
Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable - frostmatthew
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/11/dont-ruin-streaming-by-turning-it-into-cable/
======
bunderbunder
It seems to me like more of this fragmentation will make streaming _less_ like
cable.

I don't care much for Disney content. Now that Disney's leaving, that frees up
Netflix resources to (hopefully) get more of the content that I want.
Realistically I'm not fond of Netflix's offerings of late, so I don't have
high hopes. It's like basic cable these days; very shallow coverage of a lot
of different things, so my interest tends to evaporate quickly. But the more
that more focused Netflix alternatives pop up, the more I can find things that
do suit my interests.

In summary, yes, please do "ruin" streaming for the author. It'll make
streaming all the better for me.

~~~
Retric
The problem is there is going to be a minimum monthly fee of around 10$ to
keep the lights on. So, fragmentation just increases prices without any net
benefit for the consumer.

The real killer IMO is most young adults just don't watch much TV in any form.
If your watching ~10 hours a month then paying for more than one streaming
service is just a waste. Don't forget it's the median viewer that's important
not the average of 0, 1, 2, 3, 100.

~~~
smelendez
> The real killer IMO is most young adults just don't watch much TV in any
> form.

It's interesting, I'm 32 so on the upper end of millennial. We're supposed to
be the multitasking, multiple screen generation.

But I'll visit older relatives, say 55+, and they'll have the TV on constantly
and just talk over it. I find it so distracting and honestly stressful, like
when you're on a conference call, your boss is Slacking you and your friend's
texting about their fight with their SO last night.

My friends my age all say the same. For most "young adults," you're either
silently watching TV, or you're doing something else.

My best guess is that TV has gotten louder and faster paced, but older viewers
have hung on to their habits. I bet I could easily have a conversation during
Cheers or '90s Law and Order, but not today's shows.

~~~
whoiskevin
Humans can't multitask regardless of their generation

~~~
tertius
He/she means, rapid task switching.

------
PaulHoule
Stupid article.

There is the atavistic fantasy of "you can watch everything you want at one
low price", except the price is not a low price, it is a high price.

The big anti-competitive problem with cable is that cable and satellite
providers do not offer a choice of packages. You get basically the same thing
with all providers. Hollywood loves it because they get paid no matter how
good or bad the stuff they make is, but long term it is bad because there is
no market discipline.

Some people with kids will love a Disney-branded streaming bundle and find a
lot of value in it. Sports fans will see value in getting the games and
commentary they want from ESPN.

Note Disney hasn't announced a "Marvel" or "Star Wars" bundle because in those
cases they probably will need to partner with other companies. For instance,
what kind of Marvel bundle doesn't have Spider-Man or the X-Men? Sony has the
film rights for Spidey, Fox has the rights for the X-Men.

To make a really appealing "Superhero" bundle, Disney may need to team up with
other companies...

~~~
calafrax
don't forget that producing all this content costs 10's of billions per year
so someone has to pay for it. both the cost of production and the amount
produced keeps increasing so prices need to go up to.

~~~
dingo_bat
I find the costs for producing films and TV shows a bit absurd. I'm sure they
can optimise a lot, but they don't because they're used to paying 100 million
dollars for a superhero movie. They can easily get 99% of the production value
at far lower cost.

~~~
jseliger
_I find the costs for producing films and TV shows a bit absurd_

I'm sure that if you, dingo_bat, were in charge of a film studio or TV
company, you'd no doubt find incredible ways, overlooked by everyone else in
the industry, to dramatically cut costs and increase profits.

------
mabub24
So the author instead wants everything to go through Netflix and Spotify? Why
would Disney care? Their product practically prints money for them. Unlike
Netflix, Disney doesn't need to constantly make fresh content for new
subscribers. It makes business sense to just park it into a service and let
the money roll in. That's what they do with their "vault." The real question
will be how much it costs for a subscription.

People are honestly okay with fragmentation. It's the cost they mind. But even
then families are 100% shelling out for that sweet sweet Disney content.

