
Consumers are frustrated by endless streaming services - Inuk
https://blog.peer5.com/you-favourite-show-is-on-another-platform-endless-streaming-services-and-frustrated-consumers/
======
mikestew
Used to be I made an item for sale, sold it to an expert in retail sales, and
they sold it to a customer. Now content creators want to own the store, too.
Problem is, if the ice cream makers want their own store, and the meat growers
have their own store, well I’ll be damned if I’m driving all over town, so I’m
skipping the ice cream.

In this analogy, I dust off my copy of a bittorrent client that I thought I’d
retired after HBO wised up. Because HBO Go, Netflix, and iTunes to fill in the
gaps is as far as I’m willing to drive.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _Used to be I made an item for sale, sold it to an expert in retail sales,
> and they sold it to a customer_

My dad had a company about twenty years ago, that helped solve an important
problem in getting cell phone coverage deep into buildings. They achieved this
via a little hardware widget.

He'd frequently complain about various business issues, so one day I asked
him: why are you guys having all these problems? Why are you leasing these
widgets, why are there all these contracts in place? You guys make widgets;
why not sell them?

So he explained it - if you make widgets and sell them, once every building
has enough widgets, your company is done and you gotta go out and find some
new way of making money. But if you're _leasing_ these widgets, on a yearly
basis, with a warranty plan, etc., etc., you can actually continue making
money.

There hasn't been a "used to be" in forever. People have figured out that
selling widgets isn't the best way to have a continuous revenue stream.

~~~
mikestew
_People have figured out that selling widgets isn 't the best way to have a
continuous revenue stream._

I'll make note of that should I ever find myself selling widgets. Should I
ever buy said widget, I'm sure I won't need another one until this one breaks.
Seems to me one could make money selling widgets that are a little different
than the last ones sold, so the customer keeps coming back for more. Starting
to see where I'm going with this?

However, Disney isn't selling widgets. Disney is selling a product I've
purchased hundreds of times over. I mean, I've _seen_ a movie. I own bits of
plastic should I ever care to reuse that product. Yet I keep buying more of
them. Just like no one leases me ice cream, either.

But I'm not here to argue. I'm here to say, "should Outcome A come to pass,
here's what you can expect from me." Disney can do whatever the hell they
please.

~~~
scaryspooky
> Seems to me one could make money selling widgets that are a little different
> than the last ones sold, so the customer keeps coming back for more

The Apple/Samsung model.

> Disney is selling a product I've purchased hundreds of times over.

Disney is extending copyright terms with heavy lobbying and cronyism, and then
every few decades opens their "vault" for the new and younger generation of
parents to buy the same product. As long as they can keep successfully
lobbying for longer copyright this is a sustainable business model because
quantity will be limited, and who owns a VHS player any more? Guess you should
buy that DVD player after all, and the new DVD copy of Snow White. DVD? What's
that?

------
paol
This might sound radical, but I think a system of compulsory licensing should
be instituted.

It worked for radio and it worked for physical video rental (in fact that's
the reason netflix's physical rental catalog has almost every movie while
their digital catalog has few and keeps shrinking)

~~~
rayiner
What is the economic rationale behind such a scheme? There are almost no
barriers to entry in either the content-creation market or the content-
distribution market. Indeed, the barriers are lower than ever thanks to
digital media workflows.

It's kind of like saying we should have a law to force car manufacturers to
sell to any dealership, so Toyota can't have Toyota dealerships versus Ford
having Ford dealerships. Maybe there is a hand-wavy argument that it would
make car shopping more convenient, but is there an actual market failure that
would justify regulatory intervention?

It should be noted that compulsory licensing for music is just an accident of
history with no sensible economic foundation:
[http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...](http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1447&context=lawreview).

~~~
ryanbrunner
Lower barriers to entry aren't a bad thing though - I'm perfectly happy having
a lot of competition in the content distribution or content creation markets.
It drives innovation and ultimately results in a healthier market and more
consumer choice.

I think the possible danger that compulsory licensing would prevent is that
companies can use their market power in one area to starve out competition in
another. For example, once Disney launches their streaming service, they could
easily capture a large portion of the market due to their dominance in content
creation

~~~
rayiner
If the worry is that Disney will use market dominance in one market to capture
another (ala Microsoft and browsers), the solution is antitrust action against
Disney, not forcing compulsory licensing on all content creators whether they
have market power or not.

