this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
434 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
57432 readers
4391 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We're still looking at a monopoly from the perspective of accessing particular content.
We would all be more happier if the video streaming platforms operated closer to the music platforms where all platforms had mostly the same content, and we just got to pick the experience we want.
As is there is no choise if you're looking for something in particular, which is pretty similar to a monopoly.
Would you rather have 5 services that you can choose which to pay for or have to pay the entire cost of all 5 together?
Neither?
I would rather have 20 services, all with access to most of the same content.
Some services give you the option to pick and choose which media packages you want.
These services are now able to compete on a mostly even ground in terms of content, and instead there is an incentive for them to provide a good user experience.
This would also encourage the media companies to stop licencing their content exclusively or as upfront large blocks, and instead per/stream style licensing could show up (where a content owner is paid based off how much their content is watched).
This would then encourage media companies to produce content people want to watch, rather than the last 10 years where the priority is to have larger libraries of exclusive content (even if that content isn't good).
None of that is a given if content companies didn't also own the streaming companies, but it's is the sort of market that had the best version of Netflix (before they were making content their user experience was much better).
So you want tech companies to spend money on features completely outside of the content and then also have the content, and expect that not to cost substantially more?
Producing “content people want to watch” gets you lowest common denominator crap. Say goodbye to prestige TV and hello to reality TV.
You're sooooo close.
I want tech companies to create streaming services.
I want content companies to make content.
AKA removing the monopoly.
And somehow you think it’ll be cheaper. It hasn’t made music streaming cheaper. It hasn’t made streaming cable replacements cheaper.
It has made music streaming cheaper.
If you don't like Spotify or feel it's too expensive, do a google search, there are like a dozen alternatives, most of them cheaper.
For Spotify you're paying for one of the better user experiences.
Like I said, you're sooooo close to understanding
The music streaming format would be great, but I'm not sure the TV streaming services is all that different than the channel packages cable used to sell. It's still somewhat better than cable with on demand access and ability to add and drop whenever you want.
Not that I think any of this is good, just that I'm not sure its any more monopolistic than broadcast/cable ever were.