~~~
ebola1717
But people aren't gonna pay $10 or even $5 every month for a disney-only
streaming subscription, if disney doesn't put out new content for it. It's way
cheaper to just buy your favorite disney shows & movies. Disney is more
established in producing fresh content for their subscribers - cause they're a
studio - but that's a different question.

~~~
icelancer
>But people aren't gonna pay $10 or even $5 every month for a disney-only
streaming subscription, if disney doesn't put out new content for it.

Oh yes they are. Disney owns a ton of properties, and the ability to have
exclusive streaming rights over timeless classics is worth a lot.

Kids love to watch the same movie over and over again. They love
predictability.

~~~
mrexroad
This.

Over and over and over. Really enjoy seeing them gain new insights of same
film every dozen viewings or so (light sarcasm, mostly truth).

------
baron816
There's a very simple solution for anyone worried about fragmentation: don't
buy it.

We got into a bad situation with cable because we didn't have a choice. It was
either pay $80 per month for everything, or not watch TV at all.

We have choices now, and Disney isn't going to be able to force their service
on anyone. If people really like their new products and think it's worth the
money, then fine. If people hate having to pay them separately and no one
signs up, then they'll shut it down and go back to how it is now. Consumers
have a lot of power now, and whatever happens will likely be in their
interests.

I personally would be willing to pay a good bit of money to have access to the
full back catalog of films from all the major studios. The streaming services'
catalogs are very limited, and I'm often in the mood to watch one particular
movie that isn't available. Spotify has nearly every song I ever want to
listen to. Nothing exists like that for movies.

~~~
seanp2k2
I agree on all accounts, however, movies aren't really comparable to music. An
episode of a show costs a ton more than a song to make (typically vs
typically, there are cheap shows and expensive songs, sure). A movie costs a
lot more than an album to produce.
[http://mentalfloss.com/article/57656/15-albums-cost-
fortune-...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/57656/15-albums-cost-fortune-make)
has an album costing $15m to produce which was a huge outlier. Most expensive
albums are in the $1-$2mm range.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films)
has the most expensive films above $300mm a pop. That's two orders of
magnitude, and granted there are way fewer movies than albums (I think), a
Spotify for movies with tons of back catalogue coverage would probably need to
cost $100-$1000/month to make it worth it to the studios.

Actually, $150 a month to legally watch almost anything ever made would be a
fairly appealing option. Good luck getting even a few studios on board,
though. Pricing in future expected rev into it, it'd probably need to be
closer to the $1k/month mark to make it worth it. It'll never happen.

~~~
baron816
I agree. Additionally, I'm not going to watch the same movie everyday for
weeks or months at a time like I do with an album. Renting movies from
Amazon/iTunes/Vudu is probably the optimal solution in my case. It's strange
how this was the norm in the pre-Netflix days, and now, the idea of paying a
la carte makes us feel like we're wasting money. Maybe we need an Audible
model where we get ~6 movies a month for a flat fee and discounts after that.
I don't know what to do with television content.

------
nerdponx
These "bloated" packages exist specifically to force you into buying more than
you need. It's a standard monopoly pricing technique, and the presence of
bundled packages indicates monopoly power in the market.

~~~
calafrax
i am not sure that it is directly tied to monopoly. paying for a subscription
reduces friction for watching individual shows/channels so it increased total
viewership and total consumption. every pay point you add adds more friction
so will reduce consumption. that is true whether you have monopolies or not.
you could have 5 competitors and they would all maximize profit by selling
bundles.

------
bad_hairpiece
If this segmentation continues, it'll be interesting to see how streaming
devices adapt. Requiring a separate app for each content provider is a pain
and makes browsing for content much less pleasant, especially when interfaces
differ amongst apps.

I think it'd be ideal to have a single app to access content. Users would
purchase their desired networks from within this app and would have a unified
viewing experience.

~~~
snaoe89rrht
This exists. On the Apple TV it's called the "TV" app. I'm sure other devices
have something similar. On my Apple TV I see all the shows and movies I'm
watching on HBO Now, Showtime, iTunes, and most other services in one spot.
Netflix is the only holdout I've run into, and it pisses me off, but that's
their prerogative I guess.

