
It’s not a zero-sum game for Apple TV+, Netflix, and Disney+ - koriw
https://onezero.medium.com/everyones-wrong-about-the-streaming-wars-95f1eb717a90
======
illuminati1911
"For months now, journalists, industry insiders, and consumers have opined on
who will “win” the streaming wars and why."

The more streaming services there will be, the more likely it is that only
thepiratebay and torrents will win.

~~~
alain94040
It's amazing how we have gone full circle in the last 15 years or so. In the
old days, people complained about their cable tv bill: why do I have to pay
for 250 channels when I only watch 5 of them? Let me pay only for what I
watch.

Now that the future is here, people are complaining that they need to sign up
for too many streaming services. Why can't I just pay once for a bundle and
get everything I need?

I'm just as guilty as everyone else, I don't have a good answer...

~~~
BurningCycles
>why do I have to pay for 250 channels when I only watch 5 of them? Let me pay
only for what I watch.

But that is still the case. If I could only pay for the shows I watch, I would
not complain. But if I watch one Netflix show, I can't just subscribe to that
show, I must pay for a ton of stuff I'm not remotely interested in.

You still have Netflix, Disney+ and all the cable channels you need to
subscribe to if you want their shows, how is this better for the consumer ?

An actual 'A la carte' situation is that of the consumer being able to
actually handpick the shows they want and only pay for those. This will never
happen due to the industry being absolutely hostile to the idea, second best
from a consumer standpoint is a single huge distributor like Netflix where you
would pay larger fee but have access to practically everything you want, that
is now pretty much a pipe dream since every major player wants to run their
own streaming platform. This is not the way to beat piracy.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
> An actual 'A la carte' situation is that of the consumer being able to
> actually handpick the shows they want and only pay for those. This will
> never happen due to the industry being absolutely hostile to the idea...

We've been able to do this with a substantial number of shows for _years,_
though, by buying individual episodes or "season passes" on Amazon and iTunes.
Maybe people just don't know, maybe people think the prices are too high, but
more than likely the market has just largely moved on from this model for much
the same reason that it moved on from CDs: the rise of streaming. (But put a
pin in that for a second...)

> ...second best from a consumer standpoint is a single huge distributor like
> Netflix where you would pay larger fee but have access to practically
> everything you want...

This is what we all want _price-wise,_ but would we really, truly want to turn
Netflix into the equivalent of the iOS App Store for essentially all legal
streaming movies and television?

Everyone blames the proliferation of streaming services on rapacious greed,
and, I mean, sure, the profit motive is mighty. But it's also a matter of
keeping control. Broadcast networks and cable companies are middlemen who not
only take a cut of the profit but who also act as gatekeepers; it's a little
mad to think that producers would want to free themselves from that system
only to rebuild it with a single all-powerful company in the command seat.

Sure, not all the streaming services will survive, especially at the prices
Netflix is currently charging. But I'm not convinced that the world is really
going to rise up and rebel against having to pay $50 or $60 a month total to a
half-dozen providers for commercial-free, on-demand access to hundreds of
thousand of shows versus paying $100+ a month to a single provider.

~~~
paranoidrobot
The problem with buying Season Passes is that they're usually a terrible
option for many reasons.

They're usually not available until well after the season premiered (12+
months later), roughly at the same time that the DVD/Bluray comes out.

The quality of them is iffy, at best - SD or HD at poor bitrates. Fine for
watching on a tablet or laptop, marginal at best on a TV/Surround system.

They're tied to watching on that specific platform, and you're fucked if you
wanted to watch on another platform, and if that platform goes away so do all
your purchases.

They're region locked, so if you went overseas for a bit, you can't access
them.

They're often either as expensive, or more, than the physical Bluray.

~~~
Benji_San
I'm still waiting for "Steam for TV series/Films". I've always felt that that
approach would work better as we're unlikely to get a single streaming service
with "most content" akin to music streaming". The model works well for
distributing games and doesn't have any of the deal breaking problems that you
listed (well except for it going out of business, but should not be a problem
as long as you have access to the files). I can't really see a reason why it
would not work for films or TV series.

