essay on streaming services

TCU Digital Repository

• All of repository
• Communities & Collections
• This Collection
•   Home
• Scholarly Works
• Undergraduate Honors Papers

COVID-19’s Impact on the Competitiveness of Streaming Services: Comparative Analysis of Netflix, Disney+, and Peacock Show full item record

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

• Undergraduate Honors Papers [1362]

Show full item record | Request Copy of Item

Find anything you save across the site in your account

The Woes of Being Addicted to Streaming

By Jeremy D. Larson

I feel unsettled when I stream music on Spotify. Maybe you feel that way, too. Even though it has all the music I’ve ever wanted, none of it feels necessarily rewarding, emotional, or personal. I pay a nominal fee for this privilege, knowing that essentially none of it will reach the artists I am listening to. I have unfettered access to an abundance of songs I genuinely love, along with an abundance of great songs I’ve never heard before, but I can’t shake the eerie feeling that the options before me are almost too perfect. I have personalized my experience enough to feel like this is my music, but I know that’s not really true—it’s simply a fabricated reality meant to replace the random contours of life outside the app.

The truth is that if you’re using Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal, or any other streaming service, you’re not paying for music so much as the opportunity to witness the potential of music. Music becomes an advertisement for the streaming service, and the more time and attention you give it, the more it benefits the tech company, not necessarily the music ecosystem. In Spotify, each song’s play count is prominently displayed, in effect gamifying the music industry so that tracks tacitly compete against one another inside the app. They even go so far as to turn the amount of time you spend in their app into a badge of honor during their annual year-end promotional campaigns. So you’re in the top percentile of Big Thief listeners? That’s not just a measure of your love for an artist’s music , but also a reflection of the time spent enriching the value of a company.

In addition to co-opting corporate social media strategies to benefit from the attention economy, tech companies have inherently made songs fleeting, cheap, and sometimes intrusive , corrupting the cultural exchange between artist and listener. Music is now leased to you through a secret system that you don’t understand, by a company with which you should have no emotional connection. Instead of simply buying a physical product or even pirating music from Napster—both of which created uniquely personal libraries of songs that helped define the identities of a generation—millions of users now sit side by side at the ledge of one great big trough of recorded music for the monthly price of a Chipotle burrito.

There have been many passionate and excoriating essays written about how streaming services have short-changed artists with minuscule payouts. But as the reviews editor of this music publication, I find myself asking: What does a platform like Spotify afford the most engaged music fans and what are the lingering effects of its use? As the independent musician and writer Damon Krukowski once wrote, there are alternative and radical solutions to combat the upstreaming of profits and homogenization of sound that the streaming era has come to stand for. But as one of nearly half a billion people who pay a small fee to rent the vast majority of the history of recorded music—not to mention the 2 billion people per month who use YouTube for free—I have found that, after more than a decade under the influence, it has begun to reshape my relationship with music. I’m addicted to a relationship that I know is very bad for me.

I know I am addicted to Spotify the same way I was addicted to nicotine or Twitter. It makes me happy, aggrieved, needlessly defensive. Oh, you boycott Spotify and only buy CDs on Bandcamp? Good for you. I use Spotify every day for hours on end, when I’m working, at the gym, running, when I want to put some music on while making dinner, when I go to sleep.

I write off part of my Spotify use as a hazard of my job, but I just can’t get enough of that sweet streaming asbestos outside of work, too. Even though I buy a fair amount of records every year, Spotify is my main delivery system for music. It’s like being hooked on rolling papers or the yellowed smell of a casino—not the actual vice itself. The ease, the look, the familiarity—I’m addicted to the emotional labor it does for me when its “Radio” feature instantly creates a playlist of songs that kind of sound like, say, “Breakdown” by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers while I’m sitting outside on a nice afternoon. It loosely organizes what I love and what I might love and, for the most part, it’s absolutely correct.

I’ve sometimes rationalized that it is not an unhealthy addiction: I use Spotify in a way that reflects who I am, I bend it to my whims. For the last 10 years, I have kept playlists of favorite songs—both old and new—I discovered each year, a living record of growth and change in taste. I listen to weekly playlists that are made by friends and colleagues and artists, silently connecting with their interests. I’m going beyond the algorithm, operating at a higher frequency, clipping between the walls that cannot contain my taste profile.

The seeds of this addiction were planted in the late 2000s, when the music industry was struggling to adapt to the new digital era, unsure of how to wrap a tourniquet around the vast hemorrhaging of money caused by such a fast-moving paradigm shift. The streaming era as we know it began in an unlikely place, with good intentions: On October 10, 2007, Radiohead released In Rainbows and allowed fans to pay what they wanted for its digital files. After 1.2 million downloads, the average price paid per album was $2.26. Case studies in setting a new market price don’t come in a tidier package than this.

But as free-market and egalitarian as it was, the experiment was meant to motivate fans to go out and buy an actual physical copy of the album. Devised by Radiohead’s managers Bryce Edge and Chris Hufford while they were “a bit stoned,” the pay-what-you-want stunt was a means to an end: “If we didn’t believe that when people hear the music, they will want to buy the CD, we wouldn’t do what we are doing,” Edge said at the time. A lot of Radiohead fans did buy the album when it came out—it sold 122,000 copies in America alone in its first week—but by then, the downloaders outnumbered them by a wide margin. So even though Thom Yorke later described Spotify as “the last desperate fart of a dying corpse,” his band all but invented the model of what would become the streaming era: turning music into an ad that you pay very little for, with no real incentive to go and buy what it is advertising.

Another important shift was happening in 2007. Seeing the writing on the wall, several high-profile artists were abandoning their longtime major labels to find other avenues of distribution: Madonna left Warner to sign with touring giant Live Nation, a bellwether of where the real money was being made in the industry. (JAY-Z would make a similar move the following year.) Nine Inch Nails left music mogul Jimmy Iovine’s label Interscope and independently put out an instrumental album, Ghosts I-IV ; by Trent Reznor’s estimation, the collection made millions more than it would have had they released it with the label.

