A Definitive History of Streaming Media from Netflix to Disney+
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 гру 2019
- Support Out of Frame on Patreon: / outofframeshow
Watch our newest video, "Hollywood Hates You (Unless You Agree With Them)": • Hollywood Hates You (U...
Check out our podcast, Out of Frame: Behind the Scenes: / @outofframebts
Disney+ is the latest development in an incredible wave of innovation in home entertainment that started decades ago. From Blockbuster to Netflix, to Amazon Prime and Hulu, we've gotten better and more impressive options year after year. None of this would have been possible without visionary entrepreneurs operating in a market economy.
In this episode of Out of Frame, we present a detailed history of streaming services while explaining the role of the entrepreneur in society, the importance of price signals, and why monopolies don't last very long without legal protection.
______________________________
CREDITS:
Written & Produced by Sean W. Malone
Edited by Arash Ayrom
Music Editing & Motion Graphics by Sean W. Malone
Asst. Edited by Jason Reinhardt
______________________________
LINKS:
fee.org/articles/creative-des...
fee.org/articles/who-s-in-cha...
fee.org/resources/capitalism-...
fee.org/articles/unleash-the-...
fee.org/articles/when-destruc...
fee.org/articles/ludd-vs-schu...
FEE what.
You talk like its competition driving improvement in this industry but you yourself literally admit to buying all the streaming services. If most consumers are buying two different kinds of milk at once, are they competing? Or is it more likely that they are fulfilling separate demands? The market signal a business gets when you buy both is the same as when you buy a car and a t-shirt, you're ignored (from that angle at least) because their bottom line isn't effected by the other. So in streaming this encourages stagnation because they are not losing money to a competitor. There is no incentive to compete in any way other than to lock down exclusive licenses which can't possibly be defined as competing because exclusive licenses don't improve your product, they just hurt your "competitors"
You're definition of a natural monopoly is also really dodgy too, typically libertarians don't consider a "natural monopoly" as a real thing because the only useful definition of a monopoly is to describe why consumers are being abused. This doesn't happen even when they're is only one company because the THREAT of a new company capitalising on their abuse is enough to keep them away from it.
You talk like Hulu/disney/amazon was good for Netflix but any consumer will tell you that the golden years of streaming was when Netflix was the ONLY streaming service. Infact Sandvine's internet Phenomena Report is finally beginning to reflect that as piracy is now on the rise again for the first time since like 2012.
You go on to address higher price and the splitting of content over tons of different apps but then strawman it by conflating it with a race to the bottom/the quality of individual shows going down. But more egregiously you compare our current system to CABLE rather than Netflix dominating the market just a couple of years ago.
Like no shamwow, we're not as bad as cable (YET) but that doesn't prove anything. What DOES prove something is that there is a wide spread notion that streaming got worse. Tell me, in what true competitive market does an industry make consumers less happy than before?
And finally at 15:00 you say there's a restructured Blockbuster but say it was too late to get big. and I know it was 2011 so it wasn't even really true that is was too late, that was more 2017-now but the very fact you think it can be "too late" for a business to challenge another that's far bigger than them is completely opposed to the idea of a free market economy.
And all of this while completely dodging the issue that copyright IS government regulation. Copyright and other government interventionism IS the only way to get a monopoly in a free market economy and I really expected a libertarian channel to question copyright or at least its implementation instead of dodging it entirely and pretending this is somehow a golden child of a market economy. I'm disappointed that there wasn't just a LITTLE bit more thought put into this.
If you want anymore perspective, look at the video "the Netflix Problem". This topic has kinda been my thing for 3 years now.
Found it
Happy to see my main man in action again!
+
Thanks for putting all of that into clear words. I've written enough internet essays.
And I disagree with you on some of your arguments. One streaming service can’t hold all the licenses in the world. Having niche services means I get to find the license programs I want. Do you have it all on Netflix with me Netflix would cost 80 or $90 a month.
Also having one gate keeper for the industry is always a bad idea more is better.
ya know... I actually feel grim about streaming services being so numerous and all over the place rather than more centralized...
but here's the thing. As far as I can tell, none of them have contracts, and when your premium ends, your account doesn't...
With a simple click and credit management, you can easily make December Disney+ time, and carry one major service. Then next month, cancel and switch to another. None of them have 12 month contracts...
