I'm sure dozens of people will join them, will be interesting to see how big the catalogue of either is.

For those who prefer not t endure the Stuff website:

AMC Networks have announced that they are bringing their Sundance Now and Shudder platforms to our shores.

 

Sundance Now focuses on independent dramas, documentaries and foreign-language titles, while Shudder is aimed at fans of thriller, suspense and horror content. 

 

Currently available in the US, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Germany and Austria, Sundance Now's slate includes Australian drama Dead Lucky(featuring New Zealand-based Mulan actor Yoson An), as well as cult movies like Heathers, Holy Rollers and Blue is the Warmest Colour, while Shudder features films like Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds and Psycho, the original Halloween and much-talked about 2017 horror Revenge

The media giants still don't seem to get it - by continuing to fracture the streaming eco-system and force people back to requiring multiple providers and dedicated services just to get the 3-4 programs they actually want to watch, we will see a return to rife piracy again. The statistics already seem to show that this is happening.

We are seeing the old Cable TV model distributed via the internet. Companies need to accept that for most people, most of their content is filler and if they want to combat piracy and ensure people are paying for their content it needs to be available as widely and as easily as possible and not locked to yet another specific streaming service.

It's going to depend on their original content.  I tend to join a service to watch something specifically available on that service.  Once that's finished I don't tend to stick around.  

Item:

 

The media giants still don't seem to get it - by continuing to fracture the streaming eco-system and force people back to requiring multiple providers and dedicated services just to get the 3-4 programs they actually want to watch, we will see a return to rife piracy again. The statistics already seem to show that this is happening.

 

 

 

We are seeing the old Cable TV model distributed via the internet. Companies need to accept that for most people, most of their content is filler and if they want to combat piracy and ensure people are paying for their content it needs to be available as widely and as easily as possible and not locked to yet another specific streaming service.

 

 

 

What do you suggest?. If the source was only the media giants, there will only be a couple or three services. No Netflix, no Lightbox, nothing else. Would they charge the same as Netflix per month? That would be cheap if it had everything that media giant owned, so you would expect it will be more like $25, $35, $45. There are two or three media giants, so double or triple that, and still a great buy given the content size, and all of the older content.

Then look at sports. Rugbypass, F1Pass, Tennispass and so on

The theme was boo to Sky's "monopoly". We want competition and get with the times tech wise. That has happened, here we are

Item:

 

The statistics already seem to show that this is happening.

 

Source?

Item:

 

force people back to requiring multiple providers and dedicated services just to get the 3-4 programs they actually want to watch

 

Personally I don't mind having multiple services as long as my device is capable of running all those services, and can switch between them quickly.  That's part of why I went with an LG TV running WebOS.  The WebOS interface is much faster to navigate and switch between apps than Android TV (in my experience) or any other proprietary smart TV OS I've used.  In a normal evening I switch between Netflix/Lightbox/YouTube several times and it feels no different/slower than just flicking the channel up/down button on Live TV.  

Again a service needs to have something specific that I want in order to subscribe to it, but once I'm subscribed I am fine with having 3, 4, 5+ services as long as I can get around them quickly.  What Apple has done with their "SSO" (which is really just cached credentials from what I can tell) is a great step in solving the multi-service model, but again locks you into a specific platform.  

tdgeek:

 

 

 

What do you suggest?. If the source was only the media giants, there will only be a couple or three services. No Netflix, no Lightbox, nothing else. Would they charge the same as Netflix per month? That would be cheap if it had everything that media giant owned, so you would expect it will be more like $25, $35, $45. There are two or three media giants, so double or triple that, and still a great buy given the content size, and all of the older content.

