Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Too Much Streaming

Mac'nCheese

Mac'nCheese

Suspended
Original poster
Feb 9, 2010
3,752
5,109
It seems like every week, a new studio or network announces a new streaming service. Its getting to be too much. People cut the cable cord and started using services like Hulu and Netflix to save money. But if there is now going to be a few dozen streaming services, all keeping their own content, what's the point in cutting the cord? Netflix is losing Marvel so do Marvel fans drop Netflix to sign up with Disney or do they keep both and pay both fees. Pretty soon, they will be paying more than they did for cable!
 
I pay $40 for Directv Now (Go Big). I decided against subscribing to Hulu and Netflix, as the new shows (for the most part) are garbage. I decided to stick with buying iTunes shows when on sale, along with ripping from my already established collection of Blu-rays. And with Paralls, I can log into my iMac and stream to my phone when I am on the go.

It works for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mac'nCheese
Yeah, well it has seemed to me for a while now that the end game for streaming was going to be that every major IP holder would start their own streaming service. I guess you either need to decide what you want to give up, or get ready to start shelling out quite a bit more $$$.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.B.G and Mac'nCheese
ucfgrad93 said:
I pay for Netflix, nothing else. I’m a big Star Trek fan, but refuse to sign up for CBS all access or whatever they call it. I don’t want or need 10 different streaming options.
Click to expand...
Me too but now there will be two Star Trek shows on CAA! I’m trying not to give in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max2
It’s becoming even more annoying that the new streaming services are prohibiting the other services they previously partnered with (like Hulu and Netflix) from showing their content, forcing you to subscribe to their service in addition to the ones you may already have.

People cut cable because of the ridiculous prices and content limitations. Now it’s happening again with streaming.

Piracy goes down when stuff is accessible at a reasonable price. These studios are going to see an increase in piracy again as they begin to aleniate their content behind paywalls of their own services because they’re too greedy to share with the services already established.
 
  • Like
Reactions: motulist
I won't be paying for more than one. For now I'll stick with Netflix. The stuff I watch can probably be found on a bunch of the services anyways. Since I mostly just watch BBC content and documentaries. Basically stuff which is really cheap for them to license.

This is still early on in the streaming era. Ultimately, I think this will work like many other services before. First there are a few which show there is money to be made. Then a bunch of copy cat services pop up. Most won't make a profit and will fold or merge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: motulist
Netflix streaming + disc plan covers almost everything. All the ShowTime, HBO, etc. stuff eventually ends up on disc. The disc is often better quality anyway. For example Game of Thrones on HBO Now sounds good. On Blu-Ray it sounds phenomenal.

I am one of those that won't subscribe to other services just because they have a show I like. For example I know Star Trek Discovery is eventually going to hit Netflix (USA), Amazon Prime, Blu-ray, or whatever. I don't feel a pressing need to be up-to-date at the water cooler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: motulist
ActionableMango said:
Netflix streaming + disc plan covers almost everything. All the ShowTime, HBO, etc. stuff eventually ends up on disc. The disc is often better quality anyway. For example Game of Thrones on HBO Now sounds good. On Blu-Ray it sounds phenomenal.

I am one of those that won't subscribe to other services just because they have a show I like. For example I know Star Trek Discovery is eventually going to hit Netflix (USA), Amazon Prime, Blu-ray, or whatever. I don't feel a pressing need to be up-to-date at the water cooler.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure about Star Trek. Isn’t that their flagship show? Why would they let you watch it somewhere else?
 
ideal.dreams said:
People cut cable because of the ridiculous prices and content limitations. Now it’s happening again with streaming.
Click to expand...

I was having this discussion with someone a few days ago. People “cut the cord” so to speak, but just ended up using their internet connection. And now they’re paying for multiple services. We have cable AND all the major streamers. Won’t do the little ones like CBS and other individual networks.

Piracy goes down when stuff is accessible at a reasonable price. These studios are going to see an increase in piracy again as they begin to aleniate their content behind paywalls of their own services because they’re too greedy to share with the services already established.
Click to expand...

I read an article just the other day about how, after years of decline, piracy of tv shows and movies is on the rise again. It’s true: you make it harder and more expensive for the consumer to obtain your content, you’ll just drive them to find it by other means.

Reminds me of a meme from a while back about DVDs. What you get when you buy a dvd. And it showed the multiple warnings, numerous previews, notifications, and menus you had to suffer through for ten minutes before getting to watch the movie you bought. Or you could pirate it and press play.

upload_2018-12-5_21-2-25.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.B.G, ActionableMango, ideal.dreams and 2 others
From what I understand, Netflix dropped the Marvel series because they didn't do well and also because of what Disney wants to do. Netflix came out on top due to not spending as much, and Disney simply pisses more people off. I sincerely doubt Disney, even given their value and cash at hand, can come close to Netflix in terms of quality and usability. Disney isn't the first company to come away and try the Netflix model. Sure it's simple to set up a streaming site with enough money, but you don't have the data Netflix has accumulated over the years.
[doublepost=1544064825][/doublepost]Also, for what it's worth, this is just a repeat of history. This isn't too different than having basic and expanded TV plus packages. And if I am right, which I believe I am, these excess services will be absorbed by titans in the future.