I honestly believe the next innovator will probably be a service that banks on helping people automatically do this without having to do the clicks themselves. As much as that seems silly, I think someone is gonna try it.
I'd use that to be honest. But it'd still be more convenient to use Popcorn Time, since you don't have to keep switching websites and remembering which site you're using in that month.
If you work on this idea of yours you could be a hit
When I'm an old man I'm going to tell my grandkids stories about this very thing. (in a wheezy old mans voice) "Back when I was your age we didn't have youtube or streaming. If we wanted to rent a movie we had to go to a place called a 'video store.' And if you wanted to watch something funny caught on camera, you had to watch a show called 'America's funniest home video's.' and ever then you would be lucky to get something funny."
And we had to hike FIFTEEN miles uphill in both directions to reach the videostore, dagnabbit!
Did you know America's Funniest Home Video is STILL a thing today? Not as popular, but it's still running.
@@JukaDominator Yeah I know.
Hey how about "Candid Camera" , huh... eh eh...
Talk about late fees? There was one time when I rented a couple videos from Blockbuster and then returned them on time like a good girl. Well, some time later I get late fees - FOR THE TAPES I HAD RETURNED! And I paid them, but to this day I remember how someone's ineptitude cost me. Instead of being understanding about the situation, they still charged me because whoever was working at the counter failed to properly record the return. I didn't rent from Blockbuster for a few years after that, and well, the other rental place didn't really have any good choices.
Anyway, if Blockbuster had maybe taken responsibility for things like the occasional goof-up, maybe they would still be around today.
This is probably my favorite series on youtube.
Disney+ is $7 a month yet my entire library is in my personal cloud and I can stream from anywhere in the world. It costs $1 a month for that service.
here from John stossel :)
As am I
Welcome!
You release this vidéo 2 hours after i gave my essay on the same theme to my teacher
How did it go?
In the moment i thought it was good but now i saw your vidéo, i relize i miss a few things
@@FlashSkywalker75 I'm sure you did fine :)
Yeah I’m writing an article about it
16/20 not bad
What do you think about intellectual property? It's a monopoly enforced by the government that's allowing all these streaming services to have sole access to programming.
It's a pretty complex subject that people at FEE have really mixed opinions on. We just published a really good Words & Numbers podcast episode on the subject of Patents, which gets into the issue in some depth.
fee.org/shows/audio/words-numbers/patently-absurd#player
Personally, while I agree that IP is a government-enforced privilege -- and indeed the US Constitution acknowledges precisely this: "[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." -- I would argue that without legal protection of IP, creators would have found other ways of protecting their work, both via something comparable to DRM technology, more secrecy, and probably also through social shaming.
We already see as much in areas that have fewer legal protections or where the legal IP protection is difficult to enforce, such as comedians "stealing jokes" or knock-offs of designer clothes and accessories.
As a creator who has been producing art for a living since I was about 21, I also have a lot of sympathy for the idea that IP plays an important role in encouraging bigger, longer-term investments in things like movies and TV shows. Imagine, if you will, a world where a movie studio spends $250,000,000 making something like Avengers: Endgame. Then, they pay another $300 million bringing the film to theaters around the country and marketing it so that people know about it and go see it... then they pay 10s of millions of dollars more to get it ready for DVD/Blu-Ray/Streaming distribution, and the second they release it someone else takes all the work that they did... rips it, and begins giving away or selling their own copies of a movie they didn't make or pay anything to produce.
Certainly it's hard to see how this would be fair in any sense... But also it's hard to see why, in a world without IP protection, anyone would bother to take that kind of risk to begin with.
I would suggest that they may still take that risk, but only if they had other means of protecting their investment -- such as heavily encrypted files and exclusive playback devices exclusive to films or music or whatever produced by one company.
It's hard to say.
All that said, as a matter of principle, IP is hard to support if you don't believe that people should be able to limit anyone else's expression.
Bittorrent and physical copies exist. If you don't want a physical copy then you shouldn't be giving them money.
This is the best part of FEE. I love the cartoons but man, every time OOF comes on.... Instant click.
The cartoons are actually done by FreedomToons. They have their own channel with cartoons that aren’t on FEE.
*Edit: FreedomToons does not create the cartoons on FEE. However, the creator of FreedomToons, Seamus, co-writes and does voice acting for Common Sense Soapbox on FEE.