Into this stew of major label woes—which included the lingering piracy boogeyman—came Spotify. Launched in 2008, the streaming start-up was a direct attempt to both stem piracy and circumvent anti-piracy laws in its native Sweden. In addition to offering a way for online listeners to legally play music, Spotify acquired its user base in markets around the globe because of how easy it was to use. No more paying per song on iTunes, no more navigating the murky waters of P2P servers, no more waiting for albums to download. Here, finally, was a solution: legal music, a lot of it, right now, for cheap.

After officially launching in the U.S. in 2011, Spotify quickly turned into a potential panacea for everything that was ailing the music industry. Two years later, newspapers were asking: Can Spotify Save the Music Industry? A race to market dominance ensued. By 2014, Reznor had mended fences with Iovine and became the chief creative officer of Iovine’s new streaming platform, Beats Music, which wanted to set itself apart from competitors like Spotify and Pandora. Instead of an algorithmic platform that served you what you wanted, its team of curators would provide you with a more human experience. Iovine saw that, through artist and influencer-created playlists, you could confer taste, status, and criticism—the stuff that the former record-buying public supposedly pined for. One of Iovine’s maxims at the time: Access is average; curation is everything. Seeing the promise of a more bespoke streaming experience, Apple bought Beats for $3 billion and relaunched the service as Apple Music in 2015.

That same year, JAY-Z stood on a stage with Madonna, Rihanna, Daft Punk, Kanye West, and several other A-list musicians to announce the artist-majority-owned service Tidal, with “a mission to re-establish the value of music.” Touting hi-fi streaming and better payouts for artists, Tidal seemed like a much-needed counterweight to Apple Music and Spotify. Finally, here was a platform not funded by Silicon Valley VCs but by (admittedly already wealthy) musicians who understood the art and work that goes into the process of creation. But since its launch, its growth has lagged dramatically behind its competitors. Last year, JAY-Z sold the majority of Tidal to Square, a mobile payment company owned by Twitter founder Jack Dorsey.

Each successive introduction of a new tech company into the streaming era sought to solve a problem created by the digital era: pirating, the devaluation of music, and the lack of human connections music once relied upon. At this point, music piracy has generally been on the decline for five years. Major labels have plugged the holes in their coffers by licensing the vast majority of their music to streaming services and meting out payouts to their signees. The exception has always been the independent-minded Bandcamp, which includes a Radiohead-style pay-what-you-want option at a record’s point of sale, and fosters holistic connection between musicians and listeners through hubs run by labels and artists. Earlier this year, Bandcamp was acquired by the software company Epic Games.

Much like social media, the streaming era has created a simulation of real life. Each company uses its technology to digitize and replace the analog practice of buying, listening, and connecting to music, all while capitalizing on the nostalgia of those activities. The seamlessness of the experience—the ease with which one song bleeds into the next, and the buffet of decisions laid before you on Spotify’s home screen—creates an artificial scarcity out of vast abundance. For me, it has caused a kind of nagging depersonalization, an experience so divergent from, say, holding an album in my hands, or being in a record store, that I feel like a little bit of a hack every time I open the app. But I also understand that for the majority of subscribers, this simulation of a beautiful, vibrant, limitless music industry is possibly all they could ever want.

Let’s say there are three general categories of music listeners: Passive, Auxiliary, and Intentional. Most of the world falls into the Passive category, absorbing music like inhaling oxygen: without much thought at all. For them, there is either music playing, or maybe it’s not music playing, who can be sure? There is perhaps little to no interrogation into why any sound is floating down from the speakers at the grocery store; it simply exists at the same megahertz as the shopping cart and the fluorescent lights and the cereal selection. Songs are liked and not liked, if they are thought about at all, and the whole relationship is pure and elegant.

The second is the Auxiliary listener, someone for whom music enhances a primary experience to make it more interesting. Common forms of auxiliary listening involve music accompanying a visual stimulus, like film scores or needle drops in movies, music videos or their modern-day equivalent: a song snippet looped in a TikTok. But the Auxiliary listener chiefly uses music as a utility: to relax, to work, to go to the gym, to get drunk, to do drugs, to have sex, to dance, to fall asleep. Music is not your life, but what was playing while you lived it.

The last is the Intentional listener, someone who chooses to listen to music for the pleasure of it in and of itself. This is admittedly the tiniest category of people, a subset that spends a remarkable amount of time listening to albums, mixtapes, DJ sets, and playlists without distraction. They are purposeful about what they select and why—for them, there is a pleasure to be found in the flow of listening to music and the emotional, intellectual, and biographical response that it creates untethered to anything but the chemical responses in the brain. Some of these people use drugs to enhance this connection, but not all of them. Music, for these people, is life.

It’s important to make these distinctions because I believe that, for Passive and Auxiliary listeners—again, the vast majority of people in the world —Spotify and the streaming era writ large have achieved an ideal compromise. The technology has made accessible what had previously been difficult or kept behind the gates of record stores or music criticism. For an older generation, there is a sudden and overwhelming pleasure in being able to listen to all the music from your life instantly, retracing the decades through a digital library.

The cognitive dissonance occurs when people in the Intentional group—people like me—try to tell people in the Passive and Auxiliary groups how to listen to music. I know the global financial devaluation of music is irreversible, and there are only a small percentage of total music listeners for whom the phrases “buy from brick-and-mortar stores” or “support Bandcamp Fridays” means anything. But what I fear is that the streaming era is actually writing the same listening histories for those who can’t be bothered with Intentional listening–all exclusively based on proprietary algorithms that seem like a way to discover music but, in fact, act more like a feedback loop.

A close friend, an Auxiliary listener, recently sent me a Spotify link to an album by classic rock revivalists Greta Van Fleet, noting that it would be good music for the gym. This sent me into a bit of a panic spiral for three reasons. One is that I wondered why I neglected to share my professional life with him: In 2018, my pan of their debut album drew the attention of those beyond Pitchfork’s usual purview, with Barstool Sports suggesting that the band must have “fucked my girlfriend,” and GVF fans threatening to “TP” my house via homemade signs they held up at concerts. The second is that I realized I am but a tiny little dust mite in the universe, and my own opinion on Greta Van Fleet is largely irrelevant beyond the scope of a few thousand music snobs and select GVF fans, and what’s actually important in the world is the bond close friends have despite these relationship glitches. Third is that Spotify knows me better than my close friend.

