←back to thread

100 points speckx | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
barbazoo ◴[] No.45774639[source]
> Fire TV players are repeatedly offered on the internet with piracy apps that are supposed to enable free access to IPTV or VoD content.

They’re so close to getting it. So close. They almost understand that this is a response to a completely unusable, expensive and user shitty experience.

Build something that integrates all streaming providers and many people will already stop pirating. But even then, people are still expected to pay rent to n different streaming companies. It just doesn’t work. They’re being too greedy.

replies(3): >>45774657 #>>45774832 #>>45775154 #
NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[] No.45774832[source]
>Build something that integrates all streaming providers and many people will already stop pirating. But even then, people are still expected to pay rent to n different streaming companies. It just doesn’t work. They’re being too greedy.

They're not being "too greedy". No single streaming company makes you pay multiple subscriptions. Just the one. But you like the shows, and lots of companies want to make shows, so you end up liking shows from multiple companies. You're the one that wants multiple subscriptions, you just dislike the cost/inconvenience. Economically speaking, there's no solution here that can satisfy you... the cost to negotiate with all of them and consolidate on a single platform would be extraordinarily expensive, because that's what convenience often is: exorbitantly expensive. There's no game theory strategy here where you get everything you want, where all the production companies get everything they want, and it all happens at modest prices.

Personally, I can't even pretend to imagine what goes through the heads of people who want to having "streaming subscriptions". Even you, you want those too, you just want a single everything-in-it subscription that's cheap. It's the same thing that people complain about with video games with the "why do I have to have internet for a single-player game" gripes. In 1985, if I wanted shows, I did have to subscribe to cable... the infrastructure for shows was absurdly expensive, no individual could have it. Now? The big 12-bay NAS filled with hard drives, and I have copies of movies and television (and music and software and games and books) that my great-nth-grandchildren will be able to enjoy for free (16K ultra-giga-mega-gold-bluray re-re-remasters notwithstanding).

replies(3): >>45775016 #>>45775481 #>>45783315 #
danielbln ◴[] No.45775016[source]
It works for music. Spotify, YouTube Music, Apple Music. They all have pretty much the full catalog that most people are looking for. In the video world however, we have dozens of providers. Why is that? Also, it used to work like that in the early days of Netflix. But then everyone and their dog wanted their own streaming portal (for video) and here we are.
replies(2): >>45776103 #>>45784826 #
1. cameldrv ◴[] No.45776103[source]
Not to mention the amount of stuff that's simply unavailable. I remember fondly the original Netflix where they mailed you DVDs. They really had almost everything. I was watching all kinds of weird art movies and such. Now someone will mention some interesting film to me and I can't find it streaming anywhere except pirate sites.