[dna_polymerase]

I'm not particularly fond of piracy either, but I get people doing it. If I were to consume more media content, I'd probably do the same, the whole shenanigans around which show/movie is with what provider today ruined the experience of modern streaming platforms. Early Netflix (streaming) was perfect, but the movie studios/distributors ruined it, they deserve to suffer.

[zamalek]

Yup. There are people who will pirate no matter what and combating them is a lost cause. As for the 95%, it's purely a matter of availability and convenience. Early Netflix defeated piracy because it was extremely convenient, but in regions where not all content is available piracy is thriving.

[vextea]

Yes and no, whilst centralization is convenient I don't like the implications of everything being served on say Netflix with no alternatives.

[rcxdude]

It's not a case for centralization, it's a case against exclusives: there's no reason why a TV show should only be available on one streaming platform. Ideally you could get everything from any number of streaming or pay-to-download sources. The issue is the incentives in the current system are not set up for this, and they are somewhat self-reinforcing (basically, a streaming service will get more value from licensing a show exclusively, even if they are paying much more for the sake of it. Show producers are therefore also incentivised to license exclusively as opposed to more generally, doubly so if they own their own streaming platform, at which point they will cease to license to third parties at all)

[pjc50]

The streaming era would be greatly improved by the modern version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... : companies should be either making content or distributing it, and distribution should be on an equal competitive basis.

[arghwhat]

Early Netflix was also not centralized, as they served pre-existing content. Streaming-service exclusives is what ruined this - but as it's an effective revenue generator (it is the only reason anyone would have 5 different streaming subscriptions), that part is unlikely to go away...

But right now, I'd say distributors and national license agreements are the biggest issue. Having to VPN around to find content is a pain, and because each country has its own version of content, which subtitles are available also differ - for example, Danish Netflix generally only has Nordic languages for subtitles, and does not have English subtitles. And then all you get is some low streaming quality.

This is the kind of thing that powers the whole "piracy has better UX" argument - having to VPN around, not have the right languages, and getting a poor quality vs. the effort to download a version with whatever subtitles you want.

Disney+ is so far the only service I've seen where this is largely a non-issue - but I also want to see stuff not owned by Disney.

[ldoughty]

It's arguable to me whether it's better to centralize vs having seasons 1-3 at one streaming service and 4-7 at another.

But I'm not a fan of any of them right now. The market incentive for e.g. Netflix to continue a series ends when they reach a statistical benchmark of assumed new / restarted subscriptions. There's not enough incentive to run a series unless it's like GOT, which brought HBO large numbers of new subscribers every season. Too few people are willing to make a stand and quit Netflix in protest.

[KiloCNC]

I think the solution resides somewhere in the middle: make video streaming platforms more like music streaming platforms.

Nowadays, YouTube Music, Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal, ..., all have roughly the same base music collection, competing on gimmicks like live lyrics or, for example, YouTube Music with normal video playback, or Spotify with its podcast library and sharing abilities.

This way, there is no centralization around a specific entity, but you also get to have the entire library of things worth considering to the average consumer.