@@WideMouth the cartoons are animated and (mostly) voiced by Seamus Coughlin, who is also the animator and creator behind FreedomToons. But Common Sense Soapbox is produced by FEE and co-written by Seamus, Jen Maffessanti, and myself -- and it is not "by Freedom Toons", which is a different channel/show that Seamus creates by himself.
@Foundation for Economic Education Sorry, I guess I wasn’t technically correct in what I said. But you got what I meant. I really just wanted to popularize Seamus’ channel because he makes really great content. Again, I apologize if I gave credit to the wrong individuals.
@@WideMouth no problem. I watch freedom toons as well. He's a great animator. But OOF is just some of the best lessons in practical foundations in economics I've ever seen. Kudos on great content.
Absolutely love your Out of Frame videos. It really helped me to see and reinforce that I am not a 'victim' of society. I just didn't know the rules by which society plays. Thank you so much for this quality content. :)
You know what's even better than a paid subscription streaming service? Having your own network attached storage (NAS).
I have no extra monthly payments beyond Internet access. I know that everything on there is something I want to see. I know that none of it will ever be removed.
If everyone one does that, entertainment media creation industries will collapse. How is that "better"? It's called the tragedy of the commons -- if everyone tries to maximize their individual winnings, the game ends and everybody loses.
@@Zalis116 Physical copies give the customer something in return for their money unlike digital distribution, are higher quality than any of the streaming platforms mentioned in this video, promote innovation on optical media which is still the king of data storage in terms of longevity despite what the digital distribution industry wants you to think, and still gives the company profit. Of course the entertainment industry doesn't promote physical copies at all, only digital.
Companies are not entitled to profit.
Dear FEE,
What I leaned through experience is that monopoly is not a representation of Capitalism because markets are like bubbles of what the company thinks is profitable and fulfills customer demands.
For example one bubble could represent the demand for cheap practical products but another product could be more specialist and expensive.
Markets and demands can expand and take different shapes for the greatest fulfillment of demand and expand the their reach to the consumers.
In reality markets are a very fluid and innovative social creation unlike the rigid central planning.
Sincerely, Fan
Agreed.
The collectivists (those who support central planning) see market economy as a "chaos", which they want to impose their "order" upon (based on their narrow minded view). But for those who immersed in and learn it, it's no chaos, but a complex and beautiful dance. Market economy is like how life is in natural world that keep *growing* and *evolving,* as opposed to collectivists' grindy soulless machine that can *never* evolve beyond its original design.
Sometimes I wonder why the realization of such a beautiful thing completely eluded the collectivists.. I mean it's not really obvious in itself, but we all can feel and see the benefit of having free market economy and we can also see how centrally planned economy *always* end in disaster.
Immanuel Herman, the collectivist is never involved in the market and therefore they hate because they don’t experience it
Dude! John Stossel put excerpts of this video in his latest video! Holy crap!
Brought me here. :D
Just a heads up, John Stossel Featured you in his latest video.
I know. He asked first.
Both are bad videos, no mention of any of the easy to think of counter arguments in this comment section.
@@randomtask3539 like what? The one I pinned a substantial reply to, or something else?
The Streaming Wars, Begin!
@Hydrogen One let them fight!
Business competition is not a war.
@@thotslayer9914 It's not even a good metaphor. Wars use violence. Competition does not. Wars usually have at least one loser. Competition does not necessarily require that one of the companies go out of business. They might find a niche as, for example, Redbox did. Wars are fought between countries, competition happens between companies.
@@thotslayer9914 Did you mean "well, to each his own"?
Streaming movies is fine for convenience but I will ALWAYS prefer Physical Media(Blu-Ray/4K Disc)for movie watching. And in my opinion Blu-Ray Still has the advantage over streaming because you don't need internet access to watch a Blu-Ray Movie
Begun the streaming wars has.
Another wonderful video and excellent rebuttals in the comments.
How long til someone sells a service including multiple streaming services and reinvents cable
Looking back block buster was expensive. Definitely appreciate all the movies and games that my grandparents and parents rented for us
You should do an inverted episode of what this was about but instead of streaming services do the medical field
Stossel sent me. :)
Just wanted to chime in quick and say a fellow Nebraska native here, and I appreciate what you're doing with the OoF series. I've really enjoyed several of your analysis videos. Keep them coming.
Out of Frame videos are my favorite FEE videos, the smooth narrator voice and great content, ideas, and arguments are always fun to watch!