The more time I spend on Spotify, the more it pushes me away from the outer edges of the platform and toward the mushy middle. This is where everyone is serviced the same songs simply because that is what’s popular. Four years ago, while the app’s algorithmic autoplay feature was on, I was served the Pavement song “Harness Your Hopes,” a wordy and melodic—and by all accounts obscure—B-side from the beloved indie band. As of this writing, the song has over 72 million streams, more than twice as much as their actual college rock hit from the ’90s, “Cut Your Hair,” the one Pavement song your average Gen X’er might actually recognize. How did this happen? In 2020, Stereogum investigated the mystery but came up empty-handed from a technological perspective, though the answer seems obvious to me: Whereas many Pavement songs are oblique, rangy, and noisy, “Harness Your Hopes” is among the most pleasant and inoffensive songs in the band’s catalog. It is now, in the altered reality of Spotify, the quintessential Pavement song. When frontman Stephen Malkmus was asked about this anomaly, he sounded blithely defeated: “At this point we take what we can get, even in a debased form. Because what’s left?”

The whole “Harness Your Hopes” situation is in part a result of what’s called “cumulative advantage.” It’s the idea that if something—a song, a person, an idea—happens to be slightly more popular than something else at just the right point, it will tend to become more popular still. (On the other hand, something that does not catch on will usually recede in popularity, regardless of quality.) This is the metric of how most social recommendation algorithms work—on Facebook, the more “likes” an article has, the better odds a user will read it. But when this is applied to what songs are sent to which people, Spotify can engineer its own market of popularity as well as what song defines a band. Popular songs on Spotify are popular within the app because they are what most people are listening to. So from both a behavioral psychology and business perspective, it makes sense for Spotify to assume that you want to listen to what other people are listening to. The chances of the average listener staying on the app longer are much higher if Spotify curates songs that have had a similar effect on people whose taste matches theirs.

This is one of the main addictive chemicals of most streaming services: Recommend a handful songs—out of millions!—that feel uniquely personal but in fact are just what everyone else is hearing, too. If a Passive or Auxiliary listener lets the algorithmic Spotify Radio play songs based on Tom Petty’s “Breakdown,” the results are almost purely based on chronology, tempo, and feel. Gone are the filigrees and the autobiography of the song and how it existed in the world to you , the listener. Instead, everyone’s experience is now the same.

For instance, Spotify’s radio station for Ludacris’ “What’s Your Fantasy” doesn’t link to any OutKast songs, even though I watched Ludacris open for André 3000 and Big Boi when that song was released in 2000, and both acts are from Atlanta. Is Spotify aware that Big Boi is a huge Kate Bush fan? Does Spotify know that singer-songwriter John Darnielle of the Mountain Goats is a metal head? If you have seen Darnielle cover metal bands from Dio to Gorguts to Nightwish, or are familiar with one of his most popular songs, “The Best Ever Death Metal Band Out of Denton,” you know that he loves some sick riffs and moonward barks. But all of that intimate (and publicly available) knowledge is lost to machine learning. Tuning into Spotify’s Mountain Goats’ Radio won’t turn up any Dio at all—just literate and mostly acoustic indie rock songs that sound similar to the Mountain Goats. Left to a streaming service, these kinds of textured and unique connections are smoothed over or erased entirely.

I have committed my personal and professional life to making sense of music, of finding connections and context within songs to create a critical framework that allows me to organize everything I listen into an ornately chaotic web. If I started a Fugazi radio playlist, maybe I would throw some Red Hot Chili Peppers on there—you’ll hear it. If I started a Pavement radio playlist, how could I not include the Louisiana rapper Young Bleed’s song “How Ya Do Dat,” where he calls himself “ slanted and enchanted ”? I would argue that Prince’s “When Doves Cry” and Parquet Courts’ “Instant Disassembly” both utilize a stilted, inverted grammatical style in their lyrics and are absolutely in conversation with each other.

When music is so abundant and our attention is scarce, there’s power in adding more intention to your listening diet, more chaos, more risk. The thrill in finding music that is wired to your singular life is not that thousands of other people have found the same thing. It’s that the music becomes something confounding and unique, a true reflection of where you are and where you’ve been. The beauty of the algorithm of your mind is that it makes perfect sense to no one but yourself.

This week, we’re exploring how music and technology intersect, and what today’s trends and innovations might mean for the future. Read more here .

By Alphonse Pierre

By Pitchfork

By Nina Corcoran

By Matthew Strauss

Suggestions

The Rise of Streaming Services: How They’re Changing the Film Industry

Platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, and Hulu have not only changed how audiences consume content but have also redefined the very nature of film production, distribution, and marketing. This transformation has been both profound and multifaceted, affecting everything from casting calls to audience expectations.

The Streaming Revolution

Streaming services have democratized access to a vast array of content, enabling viewers to watch films and series anytime, anywhere. This convenience has led to a significant decline in traditional cable subscriptions and a shift away from physical media like DVDs and Blu-rays. According to a 2023 report by PwC, streaming services are now the primary source of entertainment for millions of households worldwide, with revenues expected to surpass those of the traditional film industry within a few years.

Changes in Production and Distribution

One of the most notable changes brought about by streaming services is the shift in production and distribution models. Traditionally, filmmakers relied on theatrical releases to generate revenue. However, with the advent of streaming, many films now premiere directly on digital platforms. This trend has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced theaters to close and pushed studios to adapt quickly.

For filmmakers, this new model offers both challenges and opportunities. On the one hand, the reduced reliance on theatrical releases means that films can reach a global audience more quickly and efficiently. On the other hand, the competition is fierce, and filmmakers must navigate the complex algorithms and recommendation systems that streaming platforms use to promote content.

Impact on Casting and Auditions

The rise of streaming services has also affected the casting and auditioning process. With the increase in content production, there are more opportunities for actors than ever before. Platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime are producing a wide variety of shows and movies, which means more roles and a greater diversity of characters.