 

Then look at sports. Rugbypass, F1Pass, Tennispass and so on

 

The theme was boo to Sky's "monopoly". We want competition and get with the times tech wise. That has happened, here we are

 

In order to stop piracy being more attractive, I guess the end goal would be:

1) Abolishment of GeoBlocking - all content available on the same platform/provider/"channel" at roughly the same time (technical logistics notwithstanding)

2) Content producers more willing to provide their content through leading partners rather than trying to lock people in to their own channel

3) Greater granularity of service/ability to stream "bite-size": I don't want to sign up to a specific streamer to watch say, 3 episodes of 1 show: You should be able to pay for individual episodes where it makes financial sense to do so.

4) No ads on any "premium" paid streaming service. Ever.

I agree with you and your examples - we have been making excellent progress. That said, the way we seem to be heading now (as indicated by the above) is towards more and more specific and exclusive streaming services.

It won't be long before a provider offers their Movie stream for $15, their Sci-Fi Stream for $10, their Indie Stream for $5, Baseball and Water Polo live for $12 and suddenly you have 5-6 services with 2-3 "channels" each and you are paying $100+ a month again to watch 2-3 hours of specific content a week. Then the un-skippable ads creep back in and suddenly everyone is up in arms about the "filthy pirates" once more...

I always like Gabe Newell's take from way back in 2011:

"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem," he said. "If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable."

gehenna:

 

 

 

Source?

 

 

 

Have seen a few articles over the last couple of years - quick Google offered the below:

https://www.cinemablend.com/television/2458826/piracy-is-on-the-rise-again-likely-because-of-the-increase-in-streaming-services

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2015/07/16/if-you-think-piracy-is-decreasing-you-havent-looked-at-the-data-2/

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-music-piracy-worldwide-industry-group.html

I confess I have not researched these, so...

Item:

 

I always like Gabe Newell's take from way back in 2011:

 

"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem," he said. "If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable."

 

Maybe in America or somewhere else wherethe media is reasonably priced and we don't pay a stupid location tax like we do in NZ - for no reason at all.  If I had the choice of a $20 USD 4K Blu-ray and a 4K MKV I'd go with the Blu-ray.  If I have the choice of a $50NZD 4K Blu-ray and a 4K MKV I'm going with the MKV.  

Item:

 

 

 

 

 

In order to stop piracy being more attractive, I guess the end goal would be:

 

1) Abolishment of GeoBlocking - all content available on the same platform/provider/"channel" at roughly the same time (technical logistics notwithstanding)

 

2) Content producers more willing to provide their content through leading partners rather than trying to lock people in to their own channel

 

3) Greater granularity of service/ability to stream "bite-size": I don't want to sign up to a specific streamer to watch say, 3 episodes of 1 show: You should be able to pay for individual episodes where it makes financial sense to do so.

 

4) No ads on any "premium" paid streaming service. Ever.

 

 

 

 

 

1. Good idea, but the owner needs to be recieving the same revenue as they do now. That should be ok.

2. The issue is there are already leading partners. Netflix, Amazon, Sky, Hulu and so on. If I wanted to watch two series, and each is on a different leading partner, thats what we have now

3. Bite size is good, but many who will pay $20 for unlimited won't pay $1-95 for one EP

4. Good idea

Urgh.... yawn!!

Until all the providers allow me to:

- consume content through a single platform of my choosing

- centralise account management through some sort of standard

- remove stupid device limits and such that limit playback

- remove stupid geo-restrictions

- and allow offline media to be stored

...Sickrage & Radarr will continue to be where I get my media from.

A new article on Engadget which covers my points above in more detail:

https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/29/streaming-exclusives-netflix-pray-for-my-wallet/

Item:

 

The media giants still don't seem to get it - by continuing to fracture the streaming eco-system and force people back to requiring multiple providers and dedicated services just to get the 3-4 programs they actually want to watch, we will see a return to rife piracy again. The statistics already seem to show that this is happening.

 

We are seeing the old Cable TV model distributed via the internet. Companies need to accept that for most people, most of their content is filler and if they want to combat piracy and ensure people are paying for their content it needs to be available as widely and as easily as possible and not locked to yet another specific streaming service.