this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
66 points (84.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35281 readers
2005 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

People (including me) complain about monopolies all the time for various reasons. At the same time, I've noticed a ton of complaints about the existence of multiple streaming platforms. But isn't that a good thing at the end of the day? If streaming platforms consolidated into 2-3 companies, there wouldn't be much stopping them from raising prices even more.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nous@programming.dev 105 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I dont think multiple streaming platforms is a problem. The problem is exclusivity. I dont want to pay for every subscription service to watch popular things. I want to watch any show I want on one platform that I choose. Much like I do for music. But no, with TV shows everyone has their own walled garden of exclusives. Fuck that.

[–] stinerman@midwest.social 46 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I could only imagine if each record label had their own streaming service. People would go nuts.

[–] Rexelpitlum@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, they would put on a pirate hat and hit the seven seas again.

I mean, that is basically where we are coming from. And the record companies still remembering this is the reason we still have usable music streaming services. Might change again as time passes though...

[–] Kelly@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Its a fine line. I try to offer a (legal) ad free experience for my son as a matter of principal. But he asked to watch Naruto and it was only available on crunchyroll.

I signed up and the crunchyroll PlayStation app didn't seem to have a functional search, recently played or favorites list. The best we could so was pick "all titles" and then scroll page by page alphabetically until we get to "N" then we had to remember which episode we were up to and the navigate to that season/episode. Then it would occasionally crash so we would have to repeat the process to resume playback. It probably only took a few minutes by it felt like an eternity of busy work. Needless to say we canceled that shitshow and torrented, if they are a major publisher and they can't beat the convenience of casual privacy they are in trouble.

Personally its the convenience and UI that does it for me. I'm not using anything fancy but I have a USB HDD plugged into my home router this is accessible as an SFTP and UPnP media server any device on my network. It won't transcode or anything but for >95% of content it will play fine on any PC/TV/phone/tablet in the house. The biggest issue is tracking viewing progress which can be an hassle is we do it manually instead of having Netflix/amazon/whatever track it for us. If crunchyroll can't do that much then they don't offer any advantage over their free alternatives and not worth an $x per month fee.

[–] Rexelpitlum@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Your description fits, though.

Back to the old, but still very true quote:

"Piracy is a service problem."

[–] Kelly@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

"Piracy is a service problem."

Yeah, I agree with that. I just found it disappointing that Sony could buy themselves a monopoly on anime in the western market and fail to provide a competent app for their own platform. Its a classic example of an own goal.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 month ago

For keeping track of what episode you're up to, maybe try plex or something

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah, that's something I've long been worried about - Warner Music, and Sony Music, and so on. I'm really glad I kept all my old CDs!

[–] AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

No, they’d pay because they’re suckers. It’s fine. Those of us who have the willpower to say no, go to the high seas and get what we want when we want it and in the format we want. And we have no apologies to make because the greedy gluttons have wrought it upon themselves.

[–] overcast5348@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Thanks. Yes, something like the music app world be ideal.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 77 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't mind multiple streaming platforms as long as all they do is stream content

My issue is each and every streaming platform produces their own exclusive content or they sign exclusivity contracts so only one platform streams a particular show or movie at once.

If Netflix and amazon video had the same content, you would just have to choose the service that is cheapest and has the best benefits like great user interface, customer support, features, and other stuff like that.

When there are 12 different platforms which each have their own library with barely any overlap you have to sign up for multiple all at once, and some that have terrible customer support or user interfaces if you want to watch one of their shows.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago

Like Netflix shoving mobile "games" in my face when I sit down to watch a show. 🙃

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 68 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The issue is, there isn't any real competition. I for example like to watch sci-fi series and there is exactly one streaming service that has Star Trek, one who has Star Wars, one who has The Orville... Similarly the newest Lord of the Rings series is exclusive to one service. And there always being "one" isn't competition. It'd be if I were able to watch any of that on multiple services.

I mean if I go shopping, it's not like oranges are sold exclusive in one store, bread in another and butter in a third and I have to drive to 5 different stores to get breakfast and they all want a membership fee from me. There, nobody can have a monopoly on oranges... Yet in the streaming world there is a monopoly on Disney content, and lots of other small monopolies on franchises.

So you're right in complaining. Having more monopolies isn't better than having a small amount of them.

[–] EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works 56 points 1 month ago

The problem is exclusive rights.

If you wanna watch 3 different shows but they are all on different platforms, then you gotta go and pay for all 3. You can't just watch the Netflix version of Loki, or the Disney+ version of Ted Lasso.

You mentioned monopolies but the problem is that each platform holds hundreds of monopolies, each for one specific show/movie.

In a perfect world, there would be some sort of law or agreement against exclusive rights, where every service can show any product they bought the (non-exclusive) rights to.

In that scenario, streaming services would have to compete by being the cheapest or offering the best service.

