The thing that got me back into pirating is having to pay extra for 4k. When every bit of extra enjoyment is taxed it just kills my joy. Like a lot of people in this thread I really would much rather just pay for a good product than pirate. Thanks to steam I haven't pirated a video game since I was a teen.
Any show I've googled has a widget at the top right showing me where it is, if it's included in my current subscriptions, and how much it costs without one.
It's been getting confused lately about arrangements like "Paramount+ via Amazon Prime", but it still works pretty well.
While it shouldn’t be necessary to resort to third party services to resolve these issues, it’s worth noting that JustWatch will tell you where a movie can be found and Letterboxd (among others) will give you a somewhat more clunky unified watchlist.
As far as "third party service shouldn't be necessary", is it that different from getting the TV Guide in the 80s or 90s to find out when a show was going to be on TV?
The difference is people likely aren’t subscribed to every streaming service, so looking up what service a movie is on it a little like a slot machine, where you spin the wheel and hope it lands on a service you have.
You could say that’s not dissimilar to a person having basic cable, while the TV Guide also shows all the premium channels, but in this still feels different.
In a way it’s what people asked for, but not really. With cable, people were bothered by paying a high price when they only watched a few stations. They wanted the ability to pick and choose for a lower price. Now we can pick and choose, but there is too much overlap in content, so it ends up being more expensive to get it all. It’s not like there is a service for sitcoms, another one for drama, sports, music, etc. They are all trying to do a little bit of everything. This isn’t what people actually wanted.
> The original promise of streaming was simple. Everything would be available whenever you wanted it. You could sit down in the evening and binge an entire season without waiting a week for the next episode.
That's not how I remember it. Streaming services never had everything. The promise was: there would be something you would enjoy.
There are two reasons why this isn't working for us:
1. They've cut costs and over-optimized on engagement and now frequently a streaming service will literally not have anything you want to watch.
2. We've started expecting "must-see" shows and movies. You want to watch The Pitt, and then are mad that you need to get HBO or whatever and can't just watch it on Netflix. Perhaps you could browse Netflix and find something you'd like, but you have your heart set on a specific show.
Obviously (1) is a failing of the streaming providers, but I think (2) is on us a little bit. Cultural monoculture is not good. Following the herd is not good.
>2. We've started expecting "must-see" shows and movies. You want to watch The Pitt, and then are mad that you need to get HBO or whatever and can't just watch it on Netflix. Perhaps you could browse Netflix and find something you'd like, but you have your heart set on a specific show.
>(2) is on us a little bit. Cultural monoculture is not good. Following the herd is not good.
I don't think this is it. People just want to be able to watch things without too much hassle and without paying too much money. Some people will enjoy following the latest trend, but there are always many more people not watching any particular show than are watching it.
The fact that torrents make it so much easier to find what you want shows that there's nothing technically difficult about this. It's all caused by stupid profit incentives which make the consumer experience so much worse than it needs to be.
> 2. We've started expecting "must-see" shows and movies. You want to watch The Pitt, and then are mad that you need to get HBO or whatever and can't just watch it on Netflix. Perhaps you could browse Netflix and find something you'd like, but you have your heart set on a specific show.
Obviously (1) is a failing of the streaming providers, but I think (2) is on us a little bit. Cultural monoculture is not good. Following the herd is not good.
#2 is because streaming companies made a promise that they couldn’t live up to — namely, that subscribing to their service would essentially be tv on demand and we could watch the best tv had to offer without the limited scheduling of over-the-air broadcasting. Well, it turns out that one of the great benefits of network broadcasting was that everyone could watch the same show because everyone had access to the broadcast. The streaming companies are expecting subscribers to watch what’s on their service just because it’s on their service, which is exactly what regular broadcast tv had forced everyone to do. Streaming offers the option to watch anytime but not the option to watch anything, even thought that was in fact part of the original promise.
