Comment by jfruh | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jfruh | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I agree that "a TV that gets ABC but not CBS" sounds ludicrous. But look at it another way. Isn't one of the longtime geek rallying cries about cable "I just want to pay for the channels I want, not the whole bundle?"

Plus, with the gradual move to an on-demand model for entertainment, it strikes me that "channels" as we know them (where something specific is on at any given time and you don't control that) will become meaningless. Why shouldn't we be buying content direct from the creators (or from the company that funded its creation, more accurately) rather than worry about what "channel" it's on? It seems weird to think about paying Disney directly for Disney content but that's only because we're used to paying for channels. Maybe in the future we'll have choices to buy either unlimited streaming or individual shows from the companies that make them -- and your monthly bill, taking inflation into account, will probably be roughly what you'd pay for cable today. (What, you didn't think things would get cheaper, did you?)

Why shouldn't we be buying content direct from the creators (or from the company that funded its creation, more accurately) rather than worry about what "channel" it's on? It seems weird to think about paying Disney directly for Disney content but that's only because we're used to paying for channels.

I prefer buying hand blenders from Amazon, instead of from Braun, because when it comes to the online shopping experience, price, delivery and customer service, Braun will not come near Amazon's quality in a hundred years.

As content creation is further accelerated, aggregators will have a more and more important role. The internet is creating more specialisation in commerce overall, not reducing it.

"I prefer buying hand blenders from Amazon, instead of from Braun, because when it comes to the online shopping experience, price, delivery and customer service, Braun will not come near Amazon's quality in a hundred years."

That is exactly what I was trying to get at, only your explanation actually successfully conveys the idea. Thanks.

The only problem with this is that paying for channels isn't quite analogous to paying for streaming access. Felix Salmon points to the obvious difference in reasonable pricing models: a stream aggregator could charge a flat fee but pay variable fees to its content providers.

In this case, you're simply paying up front for the service, guaranteeing the revenue of the aggregator, who then buys your content a la carte.

I just want to buy channels from a few primary vendors, not individually evaluate pricing, delivery, terms and conditions from multiple vendors. There's a cost for carrying more vendors - look at complex manufacturing operations that tend to try and reduce supplier counts to manage. On a personal basis, the more individual billing accounts I have to juggle, the less time I have to do things I actually care about.

The vendors should care about transaction models, because if I'm evaluating the price of each item individually be it per show or per channel, I'm likely to spend less on content overall vs a ongoing account.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com