Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecatt73
You're essentially saying that in the future Netflix will continue to raise prices (or introduce advertising) while adding very little in the way of new content?
|
The glorious streaming future in one sentence.
---------- Post added at 13:00 ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
The levels of debt accrued by Netflix has arisen through the sheer number of original programming they have made available on the service. Once they are satisfied that they have a good enough library, that level of spending will inevitably decrease, and they will also find innovative ways of increasing revenue.
The 'low-cost streaming future' is not a sham at all. The price will increase, sure, but you will no longer need to pay for any TV channels to companies like VM and Sky in the future because you will get all the content you want from the streamers, and you can access them through your smart TV. No need to get a TV box at all.
|
So all that changes is who you pay and no need for a box. Increased prices for less/lower quality content isn’t a victory for consumers in any way, shape or form.
Quote:
|
I can see that as a sport-lover, you are miffed by the number of streamers you need to pay for to watch a variety of sport, but as I said earlier, the fragmentation of sports programming was already occurring on the TV channels. I suspect that over time, sport will be available on fewer streamers due to the cost, reversing that trend.
|
More wishful thinking to be disproven over time. Whether I watch, or don’t watch, sports is broadly irrelevant. It’s simply the easiest way to disprove your vision of a low cost streaming future. Although general entertainment and niche programming are following suit.