Just provide something that isn't worse than torrents and reasonably priced
and I'll happily buy the content I'm interested in.

~~~
sammorrowdrums
Incidentally, steam does stream both standard film and VR content - just not
much of it. (So steam _is_ already steam for TV/Films in theory)

For example:
[https://store.steampowered.com/app/468060/PADAK/](https://store.steampowered.com/app/468060/PADAK/)

~~~
WorldMaker
Steam briefly had a content deal with Lionsgate, but the partnership didn't
work out (very few sales) and they abandoned the idea of selling TV/Films soon
after the partnership collapsed. They didn't seem able to get interest from
any other studio in that time, either. (Plus they were not able to and
disinterested in supporting the industry standard Movies Anywhere mutual-DRM-
unlocks-assurance system, so for at least some consumers their attempt was DOA
from the start.)

------
yxhuvud
It is not a zero sum game, because when there are enough of them I can't be
assed anymore and I will simply torrent the content instead.

The same way you usually never paid for single networks when you bought cable
stuff but just bought a bundle with a whole bunch of them.

~~~
fluffything
It might not be a zero sum game for them, but it definetely is a zero-sum game
for me. When I want to watch something, I just want to click it and watch it.
This is the API that my torrent tracker gives me for free (Airplay to Apple TV
works great for this).

I'm willing to pay for a service that I use a lot and gives me an API that's
at least as good as this. But it doesn't make any sense for me to pay for 5
services that combined give me a much worse API. Having to use 5 crappy apps
typing in 5 crappy search boxes until I find what I want to watch is quite
frustrating.

We started 2019 with Amazon Prime and Netflix, but when Netflix dropped
support for streaming from iOS to Apple TV using Airplay, we dropped it
(having to use the Netflix Apple TV App was worse than using torrents). Last
month, we noticed that most of our torrent streaming is HBO content, and we
subscribed to HBO instead. We've been torrenting The Mandalorian from Disney+
recently, but right now that's not remotely close to enough to make us
actually want to subscribe to Disney+.

Who ever thinks that requiring people to subscribe to more services is going
to actually make them do that, when there is a hassle free, simple, reliable,
and cost-free alternative, is delusional.

~~~
cyborgx7
I'm still baffled by the reasoning that leads to all the DRM theater. It does
nothing. the moment a piece of content reaches streaming apps, it's on every
torrent and free streaming platform.[1]

All it does is that it makes the user experience of paying customers worse.
Can't use their preferred video player. Can't use a frontend that puts all the
content together. Can't save it for later to watch online, unless the platform
has that functionality built in, usually in a restrictive and clunky way.

[1] I'm, of course, talking about platforms that aren't as aggressive about
getting rid of copyrighted content as youtube.

~~~
tguedes
At least in Netflix's case, some of it makes sense because of how much work
they put in to their website. Almost everything on their homepage is
personalized based on what they think will get you to watch that movie/show.
From the pictures, summary description, and video preview, that's all
customized to get you to watch more.

~~~
cyborgx7
Wouldn't they make more money by you watching less? Also, there is no reason
they couldn't have a decent website, just because they also didn't have DRM.

~~~
kipchak
Maybe the approach is the more people watch, the more they talk about the
(Netflix exclusive) shows with others who don't have Netflix and they
hopefully buy in?

------
saluki
I currently subscribe to all three of these and Amazon Prime, and it's less
than 1/6 of what I paid for directTV before cutting the cord 9 years ago, and
I don't even always keep my subscriptions active all year.

I like this way better, and there can be lots of winners. No way one streaming
service can provide and create everything. Plus that's not good either, choice
is better.

~~~
Traster
The problem is that you're not comparing like for like. All these services are
in growth phase now, they're pricing their services to compete. The problem is
that once they've all topped out and growth isn't happening anymore the way
they'll continue revenue growth is by slowly increasing the cost per customer.
So yeah, right now it's cheaper, but in 10 years time you're going to be
exactly back where we were. Right now you're benefitting from a bunch of
venture capital, but don't think that the position you're in right now is
going to last.

