From this point on, every year "physical media & a Jellyfin install" is going to be more sensible.
Assuming you even care about legality, of course.
Yeah, it's harder. But you can get a lot of "harder" things done in the amount of time you otherwise spend watching ads, after all. Because to me one of the worst things about ads is they're stealing dollars from me to make cents, if not fractions of a cent. This makes them on the dumb end of the bandit classification by the Basic Laws of Human Stupidity metric: https://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidi... It's so dumb.
And as long as we keep letting them give us an option to buy out the ads, but then they get to stick ads on that option anyhow, we can never get our way out of ads on these things. I don't mind buying them out because they make so little money anyhow but by simple game theory "buy out ads + put ads on anyhow" is always > "buy out ads". You need to cancel if they do this to you. I can't, because I don't have a Disney+ subscription. But you really need to. You need to turn the option into either "let us buy out the ads" or "lose the subscription" for them.
I canceled my Prime subscription precisely because they continued to keep mixing ad supported content with my ad free content. There were multiple shows where I unknowingly started watching something with ads where I immediately noped out at the first ad break and never watched that show again. I doubt they'll look at it, but it would be interesting to know how many users do the same thing.
I've already been pausing subscriptions left and right as my trends have been focusing on one platform's content that I'm not even using the others that I'm paying for that month. After dumping Prime, I eventually dumped Disney+/Hulu bundle for being the most expensive. I then got yet another notice from Netflix for increase rates which was already paused so I just went ahead and canceled it as well.
I wonder how much physical media I could acquire if I was to spend the same money that is not being spent on streaming platforms. I bet within a year, I could build up a pretty decent back catalog from used and $5 bins.
Yup - my take is this is coming for absolutely everything. (it's already mostly here for tv).
Rent-seeking behavior is too good to give up, so companies will move all content to streaming only services (games, movies, tv, music, books, etc...) in the majority of cases.
Physical media will only be available at very high prices, for a very limited selection of content.
We will go from "doctrine of first sale" around content licensing to the utterly crippled "you own a temporary, non-transferrable, and ephemeral license to stream this content from us on exactly this service using only approved devices until we decide otherwise".
The moral action in this case is to simply stop paying. Period.
Long term - we should be fighting to enshrine a new flavor of "doctrine of first sale" for the digital age.
Ex - maybe purchasing any content license sold with the word "buy" should enshrine your right to use, transfer, sell, or otherwise consume in any reasonable form that content for the duration of the copyright + 7 years. And we will not enforce copyright for items that can't be bought (only rented).
I think we'll end up seeing legislation against the license version of all of this content. Instead, you'll get to own it and move it around as necessary. This hasn't been necessary yet, but if that becomes the only option, then ownership becomes a more important question.
>"physical media & a Jellyfin install" is going to be more sensible.
Physical media is only cheaper if the user is ok with re-watching the same videos repeatedly. The higher cost of the DVD/Blu-ray discs can be amortized over multiple repeat viewings. (Good example is a 5-year old kid wanting to re-watch Frozen or Shrek cartoons again for the 100th time. A DVD player is cheaper than a Disney+ subscription in that scenario.)
Digital streaming subscriptions are cheaper if the user almost always prefers watching new shows instead of re-runs. That's the viewing habit of the vast majority of subscribers. Trying to only buy physical media to get a constant diet of new shows -- even buying the cheaper used discs from thrift stores -- will cost more than a subscription. Also, the physical discs are not immediately playable on an iPad/smartphone so requires extra hassle of ripping/transcoding that most normies don't want to do. Also, buying harddrives for the NAS server to store the rips isn't cheap either.
I'm all too aware of people preferring brand new shows because I've ripped several hundred DVDs to a stack of terabyte harddrives that nobody ever watches. Instead, they'd rather see what's new on Netflix, HBO Max, Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+ ...
EDIT to add an update of a previous comment about my friend's defiance against ads added to Amazon Prime Videos by borrowing DVDs from the public library. She lost that battle because she finished viewing all the DVDs available at her public library. She now endures ads on Amazon Videos. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42388626
She really tried to fight ads but couldn't sustain it. She deals with the ads by multitasking on an iPad when they come on.
> The higher cost of the DVD/Blu-ray discs can be amortized over multiple repeat viewings.
For now. Physical media is being phased out. Sony just quitted the blu-ray player business after others also did and Disney already stopped releasing new discs in Australia.
That sizable collection is often scratched so you watch half the movie and then it skips or fails completely. Just like what used to happen constantly with DVDs from Netflix.
Not in my experience. My library's DVDs and Blu-rays work great. I check one out every week or two.
I'd encourage anyone reading to go to your local library if you haven't been in a while. Check out a book. See if they have a makerspace. Do some remote work there. They're wonderful places. They become more and more important with every passing year.
I get most my physical media from the library. It really doesn’t get any cheaper than that.
A smaller portion comes from used bookstores. For TV series in particular it’s still very cost effective on a money per viewing hour basis. Especially for kids’ media because my kids do want to watch the same thing over and over.
I also do some à la carte rentals. Maybe 3-4 movies per year, so the total cost is low.
That said, you’re absolutely right, this only works for me because I don’t particularly care about new shoes and streaming exclusives. If you’re willing to take the view that media doesn’t need to be new to be good then we currently live in a post-scarcity society where video entertainment is concerned. Which isn’t to say that people who prefer new things are wrong, but I am genuinely impressed by the amount of enshittification that people will tolerate (maybe after some grumbling, but still) in the service of that preference.
>But you can get a lot of "harder" things done in the amount of time you otherwise spend watching ads
I suppose at some point you will have to have your device's camera on to confirm you really are interacting with the ads, but currently I can get stuff done during the ads by being in another window.
I have a feeling the next step will be media megacorps pressuring nations to create legislation to clamp down on software/hardware enabling anonymous Linux ISO downloads and the viewing of said Linux ISOs via Plex/Jellyfin.
> every year "physical media & a Jellyfin install" is going to be more sensible.
Unless you just, you know, don't watch. Which is what I do. I ask myself, is it even worth all this hassle to watch this stuff? Is it that good? And for me, the answer is, no, it isn't. I can find better things to do with my time. So I do.
After spending all day looking at text on a screen, the last thing I want to do is spend time reading text in a book or eReader. I really enjoyed the part of my life where I was an avid reader. Yet another thing to regret about my choice in career.
Aren't even the "high quality" 4k streams like 15GB/movie? So at $20/TB that's ~$0.30/movie at streaming quality? And you could still have probably better than DVD quality that people used to pay $20 for for like ~2GB, or $0.04.
There's an 18 TB refurb from serverpartdeals right now. Or there are a bunch of smaller new ones in the $20s on Amazon. The analysis doesn't really change even if you're looking at e.g. $30/TB. Even going full 8 TB SSDs at $150/TB is still thrift store cost per movie when you amortize it ($2.25 at 15GB, or $0.30 at 2GB). Of course then as another comment here said, you're more likely to realize you don't actually want any of it.
Seriously I can’t even get my refurb enterprise drives for reasonable prices anymore. Used to pay like $150 for 14TB ultrastars now it’s like $300 for 12TB exos
Yes I am aware, it is why you don’t buy new, there are thousands of used computers out there that I made a side hustle out of buying them and reselling them after some cleaning and fixing, so many I found that’s beyond to list here, but for example I got asus zenbook 14 for $12 because it didn’t boot (which was just a loose connection inside), a macmini m1 for $50, and many other parts and finds. I even have a thinkpad with proxmox and run as a server, uptime now is more than a year.
It’s the storage prices that tend to give people sticker shock. Though for just being a media server you can get away with a spinning disc rather than an SSD. But they’re still kind of insane right now.
We can just move on as a society from Disney. It didn't exist in 1900, no reason for it to exist now. It doesn't deserve a permanent place in western culture.