But alas, this is not a perfect world

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If the content was a commodity like oil or food it would mean all movies and series would be available to all streaming co. Then you could save money and choose the one that best serves your needs.

Since it's not the case it's more like worst case monopoly: if I want Star Trek I must suffer the bad experience that is paramount plus. If I want mandalorian I have no choice but to engage Disney Plus. Etc etc.

So not only you pay more, but there's no incentive to pick the best ones and improve experience of the bad ones

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

If they made the media realistically affordable (a couple bucks a movie or like 5 bucks a season of show) many people would just pay that bill and be happy.

I often end up downloading stuff I already have access to on streaming, that way it's just all in one place.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 month ago

They don't compete with the same content but different features or pricing... they compete by forming fiefdoms of exclusive content. So the user still only has one option per show - not a real choice.

[–] Melody@lemmy.one 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The issue with too many streaming services is largely the same as not enough streaming services

An average person will have a wide variety of favorite shows. Let's say there's 25 of them. For this example; Access to each of these 25 shows are non-negotiable to you and you feel you MUST have access to them.

If Service A and Service B are the only options; they both get to set the price. So to get access to a "complete" collection of content that you want you're paying both of them $50 each. It's most likely that half will be available only on A and the other half on B.

Now imagine that there are 10 different services. Each service is owned by one of the big ten networks that makes your 25 favorite shows. We will call them by their number from 1 to 10. Now each of your 25 shows have 10 places they could be.

On average; each network is likely to have 2.5 shows you like. Maybe a few have made some sweet deals with others; but no one place will have even 7.5 of your favorite shows...because these deals are costly and nobody wants to make less money per view.

Now each service; because they're struggling to compete with each other will settle on a price of $10 each. But you still end up being forced to subscribe to all ten of them because no single provider has everything you want and no combination of less than all of them can provide complete access to all that you want to watch.

Even worse; any one of these ten can raise their price arbitrarily because they're tired of competing and can't break even. This means your total spend could be up to $500 eventually as they each creep towards demanding more money like a cable provider.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Because the services are still only owned by a handful of corporations.

Disney owns Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+.

Amazon owns Prime Video and MGM+.

Warner Bros Discovery owns Max and Discovery+

Those three companies own 7 of some of the largest streaming services with a little over a half a billion subs between them. Netflix is the only exception to that trend, being independently founded, but they have their own issues regardless.

[–] RozhkiNozhki@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (3 children)

If there was an aggregator of sorts that would charge let's say even $25 to watch whatever I'd pay happily. That's what Netflix kinda was before other streaming services started popping up and each asking for a hefty fee.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah we need Spotify-like video streaming services already. Let them compete over features and price rather than exclusive content.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

And yet even Spotify has started having exclusive content in the form of certain podcasts. Only a matter of time before they do it with music too.

[–] Kelly@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I would be happy to use a service that auto subscribes for a month when I play content but also auto cancels renewal.

I'm happy to pay for them when I use them but if I don't happen to use one for a month it would be great to skip that bill.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Id even settle for a "master" app that just lets me log all my accounts into it and lets me search for whatever I want and if it isnt on something I have tells me what service its on.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

You may already have this. FireStick does this, Apple TV so does this, I’m pretty sure Roku does this ….. my problem is the opposite: I want to search only the content accessible with what I already pay. I’m tired of search being an upsell

[–] tehmics@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

It killed the promise of affordable content we had for a decade. When Netflix was the only game in town, you paid less for it and got more.

[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Because each of them are charging you $15-$20 per month to access their platform that realistically only has one or two things that actually provide you the value for what you spend.

So now, instead of spending the $100 or whatever it was with your cable TV company to get access to all those channels (which, while you couldnt pick what was on when, they were all included together), now you have to spend like $150-$200 to be able to access the same kind of content as before.

And to make it worse, you used to be able to buy a Laserdisc/VHS/DVD/etc of a movie you really liked. One time purchase, not a monthly subscription. And you didn't have to think about what youre going to do when the streaming service decides to remove your purchased content from their servers (spoiler alert, they almost never will refund you or give you a copy, it just disappears along with your money you spent to buy it).

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 12 points 1 month ago

Cable was expensive as hell and to let you record stuff and watch when you want you had to pay even more for a DVR. Enter Netflix streaming, a service that had shows and movies for cheap.

As time went on, more services existed and each only had a portion of the content. Prices rose as well. Nowadays to get access to everything you're basically paying cable prices like you were before. If everything was on one service (or if every service had everything) then it would be cheaper and people wouldn't complain.

[–] deuleb_biezelbob@programming.dev 11 points 1 month ago

Imagine federated streaming platforms

[–] aredditimmigrant@feddit.nl 11 points 1 month ago

As others have pointed out, the rules of competition don't apply since there's exclusive content at play.

As a metaphor, It's not like one restaurant serving a popular type of food vs multiple restaurants doing so. It's having one Italian, one Thai, one Chinese and one American restaurant being the only ones in 100 miles. Look! There's competition, 4 restaurants! Unless you only want some pad Thai.