------
usaphp
I have a question to US people, when you say "cord cutter" \- what exactly do
you mean? Because you still need to pay for internet to the same cable
company, and the price is only 5-10% cheaper compared to the same plan with
cable box? Am I not understanding it correctly?

~~~
0x4f3759df
The cable company here in Minneapolis is Comcast (the number 1 hated company
in America year after year), which I can avoid by going through CenturyLink
(the phone company). Thus I deprive Comcast of their revenues and don't pay
ESPN a nickel. All I watch is Amazon Prime.

My Internet is $30 / mo. Comcast Internet & TV is $49 per month for 12 mo (a
teaser rate), their real rates seem to be $120 or $150, plus they steal your
time by signing you up for stuff you don't want. Search for "comcast signed me
up for didn't order"

Minor update: I'm looking forward to Elon's satellite based Internet system.
So I might go with that in the future.

~~~
jamie_ca
If you're just doing it for web/streaming video, it'll be fine. If you do any
gaming or videoconferencing, the latency on satellite puts a real damper on
the "feel" of the connection.

~~~
0x4f3759df
Musk claims to have improved satellite latency by a factor of 52, from 1300 ms
to 25 ms. So maybe the issues will be resolved.

------
ihsw2
The solution is, of course, for Netflix to open up to pricing differentiation.
There is no reason for HBO Now to be offered outside of Netflix other than
haggling over pricing.

What's wrong with Netflix rising above the rabble and focusing instead on
providing excellent user experiences and rock-solid world-class reliability?

Just put in a checkbox somewhere that, when checked, added HBO for $X/month.
Boom, it's opt-in and a-la-carte, the holy grail desired by cord-cutters
everywhere.

At this point it's only Netflix's fault that the content owners are running
away and it's within their capability to remedy the situation while keeping
everybody happy. Let the children have their candy!

~~~
ubernostrum
Amazon is already doing this; if you have Prime, you can add on subscriptions
to HBO, Starz, Cinemax, and a bunch of other channels for a monthly fee.

~~~
codingdave
Amazon would crush Netflix if they would just build a good UX for their
streaming. We have both Prime and Netflix and literally the only reason we
don't cancel Netflix is because browsing the available content on Amazon is
just painful in comparison.

------
froo
To be honest, I think catchall solutions work best. I'm more likely to pay for
content, if I can just pay 1 or 2 places.

When I heard that Disney was leaving Netflix, I'm not inclined to sign up to
Disney as well. To be honest, unless they give me a unique value proposition
(like having their feature films available on site weeks after theatrical
release) I'm unlikely to want to fork out extra bucks for the one studio.

If they give me something that is a better experience than the competition,
I'll throw my money at them. Other than that, meh

~~~
bunderbunder
Disney's deal with Netflix was estimated to have netted them $300M (per year,
I'm guessing, but I'm not sure), and Netflix is estimated to have 100M users.
Assume that Disney would only take home half their revenues from running their
own streaming service. That puts their financial break-even point at 300M /
(5*12) = 5 million people signing up.

5 million US families attracted to this as an easy way to keep their kids
entertained? Doesn't seem a huge stretch to me.

------
ghaff
There's possibly some opportunity that, if you really don't want _any_ real-
time sports, you could possibly save some money by stripping that from
subscription offerings. But fantasies that removing the Home and Garden
Channel from bundles reduces the monthly bill are just fantasies.

In some respects, fragmentation is a mental overhead. But that's going to be
the reality and the end result isn't going to be any cheaper for anyone who
really cares about getting access to anything they want to watch.

~~~
sverige
ESPN accounts for a huge percentage of most monthly cable bill cost. I never
watch live sports, nor do a pretty good percentage of cable subscribers. Just
cutting ESPN could reduce cable bills by a third to a half in a lot of
markets. This is why ESPN is suffering financially as cord cutting increases.

