Technology

59329 readers

6373 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

293

It’s “shakeout” time as losses of Netflix rivals top $5 billion | Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers. (arstechnica.com)

submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It’s “shakeout” time as losses of Netflix rivals top $5 billion | Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers.::Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] akilou@sh.itjust.works 42 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Dude, you want more streaming services?

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 45 points 10 months ago (2 children)

No. I want the studios forbidden from owning channels. Make them sell their content to independent broadcasters. Similar to how theaters couldn’t be owned by movie studios. Places like Netflix and Hulu would thrive again, and you wouldn’t have nonsense like Zaslav shoving content into the garbage for a tax write off.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 19 points 10 months ago

Hulu is owned by studios. It was a joint venture between ABC, NBC, and Fox. After Disney(ABC) bought Fox, Comcast(NBC) sold its share to Disney.

[–] Copernican@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Channels are TV Programmers have. Studios technically can be independent of the programmer channel since the programmer orders the rv show production from the studio. The distribution platform was cable or broadcast (over the air). What folks seem to want is a cable package all over again, just cheaper and without hardware fees and without ads. Not sure how you can have all 3 of those things though. If you cut ads, it probably looks just as expensive if not more expensive than cable. The economics of ESPN worked due to it being bundled in every basic cable package. If you go a la carte I don't think the sports fans will like the price that is no longer subsidized by all the bundles of folks that don't watch sports.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The only workable long term strategy is for these companies to compete over service instead of content just like Spotify, YouTube music, Apple music, Pandora, Tidal, etc. If they continue on their current path, everything will wind up being owned by the 2-3 companies with the deepest pockets and we'll be back to the cable TV model.

[–] Hoomod@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's basically the cable TV model just with more steps

Need like 5+ services you pay $5-20 a month to instead of one you pay $75 to (numbers made up)

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago

$75 is really borderline coming from the pricepoint we have now. Assuming you could watch nearly everything in one place, it might be a success, but who knows. I believe this is around what YouTube TV and Hulu & Live TV cost.