The licensing part is most likely true. Can you download purchases for offline play in a random non-Apple video player? Or do you need iTunes to exist in order to watch "your" purchases? Netflix has a "Play Something" button for precisely that situation. It can pick either something you're already watching TV series or unfinished movie , or guess something based on what it has learned about you.
Of course it's just the Netflix catalog, but that's pretty extensive. It sounds godawful to me, so I've never used it. But it sounds like almost precisely what you just asked for. But we don't. It's worse than ever now. Shows are fragmented into way too many different subcriptions netflix, etc each with their monthly fee and a bunch of stuff I won't be watching. I've given up, I'm not going to subscribe to half a dozen things, that's way too inconvenient and expensive.
I agree with the point but I will say that that's not how bundle pricing works. Every company has segmented their content by company , not by type. Sure, I can buy a subscription to Boomerang and get a lot of cartoons, but it's just the cartoons owned by Warner. There's no way to say "I want a science fiction themed service" that includes Paramount and HBO and the old PTEN and the like, because no company would stand for another service mixing their IP like that. Correct, things used to be worse than they are now.
Does that mean that the automatic rebuttal to any complaint with anything remotely modern is that at least we're not still living in mud huts and writing on sheepskins? Nobody's forgotten that things were worse, we're just not willing to let that hold us back from making them better. To claim the article "reeks of entitlement" is unnecessarily dismissive of the in my experience entirely accurate claims the author makes about the current state of on-demand television.
Is that true? Those days seem impossible now. It certainly feels like things have regressed. To replicate that today I'd need to subscribe to many different services all with separate monthly fees and way less conveniece a single unified interface through MythTV was magical. So I don't watch any TV anymore, oh well.
More time to code. Well, anything that was part of the cable package--which increasingly was not where a significant amount of top TV and certainly films were available from, especially without adding on a lot of premium content like HBO. I canceled my cable TV as I increasingly realized I simply was watching either live or recorded on my TiVo stuff once in a blue moon. My internet provider is the cable monopoly, so they win anyway.
I've never fully digested them, but Michigan seems to have shitty franchise laws written in service of the large cable companies. There is also too much "content" being made, and not enough quality movies to watch. There's a recent reddit thread[1] about this weird trend lately where more and more of what's offered is junk "made for TV" quality content. Even the word we use for it is revealing: Content. So boring. So gray and bland. Like a dry cardboard media ration made specifically to be consumed by some global ISO-standard Consumer.
Everything has this odd B-movie With Big Stars hue. But two months after you view it, you struggle to even remember what it was about. Polished, featureless content, but hey, it's in 4K and stars Dwayne Johnson. High-quality, daring, inspired, more than superficially controversial, world-changing movies are another casualty of the rise of streaming.
Is there some difference between streaming companies and classic movie studios that makes this the case? Arguably, the current state of movies is a direct result of studios realizing that well-produced, middle of the road content is the most profitable.
Of course, I could be missing something about the industry and how streaming has shaped it. I just struggle to see how the streaming ecosystem has different content requirements than a normal movie studio. Movie studios and streamers have different business models. Movie studios also deal with more "legacy" actor contract negotiations and the like see disney v scarlet. Theater released movies make most of their money upfront, and make money out on a per-view basis. So they need as many viewers as early as possible.
With streamers, they can lose the subscription any month, and only gain it back if they lure you - so they're incentivized to give you "anchors" that keep you there. Think game of thrones keeping people subscribed to HBO month over month or Squid Games that gets lots of attention. Once you're there, they just have to have "something" for those days you don't really know what to watch. That "something" is different for everyone, so they have to make lots of low budget generic stuff that appeals, collectively, to a wide audience.
Once a streamer makes a show, its "free" to them to share it with as many people as possible, but also doesn't cost them anything to not show it. Ben Thompson stratechery has talked about this a lot, check him out!
Summary: streamers are valued by how long their tail is, movie studios are valued by how high their ceiling is. I have no inside knowledge and am fully speculating, including some random tidbits I've read here and there. Think about how Netflix changed when moving from DVD to streaming. They used to optimize for recommending you movies you would rate highly. Now it's all about what keeps people viewing the longest. More content that is passable wins out against less content that is of higher quality.
It is very hard to tell from where I'm sitting, because there is so much puffery and fake numbers tossed at the public. Actually comparing apples to apples would be difficult, as there are so many variables such as advertising budget and media placement to account for. The big difference is that movie studios actually directly offer higher quality content, simply due to the fact that they make a side business of selling their low quality content to companies like Netflix who are more than happy to purchase a finished film and throw it on the front page for all their subscribers to see even if its crap.