Those people are already not paying for sports. That is a massive market, worth bikkuons and billions annually. People are not going to simply stop watching professional sports. Especially because historically that has always been very expensive
There's probably something to be said for being inspired by people living their dreams. Like it was no doubt inspirational for many to watch Jordan living his dream of being a baseball player no matter what people expected of him.
You're technically right, but, as always, convenience and passivity will prevail, Disney's move will be successful, and ads will keep spreading like a contagious disease. I can see the day coming where ads play on our retinal implants and even closing our eyes won't help against them anymore. Yes, in theory the masses could do what's necessary to stop enshittification, but in practice I would be very surprised if they actually did.
I've always been frustrated by the intense focus the modern economy has on advertising. If I am interested in a product, I would much rather discover it by searching. Having advertisements forced upon me at every turn is a massive waste of resources (time and attention) given only a fraction of a percent of the products have any relevance to my life. I block every form of advertising I can reasonably block. If a company raises the friction sufficiently, I'll find a way around it. I'm mostly an amoral participant in the economy. I pay for YouTube, Disney, etc. but if they make giving them money an unpleasant experience, I have no qualms employing a usenet subscription and *arr stack to dodge the whole thing.
Modern advertising is not meant for product discovery, but for the incumbents to make sure you associate "burger" with "McDonalds" at a subconscious level.
I am working hard to manage my mental model when shopping now to try and minimize this affect knowing it exists. In a sense I've realized my mentality toward the world is less of "what brands are good?" and more of "how is this company trying to fuck me over?" and then moving from that mentality forward.
So when I'm out shopping I see brands that I've found advertised. I see brands I've never heard of. I look at both. But what one is selling products that are fully accessible to me, fully owned by me? Which ones use online features that can/will eventually be stripped and put behind a a subscription model? What ones are using quality manufacturing materials? Which ones are using cheap plastics or vaneers? Which ones have local brick and mortar presence where I can take issues in person? For instance, there's a very heavy Costco effect to my shopping. I've bought products from brands I'm pretty iffy on because I know Costco is going to take that return with no fuss if I get it home and discover there's something about that product I find distasteful.
And I should say that I'm not a very big consumer. Trying to do this a lot, buying for a family (kids, spouse, etc.) could quickly become overwhelming. I know how exhausting it is to need to read labels every time you're buying food because how often they enshittify the recipe, adding thickeners or allergens that weren't there the last time you bought it.
It won't work for everyone but the answer really is the same thing its always been: Be a conscious consumer. Research what you want before you buy. Know what is worth spending extra on, and what is marketing nonsense. Find companies with positive reputation (but still be observant for how you can be fucked when they sell out next year), and try to support local.
I actively/mentally block products I see in ads now. For example, when I use Amazon's terrible search feature, I'll make a mental note of which listings are "sponsored" and make sure NOT to buy them. Ever, if possible.
When I see ads for things on YouTube, I automatically assume it's a scam... Because it almost always is!
Always puzzled me how much money can possibly be in trying to optimize sales by some low digit percentage points, versus how much is sacrificed for it.
The problem is that advertising works! I hate that it works!
Marketing and advertising aren't the same thing but I swear both sides of that coin have devolved via some process of carcinization where their claws emerge from the darkness everywhere people gather. Especially places where those claws are inappropriate and unwanted and yet it still works.
Yeah, people in our line of work tend to look down on it and don't understand it because we discover things more manually. But that's not the case with the vast majority of people. Advertising works and it works really, really well.
This is not an option for everyone, but as someone who gave up TV several years ago (not entirely, just mostly), not feeling the draw of these platforms or having to put up with their costs and changes is really nice.
TV is sort of like caffeine (another thing I gave up - though that one wasn't by choice, but required by my doctors) in that you cannot imagine yourself living without it and wouldn't want to. And the first few months of abstinence are genuinely very difficult.
But eventually it gets easier, and then it gets completely easy, and then you actually feel as good or better than before. And once you finally become accustomed to it, you can't imagine going back to the old way.
After setting up a nas + sonarr setup, it's amazing how much my tv usage went down, simply due to having to actually choose what to view before it appears on my tv.
And it's also apparent how little content is currently worth a conscious watch. Every year or so I make a quick check for what great things appeared in the period, and not much has popped up.
I haven't had a functional TV in my home for over 5 years now. I will sometimes watch shows on my laptop but that's about it.
In place of a TV I have a high res audio transport and speakers that are used for music. Spotify isn't exactly a saint but it would be challenging for them to do what Disney is doing without losing all their customers.
I try Qobuz out every year but my dumb niche music tastes aren't as available there.I hope they continue to grow because I love the idea of leaving Spotify.
I feel back in the day you still saw ads that were kind of creative and there was a certain glamour around being the one brand with the best ads.
Current ones are outright unpleasant, the "make the viewer feel bad about something" kind or directly spam folder level of scammy. Nobody takes pride anymore on their advertising.
> Calling it a deficiency in service, the Hyderabad consumer commission ordered an OTT platform to refund Rs 1,499 and pay compensation to a subscriber after it introduced advertisements midway into his paid ad-free subscription.
Well, if you want the root cause: this is what happens when your society is predicated on perpetual growth. Everything would collapse if we just left good things alone, so instead we’re stuck either innovating and creating new good things or squeezing the juice out of what already exists.
This has nothing with perpetual growth and everything with training your population to defend these practices with "oh, they're just companies, don't use it if you don't like it!" instead of fighting back.
Vigilante justice, you say? Now you are talking!! We certainly are not going to see things get better on their own, and the government definitely isn’t going to take the side of consumers.
I'm not sure consumer rights protections would deliver better experiences.
Government is predictably slow, inefficient, and does just about everything at a service level that is only accepted because there is no other choice.
We are seeing an increasingly exaggerated cycle that goes like this:
1. Innovation takes huge investment to launch
2. Early adopters enjoy amazing new product(s) while companies bear losses
3. Companies eventually must face debt so quality of products decrease and price increases
OpenAI and Anthropic have perhaps set the record for going from 1 to 2 in the biggest (financially) and fastest manner ever, and we are all hurtling towards step 3 with a possible too-big-to-fail scenario.
Back to Disney Plus: I don't have a sagely answer. Free markets do sometimes need government to curb monopoly power, and Disney is certainly has a sort of monopolistic power due to their huge portfolio of franchises and content.
Government is predictably slow, inefficient, and does just about everything at a service level that is only accepted because there is no other choice.
--------
Generally true but there have been a lot of examples demonstrating the opposite.
The NPS (and Reacreation.gov) does an amazing job considering their resource level, NASA arguably delivered innovation at an unprecedented scale for decades, and up until it was purposefully fucked with the US Postal Service offered a fantastic dependable, affordable and pretty innovative product. The Hold Mail is simple and elegant as just one minor example.
What I want is a streaming service that operates as a consumer cooperative.
Subscribers vote, elect a slate of directors who each get a fraction of the content-budget to spend as per their campaign promises. Licensing content, buying it in perpetuity, producing it themselves or funding some group of creators -- none of this "how can we milk customers more", and no more fruitless community campaigns to save a beloved series, you just need some critical mass of subscribers to vote for the guy whose platform is "I will keep making more seasons as fast as possible until the sun boils the ocean".
isn't this essentially a state broadcaster? You might get one decent show but the committee and bike shedding mostly gives you terrible niche programming that's unsustainable without massive subsidies - and most still show adverts.
I'm trying to understand what this actually means. Here's Disney's page on the matter[0].
I understand that sports will tend to have ads displayed in the stadium and so on, and that some show may feature characters drinking Pepsi rather than Coke because of an agreement. And I guess movies may have trailers. Is that the extent of it? If I get what feels like an obvious "ad" then we'll probably be canceling, but I guess I'm okay with those things that I mentioned.
It really does amaze me how much people are willing to put up with from streaming apps.
