You are not forced to buy their product, or to buy into their schedule.

You can only vote with your feet if you can step somewhere else. We are watching locations for your feet to go shrink in real time.

▲

Jtsummers 20 hours ago | parent [-]

You don't need the streaming service though, you can just do without or find other methods of obtaining their content. It's not like food, electricity, or water where you may have no actual options or very limited options. Movies and shows are wants, not needs, and people can walk away and fill the time some other way.

▲

teeray 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Saying everyone should just quit streaming and go touch grass or read a book is not a productive recommendation. It's been tried for decades and fails because people really like TV and Movies. Given that, the discussion here needs to start from the assumption that people will continue to watch TV and movies and suffer meaningful quality of life impacts when they do not.

	▲	19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

almosthere 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Once Netflix buys all of these companies, you won't ever be able to watch a WB movie without a $25 netflix sub per month. (and yeah, when they are done buying all the competition that's what the monthly will be.

▲

Jtsummers 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Once Netflix buys all of these companies, you won't ever be able to watch a WB movie without a $25 netflix sub per month. (and yeah, when they are done buying all the competition that's what the monthly will be.

That's kind of a silly argument. "People are better off paying $100+/month for 4+ streaming services than $25/month for one that has everything."

If your argument were that you'd have to pay more than the current combined cost, it'd be a better argument against mergers. Arguing against something because it's a better deal is just strange.

▲

WorldMaker 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not that silly of an argument when you factor in Blu-Ray as the other side of "won't be able to watch a WB movie without". Right now the only Netflix "Exclusives" you can find on Blu-Ray are the ones they source from Sony, Warner Brothers, or Paramount. If they own Warner Brothers one of those Blu-Ray sources goes away.

Instead of a one-time Blu-Ray purchase for ~$25 for a movie to watch as many times as you'd like, it's an ongoing subscription for $25/month. If you only want to watch that one movie in two different calendar months, you've easily doubled your spend.

(Yes, it is still apples-to-oranges because you may watch more than one movie in a month, but the flipside is that the $25/month is a variable catalog fee. The movie you want to watch may be "vaulted" that second month you want to go watch it. With Blu-Ray you control your film catalog, with Netflix some finance team does.)

(Also, yes, easy to forget Blu-Ray in this debate because Blu-Ray is dying/dead, especially in physical retail with Target and Best Buy dropping its sections. You can also substitute a lot of the same arguments here with arguments for Movies Anywhere and/or iTunes Store.)

▲

almosthere 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

thats not how most people do streaming, they consume everything on netflix - when the content gets stale, they cancel, move to P+, consume for a few months, stale, d+, stale, A+, etc.... 1 at a time

	▲	Jtsummers 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's what some people do, the average household (per polling) has 4+ video service subscriptions.

▲

sylens 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So essentially less than the cost of two tickets to see a movie in theaters today. The horror.

	▲	stackedinserter 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Subscriptions add up + you will see ads and have to pay for "premium" content.

▲

indigodaddy 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It will be $50 soon enough if this goes through