The movie studio is able to get a return on a steaming pile of crap film that was probably super cheap to produce and avoids the reputation tarnish, netflix is able to advertise a wider catalog and hey, sometimes these junk films really do pop off for netflix like what happened with Kissing Booth.
The UFC discovered the same thing: they realized they made more money on high-volume, non-prestige fight cards than their former model of "every fight card matters" reply.
Yes, but what has maybe replaced the movie is the high-quality, daring, world-changing series. Squid Game, Outlander, etc. Directors and consumers are now no longer limited to a 3 hour time in the theater, as far as the art of the motion picture is concerned. I don't see why you would blame that on streaming. There was plenty of low-quality content before netflix.
Movie budgets have gotten huge, in order to guarantee a return, they play to the lowest common denominator, including international audiences. I asume you mean all Non-US audiences. In what sense is "International Audiences" part of "The lowest common denominator" reply. If it's not obvious, the more diverse a group is, then lower the lowest common denominator will be.
That's just a law of nature. So if you are selling a global movie, you are not going to be able to rely on cultural references, witty banter, or sophisticated plots. You will not even be able to rely on a lot of dialogue as the movie will need to be dubbed and subtle dialogue doesn't translate well. You will rely on boobs and explosions, because that's the lowest common denominator that will sell well in New York, Indonesia, Nigeria, Italy, Egypt, Chile, and China. And if many nations don't allow boobs, then explosions it is.
There just isn't a lot that the world has in common, which forces movies with a global audience to be extremely shallow. One reason, for example, for the dearth of good comedy films is that it's really hard for comedy to translate across different cultures. Maybe something like slipping on a banana peel will work, but more sophisticated stuff doesn't work.
Movie budgets don't have to be huge. Most A24 films cost 10 million to make. They wouldn't be making over a dozen films a year if they weren't making money. OminousWeapons 2 days ago parent prev next [—]. I feel like people say they want a la carte but that's not actually what they want. What they want is all the good content and none of the crap filler content, for cheap. People pushed for a la carte because in their mind all content costs the same, so they figured that by removing the content they don't want and only keeping the content they do want, they would save tons of money.
They don't understand that the good content live sports, FX, AMC, HBO, et al is precisely what studios are charging a premium for and what is driving most of the cost in packages in the first place. Sure it's cheaper but in their minds it should be an order of magnitude cheaper than it is.
Netflix won not because of being cool or good, but because it was way more convenient than torrents for the majority of content. Ice is thinner than it seems, but streaming services know this. With piracy, they have the law on their side - they can lobby for rules to punish piracy using state resources, rather than their own. They cannot do so for their competitors. Since the marginal cost of selling an additional unit is near zero, it makes sense for sellers to heavily price discriminate such that poorer people are charged what they can afford and richer people are charged what they can afford.
Would it be legal to ask for a paysheet and determine the price based on that? I am sure it is legal to ask for the pay sheet, but no seller would give you that. Sellers usually do not price discriminate merchandise that is not differentials within the same country since commerce within the country cannot be easily restricted. That is where brands come in for differentiable products. The generic brand lotion and the name brand lotion might come from the same factory.
Maybe it is even the same product, or the different in quality is only slightly better for the name brand. Spooky23 2 days ago root parent next [—]. Outlets get differentiated too. You used to get softcovers at the supermarket at a discount as well. Between the time element and snobbery, the market is segmented and revenues maximized. PeterisP 2 days ago root parent prev next [—]. That would not be prohibited, but it might not be a good business idea due to customer resistance. Classic economic theory on pricing lists commonly used options that essentially try to achieve that but with various indirect methods: 1.
Direct, prolonged, serious personal bargaining and haggling, resulting in an individually negotiated price that depends on your willingness to pay. But IMHO people would not like if it was explicitly based on their ability to pay, so companies try to disguise that. Canadian mobile networks are more expensive than the US, and are some of the most expensive in the world [1]. They weren't a thing inside the USA unless you loaded up on premium movie and sports channels.
Sometimes less if I bundled with internet. Surely you mean outside of North America. From my understanding, the cable situation was always even worse in Canada. My assumption is that this wasn't all free and over the air? Cheap cable packages maybe had 40 channels which barely expanded on the local broadcast availability, littered with advertisements.
No real dedicated movie channels, movies were often cropped and edited to fit the time slots and ratings allocations for the channels when they did air. Decide you want to start watching some TV show that's been on for a few seasons?
You're out of luck, better go rent some tapes or DVDs to get caught up. Want to watch on the go? In NZ we only got what the local broadcasters had licensed. In retrospect, they did a great job of curation. Quality was inversely related to the number of available channels. The internet price is the same whether you subscribe to 0 or streaming services.
