Watch Out Mars: 1080 HD Video of Curiosity Descent - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/2012/08/22/watch-out-mars-1080-hd-video-of-curiosity-descent/ <comment><USER2> This should give every coder a moment of pause.

Consider. Here we have a $2.5 billion interplanetary mission that is easily the most ambitious space exploration mission since the Apollo project. And it's using a completely new and untested landing system. Only bits and pieces of the landing system have been physically tested, and not even remotely all together. Because it turns out it is rather non-trivial to simulate an atmospheric reentry from an interplanetary trajectory, in the Martian atmosphere, under Martian gravity. In the end it came down to relying on our prior understanding of the Martian environment and simulations and measurements of the landing system and trusting the software to do its job. Because the round-trip delay for a human to be able to effect some part of the landing is nearly half an hour, and the entirety of the landing would take about a quarter that much time. Indeed, by the time we on Earth would receive a signal indicating that the atmospheric entry had begun in reality the entire landing would have already occurred several minutes in the past.

If you ever thought that a lot was riding on your code, this will certainly put that in perspective.

<comment><USER3> This is nothing compared to medical software, for example. All you can lose here is some money, but no human life in danger. Some more perspective.

<comment><USER4> I disagree. 2.5 billion dollars is worth a lot of lives. Consider how many people you could save from, say, malnutrition with that money. I don't know the answer, but I'm pretty sure it's a lot. And we as a society have decided that space exploration is actually _more important_ than saving those people. Now, you can agree or disagree with society on that point, but either way, a lot is riding on this, even measured in units of human life. If the thing crashes into the ground, we wasted money we could have done something else with. A lot of something.

<comment><USER5> I really hope you are joking. You really want to maintain this money was diverted from being spent on tackling malnutrition? The US spending on Iraq must really tick you off.

<comment><USER4> Not joking. If you have 2.5 billion dollars, you can spend it on what you want. Congress shifts money around all the time. They just want to spend it on rovers.

Now, to be clear, I think there are plenty of good arguments that spending a marginal 2.5 billion dollars to put a robot on Mars is actually the right call, in terms of its long term benefits for humanity. Wasn't taking a position on that either way. My point is just that you can measure the cost (and, by assumption, benefits if we're successful) in units of human lives, and that it's a big number. That's wiped out if the rover crashes, so a lot is riding on that code.

You might argue that the risk of failure is priced into the tradeoff society made. You might also argue that not all of the value of sending the rover is destroyed if the landing fails. Those both seem uncompelling, but I haven't thought too hard about it.

US spending on Iraq does, in fact, really tick me off. It's an enormously inefficient use of resources.

<comment><USER6> Apple's recent settlement of $1B puts this thought in another related perspective.

Consider that we've lost over a third of an interplanetary mission in pointless legal battles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's hard to get a sense of scale, one minute it's wow so high up look way down at the craters then suddenly oh! That's not a crater that's the ground.

Beautiful I didn't know they had such high quality video I figured like it seems on all the others missions data is kept to a minimum and we'd only see black and white 640x480.

<comment><USER8> I think some of this is that the video is sped up. Best I can recall from being nerd-locked into the data coming back from MSL the decent camera only captures 5 frames a second at this resolution. This video is obviously replaying at a much higher frame rate so they are either playing it back at faster than real time or they interpolated a lot of frames, I'm guessing the former.

[EDIT] And now that I stop playing the video on repeat I realize this was covered in the article and the video description...

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, it's captured at 5fps, and played at 15fps. So it's running at 3x.

<comment><USER7> Ah, I missed that part, so I'm not crazy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The final drop is quite messy, there´s a lot of dust.

I wonder how happy NASA is with the sky-crane solution - would they do it again as the new standard for mars rovers or is it in the "nice try" category?

<comment><USER10> The dust & gravel situation was only one reason the sky-crane was used. The other options of traditional lander or air bags have worse issues beyond dust and gravel and in the case of a lander the dust and gravel issues are worse.

<comment><USER11> Really? I had heard the issue was Curiosity was to be heavier than past probes, and they weren't confident the old airbag method could handle the weight gently enough.

<comment><USER12> Additionally, the "violently tumble while marginally protected by airbags" plan isn't a viable method for eventually landing humans on Mars! One more reason to come up with a "gentler" descent :)

<comment><USER13> actually, with a human on board you have other, less complicated options. We've been using them for a while: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wow, right before it touches down the camera just gets still and I get sucked right into the video as it touches down. Otherworldly.</comment>


The abandoned college campuses of Second Life - <AUTHOR> http://fusion.net/story/181901/we-took-a-tour-of-the-abandoned-college-campuses-of-second-life/

<comment> norea-armozel It's sad how bad Second Life has become. It use to have plenty of different people you could talk to and places to explore. Now it's full folks like myself who don't know where to go, trolls, and unattended children (I don't know how this happens but it does, seriously).</comment>


Nokia X1-00 for developing countries: built-in flashlight, 61-day battery life - <AUTHOR> http://conversations.nokia.com/2011/03/08/listen-up-the-nokia-x1-00-is-here/ <comment><USER2> _> >Flashlight, Loud speaker, Battery life_

This is gonna sell truckloads.</comment>


Faster deep learning with GPUs and Theano - <AUTHOR> http://blog.dominodatalab.com/gpu-computing-and-deep-learning/

<comment><USER2> Using GPUs for deep learning is like, step 1. This is really well known, and has been since the first big papers on the topic.

Hinton's "ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks" has the word "GPU" in it 34 times.

[http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~fritz/absps/imagenet.pdf](http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~fritz/absps/imagenet.pdf)

<comment><USER3> The point of this article is to describe exactly how to do this using a specific Python library. It's not fundamental research but it's very useful for people who want to do this sort of thing in practice without reinventing all the software libraries from scratch.

<comment><USER4> This one is very helpful, too: [http://danielnouri.org/notes/2014/12/17/using- convolutional-...](http://danielnouri.org/notes/2014/12/17/using- convolutional-neural-nets-to-detect-facial-keypoints-tutorial/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you're going for speed, here's some benchmarks of different libraries on ImageNet and convolutional layers: [https://github.com/soumith/convnet- benchmarks](https://github.com/soumith/convnet-benchmarks)</comment>


Ask HN: Is Google adwords totally useless? - <AUTHOR> I started a small campaign on AdWords, £10 down, 8 clicks so really small numbers I had a look at them and found:<p>-2 were from sites that were really spammy and had no actual adverts so I don't know how they referred to my site -2 were from sites that had zero relevance to my keywords -4 were from sites that didn't exist<p>Is this what other people see? I know the numbers are low but why pay for crap?  Or am I missing something?? <comment><USER2> Heavy headline. There is reason companies spend ~$70 billion on Adwords annually. So yes you are missing something.

Sounds like you may have been doing display not search. I'd avoid this until you learn more about campaign setup. Search side is easier/safer. Display can have better returns but is harder to achieve.

If you really want to advertise I say get a few thousand $$ together and get someone who knows what they are doing to have a crack.

<comment><AUTHOR> It isn't really the cost I am worried about it is the fact that apart from 2 which were from a loosely related site they looked like bogus clicks i.e. some were from non-existent sites - how can that be from 10 only 2 were valid?

<comment><USER2> Do you have examples of non-existent sites. That is something new to me.

Spammy. Very much. Even more so if you advertise in mobile apps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> As other posters have said, you really have to know how to set up a campaign, what keywords to use, how to target, the difference between search and display, etcetera.

There are all kinds of people delivering services if you want to run a real campaign.

I ran a 100 dollar campaign for a university project, it was an interesting learning experience, but it also taught me that for any real campaigns I'd be better off hiring an expert - and they come at all sizes and prices, from independant contractors up to the biggest marketing companies in the world.

In my own sample campaign we did get a lot of noise, and a very low click- through rate. We calculated a cost per customer of U$ 8.

</comment><comment><USER4> It sounds like you've barely scratched the surface. I'm no expert, but there's a lot to know in order to get good value from adwords. For starters google "google keyword research". Any keyword which is too popular with advertisers should have too high a price per click, so it can never be profitable. So the art is too build around undervalued keywords. I have no firsthand experience with that.

10L/8 clicks = 1.20L/click. If we assume 1% net conversion rate (strawman number), your customer acquisition cost is about 120L. Is the customer ltv high enough to justify this?

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't use partner sites just google.com to start with. Also, get rid of tablet and mobile traffic at first. If I can get that working I go from there. Also, it's pretty expensive traffic.

<comment><AUTHOR> From my little foray it looks pretty crap so how does it make so much money? are partner sites ever good?

I'm just trying to see what I am missing??

<comment><USER6> Almost never.

Mobile traffic is generally garbage, too.

AdWords is a monster to wrangle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> AdWords isn't useless, but it's pretty overpriced. Which can often mean it's useless.

The big players run AdWords campaigns like... you know, ads. They cost money. Then you sell those new customers more shit down the road. Requires complicated analytics and customer tracking. A lot of people are just in it for the big data.

It's not supposed to be a slot machine. But Google isn't arguing with you if you want to treat it like a slot machine.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also I constantly aced their support and they said they would call me after 30 minutes over 12 hours and nothing

</comment><comment><USER8> Is this a serious post?

