No. I believe Android TV will aggregate these things, and Roku may have some solutions as well. I’ll be getting a Roku-enabled TV in the next month or so, and everything I’m reading is saying that Roku-integrated smart TVs are one of the more user-friendly UIs out there, and pretty customizeable.
Looking at this article, that first screen shot of the Roku TV is the same as the default interface on standalone roku devices. And yeah, the interface is somewhat customizable. But you can’t play any media with the interface; you have to load an app (Netflix, Hulu, etc…) and run content from inside the app.
The “killer app” feature for the Roku interface is it lets you search for a title among all streaming services, even showing the ones you don’t subscribe to and how much it would cost if it’s a pay-per-view deal. A truly great feature.
But to play content you have to run that content provider’s app, and then choose content from within the app. There is no unified media player.
Essentially, while I’m watching any show or movie on any streaming service, I want one single button sequence to toggle close captioning, and for tv shows, getting to the episode list. Those two things are radically different on all four I’ve tried so far: Prime, Netflix, Hulu, CBS All Access. And I do those things all the time.
I"m not sure which streaming service is best for 70s tv shows, but I believe hulu bought a bunch of 80s and 90s tv shows in the last year or so.
I probably should know what this refers to- but I don’t. Help me out.
Yeah, that’d be the next great leap. But each provider wants you in their own ecosystem, being exposed to all of the content they have and have created. I* think* Android TV does this, but it’s been a while since I’ve looked at it, and I seem to remember it losing support/interest from Google.
With enough effort, I’m sure you could brute-force a Harmony remote to do all that.
Probably true, but it would be annoying to have to change something on the remote when switching to a different app, or more likely, having to use different macros to do the same feature in different apps.
When I got the roku I decided to get a universal remote, but I wanted it to fully replace the cable remote I’ve been using forever. I considered the harmony 665 but the button layout was too radically different. Amazingly, I found a universal with almost the exact button layout as my cable remote, so that was perfect for me.
Here’s an image: My old cable remote on the left, my universal in the middle, the harmony 665 on the right. The universal I went with is cheap (<$20) but crappy; I’ve had to replace it twice. And it’s a hassle (and finicky!) to program. But it controls my tv, cable, roku, blu-ray player, HDMI switcher, and even an ancient DVD/VCR combo unit I should just throw away.
The linked image isn’t great quality, but the only difference between my cable and universal remotes is that the A, B, C(, D) buttons swap places with the Menu, Guide, Info, Exit buttons, above and below the menu navigation arrows. Other than that it’s virtually identical.
The major music labels gave up a lot of power and control when they began to put their music on iTunes in 2003. Apple was able to out-negotiate them on price, promotions, advertising, etc. and once that easy one-stop-shop method proved so popular with customers, the music pretty much just became a commodity whether you were buying from Apple, Amazon or some other online music store. There was very little room for them to maneuver a better position for themselves.
From that history (as well as seeing Netflix basically build a rival studio on the backs of their content) the film and TV studios learned the lesson that it is better to go it alone, keep control of their own content and be able to price it however they want.
Granted, it’s a much different digital landscape now than in 2003, but handing over the keys to the kingdom is a mistake no one will make again for a long time. And unfortunately, that means a fragmented market, higher prices and worse experience for consumers.
Paramount does not own CBS. Paramount is owned by Viacom, which is set to (re)merge with CBS, so CBS will own Paramount.
I hear some have been doing that, especially with shows like Star Trek: Discovery. I’m not sure if companies like that, though, because they prefer long-term subscription that allows for a steady stream of revenues.
I’m sure they don’t, but what are they going to do about it?
They could require a minimum contract to sign up.
The first one to require a year long commitment will stop getting any new subscribers.
They’d have to have some really compelling content to make it worthwhile. Maybe Disney could do it, but not some random service. With so many providers, I suspect people will just watch something else.
What I expect will happen is that the yearly price will be at a major discount compared to going month-to-month. I’d think they’d have to make the yearly price at least a 30-40% discount off the price of 12 monthly charges. So for a $10/mo service, the yearly would need to be like $80 to entice people to sign up. Another alternative is that a service is bundled with something else, like Amazon Prime shipping or AT&T phone service. So giving up the streaming service would mean losing some other benefit.
Offer a reduced rate for longer terms - i.e. charge through the nose for “one month at a time” users
Maybe they combine them: $80 a year package, minimum 3 months to sign up. That way people might look at it as $30 for 3 month, or for “only” $50 more you get another 9 months.
Honestly I think they’d be better going the other way completely, and actively cater to the sampler market. Offer special discounted 3-month packages, only repeatable once per year per account. Price them the same as 2 months worth, maybe up to 2.5, and I bet you make more money out of people already sampling (because they probably would normally stop after a single month), plus extra money from people this “discount” would entice to try sampling.
AT&T does not have a very good reputation in the U. S. WRT streaming TV service.
Disney is doing that, for its new Disney+ service. You get a substantial discount but have to pay upfront for three years of service.
I’m guessing that long-term subscription guarantees a steady stream of revenues to continue development of a series. Without that, then they will probably cancel the series, charge per episode or season, include ads or, if possible, bring in more product placement, or lower production budgets.
They could do that, but it’s probably cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Right now people who just subscribe and stay subscribed are the vast majority of their customers. Unless people who jump around become a sizable chunk, giving out, say, a 20% annual discount is just going to lose them revenue to stick it to a few people who are getting a better deal.
And they definitely can’t afford to jack up prices for new subscribers. That will stop them from growing.
I think many of the negatives of streaming and multiple streaming platforms and content agreements is exactly why I find it hard to grasp why someone would “cut the cord” and go streaming only. In my opinion streaming augments my entertainment but does not sufficiently meet my needs to be my only venue of consuming tv shows, movies, etc.