If you just want to stream from one provider and otherwise not use the internet at all, I guess counting them together that way as the "price of entertainment" makes sense. But I don't think that's a very common situation. I don't disagree with anything you said.
But I should add or clarify to parent post that there is some difficulty in installing and maintaining infrastructure that affords a company power over the customer. Said power is how they "easily" achieved a monopoly. I think the focus should be on keeping the market fractured. If content is of poor quality that just means the population is ok with poor quality. There is business to be made on poor quality. Usually it's music, which they licensed for "broadcast and video cassette release" or some similar language.
Courts haven't really decided yet. That's why this case is weird: it's a brand new episode. And it is in the CBS streaming app. Just missing from YouTube's cable product. That is odd. Maybe there was an error in the master file given to YouTube or a glitch in their encoder that skipped it. FroshKiller 2 days ago root parent prev next [—]. The season 8 premiere of Forged in Fire last year got pulled because one of the contestants turned out to be a neo-Nazi with a visible neo-Nazi tattoo.
Around that time, LAN parties with hundreds of seats and mbps connections existed, and attendees would use Direct Connect or simple SMB shared to download pirated media for 24 hours straight. This is mentioned in other comments, but a large part of the reason streaming services got going was because piracy was so much more convenient than the brutal grind of actually paying for something.
Users could be sitting in their living rooms with wallets out ready to go, and still choose piracy, because the only other alternative was waiting for a physical CD or DVD to arrive. If the streaming wars do too much damage to consumers, they'll just flip the playing board and go back to piracy. I think that's already happening among the tech literate. The difference now is that the majority of consumers are not technically inclined and don't mind paying for several streaming services to get easy access to their favorite content, so the industry generally doesn't care about losing a small fraction to piracy.
Pirating content is now more technically difficult than paying for a service, but the benefits are still there: DRM-free content that can be consumed on any device, accessed offline, safe against removal, licensing issues, region locks, easily shareable, etc.
Paying for a streaming service now has the same issues as paying for cable did: you get access to tons of low quality content you don't care about just to watch the few shows and movies you actually do. Content curation is still an unsolved problem and the industry is ripe for disruption once someone figures out what I actually want to watch and how I can pay for only that. Or pirating will become easier and they'll continue to lose revenue.
That's an odd argument and reminds me of the situation with science publishers that led to scihub and friends: Publishers were offering package deals to universities which technically had a wealth of content, except the vast majority of it was garbage.
Nevertheless, universities had to buy the packages, because of the few flagship journals that were embedded in the packages. Who was wishing for anything here? Streaming has always been pushed by the industry as an acceptable alternative to piracy. The supppsed benefits of streaming were always part of the sales push. This is the issue for me. And I feel like I'm forgetting another one or two. To be fair, these subscriptions, in total, do cost less than what I was paying for cable back in last time I had cable.
I don't want one streaming platform to rule them all. A monopoly doesn't sound great. So ok, we keep the idea of several competing streaming platforms. I'm sure there are downsides to this, but maybe a legal requirement for compulsory licensing to competing platforms under RAND terms might help? I would even settle for a way where I can ask, " Where can I stream X? Fingers crossed that it becomes useful. Roku also has a search engine called "What's On".
Now if only someone would combine all of these search engines They funniest saddest answer is the Pirate Bay. The Google TV app does a good job at that. It checks all my installed apps and links directly to the media item in that app if I pick a piece of media on one.
It will also link to services I don't have, or offer a pay-to-play through Google itself. JustWatch is pretty good. Works well in Canada too as long as you are on their Canadian site. The whole idea back then was to compete with the ease and access of piracy like Steam did. That said, "careful what you wish for" currently applies to sitcom episodes for rent on Amazon costing more per minute than mega budget movies.
These services are definitely America centric. I think this is an apples to oranges comparison, since single episodes of tv shows aren't generally available to rent, unlike movies.
Sometimes there are odd fluctuations in markets. For example, the current used car market has insane values with used vehicles costing more than the MSRP on new ones sometimes. Likewise, when Netflix had no competition, they were able to sign deals with content providers for almost nothing because content providers thought streaming was worthless.
That era was an odd thing in the market before content owners realized that streaming wasn't just a little additional revenue, but a replacement for their service. I don't think you can really compare a market blip to a sustainable business model. HBO and others weren't going to continue licensing their catalogues to Netflix once it was clear that streaming was popular.
They made the mistake of licensing to Netflix assuming that they'd be getting a little extra pocket money rather than cannibalizing their services. That mistake is probably the reason Netflix is the giant it is today. Netflix signed deals to license content before content owners realized the value of streaming. They used that content to gain subscribers until they could afford to build their own library of first-party content.