Like I get it if your kid wants to watch Disney shows and it buys you some peace and quiet. Otherwise, it's a firehose of content, everything's ultimately just a part of a franchise structure that's built more as a business plan than a piece of art, and there's no way to consume it all.
In the end, it all leads to advertising. This is just the basic business model in the US/World right now. Get enough eyeballs on your product, whether it's TV, social media, AI, the ditch on the side of the highway; then monetize it with ads. I don't understand why at this point anyone is surprised that a company like Disney would put ads every possible place, even their highest tier of streaming.
"But I specifically chose the highest option so I wouldn't see ads!" well, now you have the option to pay the highest tier to see less ads. For now. By paying for the highest tier, Disney knows you are a higher quality consumer with the most disposable income of all the users on that platform; that's exactly the users Disney can charge the most for advertising spend. From an exec's standpoint, why wouldn't you? sure, they'll lose some paying customers, but will probably make more in the short term at least, which is all that matters.
Why doesnt disney just play their own ads? I think its because most of the companies paying to advertise never recover their money, and their sales attribution is so bad they can't even tell they are wasting money.
It's unclear why you're arguing for this. We already know about the downsides of low-regulation capitalism. They're still downsides, and we may reasonably continue to talk about them as such.
There's a whole genre of comment like this where the implication is that if some effect is either predictable or inevitable by the nature of large in-place systems, then individuals are somehow not allowed to criticize the people choosing to enact the effects.
We all have free will. Just because you can legally make money being annoying or otherwise shitty, and if you didn't do it then somebody else would, that carries absolutely no implication that nobody is allowed to judge you for making that choice.
In theory you’re right it’s an often repeated talking point but I just don’t understand why am I worth advertising to but not worth creating products for?
The products I see advertised are either stupid or so overpriced that it means buying them is stupid.
I am entirely willing to spend money and I have decent savings. I just expect the products put on offer to be worth buying.
The language in the EU or UK agreement must be a lot different than the US agreement. When this was announced last month, I never saw the new subscriber agreement and have not seen ads outside of live TV. Our subscriber agreement was updated yesterday, and says:
---
k. Service Tiers With or Without Ads. We offer different Service Tiers, some with advertisements and some predominantly without. Service Tiers described as "no ads" or "ad-free" are generally free of commercial interruptions, with certain exceptions that may change from time to time, including where: (i) streaming rights or other limitations require certain Content to play with ads; or (ii) ads are served in certain live or linear Content or special events (and replays thereof). Additionally, "no ads" or "ad-free" Service Tiers may contain limited promotional content, such as brief clips about the Bundles (including messages promoting an upgrade thereto) and other content available on any services associated with the Bundles, and branded content, product integrations, or sponsorship messaging.
Please note that if you subscribe to multiple (or a bundle of) Service Tiers, Content from any ad-supported Service Tier will play with ads, while Content from any "no ads" or "ad-free" Service Tier will not (except as described above).
---
So it's not quite as awful as what's reported here. This article is a month old and I haven't seen what it says was going to happen.
I remember when I had Amazon Prime ad-free tier. Then they added ads to the ad-free tier, and then I found out to get what I was already paying for, they now want $36 more per year. I mean, that's just blatant bait and switch.
It's some criminal gangster saying "hey that's a nice free ad-tier, shame if something happened to it. Listen, you pay me $36/year for protection, and all this goes away. Capice?"
Remember when the appeal was that streaming was cheaper than cable? So, yeah. Shareholders were not going to just take that lying down when they know what can squeeze their consumers far harder than they anticipated.
Plus, they are now removing movies that you have "bought" or "purchased" while offering NO refunds.
That seems like revisionist history. Amazon started out with Prime Video bundled with Prime as a whole, and didn't raise the price. After 5-6 years they made it an add-on, then they added an ad-supported tier.
But if anything, the racket is bundling free shipping with ad-free video and everything else. Raising prices periodically to keep up with inflation is not a racket. And whether you would prefer to get downgraded to the advertising plan or automatically pay more is a personal choice, and automatically downgrading you rather than renewing you at a higher price is in some ways a more sensible default. (Though I'd prefer to be upgraded to the higher price generally and be notified so I have the option to downgrade or cancel, though downgrade really isn't an option I would consider.)
Andor really was an outlier, wasn't it? It's up there with the Sopranos and the Wire as one of the best TV shows in my lifetime, and everything else they make is lukewarm garbage soup.
It boggles my mind that people pay for streaming when there are ample amounts of pirated sites that you can just stream from, you don't even have to download anything anymore.
If you know of safe pirating sites that have good bandwidth and uptime, that's great! But lots of consumers aren't willing to go through ones with quetsionable ads, or fight the need to new ones bimonthly as the streaming sites churn like a game of whackamole.
So if you've got that hookup and know where to find them, the convenience exists for you, its easy and useful. For someone wanting to get into it, it might not be so convenient.
The real answer here is regulation around advertising, as well as regulation around appropriate size of media companies.
Scale is not required anymore to launch streaming platforms - white label works fine - and for the most part these major services sell property rights back and forth anyway every few months to keep you subscribed.
It’s pure cartel / oligopoly behavior. Can’t imagine this gets better since Ellison owns HBO and Paramount services.
True, we still have Netflix, despite almost never using it, because "we might want to watch something". Frankly the main reason is because my in-laws also use the account and enjoys it.
The lesson I've learned, the same as I learned from Facebook, is "Never sign up to another service ever again". It's much easier to just never sign up than it is to convince the entire family that you should cancel something.
There's a contradiction in the "higher priced tier is ad-free" model which is that there are two kinds of people: (1) people who can't afford the ad-free tier who can't afford anything else and (2) people who could afford the ad-free tier who are worth advertising to.
It's been the reality of media business models for a long time, like those big thick magazines like Glamour charged a high subscription price to qualify subscribers as people who can buy what's advertised. It's also one of the many reasons why I have distaste for The New York Times -- it is packed with low quality ads that discredit the quality of their editorial content. They're so greedy that an expensive subscription isn't enough, but the expensive subscription, in itself, improves the viability of the advertising model.
This enshittification and degradation of language (“ad-free”) is not surprising — it’s the same path cable TV followed.
But I struggle to understand the economics of the streaming sites listed in the article. They receive an all-you-can-eat monthly payment but have to keep acquiring (including, it seems, making) new content. The linkage between the two is very loose (monthly vs daily) and most videos etc show up as new and then fade down the rankings. Seems like a pretty crappy business, and Netflix being independent, points towards that in its financial statements.
Also, the existence of this sentence in the article surprised me: “ It doesn’t help that Disney+ doesn’t make the kind of original content that wins at the Emmys.” Winning a major one can have a small boost on a film’s lifetime revenue, but overall the correlation between the two is weak. To paraphrase (ugh) Pournelle: Disney would rather have a lucrative film with no awards than a lauded film with no revenue.
When I was young, I pirated because I was broke. I could afford a DVD or I could afford to eat that week. Food usually won. Sometimes alcohol.
I got a decent job, and could afford to spend on things, but I still pirated because it was more convenient than going to a store I wouldn't ordinarily go to.
Then netflix started streaming movies/TV to the home and I stopped pirating basically instantly. Netflix was more convenient than pirating. Steam started getting good, so I stopped pirating games as well.
Then streaming service got balkanized. It wasn't enough to pay for Netflix anymore. I am expected to pay for literally half a dozen services, and when I do want to watch something, I would have to flip around between half of them before I find the right service to stream it from. And now they expect me to watch ads?
Fuck that. I still buy games on Steam and GoG because it's convenient. I pirate TV/movies because it's such a fucking pain in the dick to consume that media legally. I just can't be bothered when piracy is so much more convenient.
I think the best move is now to go back to watching TV: more broad access to channels, also has ads which are (to some degree) skippable. I do not get why streaming had to go full way to being worse than TV.
I don't know, if you want a cable tv package, where I live, that's even remotely good you're looking at $1250 a year. We have four streaming services and that's still cheaper and I then also have streaming music include.
