That sounds like what Prime also does, you can access content on Shudder, Paramount, Britbox, Arrow, Lionsgate etc all via the Prime app with a single interface/watchlist.
Netflix here we go again.
- Thread starter Deleted User 234324
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,667
a few years ago if i wanted to watch disney stuff, paramount stuff, and x y z stuff i could do that all in 1 place - then that fragmented to 2, then 3 etc.
i am not sure how you cant see that having a couple of subs i have to pay a month is not beneficial to me as a punter than having to have half a dozen............
end of the day it is up to them of course, if disney want to have stuff locked behind disney paywall it is their choice, but piracy means if they try to milk us too much, many of us go elsewhere - which is bad for everyone involved as no one gets the money for their art then.
the more streaming services there are and the more content that gets pulled from the existing services objectively devalues their product.... and its not like we see price cuts when this happens either. For it to be genuine competition then each of these stores would maybe have a few months exclusivity on any show, before it was then rolled out to all of them.
then it would be competition. as it is we just have more and more monopolies offering less and less content.
Soldato
Substitution isn’t relevant in a market that is not essential. People don’t NEED to watch Stranger Things; they can just as easily watch Odd Things on a different platform to save some money. If they really want to watch Stranger Things, that’s a competitive advantage that Netflix has to get that person to subscribe to their service, but it is in no way essential (I.e., competition is working because Netflix have made something desirable that you want to subscribe to their network for).
If you as a consumer insist that it MUST be Stranger Things you watch, then yes, you are stuck with only picking one platform. But that’s your choice as a consumer, you’ve chosen to limit your own options; it doesn’t mean the market isn’t competitive.
Last edited:
Soldato
Of course its relevant.
Substitutions, availability etc are a key part of supply and demand.
Soldato
If I want some cereal and I can’t get my usual Kellogs Corn Flakes from Tesco, I can either go to another supermarket or shop, or buy some different cereal.
If I want Tesco Corn Flakes and Tesco does not have them, I can’t go to Asda to get them, and no other type of cereal will do.
If I want to be entertained on an evening, and I can’t access the service that offers Stranger Things, I can either do something else entirely different, or watch something different.
If I want to be entertained by Stranger Things and I can’t access Netlix, I can’t go to Apple TV to watch it and no other entertainment will do.
If you are too restrictive in what you want then you will ALWAYS face this issue.
Last edited:
Soldato
Have you got any clue on substitutions?
One minute you say they don't apply outside a market that is non essential then you give examples of how various levels of substitutions work.
But you didn't like the supermarket example. You wouldnt be able to get ANY cornflakes anywhere else apart from Tescos if you equate that to streaming, you could go to ASDA to get weetabix, but cornflakes are only at Tescos.
Again, if all you want to do is to watch "something" then there is some basic competition. Arguably you wouldn't even bother to subscribe to anything if your want is that low, you could watch free services.
But again, most people say, oh have you watched xyz? Its really good. Thats the point, most people want to watch specific content because people are talking about it, its in their realm of interest etc.
If I want to watch the Harry potter films, I want to watch the harry potter films, thats not an unreasonable request. Its not being too restrictive, its being a typical consumer.
Because for typical consumers the content matters. As such alternate platforms with alternate choices are not a good substitution, they are a poor substitution.
There is a reason platforms have big series, and they are limited, its specifically to get people to subscribe to their service.
People have talked about subscribing to Disney specifically for the Mandalorian. Thats not competition.
When everyone was talking about Clarksons farm, going oh I cannot see that, can we talk about "Bobs dirty patch" thats on my service, is not a valid substitution.