------
dijit
Woman I know cycles her subscriptions, consumes what she has on backlog and
then just moves onto the next.

It seems to work for her, although I don't think I'd be comfortable doing that
because I would miss out on pop-culture references.

(I mean, one only has to look at imgur.com for a few minutes to notice a lot
of Mandalorian memes, the cynic in me even considers that this might be due to
Disney shilling that content)

~~~
Mindwipe
If Disney were going to shill Star Wars memes they wouldn't be about a
character where they didn't make any merchandise in time for Christmas.

~~~
dijit
you mean like this: [https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/26/baby-yoda-
merchandise/](https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/26/baby-yoda-merchandise/)

------
nabla9
Streaming wars are called wars because newcomers are willing to burn money for
market share. Next few years Disney streaming operations are expected to make
$5B loss every year. They are still profitable because they make money from
everything else, including cable.

This is problem for Netflix. Competitors have other sources of revenue aside
from streaming services, Netflix has just streaming.

Netflix hasn't had positive free cash flow since 2011. As their most popular
series are leaving for competition and and the quality of original content is
suffering because they are in panic mode to create more original content.

~~~
trollied
> Competitors have other sources of revenue aside from streaming services,
> Netflix has just streaming.

Netflix have been doing cinema releases of their titles ahead of their
streaming debut. Surely that's other revenue?

~~~
Mindwipe
> Netflix have been doing cinema releases of their titles ahead of their
> streaming debut. Surely that's other revenue?

That's for awards qualification purposes. It brings in rounding errors, and
almost certainly operates at a significant loss.

------
ken
> Does the fact that there were four broadcast networks mean that one of them
> eventually prevailed, and the others disappeared? No. Was there a cable
> channel war resulting in one dominant cable network? No.

I get all 4 broadcast networks for free over the air. Cable channels are
infamously bundled so if I get one, I have to get dozens, and it's essentially
impossible for channels to fail in the market. These comparisons aren't like
competing streaming services at all.

If you look at the actual cable service providers, there are very few. They're
definitely prone to monopolies. Comcast (#1) would have bought Time Warner
(#2) a couple years ago if the government (and everybody else) wanted to block
it.

~~~
taurath
> if I get one, I have to get dozens, and it's essentially impossible for
> channels to fail in the market

Totally untrue! Cable companies have to pay a rate to get a channel. Most
channels don’t fail, their viewership drops and then they turn into cheap
syndication products and mostly use ad money. ESPN is like $15 of your cable
bill, and OXY is like $.05. If they didn’t have enough viewers to break even
on content costs and broadcast costs off of ad money, they would stop
broadcasting.

~~~
ken
Fair point. But I still don't think it's worthwhile to equate "one cable
channel (like OXY)" to "one streaming service (like Netflix)".

------
hamilyon2
Of course it is not zero-sum game. Everyone will lose at the same time.

No mention of piracy and torrents in the article. That is the "seventh player"
which will win along with cheap VPN services.

------
pbhjpbhj
How about: if you release on a publicly accessible channel (ie streaming
service) then copyright law is amended to say you have to release to any
service that requests it (after say one year) or you lose your copyright.

How would that not serve the public interest?

Public gets access. Copyright owners get paid. Middlemen can't fuck it all up
(so easily, I'm sure they'd find a way).

------
shmerl
It's pretty simple. Exclusives are bad for the user, period.

Exclusives might still work, if the store that's offering them is selling
something. I.e. you can buy something exclusive, and while it's annoying that
you are forced to use only specific store for it, at least you pay just for
what you bought.

Exclusivity isn't compatible with renting, or it least it won't scale. How
many renting services will users be paying for? I bet not many. So let them
start selling video, and preferably without any exclusivity.