If Disney wants to be “woke” by placing warning labels on its classics that contain things that wouldn’t fly today, how about release Song of the South? Then, they can also explain why some people find offense to it. Personally, it is actually a lot less racist than many movies of its era. Dumbo and Peter Pan contain more racist elements than Song of the South.
Agreed, Dumbo literally has a crow named Jim
I still rent dvd from the library for free for a week while being able to have them for more than a month and a half
A fellow Gargoyles lover? I knew I liked you for a reason... It was legit the first show I watched when I got D+.
Fantastic vid! Thanks for the retrospective!
Gargoyles was amazing
The awakening scene in the pilot episode was by far, *THE* *MOST* *EPIC* *YAWN* *EVER* *!!!*
It's one of the very few decent cartoons to come out of the nineties, and it achieved that because it was willing to treat the audience with a bit of respect. Most cartoons of the era assumed that all children were idiots who would never follow an ongoing story, and would be traumatised if they ever saw a character encounter any danger or get in a real fight.
John Stossel sent me.
do a video on flat tax.
i know that some countries have it so try compare how countries were doing before and after the flat tax
That may be more of a Common Sense Soapbox topic, but good idea.
GREAT video. Subscribed. BTW, I love the sound signature of the voice over and wonder what mic they used.
Never saw this, but I usually a Blue Baby Bottle or an MXL Genesis, both are excellent condensers.
Will you ever do an Out of Frame on Jack Ryan season 2? I haven't heard too many people talking about how they took the actual situation of Venezuela and then flipped it making the socialsts the good guys.
I actually wrote nearly a whole episode on this very thing, but then decided to do the China one instead.
your videos are great, you really deserve more subs!
Great content! It’s very insightful.
This content is great quality! Keep it coming, more documentary stuff like this would be great, especially from a fee perspective
....and then there's me....new multi-directional digital antenna on the roof.....the airwaves will always be free!!!
Wow! Thank you for your hard work. Will be sharing this.
Love the summary!!!!!! Very detail.
Love it, love it, love it. I am a firm believer in the invisible hand and chaos! After all, wasn't the world created from chaos?
Just starting g binging this channel and I am a new sub. Love it
Keep making out of frame content it's a great channel on why free markets are great.
Awesome vid! This is my favorite so far. Great points & fantastic editing. Looking forward to more! And oh...Baby Yoda FTW.
Thanks, Steven!
Sean, I always look forward to the videos in this series. Keep up the great work, FEE!
@@thotslayer9914 depends on what you mean by "left wing libertarian." Most self described "left libertarians" are just statists trying to wear the label because they want to sound cool. Those people can pound sand. A few are actual libertarians who want a voluntary society first and would prefer some kind of hippy commune or co-op arrangement and would like to see more workers that are owners as well. I have no problem with that second group.
Hello, Sean!
Hi!
Love it!!!! Great little history of this tech and entertainment area.
While there has been improvement in the service we get (quality, choice, and unrestricted watch time), the economic cost isn't as great as portrayed here. To get ANY of these streaming services, one has to have a high speed connection to the internet. Most of us take that for granted, but some places still cannot get the necessary speed, and it costs at least $50+ (usually $80+) when you take in all the fees from governments etc. So it isn't anywhere near $7 a month. What makes it seem so great is that many of us pay for internet service regardless of TV and Movie streaming.
This is great video. I this our elected officials should be required to watch it.
is a free market economy different from a Laissez-Faire economy ?
@madwtube ok thanks
What madwtube said, but also I would stress that it's not about what you call it, so much as it's about what you mean.
Plenty of people call heavily regulated markets "laissez-faire" when they shouldn't.
free market means that the market is free, Wich doesn't exclude regulations from being implemented, laissez faire, on the other hand, means "let do" or "let be" and does not indicate presence of regulations.
Watching this while torrenting a movie.
This should have way more views. Excellent video
Streaming is better than cable TV.
I have spoken.
And pirating is better than streaming
Now I have spoken
Streaming is the way. This is the way.
You need to change your profile pick to a picture of Thanos.
@@Ellimanist15 thanos doesn't need profile pics.
I have spoken.
@@deoxal7947 Piracy Streaming through Popcorn Time is the absolute ultimate form of getting entertainment.