Fairly sure i've stumbled across this on some late night drunken NSFW reddit trawls
Soldato
I quite agree that the market for the Mandalorian is not competitive, but there is actually no ‘Mandalorian’ market. People don’t talk about being in the ‘Mandaorlian’ market, they talk about being in the streaming market. The Mandalorian is just a feature of a larger, more broadly defined market, the same way that the Big Mac is a feature of the fast food market and there is no ‘Big Mac’ market. It’s also like how iMessage is a feature of iOS, there is no iOS market, but there is a smartphone market with iOS and Android as competitors. If you restrict yourself to only using iMessage and thus only buying an iOS device, that doesn’t make the smart phone market anticompetitive.
If you defined every market that narrowly then just about every market would be defined as anti Or non-competitive. This is why we don’t define markets that way.
If you specifically want to watch the Harry Potter films, that’s your own choice to self-limit what you are prepared to watch to entertain yourself. If you want to watch it because everyone is talking about and there’s lots of chatter on social media about it, that’s still your choice to be influenced by that and limit how you are prepared to be entertained. You have lots of different streaming entertainment options to chose from, thus the market is highly competitive.
I’m party to conversations all the time about programmes I have not seen. I don’t feel the need to have watched the programme and take part; I listen then change the topic to something else.
As a side observation, is there an element of human psychology of wanting to be ‘part of a group’ involved in this in terms of influencing how you perceive the situation? For example, if being part of a group that has seen a specific programme is important to you, do you view the situation with streaming services as more anti-competitive than someone who does not feel that way? Likewise, does being part of a specific iMessage group mean you are more likely to view the smartphone market as anti-competitive because you can’t get that exact iMessage group somewhere else?
Last edited:
Soldato
No one is saying there is not a streaming market. although its not really a streaming market, its a subscription based Tv market. The streaming is the delivery mechanism, the market is the enhanced TV offering.
What I am saying is that with there being no real competition between platforms as they are all offering individual basically non competing products there is arguably a very restrictive market, certainly not a highly competitive market.
Your very odd in your approach saying choosing to watch a program because people are talking about it and it interests you is odd. Its what most people do most of the time!
Its a poor argument to say if someone says to you, "oh there is a programme you will really like on platform xyz" and you go, "I cannot watch that, I will watch abc on another platform instead".
Thats not competition, thats saying I have restricted myself to something else since I am buying into allowing a load of mini monopolies.
Content is everything in the streaming market. Its basically the only way to get a competitive advantage over the other platforms. Quality and quantity, breadth of offering.
A big Mac has direct broadly equivalent substitutes. Yes if you absolutely require a big mac then no there isnt. My argument is that most peoples consumption of streaming is very much, all my mates are going for a big mac, whilst I consider a whopper a perfect substitution when they are eating their big mac I would be on my own in another venue eating my perfect substitute, which they consider is not a perfect substitute. If as a consumer you are comfortable that its a perfect substitution then good for you. Again I don't believe most people do.
It really boils down to, if you consider a space program as good as any other space program then you would see competition between platforms. If your a die hard trekkie, then the platform without Star Trek would not be a competitor for the one that did.
Again this is nothing new, its why the likes of Sky tried to get all the sport onto their platform. Thats not competition, its them trying to get people to subscribe to their service based on the alternatives not being competition.
Its why they have forced some to be opening back up, they recognise it was non competing market.
You were the one who raised the prospect of people saying what they were saying was in contradiction to the normal. My point is that I believe you are misunderstanding how limited the competition is in reality for many people.
As such your mis judging the actual competition in the marketplace. More providers offering the same amount of material as before but just spread across more platforms is not competition.
Competition would be being able to watch what you want on at least two platforms.
Soldato
Exactly, the content is the competitive differentiator/advantage. That’s what makes your product different in a meaningful way from your competitors to potentially attract people to your product.
Only if you define the market as the specific thing you want to watch. That might be very different to the way the law and regulators define the market.
I also think it’s contradictory to say that having different content is the only way to be more competitive than your competitors, then to say that competition means having the same content as at least one of your competitors. Which is it?
Last edited:
Soldato
Yes and bear in mind where this started.
It was all available in basically one place so the market fragmenting has not improved competition.