~~~
ghaff
The cost for ESPN is something like $8-$9 per month so a lot but not the
overwhelming cost of a cable TV bill. I also think you overestimate the number
of people willing to totally give up being able to watch sports. I know I
watch very little but I hesitate to totally cut the cord.

~~~
sverige
In some markets, ESPN and other sports channels accounts for as much as $20
per month of the standard cable bill, and those costs are rising. [1]

And I don't think I'm overestimating the number of people willing to give up
paying for sports on cable. It's somewhere between 57% and 80% of cable
subscribers. [2]

That's a giant subsidy for an entertainment industry based on watching adults
play children's games. Of course, if you're a sportsman, you won't see it that
way, but if you're not, it may create a different reaction.

[1] [http://time.com/money/4590614/cable-bill-sports-cord-
cutting...](http://time.com/money/4590614/cable-bill-sports-cord-cutting-
streaming/)

[2] "This is the heart of the Sports Cable Bubble: Tens of millions of pay
television viewers spending what Thompson estimates is at least $100 a year on
sports programming they have no intention of ever watching, pumping billions
into games enjoyed by others, enriching networks, leagues, teams and athletes
all the while. (The exact number of non-sports fans is difficult to peg: A
recent Harris Interactive poll found that 43 percent of Americans won't cancel
cable and satellite television simply because of live sports, which also
suggests that the majority of the country could be perfectly happy not paying
for ESPN; industry analyst David Bank told Bloomberg Businessweek that 80
percent of basic-cable customers would decline to pay for sports if given a
choice; Forbes writer Alan McGlade figures that no more than 10 million homes
are regular ESPN viewers, about 10 percent of the total pay TV market.)"
\--from
[http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/53498716/](http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/53498716/)

~~~
ghaff
Note though that ESPN != watching live sports. A lot of, especially local
team, games are on regular network channels. And it's their local team games
that most relatively casual sports watchers really care about.

I actually don't watch much sports at all. But I hesitate to give up all
access to real-time television. (I can't get anything OTA.)

~~~
sverige
Right, and regular network channels don't cost as much as ESPN and Fox Sports
(for example), and also offer a variety of programming.

------
haberman
I just moved to a place where I can get gigabit fiber and spent a lot of time
looking into how I want to get TV. So far the cord-cutting options that look
most compelling to me are Hulu Live TV (Beta) and YouTube TV (sadly not
available in my area yet).

Things I care about are: ability to watch live TV, access to the major TV
networks, ability to DVR, ability to watch things from other devices (like
"I'm traveling but want to watch my DVR'd program).

Sling was looking good but doesn't include the major networks and only some of
its channels can be DVR'd.

I thought about using an HD antenna and getting a hardware DVR like a Tivo or
Channel Master DVR+, but then you can only DVR the major networks. If you try
to supplement that with Sling, you're back to the same problem that only some
things can be DVR'd. Also the hardware DVRs don't generally let you watch
remotely, and the ones that do aren't as good at live TV.

Hulu Live TV seems good so far. You get access to live TV and DVR and you can
watch from anywhere. But it also gives you access to its existing streaming
library, so you have access to a lot of shows even if you didn't think to DVR
them before they happened. At $40/month it seems like a pretty good deal (that
gives you 50 hours of DVR). It's $44 to have "No Commercials" (this removes
commercials from the streaming content I believe). If you want to skip past
commercials in content you have DVR'd, you need to pay an extra $15/month,
which seems kind of lame.

I wish I could try YouTube TV but it's not available in Seattle yet!

~~~
Rohccoo
Checkout Playstaion Vue

------
joshribakoff
I just signed up for HBO Now. The streaming does not work as good as Netflix.
Neither do the browse/search features. It would be nice to have a streaming
platform that just worked, and was a marketplace for all the content
providers. I couldn't even sign up for HBO now via webpage, I had to download
their app, just to sign up. Terrible UI. Terrible platform, but its the only
option to watch their content [legally].

------
anindha
Having multiple streaming providers will lead to more original content since
streaming infrastructure alone is not defensibility.

Hopefully each streaming provider will share older seasons similar to how
Netflix has acquired content currently.

I have Amazon, HBO, Netflix, and YouTube Red. I am happier than when I had a
cable package - there is much more content I want to watch.

------
mosselman
This isn't a very good article. The analysis of the issue is very shallow and
the author is stating the obvious: 'It would be easier for users if everything
can be found on one service that costs $10/month' and 'more publishers are
getting into their own streaming business and that is the opposite'. Yes,
thank you, we are all quite aware of that.

That being said I am surprised by the comments here. Quite a few people seem
to be arguing FOR a situation where lots of content leaves bigger providers so
that it can be hosted in separate streaming services like Disney is now doing.
Why? Are you all just being recalcitrant or am I to believe that you'd prefer
paying (3 * $10)/month for a decent content coverage (assuming 3 different
providers) instead of just $10/month? .