Casting directors are increasingly turning to online platforms to find talent. Websites that list “ Atlanta casting calls ” and opportunities to “ audition for movies ” have become invaluable resources for aspiring actors. These platforms allow actors from all over the world to submit their auditions digitally, breaking down geographic barriers and enabling a more inclusive and diverse casting process.

New Opportunities for Independent Filmmakers

Streaming services have opened new doors for independent filmmakers who previously struggled to get their work seen. Without the need for expensive theatrical distribution deals, indie filmmakers can now showcase their films to a global audience through platforms like Amazon Prime Video and Netflix. This accessibility has led to a renaissance in independent filmmaking, with unique and diverse stories finding their way to audiences who crave fresh and innovative content.

Moreover, streaming platforms are increasingly investing in original content, providing funding and resources for projects that might not have been greenlit by traditional studios. This investment in originality and diversity has led to critically acclaimed films and series that push the boundaries of storytelling.

The Binge-Watching Phenomenon

Another significant impact of streaming services is the rise of binge-watching. The ability to watch entire seasons of a show in one sitting has changed how stories are told and consumed. Filmmakers and showrunners are now crafting narratives with binge-watching in mind, often using cliffhangers and serialized storytelling to keep audiences engaged.

This shift has also influenced the length and pacing of content. Episodes and films are no longer constrained by the need to fit into traditional time slots, allowing for more creative freedom. However, it also means that content must be compelling enough to hold viewers’ attention for extended periods, leading to higher production values and more emphasis on quality writing and character development.

The Future of the Film Industry

As streaming services continue to evolve, their impact on the film industry will only grow. We can expect to see more innovation in how content is created, distributed, and consumed. Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are poised to become integral parts of the streaming experience, offering immersive ways to engage with films and series.

Moreover, data analytics will play an increasingly important role in shaping content. Streaming platforms have access to vast amounts of viewer data, which they use to tailor recommendations and even influence the types of films and shows that get produced. This data-driven approach can lead to highly targeted content that resonates deeply with specific audiences.

The rise of streaming services has fundamentally transformed the film industry, creating new opportunities and challenges for filmmakers, actors, and audiences alike. From changing how films are produced and distributed to revolutionizing the casting process and ushering in the era of binge-watching, streaming platforms have reshaped the entertainment landscape in profound ways. As technology continues to advance, the film industry will no doubt continue to evolve, offering even more exciting possibilities for the future of storytelling.

• Amazon prime
• digital cinema
• film industry
• film production
• movie distribution
• Streaming Services

Daniel Reed

Related posts.

Interactions Between Audiences and Creators Heated in Watcher Situation

The Life and Process of R.L. Stine

Kate Middleton’s Disappearance: America’s Enduring Fascination with the British Monarchy

Black & White: The Historic Film Technique Directors Are Rediscovering

How Blue Eye Samurai Creates a Phenomenal Female-Presenting Heroine

‘Love is Blind’ Will Improve Your Cognition

‘Ramy’ vs. ‘Sense 8’ — Racially Conscious Response to Neoplatoon TV

The Parallels Between ‘The Talented Mr. Ripley’ and ‘Saltburn’

Don't miss.

Debt and Dior: South Korea’s Advancing Debt from Luxury Purchases

Shakespeare, ‘Coriolanus’ and ‘The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes’

Easy-A UVA Classes

Dark Cafes and Big Yellow Taxis—The Everlasting World of Joni Mitchell

Jujutsu Kaisen’s Gorgeous Second Season Exacerbates Ethical Issues in Animation

Understanding the Multi-Dimensional Impact: Netflix’s Influence on Modern Entertainment

This essay about Netflix’s transformative influence on modern entertainment explores how the streaming giant has reshaped content consumption, production, and cultural norms. It discusses Netflix’s evolution from a DVD rental service to a global streaming powerhouse, highlighting its role in democratizing access to diverse programming and challenging industry norms. The essay also examines the platform’s data-driven approach to content creation and its broader impact on societal discourse, while acknowledging criticisms surrounding its dominance and algorithmic recommendations. Ultimately, it underscores the importance of critically engaging with Netflix’s influence to ensure a more inclusive and equitable future for entertainment.

How it works

In the dynamic tapestry of contemporary entertainment, few entities have wielded as profound an influence as Netflix. Transitioning from its modest origins as a DVD rental service to its present-day status as a global streaming juggernaut, Netflix has not only transformed how we consume media but has also reshaped the very fabric of modern entertainment in myriad ways. Delving into the multi-faceted impact of Netflix requires a nuanced exploration of its effects across a spectrum of cultural, technological, and societal dimensions.

At its core, Netflix has revolutionized the consumption of content, ushering in an era of unparalleled convenience and choice for audiences worldwide. Gone are the days of rigid television schedules and limited viewing options. With Netflix’s on-demand streaming platform, viewers wield unprecedented control over their entertainment experiences, binge-watching entire seasons or sampling a diverse array of titles at their leisure. This shift in viewing habits has not only democratized access to content but has also ushered in a new era of serialized storytelling, where narrative arcs unfold seamlessly across multiple episodes, captivating audiences and blurring the lines between traditional mediums.

Moreover, Netflix’s expansive library of original programming has become a cultural touchstone, reflecting and shaping the zeitgeist of our times. From gripping dramas to innovative comedies, Netflix’s commitment to diverse storytelling has transcended geographical and cultural boundaries, resonating with audiences around the globe. By investing in a diverse array of voices and perspectives, Netflix has emerged as a trailblazer in the pursuit of inclusive and representative storytelling, amplifying marginalized voices and challenging conventional norms within the industry.

In addition to its impact on content consumption, Netflix has fundamentally disrupted the traditional entertainment industry ecosystem, redefining the dynamics of production, distribution, and consumption. The rise of streaming has upended longstanding business models, posing both challenges and opportunities for established players and up-and-coming talent alike. With its vast resources and global reach, Netflix has become a driving force behind the proliferation of original content, reshaping the competitive landscape and fueling an arms race for premium programming.

Furthermore, Netflix’s data-driven approach to content creation and recommendation algorithms has ushered in a new era of personalized entertainment, where content is tailored to individual preferences and viewing habits. By leveraging big data and machine learning algorithms, Netflix can anticipate and cater to the diverse tastes of its audience, curating a customized viewing experience that transcends traditional demographic boundaries. This data-driven approach not only enhances the user experience but also informs strategic decision-making across the entire content lifecycle, from production and promotion to distribution and beyond.