I make a great living off Adwords. God bless it.</comment>


Webpack and React.js starter kit - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jkup/webpack-react-starter <comment><USER2> Nice! How about adding a .eslintrc with some default settings for react and es6? I find that most people starting new with these frameworks would benefit a lot from it and it would shorten their feedback cycle.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, that's a really cool idea! I'll add an issue.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> disclosure: self submission</comment>


Stamping out big money in politics - <AUTHOR> http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/campaign-seeks-to-stamp-out-big-money-in-politics-85807.html

<comment><AUTHOR> site: <http://stampstampede.org/></comment>


Show HN: Budget.cool – Create budgets and manage your finances, all manually - <AUTHOR> https://budget.cool <comment><AUTHOR> Some info behind the app:

\- Tech stack is Laravel + Vue.js + Bulma.

\- Manual entry is purposely the only way to add in data, aiming to build better habits by making you confront what you spend money on.

\- Everything rolls over in a monthly period, and you can go back and see transactions and stats from previous months.

It's in private beta right now, as there's still a few bugs and kinks getting worked out. If you'd like an invite code, just drop a comment here (no need to sign up on that landing screen if you'd prefer not to).</comment>


Ask YC: How would you do keyword classification - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to automate the classification of documents that we are seeing from our crawler.  I have done a google search for keyword classification using Python but I'm not getting any joy. Anyone here automatically tagging or classifying documents (Maybe after some teaching) ? Would be good to know how if you are <comment><USER2> i think you are looking for document classification algorithms: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_classification>

the current state of the art algorithms are based on support vector machines, but their learning part could be tricky to implement in a scalable fashion. if you are looking for a quick and dirty approach, TFIDF algorithm (it is a naive "naive Bayes" :) is simple and is adequate for many applications

<comment><USER2> forgot to mention that you may want to look at the Orange framework which is in Python <http://www.ailab.si/orange/>

<comment><AUTHOR> great! that does look interesting. I'll have a good look through it. You involved in this field yourself? If so, drop me a line as we're looking for a consultant to help us with something

<comment><USER2> I've done some work on machine learning and specifically document classification in a corporate behemoth. Send me an email to gmail.com and prefix that with osipov followed by an @ sign -- I'll get back to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> LSI - Latent Semantic Analysis is pretty useful in this field. Python has an amazing toolkit for it

<http://nltk.org/index.php>

Email me if you have any questions-I've been playing with this stuff for a while and it's really interesting.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm playing with some code for this just for fun. There are two ways to classify a document:

1\. You already have a set of keywords (categories) that the document can belong to. The objective is to match a document to its category. This is true classification.

2\. You want to extract relevant keywords from a document. This is not classification in the true sense but keyword extraction.

Each one has different approaches to achieve it, but they are similar problems. (As an example of similarity: you have a set of categories each defined by a tag cloud. You extract keywords from a document and see which tag cloud it matches best.)

So how do you do each one?

Classification: I'm not well versed in this area and I'm interested in learning - it's next on my to-do list.

Keyword Extraction: Yahoo! has an API to do that, but honestly, it's rubbish. I don't know how it "works" but it doesn't really. Open Calais is really good but has a noticeable error rate (I didn't quantify it but after trying many documents with it, I regularly noticed minor mistakes).

Hope this helps.

</comment><comment><USER5> Check out our tool, <http://tagger.flaptor.com>

It's based on a Bayesian algorithm plus a bunch of other heuristics for fine- tuning. In our case, the classification algorithm is not nearly as important as how we select documents for the training set.

Also, take a look at this post that was mentioned here a few days ago:

More data usually beats better algorithms: [http://anand.typepad.com/datawocky/2008/03/more-data- usual.h...](http://anand.typepad.com/datawocky/2008/03/more-data-usual.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> I believe the keywords here (heh) are Text Mining. You should look at it (I'm doing my final project on this field).

There are a lot of things to have in mind when trying to do document classification with keywords. Document preprocessing, keyword weighting and much more.

Someone mentioned Latent Semantic Indexing, it's worth a look, but if you're just starting, you should look at the big picture.

</comment><comment><USER7> you may want to try, or match your results against:

<http://opencalais.com/>

</comment><comment><USER8> Have a look at Yahoo's Content Analysis Term Extraction Web Service: [http://developer.yahoo.com/search/content/V1/termExtraction....](http://developer.yahoo.com/search/content/V1/termExtraction.html)

And <http://opencalais.com/>

</comment><comment><USER9> I use the Yahoo Term Extractor API. This probably doesn't meet your long term needs, but it's great for prototyping.

[http://developer.yahoo.com/search/content/V1/termExtraction....](http://developer.yahoo.com/search/content/V1/termExtraction.html)

<comment><USER10> Just note that you are limited to 5k queries per 24 hours per IP address with this. Like Tony said, NOT for production.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> When you refer to classification, are you really talking about clustering? Is it the same thing? I've been looking at document/article clustering for NewsCred, and so far have spent some time with Carrot. Its open source and pretty good...

<comment><USER6> clustering != classification

\- classification (also known as categorization) - you have a set of categories into which you expect your documents to be assigned to (the documents will be matched with the existing categories)

\- clustering - you expect the algorithm to give you a set of categories (the ML algorithms will find similarities between the several documents and will group them accordingly)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> One simple thing to do would be to download CRM-114 and use it.

<comment><USER13> See here for more on CRM-114:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=124085></comment></comment>


iOS 10.3 Beta 2 deletes keychain items after application uninstall - <AUTHOR> https://forums.developer.apple.com/message/210531 <comment><AUTHOR> This removes the last existing way (at least that I know of) to track a user between a reinstall of the app without using something like a user account.</comment>


Coffee drinking linked to lower mortality risk again - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/coffee-drinking-linked-to-lower-mortality-risk-again/ <comment><USER2> I fight nasty withdrawal symptoms like severe headache, fatigue, and rheumatic pains right now after not drinking coffee for two days. It feels like a really bad flu. From experience I know that this will be better very soon.

That is the reason why I want to give up coffee completely. I don't want to be addicted to a substance. I don't like to get headache or feel tired only because I choose to not drink coffee for a day. Maybe there will be a day when I can not get a coffee.

I don't drink that much coffee. A pot of coffee in the morning and usually 2 - 3 espressos during the day. I guess I am sensitive to it.

<comment> barry-cotter > I don't drink that much coffee. A pot of coffee in the morning and usually 2 > - 3 espressos during the day. I guess I am sensitive to it.

That is a lot of coffee. I have an Americano in the morning. If I have two it's not great for my stomach and if I have two in the morning I really better not have one again until five. If you're drinking it as your drink rather than as a stimulant try switching to tea.

<comment><USER3> I agree, I'd say that's a lot. I have two shots a day (either espressos or americanos, usually one of each) and I find that if I have a third I always feel terrible. I get agitated and jittery, so I guess that's a way to control my intake because I always stop at 2 now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm skeptical that it is sound to just throw out smokers and make a claim about coffee health benefits.

By taking people that use a lot of one common addictive substance (caffeine) and none of another (nicotine) they might just be selecting people with low potential for addiction/high will power. I believe those kinds of people might have lower mortality rates for reasons other than coffee consumption.

<comment><USER5> It's very common to remove smokers from studies like this (anything looking at mortality). Smoking increases your chance of so many health issues: heart disease, lung cancer, COPD, high blood pressure, stroke, aortic aneurysm, general infection due to chronic inflammation, etc etc. It's well documented and pretty unambiguous. If you smoke, your risk of all the above increases dramatically. Which means as a researcher you can't leave these people in a study looking at mortality rates since they would confound the results too much.

Basically, the risk of confounding your results with smoking-related mortality is a bigger problem than biasing your population with fewer people who consume addictive substances.

 _Source: I 'm an ex-molecular biologist, my significant other is a PA._

<comment><USER6> That's not what confounding means, from a stats perspective. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding)

Excluding smokers can cause a confounding variable, not the other way around.

A better choice of word would be "obscure", as including them will make it harder to reach significance (though the end result should be the same, if the variable was not confounding).

<comment><USER5> Oops, sorry, you're right. It was very early this morning and pre-coffee when I wrote that, was paraphrasing colloquially instead of technically (and not thinking) :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> These studies that equate lower mortality with good for you ( that is always the implication ) are quite harmful I think. When people say "I just read something that says coffee is good for you again" that's where the harm is done. This says only that you may die a little later in life, the question of whether it is good for you is alltogether separate. Now it may be that things that make you live longer are generally good for you in the comprehensive sense, but there are better ways to measure that.

</comment><comment><USER8> Fascinating study, and the journal article is free online[0]. It's an observational study, but of a single occupation and large N, with many other factors accounted for[1]. My take is that coffee, like other psychoactive substances, contains powerful chemicals that are likely to have _some_ effect on total mortality. I will stick to my two cups a day.

[0] [http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/11/10/CIRCULA...](http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2015/11/10/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017341.abstract)

[1] _The regression models included calendar time in 2-y intervals as the time scale, and were stratified by age in years. In the multivariable analysis, we further adjusted for body mass index (BMI), physical activity, overall dietary pattern (aHEI), total energy intake, smoking status, sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and alcohol consumption, all of which were updated from follow-up questionnaires._

<comment><USER9> How did they correct for people who reduced their coffee use because of failing health? I mean, have they proven once and for all that drinking coffee is good for you, or just that healthy people drink more coffee?

When you are diagnosed with hypertension, diabetes, heart disease etc, you tend to get the advice to drink less coffee. Older people start drinking less coffee as their health declines because it makes them jittery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> As much as I love coffee and I'm happy to hear that drinking it is actually healthy, I think I'm just personally too sensitive to caffeine for it to be beneficial overall. My baseline stress level goes way up even with one cup a day and I have a much harder time falling and staying asleep.

For some reason tea doesn't affect me as much.

<comment><USER11> I've heard that the L-Theanine [1] in green tea is responsible for a calmer caffeine effect. Although I haven't tried it, I've heard that you can get the same results by taking a supplement before your morning coffee.

