WrestlingClassics.com Message Board Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» WrestlingClassics.com Message Board » Professional Wrestling & General Discussion 2010 - Current » Semi-OT: Are there too many streaming sites

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Semi-OT: Are there too many streaming sites
Wolverine
Member
Member # 894

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wolverine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Disney just announced that they're about to remove their content (aside from the Marvel and Star Wars material) from Netflix to start up their own streaming channel. Are there just too many streaming channels now? There's Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, WWE Network, New Japan World, NWA on demand, Boomerang, Shudder, plus the sites owned by the tv networks, as well as the free channels like Shout Factory and Crackle, it's almost like there's too much content and not enough time to watch it, to say nothing about how expensive it is (and the sites dont look to be decreasing their prices anytime soon).
IP: Logged
Rod Trongard's Hair
Member
Member # 26742

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rod Trongard's Hair     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. Nothing wrong with competition. Streaming channels are the future I've wanted a la carte TV for years.

--------------------
Don't Flip Your Wig

IP: Logged
Shaving Weezie Jefferson
Member
Member # 126638

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shaving Weezie Jefferson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's just a restructuring of the delivery system the same way cable was. In the end, the only thing that matters is the content. Well...and the price.

[ 08-08-2017, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Shaving Weezie Jefferson ]

--------------------
"Okay fun is fun but enough is enough, and so on. We do not need half the front page beening Tocus threads. The old ones have been kicked over to the Markley forum...otherwise the whole gimmick can go over there." --Crimson Mask, 3/18/11

IP: Logged
merc
Member
Member # 125456

Icon 1 posted      Profile for merc     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the fractioning of content, as Disney is doing, will strain the public purse strings. Content is king and those with the weakest will fail.
IP: Logged
bAzTNM
Member
Member # 8494

Icon 1 posted      Profile for bAzTNM   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Disney Life" has been going on in the UK for years. They've taken their stuff from Netflix, but they've kept their stuff on the Sky Movies streaming service (owned by Rupert Murdoch). "Now TV" I think it's called.

I find the "independent film" streaming sites better. Sites like MUBI.com and FANDOR.com.

You've also got Charles Band putting his films out on his fullmoonstreaming.com service, as well as Lloyd Kaufman putting out his Troma films.

Lots of stuff out there.

[ 08-08-2017, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: bAzTNM ]

--------------------
From Scotland!

My website with random stuff

IP: Logged
TerryR
Member
Member # 5671

Icon 1 posted      Profile for TerryR     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I used to work for a kids station that had an output deal with Disney for Canada. A few years ago, the Disney US Sales VP came up to Toronto for a meet and greet and I asked her why Disney wasn't doing their own streaming service with all the old cartoons (like the one with Mickey, Donald and Goofy in the car/trailer that transforms) on it. She said that Disney felt that people didn't care about the old content.

This should do OK, but not crippling for Netflix. My girls watch Netflix all of the time, but hardly ever the Disney stuff.

IP: Logged
black ace
Member
Member # 4742

Icon 1 posted      Profile for black ace     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Netflix will be king and for me the only drawback is no sports. So i would also need to subscribe to MLB, NFL, NHL services as well. Plus id love to get WWE network if it ever came to Canada. Once i include all those the price is probably less for cable.
IP: Logged
DaClyde
Member
Member # 127626

Icon 1 posted      Profile for DaClyde   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I ditched cable/satellite years ago, so I love seeing every new streaming service come online since I only pay for broadband access. Just picking the services I want is nice. Granted, I can't see everything I want, but I couldn't do that with cable without paying $160 a month, anyway. I don't watch much Disney stuff, so them leaving Netflix won't affect me much at all and I don't feel the need to subscribe to things I don't watch.
IP: Logged
ckb_nc
Member
Member # 71425

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ckb_nc     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Content is king; delivery is relatively cheap once you have the infrastructure platform (which Disney just bought BTW). This is really a play for ESPN which is losing cable subscribers every single day by the bucket loads. ESPN has to find a new pay stream for its content; the current model is just plain heading down the tubes.

So, Disney will have a platform to pay for its Disney content including Marvel and Star Wars. And the same platform will be the pay place for ESPN without a cable/satellite subscription. ESPN3 is actually a great platform right now for sports.

IP: Logged
merc
Member
Member # 125456

Icon 1 posted      Profile for merc     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gonna toss this out there since I recently read it as "news" in our local paper. You can buy an HD TV antenna for about $20. It should pick up VHF/UHF stations broadcasting within 50 miles or so depending on topography and density.

