that this won't be long term and in a view years
we will be left with a oligopol of a small number of companies now dominating
both production and distribution of high quality video entertainment content,
without there being any real chance for any new competition (except if there
is some form of interactive video revolution (I don't mean video games) coming
from outside the video industry.

------
flamtap
There's something to be said for the cord-cutting software ecosystem
supporting more-than-casual piracy experiencing huge improvements. If you have
the hardware, you can host your own media using Plex as a server, and Sonarr
to manage your library and automate acquisition of new TV episodes.

Plex is one of the best pieces of software I've ever used. It Just Works™. You
need a decent internet pipeline to support remote streaming, but LAN is a
breeze to setup. It's so feature-rich I don't know where to begin. I honestly
prefer it to any other streaming service. Apps on just about every platform
you can think of (they had yet to release apps for Nintendo consoles last I
checked).

I have my whole family set up on my server, and it doesn't cost them a dime.
The primary drawbacks from their perspective are that they need to request
shows and movies to be added, and I naturally don't have Netflix-level
availability, but hey. Shit's free.

So when a cord-cutter with enough savvy to pirate video can actually replicate
the services rendered by Netflix et al. on their own, why would they pay five
times for something centralized that they can get for free[1]?

[1] Plex has $7 month premium features, with the option for a lifetime pass
equal to about 2.5 years of subscription.

~~~
robertoandred
Everything's free when you steal. Lame argument.

~~~
nickthegreek
pirate. I keep seeing people use the word steal in this comment section.

~~~
robertoandred
No, it's stealing. Just because saying "pirate" makes you feel better doesn't
mean it's not stealing.

~~~
logfromblammo
Piracy is copyright infringement or license term violations.

Theft is a property crime. These are different things.

Those heavily invested in intellectual property rights laws would like to
conflate them, but they are--and always will be--fundamentally different
offenses.

And the industry propaganda is frankly ridiculous. Hell yes, I would download
a car. But not if it came loaded up with malware, spyware, region-locking,
force-fed content, and DRM schemes.

The propaganda likewise portrays piracy as stealing from the creators and
artists, when, in fact, this has already occurred by reassigning the
copyrights to a corporate entity that routinely employs "Hollywood accounting"
and other assorted dirty accounting tricks to avoid paying the creative
drivers behind a cultural artifact in a manner the public would consider
reasonable.

Duplicating bits is in no way comparable to depriving someone of physical
property and excluding them from their use of it. At worst, piracy undermines
someone's economic profits, derived from the enjoyment of government-granted
monopoly, which is supposed to promote the useful arts by securing to authors
and inventors exclusive rights for a limited time.

It is natural for opinions to vary on whether a schema that routinely re-
assigns those rights to an entity separate from the author or inventor, for a
period extending well beyond their lifespan, is still conformant with the
intent of the law, but no matter how hard you try to force it, copying is not
stealing. Forcing that for PR purposes further undermines what little respect
remains for copyright infringement as its own offense. You can't inflate
respect for one law by poaching it from another.

~~~
loco5niner
Piracy = Stealing

From
[https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/piracy](https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/piracy)

piracy (noun) The unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work.

Synonymns: illegal reproduction, plagiarism, illegal copying, copyright
infringement, bootlegging, stealing, theft

Call things by the wrong name to make yourself feel better all you want, but
it's still stealing.

~~~
logfromblammo
You may attempt to influence behavior and ethics by redefining the meanings of
words, or by confusing one meaning of a word with another, but I can't
guarantee it will be successful.

If I were to "pirate" an entertainment file, I would not alter my self-image
to believe that I am now "a thief", just because you're quoting dictionary
definitions at me. I may still feel vaguely guilty about it, but nowhere near
the level of guilt I might feel by walking over to my neighbor's driveway and
stealing their car, even though the open-market value of the car may be only
$5k, and the open-market value of the recording may be $5M.

This difference arises because when I copy something, I do not deprive the
person in possession of the use of it. If I steal, I do. The concept of
dispossession is fundamental to the concept of theft. When I take your thing,
you no longer have it. When I copy your thing, we both have it. If you are
then put out because I am no longer motivated to rent your thing, that's the
result of your improper assumption that the idea of the thing belonged to you
exclusively.

When "theft" moves from the physical to the intangible, it becomes
_plagiarism_ or _counterfeiting_. It is a greater sin to cut out the credit
scroll from the end of a movie than to copy it without paying. It is a greater
sin to copy the maker's mark than to copy the design it marks.

I am not the sort to lie to myself to influence my own state of mind. Things
are what they are, and if that state cannot be conveyed effectively with
words, then the language is at fault. The words must change, rather than my
mental model of reality. If you cannot separate in your mind the definition of
"piracy" that concerns intangible property from the definition of "stealing"
that concerns tangible objects, I would suggest using instead a term that is
more descriptive, and not quite so ambiguous, such as "copyright
infringement". If one cannot be a "pirate" without being a thief, then
copyright infringers will simply cease to be "pirates".

