I’m ok with all these streaming services. I buy discs for stuff I really like, and I get services like HBO or Netflix for one month a year to watch what they have (assuming they have anything I want.) I don’t like to subscribe, because then I feel like I have to watch something on their service because I’m paying for it. A similar thing happened with movie rentals, they got too expensive ($6 for a new rental and $3 for an old movie that would’ve been $1 at blockbuster!?) so I just started waiting until they were available for free at the library. It helps if you don’t need to be the first one to watch something. I’m spending so much less than I did before I cut the cord in 2010.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Disney Facing 'Resistance' From Turner in Effort to Get TV Rights of 'Star Wars' Films for Streaming Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Again, look at the assumption you are making there... that Apple could offer some subscription service for a "reasonable" rate... as if there is some (presumably) discount to be unlocked if just someone else would step in and turn the key.
First, Apple becoming the middleman ADDs Apple's cut to the cost of programming. That's no small amount and it comes "right off the top." Second, who else takes the hit to deliver us that "reasonable rate" number we want while cutting Apple in?
One might look at Apple Music as THE model. But the artists are getting thoroughly fleeced there. It's their creations but Apple and the Studios get pretty much ALL of the money. Note that Spotify, et all is not any better, so that's not meant to imply only Apple is ripping off the content creators. That whole industry exploits the artists while enriching the distributors and packagers.
On this video side, Studios are well established and are both the creators of their media AND the business side of it. Unlike "starving artist" musicians, there is no direct fleecing as it's basically a left hand overseeing creative dev and a right hand running the business side. Just exactly like Apple, they want to maximize their profits for their offerings. And just like Apple they are not at the mercy of some higher power (corporation) to be able to do that here. Plus, they are keenly aware of how things went for the music industry cousins when they basically just gave Apple whatever Apple wanted to monetize the online music business, so they have zero interest in repeating that (revenue & profit mistake, from their perspective).
One might look at the big picture and see that this is really a battle between Studios and Distributors (cable/satt) where the former is basically setting up to bypass the middle man (distributor)... EXCEPT the latter generally ALSO controls the broadband pipes through which any streaming video of anything from any Studio entirely depends. So the Studios will probably bite into the traditional cable TV revenues with direct-to-consumer connections (and billing) but those middlemen will bite back in both directions probably by demanding money from the Studios to prioritize their distribution (Net Neutrality repeal) AND from us consumers, because we generally have no other choice and this "heavy broadband usage for streaming video" is a great excuse to jack up broadband rates (that already worked in the broadband wireless space without the GOV or other savior stepping in and stopping those price hikes).
Unfortunately, consumers often say (or complain) about one thing but then behave a different way. Many are vocal about their dislike of airlines, Walmart, gas prices, cable companies, Netflix price increases, mobile carriers, etc. but few actually respond by reducing their service or refusing to buy.
What you believe is cable is not what cable is transforming into, this occurred with telephone communication POTS.
Original POTS
Disrupter VOIP and Cell technology
Transformation POTS on the last mile, VOIP on the server side
Transformation Cell on the last mile, VOIP on the server side
VOIP overtakes POTS
VOIP eventual overtakes Cell
Telecommunications companies offer cheaper long distance rates, however it only cost them a fraction.
Now lets look at what is happening with Cable/Sat:
Original Cable/Ant/Sat
Disrupted Streaming digital content
Transformation Cable/Ant/Sat on the last mile, Streaming digital on the server side
Streaming digital overtakes Cable/Ant/Sat
Cable companies offer VOD, etc at the heart of these services it just a streaming digital service where the content is on a server and reaches the customer over a Cable/Ant/Sat receiver. This has been occurring for a while, if you believe otherwise you are mistaken.
Some providers over VOIP and Digital Streaming VOD packages. I have shrunk the transformation process for illustration purposes. HD will be the norm and 4K HDR a premium then 4K HDR will be the norm and 8K+ HDR will be a premium service, you can add home theater audio to that equation and the picture is clear. These are just hold out tactics, eventually Turner will fold as the deal ends in 2024 anyhow.
[doublepost=1533426558][/doublepost]
Many consumers do not have the technical expertise and want something simple to understand and do not mind paying for it *cough* Apple *cough* People by nature are lazy until their are forced to change, if paying a little more and not having to learn something new or saving a little and having to learn something new. The answer is clear for most, complain about it, pay a little more and accept it, rinse & repeat.