Beyond its commercial success, Netflix’s influence extends far beyond the realm of entertainment, shaping discourse and cultural norms on a global scale. Through its diverse array of programming, Netflix has become a catalyst for cross-cultural exchange and dialogue, fostering greater empathy, understanding, and appreciation for diverse perspectives and experiences. By amplifying underrepresented voices and shining a spotlight on pressing social issues, Netflix has emerged as a powerful agent of social change, challenging audiences to confront uncomfortable truths and engage with complex issues in meaningful ways.

However, Netflix’s ascendancy has not been without its share of controversies and criticisms. The platform’s dominance has raised concerns about monopolistic practices and the concentration of power in the hands of a few tech giants, prompting calls for greater regulatory oversight and accountability. Moreover, Netflix’s algorithm-driven recommendation system has come under scrutiny for its potential to perpetuate echo chambers and reinforce existing biases, raising important questions about the ethics and implications of algorithmic decision-making in the digital age.

In conclusion, the multi-dimensional impact of Netflix on modern entertainment is undeniable. From revolutionizing content consumption and distribution to reshaping industry dynamics and societal norms, Netflix has left an indelible mark on the cultural landscape of the 21st century. As we navigate this brave new world of streaming, one thing is clear: the age of Netflix has ushered in a new era of entertainment, one defined by unprecedented choice, diversity, and innovation. Yet, as we celebrate the transformative power of Netflix, it is imperative that we remain vigilant and critically engage with the ethical and societal implications of its dominance, ensuring that the future of entertainment remains inclusive, equitable, and reflective of the rich tapestry of human experiences.

Cite this page

Understanding the Multi-Dimensional Impact: Netflix's Influence on Modern Entertainment. (2024, Jun 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/understanding-the-multi-dimensional-impact-netflixs-influence-on-modern-entertainment/

"Understanding the Multi-Dimensional Impact: Netflix's Influence on Modern Entertainment." PapersOwl.com , 1 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/understanding-the-multi-dimensional-impact-netflixs-influence-on-modern-entertainment/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Understanding the Multi-Dimensional Impact: Netflix's Influence on Modern Entertainment . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/understanding-the-multi-dimensional-impact-netflixs-influence-on-modern-entertainment/ [Accessed: 5 Jun. 2024]

"Understanding the Multi-Dimensional Impact: Netflix's Influence on Modern Entertainment." PapersOwl.com, Jun 01, 2024. Accessed June 5, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/understanding-the-multi-dimensional-impact-netflixs-influence-on-modern-entertainment/

"Understanding the Multi-Dimensional Impact: Netflix's Influence on Modern Entertainment," PapersOwl.com , 01-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/understanding-the-multi-dimensional-impact-netflixs-influence-on-modern-entertainment/. [Accessed: 5-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Understanding the Multi-Dimensional Impact: Netflix's Influence on Modern Entertainment . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/understanding-the-multi-dimensional-impact-netflixs-influence-on-modern-entertainment/ [Accessed: 5-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Music Streaming Industry and Trend Analysis Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Industry analysis, trend analysis, works cited.

The world music industry is going through a process of modernization and technological advancement. When the Internet popularity and the development of diverse programs and websites enable illegal music consumption known as piracy, there is a tendency in legal music usage observed worldwide. The newly introduced music streaming industry allows users to access the storages of recordings from their smartphones or other devices for an affordable payment.

Many platforms for streaming, with leading ones, such as Spotify, iTunes, and others, are compatible market players capable of causing shifts in the whole music industry. The technologies applied to the industry development enable consumption growth, guarantee industry revenues, and have a potential to occupy more significant market share in the future.

Technological advancement introduced to the industry of music production caused some consecutive shifts in the business. It “reduced the cost of producing, distributing, and even promoting recordings” (Benner and Waldfogel 129). The sphere is developing attracting large numbers of users who pay for access to the recordings library. Such an approach does not limit the consumers in the choice of the products and offers personalized recommendation procedure for the increase of consumption. According to the analytical data, streaming became “the single largest source of music industry revenues in the United States” in 2015 (Datta et al. 25). The current market size of the sector counts in millions of individuals and its expenditure is anticipated in the future.

The growth rate in the sector is observed in the example of the tendency to use streaming platforms. The advancement of the industry is closely related to the nature of music consumption. Music is described by Benner and Waldfogel as an “experience good,” which is the characteristic that indicates purchasing before usage (131). Also, the tendency to consume new music of less popular artists by the users emphasizes the need for the increase in the industry and the development of new labels, as well as new streaming platforms.

Nevertheless, the current state of the market advancement shows that the vast majority of consumption rates are occupied by active industry players. According to Datta et al., the USA music streaming industry is represented by such top platforms as Spotify and iTunes, “with market shares of 22.8% and 18.3%, respectively” (8).

Among the less popular platforms which constitute a class of less active market players working as the tools for CD and MP3 local listening, such as Winamp, with more than 12% of market share and Windows Media Player, with approximately 10% (Datta et al. 8). Regarding the growing tendency of streaming platforms for all types of devices for monthly payments from the users, there is expected an appearance of new market participants capable of competing with the major players.

The patterns in music production and consumption have shifted during the past several decades. Since the 1990-s, there have been two main participants in the production sphere of music that were competing and making revenue on music recording and releasing. They were “major” companies or labels that had a long history in the business and “independent” labels, that occupied less space in the industry but still were compatible (Benner and Waldfogel 129).

Major labels released high-promoted music by famous musicians for the mass market, whereas smaller independent companies concentrated on less popular and lower-costing releases. However, the pattern changed with the introduction of streaming to the music industry. This influential participant occupied a significant part of the field of business and established new rules of music, as well as film and literature, consumption (Data et al. 5).

The main characteristic of a change in music production consists in lowering the costs of releases and appearance of new independent labels in the market. Streaming gave them an opportunity to popularize the low-promoted musicians and gain revenue out of new technologies. Therefore, the change influenced the consumption of music, too.

