Streaming Services: First 2023 POWER RANKINGS (And what's up with Prime?)

Hex08

Hero
Take another look at Crackle: they have a lot of Sony-Columbia stuff.
I'm not disputing that Crackle has Sony owned stuff. My point is that Sony doesn't have streaming service that exclusively houses all of their content, which is the current trend. Most content creators (Disney, Paramount, Peacock, etc.) seem to have been creating their own services, usually paid, that houses all of their own content and what is available on other streaming services by those creators is usually only there because of old licensing agreements and once they expire they tend not to be renewed so that the content can be brought in house.

Obviously, HBO is changing their business model but up until recently they operated similarly to other services.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I'm not disputing that Crackle has Sony owned stuff. My point is that Sony doesn't have streaming service that exclusively houses all of their content, which is the current trend. Most content creators (Disney, Paramount, Peacock, etc.) seem to have been creating their own services, usually paid, that houses all of their own content and what is available on other streaming services by those creators is usually only there because of old licensing agreements and once they expire they tend not to be renewed so that the content can be brought in house.

Obviously, HBO is changing their business model but up until recently they operated similarly to other services.
That's because they are an A/V equipment manufacturer who makes content on the side to drive sales of their primary product, not primarily a content creation company.
 

Hex08

Hero
That's because they are an A/V equipment manufacturer who makes content on the side to drive sales of their primary product, not primarily a content creation company.
Which excludes them from creating a streaming service that houses their own content how? Amazon is not primarily a content creation company but they still have a streaming service that houses their own content.

Once again, let me clarify myself. In the post that you originally quoted, when I typed "Sony has TONS of content but doesn't have a streaming service; I wonder why?" the question was meant to rhetorical with what I thought was an implied answer. The implied answer was - Sony isn't doing it because they may have decided that it is more profitable to license content rather than create a traditional subscription based streaming service for their content.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Which excludes them from creating a streaming service that houses their own content how? Amazon is not primarily a content creation company but they still have a streaming service that houses their own content.

Once again, let me clarify myself. In the post that you originally quoted, when I typed "Sony has TONS of content but doesn't have a streaming service; I wonder why?" the question was meant to rhetorical with what I thought was an implied answer. The implied answer was - Sony isn't doing it because they may have decided that it is more profitable to license content rather than create a traditional subscription based streaming service for their content.
Sure, that too.
 

GreyLord

Legend
I don't know.

I'd say right now Netflix's future is kind of shaky and hard to see. They depend on Netflix solely and with some of the changes I'm not sure if they will be good or bad in the future. It could come on strong, or it could fall flat on it's face after it's changes...for me it's still too soon to tell what will happen. They are still recovering from the shock to the system they administered (a known shock that everyone knew was coming, but a shock nonetheless).

Apple and Prime are the ones I'd say are the most likely to win the streaming wars (if there are streaming wars). They have more money than they know what to do with from other business ventures...why not sink a billion or two into streaming? Simply on their back funds they can outlast the others. They don't have to put out more content than everyone else, they just have to remain standing when others fall down.

Disney+ is probably okay for now, but I'm not sure about the future there either. They are going to cut back from what I understand, and their prices keep going up rather regularly. The question comes in with, if they cut back on how much they produce, how high can they push their price and retain enough customers to build a brand going forwards. Old predictions said they should be good to go soon, but I don't know.

Paramount+ is undergoing yet another change...isn't it. Now it's Showtime Paramount going on...isn't it? This is what...the third or fourth change in just as many years. They keep changing it up I'm not sure they have a solid gameplan they can stick too. I love my Star Trek, but I don't know how the streaming channels will be in the future.

ON that same note, Showtime and HBO have long been the big competitors between the two. HBO's plan hasn't impressed me. I think reality shows, though very profitable, have a limited audience. Sure, it worked for Discovery, but discovery is no HBO. Not sure the same gameplan will work in the same manner.

Peacock is just...there. I have it, I watch it sometimes, but I don't really have any real fascination with it.

Hulu...how is that thing still it's own stream? It's still there...not sure why it hasn't been folded into another channel already...but...no matter where you go...there you are.
 

Hulu...how is that thing still it's own stream? It's still there...not sure why it hasn't been folded into another channel already...but...no matter where you go...there you are.
Ownership deals, NBC universal/comcast and Disney both have ownership, everyone right now is waiting to see who attempts the buy out. Last time i heard anything it was leaning towards Disney buying out the others.
 





Remove ads

Top