The economics of the streaming war remain somewhat mysterious to me. After all, Netflix generates some $30 billion in revenue and has more than 200 million subscribers worldwide, yet this is still considered a disappointment to some on Wall Street. As a result, the biggest streaming service in the world’s stock price has reverted to its pre-COVID level. At any other point in the history of filmmaking, Netflix would be seen for what it is: a massively powerful studio generating enormous amounts of revenue. But because it is not obviously going to be the only streamer standing at the end of this conflict, it’s still a disappointment.
You may be the first person I've read pining for a resurgence of cable TV subscriptions.
"If only there were some sort of way to … bundle all these channels together. And then pipe them straight to your TV with some sort of … cable."
"...that would allow us to edit all that content however we like. We could cut all those shows and movies into little 5-minute pieces, and insert a metric ton of paid advertising in the breaks. That way the audience has no chance of immersing themselves in the story or suspending their disbelief. While we’re at it, let’s go ahead and speed up the actual video. It may take away from the quality of the content, but it will give our paying customers so much more quality time with our paid advertisers. We should also make sure the volume of all those paid advertisements is somehow automatically set to IMAX theatre levels… our paying customers might not be able to hear about all our exciting offers from the restroom."
I'm willing to admit that something was lost when we finally got the freedom to watch whatever we want. Nobody is watching the same shows at the same time anymore.
I just don’t understand how Comcast can lose (likely) $3 billion over two years and everyone just shrugs their shoulders. Perhaps Rob Long can provide some insight into this voodoo economics.
I dumped Time Warner (now Spectrum) because with their DVR I couldn't even watch recorded shows in different rooms of my house. Now, with Hulu, I can watch everything everywhere, at home, at work, at the DMV, sitting in my car while the old lady is shopping... you get the idea. Worth every penny.
Couple of comments: First, Peacock is free for Xfinity cable subscribers like me. Even though it's free, I don't use it. Why? Because I'd have to wade through an ocean of garbage to find anything worth watching. Example--their fake movies (Yes, this is a thing: cheap ripoffs of major studio productions, with similar names so you get tricked into wasting five minutes of your life watching before you realize it's a knockoff and change the channel). Peacock is not failing because of economics of bundling blah blah... It's failing because it isn't even a good deal when it's free. Second: I am happy with unbundling. Paying twice as much for ten times more content pipes, when I wouldn't have time to watch any of them, is silly. It's like the feature bloat on Microsoft Word--I'd happily buy a version of Word with 10% of the features and pay half what I pay now. Bundling streaming services makes sense only if you don't have a life.
Schools as the frontline of the culture wars is a recurring theme, and it shows up even in movies where it's not the focus. Obviously Inherit The Wind is the granddaddy here, but John Sayles' Lone Star also concerns itself with the clash of cultures, including a combative PTA meeting, and then there's the school board scene in Field of Dreams
That’s funny, because I do pay separate fees for all the streamers you listed with the exceptions of Criterion and Arrow and the additions of Britbox and DIRECTV Stream. Still preferable to the days when my only choices were an overpriced Cox Cable package or rabbit ears.
"If only there were some sort of way to … bundle all these channels together. And then pipe them straight to your TV with some sort of … cable."
FOR REAL. I can't believe the streaming services model hasn't imploded already. It's unwieldy and expensive and annoying. I can see the point with sports, because we get better coverage of niche sports than we've ever had before. But with shows and movies, it just doesn't make sense.
You may be the first person I've read pining for a resurgence of cable TV subscriptions.
"If only there were some sort of way to … bundle all these channels together. And then pipe them straight to your TV with some sort of … cable."
"...that would allow us to edit all that content however we like. We could cut all those shows and movies into little 5-minute pieces, and insert a metric ton of paid advertising in the breaks. That way the audience has no chance of immersing themselves in the story or suspending their disbelief. While we’re at it, let’s go ahead and speed up the actual video. It may take away from the quality of the content, but it will give our paying customers so much more quality time with our paid advertisers. We should also make sure the volume of all those paid advertisements is somehow automatically set to IMAX theatre levels… our paying customers might not be able to hear about all our exciting offers from the restroom."
I'm willing to admit that something was lost when we finally got the freedom to watch whatever we want. Nobody is watching the same shows at the same time anymore.
I just don’t understand how Comcast can lose (likely) $3 billion over two years and everyone just shrugs their shoulders. Perhaps Rob Long can provide some insight into this voodoo economics.
I dumped Time Warner (now Spectrum) because with their DVR I couldn't even watch recorded shows in different rooms of my house. Now, with Hulu, I can watch everything everywhere, at home, at work, at the DMV, sitting in my car while the old lady is shopping... you get the idea. Worth every penny.
Couple of comments: First, Peacock is free for Xfinity cable subscribers like me. Even though it's free, I don't use it. Why? Because I'd have to wade through an ocean of garbage to find anything worth watching. Example--their fake movies (Yes, this is a thing: cheap ripoffs of major studio productions, with similar names so you get tricked into wasting five minutes of your life watching before you realize it's a knockoff and change the channel). Peacock is not failing because of economics of bundling blah blah... It's failing because it isn't even a good deal when it's free. Second: I am happy with unbundling. Paying twice as much for ten times more content pipes, when I wouldn't have time to watch any of them, is silly. It's like the feature bloat on Microsoft Word--I'd happily buy a version of Word with 10% of the features and pay half what I pay now. Bundling streaming services makes sense only if you don't have a life.
I miss Ricky Jay, he mostly played one character, but he did it so well.
Schools as the frontline of the culture wars is a recurring theme, and it shows up even in movies where it's not the focus. Obviously Inherit The Wind is the granddaddy here, but John Sayles' Lone Star also concerns itself with the clash of cultures, including a combative PTA meeting, and then there's the school board scene in Field of Dreams
Heist a good pick for Assigned Viewing. Talented cast using those talents well.
That’s funny, because I do pay separate fees for all the streamers you listed with the exceptions of Criterion and Arrow and the additions of Britbox and DIRECTV Stream. Still preferable to the days when my only choices were an overpriced Cox Cable package or rabbit ears.
"If only there were some sort of way to … bundle all these channels together. And then pipe them straight to your TV with some sort of … cable."
FOR REAL. I can't believe the streaming services model hasn't imploded already. It's unwieldy and expensive and annoying. I can see the point with sports, because we get better coverage of niche sports than we've ever had before. But with shows and movies, it just doesn't make sense.