~~~
ryanbrunner
I guess my point is, if this is a natural consequence of vertical integration
between content creation and content distribution, a more general approach
could make sense (you could make the same argument to a lesser degree about
HBO or even Netflix).

~~~
rayiner
But what you're positing is a consequence only where vertical integration is
combined with horizontal dominance. If I don't have market dominance in
content, there is little risk that I'll be able to translate that into
dominance of the streaming market.

At the same time, there are huge downsides. You take all the negotiating
leverage away from the content creators and give it to the distribution
middlemen.

------
tomc1985
So let's bring back piracy! Show these content holders who is boss... let's
make _them_ feel beholden to _us_ for once! So many "entrepreneurs" think that
slapping supply-and-demand on data (something for which there is literally an
infinite supply of) is something they can do, let's show them otherwise.

Of course lots of people will be like, "that's stealing" and "if creators
don't make money shows don't get made," which is fine, as there is too much
garbage for sale anyway. This way we kill two birds with one stone: the
culling of shitty media _AND_ greedy creators.

------
nhoiunh4nth
Frankly, I'm fine with the current situation. I can buy ala carte stuff on
iTunes, Amazon, and a few other services. I can subscribe to a few "networks"
or whatever you want to call them, that consistently provide good original
shows (like Netflix and HBO).

On the rare occasion that a show that I would like to watch is on a service I
don't have, I can either, wait a year for it to become available ala carte
(like GoT on iTunes, for example), I can watch at a friend's house, or I can
just find something else to watch because there's so much good stuff on.

I can't think of any compelling reason to subscribe to either services with
ads, or to dozens of streaming services. I won't get to watch everything, but
honestly, I don't have time to watch everything. It's still cheaper and way
less annoying than cable TV. Even if it weren't cheaper, I'd still do it
because it's _that much_ less annoying than cable TV.

~~~
ghaff
I'm pretty much in the same boat. I admittedly don't watch a huge amount of
video but a few purchases (physical and digital) and a few streaming services
and I'm pretty good. I haven't quite pulled the plug on cable TV yet but I
will sooner or later. I certainly get a lot more value out my non-cable TV
spending.

There's very little that I just _must_ see and even less that I must see right
now. There's frankly far more really good content available than I'm ever
going to get around to watching anyway.

------
kinkrtyavimoodh
Seriously. I have Netflix, YouTube Red, HBO, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and yet I
often have to end up paying (or pirating) for very well-known movies. What's
the fricking point.

------
f2n
Meanwhile, bittorrent is completely free and requires absolutely no
subscription.

~~~
eridius
And is illegal.

EDIT: Does it really need to be stated that the context here is using
bittorrent to illegally download copyrighted works, and that the protocol
itself is not illegal?

~~~
navidfarhadi
The BitTorrent communication protocol is not illegal, at least here in the US.

~~~
rhino369
Don't be dense, f2n was clearly advocating for downloading copies of
copyrighted works.

~~~
navidfarhadi
Yeah, that was very likely what f2n was advocating. However I wanted to make
it clear to eridius that it is not the protocol itself that is illegal.
Downloading copies of copyrighted works is indeed illegal.

BitTorrent is not only used for illegally downloading copies of copyrighted
content, just like encryption is not exclusively used for terrorism.

~~~
eridius
I would like to make it clear that I am perfectly aware the protocol is not
illegal, and I'm rather flabbergasted that anyone thought that actually needed
to be said. The context was _very clearly_ advocating for using bittorrent to
illegally download copyrighted works.

------
navidfarhadi
At what point would it just be cheaper to buy an old desktop/server, put a
FOSS OS on there, install Plex/Kodi, and purchase all of your media legally?

~~~
heartles
For most, probably never. While installing Plex/Kodi on an old machine isn't
that hard, it's well outside of the comfort/effort zone of most people.

------
spicymaki
The solution for me is to wait and get the show on DVD/BlueRay (the local
library usually gets these shows for free rentals).

------
40acres
I'm fine with this arrangement. Between Netflix, HBO & Amazon I have more than
enough content to fill my viewing habits. I rarely pirate content because
usually there is something good to watch.

Customers were frustrated by highly integrated cable companies who charged for
channels they didn't want. Now customers are frustrated by highly module
content creators creating their own distribution channels, at the end of the
day I do not think there will be a middle ground. Content has become segmented
and you'd better pick your providers wisely.

~~~
lovich
There very easily could be a middle ground. If there was one source to stream
data from and have a single login/payment where you selected your content
sources and they were added to your single bill, I don't think any consumer
would be unhappy. Paying for the content you consume isn't the problem is
either paying for extra content you don't use with cable, or keeping track of
numerous providers and having to authenticate all of them whenever I get a new
device or change cards.

The content creating companies don't want this however as they would lose
power in this arrangement and probably make less money. That'll just lead to
rampant piracy again. As we've seen with every type of digital good where
consuming it legally was difficult/frustratinf

------
QAPereo
This is just going to lead to another massive wave of ~privacy~ piracy (thanks
for the correction), and it’s harder to win people back from free than hold
them to begin with.

