VOD : Netflix/Streaming Services

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k

I agree with you but sadly the corperations don't the way things are going streaming is going to cost far more than getting a vm or skytv sub.
All i'm going to say judging by the documentation we've recieved in work the past week streaming is going to get very expensive.

And the more expensive it gets the more people will consider getting rid of it especially in these tough economic times for many out there.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by denphone

And the more expensive it gets the more people will consider getting rid of it especially in these tough economic times for many out there.

I myself have made huge cuts streaming wise i used to have prime, britbox, shudder, starz, netflix, hulu, disney+ but prices kept going up as more came along so now i use *cough* hulu and netflix.
And docs we recieved last week suggest Netflix is getting ready to bump up prices again and as some said might happen Prime is on that list for a potential price increase too.
I think you already know nowtv is going up in price too?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k

I myself have made huge cuts streaming wise i used to have prime, britbox, shudder, starz, netflix, hulu, disney+ but prices kept going up as more came along so now i use *cough* hulu and netflix.
And docs we recieved last week suggest Netflix is getting ready to bump up prices again and as some said might happen Prime is on that list for a potential price increase too.
I think you already know nowtv is going up in price too?

My God, Legendkiller, you've been to town! As you know, I am a big advocate of the streamers, but I have kept our subscriptions down to what we can cope with, viewing wise. I have Netflix, Prime and StarzPlay and Now TV that I pay for, and I receive Apple+ on a free one-year trial. I may drop StarzPlay when I have to start paying for Apple+.

As new streamers come out I will review my choices, but I cannot see us coughing up for more than four streamers at a time, because we would never get around to watching it all.

I am still of the view that tne SVOD services are much better value than the pay-TV channels, and are likely to remain so..

[Phunkenstein]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

why cant they just put the more adult tv shows on disney+ and use age protection etc? another streaming service to pay towards by the same company....

Well they have suggested that in some markets...

https://gadgets.ndtv.com/entertainme...fox-fx-2274486

“Chapek said the new Star-branded general entertainment offering will be “fully integrated” into Disney+ in many markets.”

That sounds like some markets will get something similar to Disney+Hotstar that collates all of the content portfolio under one platform.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by Phunkenstein

Well they have suggested that in some markets...

https://gadgets.ndtv.com/entertainme...fox-fx-2274486

“Chapek said the new Star-branded general entertainment offering will be “fully integrated” into Disney+ in many markets.”

That sounds like some markets will get something similar to Disney+Hotstar that collates all of the content portfolio under one platform.

To me that suggests markets where they think they can get individual subs they will, whilst in less affluent societies they will bundle and get what they can.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by vincerooney

why cant they just put the more adult tv shows on disney+ and use age protection etc? another streaming service to pay towards by the same company....

As I mentioned earlier, Hulu and ESPN are separate strands of Disney + in the States, and I believe similarly that Star will be a separate strand here. Don't know whether we will get sport, though, I've not read anything about that.

I would envisage that we will get a choice of bundles, and if so, I might be tempted to subscribe to the Star strand.

As for PIN numbers, parents can choose how to apply these to stop children from accessing unsuitable material.

[jfman]

This exciting future, and fight for market share, looks more shambolic by the day.

[nialli]

You guys ever wondered if you watch too much TV??
I set myself a monthly streaming budget of £15. Over the last couple of years we've had Netflix as a regular top-up and have had half-price NowTV for the last nine months for Sky Atlantic. We did a free week with Disney+ and another with Prime, but there's not enough of interest on either to tempt us to subscribe. If we ever have to pay full price for NowTV I'd drop it - I hate the way the new HBO series disappears from OnDemand four weeks after broadcast

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

This exciting future, and fight for market share, looks more shambolic by the day.

I would have expected nothing less from you, jfman. Negative, negative, negative.

Speaking for myself and my wider family, the streaming services have improved our viewing considerably.

If the streamers can reduce costs for the consumer, how is this a bad thing?

I’m sure you will think of something in the name of economics. I trust that you won’t disappoint!

---------- Post added at 17:46 ---------- Previous post was at 17:43 ----------

Originally Posted by nialli

You guys ever wondered if you watch too much TV??
I set myself a monthly streaming budget of £15. Over the last couple of years we've had Netflix as a regular top-up and have had half-price NowTV for the last nine months for Sky Atlantic. We did a free week with Disney+ and another with Prime, but there's not enough of interest on either to tempt us to subscribe. If we ever have to pay full price for NowTV I'd drop it - I hate the way the new HBO series disappears from OnDemand four weeks after broadcast

I agree with you about the limited viewing times on Now TV! Trust Sky to ruin the SVOD experience.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I would have expected nothing less from you, jfman. Negative, negative, negative.

Speaking for myself and my wider family, the streaming services have improved our viewing considerably.

If the streamers can reduce costs for the consumer, how is this a bad thing?
I agree with you about the limited viewing times on Now TV! Trust Sky to ruin the SVOD experience.

That is of course a big if. You also can’t ask a question that’s fundamentally about economics and not expect an answer comprehensively grounded in it.