1\. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theanine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theanine)

<comment><USER12> I second this, and have used it for years with caffeine for this exact reason. By itself it also has an anti-anxiolytic and calming effect, and has been used to treat ADHD as well.

If you want to try it out, make sure you get Suntheanine. A dose that works for many is twice the theanine than caffeine, but YMMV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I drank a moderate amount of coffee but it gave me heartburn both the acid and the caffeine caused my GERD to be bad so I cut back and switched to decaf now my GERD is 99% gone.

But I may quit since it's decaffeinated using methylene chloride which doesn't look very gut friendly or maybe I just discovered a cure for GERD.

<comment><USER14> Choose coffee which has been decaffeinated using a safe process such as Swiss Water. There are even some beans which taste very close to proper coffee after decaffeination.

<comment><USER13> I agree but the Swiss water decaf method is hard to find or that method is not stated (So I assume it's the cheap way). I really don't drink enough to go out of my way finding it.

<comment><USER14> In the UK Swiss water decaf is everywhere - maybe 50% of decaf. I buy my coffee through Amazon UK and there are lots of 'safe' decafs there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As much health benefits coffee has, always take then freshly brewed black.

Tasty and prevents too much of sugar fat intake.

<comment><USER16> Both fats and sugars are helpful too, if you don't abuse them (probably the same for coffee).

<comment><USER17> (Certain) fats yes.. but sugar? I can't imagine that it's helpful in any way.

<comment><USER18> well you get suger in bread, fruits etc. You don't have to eat sweets to get daily intake of sugar(For example brain needs sugar for it to work).

Brown sugar is definitely better as a sweetener compare to the white refined sugar as all the healthy parts are stripped.

<comment><USER19> The brain needs glucose to function not sugar, which is one glucose and one fructose.

<comment><USER20> In everyday English, when someone mentions sugar, they are probably talking about sucrose aka 'table sugar'. And you are correct that sucrose consists of a glucose and fructose molecule bonded together.

In a more...official or scientific context, "Sugar is the generalized name for sweet, short-chain, soluble carbohydrates, many of which are used in food." as Wikipedia puts it. That means that sucrose, glucose and fructose (and many others) are all considered to be sugar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Now my brain is confused.

It says, drink lot of coffee but what about caffeine addiction?

Also, should I filter the coffee as it increases LDL cholestrol? Some even say cholestrol is not that bad.

Also, is 5-9% better mortality rate worth considering?

What about other stuff people with better mortality consumed? Did you know the effects of those substances on mortality?

<comment><USER22> Substance addiction would not necessarily affect mortality.

In fact, addiction isn't necessarily bad for health at all, if you reliably feed it every day, and the beneficial effects outweigh the negatives one. For example, consuming moderate amounts of caffeine every day, but always at least 6-8 hours before bed.

<comment><USER21> 3-5 cups seems too much to finish 6-8 hours before bed time. Seems like you will need to have coffee every two hours.

<comment><USER23> Really? I can have three cups before I leave for work some mornings..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> As stated in the article, we can't be certain of causation. I tend to prefer a simpler approach.

The simple act of moving lowers the risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

5 cups of coffee per day is going to get most people moving.

<comment> semi-extrinsic > 5 cups of coffee per day is going to get most people moving.

You could even hypothesise that people who live more hectic lives (and thus move more) are likely to drink more coffee.</comment></comment>


Serverless Architectures - <AUTHOR> https://martinfowler.com/articles/serverless.html <comment><USER2> Yup, this is the future</comment>


Automating UX design process using Pixelic - <AUTHOR> https://blog.pixelic.io/automating-ux-design-process/ <comment><USER2> Curious why you use Figma and Zeplin together. I guess I'd always thought of Figma as being Sketch+Zeplin</comment>


Too Many Video Streaming Choices May Drive Users Back To Piracy - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190320/07442041832/ironically-too-many-video-streaming-choices-may-drive-users-back-to-piracy.shtml <comment><USER3> "May" drive them back?

This has already happened in my circles..

People who had cut the cord but all but walked away from casual piracy and signed up for Netflix and HBO (and probably Prime Video because they had Amazon Prime already) are openly talking about the fact they're definitely not signing up for more streaming services, and are seeking out torrenting again for the stuff that's being pulled from Netflix (especially Disney shows).

I feel like there's a business opportunity for a meta-service that automatically manages monthly subscriptions for you on different services. You queue up a catalog of shows you want to watch, and it creates an optimized schedule for you and helps sign up for the individual streaming service on a given month in order to watch the show you want.

As long as you don't care about the zeitgeist, this would probably be fine for a lot of people.

<comment><USER4> "Your circle" unless it includes families with small kids, isn't Disney's primary audience. Most normal middle class people aren't going to go through the trouble of pirating movies and setting up a Plex server and then worry about setting up their router to get a good connection while they are away from home and even then deal with the abysmally slow upload speed of the typical home network instead of spending $8 a month to just have the convenience of Disney+ to be a glorified babysitter.

In 2003, people said that the iTunes music store was going to be a disaster. Who would pay to download music when they could get it for free. That worked out pretty well.

<comment><USER5> > _Most normal middle class people aren't going to go through the trouble of > pirating movies and setting up a Plex server and then worry about setting up > their router to get a good connection while they are away from home and even > then deal with the abysmally slow upload speed of the typical home network > instead of spending $8 a month to just have the convenience of Disney+ to be > a glorified babysitter._

Depending on the country, you'd be surprised.

I'm not sure why Disney has the hold it has in the US, but in most of Europe I know it's nothing special (to the point of being a "must have" brand). Kids can just sit in front of regular kids TV channels. And normal middle class families can and do pirate all the time...

<comment><USER6> Sadly Disney is a lifestyle choice for a lot of people and the passion they have for the brand can be downright cultish and creepy at times.

Groups like hardcore Disney fans, R. Kelly fans, and Evangelical Christians all share a very similar devotion and loyalty to their idols.

<comment><USER7> Tell me more about how R. Kelly and Disney fans are similar. Share your point by point analysis and include examples. Maybe you would like to bring Taylor Swift into the discussion?

Your comment is a poorly disguised insult.

<comment><USER6> It's unclear which you ascribe to but it's curious that you don't take offense to either being compared to Evangelicals.

In either case, they're both almost a Cult of personality. The fans are so adorant of their object that they often overlook glaringly evil deeds. At the same time, the level of manipulation exhibited and the devotion demanded by the personality is extreme to the point that outsiders see it as absurd.

Idk, maybe it's just me but I find fanaticism to be very off putting in general. When the idol asks fans to make sacrifices to stay it in their favor, that's when it crosses a line into creepy.

Disney walks a fine line where it expertly cultivates that culture while simultaneously pretending it doesn't exist and remaining open and accessible to everyone.

<comment><USER8> "The fans are so adorant of their object that they often overlook glaringly evil deeds."

This verges on the tautological though, given that "fan" is short for "fanatic"; you're complaining that fanatics are fanatics. Well... yeah, but so? I don't think you can directly impute the behavior of the fans on to the target of their fandom. (You can draw some indirect conclusions, but it involves at least a few steps of lower reliability and propositions people will find debatable.)

<comment><USER9> > that "fan" is short for "fanatic"

Eh, that's its (probable) origin, but I'd say the two have diverged in meaning; "fan" nowadays doesn't have the same connotation of extreme and uncritical zeal of "fanatic."

<comment><USER8> Hence the "verges", rather than simply saying it "is". It's as close to a complaint about it as you can get without quite 100% being there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> No shit. Valve worked out the key to combating piracy in the early 2000s. To quote Gaben himself:

"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region- locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable."

People pirate media more for convenience than to save money.

<comment><USER11> I've said this for years.

Piracy, in many cases, offers a superior product to streaming. If I go to ThePirateBay, I'm virtually guaranteed to find whatever movie I'm looking for, in 1080p (or even 4k nowadays) quality, without any DRM, which can then be easily streamed from Plex or Emby on any of my devices with no regards to regions, often with more options for subtitles and audio tracks (if you're watching anime).

I have Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime, and frankly I already hate having to search all three for a movie, just to find that they don't have it anyway; I already pay enough for these services, I really have no interest in signing up for yet another just to make my search for a movie even longer.

Spotify (and nowadays Apple Music for me) has made it so that I've completely stopped torrenting music, since they offer a superior product to ThePirateBay. It has nearly any song I'm looking for, in decent quality, and there aren't banner ads for "Hot MILFs in my area!" all over the place in a convenient app that works well on my phone. They made the _legal_ option superior, and as a result I don't mind paying the ten bucks a month for it.

<comment><USER12> > It has nearly any song I'm looking for

Why has Spotify/Apple Music been able to accomplish this while TV/movie services can't?

<comment><USER11> This is speculation on my end, but I'm assuming it has to do with TV and Movies being more expensive to produce and therefore more expensive to license?

<comment><USER12> Speculation here too, maybe it has something to do with very little willingness to put up with missing songs from users, while it's somewhat acceptable to go to another site to watch a new show?

I haven't wrapped my head around how this could influence the creators and services enough to work together, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Another factor in the mix is how poor a job a lot of the streaming services do at the mechanics of running their business.

I, for instance, pay for streaming packages from both the NFL and Formula 1, but more often than not the best way to watch the actual events is to download a torrent that some random guy recorded, edited, and posted. The video quality is just plain better. It's not missing the pre-event buildup coverage. And it doesn't randomly cut out and drop down to 160p all the time.