The consumption of music is closely related to the trends in the industry and the technological advancement in the sphere. With the introduction of streaming to music, the consumption rates increased due to the shifts in the production sector. Since the number of new popular musicians appeared, there occurred a variety of products. Concentrating on the major singers, consumers, however, look for diversity in music, thus increasing the demand (Datta et al., 5-6).

With a specific pricing system of streaming where a higher payment is required for major artists, there is a tendency to the discovery of new music. Consumers tend to look for new tunes within the affordable range. According to the research conducted by Datta et al., there “long-run shift in music consumption toward more plays, variety, and new music discovery” is observed in the industry over the past decades (6). Thus, the active participation of streaming services in the market leads to a significant change in both, production and consumption of music.

As for the perspectives of the music streaming industry in the future, it shows a constant tendency to growth. From the technological point of view, streaming platforms designed for multiple devices and operating systems offer a personalized approach to music recommendations according to a user’s preferences and listening history (Datta et al. 7). It makes expenditure on new music consumption possible and increases the number of new releases. There are some perspectives in the introduction of new streaming platforms to the market which will attract more consumers and enlarge the market size. On the background of fighting against piracy in the music industry, the streaming systems are expected to regulate the illegal consumption of music and bring the sector to a global level of development.

In conclusion, the music streaming industry is a developing business that has originated during the last decades as an alternative to CD or MP3 recordings purchasing. The advancement in modern technologies caused a change in the sector of music releases, making independent labels compete with major ones. Such a shift caused the introduction of new music with lower production schemes to the industry and took the streaming sector to a new level.

The personalized approach to users’ activity recommendations concerning their preferences and history of listening allows the platforms (Spotify, iTunes, and others) to increase the volume of products and their revenues. The demand for new music forces independent labels to look for unique talents and introduce them to the business, which contributes to the growth of the music industry as a whole. Thus, the sector occupies a big part of the music business in the United States. It provides new opportunities for musicians and recording labels fighting against piracy as a crucial hazard to the market. Music streaming is a developing industry that shows the tendency to grow in the future.

Benner, Mary J., and Joel Waldfogel. “The Song Remains the Same? Technological Change and Positioning in the Recorded Music Industry.” Strategy Science , vol. 1, no. 3, 2016, pp. 129-147.

Datta, Hannes, et al. “Changing Their Tune: How Consumers’ Adoption of Online Streaming Affects Music Consumption and Discovery.” Marketing Science , vol. 37, no. 1, 2018, pp. 5-21.

• Live Streaming Services for Business Marketing
• Netflix Recommendations: Streaming Services Marketing
• Management of Adaptive Video Streaming Services
• Global Trends in the Modern Beverage Industry
• Liquefied Natural Gas in Qatar
• Mobile Grooming Industry in the United States
• Iran’s Oil Industry and OPEC: Challenges and Future Prospects
• Information Technology in Nigerian Telecom Sector
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, May 22). Music Streaming Industry and Trend Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/music-streaming-industry-and-trend-analysis/

"Music Streaming Industry and Trend Analysis." IvyPanda , 22 May 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/music-streaming-industry-and-trend-analysis/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Music Streaming Industry and Trend Analysis'. 22 May.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Music Streaming Industry and Trend Analysis." May 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/music-streaming-industry-and-trend-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda . "Music Streaming Industry and Trend Analysis." May 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/music-streaming-industry-and-trend-analysis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Music Streaming Industry and Trend Analysis." May 22, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/music-streaming-industry-and-trend-analysis/.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

What Happened to Our Ad-Free TV?

Ads are here, there — almost everywhere — on streaming services now.

By John Koblin

Not long ago, streaming TV came with a promise: Sign up, and commercials will be a thing of the past.

Netflix rose to streaming dominance in part by luring customers to an ad-free experience. Amazon Prime Video, Disney+ and HBO Max followed that lead.

Well, that did not last long.

Ads are getting increasingly hard to avoid on streaming services. One by one, Netflix, Disney+, Peacock, Paramount+ and Max have added 30- and 60-second commercials in exchange for a slightly lower subscription price. Amazon has turned ads on by default. And the live sports on those services include built-in commercial breaks no matter what price you pay.

The importance of advertising was driven home this month when Amazon and Netflix both staged their first in-person presentations during the so-called upfronts, a decades-old television event in New York where media companies try to woo advertisers.

Netflix dispatched Shonda Rhimes, the successful executive producer of “Bridgerton” and creator of “Grey’s Anatomy,” to talk up the service to marketers. Amazon packed its event with celebrities like Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal, and a live performance from Alicia Keys.

“Remember when streamers told you, ‘We’re going to do television a new way, so I’m afraid we won’t be needing your little commercials anymore,’” Seth Meyers, the “Late Night” host, told advertisers at one of the events this month. “Cut to a few years later, every episode of ‘Shogun’ is interrupted by ‘Whopper, Whopper, Double Whopper!’”

Or as one frustrated consumer vented on social media this past week: “Why am I paying for Prime Video and getting all these commercials? It is beginning to get annoying.”

Representatives for Netflix and Amazon declined to comment.

Perhaps the changed viewing experience was inevitable. Over the last decade, as media companies raced to introduce streaming services to compete with Netflix, they prized subscriber counts above all else.

There was just one problem: profits.

The companies bled money, and Wall Street soured on their businesses. So executives are turning back the clock. They are ordering lower-cost, old network standbys like medical dramas, legal shows and sitcoms. They are offering bundled packages to make consumers less tempted to click on the cancel button . (Disney+, Hulu and Max will team up later this year , for instance.) And they are embracing commercials, as a way to increase revenue.

“The crazy thing is that we might wind up where we’re back to ‘Texaco Presents,’” said Chuck Lorre, the comedy hitmaker behind shows like “Young Sheldon,” “Two and a Half Men” and “The Big Bang Theory.” “I’m old enough to remember Fred and Barney on ‘The Flintstones’ smoking cigarettes because the show was paid for by a tobacco company.”

Consumers can still avoid most of the ads, for a price. Most streaming services still have an ad-free version, including Amazon, which requires subscribers to pay an extra $3 a month to skip the ads. Apple TV+ continues to offer only an ad-free experience.