Another strange 'opinion' that is being shared here is that it would be better
to pay only for the things you want to watch. a. This has been around for
quite a while already, so it is unclear to me why this is being brought up as
something that Netflix should do suddenly and b. I don't see how this would be
an alternative to someone who is happily paying Netflix's ~$10/month. I myself
find that a big value that Netflix has for me is the complete library of
movies, series and stand-up they have and that I can freely watch anything
they offer without having to pay for individual viewing sessions. I, for
example, often put on something I have already seen or some stand-up while
doing chores around the house. I would never do this if I had to pay for this
content on top of what I would already be paying for the things that I
actively watch.

Apart from the practical implications of pay-per-view in my example I also
think that the quality of the content would suffer. Right now it is very easy
for me to watch some experimental content on Netflix. Some Netflix originals
are not your typical series or film and I quite enjoy the more different
content as an addition to the more popular series. If people will have to
start picking the things they want to watch and pay for every view these
series will not get watched at all and therefore not be made at all. The
advantage that Netflix has is that they try to persuade people to come to them
for a variety of content that is interesting and unique to Netflix. This is
how they grow and retain their user base. If you get rid of this model and
start asking people to pay-per-view there would be no reason for them to keep
making their own unique content anymore as you'd choose your provider on a
view per view basis.

------
FraKtus
There is a nice French service that is trying to regroup most french channels
: molotov.tv But for me the nicest is the concept of their application that I
use on Apple TV, the way they do replay, link to other shows on replay on the
same channel... record your shows on the cloud...That's a nice evolution of
streaming... Now, if something like that would exist in the US that would be a
killer app!

------
inlined
Studios used to run their own theaters and that vertical integration was found
to be uncompetitive. What is the rationale that doesn't apply here?

------
cyanexttuesday
It's going to be more expensive than cable since you have to Internet(many of
which providers are monopolies in the us) and pay 10 usd a month per various
premium channel access.

Unless people just stop consuming media, and regain financial leverage.

------
jshaqaw
The bundling model whether streaming or cable is obsolete. The iTunes model of
pay per episode makes much more sense - although it was much preferable when
you could rent an episode for .99 rather than buy it for 2.99.

------
Aron
Netflix at 10$ is severely underpriced relative to any competition. I've been
curious just what their next move is.

~~~
jamie_ca
Slowly bump prices. It's going up by $1 ($2 for the high tier) in Canada this
month, I hear.

~~~
Dylan16807
Though whether that's an active bump depends on whether the price hikes beat
out inflation over the long term.

------
nebabyte
> Don’t ruin streaming by turning it into cable

You're about a few years too late on this. Snowballs don't roll uphill.

------
gbacon
It's capitalism. If you have a valid complaint, it can be rephrased as a
business plan.

~~~
Mathnerd314
You're assuming an efficient market, when many deficits of market economics
are already well-known.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure)

The information economy has fixed some of those, but it would be more
surprising if there weren't new types of deficits to take their place.

~~~
gbacon
This alleged assumption that in fact I did not make would contradict the
principle above. If the market were always and everywhere at every instant of
time efficiently allocated, there would be no valid complaints.

~~~
Mathnerd314
My point here is that, even if a business plan could be written for every
complaint, the business plan produced isn't necessarily viable or actionable,
e.g. if there's a monopoly in that particular industry. Usually the word
'plan' implies that there's a reasonable chance of success, hence my
disagreement.

------
mindslight
Don't ruin the Internet by turning it into streaming.

------
tested23
I remember how people on the internet used to complain about how they didn’t
want all of the garbage channels that were bundled with cable. Now they are
complaining about being able to pick and choose what they pay for. (Yes you
don’t need to have access to every subscription service)

Two things to note, pirates will always find some way to rationalize their
theft and the consumer is a child that wants to have their cake and eat it
too.

~~~
hyperdunc
Copyright infringement isn't theft.

~~~
tested23
Thank you for proving my point

~~~
imtringued
How can you know that hyperdunc is a "pirate"? How can you know that hyperdunc
advocates for further "piracy"? His argument is that there is a word for
copyright infringement and the word clearly isn't theft or piracy.