You can buy pretty much any show you want to watch, without ad breaks, anytime you want on Apple TV store and Google Play store.
The only one that requires you to subscribe is Netflix, but it's also easy to cancel the subscription, so you can simply pay for 1 month as the price to watch a show.
The only reason I have Disney is because I have a young child and there are a couple of shows that they enjoy. We recently got rid of Netflix because there is literally nothing of interest to anyone in the household and the only reason we currently have Hulu is because of Jeopardy.
They keep seeking the price to where consumers are finally pushed to the limit and I think they are almost there, finally
Disney is primed up for some regulatory action and customer punishment.
Enough cancellations will trigger price raises to protect their quarter reports until the whole revenue model collapses, and they price themselves out of the streaming subscription business.
But will they? We've been trained to accept slop at every turn. Food tastes worse and we just accept it (society as a whole - not saying you or I personally). I'm sure Disney has competent product people watching over this. They'll A/B test their way into "maximum amount of ads they can show before losing a critical mass of users". They'll optimize. Folks will get used to that as "the new normal". Disney will adjust from time to time to show more ads as people allow.
I do agree though. It seems like pretty bad behavior to charge 20 dollars AND insisting on showering us with ads.
This was exactly the push I needed to cancel my subscription. We already own all the Disney DVDs that we actually love, and there hasn't been anything good released by Disney in ages.
I find it extremely repugnant how _everything_ gets treated like advertising surface area now. Its disrespectful to everyone and I feel like we're far past the point of diminishing returns.
Not only you'll be paying for low quality Disney slop, but you'll also be paying to be advertised to. I now think even less of people that keep paying for subscriptions like Disney+.
what do people with these subscriptions even watch? why can these services make any money at all when there's youtube and tiktok with infinite content for every niche interest in existence? what compels people to still consume mass produced slop?
I'm okay with paying but I really hate ads with a passion and especially for kids this is not okay. I was a customer of Disney and I guess I'll never be one again.
I have YouTube premium and it now shoves a "products" panel in my face that I have to swipe down before a video starts if the video references a product.
Meanwhile YouTube Morphe on Android gives you no ads at all and improves the app a lot.
I know that they are probably going to roll out remote attestation at some point, but I cancelled YouTube Premium the last time they did an insane price raise.
They were actually doing this already. When you bought the premium plan, they just lied and pretended their in-house ads weren't ads and served you those instead. You still didn't get to just watch the content you wanted.
I just want a company to tell me truly what it is worth to them from me to not show me ads. Maybe the cost is truly so much higher than I expect that I wouldn't pay it, but for fuck's sake give me the option! Is it $15/month extra instead of $5? $30/month extra? Somewhere, that line exists where the company would financially benefit, I just wish they'd actually define it.
When I was getting married, I engaged a baker to make pies for our wedding. Two weeks before the wedding they cancelled, saying very apologetically they had not catered many weddings with only pies and couldn't do it at the price they quoted. I had to practically beg them to just give me a price that was profitable for them (20% higher, in the end), and then let me decide. This feels just like that.
The problem is that such a line doesn’t exist, because they’re always looking for ways to increase profit for shareholders. On day X, they’ll be fine offering you an ad free sub, but on day X+Y there will be a meeting where they discuss what they can do to improve their revenue numbers and someone will suggest adding just a few ads to the ad-free tier.
This is why people go scorched earth with adblockers. There’s a lot of discussion about “good” ad networks being allowlisted, but they are all just one missed earnings report away from implementing dark patterns. None of them are trustworthy.
Yeah this is kind of monopoly power maybe - it’s not that they make $50/year extra from showing you ads, it’s that if the provide the option to skip ads it devalues their remaining advertising by $millions and so they need to force everyone to watch them.
If there was proper competition the log jam would get broken and it might be possible to just pay the incremental cost of what you viewing ads is worth.
It seems like there's no limit on that because you're more valuable to them as a potential product for their ad reselling business that whatever price you may bring not to be a product. I'm sure luxury companies would be interested to show you ad if the subscription was 2000$/month
This information is available in the annual reports of all these companies. It's the advertising revenue per user per year. For Meta it's like $100 a year for U.S. users.
It's not easy to calculate how much you are worth because it depends on so many factors. And it wouldn't be nice to charge you 10x more than what they charge someone else.
Corporatism is running rampant. It's almost a full-blown punishment model. Soon the entertainment platforms will be demanding a fee for NOT subscribing to their service.
No, it IS a full-blown punishment model. Remember, everyone else is bundling this garbage with their service, too, so the price raises Disney does is an excuse that forces everyone downstream that bundles to raise prices too.
I'm not even sure which Disney+ susbription I apparently am a part of at this point - my cable company provides it, my wireless provider provides it, hell, even shopping platforms are now shoving this crap into it as a 'perk'. I didn't want it in the first place but I'm forced to have it like a bundled set of cable channels I didn't want to subscribe to.
... dear God, it's just cable TV package cramming all over again just across every single service industry now.
From this point on, every year "physical media & a Jellyfin install" is going to be more sensible.
Assuming you even care about legality, of course.
Yeah, it's harder. But you can get a lot of "harder" things done in the amount of time you otherwise spend watching ads, after all. Because to me one of the worst things about ads is they're stealing dollars from me to make cents, if not fractions of a cent. This makes them on the dumb end of the bandit classification by the Basic Laws of Human Stupidity metric: https://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidi... It's so dumb.
And as long as we keep letting them give us an option to buy out the ads, but then they get to stick ads on that option anyhow, we can never get our way out of ads on these things. I don't mind buying them out because they make so little money anyhow but by simple game theory "buy out ads + put ads on anyhow" is always > "buy out ads". You need to cancel if they do this to you. I can't, because I don't have a Disney+ subscription. But you really need to. You need to turn the option into either "let us buy out the ads" or "lose the subscription" for them.
I canceled my Prime subscription precisely because they continued to keep mixing ad supported content with my ad free content. There were multiple shows where I unknowingly started watching something with ads where I immediately noped out at the first ad break and never watched that show again. I doubt they'll look at it, but it would be interesting to know how many users do the same thing.
I've already been pausing subscriptions left and right as my trends have been focusing on one platform's content that I'm not even using the others that I'm paying for that month. After dumping Prime, I eventually dumped Disney+/Hulu bundle for being the most expensive. I then got yet another notice from Netflix for increase rates which was already paused so I just went ahead and canceled it as well.
I wonder how much physical media I could acquire if I was to spend the same money that is not being spent on streaming platforms. I bet within a year, I could build up a pretty decent back catalog from used and $5 bins.
> From this point on, every year "physical media & a Jellyfin install" is going to be more sensible.
Which of course is why physical media will increasingly rarely be offered as an option going forward
Yup - my take is this is coming for absolutely everything. (it's already mostly here for tv).
Rent-seeking behavior is too good to give up, so companies will move all content to streaming only services (games, movies, tv, music, books, etc...) in the majority of cases.
Physical media will only be available at very high prices, for a very limited selection of content.
We will go from "doctrine of first sale" around content licensing to the utterly crippled "you own a temporary, non-transferrable, and ephemeral license to stream this content from us on exactly this service using only approved devices until we decide otherwise".
The moral action in this case is to simply stop paying. Period.
Long term - we should be fighting to enshrine a new flavor of "doctrine of first sale" for the digital age.
Ex - maybe purchasing any content license sold with the word "buy" should enshrine your right to use, transfer, sell, or otherwise consume in any reasonable form that content for the duration of the copyright + 7 years. And we will not enforce copyright for items that can't be bought (only rented).
I think we'll end up seeing legislation against the license version of all of this content. Instead, you'll get to own it and move it around as necessary. This hasn't been necessary yet, but if that becomes the only option, then ownership becomes a more important question.
Yarrr! The high seas are full of physical disks and have very few ads!