Even from Netflix's side, they might have been spending more on content than they wanted to long-term to try and gain subscribers that would be sticky as their library waned and they transformed from "we licensed most of the content you want" to "we're another HBO with a limited content selection". These things happen. We saw MoviePass come and go because it was an unsustainably good deal. I think it's also important to remember that back in that era of Netflix, most people were still paying for cable and renting DVDs.
Maybe you weren't, but most people were. I think it's important to think about the whole amount that people were spending and people were spending a lot on their entertainment. Sure, if you were one of the few that only had Netflix, it was a glorious time. Likewise, if you were a MoviePass subscriber, no one had ever gotten so many theater tickets for so little money. But it wasn't going to last because it was unsustainably good.
Once MoviePass found that people would actually use the service, it was dead in the water. Once content owners saw that people would cancel their HBO subscription because Netflix had HBO's content, the era of Netflix having such an expansive library for so cheap would end as the deals ran out. Comparing current prices to a market blip isn't really a fair comparison - but there was a pretty great 5 years in there.
But those would be your basic packages, without addons, and especially without HBO and such. But now if all you wanted was HBO, you could get it for under 20 bucks if you have anything but the slowest internet packages! I agree with the parent. Today, add a live TV streaming service and you're probably back to about price parity with a lot more choice of content. The barriers are a bit strange. With paid streaming it's more abstracted. You're paying, but with the machinations it's unclear how well content creators are compensated or how it will eventually benefit them.
Even with music the option to directly support artists, with digital download purchases, is dead easy between Bandcamp and other options. Can't do that with film, have to buy a physical copy that will be eventually be obsolete hardware, and costs more. To be fair I think there's more of a "one and done" attitude people have towards film, consumed then disposed, so streaming lends better to it. I remember the VHS era of renting movies.
I'm fortunate enough to live in a large city that had a great, independent, rental store. Lots of selection. I suspect the selection at that rental store is better than the selection at any of these streaming services, or all of them combined. Then there's pricing streaming movies. Everything older than 2 years included, add-on charge for new releases? People don't like microtransactions. And this is in a hypothetical world where video streaming isn't balkanized.
It would not cover a typical US internet bill with speeds to support streaming, plus a couple streaming services. I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but in Canada: the typical cost of basic cable service plus a couple of cable packages in cost roughly the same as basic internet service plus a streaming service today. It is difficult to even claim that this comparison is even remotely fair for a variety of reasons.
You may be able to get it with free OTA channels, but people subscribed to basic cable in the 's and 's simply because cable was more reliable than a good residential antenna tower so it is justifiable to count this as a loss. Cable companies were notorious for putting similar channels in different packages. As an added bonus: the "watch when you please" aspect means that you can defer viewing, may that be to switch between streaming services to keep monthly costs down or to simply cancel during the months when you have better things to do than watch television.
Subscribing to newspapers is a novelty these days. If it wasn't for societal expectations, people would have dropped phone service since the Internet provides far better communications options than traditional landlines. True, the edge case of "I want TV but not internet" users are not in a great place to access streaming content. They still have all their existing cable content, though, at least? And in , good chance they were already paying for internet back then too. I'm the opposite. I want "internet but not TV".
If you're in Comcast land, you'll pay for cable either way. Not sure I understand. I pay Comcast for Internet but dropped both cable TV and landline a couple years ago and cut the bill in about half. Do you have more details or a source on this? I'm wondering if the 1 in 6 is no centralized household internet, or no access whatsoever e. The info I'm thinking of came from a Pew report that went around work, I'm not finding that on the public internet.
I do personally have more than one device with a data plan, although I'm not sure how typical that is. That's not my experience with decades of different Comcast subscriptions in one city.
It's not "no internet". It's "low bandwidth" internet. If it wasn't for streaming or downloading OS updates, would most people need fast internet?
What do you mean by low bandwidth? So I'd say yes, nobody liked waiting for slow connections. HD video calls and backing up your personal media.
Even an old person can benefit from high upload being able to do a remote doctor visit with an HD camera. Most people working from home or remote schooling, even occasionally would need more than low bandwidth internet. The biggest difference is that people use the internet for far more things than just streaming, so the internet bill is diluted into the overall utility. For example, without good internet speeds you couldn't attend classes properly in lock down, nor attend meetings with people across the country or world.
Good internet is becoming more of an overall utility than just a luxury. I've seen teachers and young students during covid, it wasn't pretty. I have that feeling that internet is boiling frogs making people think it's that amazing christic thing when a few phone calls and organization would go as deep. Plus kids and teachers are often computer illiterate, a single file format can delay information for days if not weeks because people don't know how to mail or open something.