The commercial tiers, however, are becoming more essential to their business. There were at least 93 million ad-supported streaming subscriptions in the United States at the end of last year, according to estimates from Brian Wieser, an industry analyst, and Antenna, a subscription research firm. In the wake of Amazon’s automatic switch to advertising, and more ad-tier customers picked up by other streaming services, Mr. Wieser and Antenna estimate that there are at least 170 million ad-supported subscriptions now.

Through the first three months of 2024, 56 percent of new subscribers to a streaming service chose the lower-priced ad-tier, according to Antenna. That was up from 39 percent a year earlier, the firm said.

Executives have tried to assure subscribers that while advertising is back, it won’t be as overwhelming as in traditional television.

Just a few years ago, an episode of a prestige basic cable drama like Ryan Murphy’s “American Crime Story” was interrupted by 21 minutes of commercials . But ads take up far less time on streaming services. For instance, on Disney+, the average amount of time for commercials is four minutes per hour. On Hulu, it’s just over six minutes.

“There was always this notion that people don’t like ads,” said Rita Ferro, the president of ad sales at Disney. “I don’t think that’s true. People don’t like bad advertising or a bad advertising experience.”

In the data-rich streaming world, she argued, the advertising experience is better informed than it was on traditional television, and the company knows what a person’s viewing preferences are and “what products are relevant to you,” she said.

Mr. Wieser, the analyst and founder of the consulting firm Madison and Wall, said he expected that even with ads running on streaming services, overall ad revenue would continue to decline for media companies. He projects that the amount of time spent watching ads on television — both streaming and traditional network and cable TV — will fall by 24 percent by 2027 compared with last year.

Part of the reason, he said, is that many people will continue to pay extra to avoid ads on services like Netflix. “The vast majority of Netflix subscribers will never choose an ad-supported option of any price,” he said.

Still, viewers may have no choice in some cases. Even Netflix subscribers who pay more than $15 a month for the ad-free tier will be exposed to commercials if they tune into the streamer’s pair of N.F.L. Christmas games this year, or W.W.E. shows next year. The same goes for subscribers of Peacock, Paramount+ and Prime Video, which also carry live sports.

“Amazon is selling the N.F.L. How is that different from what Fox is selling or what CBS is selling?” said Joe Marchese, a former head of ad sales for the Fox networks group who is now a venture capitalist. “Netflix is pitching a Shonda Rhimes show. The thing you’re pitching to advertisers — here’s culture creation, would you like to be adjacent to it? That sounds exactly the same. The only difference is who’s doing it.”

And in some cases, a half-century’s worth of precedent is shattering.

For decades, HBO offered zero commercials. But now, advertisers can run commercials on Max’s ad tier during episodes of older HBO fare, and an ad before a new HBO series. At the company’s upfront presentation for advertisers, executives played a clip from a GMC Sierra pickup truck commercial that ran on Max’s ad tier before episodes of HBO’s “True Detective.”

It was especially striking to see Casey Bloys, the chairman of HBO and a two-decade veteran of the network who is more accustomed to script development than pitching marketers, promoting programming “that reaches multiple audiences” during the upfront. While reeling off stats about the audience makeup of HBO’s documentary series “Hard Knocks,” Mr. Bloys stumbled on his words, chuckled and said, “I’m new to the advertising banter.”

At Disney’s upfront event, the ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel mocked media companies suddenly reconnecting with their roots, including by bundling different streaming services into one package. Viewers “can turn on their TV and get all the channels in one package for one price, all supported by ads,” he said. “We call it basic cable, and it’s going to blow your minds.”

And then Mr. Kimmel took aim at Netflix, reminding marketers that they “spent years ignoring you, sneering at you.”

“Remember when Netflix thought they were above all this?” he said. “They came in, they destroyed commercial television. And now, guess what they want to sell you. Commercials. On television.”

John Koblin covers the television industry. He is the co-author of “It’s Not TV: The Spectacular Rise, Revolution, and Future of HBO.” More about John Koblin

Streaming Bundles Are All the Rage — but They Can’t Bring Back Pay-TV’s Glory Days

By Todd Spangler

Todd Spangler

NY Digital Editor

• Streaming Bundles Are All the Rage — but They Can’t Bring Back Pay-TV’s Glory Days 9 hours ago
• Paramount Co-CEOs Postpone All-Hands Meeting Because of ‘Speculation Regarding Potential M&A’ 1 day ago
• Tech-News Site Gizmodo Sold to European Media Firm Keleops, Which Says It Will Retain Entire Editorial Staff 1 day ago

The next evolution in the streaming wars? It’s a new spin on the old cable TV model: cross-company bundles of streaming services.

Consumers like bundles, especially if they’re getting a price break. Media companies like bundles because they help reduce churn (i.e., cancellation rates) and lower customer-acquisition costs, even it means working with would-be rivals.

Related Stories

Ai could contribute to virtual production sector growth, bring me the horizon's oli sykes on 'nex gen' and jordan fish's departure: ‘i’m not gonna lie and say it ended amicably’, popular on variety.

But does it? Exactly how powerful these streaming bundles will be remains to be seen. In any event, this won’t mark a revival of the highly profitable pay-TV fat bundles of the past. The way the streaming landscape has evolved means the dynamics are different than with cable TV. Today you can’t get, say, the full complement of live sports on ESPN without taking a whole bunch of other networks you don’t really care about, whereas you don’t have to buy a bloated streaming bundle just to get, for example, Netflix.

“It all started with Netflix going direct-to-consumer,” says Frank Boulben, chief revenue officer for Verizon Consumer Group. “Once you do that, you cannot do those forced bundles.”

For more than two years, Verizon has been steadily building out its lineup of streaming add-ons. Current perks available to the telco’s wireless customers include discounts on a Netflix- Max bundle (both with ads) for $10 a month (a 40% savings) and a bundle comprising Disney+ with no ads, Hulu with ads and ESPN+ for $10 a month (which is 33% less than a package Disney offers that includes Disney+ with ads). Says Boulben: “It’s a big difference from the traditional cable TV bundle where you get 200 channels and you only watch 15.”

