|
|
|
|
|
by nobody3141
5343 days ago
|
|
I doubt that anybody 'doubled up' and now pays for both the DVD and streaming option. The reason for the DVD service to exist at all is to do with Hollywood accounting and the way the licenses are counted - the idiocy of this has been discussed here before. The studios can't start their own streaming service simply because they do not have the branding they think they have. This isn't the 1950s, nobody thinks "I must sign up for MGM's service they have all the best action movies".
HBO and BBC might manage to make separate pay-for services but are more likely to simply agree an extra cost deal with Netflix in the same way they sell an extra cost package to cable. Does HBO really want to get into the writing and supporting software player business? Then the studios have a problem that they are in direct competition to their main customers - the cable companies that would be delivering these shows over IP. Can we say serious throttling? Sooner or later somebody in Hollywood is going to manage to get the childproof top off their Lithium tablets and realize that iTunes hasn't quite destroyed the music industry. |
|
I think HBO has a very realistic shot of hitting it out of the ballpark. They have already proven they are capable of doing it. In a few years I expect most people will just subscribe directly to HBO.
As for Dreamworks, 20th Century Fox, MGM, Paramount, and every other movie studio having their own service, the economics won't work. They will make more per subscriber than they would from an aggregater deal, but they will have less subscribers.
A few other providers might be able to do what HBO can do. Niche providers, like Crunchyroll, will likely do very well.
I expect all of the movie & cable players will make moves on their subscription services. A handful will do a really good job and make out well, the rest will get to sell their libraries to Netflix, Amazon, and may be Google, and return back to what they do best.