For now.
See SONY pulling out of the Blu-ray player market.
>"physical media & a Jellyfin install" is going to be more sensible.
Physical media is only cheaper if the user is ok with re-watching the same videos repeatedly. The higher cost of the DVD/Blu-ray discs can be amortized over multiple repeat viewings. (Good example is a 5-year old kid wanting to re-watch Frozen or Shrek cartoons again for the 100th time. A DVD player is cheaper than a Disney+ subscription in that scenario.)
Digital streaming subscriptions are cheaper if the user almost always prefers watching new shows instead of re-runs. That's the viewing habit of the vast majority of subscribers. Trying to only buy physical media to get a constant diet of new shows -- even buying the cheaper used discs from thrift stores -- will cost more than a subscription. Also, the physical discs are not immediately playable on an iPad/smartphone so requires extra hassle of ripping/transcoding that most normies don't want to do. Also, buying harddrives for the NAS server to store the rips isn't cheap either.
I'm all too aware of people preferring brand new shows because I've ripped several hundred DVDs to a stack of terabyte harddrives that nobody ever watches. Instead, they'd rather see what's new on Netflix, HBO Max, Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+ ...
EDIT to add an update of a previous comment about my friend's defiance against ads added to Amazon Prime Videos by borrowing DVDs from the public library. She lost that battle because she finished viewing all the DVDs available at her public library. She now endures ads on Amazon Videos. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42388626
She really tried to fight ads but couldn't sustain it. She deals with the ads by multitasking on an iPad when they come on.
> The higher cost of the DVD/Blu-ray discs can be amortized over multiple repeat viewings.
For now. Physical media is being phased out. Sony just quitted the blu-ray player business after others also did and Disney already stopped releasing new discs in Australia.
This is why we used to have blockbuster!
We still have public libraries. They usually have a pretty sizable collection
That sizable collection is often scratched so you watch half the movie and then it skips or fails completely. Just like what used to happen constantly with DVDs from Netflix.
Not in my experience. My library's DVDs and Blu-rays work great. I check one out every week or two.
I'd encourage anyone reading to go to your local library if you haven't been in a while. Check out a book. See if they have a makerspace. Do some remote work there. They're wonderful places. They become more and more important with every passing year.
Here you tell them that it was scratched/failed to play properly and it gets resurfaced or replaced (if still available from vendors).
In general library stuff is of relatively high quality and they have budgets for taking care of the collection.
The libraries near me have disc resurfacing machines. I've never had an issue playing a DVD or CD from the library.
I get most my physical media from the library. It really doesn’t get any cheaper than that.
A smaller portion comes from used bookstores. For TV series in particular it’s still very cost effective on a money per viewing hour basis. Especially for kids’ media because my kids do want to watch the same thing over and over.
I also do some à la carte rentals. Maybe 3-4 movies per year, so the total cost is low.
That said, you’re absolutely right, this only works for me because I don’t particularly care about new shoes and streaming exclusives. If you’re willing to take the view that media doesn’t need to be new to be good then we currently live in a post-scarcity society where video entertainment is concerned. Which isn’t to say that people who prefer new things are wrong, but I am genuinely impressed by the amount of enshittification that people will tolerate (maybe after some grumbling, but still) in the service of that preference.
>But you can get a lot of "harder" things done in the amount of time you otherwise spend watching ads
I suppose at some point you will have to have your device's camera on to confirm you really are interacting with the ads, but currently I can get stuff done during the ads by being in another window.
I have a feeling the next step will be media megacorps pressuring nations to create legislation to clamp down on software/hardware enabling anonymous Linux ISO downloads and the viewing of said Linux ISOs via Plex/Jellyfin.
It is amazing the number of variations of Linux distros that people are willing to try for such a short amount of time before switching to the next.
> every year "physical media & a Jellyfin install" is going to be more sensible.
Unless you just, you know, don't watch. Which is what I do. I ask myself, is it even worth all this hassle to watch this stuff? Is it that good? And for me, the answer is, no, it isn't. I can find better things to do with my time. So I do.
After spending all day looking at text on a screen, the last thing I want to do is spend time reading text in a book or eReader. I really enjoyed the part of my life where I was an avid reader. Yet another thing to regret about my choice in career.
With an LLM setting this up is nearly a one shot prompt now too.
Also, if you're willing to buy them out, they're going to rais the coat until you're no longer willing.
You can only win by unsubscribing.
The cost of hardware may be what kills my local Jellyfin install.
Physical media is being done away with, both discs and players.
Seems like streaming is the future we are going to be fed.
Aren't even the "high quality" 4k streams like 15GB/movie? So at $20/TB that's ~$0.30/movie at streaming quality? And you could still have probably better than DVD quality that people used to pay $20 for for like ~2GB, or $0.04.
A terabyte is no longer $20, unfortunately.
There's an 18 TB refurb from serverpartdeals right now. Or there are a bunch of smaller new ones in the $20s on Amazon. The analysis doesn't really change even if you're looking at e.g. $30/TB. Even going full 8 TB SSDs at $150/TB is still thrift store cost per movie when you amortize it ($2.25 at 15GB, or $0.30 at 2GB). Of course then as another comment here said, you're more likely to realize you don't actually want any of it.
Transcoding is always the bottleneck with these, right?
720p is good enough for me so... can we all just use that and give up on transcoding?
What cost?! I have jelly installed on an old optiplex I got for around $20, i7 16ram (it’s actually proxmox, that would be too much for jelly alone)
4TB HDD is now close to 200 Euros. What do you mean "what cost"?
Have you looked at storage prices recently?
Seriously I can’t even get my refurb enterprise drives for reasonable prices anymore. Used to pay like $150 for 14TB ultrastars now it’s like $300 for 12TB exos
It's ok to delete things.
Yes I am aware, it is why you don’t buy new, there are thousands of used computers out there that I made a side hustle out of buying them and reselling them after some cleaning and fixing, so many I found that’s beyond to list here, but for example I got asus zenbook 14 for $12 because it didn’t boot (which was just a loose connection inside), a macmini m1 for $50, and many other parts and finds. I even have a thinkpad with proxmox and run as a server, uptime now is more than a year.
It’s the storage prices that tend to give people sticker shock. Though for just being a media server you can get away with a spinning disc rather than an SSD. But they’re still kind of insane right now.
We can just move on as a society from Disney. It didn't exist in 1900, no reason for it to exist now. It doesn't deserve a permanent place in western culture.
What's popular with kids and toddlers that's not Disney right now?
Only possible if you are fine missing an arbitrary 1/3 of live sports events.
Believe it or not, some people live fulfilling lives without viewing any sporting events.
You can live without watching whatever the latest show is.
Believe it or not, some people live fulfilling lives without viewing any television.
You can live without watching whatever the latest show is.
I am fine missing all live sports events. I think many other people are as well.
Those people are already not paying for sports. That is a massive market, worth bikkuons and billions annually. People are not going to simply stop watching professional sports. Especially because historically that has always been very expensive
I’m sure they will let you buy ESPN separately.
My brother said that watching professional sport is watching other people live their dreams.
Don’t spend your time watching, spend your time making your own dreams come true.
There's probably something to be said for being inspired by people living their dreams. Like it was no doubt inspirational for many to watch Jordan living his dream of being a baseball player no matter what people expected of him.
That’s a bonus.
You're technically right, but, as always, convenience and passivity will prevail, Disney's move will be successful, and ads will keep spreading like a contagious disease. I can see the day coming where ads play on our retinal implants and even closing our eyes won't help against them anymore. Yes, in theory the masses could do what's necessary to stop enshittification, but in practice I would be very surprised if they actually did.
