Hacker News Reader

Comment by larrik | Hacker News Reader

Personally, I don't normally need any channels, I need shows. Frankly, if I didn't catch it with the DVR, then On-Demand is crap because of the "you can't fast forward!" crap. Then you pause it too long and can't fast forward at all to get back to where you were, all because of ads.

View on HN

For me, Apple's Season Pass was definitely the best model for TV show viewing. You'd think it would be win-win:

- a win for consumers because they only pay for the shows they want to watch

- a win for producers because they get a lot more dollars per viewer than they get now

But of course, that model has been a massive failure. Consumers panned it because it seemed expensive, and of course there are many networks/shows that aren't there. Maybe the networks would have come if the model was successful, but I doubt that Netflix would ever have...

Couching the discussion as a la carte channels instead of a la carte shows is some kind of jedi mind trick by studio execs.

Apple Season Pass should be like $3/season, not $5/episode.

Edit: Netflix didn't negotiate certain seasons or episodes of Breaking Bad, nor did it negotiate all of AMC's content. Netflix negotiated rights to specific shows.

$35 per show per season seems very fair to me. I currently pay about $100 per month for cable, Netflix and HBO. We watch far fewer than 36 shows so we're currently paying more than $35 per.

I 100% agree. IMO this is the same problem I see on YouTube. A channel becomes popular (and in some cases partly funded by YouTube itself) and adds new shows to their channel. This makes it harder to find the content I want and less likely to watch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com