[hightrix]

Yar har har matey.

I imagine we will be hearing about the rise of piracy again in the next 6-12 months.

I’m definitely not interested in paying 20/mo per service as is the direction we are heading.

It will be interesting to see which streamers win and which fail then get bought up. In 5 years, we could see consolidation get us back to a reasonable number of services rather than the current situation.

In reality, ad free streaming will likely be the first casualty. And we will be back to cable tv.

[lopis]

Disney will promably dominate in the very near future. They own most of the content. But they didn't go the Netflix route of one streaming service with all the content. They'll have dozens of different thematic services that you can subscribe separately (Disney plus, hulu, espn, etc) or in a bundle. Basically exactly like cable but on demand. And every other service will basically die out because their content doesn't pull in new users.

[hightrix]

This does seem like the logical conclusion.

Disney/Hulu/peacock/espn dominate market due to historical and current content. Disney first cuts off Netflix from any and all owned content. Disney buys netflix. Disney removes adfree plan. Disney raises prices back to cable tv levels. Piracy surges. Netflix 2 comes out and we repeat the cycle.

[lopis]

There's currently no oxygen left for a Netflix 2 to emerge. Netflix came out in a vacuum of streaming options and being the first to gain global adoption, everyone wanted their content on Netflix.

[jvalencia]

Netflix 2 will be an AI generated studio that makes big budget films cheaply and owns all the rights. The code will largely be generated. They will not need actors/writers/tech people in the way that netflix does. So their margins will be large enough to sustain the streaming / generation.

[agubelu]

I've seen ChatGPT introduce pretty obvious bugs when asked to produce a simple chunk of code. I don't find it believable in the slightest that a significant portion of the code required to build and operate a large-scale service can be autogenerated.

[blovescoffee]

You can't imagine it will improve in the future?

[notnmeyer]

it butchered my idea for a curb your enthusiasm spec script

[toyg]

It looks like, in the ranks of HN posters, cryptobros have been replaced by AInuts.

[lopis]

I really can't imagine that happening int he near future. Anything less than perfect when it comes to how AI generated faces look seems to fall in the uncanny valley. But script-wise, if Riverdale shown us anything is that scripts don't really need to make much sense to fair relatively well in Netflix.

[newaccount74]

I'd argue that AI will never be as original and creative as a human, but most of the stuff on Netflix is already so predictable that I'm not actually sure that's a good argument.

[lotsofpulp]

Disney is in no financial position to buy Netflix.

[hightrix]

Today, you are absolutely right. If rights holders continue to reduce the available of premium content on Netflix, the situation may not be the same in a few years.

Netflix content alone can’t sustain the platform, imo.

[scarby2]

I think this is where you're wrong. I can't remember the last time I watched any non-Netflix content on Netflix.

They're also adept at funding international content at a fraction of the price of US content. Assuming AI doesn't take over filmmaking I can see a future fairly soon were Netflix are making a ton of English language content in Africa/India/Eastern Europe. Or they are making international content and using AI to generate English vocals and lip sync.

[lopis]

> I can't remember the last time I watched any non-Netflix content on Netflix.

But that's exactly the point, isn't it? Netflix is popular today because it used to be the place where you could stream almost anything. Now you can only watch Netflix shows and movies, and some other low quality content or older shows and movies. Can Netflix keep up with more established media behemoths in producing enough content to keep its user base from flocking to Disney when they have all the most popular series and blockbusters?

[toyg]

Well, in theory it could - if it weren't so terrible and formulaic.

[grotorea]

But why remove the adfree plan?

[Obscurity4340]

Its like The Matrix.

[local_issues]

Isn't that just Cable but shittier and more expensive?

[lotsofpulp]

No, cable did not allow you to watch on almost any device anywhere at anytime.

[klondike_]

Neither will streaming, it seems. The big players are already moving to a one household per account rule

[darkwizard42]

Sort of, but it seems like most people complained about the high cost of cable combined with the low actual channel value you get. And it seems like dropping sports to something separate helps.

[JohnFen]

This is actually why I don't subscribe to any streaming services: they're all just cable TV in new clothes, still including most of the stuff that made cable TV suck.

[jstarfish]

In a 30-minute cable TV show, roughly 10 minutes of it is ads. Streaming is nothing like this (yet).

[JohnFen]

Not all of the awfulness of cable TV exists in streaming, of course. But a whole lot of it does. For example, the fragmentation of streaming among many services is essentially the same as the old cable TV "packages".

[toyg]

The free services (UK) are like this.

But yeah, the paying ones are not.

[kevinventullo]

Alternatively, people will just consume different media or… I dunno, go outside?

I’m partially kidding, but it’s also true that if I can’t rent or buy a show/movie a la carte off Amazon or whatever, I usually just skip it. As a result, I watch less TV, which is probably good for me.

[dudul]

Totally agree. I never understand the complain that goes "if I want access to all the shows i need 6 subscriptions at $20 each!" OK, then maybe dont watch all the shows? Or do a rolling subscription?

But I'm ready to admit that my position may be fringe. As far as I'm concerned we could just stop making movies and shows tomorrow and I'll be perfectly happy. There's enough quality content to occupy many life times.

[hightrix]

> OK, then maybe dont watch all the shows? Or do a rolling subscription?

Rolling subscriptions are the best way to handle the current streaming fragmentation. We frequently cancel services to see if anyone in the household notices. If someone does, it is easy enough to resub and cancel again.

That said, I fully expect the step after "No more ad-free streaming" to be "12 month contracts minimum" or $120/mo for month by month or just $600 per year, charged monthly at $49.99.

[blitzar]

I’m definitely interested in paying 20/mo per service if it is for 1 or maybe two services that cover all my needs.

I’m definitely not interested in paying 20/mo per service if it is for 14 services that barely cover my needs.

[hightrix]

Completely agreed. I'd be happy to pay even more to have a Spotify-like video streaming service. One price for everything, without commercials, would be worth the same or more than what I used to pay for cable. "Without Commercials" being the key point. I won't pay to be advertised at.