▲ 294 ▼ It’s “shakeout” time as losses of Netflix rivals top $5 billion | Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers. (arstechnica.com) submitted 2 years ago by L4s@lemmy.world [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world 75 comments fedilink hide all child comments It’s “shakeout” time as losses of Netflix rivals top $5 billion | Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers.::Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers.
[–] akilou@sh.itjust.works 41 points 2 years ago (6 children) Dude, you want more streaming services? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] reddig33@lemmy.world 45 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HobbitFoot 19 points 2 years ago Hulu is owned by studios. It was a joint venture between ABC, NBC, and Fox. After Disney(ABC) bought Fox, Comcast(NBC) sold its share to Disney. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Copernican@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* Channels are TV Programmers have. Studios technically can be independent of the programmer channel since the programmer orders the rv show production from the studio. The distribution platform was cable or broadcast (over the air). What folks seem to want is a cable package all over again, just cheaper and without hardware fees and without ads. Not sure how you can have all 3 of those things though. If you cut ads, it probably looks just as expensive if not more expensive than cable. The economics of ESPN worked due to it being bundled in every basic cable package. If you go a la carte I don't think the sports fans will like the price that is no longer subsidized by all the bundles of folks that don't watch sports. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 13 points 2 years ago (2 children) The only workable long term strategy is for these companies to compete over service instead of content just like Spotify, YouTube music, Apple music, Pandora, Tidal, etc. If they continue on their current path, everything will wind up being owned by the 2-3 companies with the deepest pockets and we'll be back to the cable TV model. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hoomod@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's basically the cable TV model just with more steps Need like 5+ services you pay $5-20 a month to instead of one you pay $75 to (numbers made up) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago $75 is really borderline coming from the pricepoint we have now. Assuming you could watch nearly everything in one place, it might be a success, but who knows. I believe this is around what YouTube TV and Hulu & Live TV cost. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] reddig33@lemmy.world 45 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HobbitFoot 19 points 2 years ago Hulu is owned by studios. It was a joint venture between ABC, NBC, and Fox. After Disney(ABC) bought Fox, Comcast(NBC) sold its share to Disney. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Copernican@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* Channels are TV Programmers have. Studios technically can be independent of the programmer channel since the programmer orders the rv show production from the studio. The distribution platform was cable or broadcast (over the air). What folks seem to want is a cable package all over again, just cheaper and without hardware fees and without ads. Not sure how you can have all 3 of those things though. If you cut ads, it probably looks just as expensive if not more expensive than cable. The economics of ESPN worked due to it being bundled in every basic cable package. If you go a la carte I don't think the sports fans will like the price that is no longer subsidized by all the bundles of folks that don't watch sports. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HobbitFoot 19 points 2 years ago Hulu is owned by studios. It was a joint venture between ABC, NBC, and Fox. After Disney(ABC) bought Fox, Comcast(NBC) sold its share to Disney. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Copernican@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* Channels are TV Programmers have. Studios technically can be independent of the programmer channel since the programmer orders the rv show production from the studio. The distribution platform was cable or broadcast (over the air). What folks seem to want is a cable package all over again, just cheaper and without hardware fees and without ads. Not sure how you can have all 3 of those things though. If you cut ads, it probably looks just as expensive if not more expensive than cable. The economics of ESPN worked due to it being bundled in every basic cable package. If you go a la carte I don't think the sports fans will like the price that is no longer subsidized by all the bundles of folks that don't watch sports. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 13 points 2 years ago (2 children) The only workable long term strategy is for these companies to compete over service instead of content just like Spotify, YouTube music, Apple music, Pandora, Tidal, etc. If they continue on their current path, everything will wind up being owned by the 2-3 companies with the deepest pockets and we'll be back to the cable TV model. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hoomod@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's basically the cable TV model just with more steps Need like 5+ services you pay $5-20 a month to instead of one you pay $75 to (numbers made up) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago $75 is really borderline coming from the pricepoint we have now. Assuming you could watch nearly everything in one place, it might be a success, but who knows. I believe this is around what YouTube TV and Hulu & Live TV cost. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hoomod@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's basically the cable TV model just with more steps Need like 5+ services you pay $5-20 a month to instead of one you pay $75 to (numbers made up) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago $75 is really borderline coming from the pricepoint we have now. Assuming you could watch nearly everything in one place, it might be a success, but who knows. I believe this is around what YouTube TV and Hulu & Live TV cost. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago $75 is really borderline coming from the pricepoint we have now. Assuming you could watch nearly everything in one place, it might be a success, but who knows. I believe this is around what YouTube TV and Hulu & Live TV cost. permalink fedilink source parent