These excess services place further financial burden on consumers or it comes out to the same costs prior to cutting cable. In addition, geolocation based limits on what is available effectively neuter the point of having streamable media. And even Prime and Netflix are guilty of this. While some of the reasons behind this are rights-based, a lot isn't.

To summarize my boring post, if you make it hard for customers to watch what they want, there's nothing to stop them from seeking pirated material or pirate themselves. If a production company doesn't offer a movie on stream for purchase or through subscription, and hasn't pressed DVDs or BluRays in years and there's little stock, then what do you expect consumers to do?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mac'nCheese
I am a Prime member, plus YouTube TV. I also have been building my tv and movie library in iTunes.
I do agree with the OP. Where do the subscriptions end?
TV is not important to me, so I keep things limited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mac'nCheese
Zenithal said:
Sure it's simple to set up a streaming site with enough money, but you don't have the data Netflix has accumulated over the years.
Click to expand...

Disney is a gigantic media company and has been streaming for years via ABC, HULU, ESPN, and other divisions. They also contracted to do streaming for companies that they didn't own, just handling the tech side. Almost certainly they have tons of data.

I distinctly remember ESPN started streaming online (and charging for it) years before Netflix.

So the "new" streaming service should really be called an "additional" streaming service, this time with Disney branding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mac'nCheese
ActionableMango said:
Disney is a gigantic media company and has been streaming for years via ABC, HULU, ESPN, and other divisions. They also contracted to do streaming for companies that they didn't own, just handling the tech side. Almost certainly they have tons of data.

I distinctly remember ESPN started streaming online (and charging for it) years before Netflix.

So the "new" streaming service should really be called an "additional" streaming service, this time with Disney branding.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about the same data. ESPN has been streaming since 2009, from what I remember, and it was bad then as it is now. I used Hulu for 8 years before dumping it. The quality just isn't there. ABC streams, even when logged in and the highest stream option chosen, still doesn't supply a video stream that's as clear as what Netflix can without interruption or video clarity going down.

The only thing Netflix is focused on is delivering quality video whenever possible and producing some shows. Netflix constantly spends money to make more money in terms of tech and the technology behind delivering video as clear as before with a smaller footprint both in data transferred and energy output. Disney is a conglomerate, and using its subsidiaries as example is useless.

As far as Prime video goes, Prime Video is just good all around. I'll give it 3-4 years before Disney realizes it isn't as easy as they think it is.

FWIW, I had 100 Mbps internet back in mid 2009 and it's gone up in speed since then. I've never had an issue with Netflix. A quick query has Disney getting $15B to invest in streaming services, this is prior to media which they own, and which I'll avoid for the sake of this post. This is before transmittance (bandwidth) costs and fees to implement CDNs at various backbones across the nation if not the world. Netflix spent $8-10B on content alone in 2018.

I have little faith Disney can upend Netflix and become the dominant streaming service. Netflix spends on itself as a technology company first, then a streaming company. Disney is a whole mish-mash of stuff. Disney could have taken out two birds with one stone by buying Netflix. They could have, in cash no less.

The only way Disney may succeed even while losing money on this service and offering a less than stellar streaming experience and struggling would be to offer their entire catalog spanning the beginning to now for subscribers. The reality is they won't and it'll be just as pick-and-choose as any other mediocre service.

That's with a lot of their old material being remastered to be able to stream at 720p or 1080p as a minimum quality level, without streaming snags or slowdowns currently present on their services via ABC or ESPN. And offering 4K to 4K Ultra HD with HDR where available at minimal extra cost to subscribers.
 
Last edited:
Zenithal said:
ESPN has been streaming since 2009, from what I remember
Click to expand...

I remember we were writing code to stream ESPN when 9/11 happened, and I'm pretty sure it took less than a year. So 2009 seems very late to me. You might be thinking of a later ESPN streaming product, not the first one.

I also remember questioning whether or not people would be willing to pay for sports highlights. This seems humorously naive today, but keep in mind that back then, content on the Internet was free and nobody knew how to make money on it yet. Management had the idea that sports fans were a serious enough crowd that they would pony up, and sure enough they did. For us that was the foot in the door to putting content behind a paywall. This was very, very early stuff. Finding out that people would pay for content on the Internet was a pretty big deal at the time.

I generally agree with your post--I wouldn't expect Disney to be able to out-Netflix Netflix either. But they'll make an adequate streaming service.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back