Sure, Netflix's monopoly ended naturally. But it's not because of innovation, it's because companies decide to pull out their content from Netflix. Nothing has improved, the same content is just divided up now between multiple streaming services that just copied Netflix and some of them are even worse than Netflix.
So we pay more from the same thing. The sitiation is worse than before the end of Netflix's monopoly.
@madwtube what's ANTIFA?
That's just patently false.
It's far from the same content divided in different ways. I was one of Nerflix' early subscribers and I have never stopped being a subscriber since about 2009.
Netflix *never* had everything. A lot of stuff wasn't available, and their licenses were always limited and temporary.
That is partly why they started producing original content to begin with. They could get access to some movies and shows for a few months or a year, knowing they would lose that access to some other form of syndication soon, and they could not control the experience for users.
With stuff like House of Cards or Stranger Things, they get to offer something unique that no one else has. Disney, Amazon and Hulu are all *now* doing the same thing... And that's new. It's also by definition not the same content just moving around. It's new and ever expanding content.
@@rasho2532 depends where you live, but from what i've gathered, ANTIFA is a very loose group of far-left counter protesters that always get blamed for *starting* the fights they end up in.
Ok, Ayn Rand. Walt till someone puts all the streamers together and creates cable.
another great out of frame.
Suggested topic for a future episode of out of frame: Code Geass and how people's genuine belief that their intents are 'just' allow them to justify immoral actions (bonus points for the real-world example of the Gulag Archipelago).
After watching this video i understood where captain marvel crashed i.e., Block Buster
It's a race to the bottom... but in the price they charge. If they want to compete, they also have to race to the top in regards to the quality of the service and content they offer!
I enjoyed your video thank you
I rather do something That I should not because I don't support these streaming services.
Here here. Miss me with that DRM.
What about the people who would like to be able to rent movies from the video rental store and don’t mind the late fees?
I do not know about anyone else, but I prefer to have a service with ads.
Then I let it play to just before the end, and rewind.
I can sometimes watch without ads.
Come back to me when they have the show's in the original aspect ratio
Gargoyles is 4:3 on Disney+
@@FEEonline explain the simpsons
@@nathanieljones8043 that probably has to do with the viewing experience between the early episodes and new episodes. Couldn't tell you why the decision was made, or if there's a tech component to it.
I can say Gargoyles, Darkwing Duck, Duck Tales, etc. are original aspect ratio.
@@FEEonline okay I still haven't heard them fix the problem and people have been complaining.
also recess had 6 seasons not 3 that is not an one off problem from what I heard
@@nathanieljones8043 I assume Disney+ will be making pretty major changes to the interface in response to feedback over the coming months, but honestly, they've been live for a month. Temper your expectations.
Now CBS All Access is getting rebranded as Paramount Plus and it’s going to have a bigger library of shows and movies for consumers to enjoy (30,000 episodes and movies).
Throughout the video, I keep on thinking about the stories that Disney is going to place all the Fox IPs that they got in the merger in the Disney Vault and never going to let people see these movies again because they were Fox films. What's your take on that and am I supposed to worry about lesser choice because of these mergers?
You can already find tons of Fox movies and TV shows on the platform, and I actually assume they're going to do the opposite.
The "from the vault" selection on Disney+ is already pretty substantial and I'm pretty sure most of the stuff that isn't there now is probably going to be there whenever other existing licensing agreements expire.
That's probably the most complicated part of the whole thing. Prior to Disney+, Disney had (and still has) licensing agreements with various broadcasters and streaming services around the world to showcase their content. I'd imagine the legal headache of wrangling all that content into one place has been really challenging over the past few years.
Wouldn't make commercial sense - why would they lock away a valuable asset when they could be earning revenue from it? They paid a lot of money for the Fox library. They may well want to make a few edits in places though - Disney has a wholesome brand to protect - so we might get to enjoy a few anguished fans complain that Disney ruined their beloved TV series by cutting out a naughty word or extending a woman's dress a little.
@@vylbird8014 And yet Fox is considered a competitor and Disney was trying to bash one of Fox's last movies, Battle Angel Alita, to promote the meh-fest called Captain Marvel. Not to mention that it is common practice for a company to buy a rival and run it into the ground as petty revenge. Diamond, the comic distributor, has been known to do this to their rivals in the 80s leading to a monopoly that lasted a couple of decades.