------
kaolti
Solution: Sign up to an aggregator service that's say $15 / month and you can
watch any streaming service. When the month is up your $15 is distributed
between providers depending on how much you watched each of them.

~~~
neuronic
Nice solution for users, one that will immediately be denied by all providers.

Why take your share of $15 /month if you can easily coerce the vast majority
of consumers to pay the full $15 for _your_ service by releasing the next
season of <insert popular show here>.

All it took for the masses to immediately flood Disney+ was owning Star Wars
and Marvel.

I subscribed to HBO because of Game of Thrones back in the day, I have Prime
anyways and share Netflix with 3 other people.

I want what you described but nobody is going to let this happen if consumers
who are too tech-illiterate to pirate will pay up anyways.

------
foxfired
Calling it a war is a great strategy. It implies that one company will be left
standing. I think we can all agree with the article, there won't be one person
left standing.

But it's war! You have to choose a side. Are you Mac or PC? Are you iPhone or
Android? Are you Netflix or Hulu? This strategy, although I don't think it was
concocted by a secret group, is great at creating loyal customers. Some will
cheat of course and will swing left and right, but in the end, companies make
money.

------
hadlock
We are dropping Disney+ minutes after the last episode of the Maldorian
finishes it's screening at our house. Unless they release something
immediately thereafter. We split Netflix with my best friend and my wife and I
split Amazon prime/hbo. As soon as last week tonight wraps up we're cancelling
hbo too. We briefly had Hulu while the wife was binging on handmaid's tale but
have since cancelled. Not keeping these services on 52 weeks a year

------
zeroonetwothree
They are so cheap that I am just subscribed to everything. I know I’m
fortunate to be able to afford that but compared to what Americans are
spending on everything else it’s surely not a lot for the value you get. Still
cheaper than I used to pay for cable ($100)

~~~
npo9
I have never paid for cable in my life. The youngest generation hasn’t.
Comparing subscription services to cable won’t work for the newest customers
because they aren’t use to cable.

~~~
Supermancho
> Comparing subscription services to cable won’t work for the newest customers
> because they aren’t use to cable

Most Americans have cable. It's often inextricably linked with internet
access. The newest customers, in both rural and urban, are definitely used to
it.

~~~
anonytrary
As a young American, this is probably true for older generations, but I can't
see this remaining true for very long. I make sure to get _internet only_
packages from Comcast, since I have absolutely no desire or need for cable.

------
pwinnski
In this scenario, the modern viewer pays slightly more per month, and yet
still can't watch _Star Trek: Discovery_ , because the list doesn't include
CBS All Access. And first the modern viewer must have internet service. And
instead of a single interface, it's usually a variety of different interfaces,
with some guesswork about which show is in which one.

The big players will likely all survive, yes, but some of the smaller ones are
likely to end up also-rans. Thanks to IP exclusives, we'll end up with 3-4
players in the market, for sure. Better? Worse? I dunno. Different, for sure.

------
rehasu
Well, yes and no. Nowadays it's possible to serve all niches and the
mainstream market together at the same time, through the same general service
offering, simply by filtering and sorting the content according to user data.

Therefore I would assume that we can't fully apply the traditional media
experience to the current streaming wars.

------
xt00
The claim by the Comcast’s of the world has been that to get everything you
previously had with cable you would need to pay a lot more, but what’s
happening is that there is consolidation within the content provider side like
Hulu now being part of Disney. So the total list of streaming services we
might end up with is probably around 4-6, so if each one costs around $10 then
that’s still way cheaper than most cable services that are still charging
extra for “HD” service and stuff like that..

So next play is for somebody like Disney to buy an internet service provider
or something? Otherwise comcast will start throttling all of their competitors
more than they already are..

~~~
dragontamer
> So next play is for somebody like Disney to buy an internet service provider
> or something?

AT&T owns cell-phones, ISPs, HBO+, WB, DC-universe, and more.