You can't change reality by altering the description of reality. If you
perfectly duplicate a copyright-protected file in a manner not allowed by fair
use or by an implicit or explicit license granted by the privileged holder of
the copyright, the holder is neither dispossessed of their file, nor deprived
of any reputation benefit which may be associated with their control of the
copyright. Copyright infringement is therefore not theft. If we cannot agree
on what words mean, we cannot meaningfully communicate. And if someone is
changing the meanings of their words mid-conversation, that might be perceived
as dishonest communication.

~~~
loco5niner
> You may attempt to influence behavior and ethics by redefining the meanings
> of words

I am not the one re-defining words here.

> When "theft" moves from the physical to the intangible, it becomes
> plagiarism or counterfeiting

I see. Please explain how counterfeiting is not stealing.

~~~
logfromblammo
I will not. Counterfeiting is _more like stealing_ than copyright
infringement.

------
qaq
That the funny thing I have HBO, Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime but sometimes
it's easier to watch something on a pirate site than searching for which
service has what.

~~~
mhb
I realize this is funny, but doesn't Roku do that for you?

~~~
jasongill
They didn't say anything about having Roku, and from my experience the "search
all platforms" tools on streaming devices like Roku and Apple TV leave much to
be desired

------
speeder
I am from Brazil and here I am seeing the rise of "IPTV", with many service
claiming they have deals with all streaming providers and movie companies, and
you can pay them to watch just-released movies or any show on any provider...

I am strongly suspecting they saw the proliferation of streaming services (and
here also "cable" services) as a opportunity, but are creating their services
illegally, for example I know a person that got "IPTV" and I couldn't find
anything about the company, and their PC "client" is actually just a modified
VLC (that also for some reason only works on Windows).

------
coldtea
Why don't major services (Netflix, Disney, HULU, etc) come together to build a
best of breed shared service, that operates vendor-neutrally, and each gets to
keep all the profits from people watching their stuff?

Each could still have its own promotions, bundles, etc (e.g. pay X more to
watch new movies from Disney), but at least the base proposition can have a
single subscription price and some pay as you consume more scheme, single
analytics, etc.

In my ideal autocratic regime, they'd be forced to work under such a scheme,
like power companies are forced to ultimately connect to the same grid (at
least in some countries).

~~~
SamuelAdams
You just invented the Cable TV network.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_States)

~~~
noelsusman
This is what confuses me about the current conversation around streaming
services. It seems like everyone just wants cable again.

~~~
goostavos
Why is it confusing? Having content fractured across 10 different services
each at $10.99/mo is a pain in the bum. Just finding a movie under this setup
is hard. I either have to bounce around from service to service, or start
googling on my phone to see where it is actually streaming -- and probably
find out its exclusively on some _other_ streaming platform.

It's only a matter of time before some clever MBA comes up with Cable2.0,
which bundles up all the streaming services under one roof (or series of roofs
(cable packages!)) for 60% of the what it would cost to maintain subscriptions
to all of them.

...Then the ads will come back

And we'll have gone full circle.

~~~
noelsusman
Finding movies is easy. I just googled "Avengers Endgame" and it told me it's
available instantly for $5 from Google Play, Youtube, Vudu, and Amazon. I
googled "The Graduate" and it told me it's available for $4 on various
platforms and free on Netflix with a subscription. I google "Seinfeld" and it
told me it's availabe on Hulu and TBS with a subscription.

I would much rather pick and choose which entertainment I actually want to pay
for than pay a large monthly fee for everything. It saves me money.

------
jpetrucc
Is this the final state of attempting to maximize profits? It feels like it's
converging back towards the cable model [0]. Especially now with ad-supported
streaming plans on Hulu [1] and increasingly more and more service exclusives
[2] (same site as OP).

Streaming services are slowly but surely becoming cable "Channels"/"Packages"
now, and of course that's going to increase piracy - we've seen it happen
before. If you make something people want, but make it overly expensive or
inconvenient to consume, piracy is an attractive (albeit morally grey)
alternative for many.

Sure you can buy the disk set for whatever shows you like and skip out on the
streaming services, but that in itself comes with a level of inconvenience
(and cost) - why use physical disks when you can just download the content,
share on a NAS/Plex server, and have it on any device? Once you've made it
more inconvenient than people are used to, you've again made piracy an option.

I wonder when we'll start seeing bundles of streaming services for a single
price!

[0]: [https://www.itproportal.com/features/is-streaming-in-
danger-...](https://www.itproportal.com/features/is-streaming-in-danger-of-
repeating-the-fate-of-cable/)

[1]: [https://help.hulu.com/s/article/how-much-does-hulu-
cost?lang...](https://help.hulu.com/s/article/how-much-does-hulu-
cost?language=en_US)

[2]:
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190627/11202942488/strea...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190627/11202942488/streaming-
tv-sector-still-doesnt-realize-exclusives-will-drive-users-back-to-
piracy.shtml)

~~~
pmiller2
Considering the average streaming service cost is a $12-15 subscription, once
you start subscribing to 2-4+ of those, the cost becomes comparable to basic
cable. Welcome to a la carte cable.

More precisely, I would say it's the balkanization of streaming services
that's the real problem. If I could sign up for one service that offered
everything I wanted to watch, on demand, for $50, I'd consider that. Now,
Disney stuff is on the Disney service, some shows are on Netflix, others on
Hulu, and a few on Amazon. On top of that, you have to consider that all the
major TV streaming services also produce their own content, which is exclusive
to their services and not licensed elsewhere. Even keeping track of what's on
what service is a chore.

My personal compromise has been to use Prime Video and Netflix, because I
already subscribe to Amazon Prime, anyway, and Netflix is a good incremental
add. But, I don't want 5 subscription services and to have to keep track of
what's on what service. It's bad enough with 2.

------
toxik
Streaming "choices"? It's fragmentation and rent-seeking behavior. It is
simply a case of the supply not meeting the demand at a reasonable price
point, when there is an alternative.