Kinda funny that the rabbit ears I grew up with are considered a technology solution today...

IP: Logged
Shaving Weezie Jefferson
Member
Member # 126638

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shaving Weezie Jefferson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ckb_nc:
Content is king; delivery is relatively cheap once you have the infrastructure platform (which Disney just bought BTW).

Yup, and really 90% of the game is just marketing, which Disney does better than anybody.

--------------------
"Okay fun is fun but enough is enough, and so on. We do not need half the front page beening Tocus threads. The old ones have been kicked over to the Markley forum...otherwise the whole gimmick can go over there." --Crimson Mask, 3/18/11

IP: Logged
Cynthia Celeste Miller from KS
Member
Member # 3471

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cynthia Celeste Miller from KS   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I'm afraid of is that everything will become so fragmented that people will have to subscribe to a many different services just to get a good variety of shows. For example, let's say that Universal, Sony, Fox and MGM each decide to start their own separate services. In order to get much variety at all, we'd have to hook up to a ton of services.

--------------------
Cynthia Celeste Miller
Spectrum Games


Check out my band, Eminent Remains, on Facebook.

IP: Logged
OSJ from NM by way of WA
Member
Member # 6136

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OSJ from NM by way of WA   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cynthia:

That's exactly the reverse of what WILL happen, people want ala carte service. I see things getting even more fragmented. Within certian limitations such as rolling out three months of X and X with three months of "B".The marketing has just got to got to get smarter. Bright young things that want to bundle "Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy" with "Into the Badlands" because they are both "SYFY". Should go back to frying up fishieburgers with Mr. Crabbs.

It will find up cheaply ala carte through different packagers (heading that way way now). I'll cheerfully spend around $80-$100 for exactly what I want. HBO, you want want my money in the off-season? Come up with something as intriguing as GOT?

--------------------
"What you say sounds reasonable enough," said the man, "but I refuse to be bribed. I am here to whip people, and whip them I shall!")
-Franz Kafka - The Trial

IP: Logged
OSJ from NM by way of WA
Member
Member # 6136

Icon 1 posted      Profile for OSJ from NM by way of WA   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe the interim solution will be a shift to programs "anchoring" a line-up of five other shows, you can go with two major programs and fill in the gaps with related content, maybe even with a couple of "their-two shows". Here are a couple of examples:

Our Big STAHS: Bassmasters. Yes, fishing shows have come light-years from two red-necks sitting in their boat making with the "clever" remarks that the rest of us tired of in high school. Now we get two red-necks lounging in the lobby of their own version of Wal-Mart and it is terrifying that such a thing continues to exist.

--------------------
"What you say sounds reasonable enough," said the man, "but I refuse to be bribed. I am here to whip people, and whip them I shall!")
-Franz Kafka - The Trial

IP: Logged
ckb_nc
Member
Member # 71425

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ckb_nc     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OSJ from NM by way of WA:
Cynthia:

That's exactly the reverse of what WILL happen, people want ala carte service. I see things getting even more fragmented. Within certian limitations such as rolling out three months of X and X with three months of "B".The marketing has just got to got to get smarter. Bright young things that want to bundle "Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy" with "Into the Badlands" because they are both "SYFY". Should go back to frying up fishieburgers with Mr. Crabbs.

It will find up cheaply ala carte through different packagers (heading that way way now). I'll cheerfully spend around $80-$100 for exactly what I want. HBO, you want want my money in the off-season? Come up with something as intriguing as GOT?

The irony is the cable/satellite folks value is aggregation and form factor. One remote with all the content. I can opt in and out of some premium services like HBO relatively easily on DirecTv. What people think the want is to pick and choose versus being forced to get channels they never use (mainly ESPN). In so many cases, these channels cost to the providers is pretty
IP: Logged
Idol I
Member
Member # 4061

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Idol I     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Only downside is you'll need 12 different apps or subscriptions to watch 12 different shows.

--------------------
http://TheHistoryofWWE.com/

IP: Logged
James D from OH
Member
Member # 3414

Icon 1 posted      Profile for James D from OH     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. Competition is great and there will still be a market for the buffet of linear cable.

As noted above though, pick a few, get an antenna (or have one professionally installed, MOST in the country can receive OTA broadcasts and it's much better today than you might remember), and you'll still come in under cable pricing most likely. If not, stick with cable!