Damn dude your content is gold. It's like walking through a garden of gold
Late fees still haunt my nightmares 😂
5:23 except the Netflix site didn't exist yet, DVD's were ungodly expensive (so too were the players), so only the rich had them, and VHS dominated the home market.
Personally I would add Crunchyroll and Elation's bundle service (the company who owns Crunchyroll) to the list as ever since SAO launched they have started to gain a ton of traction and it is building fast.
It actually is quite beautiful, with reason to cut through the cynicism.
Thank you for this.
I would be curious to see where platforms like FUNimation and Crunchyroll came in with anime.
They were a bit of an oversight here cause I don't think about Anime too much, but Crunchyroll is pretty old actually. Started in 2006.
@@FEEonline FUNimation and Crunchyroll are irrelevant. The anime industry, the actual anime industry in Japan, base the success of an anime on its Blu-ray and DVD sales in Japan, and of merchandise.
No mention of Crunchyroll, HiDive or FUNimationNOW despite being smaller, more niche and yet more innovative then the mainstream streaming services,?
They aren't innovative, there is nothing innovation about charging for digital distribution, in fact it is regression. The only innovation that has occurred for digital distribution is bittorrent, but I don't consider that a real innovation since it was already possible since powerful enough hardware was already available, someone just had to take the time to program it.
FUNimation and Crunchyroll are irrelevant. The anime industry, the actual anime industry in Japan, base the success of an anime on its Blu-ray and DVD sales in Japan, and of merchandise.
I remember when I first heard about Netflix! They were still a company that shipped the dvds physically.
Stossel brought me here😄
My main concern is when these corporations start buying up one another, Disney already owns most of Hulu how long till they own even more they will start a monopoly in the streaming service just as they started a Monopoly in the film industry. The biggest blockbuster movies always come them that is not by mistake they have pushed the market too that point. They're not just an industry leader they are the only one that people care about which does not bode well for other companies.
Hell if they decide to make a service similar to UA-cam they would easily beat UA-cam.
It's like I didn't make a whole point to talk about the nature of monopolies in this video...
What i really think about the new streaming services that will arrive should make partnerships with existing ones because by next 5 years all big companies in entertainment could start their own services making the consumers(us) to buy many services along with our T.V s which is not that good for us so we would definitely go into ones that have more media and options instead of buying other services for movies we would simply download them which is fair but on the other side Theaters would lose most of their income so Bottom line is to buy your competitors who have regional content and most library is best for companies and for people like amazon does in India
Do you think you’ll ever do an episode on the last airbender (ba sing se or the school in the fire nation to be more specific)?
Ethan Lion7 oh shit didn’t realise
Stossel sent me here.
3:39
FBI: *CEASE YOUR EXISTENCE*
Stossel brought me here
17:54 You know what I appreciates about chah FEE?
Dial it back about 25% there.
Disney+ is Awesome great video :D
Can't wait for HBOMax
Thank you so much. It was nice hearing the history of all this from Blockbuster late fees all the way to Disney Plus. I'm happy the free market has allowed innovation to take place.
Charging for digital distribution is not innovation.
@@randomtask3539 it's for the artistry and servers
Question: does the loss of net neutrality in the USA make the internet marketplace *more* or *less* of a free market?
I see the current rise of the plethora of streaming services as similar to the rise of the plethora of oil companies in the late 1850’s and 1860’s, with the loss of net neutrality opening the door for select behemoths like Disney, UA-cam, and Netflix to cut deals with ISPs for preferential treatment of data packets just like the way a single large player (Standard Oil) used its large volume of refined oil products (eg kerosene) to obtain preferential shipping contracts which allowed it to undercut and ultimately overwhelm all competitors. What’s stopping Disney from making a deal with Verizon and AT&T to ensure that Disney Plus gets streamed and other services don’t? Would that outcome represent a triumph of free markets (ie, making a few select holders of capital very wealthy) or a failure (consumers are given less choice)?
I’m reminded of the breakup of AT&T back in 1984. As the anti-trust case was being heard in the courts my dad argued with me, saying that to breakup AT&T would end inexpensive quality voice telephony service, and I argued that ending the monopoly would be the beginning of an era of new telephony services and consumer choice. We were both right... it’s essentially impossible to make a high-quality POTS call anymore, but nobody cares because now we can all stream two way high-def video, something that was literally inconceivable in 1984.