~~~
j-c-hewitt
Rentals would be more appealing if the prices on the main services weren't so
sky-high. Why is it that you can buy a 2-year-old AAA game (equivalent to a
summer blockbuster) indefinitely for somewhere between $5-20 when it's on
sale, but it costs at least $4 to rent an old movie for just a day in HD and
sometimes more like $8? Instead of pricing taking digital into account movie
studios keep trying to protect their DVD/bluray pricing.

In the end for a popular movie it's often a better experience to just pirate
it. Netflix churns through movies so frequently that actually finding
something that's not sub-Kangaroo Jack in quality takes longer than just
torrenting.

~~~
dingo_bat
Also Netflix's quality is just shit. I have a good connection. Fast.com (which
measures bandwidth to Netflix servers) shows a solid 100Mbps (which is what I
pay for). Then why does my movie start off worse than a 10 year old DVD? Even
youtube is better.

~~~
xur17
I've been very disappointed by this as well - I pay for a 4k Netflix
subscription, but can't actually use it on any devices. Linux is restricted to
720p due to copyright protections, and my older tv is restricted to 1080p
since it doesn't have new enough HDMI ports (again due to copyright
restrictions).

~~~
drspacemonkey
It was only recently that Windows got 4k Netflix, and that comes with a big
bag of caveats. It's gotta be one of a handful of Nvidia GPUs, using a recent
driver, only on monitors that support the right version of HDCP, and only
through the Netflix app (ie: no web streaming).

~~~
xur17
Yeah, piracy seems way easier, better, and cheaper..

~~~
QAPereo
The downside is that you don’t get to support the media you enjoy through
purchase or Netflix metrics, that kind of thing. It probably skews the ability
of streaming services et al to learn what people who know how to pirate watch.
Given that pirates skew to a very desirable youth demographic, that’s no good
at all.

Still, they’re giving us few good choices.

------
Havoc
Yeah it is getting annoying. I’ve got the bigger ones - Netflix and prime.
Anything else I’ll just backfill via alternative methods.

------
mikeash
It’s strange how his has happened with video, while the opposite has happened
with music. There are a bunch of music streaming services with really similar
catalogs. Most people can just subscribe to one and be done. Why has video
ended up with such a mess? Or, how did music avoid it?

~~~
toast0
Music has compulsory licensing, and rights societies; visual entertainment
doesn't.

------
scarface74
I currently subscribe to Netflix (free from T-Mobile), Amazon Prime Video (not
for the video just because I have Prime), Hulu w/o commercials, CBS All
Access, Sling (everything else), Starz (summer only) and I watch CW (free).

About $45 a month.

And it's still worth it to enjoy a much better experience across multiple
devices, no crazy fees for cable tv, and not having to deal with the cable
company's crappy hardware.

It also helps that only pay $70 a month for unlimited gigabit internet.

And I still end up getting movies off of the "back of a truck"

------
juancn
We need a standard streaming API. I like Netflix's interface, and I would pay
for HBO for example, but I want the shows to show using the Netflix interface,
not another crappy client.

------
mrguyorama
Just another reason to consume less media. I enjoyed netflix, and then
everything good left netflix. I enjoyed youtube, and then it started shafting
creators. I enjoyed a lot of modern video games, but now they all require you
to pay extra money for what used to be standard functionality. Meanwhile TV
has never been good, seeing as in America you see a commercial every ten
minutes, and the same exact 4 commercials all day.

Sorry creators, I can't support you, your owners are being dicks.

------
Veratyr
It looks like the movie industry is finally gaining a little sanity with
Movies Anywhere
([https://moviesanywhere.com/welcome](https://moviesanywhere.com/welcome)), I
really want something similar for TV and the other streaming services.