Others in the thread have questioned why one streaming company would offer a plethora of competing products, a legitimate question as it has the potential to remove economies of scale that have to date, in every major pay-tv market, made packages and bundles by far the most popular products in the marketplace.

Are you still paying for the top package Virgin offers? If so, with someone as enthusiastic about streaming as yourself clinging to traditional pay-tv offerings, it begs the question how and when the market gets shaken up.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I would have expected nothing less from you, jfman. Negative, negative, negative.

Speaking for myself and my wider family, the streaming services have improved our viewing considerably.

If the streamers can reduce costs for the consumer, how is this a bad thing?

I’m sure you will think of something in the name of economics. I trust that you won’t disappoint!

Are you paying less for TV content than before the streamers came along? To me, it seems like more cost and more choice than ever before.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by jfman

Are you still paying for the top package Virgin offers? If so, with someone as enthusiastic about streaming as yourself clinging to traditional pay-tv offerings, it begs the question how and when the market gets shaken up.

Exactly

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Are you paying less for TV content than before the streamers came along? To me, it seems like more cost and more choice than ever before.

Agreed

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

That is of course a big if. You also can’t ask a question that’s fundamentally about economics and not expect an answer comprehensively grounded in it.

Others in the thread have questioned why one streaming company would offer a plethora of competing products, a legitimate question as it has the potential to remove economies of scale that have to date, in every major pay-tv market, made packages and bundles by far the most popular products in the marketplace.

Are you still paying for the top package Virgin offers? If so, with someone as enthusiastic about streaming as yourself clinging to traditional pay-tv offerings, it begs the question how and when the market gets shaken up.

Listen to yourself, jfman. Do you seriously believe tbat Sky offers better value than Netflix?

I don't see how your question about the top Virgin package is relevant. You know as well as I do that you can get programmes on the top package that you cannot currently get elsewhere. But that is changing, and we are close to a tippjng point.

I am in the fortunate position of being able to afford to support both systems, but this is very much a transitional period. If I had difficulty in balancing the household budget, then yes, I would ditch all the pay-tv channels.

How about you, jfman? What are your current viewing options? I don't think you've ever said.

By the way, I have ditched the Sky Cinema channels in favour of Now TV. I may go sooner before much longer. But it all depends on the advantage to me, and surely that is more important than any slavish conformity to principle.

---------- Post added at 19:42 ---------- Previous post was at 19:37 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Are you paying less for TV content than before the streamers came along? To me, it seems like more cost and more choice than ever before.

No, but this is a transitional period. The fact that you can subscribe to Netfix, Amazon and Now TV for less than £30 is surely a benefit to the consumer. How is that a bad thing?

I doubt very much that I will still be watching any pay-TV channels in five years' time. And my wallet will have more notes in it as a result.

---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:42 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Exactly

Agreed

Completely irrelevant and a depressing take on the level of debate on this subject.

[muppetman11]

Yes for me I do believe Sky offers better value purely because I watch and use my Sky services far more than Netflix each to their own I guess.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Listen to yourself, jfman. Do you seriously believe tbat Sky offers better value than Netflix?

I don't see how your question about the top Virgin package is relevant. You know as well as I do that you can get programmes on the top package that you cannot currently get elsewhere. But that is changing, and we are close to a tippjng point.

I am in the fortunate position of being able to afford to support both systems, but this is very much a transitional period. If I had difficulty in balancing the household budget, then yes, I would ditch all the pay-tv channels.

How about you, jfman? What are your current viewing options? I don't think you've ever said.

By the way, I have ditched the Sky Cinema channels in favour of Now TV. I may go sooner before much longer. But it all depends on the advantage to me, and surely that is more important than any slavish conformity to principle.

I'm sure I've said before that I have Virgin (Sky Sports and Movies), Now TV, Netflix and Amazon Prime. I don't view these things as ideological, as you appear to do so, and each represents value in their own way.

I do believe that Sky offers better value than Netflix for my viewing habits - I consider such a view completely subjective yet uncontroversial. Others will feel differently. I think that's why they've got millions of customers averaging £500 a year to subscribe vs millions paying Netflix £96 a year or so.

I'm fortunate enough to be unaffected by the forthcoming recession, indeed not commuting makes me better off, however if I were Virgin TV and Sky Sports would be the last product to go. Until streamers can make sports rights viable this will remain the case.

---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:46 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Completely irrelevant and a depressing take on the level of debate on this subject.

I fail to see how you can describe an average consumer, with relatively ordinary viewing habits, observing prices go up as having a 'depressing take'.

It may be depressing for your rose tinted streaming future however as consumer costs go up consumer demand falls. That takes me back to 'Economics 101'.

---------- Post added at 19:51 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Yes for me I do believe Sky offers better value purely because I watch and use my Sky services far more than Netflix each to their own I guess.

Exactly. I'm happy for everyone - whether they watch television linear, on Freeview, on satellite or cable, on pay-tv or free to air, or through streaming.

There's only one user getting depressed about all this.