I find the 2 being framed as fault of "us" weird. It seems completely normal to me to want to read a specific book rather then "just some" or see a specific movie rather then "any movie will do".
Watching things because a friend praised them or because you seen a good review or because you liked it and want to re-watch is no more "the bad herd following" then mindlessly opening Netflix and clicking whatever it recommends.
Yes, it would be nice to universal access to all content. But the streaming providers must negotiate licensing fees, and having a commitment to provide all content would allow the rights-holders to charge whatever they liked. That drive the cost of the streaming subscription extremely high. If it was PPV then it would work, but that is basically what you get with google/amazon's rentals.
In a different world where rightsholders didn't get to set their price, then this would be possible. That world is bittorrent ;)
> There are probably a few ways to improve things. Cross-platform search should be standard by now. A shared watchlist across services would help.
Apple tried this with the TV app on their AppleTVs. It was supposed to pull all your subscriptions into one interface, searchable, with tracking and watchlists and all that good stuff. One unified app to all your content.
Then Netflix said they weren't going to play ball, so most others refused too, and now it works with only like 1/3 of streaming services out there.
Most people think of the loss of Steve Jobs passing in terms of Apple product design.
However the loss of his talent for business negotiations was at least as great a loss for Apple. He negotiated deals to get almost the entire recording industry onto iTunes. He convinced AT&T to sacrifice control of devices on their network to get an iPhone exclusive.
Maybe he would have found a way to convince Netflix to integrate their content into Apple TV.
Netflix is the only major service that doesn’t seem to play well, but services with sub-services (especially Amazon) don’t take into account your subscriptions when announcing what they carry and others (like Hulu) advertise stuff you can’t view at all.
The idea is excellent, individual provider’s implementations often suck, but since the Netflix app is so very terrible, they could really use full Apple TV integration.
Usually Justwatch should be able to tell you where something is available. However I will note that it's remarkably common for something slightly old to just not be available anywhere. You cannot watch Das Boot in my region on any service so far as I can see. So I guess you loan from the library or buy DVDs off of ebay or something?
Yeah sure. My point is that I have to leave the streaming apps and use third-party services in the first place. If finding where to watch something requires another app or website, I’d argue the ecosystem itself has a UX problem
What the courts did to the studios back in the '40s should be done today.
Your company can either commission/produce original content OR you can be a distributor OR exhibitor. Only one.
For a time, it was popular for movie trailers to end with a domain, often of the form "${ $TITLE }film.com", which would take you to the marketing site for that release. Nowadays there's a whole TLD specifically for movies.
It's a shame that isn't a norm for you to be able to plug a URL into a reader that consumes application-specific RSS (à la podcast clients) for the express purpose of giving notifications when that film is available (either for rent or by subscription) on a new platform.
(Ideally, of course, the media itself would be self-hosted, so you could paste the URL into e.g. VLC and encounter a platform-neutral way to negotiate payment directly with the distributor (or not and just get embedded ads—à la podcasts) and then you're off to the races.)
IMDb shows this. But also, since the author of the blog post is seemingly German, there's http://werstreamt.es (who streams it) that does exactly that. Showing you what streams were (flatrate vs on demand).
I’m amazed that after watching what the music industry went through, that the movie and TV industries haven’t figured it out yet. Have all the content on all the services, and let people pick which service integrates best with their life. This would dramatically reduce piracy, basically overnight, yet they all keep fighting to try to “win”, but it’s not a winner take all system.
We rejected cable tv, which bundled in different content provider packages and plans into one interface, in favor of streaming services, and now are in the process of reinventing cable.
This feels like such a tired subject now. That's not to say don't complain, it's just surprising that we still haven't hit any kind of breaking point with this. I thought we were going to have a big die-off followed by re-consolidation. But somehow this is sustainable? Who is supporting all these stupid services?
60 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 57.3 ms ] threadIt's been getting confused lately about arrangements like "Paramount+ via Amazon Prime", but it still works pretty well.