The Help. I played the song relentlessly in jukeboxes between the release date in April through out the summer of Are you looking for a site where you can stream without interruption? Yify is the perfect place you need to be.
Watch later. See posts, photos and more on Facebook. It works fine on my home computer and my sisters laptop but not mine. Playing next. Aibileen Clark is a middle-aged African-American maid who has spent her life raising white children and has recently lost her only son; Minny Jackson is an African-American maid who has often offended her employers despite her family's struggles with money and her desperate need for jobsDrama.
The Help costars have remained close and, as Spencer revealed, have teamed up to fight for pay equity. In s Mississippi, Southern society girl Skeeter Emma Stone returns from college with dreams of being a writer. Netflix is working fine on my laptop but putlocker just will not work for some reason. Sorry about that. In these six new episodes, we find our survivors trying to pick themselves up by their bootstraps following the destruction the Whisperers left in their wake.
By the time, Help, was released in August , I had overplayed it. An unemployed art teacher accepts a job with the Santa Squad to help lift the spirits of a wealthy widower Gordon Aaron Ashmore and his twoDrama. Discover thousands of latest movies online. The leading Premium South Asian streaming content provider of full-length feature films in on-demand superior HD. Things We Lost - Mar 16, Copy If your movie or show buffers, lags or doesn't play correctly, these troubleshooting solutions can help with most playback issues and errors.
S6, E1 The End is the Beginning Mortally wounded Morgan must decide whether to help a desperate stranger while a mysterious bounty hunter tries to finish what Ginny couldn't.
You are allowed to admit that you don't have all the answers, and I hope that you do. Watch your favorite movies online free on Putlockers. There are lots of tweaks and size, open another, resize, close the first, etc.
So I'm just starting like Oak is and I don't know a lot of kbps statistics and things but I could find them if I tried. A young, white writer stirs up the status quo in s Mississippi by interviewing Black housemaids and bringing their stories to the masses. All you need is a good internet connection and a movie streaming site. Due to his earliest exploits at the Academy, his name would be known throughout the Known World. The putlocker movies website actually runs beneath the multiple domain addresses and URLs.
Putlocker - Movies and Series - Putlockers. Catch up on your favourite CTV shows. She turns her small town on its ear by choosing to interview the black women who have spent their lives taking care of prominent white families.
Open Library is an open, editable library catalog, building towards a web page for every book ever published. The Retrievers is an all-volunteer team based in Minneapolis, Minnesota offering the tools, experience and expertise to help rescues and individual owners find their lost dogs.
Be it action or romedy, Putlocker will help you surf through all your favorite genres at once. Linkletter's lab assistant. Some platforms allow you to rent The Help for a limited time or purchase the movie and download it to your device. Produced by Rhonda Byrne, this self-help film focuses on the "Law of Attraction" and how it can be applied in one's life.
Short Film. The putlocker is originated in the UK and also it is operated in many countries. This offer is good for a limited time only because that's how the internet works. Where to Watch But "there's not one definition of cinema therapy," says Oakland, Calif. With the help of experts, the Freaky Eater confronts the painful truth behind their food obsession and reclaims control of their diet. Putlocker is being translated to 1 languages on Transifex. Set in Mississippi during the s, Skeeter Stone is a southern society girl who returns from college determined to become a writer, but turns her friends' lives -- and a Mississippi town -- upside down when she decides to interview the black women who have spent their lives taking care of prominent southern families.
In this article, we will provide you the best Putlocker alternatives and working proxy and mirror websites. Main features: - save to your local disk the videos playing in a Web page - support for HLS streamed videos - support for DASH videos - download image galleries - smart naming of video files - ability to black list domains to hide ads from detected videos - control maximum Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more.
Biden calls on Congress to restore Voting Rights Act, signs orders to help expand access. Viola Davis as Aibileen Clark. Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. How to use the advanced search: Exact phrase: " homemade anal compilation ". Free only. Categories Loading Most Popular Categories. Hentai K. Beauty 7. Perfect Body K.
Compilation K. Mom 6. Public 1. Gangbang K. Story K. German K. First Time K. Amateur Ebony 3. Asian 3. Cum Inside 1. Perfect Ass K. Celebrity K. Redhead 1. Caught K. Quickie Big Natural Tits K. Extreme 1. Real K. Surprise Slave K. Goth Indian K. Skinny K. Orgasm 7. MILF 6. Homemade 1. Big Tits 8. Submissive K. Casting K. Big Cock 5. Massage K.
0コメント