~~~
scarface74
Everyone wanted to get rid of the cable bundle and have channels a la carte.
Be careful what you ask for.

~~~
fron
No. Everyone wanted to get rid of both the cable bundle and channels. People
just want on-demand access to whatever shows.

~~~
jimcsharp
For cheap ^

If someone finds themselves chasing whatever streaming service has The Office,
maybe it's worth dropping the $300 or whatever for everything on iTunes.

~~~
lostgame
They're still DRM'd. I can't use them in VLC.

~~~
scarface74
And once again, you aren’t a potential customer. Do you really think that
streaming companies are going to live an die by the people who want to use
VLC?

------
oliwarner
"Choice" here is just a euphemism for "yet another $10.99/month subscription".
The more services, the less _content I want_ each has. The more
services/apps/etc I have to engage with, the less I want to engage with any of
them. That is to say, it's not just as expensive as corded packages, it's
harder to actually use. It's the opposite of what it should be.

Content needs F/RAND licensing, possibly with a temporary block on creators
self-distributing to try and right the market and get some competition going.

If you think it's getting bad, just wait until Disney starts flexing.

~~~
durnygbur
> just wait until Disney starts flexing.

They will savage or at least sue everyone alive until no other service will
remain in the internet of the Western world, all these while hired actresses
making cute faces will be throwing pink glitter at everyone involved.

------
xfitm3
I will always pirate shows. I cut the cord 11 years ago due to my objection of
cable company billing practices. The entire industry is greedy. I was a
netflix subscriber for awhile but I burned thru all the good stuff and left.

~~~
robertoandred
YOU are greedy. You're not entitled to free things. Do you skip out on
restaurant bills, too?

~~~
guitarbill
Yeah, no, I don't buy this facile argument. Closest I can come up with is
either an all-you-can-eat buffet you have a membership to, or Costco, and
turning up one day and there's no pasta or burgers. And they say "sorry, Olive
Garden/McDonalds bought the rights to that food and we can no longer serve
it". It's absurd.

Rights-holders absolutely deserve to get paid. But weaponizing that? Sorry,
they lost me.

~~~
robertoandred
That doesn't mean you're entitled to getting Olive Garden and McDonalds for
free.

~~~
guitarbill
I definitely would buy bootleg pasta though...

I don't think OP is making the argument piracy = free = good. Just that if
everything else is worse or broken, people will prefer piracy (and argument
put forward in many other comments on this post)

~~~
robertoandred
People who want things for free will prefer getting them for free. Shocker.
Everything being "worse or broken" is just at attempt at justification.

Again, just because you don't feel like paying for something doesn't mean
you're entitled to it for free.

------
raslah
I was never patient enough for piracy as it takes diligence to find reliable
sources. One thing that does irritate me is this general antipiracy attitude
on the web today. It's like the entire population works for Big Tech. It used
to be if you did enough searching, you could find pretty much anything you
wanted, but now everyone acts like the piracy police and gets all offended if
you even insinuate piracy. Probably sounds rather antisocial, but I think that
attitude is dangerous as it gives corporations way too much influence, beyond
what we've yielded them already. Maybe it's just the places I frequent.

~~~
izzydata
I suspect they are a tad annoyed that you are potentially getting something
for free that they payed for.

------
rblion
For me, I've realized that 80% of media is not worth my time. Unless it's
something that is 'can't miss' like Martin Scorsese's movie that is debuting
on Netflix or Planet Earth II, I can skip it. I use my family's Netflix
account, I don't have my own.

I've tried to keep up with the Marvel universe but it's next to impossible at
this point. All my favorite shows (Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Sopranos, Game of
Thrones) are completed now too. I go to the movies once or twice a year now,
at most.

------
tyingq
Hasn't driven me to piracy. It has, however, driven me to
subscribe/unsubscribe as needed. Paid for a month of HBO, for example, mostly
for the Chernobyl series, watched that and a few movies, unsubscribed.

I think that pattern might hurt these services more than piracy.

~~~
kedean
There's also the option of refusing the new services. When I think on what
I'll do as content keeps fragmenting across services, I keep coming back to
one answer...watch less video content. The time before easy streaming wasn't
that long ago, and if the content makers and distributors aren't going to play
ball, then I can entertain myself in plenty of other ways.

The bigger losers are going to be parents that have a harder time convincing
theirs kids that they don't need, e.g., Disney+.

~~~
tyingq
That's a good point. I'm almost ready to drop Netflix, as the overall quality
of the content has dropped substantially in the last 2 years.

~~~
nickjj
Same.

