The streaming era "Ticking Time Bomb"

Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by phrelin, Nov 22, 2019.

  1. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,438
    430
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    In today's The Hollywood Reporter we have the analysis headlined The Ticking Time Bomb That Could Blow Up Hollywood’s Streaming Era which considers the fact that we've gone from having
    • cable companies like Comcast generally defined by geographic service areas offering content created and owned by the likes of Disney/ABC or CBS for which they contract
    • to now having "platforms" (Roku, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Google Chromecast, etc.) with "apps" created by the likes of Disney and CBS offering content created and owned by the likes of Disney/ABC or CBS delivered over the internet through internet providers (Comcast, AT&T, etc.).
    The article notes:

    There's been nary a discussion about what happens when a contract expires in the streaming world and an app disappears from a platform. In the old TV days, blackouts might occur. What's the equivalent to that in the streaming world — and who will oversee complaints of discrimination?

    For now, streaming is in its Wild West, laissez-faire days, with an industry grappling to figure out who stands where. As for consumers, the options are plentiful even if the experience promises to be a bit rough. "This leads to a frustrating situation for viewers when they have all these disjointed apps that work and look differently that they have to switch between to find something to watch," says John Bergmayer, legal director at Washington nonprofit Public Knowledge. "It's annoying in the same way that having multiple inboxes is annoying — just more stuff to keep track of and to check. The solution is pretty straightforward technologically, but the business models of both the platforms and the streaming services stand in the way."​

    "Streaming is in its Wild West, laissez-faire days" reinforces my concern expressed in Streaming - What exactly do the media giants have in mind? "All I can think is that at some point this is going to cost me money in order to watch some show I want to watch...." Now the corporations have different unregulated ways to approach increasing my costs.
     
  2. DaRef

    DaRef New Member

    18
    9
    Jan 10, 2018
    Let's face it: Both streaming platforms and traditional cable/satellite delivery have the same content cost pressure and each of them are going to have to raise prices to cover that cost on a yearly basis. Even standalone channels (CBS All Access, Netflix, Disney+) will face increased programming costs. The only real winners in all this are the content creators. So in the long term, your choices will be 5-7 streaming channels, an "all-in-one" streaming service (i.e. Hulu+Live TV, YouTubeTV), or traditional cable/satellite. And, yes, at some point blackouts and service interruptions will hit YouTubeTV and Hulu+Live as well. That's how the game is played with content creators/distributors.

    I've recently switched from DTV to Hulu+Live (with the Enhanced DVR and Unlimited Screens options). Even with the Hulu price hike next month my total "all in one" cost is $70, less than half of what DTV wanted to charge me. It's not DTV but we are adapting. I fully understand that pricing will increase over time but I think there will still be a delta in cost from streaming to cable/satellite and an even larger delta if you want to go "a la carte" with several single network apps. Each household will have to make the appropriate decisions for themselves. And it will be influenced, at least in part, by the quality and cost of internet service you have in your area.

    The days of "one size fits all" for the traditional providers is almost certainly over. How they adapt will prove interesting. Some smaller providers are already abandoning the content provider business and becoming an ISP only. It will surely be interesting to watch.
     
  3. B. Shoe

    B. Shoe Mentor

    285
    104
    Apr 3, 2008
    Illinois
    I know this is slightly off-topic, but hearing this continued comment towards streaming/multiple apps is growing a little thin. I understand that the apps all don't look or operate the same. Speaking solely off my own personal experiences have been, which is know is probably not wise in a YMMV environment, I've struggled to find a current major player that I sit back and say to myself, "Man, that is simply a total mess."

    This is a great statement. Each household will decide what works for them. If you have the budget to have it all, awesome. For many others, it'll mean choosing the content/providers that are absolutely essential for you. Besides, in a world of what feels like unlimited content, how much can one person/family really watch in a given month?
     
    espaeth likes this.
  4. sparky27

    sparky27 Member

    42
    12
    Jun 25, 2019
    That's fair that you don't find any of the major players to be complete messes. I do think that knock against streaming is valid though. Not in that they are complete messes, but they can be inconvenient. My wife and I have had to start several apps before because a show we want to watch is on Netflix so we look for it, oh wait I think it was Hulu...nope must've been Amazon Prime. That scenario can get annoying and is a valid gripe. Also when you have guests over instead of handing them a remote and saying here you go, there is an explanation about which apps you can use and where they are located (Roku, Xbox, smart tv menu etc.). Sometimes people just want to watch tv and do it quickly/ easily. This doesn't mean streaming sucks, but is simply acknowledging a weakness/ concern related to it.

    So true, unless you are retired there is so much available to watch it's insane. The great thing about streaming services is that you can just cancel it at anytime and start another one up. Even if your family budget is small you can just watch what you want and change it up a month or two down the road.

    I do think that the OP is correct that the costs associated with streaming will continue to increase. The reason I think this is because as more and more people cut the cord the companies will look to replace lost revenue. No company will simply eat those losses and be happy, they will figure ways to replace lost revenue. Heck right now we are getting Hulu and Netflix for free because of other services we have that give them away free. I never got free cable lol.
     
  5. wmb

    wmb Godfather

    644
    63
    Dec 17, 2008
    That is the purpose of the Apple TV app. I think Samsung smart TVs have a similar feature. Go into the Apple TV app, choose your show, and it opens the appropriate app. The other apps just need to expose thier shows, which Netflix fought.

    My in laws have multiple remotes you have to navigate to turn on the TV and their STB. I might be able to fix it, but who knows. That's one of the reasons I don't use the local teleco's tv service. HDMI control fixes that for most streaming devices.

    I get free OTA locals. I'd just need the ESPN channels that aren't available to stream through ESPN+, and I'd pretty much be fine. I could get those and a couple of other occasionally watched channels with a fairly cheap bundle with my phone company and watch them through the channel's app.

    If the price difference between the cheap bundle and a streaming package like YTTV gets too high, I could easily drop the whole shebang, and suck up the wife retraining grief to move off of a cable replacement. I actually should start training her to use the Apple TV app to find shows now anyway. It will save grief in the future.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    sparky27 likes this.

Share This Page

spam firewall