Not to editorialize, but I think this is kind of a crazy article. Sharing for the laughs and the discussuon.

  • Kayn
    link
    fedilink
    English
    81 year ago

    As opposed to everything being exclusive to one platform, like you seem to prefer???

    • @Plopp
      link
      English
      91 year ago

      Well I mean, you’d only have to get that one account then. Not 20 different ones. Easy peasy. However, that platform must then be extraordinary benevolent and pretty much non-profit for that to end well.

      • Kayn
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        And how often has that been the case so far?

        • @Plopp
          link
          English
          51 year ago

          Yes, that’s the point.

    • @Blue_Morpho
      link
      English
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I understand his point though. It should be Netflix with every show vs Hulu with every show vs Max with every show. So the competition is on distribution quality and price, not content.

      In the 1930’s studios owned the movie theaters so you could only watch a 20th Century Fox movie at a 20th Century theatre. Vertical integration of content with distribution was made illegal. But of course tech companies ignored the law based on the premise that doing an illegal action with a computer isn’t illegal because the law against vertical monopolies didn’t technically say “streaming service” in 1940.

      Several years ago, the law was repealed and Disney+ launched a few months later. This started the rush of vertical monopolies of content with distribution that we live with today.