Also recently for whatever reason they started to drop my login session on a
pretty regular basis (~twice a week for the last month).

After a long day sometimes you just want to flip Netflix on and watch that
movie you added to your list a few nights ago.

But getting greeted with the login screen on your non-smart TV (I use a smart
DVD player) is sometimes enough to avoid Netflix completely because it's so
annoying having to type a 20+ character email address and a 20+ character
password on a TV remote.

------
haywirez
The only ethical pay-per-view system I can think of would be to stream
directly from the production source (production house, artist), some sort of a
paid RSS-like feed.

~~~
0-_-0
Alternatively, pay a fixed monthly fee which gets distributed among production
sources depending on what you watched. Cut out the middleman of Netflix,
Amazon etc.

Could work with the rest of the internet too. Instead of relying on
advertisements for revenue, you would pay a monthly fee which would get
distributed among the websites you used. Aaaand we reinvented the Brave
browser model...

~~~
count
And the cable television network...

------
minetest2048
Here is my personal movie subscription list:

For animes: 1\. Crunchyroll 2\. Animelab 3\. Funimation

For movies: 1\. Netflix 2\. YouTube movies

5 streaming sites and even than not all movies and animes are available to me
because of geoblocking. Then when I go back to my home country only Netflix
works, and for some weird reason in my country only the first 3 season of Race
to the Edge is available, even though it claimed to be Netflix Originals. No
wonder piracy is everywhere

------
Nition
The last remaining video rental stores are closing down just as streaming
services become so fragmented that making a short trip to rent any major film
or TV series you want for a few dollars is starting to look okay again.

~~~
onychomys
According to wiki, as of 2017 there were about 40k Redbox locations in the US.
They recently put one in the exit of my grocery store, and it gets a lot of
use. I think it's a pretty good business model, since so many people only want
to see relatively new big name movies.

------
jadams5
10'ish years ago I remember people being mad at the cable companies for
bundling all the channels together into all-or-nothing options. Why did I have
to pay for ESPN when I just want the SciFi channel? Here we are today with
lots of options where you only pay for what you want and now people want them
all bundled back together again!

~~~
DHPersonal
That's why I don't really believe people who claim that having to pick a
streaming service is a burden too great to bear and can only be resolved
through piracy. I don't think the issue is too little choice, too much choice,
too much cost, or two much mental overhead—I think they just want to pirate
and find a reason to use for the moment.

~~~
jsutton
Why is that hard to believe? If you only have a few shows that you want to
watch, and each is on a different streaming service, is it unreasonable to
balk at having to pay for several different services (each at over $10 a
month) just for a few shows?

------
stillwater56
In 2018, there was a report published by Sandvine saying that BitTorrent
traffic had increased on their network for the first time in years (Engadget
link: [https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/03/streaming-exclusives-
may...](https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/03/streaming-exclusives-may-have-
revived-piracy))

It seems perfectly rational to me. Streaming platforms' competitive advantage
vs piracy is convenience (being legal and easier to use). As their convenience
declines, users who are not averse to piracy will naturally gravitate back
towards it.

------
Cyph0n
This is precisely why I recently decided to setup a home streaming box/NAS.

Currently, I have an RPi 4 running Sonarr/Radarr, NZBGet, Transmission, and
Emby, with a reverse proxy on top so I can access it all remotely[1]. But an
RPi is not enough when it comes to transcoding and larger storage, so I'll be
upgrading to a custom-built microATX server. The estimated total cost for
parts is ~$600, including 6TB of storage. Monthly recurring cost is about $7,
not counting energy consumption.

I'm also starting to use Kodi + RD to make it easier to stream stuff without
downloading it.

[1]: My config is available on my GH profile.

------
SGJ
I didn't know [we] PC and VPS users went anywhere, if anything the already
established and really skilled release groups were solidified while others
were extricated, or in some cases and very unfortunate, immured. I would make
a partially substantiated and educated guess that a driving force in any
potential, acute, theoretical or otherwise increase in freedom of information;
The renaissance of the information era, our time, is suddenly presented with a
market filled with VPN providers, most of them blatantly crude in their pitch.
With promises of hosting end-points in nations unburdened by draconian laws,
well outside any jurisdiction legally obligated to abide by federational -
european, american or otherwise - demands or requests of private information.
They also always make it a big deal to point out that they don't even generate
logs of user activities. The latter sounding unlikely since it's crucial for
any service providers survival and growth as well as preserving the capability
to offer an equally distributed quality of service.

Piracy is not a fitting name. There's no rape, murder, malintent or even
direct physical, psykological or directly provable damages made by sharing
information. The argument that one album downloaded automatically equals the
loss of one sell. That is similar to comparing bank-robbers to successful
hedge fund managers because they aspire to collect currency or assets in large
numbers. Wait.. That actually is comparable.. Well, I digress.

------
x1ph0z
I already started buying used DVD's & Blu-Rays for use on Plex. Too much
fragmentation and the risk of having your favourite shows and movies pulled
for some other service.

------
aquova
I was discussing with a friend that in some bizarre alternative universe where
things had played out differently, cable would seem like the great alternative
to all the streaming services we have now. You only have to pay one monthly
fee, and you have thousands of choices available to you! Sure, it's not on
demand, but with so many options, and many things on a regular schedule,
finding things to watch is easier than ever.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The cable suffered because of two things: aggressive market segmentation with
channel packs, and _ads_. Without these two, cable TV would be like Twitter
for TV - a streaming service with a weird but perhaps adorable limitation that
the streaming schedule is set for you.

------
ozim
Just fix your FOMO and you don't have to pay for all crap you will never use.

I did not watched any episode of GoT and I don't feel like I missed something
in my life. Occasionally I don't get some reference. I also don't run into
people who are "omg you really did not watched any of it? so great series",
even if I would run into this kind, I could not care less about it anyway.

