[joshstrange]

I remember before Netflix and Amazon when it was: DVD or Torrent and this image came out: http://craphound.com/images/ifurapirate.jpeg

That was about stuffing promo's and ads in before the movie but this feels very similar. You can get a better experience by getting a torrent over streaming legally. I pay for Amazon and Netflix but I will still download content from time to time that I can get on them (for no additional cost) because I can get a better experience: no buffering, no quality yo-yo-ing as network speeds fluctuate, no ads, reliable watched status (Using Plex, this is more an issue with Amazon which keeps track of your position in a video but doesn't have watched/unwatched status so it's sometimes hard to pick up in a series where you left off).

Spotify (IMHO) is a great example of a level of service/features (even at a price) beating piracy. I'm still waiting on the "Spotify of TV" (Or movies) and no I don't think it exists out there yet. I would be all over Hulu expect I refuse to pay for a service AND see ads. I would rather pay $20/mo and not see ads then pay the $10/mo and see them. Almost as bad as having to see ads in the first place the ads on Hulu are painfully repetitive at times.

[nemothekid]

>I would be all over Hulu expect I refuse to pay for a service AND see ads. I would rather pay $20/mo and not see ads then pay the $10/mo and see them. Almost as bad as having to see ads in the first place the ads on Hulu are painfully repetitive at times.

You are going to have to make a better offer to the studios that are currently charging customers $80/mo AND forcing them to see ads.

Hollywood would have to slim down significantly if it was going to go Netflix-model primary on all its content.

[meesterdude]

I'd argue "hollywood" and media companies are significantly bloated as is, and slimming down would only be in consumers best interests. They have so much money they don't know what to do with it all.

They charge $80/mo (sometimes much more) and show ads because they can get away with it And we let them. There are also other old economics (like paying for channels you'll never watch) at play that are no longer applicable with the internet.

The netflix model is tricky. On the one hand, it's a constant stream of income. On the other, there is ever increasing licensing fees and questionable return on investment when they produce a new show. I don't know that it's an ideal model, in those regards.

I think (or hope) that what will win out is the ability to vote with your wallet. I watch some shows, and I want the shows I watch to do well and stay on the air. Equally, i don't give a crap about the shows I don't watch. But I think a barrier to that will be the price tag they attach, which will likely not be anything reasonable.

And this circles back to the topic of hollywood: a few companies in control of the majority of the market, inflating prices to line their pockets. But the internet levels some of the playing field, so an independent could come along with little more than a youtube channel and compelling content and bypass all their nonsense. And I think that will be the best thing: competition.

[nemothekid]

In terms of content production I think the only economics that have changed significantly have been production technology (CGI, cameras, which has gotten more expensive) and distribution (which is now near free).

That said I don't buy the claim that "they have more money than they know what to do with". Content Production is expensive. Netflix spent $100M in total on House of Cards, and it looks like they are spending $4-5M per episode on their original shows. I'm unsure that without big budgets that small budget productions other than "Let's Plays" and talking heads will ever be successful.

And not only is it expensive, but it is hit driven, your hits have to be able to cover the cost of your other 5-6 failures. You have to have enough cash in bank to weather a lackluster season.

It's doubtful the Netflix model @ $20/mo will be able to cover the million dollar salaries that movie, tv, and voice actors are accustomed to. I'm also unsure they will be able to cover the CGI and production budgets of current big budget films. And currently the internet has yet prove you can support a small production team producing anything more than 3-5 minute content using the internet without a big sponsor. It's also unlikely that you will ever be able to vote with your wallet - bundling ensures that the successful films you watch also pay for the the 3 or 4 failures that came from that studio.

In short my point is its going to take a lot more than cutting a few executive paychecks.

[jquery]

> production technology (CGI, cameras, which has gotten more expensive)

Absolutely not. Production (at a given level of quality) is cheaper than it's ever been. Consumer standards might be respectively higher, but that's not apples to apples.

> It's doubtful the Netflix model @ $20/mo will be able to cover the million dollar salaries that movie, tv, and voice actors are accustomed to.

These actors might have to get accustomed to less, like everybody else.

[nemothekid]

>Absolutely not. Production (at a given level of quality) is cheaper than it's ever been.

I have no data to back this up, and I'll spend some time looking for this, but this doesn't seem true. While hardware, processing power, and sets may have gotten cheaper, I'd argue that the cost centers behind production has always stayed the same and that its been salaries. And I'd argue its worse now that you have to hire VFX teams - no camera costs as much as 90K/yr VFX artist.

>These actors might have to get accustomed to less, like everybody else.

Which is why I'm sure the entertainment industry is going to spend a lot more time figuring out how to squeeze comcast prices from the internet generation. And I'm sure its more likely that they will cut a few writers, and cheap out on the CGI before Brad Pitt get called in to negotiate.

[toomuchtodo]

> Hollywood would have to slim down significantly if it was going to go Netflix-model primary on all its content.

Similar to the contraction the music industry is going through because music isn't as valuable when there is so much more of it to listen to (ie Taylor Swift vs Spotify)?

[nemothekid]

I'd argue its different because the music industry only really every had one lever - marketing and distribution, and the internet made the former really cheap and destroyed the latter. Taylor Swift's label is technically an indie label, and I'm willing to bet the budget and people employed in the production of her latest album is a tiny fraction of what Michael Bay employed in his latest Transformers flick.

Due to the huge budgets and returns movies still have, studios are a lot closer to venture capital firms than distributors. If it ever contracts it would likely be in the form of making less content and making safer bets rather than paying everyone less.

[fidotron]

You're right, but it's worth recognising that few people realised what bad businesses Spotify or Pandora actually are. The margins just aren't there, and so for film/tv you're going to see a persistent effort to continue to "add value" which really means adding value for the seller, and not adding value for the consumer.

[meesterdude]

that image is wonderful! And its spot on. People just want the content, none of the extra bullshit that they classicly tack on. And denying someone who just bought a dvd the ability to skip over all that nonsense is downright sinister; and they wonder why people want to pirate.

There was a long ad on hulu for some drug that had nothing to do with me. At first I said "swap ad" but then that option magically disappeared the next time I saw it, so I said "no" to the "is this ad relevant to you?" question... about 5 times. Still kept appearing during every. single. commercial. Downright infuriating. But clearly there's some logic behind the scenes where no matter if they swap it, or say its not relevant, or even pay for hulu plus; that ad should play because the company paid a lot of money for it to be played; and it doesn't matter how many times a user has had to sit through it.

And that's the thing. They don't give a shit about you. They don't even try. We're just a product for them.

[cma]

Spotify only allows mobile playing for paid accounts, but PC works unpaid with ads. That wasn't for DRM purposes but had the same effect, introducing the kind of platform segmentation you and the article are complaining about.

[DCKing]

Spotify has enabled ad-driven free accounts on mobile for almost exactly one year now.