Now I say I pay for these services, but actually as of a couple months ago I can't even convince Formula 1 to take my money anymore. I live in France and first signed up using a US credit card. Now they won't let me put my card back in to renew, because it's not to a French address. And they won't let me buy the US or UK version of the service (as I have cards and mailing addresses in both), because my history shows I previously bought the French one.

But then really, it's not that much of a pain, since even for the couple years I paid for it I don't think I actually streamed more than a couple races. The product itself was just that awful, but still it'd be nice to be able to give them some money...

<comment><USER14> Thats because there is more competition amongst pirates than rights holders

Turns out complaining about free things is actually an effective strategy for improving quality

<comment><USER15> Not that surprising since the "currency" is basically pride and appreciation for your work (insofar as you can really apply that kind of thinking to these social situations)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> No surprise. Even we (HN) predicted this the moment the first content company withdrew their content from Netflix.

Two reasons:

1\. People only have so much money.

2\. When people compare it to what they used to payit seems unfair. People complain when gas prices increases by a few percent, no wonder they complain when they suddenly have to pay twice or even three times for the same content they used to pay one low monthly fee from.

Oh, and they probably also compare to Spotify.

I see three ways this market can work that immediately feels fair to me:

\- all you can eat/listen/watch (Spotify model)

\- pay per view but a lot lower than today. (Can work even with multiple streaming sites.)

\- a hybrid approach where you pay for a number of monthly credits that works (should be somewhat cheaper than the Spotify model)

<comment><USER17> I remember the days (circa 2009/2010) where the main complaint about streaming Netflix was that there was nothing on it compared to the disk collection. When exactly did that change?

There must have been a brief "monopoly period" when Netflix had all of the content, but I don't remember it.

<comment><USER18> > There must have been a brief "monopoly period" when Netflix had all of the > content, but I don't remember it.

I think it's important to segment the content into movies and TV shows. At one point Netflix did have a lot of popular TV shows, and new seasons seem to show up pretty quickly. Netflix never really had a huge selection of popular movies. Some here and there, but never a deep catalog.

<comment><USER19> Streaming didn't, but the DVD service had an absurdly deep catalog.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > _"Consumers want choice — but only up to a point," said Kevin Westcott, > Deloitte vice chairman and U.S. telecom and media and entertainment leader, > who oversees the study. "We may be entering a time of 'subscription fatigue. > '" _

Missing the point _hard_ here. To the degree that "consumers want choice", I would expect the choice they want is the choice of media, not the choice of subscription services. People don't subscribe to Netflix for its own sake, they subscribe because it lets them watch something they want to see.

<comment><USER21> Right. It isn't a choice if I can only watch/play/listen to/consume <x> in one place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Germans/Europeans might feel with me: I had the pleasure of using Sky to watch Game of Thrones and a few movies and it was the most abysmal experience I have ever had.

Your account is an email combined with a 4-digit NUMERIC-ONLY (!) "password" and once you are hyper-securely logged in the amount of usability pain a single piece of software can cause will immediately become apparent.

How can anything paid by a big corporation be anywhere near as bad as the Sky apps is completely beyond me.

Their iOS app is somewhat usable and I was happy I could just cast GoT using my Google Chrome until I noticed that casting can only be done in German. The English original version wasn't available for casting but perfectly accessible on PS4 app, Mac app and web app.

<comment><USER23> Sky used to have a web client. Now you have to use their apps, even on the desktop, which come with a suite of monitoring services (Cisco Videoguard) to prevent people from streaming their content. On my Mac Mini the video player takes up easily 80-100% of the 6-core/12-threads i7.

It's almost unwatchable. Unfortuantely it's a requirement if you're into german soccer.

<comment><USER22> Not really in the spin, but what about DAZN?

<comment><USER23> Love it. Great content, good streaming quality, fair price. Unfortuantely they lost the Premier League rights to Sky this season which is fine whenever I turn on my projector for the big picture - after all Sky's satellite video quality obviously is superior to a stream, but casual watching at the desk is rendered almost unbearable due to Sky's abysmal apps and streaming technology. In that regard DAZN is far superior.

Anyway, when it comes to content spanish La Liga as well as other top european soccer leagues make up for the loss of the Premier League. However as someone who enjoys watching soccer I still need both, DAZN and Sky, since there's hardly any overlap in their content and rights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I watch movies once a week with a few friends. We have Netflix, Prime and 3 other smaller providers I can't recall the name of. We still have to look for 50% of the movies we want to watch "somewhere else".

It's even worse because most providers geo lock their content. So the movie might be available on Netflix US but isn't on Netflix Spain, or it's available on prime but only in _foreign language_. When the movie is available the service is slow, you get intermittent disconnections, the subtitles aren't available, &c. It's a running joke for us now, we have an hassle free movie night once every three month I'd say.

It's basically cable TV 2.0, it's such a pain in the ass.

<comment><USER25> > or it's available on prime but only in _foreign language_

or it's only available in a dub.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Perfect example. I have Netflix, Prime and Hulu. Thats already too many as most have a bunch of crap and a few shows I like, some have duplicate content.

I watched One Punch man on Netflix and can also watch on Hulu. Season Two was released on Hulu. Well that works for me but what about people who had Netflix, Like OPM and now want to watch season 2?

I've been binging Star Trek. I'd also like to watch the new series on CBS. Of course CBS had the bright odea of starting their own streaming service. The cost is $5.99/mo with commercials or 9.99/mo without commercials. No.

So all the idiots taking their toys home and starting their own streaming biz are driving piracy. I used to download TV shows all the time but streaming made that unnecessary as I could pay a little money to have legal access to plenty of things I want to watch. No one wants to juggle multiple streaming services just to watch a few shows. People don't want to go back to spending $200 on TV and internet. I'd rather spend no more than $25/mo on tv and $50 for >=100mbit internet. Thats an ideal number considering I spend less on electricity each month.

<comment><USER27> > _I 'd rather spend no more than $25/mo on tv and $50 for >=100mbit internet. > Thats an ideal number considering I spend less on electricity each month._

Agreed. Other countries are able to do it, but cable companies and ISPs have monopolies in different regions of the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The problem is not to many streaming choices but the increasing fragmentation of which videos are available on which platforms.

IMHO the increasing coupling of video producers and streaming services isn't a good idea at all as it again produces (quasi)monopoles for certain brands/shows (e.g. Disney).

Through then IMHO the trend of tech companies increasingly expanding in a way which couples different kind products together is a worrisome trend (e.g. hardware producer couples with os producer coupled with application producer, or content producer coupled with content delivery services, or "shared" online marked places coupled with them starting to sell their own "featured" products, or coupling of ebook store with ebook reader, etc.).

My guess is that this will lead to increasingly large companies with increasingly less chances for real competition giving this companies more and more (mainly implicit) power over people and economy and with this also influence in politic.

Sure currently for streaming services it looks like it will lead to better competition, but my guess is that this won't be long term and in a view years we will be left with a oligopol of a small number of companies now dominating both production and distribution of high quality video entertainment content, without there being any real chance for any new competition (except if there is some form of interactive video revolution (I don't mean video games) coming from outside the video industry.

</comment><comment><USER29> There's something to be said for the cord-cutting software ecosystem supporting more-than-casual piracy experiencing huge improvements. If you have the hardware, you can host your own media using Plex as a server, and Sonarr to manage your library and automate acquisition of new TV episodes.

Plex is one of the best pieces of software I've ever used. It Just Works™. You need a decent internet pipeline to support remote streaming, but LAN is a breeze to setup. It's so feature-rich I don't know where to begin. I honestly prefer it to any other streaming service. Apps on just about every platform you can think of (they had yet to release apps for Nintendo consoles last I checked).

I have my whole family set up on my server, and it doesn't cost them a dime. The primary drawbacks from their perspective are that they need to request shows and movies to be added, and I naturally don't have Netflix-level availability, but hey. Shit's free.

So when a cord-cutter with enough savvy to pirate video can actually replicate the services rendered by Netflix et al. on their own, why would they pay five times for something centralized that they can get for free[1]?

[1] Plex has $7 month premium features, with the option for a lifetime pass equal to about 2.5 years of subscription.

<comment><USER30> Everything's free when you steal. Lame argument.

<comment><USER31> pirate. I keep seeing people use the word steal in this comment section.

<comment><USER30> No, it's stealing. Just because saying "pirate" makes you feel better doesn't mean it's not stealing.

<comment><USER32> Piracy is copyright infringement or license term violations.

Theft is a property crime. These are different things.

Those heavily invested in intellectual property rights laws would like to conflate them, but they are--and always will be--fundamentally different offenses.

And the industry propaganda is frankly ridiculous. Hell yes, I would download a car. But not if it came loaded up with malware, spyware, region-locking, force-fed content, and DRM schemes.

The propaganda likewise portrays piracy as stealing from the creators and artists, when, in fact, this has already occurred by reassigning the copyrights to a corporate entity that routinely employs "Hollywood accounting" and other assorted dirty accounting tricks to avoid paying the creative drivers behind a cultural artifact in a manner the public would consider reasonable.

Duplicating bits is in no way comparable to depriving someone of physical property and excluding them from their use of it. At worst, piracy undermines someone's economic profits, derived from the enjoyment of government-granted monopoly, which is supposed to promote the useful arts by securing to authors and inventors exclusive rights for a limited time.

It is natural for opinions to vary on whether a schema that routinely re- assigns those rights to an entity separate from the author or inventor, for a period extending well beyond their lifespan, is still conformant with the intent of the law, but no matter how hard you try to force it, copying is not stealing. Forcing that for PR purposes further undermines what little respect remains for copyright infringement as its own offense. You can't inflate respect for one law by poaching it from another.