I've always been frustrated by the intense focus the modern economy has on advertising. If I am interested in a product, I would much rather discover it by searching. Having advertisements forced upon me at every turn is a massive waste of resources (time and attention) given only a fraction of a percent of the products have any relevance to my life. I block every form of advertising I can reasonably block. If a company raises the friction sufficiently, I'll find a way around it. I'm mostly an amoral participant in the economy. I pay for YouTube, Disney, etc. but if they make giving them money an unpleasant experience, I have no qualms employing a usenet subscription and *arr stack to dodge the whole thing.
Modern advertising is not meant for product discovery, but for the incumbents to make sure you associate "burger" with "McDonalds" at a subconscious level.
In that sense, isn't it "anti-discovery"?
The goal is to replace your "best hamburgers in X-city" search by just defaulting to McDonalds.
The goal of every capitalist is monopolization.
I am working hard to manage my mental model when shopping now to try and minimize this affect knowing it exists. In a sense I've realized my mentality toward the world is less of "what brands are good?" and more of "how is this company trying to fuck me over?" and then moving from that mentality forward.
So when I'm out shopping I see brands that I've found advertised. I see brands I've never heard of. I look at both. But what one is selling products that are fully accessible to me, fully owned by me? Which ones use online features that can/will eventually be stripped and put behind a a subscription model? What ones are using quality manufacturing materials? Which ones are using cheap plastics or vaneers? Which ones have local brick and mortar presence where I can take issues in person? For instance, there's a very heavy Costco effect to my shopping. I've bought products from brands I'm pretty iffy on because I know Costco is going to take that return with no fuss if I get it home and discover there's something about that product I find distasteful.
And I should say that I'm not a very big consumer. Trying to do this a lot, buying for a family (kids, spouse, etc.) could quickly become overwhelming. I know how exhausting it is to need to read labels every time you're buying food because how often they enshittify the recipe, adding thickeners or allergens that weren't there the last time you bought it.
It won't work for everyone but the answer really is the same thing its always been: Be a conscious consumer. Research what you want before you buy. Know what is worth spending extra on, and what is marketing nonsense. Find companies with positive reputation (but still be observant for how you can be fucked when they sell out next year), and try to support local.
I actively/mentally block products I see in ads now. For example, when I use Amazon's terrible search feature, I'll make a mental note of which listings are "sponsored" and make sure NOT to buy them. Ever, if possible.
When I see ads for things on YouTube, I automatically assume it's a scam... Because it almost always is!
Always puzzled me how much money can possibly be in trying to optimize sales by some low digit percentage points, versus how much is sacrificed for it.
The problem is that advertising works! I hate that it works!
Marketing and advertising aren't the same thing but I swear both sides of that coin have devolved via some process of carcinization where their claws emerge from the darkness everywhere people gather. Especially places where those claws are inappropriate and unwanted and yet it still works.
Yeah, people in our line of work tend to look down on it and don't understand it because we discover things more manually. But that's not the case with the vast majority of people. Advertising works and it works really, really well.
This is not an option for everyone, but as someone who gave up TV several years ago (not entirely, just mostly), not feeling the draw of these platforms or having to put up with their costs and changes is really nice.
TV is sort of like caffeine (another thing I gave up - though that one wasn't by choice, but required by my doctors) in that you cannot imagine yourself living without it and wouldn't want to. And the first few months of abstinence are genuinely very difficult.
But eventually it gets easier, and then it gets completely easy, and then you actually feel as good or better than before. And once you finally become accustomed to it, you can't imagine going back to the old way.
Another benefit is you don’t have a permanent black hole on the wall. You no longer have to force the room layout to focus on that space.
I recently realised that since giving up TV back in 2003, YouTube kind of became my TV.
I still watch YT Shorts about series and news. That is pretty much TV.
After setting up a nas + sonarr setup, it's amazing how much my tv usage went down, simply due to having to actually choose what to view before it appears on my tv.
And it's also apparent how little content is currently worth a conscious watch. Every year or so I make a quick check for what great things appeared in the period, and not much has popped up.
It's always the feeds themselves that get you.
I haven't had a functional TV in my home for over 5 years now. I will sometimes watch shows on my laptop but that's about it.
In place of a TV I have a high res audio transport and speakers that are used for music. Spotify isn't exactly a saint but it would be challenging for them to do what Disney is doing without losing all their customers.
Try Qobuz. We switched off Spotify over a year ago and it's been better in every way.
I try Qobuz out every year but my dumb niche music tastes aren't as available there.I hope they continue to grow because I love the idea of leaving Spotify.
Deezer is a great alternative.
It’s called “the idiot box” in Australia for a reason.
...what ? TV was always ass, imagine WAITING for show to start and planning your day around it just to get ads every 15 minutes.
I feel back in the day you still saw ads that were kind of creative and there was a certain glamour around being the one brand with the best ads.
Current ones are outright unpleasant, the "make the viewer feel bad about something" kind or directly spam folder level of scammy. Nobody takes pride anymore on their advertising.
This is what happens when you don't have consumer rights protection.
E.g. Paid for ad-free OTT viewing but commercials ‘appeared after a month’, man wins Rs 9,500 ( https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/paid-ad-free-ot... ):
> Calling it a deficiency in service, the Hyderabad consumer commission ordered an OTT platform to refund Rs 1,499 and pay compensation to a subscriber after it introduced advertisements midway into his paid ad-free subscription.
Well, if you want the root cause: this is what happens when your society is predicated on perpetual growth. Everything would collapse if we just left good things alone, so instead we’re stuck either innovating and creating new good things or squeezing the juice out of what already exists.
This has nothing with perpetual growth and everything with training your population to defend these practices with "oh, they're just companies, don't use it if you don't like it!" instead of fighting back.
Vigilante justice, you say? Now you are talking!! We certainly are not going to see things get better on their own, and the government definitely isn’t going to take the side of consumers.
I'm not sure consumer rights protections would deliver better experiences.
Government is predictably slow, inefficient, and does just about everything at a service level that is only accepted because there is no other choice.
We are seeing an increasingly exaggerated cycle that goes like this: 1. Innovation takes huge investment to launch 2. Early adopters enjoy amazing new product(s) while companies bear losses 3. Companies eventually must face debt so quality of products decrease and price increases
OpenAI and Anthropic have perhaps set the record for going from 1 to 2 in the biggest (financially) and fastest manner ever, and we are all hurtling towards step 3 with a possible too-big-to-fail scenario.
Back to Disney Plus: I don't have a sagely answer. Free markets do sometimes need government to curb monopoly power, and Disney is certainly has a sort of monopolistic power due to their huge portfolio of franchises and content.
Government is predictably slow, inefficient, and does just about everything at a service level that is only accepted because there is no other choice.
--------
Generally true but there have been a lot of examples demonstrating the opposite.
The NPS (and Reacreation.gov) does an amazing job considering their resource level, NASA arguably delivered innovation at an unprecedented scale for decades, and up until it was purposefully fucked with the US Postal Service offered a fantastic dependable, affordable and pretty innovative product. The Hold Mail is simple and elegant as just one minor example.
What I want is a streaming service that operates as a consumer cooperative.
Subscribers vote, elect a slate of directors who each get a fraction of the content-budget to spend as per their campaign promises. Licensing content, buying it in perpetuity, producing it themselves or funding some group of creators -- none of this "how can we milk customers more", and no more fruitless community campaigns to save a beloved series, you just need some critical mass of subscribers to vote for the guy whose platform is "I will keep making more seasons as fast as possible until the sun boils the ocean".
isn't this essentially a state broadcaster? You might get one decent show but the committee and bike shedding mostly gives you terrible niche programming that's unsustainable without massive subsidies - and most still show adverts.
I'm trying to understand what this actually means. Here's Disney's page on the matter[0].
I understand that sports will tend to have ads displayed in the stadium and so on, and that some show may feature characters drinking Pepsi rather than Coke because of an agreement. And I guess movies may have trailers. Is that the extent of it? If I get what feels like an obvious "ad" then we'll probably be canceling, but I guess I'm okay with those things that I mentioned.
