They might make less money with one super subscription than two separate ones.

pragma_x 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Everything about these big moves in the streaming space is basically to re-create the "good old days" of cable subscriptions and pay-per-view.

I think we can expect HBO streaming to continue as a premium subscription for movies and high-production-value shows. That would let everything else to land on Netflix with no conflict.

	▲	observationist 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Pirate everything.

▲

athrowaway3z 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can imagine an internal analysis that says:

Move show X, Y, and Z from Netflix to HBO Max because those profiles are likely to add the second subscription.

---

Piracy seems like the only thing that keeps prices/practices in check.

	▲	aerostable_slug 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I wonder how much piracy really impacts their pricing strategy? I honestly don't know.

▲

alistairSH 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, I can easily see something like 2 separate at $20/month vs 1 super at $35/month (make-believe figures).

Assuming all WB and Netflix customers move to the super platform, that's a loss for Netflix (assuming the super platform doesn't significantly reduce their costs).

And the $35 might be more than some set of current Netflix subscribers want to pay, so they drop the service, so an even bigger potential loss.

Certainly, I have no desire to subsidize sports fans via a higher Netflix super package.

▲

philistine 4 hours ago | parent [-]

We're reinventing cable!

▲

ghaff 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The irony is that a lot of people complained loudly about the cable bundle then complained loudly about streaming service fragmentation even when it at least offered a choice to cut their monthly bill.

▲

alistairSH 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There was a brief happy period where you could ditch cable ($100/month or whatever), subscribe to ~2-3 streaming services (~2-3x $20/month), save a decent amount and still have a good selection of content. And bonus, you didn't have any ads.

Then the fragmentation got worse, as all the legacy media companies rolled out their own platforms, and it suddenly became ~5x$20/month to get the same content. And ads got added back into the mix, even after subscription fees.

These days, I actively switch platforms every few months. It's a bit annoying, but beats the old cable days.

My biggest complaint today is the fragmentation across some sports. Take pro cycling (TDf, etc) - it's split across 3-4 platforms in the US. So, I need to get FloSports, Peacock, and a few others. I wish I could either get individual events OR a bundle that included everything. Oh well, I'll pay for a few and pirate the Sky or continental feeds for the rest.

▲

Larrikin 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When Netflix started losing shows did they lower their price to allow users to sign up for competing services? The price just went up for everyone in reality.

	▲	ghaff 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No but there's very little I deeply care about watching, including live TV. I definitely pay less for video content than I was paying 5 years or so ago. Netflix has been on my bubble for a while. We'll see what happens with this news. And I already have Amazon Prime and Apple TV+ through other bundles I have for other reasons. We'll see.

▲

MangoToupe 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t see how this is ironic at all. Doesn’t this just make sense that people are complaining about the same business model? Or are you saying people should be more grateful we don’t have to watch ads anymore?

▲

butlike 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yup. All of them combined would probably be ~$100-120/mo. which is, lo and behold, the price of a cable package

	▲	parineum an hour ago \| parent [-]
		With inflation, it's much cheaper. Still, the real issue is one that both cable and streaming services don't solve. People don't want to pay for what they don't watch. Both streaming and cable have the price of everything they own and produce built into the price. When you subscribe to either, you're subsidizing a bunch of stuff you don't care about. People don't want to pay $20 a month to watch stranger things in oreer to subsidize a bunch of stuff they don't watch. It was the same with cable. Netflix is just one giant cable bundle, it always has been.

▲

buildbuildbuild 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Cable failed at millennial+ user experience.

Many on-demand viewing experiences still play ads through atrocious “cable box apps.”

Entrenched cable bureaucracy disrupted by app culture. For the better.

Netflix also will some day be disrupted, as the wheel turns.

▲

MangoToupe 3 hours ago | parent [-]

We deserve to divorce the content from the service. Can you even purchase Netflix content?

I’ve just gone cold turkey from watching any streaming tv or movies until the situation improves. Blu Ray works better than ever.

	▲	ghaff 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm regularly a bit surprised at how many people don't even consider purchasing a la carte content or Blu Rays. For films it's often a pretty reasonable option for occasional viewing.