~~~
slothtrop
There's something to this. Of course it's a convenience to have better
pickings for shows we want to watch, but seeing it all means spending an
inordinate amount of time watching tv. Most of it is dull filler. People think
too much of it.

A lot of people seemed to enjoy GoT in the earlier years, and the barriers to
watching it are ridiculous. It's cheaper to shell out $100+ for the dvd set
even for a single watch. There's a reason it's the most pirated show of all
time.

------
HeavyStorm
I think the article doesn't tackle it from the correct perspective.

There aren't _many_ choices at all, because we don't hire the service for the
service itself, instead, for the content, and content here is exclusive.

For instance, you have competition on the PC market: you can buy Dell, you can
buy Lenovo, and while the outside may differ, inside, you have the same thing.
You also have choices of Burger joints, because although we may prefer one to
the other, whenever we want a burger, we can choose from anyplace.

This kind of content, TV shows and movies, however, is different. There's more
uniqueness to each piece than a burger or a PC have. You can't interchange
Game Of Thrones with Vikings and be really satisfied, worse, you'll probably
want both.

So, right now, what we have is little choice - recent shows and movies are on
a single platform, and just a few are on two or three different ones. So to
have all content you want, you might need to subscribe to many different
platforms.

------
notTyler
On the one hand, I believe it's definitively a good thing that these services
will be allowing for creation of niche content. I have long believed that your
broadcast networks / USA / TNT just straight up cannot make good content
because their expectations viewers wise are so high they end up trying to
please everyone and make really, really generic television.

So yeah. I like that. But what's the endgame? Is this high profile Battlestar
reboot supposed to generate enough subscriptions to cover the cost or is it
just getting people involved in the NBC / Peacock ecosystem? Like, this is the
same company that routinely cancels (nearly) every good show on SyFy (where,
you know, I would kind of expect a Battlestar reboot to actually be) because
they aren't getting enough viewers.

Now that it's a streaming service and their collecting the money directly from
the viewer rather than going through Comcast does it make that much of a
difference?

------
gremlinsinc
I'd say many never stopped.. to feel legit they maybe bought netflix and hulu,
but still pirated HBO or network tv. I can see people maybe getting Netflix
and Disney+ and maybe Apple ...and then streaming from tv show sites anything
they're missing....

They need to have a bundled app like $60 gets you Amazon, Netflix, Disney,
Apple, HBO, and Sling/Philo ...

Make it so each provider can sell the bundle and they get 30% more of the
total sale...

If I had money and connections I'd love to start this startup... If you only
took 6% to make it lucrative for the companies involved, then split it x ways
with the bundled providers

Better yet philo or sling should do this since they already have the live tv
parts, it would be a natural replacement for Cable. Or they could all just
join forces and create a unified platform.

Added bonus is there's only one bill.

------
voidwtf
I hope it does, and I hope it signals that they're going too far with their
segmentation of subscription services.

I subscribe to HBO. A subscription service that I have to pay for. Now they're
going to introduce another subscription service called HBO Max which is going
to cost more and may overlap with, but may not entirely include, content from
HBO Go/NOW. Does this mean I have to buy into another subscription from the
same company to access their 'new'/'original' content?

Honestly, I'm maintaining the services I currently have but not adding
anything new. I have subscription fatigue. A cable subscription, HBO,
Showtime, Netflix, and Prime are enough to fulfill my moral quota.
Plex/Radarr/Sonarr will manage the rest of my television entertainment needs.

------
bluetidepro
I'm personally fine with paying for them all, just hate that they are all
separate apps with wildly difference experiences. I LOVE how I can get HBO as
an add-on for Hulu, and have it all in one place to manage my "watch-list",
ratings, tastes, etc. It's super frustrating you won't be able to get Disney+
as an add-on (for ad-free Hulu), as well. In the future, if there is just a
universal app where I could get Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Disney+, and Amazon Prime,
that would be the most superior experience. Obviously I doubt such an app
would ever exist, but what they don't get is that it's more about
convenience/hassle than the cost.

------
40acres
I don't think this is as big a threat as these comments make it seem. For the
tech savvy, setting up a Plex server or whatever can be done in an afternoon's
time. The majority of consumers won't go through the "hassle" of setting up
their own infrastructure and will make judgement calls on what platforms align
with their interests.