[0] https://help.disneyplus.com/article/disneyplus-ads
It really does amaze me how much people are willing to put up with from streaming apps.
Like I get it if your kid wants to watch Disney shows and it buys you some peace and quiet. Otherwise, it's a firehose of content, everything's ultimately just a part of a franchise structure that's built more as a business plan than a piece of art, and there's no way to consume it all.
In the end, it all leads to advertising. This is just the basic business model in the US/World right now. Get enough eyeballs on your product, whether it's TV, social media, AI, the ditch on the side of the highway; then monetize it with ads. I don't understand why at this point anyone is surprised that a company like Disney would put ads every possible place, even their highest tier of streaming.
"But I specifically chose the highest option so I wouldn't see ads!" well, now you have the option to pay the highest tier to see less ads. For now. By paying for the highest tier, Disney knows you are a higher quality consumer with the most disposable income of all the users on that platform; that's exactly the users Disney can charge the most for advertising spend. From an exec's standpoint, why wouldn't you? sure, they'll lose some paying customers, but will probably make more in the short term at least, which is all that matters.
Why doesnt disney just play their own ads? I think its because most of the companies paying to advertise never recover their money, and their sales attribution is so bad they can't even tell they are wasting money.
It's unclear why you're arguing for this. We already know about the downsides of low-regulation capitalism. They're still downsides, and we may reasonably continue to talk about them as such.
There's a whole genre of comment like this where the implication is that if some effect is either predictable or inevitable by the nature of large in-place systems, then individuals are somehow not allowed to criticize the people choosing to enact the effects.
We all have free will. Just because you can legally make money being annoying or otherwise shitty, and if you didn't do it then somebody else would, that carries absolutely no implication that nobody is allowed to judge you for making that choice.
In theory you’re right it’s an often repeated talking point but I just don’t understand why am I worth advertising to but not worth creating products for? The products I see advertised are either stupid or so overpriced that it means buying them is stupid.
I am entirely willing to spend money and I have decent savings. I just expect the products put on offer to be worth buying.
The language in the EU or UK agreement must be a lot different than the US agreement. When this was announced last month, I never saw the new subscriber agreement and have not seen ads outside of live TV. Our subscriber agreement was updated yesterday, and says:
---
k. Service Tiers With or Without Ads. We offer different Service Tiers, some with advertisements and some predominantly without. Service Tiers described as "no ads" or "ad-free" are generally free of commercial interruptions, with certain exceptions that may change from time to time, including where: (i) streaming rights or other limitations require certain Content to play with ads; or (ii) ads are served in certain live or linear Content or special events (and replays thereof). Additionally, "no ads" or "ad-free" Service Tiers may contain limited promotional content, such as brief clips about the Bundles (including messages promoting an upgrade thereto) and other content available on any services associated with the Bundles, and branded content, product integrations, or sponsorship messaging.
Please note that if you subscribe to multiple (or a bundle of) Service Tiers, Content from any ad-supported Service Tier will play with ads, while Content from any "no ads" or "ad-free" Service Tier will not (except as described above).
---
So it's not quite as awful as what's reported here. This article is a month old and I haven't seen what it says was going to happen.
I’ll cancel the moment I see the first ad. I’m likely not alone, but under no illusion that there are a lot of people like me, either.
I remember when I had Amazon Prime ad-free tier. Then they added ads to the ad-free tier, and then I found out to get what I was already paying for, they now want $36 more per year. I mean, that's just blatant bait and switch.
It's some criminal gangster saying "hey that's a nice free ad-tier, shame if something happened to it. Listen, you pay me $36/year for protection, and all this goes away. Capice?"
Remember when the appeal was that streaming was cheaper than cable? So, yeah. Shareholders were not going to just take that lying down when they know what can squeeze their consumers far harder than they anticipated.
Plus, they are now removing movies that you have "bought" or "purchased" while offering NO refunds.
"If buying isn't owning, pirating isn't stealing" -Cory Doctorow
That seems like revisionist history. Amazon started out with Prime Video bundled with Prime as a whole, and didn't raise the price. After 5-6 years they made it an add-on, then they added an ad-supported tier.
But if anything, the racket is bundling free shipping with ad-free video and everything else. Raising prices periodically to keep up with inflation is not a racket. And whether you would prefer to get downgraded to the advertising plan or automatically pay more is a personal choice, and automatically downgrading you rather than renewing you at a higher price is in some ways a more sensible default. (Though I'd prefer to be upgraded to the higher price generally and be notified so I have the option to downgrade or cancel, though downgrade really isn't an option I would consider.)
Andor really was an outlier, wasn't it? It's up there with the Sopranos and the Wire as one of the best TV shows in my lifetime, and everything else they make is lukewarm garbage soup.
Truth. And a shame. True piece of art. Doesn’t deserve to be locked down like it is.
It boggles my mind that people pay for streaming when there are ample amounts of pirated sites that you can just stream from, you don't even have to download anything anymore.
Convenience is always going to be the answer.
If you know of safe pirating sites that have good bandwidth and uptime, that's great! But lots of consumers aren't willing to go through ones with quetsionable ads, or fight the need to new ones bimonthly as the streaming sites churn like a game of whackamole.
So if you've got that hookup and know where to find them, the convenience exists for you, its easy and useful. For someone wanting to get into it, it might not be so convenient.
The real answer here is regulation around advertising, as well as regulation around appropriate size of media companies.
Scale is not required anymore to launch streaming platforms - white label works fine - and for the most part these major services sell property rights back and forth anyway every few months to keep you subscribed.
It’s pure cartel / oligopoly behavior. Can’t imagine this gets better since Ellison owns HBO and Paramount services.
Netflix has done a good job demonstrating customers will complain but won't cancel, so not super surprised by this.
True, we still have Netflix, despite almost never using it, because "we might want to watch something". Frankly the main reason is because my in-laws also use the account and enjoys it.
The lesson I've learned, the same as I learned from Facebook, is "Never sign up to another service ever again". It's much easier to just never sign up than it is to convince the entire family that you should cancel something.
Have you seen their stock lately. They will get the message it is just a bit delayed.
There's a contradiction in the "higher priced tier is ad-free" model which is that there are two kinds of people: (1) people who can't afford the ad-free tier who can't afford anything else and (2) people who could afford the ad-free tier who are worth advertising to.
It's been the reality of media business models for a long time, like those big thick magazines like Glamour charged a high subscription price to qualify subscribers as people who can buy what's advertised. It's also one of the many reasons why I have distaste for The New York Times -- it is packed with low quality ads that discredit the quality of their editorial content. They're so greedy that an expensive subscription isn't enough, but the expensive subscription, in itself, improves the viability of the advertising model.
This enshittification and degradation of language (“ad-free”) is not surprising — it’s the same path cable TV followed.
But I struggle to understand the economics of the streaming sites listed in the article. They receive an all-you-can-eat monthly payment but have to keep acquiring (including, it seems, making) new content. The linkage between the two is very loose (monthly vs daily) and most videos etc show up as new and then fade down the rankings. Seems like a pretty crappy business, and Netflix being independent, points towards that in its financial statements.
Also, the existence of this sentence in the article surprised me: “ It doesn’t help that Disney+ doesn’t make the kind of original content that wins at the Emmys.” Winning a major one can have a small boost on a film’s lifetime revenue, but overall the correlation between the two is weak. To paraphrase (ugh) Pournelle: Disney would rather have a lucrative film with no awards than a lauded film with no revenue.
The world is so dumb.
When I was young, I pirated because I was broke. I could afford a DVD or I could afford to eat that week. Food usually won. Sometimes alcohol.
I got a decent job, and could afford to spend on things, but I still pirated because it was more convenient than going to a store I wouldn't ordinarily go to.
Then netflix started streaming movies/TV to the home and I stopped pirating basically instantly. Netflix was more convenient than pirating. Steam started getting good, so I stopped pirating games as well.