[doublepost=1533426981][/doublepost]
I find buying physical media for use is wasteful and contributes to the greenhouse effect. Plus it consumes so much physical space and energy, sure if employees people in the process however it just wasteful. It was needed at one time due to a lack of high speed internet access.
Digital content streaming servers more people, takes very little space by comparison, may use renewable energy, convenient, etc. Sure you don’t get the pretty material printed however you have a digital copy of it, and can print it out on your own if you prefer. We really need to change our ways for consuming media, the previous model only adds additional cost through every process.
Last edited:
Cool, glad that works for you. I like being able to watch what I want when I want and not being stuck with what someone says I can have. My discs take up very little space, and have no additional cost once I’ve purchased them. Not to mention they are much higher quality than any streaming service offers.
Dear Disney, you’ve released all the films in almost a dozen different platforms and anyone who wants it already has it. What we DON’T have is any more room in our budget for another streaming service. Just chill out and let the market do the same until the rights revert to you.
Um, ok, but what does this have to do with anything I wrote?
[doublepost=1533453506][/doublepost]
I’m not making any assumption. I just said it was a shame they didn’t figure out a way to offer TV shows as rentals for less money than buying a season. This is no different than what they’ve done with movies forever. You can buy a movie for $19.99 or rent it for $4.99. So why not offer a tv show’s season in the same fashion. I can pay $39.99 to own it. Or $9.99 to watch it once. I have no idea why they never tried this. Maybe they didn’t want to. Maybe the content creators wouldn’t go for it.
Get you a VPN and hit the bay. Don't support these clowns with any of your money. It's all liberal garbage designed to destroy families and screw up kids.
[doublepost=1533467699][/doublepost]
It'll just force people to start pirating or installing Kodi. People always have options.
Picture/audio quality enhances the story of the movie one is watching. If the story is rubbish no level of picture/audio quality will make it a good/great movie. Majority of the titles released by Hollywood in the past decade or so are not worth owning let along watching it a second or more times.
There seems to be more quality releases recently from Netflix compared to theatrical releases. I understand this may be opinion, however it just seems that way. Even Blu-Ray uses compressed picture/audio that it may fit on a disc, plus I am skeptic you own or have really access to a 65”+ 4K/8K HDR OLED tv and sit feet from it to truly experience the details and colour.
This discussion reminds me of the audiophiles during the rise/popularity of mp3’s. There is a thing in the industry called “good enough” where the companies profit and there is very little if no perceived improvement for the consumer. HD 1080p was a giant leap, 8K/240Hz VR Goggles is the next giant leap. 4K, 8K, HDR are minor improvements as one has to sit very close to benefit from the experience.
[doublepost=1533478269][/doublepost]
When you consider returning to cable. The provider is basically repackaging streaming services on its end for pennies and selling it to you at 10+ folds profit, plus includes advertisements for additional revenue at your expensive.
You are better of watching TV with an OTA antenna. It’s free, HD and you still receive ads. The key here is other than the cost of the antenna initially, it’s all free from there.
This is good advice. Don’t subscribe until they cost $1/month, which is all any streaming service is worth.
Subscribe models for music and entertainment as well as many apps is a cancer and is unsustainable.
I got a hold of DVD copies of the original Laserdisc release of the OT, years ago. It's the sweet spot. They're the only ones I watch when I go to watch the OT. Probably the closest we'll ever get. The quality on them is decent. Not amazing, but definitely watchable.
Don't we already have something similar to that? Something something cable packages?
Seeing Disney squirm brings me so much joy.
Not to mention how music artist led make pennies for their work while the streaming services take it in.
Not to mention how music artist led make pennies for their work while the streaming services take it in.
It is the same thing. It’s called transmission rights. The venue of how content is transmitted does not matter.
I understand all of that. My point, simply put, is that if you’re going to pay $100+ for a hodgepodge of streaming services a la carte, why not just go back to the all you can eat cable model for the same price? What’s the advantage to streaming at that point?
No commercials, binge watch, complete freedom to watch what you want when you want (content dependant), no commitments. True its can be a PITA to login to all these services and expense can be a factor depending on how many service providers you susbscribe to, however you can cancel and restart a service when you want. Try that with cable, its a nightmare.