I'd bet on Netflix (incumbency), Prime (bundling), Apple (integration with
iPhone) and Disney (best back catalog) being the leaders in this space for the
next 5 years. Despite major networks getting into the game its hard to see
them going all in and cannablizing their TV business just yet

~~~
laumars
You don't need a dedicate Plex server to pirate. Any bittorrent client will do
and people might just be happy using a built in media client. Plus often
people are happy to buy systems pre-built (remember the "Kodi Box" craze?).
Piracy is a service problem not a price problem so people are willing to pay
for systems like this if it's easier than managing subscriptions to multiple
services (and the fact it usually works out cheaper to pirate is an added
bonus).

------
CivilianZero
I really have to ask: Is everyone in the comments apart of an organized troll?
Because I feel like I’ve lost my mind reading most of these comments.

It seems like everyone here thinks torrenting is as easy and simple as using
streaming services actually is, and that streaming is as complicated as
torrenting actually is.

I used to torrent stuff all the time. Constantly. I have several HDs laying
around filled with torrented movies and tv shows. Why? Because I was in
college and couldn’t afford them.

The day I started making enough money to just sign up to services and buy
copies of the movies I wanted I stopped torrenting forever. It’s easy and I’m
not stealing.

~~~
zzzcpan
> It seems like everyone here thinks torrenting is as easy and simple as using
> streaming services actually is, and that streaming is as complicated as
> torrenting actually is.

Would be weird if people here didn't find torrenting easy and simple. And
depending where you get your torrents from, it could be significantly easier
than streaming.

~~~
CivilianZero
I don't think that follows. I'm technically savvy and am fully capable of
torrenting files, but the amount of effort I have to exert to get it done
problem free (and the amount I have in the past) means it is not easy or
simple. Just because you have the ability to perform an action, even if you
find it easy to do, does not mean it is intrinsically easy or simple.

And it definitely is never easier than opening an app on your smart
tv/console/etc and clicking play.

~~~
zzzcpan
> And it definitely is never easier than opening an app on your smart
> tv/console/etc and clicking play.

It is. For everyone who cares about privacy, security implications of using an
app on a smart tv, for everyone who doesn't want to own a smart tv or a
console, for everyone who already knows how to do it with torrents. And so on.

Easiness is subjective. Simplicity isn't, but streaming apps are not simpler
in any way.

~~~
CivilianZero
We're not discussing how a luddite is going to watch a movie at home. That's a
completely different discussion. And if you are genuinely worried about
privacy or security there are other ways around that that don't involve
stealing.

------
ryandrake
Here are my product requirements for a viable alternative to piracy:

1\. Availability of any movie or TV show ever made from one service

2\. Quality/resolution comparable to what was available when it originally
aired (I’m not demanding 4K Seinfeld)

3\. No DRM

4\. No restriction on downloading/timeshifting

5\. Playable on all my devices including Linux and iOS, using my choice of
playback software

6\. Playable no matter what “region” I happen to be in

7\. Original language audio + subs. Dubs are a nice bonus

8\. Streaming not an important or necessary feature

9\. Slick UI not important or necessary

Provide that and let’s talk price. Note none of the above are technical
challenges or areas of active research. They are already all solved by the
pirates.

------
josteink
> given the effort it took to migrate users away from piracy and toward
> legitimate services in the first place. The primary lesson learned during
> that experience is _you need to compete with_. It's not really a choice.
> It's real, it's impossible to stop.

This lesson seems utterly forgotten.

The fatigue is real, and more often than not I’m not finding anything I’m
looking for on any of the subscription-based streaming services I’m paying
for.

So I’m cancelling _all of them_.

My fallback: iTunes on my AppleTV has good choice in movies I can buy, and I
usually find what I’m looking for there.

What’s not quickly meets the Plex.

------
bitslayer
Ironically, in the old days everyone used to complain that they couldn't pay
for just the cable channels they watch, you had to accept the whole bundle.
Now you pay for the channels separately. Yay?

------
iwalton3
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is some users might consider subscribing
to a more expensive (like $20-$70/mo) streaming service if it has content-
sharing deals and a promise of no ads or availability windows. There is
definitely an enthusiast market out there that wants the best quality and
experience, and having to use several different streaming services that may
not have what you want to watch when you want to watch it is not a great
experience when compared to some of the less legitimate options.

------
apexalpha
People forget you don't need to pay for all of them yourself. About 5 people
share the Netflix I use. I suppose someone else will get Disney and give me
access.