Then streaming service got balkanized. It wasn't enough to pay for Netflix anymore. I am expected to pay for literally half a dozen services, and when I do want to watch something, I would have to flip around between half of them before I find the right service to stream it from. And now they expect me to watch ads?
Fuck that. I still buy games on Steam and GoG because it's convenient. I pirate TV/movies because it's such a fucking pain in the dick to consume that media legally. I just can't be bothered when piracy is so much more convenient.
I think the best move is now to go back to watching TV: more broad access to channels, also has ads which are (to some degree) skippable. I do not get why streaming had to go full way to being worse than TV.
I don't know, if you want a cable tv package, where I live, that's even remotely good you're looking at $1250 a year. We have four streaming services and that's still cheaper and I then also have streaming music include.
You can buy pretty much any show you want to watch, without ad breaks, anytime you want on Apple TV store and Google Play store.
The only one that requires you to subscribe is Netflix, but it's also easy to cancel the subscription, so you can simply pay for 1 month as the price to watch a show.
The only reason I have Disney is because I have a young child and there are a couple of shows that they enjoy. We recently got rid of Netflix because there is literally nothing of interest to anyone in the household and the only reason we currently have Hulu is because of Jeopardy.
They keep seeking the price to where consumers are finally pushed to the limit and I think they are almost there, finally
downloaded the old warner cartoons and cut the cord.
Disney is primed up for some regulatory action and customer punishment.
Enough cancellations will trigger price raises to protect their quarter reports until the whole revenue model collapses, and they price themselves out of the streaming subscription business.
I am not an MBA, but it made sense to me.
Given how good illegal alternatives like Stremio are this seems like a very dangerous game to play.
You can squeeze customers quite a bit but once they go back to pirating it's incredible hard to get them to subscribe again.
Maybe people will eventually catch on? All services will eventually be modified to make things worse for you. Always, 100% of the time.
Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of RAM.
Thats a weird way for Disney+ to go under.
But will they? We've been trained to accept slop at every turn. Food tastes worse and we just accept it (society as a whole - not saying you or I personally). I'm sure Disney has competent product people watching over this. They'll A/B test their way into "maximum amount of ads they can show before losing a critical mass of users". They'll optimize. Folks will get used to that as "the new normal". Disney will adjust from time to time to show more ads as people allow.
I do agree though. It seems like pretty bad behavior to charge 20 dollars AND insisting on showering us with ads.
Thank you Disney!
This was exactly the push I needed to cancel my subscription. We already own all the Disney DVDs that we actually love, and there hasn't been anything good released by Disney in ages.
I find it extremely repugnant how _everything_ gets treated like advertising surface area now. Its disrespectful to everyone and I feel like we're far past the point of diminishing returns.
How else can we possibly make stock market number go up quarter after quarter?
Not only you'll be paying for low quality Disney slop, but you'll also be paying to be advertised to. I now think even less of people that keep paying for subscriptions like Disney+.
there is nothing stopping anyone from canceling. They make an offer, you are free to refuse it
Disney is a monopoly. That's the problem with the offer.
what do people with these subscriptions even watch? why can these services make any money at all when there's youtube and tiktok with infinite content for every niche interest in existence? what compels people to still consume mass produced slop?
They choose piracy, then. Ok!
I'm okay with paying but I really hate ads with a passion and especially for kids this is not okay. I was a customer of Disney and I guess I'll never be one again.
What alternatives exists for kids? Youtube?
Story from September OP;
Lots of discussion then:
Disney+: New user agreement allows ads before movies in all subscriptions
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49784336
Disney+ and Hulu raise prices by up to 13 percent after doubling profits
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49831774
I have YouTube premium and it now shoves a "products" panel in my face that I have to swipe down before a video starts if the video references a product.
The enshittification knows no bounds.
Meanwhile YouTube Morphe on Android gives you no ads at all and improves the app a lot.
I know that they are probably going to roll out remote attestation at some point, but I cancelled YouTube Premium the last time they did an insane price raise.
(September 19, 2026)?
I set up a server with the radarr/sonarr/requestrr/jellyfin suite and haven't looked back. basically only pay for YouTube premium at the moment.
They were actually doing this already. When you bought the premium plan, they just lied and pretended their in-house ads weren't ads and served you those instead. You still didn't get to just watch the content you wanted.
The US executive branch should look into Disney for their part in bringing back piracy.
mumble mumble usenet mumble mumble
Fund the amazing things they respectfully do to your favourite franchises!
I just want a company to tell me truly what it is worth to them from me to not show me ads. Maybe the cost is truly so much higher than I expect that I wouldn't pay it, but for fuck's sake give me the option! Is it $15/month extra instead of $5? $30/month extra? Somewhere, that line exists where the company would financially benefit, I just wish they'd actually define it.
When I was getting married, I engaged a baker to make pies for our wedding. Two weeks before the wedding they cancelled, saying very apologetically they had not catered many weddings with only pies and couldn't do it at the price they quoted. I had to practically beg them to just give me a price that was profitable for them (20% higher, in the end), and then let me decide. This feels just like that.
> Somewhere, that line exists where the company would financially benefit, I just wish they'd actually define it.
The line doesn't exists. It's most profitable for the company to repeatedly:
1. Have an ad-supported tier and a no-ads tier
2. Wait for most people to move to the no-ads tier
3. Introduce ads into the no-ads tier
4. Wait for people to get sick of ads
5. Introduce a new, higher cost no ads tier
There is no threshold where it's more profitable for the company to never introduce ads at that price point.
The problem is that such a line doesn’t exist, because they’re always looking for ways to increase profit for shareholders. On day X, they’ll be fine offering you an ad free sub, but on day X+Y there will be a meeting where they discuss what they can do to improve their revenue numbers and someone will suggest adding just a few ads to the ad-free tier.
This is why people go scorched earth with adblockers. There’s a lot of discussion about “good” ad networks being allowlisted, but they are all just one missed earnings report away from implementing dark patterns. None of them are trustworthy.
If you would pay to remove ads you are more valuable, so they can charge more, in a never ending spiral.
Yeah this is kind of monopoly power maybe - it’s not that they make $50/year extra from showing you ads, it’s that if the provide the option to skip ads it devalues their remaining advertising by $millions and so they need to force everyone to watch them.
If there was proper competition the log jam would get broken and it might be possible to just pay the incremental cost of what you viewing ads is worth.
It seems like there's no limit on that because you're more valuable to them as a potential product for their ad reselling business that whatever price you may bring not to be a product. I'm sure luxury companies would be interested to show you ad if the subscription was 2000$/month
This information is available in the annual reports of all these companies. It's the advertising revenue per user per year. For Meta it's like $100 a year for U.S. users.
It's not easy to calculate how much you are worth because it depends on so many factors. And it wouldn't be nice to charge you 10x more than what they charge someone else.
The answer is that you're such a small minority that they'd rather not have you as a customer than maintain another pricing tier and logic fork.
can anyone else see the AI-writing in this article? It's so unpleasant...
back to the pirate bay
where are all the "just because they put it in their terms doesn't mean they'll do it everywhere" people from the original story
Corporatism is running rampant. It's almost a full-blown punishment model. Soon the entertainment platforms will be demanding a fee for NOT subscribing to their service.
Old onion headline:
"'Unmissable TV' to be enforced by law"
The BBC tax is the kind of thing you get if government and corporate media get really friendly.
No, it IS a full-blown punishment model. Remember, everyone else is bundling this garbage with their service, too, so the price raises Disney does is an excuse that forces everyone downstream that bundles to raise prices too.
I'm not even sure which Disney+ susbription I apparently am a part of at this point - my cable company provides it, my wireless provider provides it, hell, even shopping platforms are now shoving this crap into it as a 'perk'. I didn't want it in the first place but I'm forced to have it like a bundled set of cable channels I didn't want to subscribe to.
... dear God, it's just cable TV package cramming all over again just across every single service industry now.