For a moment, it seemed like the streaming apps were the things that could save us from the hegemony of cable TV—a system where you had to pay for a ton of stuff you didn’t want to watch so you could see the handful of things you were actually interested in.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/K4EIh

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Discovery’s David Zaslav have also indicated that their services were initially priced “too low” in an effort to draw a huge and unendingly expanding subscriber base.

    In the early-to-mid 2010s, a subscription to Netflix and Hulu and your friend’s borrowed HBO password could get you access to the vast majority of all the TV that was worth watching.

    Netflix had a huge archive of older shows plus a slowly growing library of its buzzy releases like Orange Is the New Black, Jessica Jones, and Stranger Things.

    Not content to let Netflix have what looked like a lucrative new market all to itself the companies that made and distributed TV decided one by one as the decade wore on that it was time to create their own apps and generate their own subscription revenue.

    Tech companies also decided to jump in, with Amazon Prime Video pushing into expensive scripted dramas and Apple TV+ becoming relevant by dint of throwing untold gobs of money at all kinds of projects.

    Netflix announced its first subscriber loss in a decade in early 2022, cratering its stock; despite some recovery, it’s still only worth about two-thirds what it was at its peak in late 2021.


    I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • DigitalWebSlinger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I will forever wonder how these companies actively choose $0/mo over a cut of $XX/mo and everyone in the decision chain thinks it’s the right decision.

    • skizzles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because your 0$ per month after dropping them doesn’t hurt their bottom line.

      Corporations generally weigh the risks and the benefit often wins out and they make more money because there are enough people that either reluctantly cave into the fee increase, forgot about their subscription or just don’t care that it’s going up.

      It’s fairly seldom (but seems to be increasing over the years) to see so much backlash that a company walks back on what they were planning to do.

    • shirro@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am going to need more gaming PCs to keep the family engaged in the post streaming world. Not sure how I am going to do it. Even finding space for them is going to be a challenge.

  • KTVX94@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    As someone who watches pretty much no movies or shows, I couldn’t care less, but it’s gonna be fun watching piracy shoot back up.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is Disney+ bleeding money or is that just fancy accounting realizing costs that increase the other parts of Disney’s revenue?

        • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Disney is a bit unique with their streaming, though, because their content helps foster interest in their merchandise, parks, theatre movies, etc. The more engagement with their streaming content, the more likely someone is to engage with some other part of their business. Also, if I’m watching Disney+, I’m not watch any other streaming services (at that moment). They want to be a dominant streaming service because it helps them dominate in the parts of their business.

          Netflix, Paramount+, etc. don’t really have that, at least not to the same degree. Prime is more similar, because while you’re not investing in their own merchandise as much, you might be more like to use Prime shipping or music if you have Prime for video streaming (and vice versa).

            • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think that producing content by itself is sustainable, but things that aren’t quite profitable enough might be enough to be profitable overall with the reach and market share.

              I could totally be wrong, but it feels like they’re fairly invested in D+, and I don’t think it’s because they want everyone to have access. After all, they had a “vault” for many years and only sold movies that were rotated out of the vault at the time.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It wouldn’t be a lie, it would just be accounting. And honestly I don’t know the accounting practices around such large organizations.

          Basically Disney+ charges Disney studios for Disney IP. Disney studios gets $3B let’s say over x amount of time for the deal, and Disney+ spends that amount of money. Meaning Disney+ loses money, while the Disney portfolio as a whole breaks even on the trade. That’s not even to mention the value there is bringing people into the Disney ecosystem, making it more likely to visit them parks and buy more merchandise.

          I don’t think it’s fair to look at Disney+ in a vacuum to compare to other services.

  • MrGerrit@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cable companies: You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me.

  • Carlos Solís@communities.azkware.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If companies are so adamant in both raising prices to the point of unaffordability, and making alternate routes to enjoy their art illegal, then what we should collectively do is to just go without them, maybe use that free time and money for something more useful than art.

    • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      According to CNN article, in a recent earnings call Bob Iger indicated that ad-supported streaming is a better revenue stream for them than ad-free subscriptions. So they’re apparently raising prices on ad-free subscriptions to get people to drop down to ad-supported.

      • shirro@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Some people can’t stand advertising and will turn off rather than sit through it. I have been ad blocking and ad skipping for 20 years. I am not going to change my habits. The alternative is piracy. I don’t want to go back to piracy. It is a superior product in many ways but it isn’t sustainable and I want a fair share of my subscriptions to fund creative jobs (not that that is happening). There are a lot of shows I can’t stream or buy digitally here that are only available via the black market which is crazy in 2023 when streaming was supposed to fix this. We have companies taking shows off their services to claim tax writeoffs now at a time when the market is fragmented and overpriced.

        The super rich and powerful think we are livestock to lead to slaughter and often they aren’t wrong. The sensible thing is for consumers is to walk away (same for X, Facebook, Reddit and all the other time wasters) and let the whole thing burn down and hope that whatever replaces it learns from the mistakes and greed. Unfortunately I don’t think enough will to make a difference.

        • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yep. When it comes to dealing with these types of things, if it is something that can be lived without, the only winning play is to take your ball and go home.

          If you’re not willing to go without watching tv, movies, playing new games, etc then these companies already own you.

          Personally, I won’t go back to pirating their content. That implies what they make has more value to me than it actually does. If they make it nearly impossible to legally consume their product or service then I will take that as a sign they don’t really want to sell it and move on.

          If the masses want to see change, then they should do likewise. Even if it doesn’t change the world, there is real power for a persons mental well being in always being willing to walk away.