I remember bear share and limewire
Gargoyles was awesome
WE LIVE IN SUCH COOL TIMES I AM GLAD TO BE A MILLENNIAL
Intellectual Property Rights created small, individual monopolies through government force.
I see you failed to mention the most talked about problem when disney+ was announced which is "exclusive content" Piracy fell when netflix appeared and the cable cutting culture started
but with each tv network and movie studio having their own streaming service and with exclusive content i think piracy will rise again because the key word here is convenience netflix was the one place for watching good tv and movies but know you have to subscribe to multiple services same as cable tv
and the argument that having multiple services enhance quality because of competition doesn't work with exclusive since companies will compete to have the better (or more) exclusives and will ignore service quality and other stuff, same thing happened before with anime streaming websites (crunchyroll , amazon anime, netflix anime)
crunchyroll lowered the video bitrate (lower quality, lower cost) but no one can leave crunchyroll because they have exclusive rights to the most famous animes (hero academy naruto etc...)
so instead of competing with more quality or lower subscription price they compete with exclusive which is good for them but bad for consumer and will he only two option (lower quality and multiple subscriptions or piracy which has better video quality and more convenient than having multiple subscriptions
here's a video talking about this
ua-cam.com/video/uCYGWeSh378/v-deo.html
and part2
ua-cam.com/video/y4nHOABMEns/v-deo.html
See my response to the newly pinned comment above.
You can easily leave crunchyroll, piracy exists. Go to horriblesubs.info and nyaa.si, or buy physical copies. All these streaming platforms are inherently bad for the consumer, what they offer is infinite and completely non-scarce. Piracy is more convenient even when everything is in one place on the legal side.
I wonder what will over take it
Next episode in not so distant future will be about how "Google, UA-cam, Twitter and Patreon," finally got their true competition and became largely irrelevant due to their meddling in free speech.
JESUS CHRIST, I HAVE SEEN SO MANY ADS NOW.
get adblocker
A 21 min ad? Couldn't you have just made a 30s-1m video about the channel? These long ads are the reason why I tend to go between using AdBlock and not using AdBlock...
My problem with Disney+, there's nothing to watch. I've either already watched the good stuff, or a bunch of things that I don't care about.
I sure hope this concept disrupts ISP soon. I live in a rural area so Century Link basically has a monopoly on service because it's ridiculously expensive to even get close to CL's horrible service. Living with < 8Mbps kills streaming and if you have ANY internet all, even if it's constantly going down, they don't care and will threaten large fees to send out a tech. Thankfully pay as you go phone plans got so inexpensive I at least don't have to take on the chin anymore to have a landline so my bill is only 55 bucks a month. I would gladly pay double that for faster speeds via satellite with no data caps, and just to tell CL to fuck off.
People never take the fact that streaming relies on a high speed connection into consideration when they say "x is only $10 a month", at least cable is its own connection and doesn't rely on an internet connection.
You shouldn't pay for digital distribution, either buy a physical copy or pirate.
ISPs are granted monopolies through local governments. Even if those government granted monopolies were abolished, it would still be unprofitable for new ISPs to move into areas such as yours unless the government does something such as allow new ISPs to use the existing cable instead of laying their own.
Meanwhile torrent : why waste 7 bucks when you can use me
£30 can get you a season of the twilight zone on Amazon prime after you pay for the monthly fee of about £7 then there are other offers for other shows and films and prime Amozon costs for movies (the good ones) in the UK and to watch say the American werewolf of London i need to pay an extra £3,99 or keep it for about 6-£7. while you just pay the monthly fee on netflix and watch whatever they have for the same monthly fee no extra charges to watch 40 year old films and TV series that are about 60 years old, that are classics, the ones you used to watch on your monthly fee on netflix. now your getting horrific charges that cost more than buying a box set from a store or round about the same price. So its getting very expensive to watch all this great new shows, more than cable ever cost.
Your premise of a free market economy being able to sort out monopolies on it's own holds true unless the monopoly holds other competitors out of the market . The assumption is that Google's search service is the best allowing them to hold sway over the largest audience . Now I realize that there are other search engines and web browsers but some people don't . If the computer or phone came loaded with Chrome and Google this and that that's what they'll use without question . They aren't likely to search for something better and even if they did what would they do ask Google . I bet they'd be extremely truthful . The same holds true for many of the businesses that a particular company controls public perception of the product in question and becomes a standard of the industry .
Amen