Isn’t NBCUniversal’s streaming service called Xfinity? Isn’t it one of the older ones?
Owen > On Nov 28, 2019, at 14:23 , Robert Haylock <robert.hayl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree with Brian, this is not unbundling, it's just removing one layer of > distribution; you no longer need the Cable company to play aggregator to the > content distributors, you now buy from them direct (especially true in the > case of HBO and Disney, except ESPN is not yet included). The next logical > large player to enter the global** direct-to-streamer market would be > NBCUniversal, so I'm sure we will soon be preparing for that one too :) > > Rob > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 06:47, Brian J. Murrell <br...@interlinx.bc.ca > <mailto:br...@interlinx.bc.ca>> wrote: > On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 10:50 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: > > While I agree about the likely outcome, I will point out that > > consumers have been > > begging for unbundling for years. > > This is not the "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for. > Rather I would submit that it's actually quite the opposite and much > more like the bundling that they have been railing against. > > The "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for is minimally, the > ability to buy a single channel for a fair price and not have to take > 14 other channels of *garbage* with it at 15x the cost one of those > channels. I say minimally because I suspect that the really savvy > consumers would actually rather even pay (again, at a fair price) per > show or episode. > > But that's not what's happening with this fragmentation. This > fragmentation is like the cable company splitting up that "once price > for all" bundle and putting the pieces into other bundles, each at the > same cost as that original "all in one" bundle that the consumers were > originally happy with and saw as fair value. Of course now to continue > to getting those pieces of the original bundle that they were happy > with, consumers are having to buy multiples of these new bundles and > their costs are driving up sharply accordingly. > > > This fragmentation of streaming services _IS_ the direct result of > > that request. > > I would submit that that is completely untrue. Do you really think > Disney pulled out of Netflix and started their own service because > consumers wanted Disney to unbundle from Netflix? I would suggest that > that is completely not why. Rather, Disney was not happy to have just > a piece of the Netflix pie, and decided, as greedy as they are, that > they would sell their own pies and take the fully monthly subscription > price. > > > It’s unbundled service, exactly what they have been asking for. > > Again. No. Not at all. Not even close. Quite the opposite in fact. > > The problem with suggesting that this is unbundling is that the cost of > Netflix didn't reduce when Disney pulled out and Disney (I would bet, I > haven't actually looked at it's cost) isn't charging the faction of the > Netflix cost that would be commensurate with their percentage of the > entire Netflix library. > > So there has been no "unbundling" of any sort. Rather it's been an > exercise of actually creating a new bundling. And I still predict that > once the reality of this sets in with consumers, they are going to > reject it and head back to that low (zero) cost means of obtaining > their media that they used when they were unhappy with the previous > generation of bundling. > > b. >