<comment><USER33> Piracy = Stealing

From [https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/piracy](https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/piracy)

piracy (noun) The unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work.

Synonymns: illegal reproduction, plagiarism, illegal copying, copyright infringement, bootlegging, stealing, theft

Call things by the wrong name to make yourself feel better all you want, but it's still stealing.

<comment><USER32> You may attempt to influence behavior and ethics by redefining the meanings of words, or by confusing one meaning of a word with another, but I can't guarantee it will be successful.

If I were to "pirate" an entertainment file, I would not alter my self-image to believe that I am now "a thief", just because you're quoting dictionary definitions at me. I may still feel vaguely guilty about it, but nowhere near the level of guilt I might feel by walking over to my neighbor's driveway and stealing their car, even though the open-market value of the car may be only $5k, and the open-market value of the recording may be $5M.

This difference arises because when I copy something, I do not deprive the person in possession of the use of it. If I steal, I do. The concept of dispossession is fundamental to the concept of theft. When I take your thing, you no longer have it. When I copy your thing, we both have it. If you are then put out because I am no longer motivated to rent your thing, that's the result of your improper assumption that the idea of the thing belonged to you exclusively.

When "theft" moves from the physical to the intangible, it becomes _plagiarism_ or _counterfeiting_. It is a greater sin to cut out the credit scroll from the end of a movie than to copy it without paying. It is a greater sin to copy the maker's mark than to copy the design it marks.

I am not the sort to lie to myself to influence my own state of mind. Things are what they are, and if that state cannot be conveyed effectively with words, then the language is at fault. The words must change, rather than my mental model of reality. If you cannot separate in your mind the definition of "piracy" that concerns intangible property from the definition of "stealing" that concerns tangible objects, I would suggest using instead a term that is more descriptive, and not quite so ambiguous, such as "copyright infringement". If one cannot be a "pirate" without being a thief, then copyright infringers will simply cease to be "pirates".

You can't change reality by altering the description of reality. If you perfectly duplicate a copyright-protected file in a manner not allowed by fair use or by an implicit or explicit license granted by the privileged holder of the copyright, the holder is neither dispossessed of their file, nor deprived of any reputation benefit which may be associated with their control of the copyright. Copyright infringement is therefore not theft. If we cannot agree on what words mean, we cannot meaningfully communicate. And if someone is changing the meanings of their words mid-conversation, that might be perceived as dishonest communication.

<comment><USER33> > You may attempt to influence behavior and ethics by redefining the meanings > of words

I am not the one re-defining words here.

> When "theft" moves from the physical to the intangible, it becomes > plagiarism or counterfeiting

I see. Please explain how counterfeiting is not stealing.

<comment><USER32> I will not. Counterfeiting is _more like stealing_ than copyright infringement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> That the funny thing I have HBO, Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime but sometimes it's easier to watch something on a pirate site than searching for which service has what.

<comment><USER35> I realize this is funny, but doesn't Roku do that for you?

<comment><USER36> They didn't say anything about having Roku, and from my experience the "search all platforms" tools on streaming devices like Roku and Apple TV leave much to be desired

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I am from Brazil and here I am seeing the rise of "IPTV", with many service claiming they have deals with all streaming providers and movie companies, and you can pay them to watch just-released movies or any show on any provider...

I am strongly suspecting they saw the proliferation of streaming services (and here also "cable" services) as a opportunity, but are creating their services illegally, for example I know a person that got "IPTV" and I couldn't find anything about the company, and their PC "client" is actually just a modified VLC (that also for some reason only works on Windows).

</comment><comment><USER5> Why don't major services (Netflix, Disney, HULU, etc) come together to build a best of breed shared service, that operates vendor-neutrally, and each gets to keep all the profits from people watching their stuff?

Each could still have its own promotions, bundles, etc (e.g. pay X more to watch new movies from Disney), but at least the base proposition can have a single subscription price and some pay as you consume more scheme, single analytics, etc.

In my ideal autocratic regime, they'd be forced to work under such a scheme, like power companies are forced to ultimately connect to the same grid (at least in some countries).

<comment><USER38> You just invented the Cable TV network.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_States)

<comment><USER39> This is what confuses me about the current conversation around streaming services. It seems like everyone just wants cable again.

<comment><USER40> Why is it confusing? Having content fractured across 10 different services each at $10.99/mo is a pain in the bum. Just finding a movie under this setup is hard. I either have to bounce around from service to service, or start googling on my phone to see where it is actually streaming -- and probably find out its exclusively on some _other_ streaming platform.

It's only a matter of time before some clever MBA comes up with Cable2.0, which bundles up all the streaming services under one roof (or series of roofs (cable packages!)) for 60% of the what it would cost to maintain subscriptions to all of them.

...Then the ads will come back

And we'll have gone full circle.

<comment><USER39> Finding movies is easy. I just googled "Avengers Endgame" and it told me it's available instantly for $5 from Google Play, Youtube, Vudu, and Amazon. I googled "The Graduate" and it told me it's available for $4 on various platforms and free on Netflix with a subscription. I google "Seinfeld" and it told me it's availabe on Hulu and TBS with a subscription.

I would much rather pick and choose which entertainment I actually want to pay for than pay a large monthly fee for everything. It saves me money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Is this the final state of attempting to maximize profits? It feels like it's converging back towards the cable model [0]. Especially now with ad-supported streaming plans on Hulu [1] and increasingly more and more service exclusives [2] (same site as OP).

Streaming services are slowly but surely becoming cable "Channels"/"Packages" now, and of course that's going to increase piracy - we've seen it happen before. If you make something people want, but make it overly expensive or inconvenient to consume, piracy is an attractive (albeit morally grey) alternative for many.

Sure you can buy the disk set for whatever shows you like and skip out on the streaming services, but that in itself comes with a level of inconvenience (and cost) - why use physical disks when you can just download the content, share on a NAS/Plex server, and have it on any device? Once you've made it more inconvenient than people are used to, you've again made piracy an option.

I wonder when we'll start seeing bundles of streaming services for a single price!

[0]: [https://www.itproportal.com/features/is-streaming-in- danger-...](https://www.itproportal.com/features/is-streaming-in-danger-of- repeating-the-fate-of-cable/)

[1]: [https://help.hulu.com/s/article/how-much-does-hulu- cost?lang...](https://help.hulu.com/s/article/how-much-does-hulu- cost?language=en_US)

[2]: [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190627/11202942488/strea...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190627/11202942488/streaming- tv-sector-still-doesnt-realize-exclusives-will-drive-users-back-to- piracy.shtml)

<comment><USER42> Considering the average streaming service cost is a $12-15 subscription, once you start subscribing to 2-4+ of those, the cost becomes comparable to basic cable. Welcome to a la carte cable.

More precisely, I would say it's the balkanization of streaming services that's the real problem. If I could sign up for one service that offered everything I wanted to watch, on demand, for $50, I'd consider that. Now, Disney stuff is on the Disney service, some shows are on Netflix, others on Hulu, and a few on Amazon. On top of that, you have to consider that all the major TV streaming services also produce their own content, which is exclusive to their services and not licensed elsewhere. Even keeping track of what's on what service is a chore.

My personal compromise has been to use Prime Video and Netflix, because I already subscribe to Amazon Prime, anyway, and Netflix is a good incremental add. But, I don't want 5 subscription services and to have to keep track of what's on what service. It's bad enough with 2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Streaming "choices"? It's fragmentation and rent-seeking behavior. It is simply a case of the supply not meeting the demand at a reasonable price point, when there is an alternative.

<comment><USER4> Everyone wanted to get rid of the cable bundle and have channels a la carte. Be careful what you ask for.

<comment><USER44> No. Everyone wanted to get rid of both the cable bundle and channels. People just want on-demand access to whatever shows.

<comment><USER45> For cheap ^

If someone finds themselves chasing whatever streaming service has The Office, maybe it's worth dropping the $300 or whatever for everything on iTunes.

<comment><USER46> They're still DRM'd. I can't use them in VLC.

<comment><USER4> And once again, you aren't a potential customer. Do you really think that streaming companies are going to live an die by the people who want to use VLC?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> "Choice" here is just a euphemism for "yet another $10.99/month subscription". The more services, the less _content I want_ each has. The more services/apps/etc I have to engage with, the less I want to engage with any of them. That is to say, it's not just as expensive as corded packages, it's harder to actually use. It's the opposite of what it should be.

Content needs F/RAND licensing, possibly with a temporary block on creators self-distributing to try and right the market and get some competition going.

If you think it's getting bad, just wait until Disney starts flexing.

<comment><USER48> > just wait until Disney starts flexing.

They will savage or at least sue everyone alive until no other service will remain in the internet of the Western world, all these while hired actresses making cute faces will be throwing pink glitter at everyone involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I will always pirate shows. I cut the cord 11 years ago due to my objection of cable company billing practices. The entire industry is greedy. I was a netflix subscriber for awhile but I burned thru all the good stuff and left.

<comment><USER30> YOU are greedy. You're not entitled to free things. Do you skip out on restaurant bills, too?

<comment><USER21> Yeah, no, I don't buy this facile argument. Closest I can come up with is either an all-you-can-eat buffet you have a membership to, or Costco, and turning up one day and there's no pasta or burgers. And they say "sorry, Olive Garden/McDonalds bought the rights to that food and we can no longer serve it". It's absurd.

Rights-holders absolutely deserve to get paid. But weaponizing that? Sorry, they lost me.

<comment><USER30> That doesn't mean you're entitled to getting Olive Garden and McDonalds for free.

<comment><USER21> I definitely would buy bootleg pasta though...

