• MrVilliam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    There’s an alternative. Because of exclusivity deals, you think a monopoly would be good for users, but with a monopoly then the company could charge $200/month because customers literally have nowhere else to go. A better system would be significantly reduced exclusivity so that 1st party media is the only exclusive content. This way, there would be more than 1 or 2 options, but way fewer than what we currently have, and the 5 or so companies remaining would compete based on their own original content, customer service, quality of service, and UI. Streaming apps with only one or two interesting pieces of original content could license out to all of the remaining few streamers and shut down their dead app. I know the quality dropped like a fucking rock, but a few years back people were excited to be subscribed to Disney+ for Wandavision and The Mandalorian. 5 years ago, people were excited to be subscribed to Netflix for Stranger Things and Orange is the New Black.

    I was frustrated af a few nights ago trying to find X-Men First Class. Days of Future Past is on Max. X-Men, X-Men: The Last Stand, the 3 Wolverine movies, X-Men Apocalypse, and X-Men: Dark Phoenix are all on Disney+. So where the fuck are X-Men 2 and X-Men: First Class?! To watch the X-Men movies (which are all from the same studios), paying for 2 streaming services isn’t enough?!

    • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      and the 5 or so companies remaining would compete based on their own original content

      I don’t see how this is any better, since if you want a specific show produced by a specific company you would still need to subscribe to their service, kind of the same problem we having right now.

      Again, I’m not arguing for monopolies in general. But with media it’s what customers want - a single service they can access all the media they want, with reasonable prices or a subscription model.

      • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I have two possible solutions then, each with their own drawback.

        Solution 1 is to nationalize media. The closest realistic thing is something we already have: libraries. The drawback is that content is massively limited and it’s pretty inconvenient, but the cost is bundled in with other nationalized services like firefighters and the postal service.

        Solution 2 is piracy. The drawback is that it’s illegal and you risk prison time and huge fines, but the cost is either free or relatively cheap in exchange for less chance of getting caught, and the selection of content is damn near everything. There is quite a bit of work at the onset, but it is reasonably convenient to enjoy.

        • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I like them both. But also non commercial piracy - or how we used to call it back in the days: sharing, should not be illegal in the first place.