~~~
TeMPOraL
That's true. But streaming services are also heavily underutilized. My Netflix
subscription is used by 5 to 6 people - that's why I actually pay for the
highest tier, to minimize the chance that somebody will be locked out because
others wanted to watch something else at the same time. Even 5-6 people, I
doubt my Netflix account is used for more than 10-15 hours a week in total.

~~~
mrlala
>But streaming services are also heavily underutilized

?

>Even 5-6 people, I doubt my Netflix account is used for more than 10-15 hours
a week in total.

Err, you seem to be under the impression that 2 hours/person/week is the norm
for someone with a streaming service.. Narrator: It's not.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Maybe it isn't. But I can't imagine that people with a job, household chores
and/or a degree to finish spend significantly more than that when averaged
over longer periods of time. Sure, I sometimes did binge-watch a whole TV show
in two weeks. But then I didn't open Netflix for another two months, so it
averages out.

------
cjslep
This is a tragedy of the commons scenario.

Instead of (all numbers illustrative):

Group A: 100%

group B gets jealous and does:

Group A: 25%, Group B: 25%, Piracy: 50%

As long as B's shareholders are happy (0->25%) then "who cares".

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's worse than that. Netflix does pay for the IP it streams, and there's more
players involved. The end result is, each of them will get even less, and some
pirates can even make money off this - all they need to do is to collect and
curate links to pirate media sources, and charge a tiny amount for ad-free
streaming. And they are already doing it.

------
durnygbur
So instead of owning the video files and having them on my hard drive, I
should pay subscription fee as long as I want to watch it? Ok, that's a
compromise I can agree to. Now, there are unskippable ads at the beginning and
in the middle of the video? Hmmm, that's not what we agreed for. Wait, TWO
UNSKIPPABLE ADS at the begginning? Fuck no, fuck never again I'm using any of
these services.

------
VikingCoder
I want a device like a Roku.

I don't want to think in terms of channels (streaming choices like Amazon
Prime, Netflix, Google Play, CBS, Disney+, etc.)

I'd like to think in terms of content and suggestions.

I want the Roku to completely hide the channel (streaming provider) from me.

In addition to paying membership to Netflix, I want to be able to purchase
content, too. I really appreciate Movies Anywhere. I hope more content can
fall under umbrellas like that.

------
segmondy
I'm sticking to Netflix. I get Prime video because I have Amazon prime, the
moment they charge a penny more for it. I'll drop it. I have Hulu because I
got promotion from Spotify, I might keep it if it's less than $10. That's
really it. Everything else has to be either free youtube/online videos or DVD,
but I'm not subscribing to anymore streaming services.

------
Shido
First time commenting so excuse me if I say something wrong, I believe there
should be something similar to cable for these streaming platforms like a
company that pays the companies to stream their content on their service for a
smaller price for the consumers that way we won't be forced to pay for some
many services all at once, the cable concept is starting to make sense.

------
aranw
Need to change "May" for "Will"

~~~
lostgame
Or 'has driven'.

------
cabaalis
So far, my go-to has been Vudu. Sure, you have to rent/buy. But $3 to watch
that movie you're itching to watch, or $9 to own is very reasonable.

When I was a teenager and Napster was huge, casual piracy was a thing. Now
that I make digital things that I ask people to pay me for, I think
differently.

------
Shivetya
which means what?

nothing, people who pirate stuff will always have an excuse to do so. don't
kid yourself into believing they are paying for content out of the goodness of
their heart. they are paying only because they don't have a consistent free
means to get the same content.

so the next big fight will probably be someone trying to sell a service
combining/bundling feeds and running into copy right issues and such. it might
lead to an association of services but that depends on how fragmented the
industry becomes.

if anything with many players it should drive sub costs down especially for
players who have little to offer themselves. if not there will be a lot of
industry suffering until they sort it out. consumers will likely stick with
one or two providers at most

------
baybal2
I'm not seeing how it gonna drive people "back" if one click downloads never
ceased to be a prime option even for people in developed countries.

When I was studying in college in Canada in 2010-2012, I never ever saw a
single student using a paid download site.

------
nerpderp82
There should be an open standard for streaming/accessing videos I have
purchased that is independent of the platform. I should have a single pane of
glass to view netflix/amazon/etc w/o having to use a specific application.

------
ecmascript
My main issue is still that a lot of movies I want to pay for and see is not
available, or that subtitles are missing or not working.

This has made me stop purchasing movies, stopped subscriptions and instead
invest in a smaller fee for a good VPN connection.

------
danielovichdk
So many good things streaming can't serve you.

Eg.

The Last of the Mohicans.

Wanted to watch it last night. Had to do some tricks...

------
cftorres
It would be nice if this trend to fragmentation uses more segmentation based
on ages and interests. For example: I never watch kids shows or action movies
but my money is also invested on that kind of content.

------
Gene5ive
I had just written a note to myself yesterday: "Piracy occurs because the
economics of content distribution is broken, not because people inherently
want to steal." And then saw this.

------
macspoofing
If you want to steal, you're going to steal.

In terms of video streaming choices ... yeah, it's going to be the case there
will be a few of those. What's the alternative? Netflix gets a monopoly?

------
gnator
The problem is not too many choices. It's actually the lack of choice. Each
series is going to a different streaming platform which means we have to pick
up more stream services

------
JaimeThompson
Something else that is really annoying is how the various services have
different controls. It is really necessary to change how fast forward / rewind
work in each app?

------
anilakar
In other news: Here deregulation of taxi services made people use taxi
services less. Competition does not always mean more accessible or affordable
consumer options.

------
tomaskafka
Well this is how the 'economically optimal' Netflix looks like - the Netflix
everyone loved was an unsustainable customer acquisition campaign.

------
wnevets
I've been trying to avoid it but the current streaming landscape is making it
pretty hard to stay legit without spending a large sum of money

------
jesbickhart
People want aggregation, it will come back in some form. The new streaming
landscape is much too fragmented...kind of like the Airline industry.

------
greenpizza13
It certainly will. With the Office and P&R going to "Peacock" my wife's first
command to me was "...get them...".