And there's no such thing as "HD Antenna" or "Digital Antenna".. that's marketing speak. It's just an antenna, as they've always been. Modern rooftop models are a tad bit smaller (not much), than old school ones, but old school ones will pull digital signals just as they used to pull analog. A coat hanger or paper clip still work if you're within a few miles of the towers!

--------------------
"Keep Fighting" - Heather D from OH 12/24/13.

IP: Logged
CONAN
Member
Member # 3659

Icon 1 posted      Profile for CONAN         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I get everything everyone is saying but what bothers me is that we have to pay a internet provider a monthly fee just for the ability to spend more for streaming services. With bandwidth throttling and whatever future BS the ip's come up with they are going to have complete control of content delivery.

[ 08-12-2017, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: CONAN ]

IP: Logged
James D from OH
Member
Member # 3414

Icon 1 posted      Profile for James D from OH     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CONAN:
I get everything everyone is saying but what bothers me is that we have to pay a internet provider a monthly fee just for the ability to spend more for streaming services. With bandwidth throttling and whatever future BS the ip's come up with they are going to have complete control of content delivery.

We need better oversight with the duopoly BS in place in most of the country. When even Google (or Alphabet or whatever), gives up... Clearly the incumbent providers have WAY too firm a grip on the market. Competition is a good thing.

That aside, I've never understood why streaming services get saddled with Internet service... Especially cause every time I hear the argument it's a comment ONLINE on some board or article... People have had Internet service for as long as it's been a thing, and long wanted faster service, and many base offerings today are fast enough to suffice for at least one streaming video at a time, if not multiple. So when Internet helps the cable package be cheaper it's ok, but when people keep the Internet because wired is, and always will be, technically superior to LTE (in general, I'm well aware there are specific instances of garbage wired service! I'm citing peak potential here), or other wireless forms, it HAS to be tacked on to the streaming costs??

I mean technically, yes... but most people have Internet service and aren't about to give it up at this point. Whether they subscribe to traditional cable, OTT providers or no pay TV at all is beside the point. Unless you are a home with no wired Internet at all and are seeking to ditch cable. THOSE people would see a big bump in their bill (possibly), due to having to add TWO new services, but how many of those folks are there in the general market? Again, sure there's some, but a majority already have Internet.

And those folks without it could ditch landline phone and hook up a VOIP service like MagicJack or Ooma and very likely still pay less than a cable bundle (but not less than if the person had NOTHING but cable TV.. I hope anyway).

--------------------
"Keep Fighting" - Heather D from OH 12/24/13.

IP: Logged
Shlocko, Lord of Darkness
Member
Member # 1853

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shlocko, Lord of Darkness     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by black ace:
Netflix will be king and for me the only drawback is no sports. So i would also need to subscribe to MLB, NFL, NHL services as well. Plus id love to get WWE network if it ever came to Canada. Once i include all those the price is probably less for cable.

WWE Network has been in Canada since 7/31/14.

--------------------
Shlocko

"My days of underestimating you are definitely coming to a middle."

IP: Logged
DaClyde
Member
Member # 127626

Icon 1 posted      Profile for DaClyde   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Idol I:
Only downside is you'll need 12 different apps or subscriptions to watch 12 different shows.

So basically you still have to "change channels". How is that a downside? There has never been any prospect for an option where all the shows you want to see all come on the same channel.
IP: Logged
Shaving Weezie Jefferson
Member
Member # 126638

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Shaving Weezie Jefferson     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shlocko, Lord of Darkness:
quote:
Originally posted by black ace:
Netflix will be king and for me the only drawback is no sports. So i would also need to subscribe to MLB, NFL, NHL services as well. Plus id love to get WWE network if it ever came to Canada. Once i include all those the price is probably less for cable.

WWE Network has been in Canada since 7/31/14.
The pulse finger is strong in this one.

--------------------
"Okay fun is fun but enough is enough, and so on. We do not need half the front page beening Tocus threads. The old ones have been kicked over to the Markley forum...otherwise the whole gimmick can go over there." --Crimson Mask, 3/18/11

IP: Logged
Gabba Hey
Member
Member # 20936

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gabba Hey     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With Sling I get fox Sports Ohio, which gives me all the Cavs, Indians and Monsters games. Really don't need more sports than that.

--------------------
Im your huckleberry - Tombstone -- Sometimes to beat the bully. you have to be the bully. Michael Jordan. vs the Pistons

IP: Logged
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WrestlingClassics.com Home Page

Click here to see the WCMB Rules and Regulations

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3