I don't think OP is making the argument piracy = free = good. Just that if everything else is worse or broken, people will prefer piracy (and argument put forward in many other comments on this post)

<comment><USER30> People who want things for free will prefer getting them for free. Shocker. Everything being "worse or broken" is just at attempt at justification.

Again, just because you don't feel like paying for something doesn't mean you're entitled to it for free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I was never patient enough for piracy as it takes diligence to find reliable sources. One thing that does irritate me is this general antipiracy attitude on the web today. It's like the entire population works for Big Tech. It used to be if you did enough searching, you could find pretty much anything you wanted, but now everyone acts like the piracy police and gets all offended if you even insinuate piracy. Probably sounds rather antisocial, but I think that attitude is dangerous as it gives corporations way too much influence, beyond what we've yielded them already. Maybe it's just the places I frequent.

<comment><USER51> I suspect they are a tad annoyed that you are potentially getting something for free that they payed for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> For me, I've realized that 80% of media is not worth my time. Unless it's something that is 'can't miss' like Martin Scorsese's movie that is debuting on Netflix or Planet Earth II, I can skip it. I use my family's Netflix account, I don't have my own.

I've tried to keep up with the Marvel universe but it's next to impossible at this point. All my favorite shows (Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Sopranos, Game of Thrones) are completed now too. I go to the movies once or twice a year now, at most.

</comment><comment><USER53> Hasn't driven me to piracy. It has, however, driven me to subscribe/unsubscribe as needed. Paid for a month of HBO, for example, mostly for the Chernobyl series, watched that and a few movies, unsubscribed.

I think that pattern might hurt these services more than piracy.

<comment><USER54> There's also the option of refusing the new services. When I think on what I'll do as content keeps fragmenting across services, I keep coming back to one answer...watch less video content. The time before easy streaming wasn't that long ago, and if the content makers and distributors aren't going to play ball, then I can entertain myself in plenty of other ways.

The bigger losers are going to be parents that have a harder time convincing theirs kids that they don't need, e.g., Disney+.

<comment><USER53> That's a good point. I'm almost ready to drop Netflix, as the overall quality of the content has dropped substantially in the last 2 years.

<comment><USER55> Same.

Also recently for whatever reason they started to drop my login session on a pretty regular basis (~twice a week for the last month).

After a long day sometimes you just want to flip Netflix on and watch that movie you added to your list a few nights ago.

But getting greeted with the login screen on your non-smart TV (I use a smart DVD player) is sometimes enough to avoid Netflix completely because it's so annoying having to type a 20+ character email address and a 20+ character password on a TV remote.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> The only ethical pay-per-view system I can think of would be to stream directly from the production source (production house, artist), some sort of a paid RSS-like feed.

<comment> 0-_-0 Alternatively, pay a fixed monthly fee which gets distributed among production sources depending on what you watched. Cut out the middleman of Netflix, Amazon etc.

Could work with the rest of the internet too. Instead of relying on advertisements for revenue, you would pay a monthly fee which would get distributed among the websites you used. Aaaand we reinvented the Brave browser model...

<comment><USER57> And the cable television network...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Here is my personal movie subscription list:

For animes: 1\. Crunchyroll 2\. Animelab 3\. Funimation

For movies: 1\. Netflix 2\. YouTube movies

5 streaming sites and even than not all movies and animes are available to me because of geoblocking. Then when I go back to my home country only Netflix works, and for some weird reason in my country only the first 3 season of Race to the Edge is available, even though it claimed to be Netflix Originals. No wonder piracy is everywhere

</comment><comment><USER59> The last remaining video rental stores are closing down just as streaming services become so fragmented that making a short trip to rent any major film or TV series you want for a few dollars is starting to look okay again.

<comment><USER60> According to wiki, as of 2017 there were about 40k Redbox locations in the US. They recently put one in the exit of my grocery store, and it gets a lot of use. I think it's a pretty good business model, since so many people only want to see relatively new big name movies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> 10'ish years ago I remember people being mad at the cable companies for bundling all the channels together into all-or-nothing options. Why did I have to pay for ESPN when I just want the SciFi channel? Here we are today with lots of options where you only pay for what you want and now people want them all bundled back together again!

<comment><USER62> That's why I don't really believe people who claim that having to pick a streaming service is a burden too great to bear and can only be resolved through piracy. I don't think the issue is too little choice, too much choice, too much cost, or two much mental overhead—I think they just want to pirate and find a reason to use for the moment.

<comment><USER63> Why is that hard to believe? If you only have a few shows that you want to watch, and each is on a different streaming service, is it unreasonable to balk at having to pay for several different services (each at over $10 a month) just for a few shows?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> In 2018, there was a report published by Sandvine saying that BitTorrent traffic had increased on their network for the first time in years (Engadget link: [https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/03/streaming-exclusives- may...](https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/03/streaming-exclusives-may-have- revived-piracy))

It seems perfectly rational to me. Streaming platforms' competitive advantage vs piracy is convenience (being legal and easier to use). As their convenience declines, users who are not averse to piracy will naturally gravitate back towards it.

</comment><comment><USER65> This is precisely why I recently decided to setup a home streaming box/NAS.

Currently, I have an RPi 4 running Sonarr/Radarr, NZBGet, Transmission, and Emby, with a reverse proxy on top so I can access it all remotely[1]. But an RPi is not enough when it comes to transcoding and larger storage, so I'll be upgrading to a custom-built microATX server. The estimated total cost for parts is ~$600, including 6TB of storage. Monthly recurring cost is about $7, not counting energy consumption.

I'm also starting to use Kodi + RD to make it easier to stream stuff without downloading it.

[1]: My config is available on my GH profile.

</comment><comment><USER66> I didn't know [we] PC and VPS users went anywhere, if anything the already established and really skilled release groups were solidified while others were extricated, or in some cases and very unfortunate, immured. I would make a partially substantiated and educated guess that a driving force in any potential, acute, theoretical or otherwise increase in freedom of information; The renaissance of the information era, our time, is suddenly presented with a market filled with VPN providers, most of them blatantly crude in their pitch. With promises of hosting end-points in nations unburdened by draconian laws, well outside any jurisdiction legally obligated to abide by federational - european, american or otherwise - demands or requests of private information. They also always make it a big deal to point out that they don't even generate logs of user activities. The latter sounding unlikely since it's crucial for any service providers survival and growth as well as preserving the capability to offer an equally distributed quality of service.

Piracy is not a fitting name. There's no rape, murder, malintent or even direct physical, psykological or directly provable damages made by sharing information. The argument that one album downloaded automatically equals the loss of one sell. That is similar to comparing bank-robbers to successful hedge fund managers because they aspire to collect currency or assets in large numbers. Wait.. That actually is comparable.. Well, I digress.

</comment><comment><USER67> I already started buying used DVD's & Blu-Rays for use on Plex. Too much fragmentation and the risk of having your favourite shows and movies pulled for some other service.

</comment><comment><USER68> I was discussing with a friend that in some bizarre alternative universe where things had played out differently, cable would seem like the great alternative to all the streaming services we have now. You only have to pay one monthly fee, and you have thousands of choices available to you! Sure, it's not on demand, but with so many options, and many things on a regular schedule, finding things to watch is easier than ever.

<comment><USER69> The cable suffered because of two things: aggressive market segmentation with channel packs, and _ads_. Without these two, cable TV would be like Twitter for TV - a streaming service with a weird but perhaps adorable limitation that the streaming schedule is set for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Just fix your FOMO and you don't have to pay for all crap you will never use.

I did not watched any episode of GoT and I don't feel like I missed something in my life. Occasionally I don't get some reference. I also don't run into people who are "omg you really did not watched any of it? so great series", even if I would run into this kind, I could not care less about it anyway.

<comment><USER71> There's something to this. Of course it's a convenience to have better pickings for shows we want to watch, but seeing it all means spending an inordinate amount of time watching tv. Most of it is dull filler. People think too much of it.

A lot of people seemed to enjoy GoT in the earlier years, and the barriers to watching it are ridiculous. It's cheaper to shell out $100+ for the dvd set even for a single watch. There's a reason it's the most pirated show of all time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> I think the article doesn't tackle it from the correct perspective.

There aren't _many_ choices at all, because we don't hire the service for the service itself, instead, for the content, and content here is exclusive.

For instance, you have competition on the PC market: you can buy Dell, you can buy Lenovo, and while the outside may differ, inside, you have the same thing. You also have choices of Burger joints, because although we may prefer one to the other, whenever we want a burger, we can choose from anyplace.

This kind of content, TV shows and movies, however, is different. There's more uniqueness to each piece than a burger or a PC have. You can't interchange Game Of Thrones with Vikings and be really satisfied, worse, you'll probably want both.

So, right now, what we have is little choice - recent shows and movies are on a single platform, and just a few are on two or three different ones. So to have all content you want, you might need to subscribe to many different platforms.

</comment><comment><USER73> On the one hand, I believe it's definitively a good thing that these services will be allowing for creation of niche content. I have long believed that your broadcast networks / USA / TNT just straight up cannot make good content because their expectations viewers wise are so high they end up trying to please everyone and make really, really generic television.

So yeah. I like that. But what's the endgame? Is this high profile Battlestar reboot supposed to generate enough subscriptions to cover the cost or is it just getting people involved in the NBC / Peacock ecosystem? Like, this is the same company that routinely cancels (nearly) every good show on SyFy (where, you know, I would kind of expect a Battlestar reboot to actually be) because they aren't getting enough viewers.

Now that it's a streaming service and their collecting the money directly from the viewer rather than going through Comcast does it make that much of a difference?