~~~
wizardsOfOz
AT&T also is a horribly managed, bureaucratic company. They have like 8
branded streaming products besides HBO Go, Max, Plus and snow. IMO, Netflix’s
high performance culture and attention to detail could be what sets them
apart. If they’re not throttled by one of these providers of course.

~~~
xt00
Yea the hbo streaming situation is bonkers.. totally reeks of meeting some odd
corporate goals or some BS. They need to solidify their offerings at ATT into
like one service or something.. just have it be like HBO+ and call it a day.

------
Darvon
Imagine giving a billionaire money for something being offered freely from a
peer.

------
dekalbcountyman
my response after reading the title

"but it is for consumers"

------
_pmf_
I'll do my part to make it so.

------
Akababa
Call me pedantic, but the usage of the term "zero-sum" in this article makes
no sense. They use it synonymously with "winner-take-all" which is so far from
it's original meaning that you have to question whether the author even knows
what zero-sum means, or if they're just using the buzzword to attract clicks.

In fact, increased competition leads to reduced profits (at least in the short
term), making this a "negative-sum" game.

~~~
akiselev
_> In fact, increased competition leads to reduced profits (at least in the
short term), making this a "negative-sum" game._

I'm not an economist but I've never heard of competition described as
"negative-sum." It's zero-sum because the consumer wins.

"Negative-sum" would be a nuclear weapons manufacturer profiting off blowing
up half the planet. The manufacturer might have made money, but overall
everyone else loses far more than the manufacturer gained.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
> It's zero-sum because the consumer wins.

That's not the traditional economic understanding of the *-sum expression
either. In economics, competition forces efficiency improvements, which makes
competition in cases where increased efficiency is possible positive-sum.

~~~
akiselev
What's the point of efficiency improvements to a business without a consumer?
They could be another business, but at the end of day a member of the public
has to pay for it with taxes or post-tax dollars. Economies dont exist without
consumers to consume what the producers produce.

Sure you could measure efficiency in widgets per human-hour but at the end of
day, efficiency improvements do not happen in lock-step across industries so
at some point you have to convert to a meaningful value dictated by consumers.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
Efficiency improvements lead to an overall increase in the amount of goods
produced given a fixed amount of input. The benefit devolves onto both the
producer and the consumer (this is called "surplus"), each according to their
elasticity of demand. That's the econ 101 model, in any case.

In the televised video market, this "efficiency" might manifest as higher
quality shows, or a wider selection of shows available to watch. You only need
to look back to the early days of TV to see that what we have today is much
better (more entertaining, more interesting, has higher technical quality). We
also have a vastly expanded selection of shows to watch. This is the result of
competition. The sum is positive, because the overall utility produced has
increased.

> What's the point of efficiency improvements to a business without a
> consumer?

I am not sure what in my comment this is referring to. To a first
approximation, there are no firms without customers. At least, none that are
both legal and last very long.

~~~
akiselev
Thank you for the explanation, that makes more sense.

How is overall utility measured in cases of intangible goods like TV shows and
movies? I think I understand what surplus means in the context of
industrial/agricultural production or simple services like hair cuts or
deliveries but what about media? The success of movies or TV shows can't be
quantified with an objective measurement like length or CGI per square inch or
Rotten Tomato points, only by the profit they generate - which seems to only
get more circular and complicated with Hollywood accounting.

There are certainly more shows available to watch today, "interesting" or not,
because the market for entertainment has grown massively but it seems to me
they only have higher technical quality because human attention is zero sum
and they've hit diminishing returns on their capital (which I don't think is
all that different from most other industries).

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
> How is overall utility measured

In the sense of the model, it's not necessarily measured. There is an
understanding that there is no such measuring tool as a "util measuring
stick." Util being my made up word for a unit of utility. It is taken as a
given that utils are roughly convertible to currency, or at least that people
are willing to exchange a roughly consistent amount of currency for a given
amount of utility. The amount of currency exchanged in a voluntary economic
transaction represents both an upper bound on the seller's valuation of what
they are selling and a lower bound on the buyer's valuation of what they are
buying.

All of this with the appropriate vast numbers of caveats about it just being a
model. It's a tool for rough prediction.

> human attention is zero sum

This is not so. You could be forced to pay attention to paint drying on a
wall, or you could watch a show that moves you to tears. Both consume the same
amount of attention (by which I think you mean, "time spent paying
attention"), but both do not provide you so the same amount of utility. You
would obviously pay more for one of those experiences than the other.