------
dwighttk
I've been buying my shows on iTunes to avoid both paying for 10 different
streaming services and piracy.

------
jaimex2
Yup, I can tell you right now the only subscriptions I have are to Netflix and
Real Debrid.

------
sunstone
I wonder how many people subscribe to Netflix but torrent want the want from
HBO?

------
kalessin
Could a global license system be implemented to solve that problem?

------
paggle
Where does most video piracy happen these days, post-Pirate Bay?

------
danielovichdk
Oh yeah.

Simpsons is a prime example. As a european i can't watch it anywhere

------
itscrapthatswhy
It's not just that there is too many. They also all try to shove stuff down
your throat in an Amazon like manner while providing a rather crappy service.
They've been accumulating bad PR for a couple of years now.

I mean - Netflix knows that they have a lot of shit content that no one in
their right mind wants to watch. They also won't allow you to hide that stuff
in any real way. Their search is also rather hostile and definitely not aimed
at helping you find what you want.

And HBO - I literally subscribed just for John Oliver. And now I can watch it
within minutes of it airing on YT, but have to wait days for it to show up in
their service. Used to be the same with GoT. Thanks, but no thanks.

------
zanezone
From the diary of "no shit, Sherlock" ...

------
LoSboccacc
it's not the "choices" it's having to pay each one of their monthly fee

------
tbpforevAr
may drive HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

.onion tpb is easier to use and much clearner than ever

------
lucasverra
bundling - unbundling - bundling

TPB (mirror) here we come

------
zeruch
May?

------
devbofh
I've been saying this for 3 years now. People were good with it was just a
Netflix subscription. Now it's Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Apple Music, Prime
Video, Prime Music, Apple TV+, Apple News+, Disney+, HBO Go, and on and on.

------
lostjohnny
It's gonna end like this:

share a netflix account with friends for kids while the adults watch movies
and tv shhows on popocorn time.

------
cryptofits
Good point

When there are too many options it's becoming too much of an hassle to
actually choose something

Just think on yourself getting into a restaurant with a massive menu, choosing
a dish will be hard

on the other hand, a pop up restaurant with 3 dishes will make the dinner much
more fun for everyone (that's from my expirience at least)

~~~
utf985
What if you don't really want any of the 3 dishes?

------
rezeroed
My ISP (UK, Sky) has recently started blocking torrent/magnet sites. So I'm
not convinced.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Speaking as someone in the exact same situation, just go to Google and type in
"[torrent site] mirror" and away you go.

~~~
rezeroed
How does this sit with the snoopers' charter?

------
_pmf_
The children at my children's preschool seem to be split into Netflix master
race and Prime peasants.

~~~
andrewl-hn
In my surroundings there are a lot of kids and teens who only watch YouTube
(and Twitch), while streaming services like Netflix are seen as what "boring
older people" would watch. It's very similar to how people in their 30s and
40s perceive cable these days.

~~~
Neil44
Same here (UK), YT Kids is massively popular, although my daughter does like a
lot of the BBC and Netflix shows too.

------
ocdtrekkie
Ugh, I am so sick of the "if all of the content I ever want isn't available
for less than a single $10 a month sub, I'll pirate it" nonsense. Netflix was
never going to be the be-all, end-all of content and its time our generation
grew up a little bit.

For the amount of content you could get in a traditional cable package, you
should expect to pay about as much as a traditional cable package.

~~~
Freak_NL
Why?

A subscription to Netflix already grants me access to way more than I can
reasonably watch. If my tastes were perfectly aligned with what Netflix offers
(or Disney, or Amazon Prime, et cetera), I could live this exact scenario of
everything I could want for less than $10 a month (and some people do).

But if my interests are even slightly more eclectic, I get to pay for each
service separately, which is silly if we assume that the production costs are
equal for the sake of argument. And even then I would miss out on lots of
content because it is being kept in a vault until copyright expires, or
because it is geoblocked because the content owner is fishing for exclusive
deals, or some-such nonsense.

So economically, $10 a month seems perfectly feasible.

Also, keep in mind that the outrageous costs of the US traditional cable
package are very US-specific. In many countries cable television never got
that expensive and broad. For those consumers the notion of paying more than
$30 a month just for television (no internet included) is absurd.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
> A subscription to Netflix already grants me access to way more than I can
> reasonably watch. If my tastes were perfectly aligned with what Netflix
> offers

Your primary issue here is referring to volume. Netflix has their own content,
then pays for a small handful of extremely popular/valuable titles (see the
recent Seinfeld and Big Bang Theory streaming deals, as an example), and then
the rest of their content library is cheap trash they got for pennies on the
dollar. Entire markets now exist for making cheap movies just to fill out
streaming catalogs. (Check out the business model of a company called The
Asylum[1].)

Most of the value you're getting is in a very small portion of the overall
library of any given company. People aren't going to stay subscribed to
Disney+ because it has some old Disney shows which are $10 one-time to own on
DVD. They're going to stay subscribed because it has the _very latest_ handful
of Disney titles.

[1] [https://www.gq.com/story/sharknado-atlantic-rim-pacific-
rim-...](https://www.gq.com/story/sharknado-atlantic-rim-pacific-rim-asylum-
movie-spoof)