</comment><comment><USER74> I'd say many never stopped.. to feel legit they maybe bought netflix and hulu, but still pirated HBO or network tv. I can see people maybe getting Netflix and Disney+ and maybe Apple ...and then streaming from tv show sites anything they're missing....

They need to have a bundled app like $60 gets you Amazon, Netflix, Disney, Apple, HBO, and Sling/Philo ...

Make it so each provider can sell the bundle and they get 30% more of the total sale...

If I had money and connections I'd love to start this startup... If you only took 6% to make it lucrative for the companies involved, then split it x ways with the bundled providers

Better yet philo or sling should do this since they already have the live tv parts, it would be a natural replacement for Cable. Or they could all just join forces and create a unified platform.

Added bonus is there's only one bill.

</comment><comment><USER75> I hope it does, and I hope it signals that they're going too far with their segmentation of subscription services.

I subscribe to HBO. A subscription service that I have to pay for. Now they're going to introduce another subscription service called HBO Max which is going to cost more and may overlap with, but may not entirely include, content from HBO Go/NOW. Does this mean I have to buy into another subscription from the same company to access their 'new'/'original' content?

Honestly, I'm maintaining the services I currently have but not adding anything new. I have subscription fatigue. A cable subscription, HBO, Showtime, Netflix, and Prime are enough to fulfill my moral quota. Plex/Radarr/Sonarr will manage the rest of my television entertainment needs.

</comment><comment><USER76> I'm personally fine with paying for them all, just hate that they are all separate apps with wildly difference experiences. I LOVE how I can get HBO as an add-on for Hulu, and have it all in one place to manage my "watch-list", ratings, tastes, etc. It's super frustrating you won't be able to get Disney+ as an add-on (for ad-free Hulu), as well. In the future, if there is just a universal app where I could get Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Disney+, and Amazon Prime, that would be the most superior experience. Obviously I doubt such an app would ever exist, but what they don't get is that it's more about convenience/hassle than the cost.

</comment><comment><USER77> I don't think this is as big a threat as these comments make it seem. For the tech savvy, setting up a Plex server or whatever can be done in an afternoon's time. The majority of consumers won't go through the "hassle" of setting up their own infrastructure and will make judgement calls on what platforms align with their interests.

I'd bet on Netflix (incumbency), Prime (bundling), Apple (integration with iPhone) and Disney (best back catalog) being the leaders in this space for the next 5 years. Despite major networks getting into the game its hard to see them going all in and cannablizing their TV business just yet

<comment><USER78> You don't need a dedicate Plex server to pirate. Any bittorrent client will do and people might just be happy using a built in media client. Plus often people are happy to buy systems pre-built (remember the "Kodi Box" craze?). Piracy is a service problem not a price problem so people are willing to pay for systems like this if it's easier than managing subscriptions to multiple services (and the fact it usually works out cheaper to pirate is an added bonus).

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> I really have to ask: Is everyone in the comments apart of an organized troll? Because I feel like I've lost my mind reading most of these comments.

It seems like everyone here thinks torrenting is as easy and simple as using streaming services actually is, and that streaming is as complicated as torrenting actually is.

I used to torrent stuff all the time. Constantly. I have several HDs laying around filled with torrented movies and tv shows. Why? Because I was in college and couldn't afford them.

The day I started making enough money to just sign up to services and buy copies of the movies I wanted I stopped torrenting forever. It's easy and I'm not stealing.

<comment><USER80> > It seems like everyone here thinks torrenting is as easy and simple as using > streaming services actually is, and that streaming is as complicated as > torrenting actually is.

Would be weird if people here didn't find torrenting easy and simple. And depending where you get your torrents from, it could be significantly easier than streaming.

<comment><USER79> I don't think that follows. I'm technically savvy and am fully capable of torrenting files, but the amount of effort I have to exert to get it done problem free (and the amount I have in the past) means it is not easy or simple. Just because you have the ability to perform an action, even if you find it easy to do, does not mean it is intrinsically easy or simple.

And it definitely is never easier than opening an app on your smart tv/console/etc and clicking play.

<comment><USER80> > And it definitely is never easier than opening an app on your smart > tv/console/etc and clicking play.

It is. For everyone who cares about privacy, security implications of using an app on a smart tv, for everyone who doesn't want to own a smart tv or a console, for everyone who already knows how to do it with torrents. And so on.

Easiness is subjective. Simplicity isn't, but streaming apps are not simpler in any way.

<comment><USER79> We're not discussing how a luddite is going to watch a movie at home. That's a completely different discussion. And if you are genuinely worried about privacy or security there are other ways around that that don't involve stealing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Here are my product requirements for a viable alternative to piracy:

1\. Availability of any movie or TV show ever made from one service

2\. Quality/resolution comparable to what was available when it originally aired (I'm not demanding 4K Seinfeld)

3\. No DRM

4\. No restriction on downloading/timeshifting

5\. Playable on all my devices including Linux and iOS, using my choice of playback software

6\. Playable no matter what "region" I happen to be in

7\. Original language audio + subs. Dubs are a nice bonus

8\. Streaming not an important or necessary feature

9\. Slick UI not important or necessary

Provide that and let's talk price. Note none of the above are technical challenges or areas of active research. They are already all solved by the pirates.

</comment><comment><USER82> > given the effort it took to migrate users away from piracy and toward > legitimate services in the first place. The primary lesson learned during > that experience is _you need to compete with_. It's not really a choice. > It's real, it's impossible to stop.

This lesson seems utterly forgotten.

The fatigue is real, and more often than not I'm not finding anything I'm looking for on any of the subscription-based streaming services I'm paying for.

So I'm cancelling _all of them_.

My fallback: iTunes on my AppleTV has good choice in movies I can buy, and I usually find what I'm looking for there.

What's not quickly meets the Plex.

</comment><comment><USER83> Ironically, in the old days everyone used to complain that they couldn't pay for just the cable channels they watch, you had to accept the whole bundle. Now you pay for the channels separately. Yay?

</comment><comment><USER84> One thing that hasn't been mentioned is some users might consider subscribing to a more expensive (like $20-$70/mo) streaming service if it has content- sharing deals and a promise of no ads or availability windows. There is definitely an enthusiast market out there that wants the best quality and experience, and having to use several different streaming services that may not have what you want to watch when you want to watch it is not a great experience when compared to some of the less legitimate options.

</comment><comment><USER85> People forget you don't need to pay for all of them yourself. About 5 people share the Netflix I use. I suppose someone else will get Disney and give me access.

<comment><USER69> That's true. But streaming services are also heavily underutilized. My Netflix subscription is used by 5 to 6 people - that's why I actually pay for the highest tier, to minimize the chance that somebody will be locked out because others wanted to watch something else at the same time. Even 5-6 people, I doubt my Netflix account is used for more than 10-15 hours a week in total.

<comment><USER86> >But streaming services are also heavily underutilized

?

>Even 5-6 people, I doubt my Netflix account is used for more than 10-15 hours a week in total.

Err, you seem to be under the impression that 2 hours/person/week is the norm for someone with a streaming service.. Narrator: It's not.

<comment><USER69> Maybe it isn't. But I can't imagine that people with a job, household chores and/or a degree to finish spend significantly more than that when averaged over longer periods of time. Sure, I sometimes did binge-watch a whole TV show in two weeks. But then I didn't open Netflix for another two months, so it averages out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> This is a tragedy of the commons scenario.

Instead of (all numbers illustrative):

Group A: 100%

group B gets jealous and does:

Group A: 25%, Group B: 25%, Piracy: 50%

As long as B's shareholders are happy (0->25%) then "who cares".

<comment><USER69> It's worse than that. Netflix does pay for the IP it streams, and there's more players involved. The end result is, each of them will get even less, and some pirates can even make money off this - all they need to do is to collect and curate links to pirate media sources, and charge a tiny amount for ad-free streaming. And they are already doing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> So instead of owning the video files and having them on my hard drive, I should pay subscription fee as long as I want to watch it? Ok, that's a compromise I can agree to. Now, there are unskippable ads at the beginning and in the middle of the video? Hmmm, that's not what we agreed for. Wait, TWO UNSKIPPABLE ADS at the begginning? Fuck no, fuck never again I'm using any of these services.

</comment><comment><USER88> I want a device like a Roku.

I don't want to think in terms of channels (streaming choices like Amazon Prime, Netflix, Google Play, CBS, Disney+, etc.)

I'd like to think in terms of content and suggestions.

I want the Roku to completely hide the channel (streaming provider) from me.

In addition to paying membership to Netflix, I want to be able to purchase content, too. I really appreciate Movies Anywhere. I hope more content can fall under umbrellas like that.

</comment><comment><USER89> I'm sticking to Netflix. I get Prime video because I have Amazon prime, the moment they charge a penny more for it. I'll drop it. I have Hulu because I got promotion from Spotify, I might keep it if it's less than $10. That's really it. Everything else has to be either free youtube/online videos or DVD, but I'm not subscribing to anymore streaming services.

</comment><comment><USER90> First time commenting so excuse me if I say something wrong, I believe there should be something similar to cable for these streaming platforms like a company that pays the companies to stream their content on their service for a smaller price for the consumers that way we won't be forced to pay for some many services all at once, the cable concept is starting to make sense.

</comment><comment><USER91> Need to change "May" for "Will"

<comment><USER46> Or 'has driven'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> So far, my go-to has been Vudu. Sure, you have to rent/buy. But $3 to watch that movie you're itching to watch, or $9 to own is very reasonable.

When I was a teenager and Napster was huge, casual piracy was a thing. Now that I make digital things that I ask people to pay me for, I think differently.

