It’s frustrating to me how every studio / network feels it needs its own streaming service, one where they control the entire experience. It’s stupidly user hostile and yet there’s no alternative other than physical media (with all its negatives) or piracy.
It's getting even dumber because these studio curated streaming services don't even have their entire library available on their dedicated service. Want to watch 2007 Transformers in the US? Well too bad, no one is actively streaming that one. Want to watch Transformers 2? Better have Max! Super frustrating as a customer.
The fact that we never legislated to force providers to allow any client connect to their streaming API (keeping software like Winamp, VLC, relevant for new world) and instead doubled down to allow complete control of content providers over our culture is one of big societal mistakes of last decades.
Following the example of Hollywood which forcefully split content studios and cinemas would create a much much healthier market.
Agreed. When Netflix had just about everything, piracy took a big hit.
We need a return to Blockbuster-like selection, but streaming. A streaming service should purchases however many copies they are streaming, and replace them on a schedule as the copy “wears out”, like Blockbuster.
It may actually be profitable again. The entire reason media rentals ended up dying is because of Netflix coming out with just about every bit of media available for streaming.
Now that everything has fractured into a million pieces, media rental once again seems like it may make sense. Redbox is still around still lending out blurays. It wouldn't shock me if that model made a resurgence.
redbox isn't nearly as convenient as having it delivered to your house.
however, it does make me wonder if owning/operating/maintaining all of the boxes is more or less expensive than paying the USPS to deliver and collect on behalf of your service.
I don’t think that’s true; it might be the case that mailing out dvds is profitable, but too low revenue for modern Netflix to bother with. I mean, it was possible to build a business on it at some point…
Easy to find out by coming up with a business plan, and then pitch it to investors. If you are right, then you'll be the next Reed Hastings. If not, you'll just be another person with an idea nobody else believes is worth investing
I disagree that that is necessary to run that experiment, somebody already did it, proving that it is possible.
Also I don’t think suggesting a giant task like starting a business is anything but a bad faith rhetorical tactic. I’m not going to pitch a DVD mailing company to investors for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not it is viable (I’m a programmer, not a businessman, and I don’t care to run a business, for one thing).
Of course I wouldn't expect some person as a programmer become a CEO of a physical media shipping company. I always forget that I must be explicit in these types of forums where the you is never considered as the royal you. Everyone takes things so personal.
right, and Mr Hastings has decided it was no longer a viable business and shut it down. what's confusing about that, and how it was applied to this conversation?
it's like we just want to argue and not actually have a conversation
I think your are missing the GPs point. Netflix, of course, started with mailing dvds and recently ended it. As far as I know, it was always profitable. Unfortunately being profitable is not the same as "worth investing", investors are chasing the highest returns and won't invest in something with a low return on investment.
You are kind moving the goal posts with your first statement "If that was profitable, the service you describe would not have shuttered." and this one.
The trend has been clear for a long time. The future is a streaming, not physical media. Profitability is necessary but not sufficient to be a successful business over the long term, you also need to grow and change according to market dynamics, otherwise you will find yourself dead.
This article is all about how streaming is a big money loser for almost everyone. So it has growth without profitability. I'd rather have profitability without growth.
No, I'm not missing the point. Yes, I said profitable. But let's all agree that profitable doesn't just mean making one dollar more than all of your expenses. By definition, that's making money which is technically profitable, but that's not what anyone would consider a profitable business. So while technically right might be the best right, it's technically useless in this conversation and does nothing to actually move the conversation in a positive direction.
Saying that a company is profitable but not worth the investment is not going to solve the streaming is our only option. We are looking for a solution other than streaming that is still legal so that people do not have to resort to pirating. If you are suggesting that a service providing shiny round discs through the mail or any other brick&mortar Blockbuster or mom&pop video rental solution is going to be profitable to the point of sustaining a business, then there's a bit of realism that needs to be brought back into the conversation. This seems to not be wanted and instead point back to me not understanding what words mean.
Because people don’t know how to pirate anymore. Circa 2000 everyone I knew was pirating everything. There is no Kazaa or bearshare or Napster anymore.
And even I'm kinda warry of using bittorrent... Usenet is fine from legal stand-point for sourcing my linux distros. But networks where you share got enough legal trolls to make want not bother. And I don't consume enough linux distros to make any special setups.
It is amazing what wealth of linux distros are out there for the taking. And in many cases that's the only way to get them since no one is willing to sell those linux distros to you anymore.
They all have their own streaming platform, that doesn’t always have their own shows. I remember being so frustrated trying to find the actual correct spot to stream Yellowstone. (Been a few years, trying to remember)It was on the paramount channel, but not on paramount plus streaming. It was apparently on the peacock streaming service, but only on their most expensive tier, and my tv didn’t work with peacock tv at the time…
Partly because no one wants to be dependent on another company. Look at what happened to Reddit apps when they began charging for their API. Netflix with a monopoly and their own movie production would be an impossible negotiation position for production companies in another 15 years.
Except there is a reason we still have supermarkets and suppliers don't all run their own shops even when they have to compete with store brand products.