You could say that’s not dissimilar to a person having basic cable, while the TV Guide also shows all the premium channels, but in this still feels different.
In a way it’s what people asked for, but not really. With cable, people were bothered by paying a high price when they only watched a few stations. They wanted the ability to pick and choose for a lower price. Now we can pick and choose, but there is too much overlap in content, so it ends up being more expensive to get it all. It’s not like there is a service for sitcoms, another one for drama, sports, music, etc. They are all trying to do a little bit of everything. This isn’t what people actually wanted.
That's not how I remember it. Streaming services never had everything. The promise was: there would be something you would enjoy.
There are two reasons why this isn't working for us:
1. They've cut costs and over-optimized on engagement and now frequently a streaming service will literally not have anything you want to watch.
2. We've started expecting "must-see" shows and movies. You want to watch The Pitt, and then are mad that you need to get HBO or whatever and can't just watch it on Netflix. Perhaps you could browse Netflix and find something you'd like, but you have your heart set on a specific show.
Obviously (1) is a failing of the streaming providers, but I think (2) is on us a little bit. Cultural monoculture is not good. Following the herd is not good.
>(2) is on us a little bit. Cultural monoculture is not good. Following the herd is not good.
I don't think this is it. People just want to be able to watch things without too much hassle and without paying too much money. Some people will enjoy following the latest trend, but there are always many more people not watching any particular show than are watching it.
The fact that torrents make it so much easier to find what you want shows that there's nothing technically difficult about this. It's all caused by stupid profit incentives which make the consumer experience so much worse than it needs to be.
#2 is because streaming companies made a promise that they couldn’t live up to — namely, that subscribing to their service would essentially be tv on demand and we could watch the best tv had to offer without the limited scheduling of over-the-air broadcasting. Well, it turns out that one of the great benefits of network broadcasting was that everyone could watch the same show because everyone had access to the broadcast. The streaming companies are expecting subscribers to watch what’s on their service just because it’s on their service, which is exactly what regular broadcast tv had forced everyone to do. Streaming offers the option to watch anytime but not the option to watch anything, even thought that was in fact part of the original promise.
Watching things because a friend praised them or because you seen a good review or because you liked it and want to re-watch is no more "the bad herd following" then mindlessly opening Netflix and clicking whatever it recommends.
In a different world where rightsholders didn't get to set their price, then this would be possible. That world is bittorrent ;)
Apple tried this with the TV app on their AppleTVs. It was supposed to pull all your subscriptions into one interface, searchable, with tracking and watchlists and all that good stuff. One unified app to all your content.
Then Netflix said they weren't going to play ball, so most others refused too, and now it works with only like 1/3 of streaming services out there.
However the loss of his talent for business negotiations was at least as great a loss for Apple. He negotiated deals to get almost the entire recording industry onto iTunes. He convinced AT&T to sacrifice control of devices on their network to get an iPhone exclusive.
Maybe he would have found a way to convince Netflix to integrate their content into Apple TV.
The idea is excellent, individual provider’s implementations often suck, but since the Netflix app is so very terrible, they could really use full Apple TV integration.
https://imdb.com
https://www.justwatch.com/
https://streamsearchup.com/
https://www.wheretowatch.stream/
https://streamfinder.co/
https://findmystreams.com/
https://lookupvod.com/en
It's a shame that isn't a norm for you to be able to plug a URL into a reader that consumes application-specific RSS (à la podcast clients) for the express purpose of giving notifications when that film is available (either for rent or by subscription) on a new platform.
(Ideally, of course, the media itself would be self-hosted, so you could paste the URL into e.g. VLC and encounter a platform-neutral way to negotiate payment directly with the distributor (or not and just get embedded ads—à la podcasts) and then you're off to the races.)
https://reelgood.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPw-gDw6Nxk
https://toomuchmedia.online/
The ads are what get me.