So now instead of fixing cables issue of $60-100/month, they made it more complicated by paying $60-100/month to 3-5 different companies instead of one.

As a real life example. If you have kids, or are a big Star wars/marvel fan, 9/10 you need Disney+. It may as well be a Monopoly now so they can raise their prices as much as they want. Parents and nerds will pay through the nose for it.

Source: am a parent and a nerd (but I pirate all my stuff anyway)

Sounds like they don’t sail the high seas

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There could be 1 service that carries all the content and the companies that produce that content can still be paid without having to subscribe to 10 different services to get all the content you're looking for. Like how Netflix worked before everyone decided to make their own platform and took damn near everything off Netflix.

There could be multiple services with the same content that compete on pricing or other services/features instead of holding content hostage.

Since they all hold different things hostage, you really do not have a choice where you watch the show/movie you want; it's only on a specific service that has it.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As much as Id like that, Id even settle for 1 app I can plug all my subscriptions into that shows me everything I have access to at once.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

That’s common and you may already have that

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Because they are "competing" with content exclusivity instead of quality of service, if every show was on every stream we would actually have competition.

[–] yuuunikki@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I literally torrent everything like a normal person

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If the studios were smart they would put out there own high quality torrents and just charge a couple bucks a movie and send people a bill. I bet a lot of people would pay it. I would.

[–] yuuunikki@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago

I wouldn't. I torrent to get stuff for free

[–] t0fr@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because the service is worse with multiple streaming services?

Everything is not in the same place, it's more expensive, and it's less convenient.

It used to be cheaper with one. It's more expensive with multiple.

Piracy has become more convenient than streaming platforms. As least all the media can be consolidated to one place, one frontend.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah, you rarely hear people complain about music streaming apps because they don't have (as much of) an exlueitivy problem. Apple/Google/Spotify/etc. Are competing on service/cost/features.

[–] maxenmajs@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

It's a matter of convenience. If you wish to ethically watch various shows then you have to either pay for many streaming services or finish some content on one, cancel, and switch to another.

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I used to subscribe to Netflix, prime video, and HBO max. I realized that I'm only consuming less than 5% of the contents they offer and I felt that I'm just wasting money. So I unsubscribed and went back to the high seas.

If they can offer one service for all the contents I'd gladly pay for the service.

[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It's probably because they can remember how convenient and cheaper it was to see any movie or show that could be streamed. Streaming was supposed to disrupt TV by eliminating ads and allowing you to choose whatever you want to watch. Nowadays, in order to get the same amount of choices, you need to spend about as much as you did for a TV subscription and now many platforms have ads.

I think it's more a frustration at what we lost than anything else.

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I've had similar thoughts, and I don't have a great answer for you.

On the one hand, it seems like we consumers are really spoiled. On the other hand, a lot of these platforms only have a small number of offerings people find worthwhile.

I'm not as disciplined about it as I should be, but I try to limit how many I have at one time. I will regularly unsub from ones I haven't watched in a while.

[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Because what people really want is an iTunes like service that just has everything for a single price rather than 14 streaming apps that have content overlap but also exclusives and rotating temporary content licenses costing $20+ each with ads.

There was a period of time when I gave up pirating because Netflix+prime was good enough to watch just about everything, and on-device search easily searched both platforms and provided a unified search/watch experience. It wasn’t worth the effort of finding and storing content yourself.

Fast forward to today, you search for something, it belongs to some fucking random service you don’t currently pay $17.99 a month for and then halfway though a season, it drops from the platform and goes to another streaming service you also don’t pay for. It’s just endless bullshit and nickel&diming now.

I’d happily pay $60 a month for a single service that just had everything and saved me from all this bullshit, instead I’d be forced to spend $300 a month for 23 services I barely use just to have access to the catalog of content I want.

Another example of this done well is steam- I just want my whole library in one place, I don’t want 5 different game libraries each with their own crap. Consequently I’ve spent thousands of dollars on steam over the years because of the unified experience.

[–] wolfshadowheart@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago

People went from paying for cable and addon channels, to having a consolidated service, to having that service split and paid for addon channels again.

Not to mention keeping track of when they pay, since they're all different dates unless you do it on specific days all at once.

Then there's self hosting and having everything in one spot. Phew, nothing like it.

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

I don't know man, it was awesome when you had pretty much what you wanted in Netflix then when they started to focus in their "original stuff" and losing content (and the competition rising) I stopped to bother with this trend and downloaded all my stuff with Softwarr

Nowadays all my streaming needs are very well covered with a single subscription, Real Debrid, which is cheaper than any streaming service and surely has more content than all of them, even combined... I use it along with Stremio and Kodi, which both offer a better UI than most streaming apps lol.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because people are idiots and will complain about everything.

They'd hate one single central screamer site even more

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I sure would. I don't want a site to scream at me.