zlacker

[return to "Apple is quietly pushing a TV ad product with media agencies"]
1. belval+Qg[view] [source] 2022-10-12 15:08:13
>>ksec+(OP)
I know it's morally dubious, but I'm completely back in pirateland because of all the changes/price hikes/partitioning in the streaming space. My interests make it so I only watch 1-2 shows per platform so I'd be approaching ~100$/month.

And even if I was swimming in money, it's often easier to just download the shows I want and watch them on Plex/Jellyfin than trying to navigate the (often ad-riddled) interfaces of the various platforms and finding where the content I want is.

One example is Rick and Morty, it's made by Adult Swim, but they don't have a streaming service in Canada. It seems to be on Primevideo but under a different system than their regular content. The other way to watch it is to buy it from my cable provider (I don't have cable). So to watch a 20-minutes animated show I'd have to take a +40$ subscription.

◧◩
2. nscalf+FE[view] [source] 2022-10-12 16:43:32
>>belval+Qg
I don't find this particularly morally dubious. These companies are approaching monopoly powers and using it to squeeze consumers. Disney owns about 1/3 of all box office revenue. The government has shown they're unwilling to break up monopolies, or even really limit them in any meaningful way.

Also, I don't quite know my feelings on this yet, but there is something real about some shows and movies being part of the milieu. Something doesn't sit quite right about repeatedly increasing the pricing via anti-consumer acquisitions on products that are contributing a substantial part of how the society collectively feels and thinks. It feels like you have to make more money to live in the same society.

◧◩◪
3. andsoi+EI[view] [source] 2022-10-12 17:00:16
>>nscalf+FE
> These companies are approaching monopoly powers and using it to squeeze consumers.

This doesn’t compute. Firstly, multiple companies cannot simultaneously have monopoly power of the same resource. Secondly, there is by just one company who controls the majority or all content. In fact, having to subscribe to multiple services proves that there are multiple companies who provide tv shows and movies.

◧◩◪◨
4. ceejay+1L[view] [source] 2022-10-12 17:09:02
>>andsoi+EI
> Firstly, multiple companies cannot simultaneously have monopoly power of the same resource.

Sure they can; it's called a cartel when that happens.

The major content publishers have acted in concert to kneecap Netflix; pulling licensed content, no longer licensing popular new content, etc.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. motoxp+pQ[view] [source] 2022-10-12 17:34:36
>>ceejay+1L
So you're saying you WANT Netflix to be a monopoly and have all of the licensed content and new shows?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. nescio+Qg1[view] [source] 2022-10-12 19:35:02
>>motoxp+pQ
You assume that the only legitimate arrangement is that a piece of content can only be available on a single platform. Wouldn't we think it is weird if each book could only be sold by exactly one book seller?

What if the platforms competed on offering a better user experience or other affordances or price?

If there were some way to break the normalization of exclusive distribution, that would tilt things back in favor of the consumer, but I won't hold my breath for the legislation.

[go to top]