Does anyone know how the stakeholders managed to come up with Movies Anywhere?
_Someone_ managed to get everyone talking. Could such an approach work for TV
and VOD as well?

~~~
a_e_k
It's based on Disney Movies Anywhere. If you've bought a Disney movie in the
last few years that comes with a digital copy, you'll have gotten a code to
redeem on DMA. Movies Anywhere seems to be an expansion of that to drop the
Disney-exclusive branding and include content from other studios.

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/12/16462824/movies-
anywhere...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/12/16462824/movies-anywhere-
digital-movie-locker-disney-warner-bros-universal-twentieth-century-fox-sony)

------
alphabettsy
The unified search of Apple TV have helped alleviate this issue to some
extent, but the fact that there are so many different platforms with different
content makes it feel an awful lot like cable, when you don’t have the package
to watch the show you want to see. Purchase from iTunes or Amazon and Piracy
often end up being more convenient.

------
aag2113
One solution is to use Netflix's DVD service. In my experience it has the
largest catalogue of any service and in many instances is the only way to
legally view a movie without actually purchasing a copy.

It also switches from a passive "watch what is available" model to an active
"watch what you have sought out" model.

~~~
ghaff
In spite of the fact that the DVD service has declined in availability, it
still IMO makes a lot of sense to keep a steady stream of content coming into
the house that I've deliberately chosen to watch. It's a good way, for
example, to watch Oscar winners and other movies I know I want to see when
they're available. I have a minimal grandfathered plan and it works for me to
have two DVDs a month arrive in my mailbox.

------
b3lvedere
The endless amount of content versus the lack of time for it has made me
incredibly selective about entertainment. It has to be extremely good, super
easy to access and have an insane low price. Streaming services do not
qualify... yet.

------
edkennedy
Maybe the now there will be an effort to aggregate and make deals with the
streaming services since net neutrality has been repealed. They could bundle
up all the services into a single package. Why does this sound so familiar...
/s

------
pmontra
I'd pay for video on demand, as in I want to watch that episode, I pay one
Euro and come back when I wish to watch more. No monthly fee, no bundles, I
won't pay for that.

------
wnevets
sounds like we need some sort of subscription service that bundles most of
them together for one price. Premium channels I mean services like HBO could
be add for a separate charge.

------
gech
The promise of new technology was to provide simplicity and better prices for
the consumer, not for content providers to try to run around maintaining
legacy profit margins.

------
trentnix
57 channels and nothing on...

------
ballenf
> ... VRV is the only bundle of other streaming-only services that I’m aware
> of. This is shocking. If consumers are reluctant to have 3 or more streaming
> services, bundle packages are an obvious alternative.

I'm not sure if the author realizes the irony in pining for a return to the
equivalent of cable bundles.

Not to mention that there is nothing shocking about Netflix, Hulu or Amazon
having less than zero interest in allowing their services to be bundled. It
would undermine their very business model while also devaluing the service in
consumers' minds.

It concludes with several disjointed, contradictory conclusions:

> We have seen these streaming services do little to distinguish themselves
> through technology, payment models or branding. There is a lot more that
> could be explored in the underlying system of how video is delivered over
> the internet, and this is an area many smaller services should begin to
> investigate, while the giants fight it out over who has the next Game of
> Thrones/Stranger Things hit.

Who cares how innovatively the video gets transmitted if all the shows you
want to watch are on a different streaming service? Quite the fool's errand to
throw money at tech innovation without great content as a foundation.

> Streaming video over the internet is hard. The underlying technology is
> complex and fickle, and to do it right is expensive. Perhaps as expensive as
> buying or creating content.

Spoiler: this is a lead-in to the sales pitch. And also why the current
payments models are well-suited to the product: they ensure a higher degree of
revenue to pay the high overhead.

> To be sustainable, a streaming service needs several pieces. It needs to
> handle high loads and deliver high quality streams. It needs great exclusive
> IP or popular original content. And it also needs to be innovative and to
> develop a strong brand to stand out in the crowd.

> It’s a big ask, but it is doable.

This statement undermines advocating for smaller services to take on the
giants without all these necessary ingredients.

And the pitch (my critique is clearly not of their product or company):

> If you’d like to hear more about Peer5 and the advantages of P2P video
> streaming, you can reach out to us for a demo!

\-----

The bottom line is this: this is a winner-take-all market that will
consolidate down to 2-3 major players. Netflix, Amazon and probably
Disney/Hulu (depending on Hulu's fate post DisneyFox merger). I am very
doubtful we'll see HBO be able to replicate GoT and it will quickly fall to
niche status. There will always be niche players, but we are already well past
the point of seeing a challenger to Netflix. And the consolidation is most
definitely in the average consumer's best interest to alleviate the very
frustration that was the point of the article. Even more odd that the article
advocates the creation of more streaming services (bundled or not) while
starting with the premise of consumers' frustration over just such issues.

------
ckdarby
This just looks like a plug for peer5.js

It isn't that complex to build out a CDN. Rent out unmetered server, slap
together nginx, gluster, and openresty modules.