I mean yes its likely brought some more dross to the market, copies of successful stuff trying to compete.
Again remember, people saying the fragmentation means I have to pay more for nothing extra in effect.
Your argument was that doesnt make sense, competition works the opposite way to that.
Which it does, so if its costing more for the same then by default the
If there was real competition they would be genuinely fighting price wars (they are doing the opposite), trying to gain your custom at the loss to one of their competitors (they don't really care).
Its operating, unsurprisingly, far more like a oligopoly, where they all want some of your money and don't feel they need to stop you subscribing to one of their competitors in order to do so.
They just need to grab enough of the limited good content to make you think you should subscribe.
Soldato
Yeah but as noted what it is actually doing is not making them compete at all. Netflix doesn't need to compete with Disney+ or Paramount+ because they are not providing the same services beyond the headline title of a streamed show.
Going back to your corn flakes you still get corn flakes from hundreds of shops at thousands of locations. The exact corn flake is the competitive differential, not that you cannot get cornflakes at all. The competing market is cereal and to be competitive they actually brought their own version out which is why there are multiple brands of said corn flake.
Since arts such as music, film, tv etc are individualistic then you will never be competing for the same thing and so there is never a true competition there. You can have things similar but you are not seeing these different streaming services doing Stranger Things as their own version to compete which is what you are trying to compare too. Competitive market neds to be considered in what market you are talking about and what the differentials can be.
It is much closer to the Microsoft/Sony console argument where they have exclusives that are brought out from one another and when you have it only being able to be on either Xbox or Playstation it has issues with customers only having one place they can get that content it is a monopoly of that content.
Soldato
What you are suggesting is that the current streaming market be split into multiple markets; a production market and a separate streaming market. That way A Netflix production might end up being streamed on Amazon Prime and Disney But not on Netflix (because there’s a competitive market to buy content from independent production companies). Alternatively you would need regulations to force all programmes be available on all available platforms, but laws would probably prevent that level of business interference (unless laws were also changed to allow governments that level of control over the market).
Soldato
But it’s only a monopoly if you define the market very very narrowly (i.e., the Stranger Things market). By that logic we could argue that Microsoft has a monopoly on the Windows and Office markets. Do we need to make it so that Adobe can sell Adobe Windows and Adobe Office? Where do we stop?!
But not quite same.
As there is a high bar of entry to games consoles (console itself)
More like steam/epic
Last edited:
Soldato
No I am not at all. I am not suggesting a solution.
What I am saying is that you are wrong in suggesting the market is not performing as expected despite there being competition.
My conclusion is that there is not competition between companies at all. Hence why it is not performing as you would expect if there was competition.
Further, I would say the decision most are making is should I subscribe to A Yes or No, based on available content
Should I subscribe to B, Yes or No, based on available content
Should I subscribe to C, Yes or No, based on available content
...
True competition would be should I subscribe to A or B or C to best match my wants.
Previously you basically only needed to subscribe to A. You got most of what was on A, B, C .... now, but for a single subscription.
Soldato
So a content aggregator that offers A, B and C for a single price?
Forgive me but isn’t that precisely what people moved to streaming services to get away from?!
Last edited:
Yes, because when it was just Netflix and maybe Amazon Prime which you got for other reasons too, it was cheaper than a sky package, the way streaming is going sky is probably now cheaper.
They all got greedy, and they won't all survive.
Last edited:
Soldato
Hmm well that was what Netflix was at the start.
IMO people moved for the combination of price and user friendliness.
As I said earlier today, for the same sort of price as a couple of DVD rentals from Blockbuster, or a 3x at home DVD rental by post subscription you got a service that :
was on demand with no limitations.
was equivalent to many times as much content.
had a better range than pervious services.
whilst subscription based was no long term commitment.
Since then its slowly been whittled away at, whilst the other services have started to think they would be better off getting more of the pie themselves.