</comment><comment><USER93> which means what?

nothing, people who pirate stuff will always have an excuse to do so. don't kid yourself into believing they are paying for content out of the goodness of their heart. they are paying only because they don't have a consistent free means to get the same content.

so the next big fight will probably be someone trying to sell a service combining/bundling feeds and running into copy right issues and such. it might lead to an association of services but that depends on how fragmented the industry becomes.

if anything with many players it should drive sub costs down especially for players who have little to offer themselves. if not there will be a lot of industry suffering until they sort it out. consumers will likely stick with one or two providers at most

</comment><comment><USER94> I'm not seeing how it gonna drive people "back" if one click downloads never ceased to be a prime option even for people in developed countries.

When I was studying in college in Canada in 2010-2012, I never ever saw a single student using a paid download site.

</comment><comment><USER95> There should be an open standard for streaming/accessing videos I have purchased that is independent of the platform. I should have a single pane of glass to view netflix/amazon/etc w/o having to use a specific application.

</comment><comment><USER96> My main issue is still that a lot of movies I want to pay for and see is not available, or that subtitles are missing or not working.

This has made me stop purchasing movies, stopped subscriptions and instead invest in a smaller fee for a good VPN connection.

</comment><comment><USER97> So many good things streaming can't serve you.

Eg.

The Last of the Mohicans.

Wanted to watch it last night. Had to do some tricks...

</comment><comment><USER98> It would be nice if this trend to fragmentation uses more segmentation based on ages and interests. For example: I never watch kids shows or action movies but my money is also invested on that kind of content.

</comment><comment><USER99> I had just written a note to myself yesterday: "Piracy occurs because the economics of content distribution is broken, not because people inherently want to steal." And then saw this.

</comment><comment><USER100> If you want to steal, you're going to steal.

In terms of video streaming choices ... yeah, it's going to be the case there will be a few of those. What's the alternative? Netflix gets a monopoly?

</comment><comment><USER101> The problem is not too many choices. It's actually the lack of choice. Each series is going to a different streaming platform which means we have to pick up more stream services

</comment><comment><USER102> Something else that is really annoying is how the various services have different controls. It is really necessary to change how fast forward / rewind work in each app?

</comment><comment><USER103> In other news: Here deregulation of taxi services made people use taxi services less. Competition does not always mean more accessible or affordable consumer options.

</comment><comment><USER104> Well this is how the 'economically optimal' Netflix looks like - the Netflix everyone loved was an unsustainable customer acquisition campaign.

</comment><comment><USER105> I've been trying to avoid it but the current streaming landscape is making it pretty hard to stay legit without spending a large sum of money

</comment><comment><USER106> People want aggregation, it will come back in some form. The new streaming landscape is much too fragmented...kind of like the Airline industry.

</comment><comment><USER107> It certainly will. With the Office and P&R going to "Peacock" my wife's first command to me was "...get them...".

</comment><comment><USER108> I've been buying my shows on iTunes to avoid both paying for 10 different streaming services and piracy.

</comment><comment><USER109> Yup, I can tell you right now the only subscriptions I have are to Netflix and Real Debrid.

</comment><comment><USER110> I wonder how many people subscribe to Netflix but torrent want the want from HBO?

</comment><comment><USER111> Could a global license system be implemented to solve that problem?

</comment><comment><USER112> Where does most video piracy happen these days, post-Pirate Bay?

</comment><comment><USER97> Oh yeah.

Simpsons is a prime example. As a european i can't watch it anywhere

</comment><comment><USER113> It's not just that there is too many. They also all try to shove stuff down your throat in an Amazon like manner while providing a rather crappy service. They've been accumulating bad PR for a couple of years now.

I mean - Netflix knows that they have a lot of shit content that no one in their right mind wants to watch. They also won't allow you to hide that stuff in any real way. Their search is also rather hostile and definitely not aimed at helping you find what you want.

And HBO - I literally subscribed just for John Oliver. And now I can watch it within minutes of it airing on YT, but have to wait days for it to show up in their service. Used to be the same with GoT. Thanks, but no thanks.

</comment><comment><USER114> From the diary of "no shit, Sherlock" ...

</comment><comment><USER115> it's not the "choices" it's having to pay each one of their monthly fee

</comment><comment><USER116> may drive HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

.onion tpb is easier to use and much clearner than ever

</comment><comment><USER117> bundling - unbundling - <USER2>

TPB (mirror) here we come

</comment><comment><USER118> May?

</comment><comment><USER119> I've been saying this for 3 years now. People were good with it was just a Netflix subscription. Now it's Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Apple Music, Prime Video, Prime Music, Apple TV+, Apple News+, Disney+, HBO Go, and on and on.

</comment><comment><USER120> It's gonna end like this:

share a netflix account with friends for kids while the adults watch movies and tv shhows on popocorn time.

</comment><comment><USER121> Good point

When there are too many options it's becoming too much of an hassle to actually choose something

Just think on yourself getting into a restaurant with a massive menu, choosing a dish will be hard

on the other hand, a pop up restaurant with 3 dishes will make the dinner much more fun for everyone (that's from my expirience at least)

<comment><USER122> What if you don't really want any of the 3 dishes?

</comment></comment><comment><USER123> My ISP (UK, Sky) has recently started blocking torrent/magnet sites. So I'm not convinced.

<comment><USER124> Speaking as someone in the exact same situation, just go to Google and type in "[torrent site] mirror" and away you go.

<comment><USER123> How does this sit with the snoopers' charter?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER125> The children at my children's preschool seem to be split into Netflix master race and Prime peasants.

<comment> andrewl-hn In my surroundings there are a lot of kids and teens who only watch YouTube (and Twitch), while streaming services like Netflix are seen as what "boring older people" would watch. It's very similar to how people in their 30s and 40s perceive cable these days.

<comment><USER126> Same here (UK), YT Kids is massively popular, although my daughter does like a lot of the BBC and Netflix shows too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER127> Ugh, I am so sick of the "if all of the content I ever want isn't available for less than a single $10 a month sub, I'll pirate it" nonsense. Netflix was never going to be the be-all, end-all of content and its time our generation grew up a little bit.

For the amount of content you could get in a traditional cable package, you should expect to pay about as much as a traditional cable package.

<comment><USER128> Why?

A subscription to Netflix already grants me access to way more than I can reasonably watch. If my tastes were perfectly aligned with what Netflix offers (or Disney, or Amazon Prime, et cetera), I could live this exact scenario of everything I could want for less than $10 a month (and some people do).

But if my interests are even slightly more eclectic, I get to pay for each service separately, which is silly if we assume that the production costs are equal for the sake of argument. And even then I would miss out on lots of content because it is being kept in a vault until copyright expires, or because it is geoblocked because the content owner is fishing for exclusive deals, or some-such nonsense.

So economically, $10 a month seems perfectly feasible.

Also, keep in mind that the outrageous costs of the US traditional cable package are very US-specific. In many countries cable television never got that expensive and broad. For those consumers the notion of paying more than $30 a month just for television (no internet included) is absurd.

<comment><USER127> > A subscription to Netflix already grants me access to way more than I can > reasonably watch. If my tastes were perfectly aligned with what Netflix > offers

Your primary issue here is referring to volume. Netflix has their own content, then pays for a small handful of extremely popular/valuable titles (see the recent Seinfeld and Big Bang Theory streaming deals, as an example), and then the rest of their content library is cheap trash they got for pennies on the dollar. Entire markets now exist for making cheap movies just to fill out streaming catalogs. (Check out the business model of a company called The Asylum[1].)

Most of the value you're getting is in a very small portion of the overall library of any given company. People aren't going to stay subscribed to Disney+ because it has some old Disney shows which are $10 one-time to own on DVD. They're going to stay subscribed because it has the _very latest_ handful of Disney titles.

[1] [https://www.gq.com/story/sharknado-atlantic-rim-pacific- rim-...](https://www.gq.com/story/sharknado-atlantic-rim-pacific-rim-asylum- movie-spoof)</comment></comment></comment>


London Real-Time: A hackathon for Twilio, Pusher and GoSquared Apps - <AUTHOR> http://londonrealtime.co.uk/

<comment><USER2> Love the site, although people are going a bit crazy, which is to be expected.</comment>


Sensible TableView: A breakthrough in iOS table view development. - <AUTHOR> http://sensiblecocoa.com/buy-now.html

<comment><USER2> Ehm, I don't see a "breakthrough". You can add any control/view to a UITableViewCell.

Or am I missing something?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Leon, thanks a lot for your comment!

The breakthrough is that STV will automatically bind this added control to one of your object's properties. Have you watched the video tutorials? (Core Data video tutorial for example: [http://www.sensiblecocoa.com/video- tutorials/watch/7/coredat...](http://www.sensiblecocoa.com/video- tutorials/watch/7/coredata-integration.html))

This scheme has enabled our customers to cut their development time by one tenth in some cases. You can see some of our customer testimonials here: <http://www.sensiblecocoa.com/buy-now.html>

Thanks again!</comment></comment>


EyeWriter: Eyetracking device empowers paralyzed graffiti artist - <AUTHOR> http://bigthink.com/ideas/20374

<comment><USER2> I worked on this project.

We have a new version of the eye tracker (2.0) that we are working on which is glasses-less -- should be out soon.

<http://collab.eyewriter.org/?p=102> <http://collab.eyewriter.org/?p=123>

here's it in action (eye is chasing the cursor):

[http://visiblevisible.org/deliver/tempt/EyeRec0602_1_Half.mo...](http://visiblevisible.org/deliver/tempt/EyeRec0602_1_Half.mov)

everything is open source / on instructables:

<http://github.com/eyewriter></comment>