For WBD chief David Zaslav, who has been promoting the idea of cross-company streaming bundles for the past year, synthetic bundles (meaning the services aren’t integrated into a single app) such as the Disney+-Hulu-Max offering will lessen the pressure for companies to spend on content at Netflix’s level in order to attract a high-scale user base. In other words, WBD doesn’t have to try to make Max all things to all people (even as it has attempted to expand the streamer’s appeal by mixing in content from Discovery’s networks, CNN, and live sports from TNT and TBS).

“As we look at what happens ahead, there likely will be a restructuring of how people view content,” Zaslav told analysts on WBD’s May 9 earnings call. “And there’s a lot of irrationality in the market that’s getting shaken out in terms of the amount of money spent.”

Another factor driving companies like WBD and Disney into streaming partnerships: All the major platforms are pushing ad-supported tiers, and they are hungry for eyeballs. “Advertising works when you can achieve reach — and that’s determined by how many subscribers you have. That’s an important part of the profitability equation,” says John Harrison, EY’s Americas media and entertainment leader. Legacy media companies, in particular, are eager to retain ad dollars that are dropping out of linear TV, he adds.

Some observers don’t think the new bundling will move the needle. “It’s hard to see in the long term how the bundles will appeal to a large enough number of people that it will make a material difference to the bottom line,” says Colin Dixon, founder of independent analyst firm nScreenMedia.

The one player to watch here is Netflix. “Netflix is the biggest draw in any bundle,” Dixon says. “If they see net revenue decline with subscribers no longer paying full rate [as part of a bundle], they are going to get out of them pretty quick.”

Meanwhile, Charter Communications is looking to use streaming to prop up the traditional cable TV bundle. The operator has thrown Disney+ and ESPN+ into its premium TV tiers for no extra charge — and Charter just cut a similar deal with Paramount Global to bundle Paramount+ and BET+ with Spectrum TV.

VIP+ Analysis: New Bundles Point to Broadband’s Growing Power in SVOD Packaging

It’s unclear if total revenue per subscriber under the Paramount-Charter pact is up, down or flat. But “we believe leverage increasingly lies with [pay-TV providers] in these relationships,” Swinburne noted. “Charter has been quite public that it is unwilling to have its customers ‘pay twice’ for the same content,” he wrote, pointing out that Paramount+ includes “significant content overlap” with Paramount linear networks including CBS.

More from Variety

Sanjay leela bhansali hit ‘heeramandi: the diamond bazaar’ renewed for season 2 by netflix (exclusive), the state of generative ai in hollywood: a special report, tyler perry to direct netflix’s ‘straw,’ starring taraji p. henson, sherri shepherd and teyana taylor, kathryn bigelow to direct next film for netflix, scarlett johansson vs. sam altman is the ‘black widow’ sequel we didn’t know we needed, netflix unveils new sports docuseries on simone biles, jerry jones, olympic men’s basketball, more from our brands, travis scott moves to dismiss sample lawsuit over ‘alright, alright, alright’ lyrics, robb report’s monterey car week package treats you like a concours vip for 5 nights, ai video firm spiideo lands $20m venture capital investment, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, mike judge’s beavis and butt-head renewed for season 3, verify it's you, please log in.

Music Streaming Services Essays

User evaluation of youtube music and spotify, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

site categories

Steven schiffman named executive chairman of earthxtv, breaking news.

Warner Bros. Discovery UK Boss Says Streaming Has Moved On From “Subscriber Growth At Any Cost” But “Churn” Remains A Problem

By Max Goldbart

Max Goldbart

International TV Co-Editor

More Stories By Max

• BBC Bosses Called Out By More Than 100 Jewish Industry Figures Over Cricket Commentator Accused Of Sharing Antisemitic Images & Posts
• William Russell Dies: Early ‘Doctor Who’ Companion Was 99
• Anjelica Huston Starring In Latest BBC/BritBox Agatha Christie Adaptation

Warner Bros. Discovery ‘s (WBD) boss in the UK has said the streaming industry has moved “smartly” away from a “subscriber growth almost at any cost” approach.

“Scale is important but profitable growth with responsible spending is much more important,” Andrew Georgiou , who was promoted last year, told the Deloitte and Enders Media & Telecoms 2024 and Beyond Conference in London.

Related Stories

Hamish Linklater Joins 'Gen V' For Season 2

Google EMEA Boss Urges Media To Go "Beyond The Headlines" In Reporting On AI

He was speaking on a panel after Netflix Co-CEO Greg Peters talked up the streamer’s breadth of content in the UK.

“The bundling opportunity provides better lifetime value,” Georgiou went on to say. “It used to be subscriber growth at any cost but we’ve moved smartly away from that phenomenon. Scale is important but profitable growth with responsible spending is much more important.”

Around the world there are “deeper, more collaborative experiments” in bundling taking place, Georgiou added, pointing to WBD U.S. sports bundles as an example.

He cited major differences between the U.S. and UK that U.S. businesses need to remain cognisant of, saying that 58% of TV is watched on free services in the latter compared to less than 25% in the former.

Chris Bird , who runs Prime Video in the UK and was speaking alongside Georgiou, stressed Amazon ‘s commitment to bundling, pointing to the potential for customers to subscribe to Discovery+ and other “special interest content.”

He used the session to reiterate Amazon’s commitment to the public broadcasters and “inward investment to support the UK sector” in “challenging” economic times.

The likes of Disney EMEA boss Jan Koeppen and Sky head Dana Strong are also speaking at the London event.

Must Read Stories

Studiocanal & working title team for timely d-day movie ‘pressure’.

The CW Cancels ‘All American: Homecoming’ After Three Seasons; EPs React

‘uncle vanya’s william jackson harper on mcu, awards & a very good year, tribeca raising curtain on ’24 with co-founder robert de niro front & center.

Subscribe to Deadline Breaking News Alerts and keep your inbox happy.

Read More About:

No comments.

Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2024 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Apple held talks to launch Apple TV+ in China, would become the only US streaming service to be available in the region

Apple reportedly held talks with telecoms giant China Mobile, with a view to launch Apple TV+ in China, according to The Information . If a deal is struck, Apple TV+ would be the only US streaming service to have a presence in China.

Chinese law typically prevents US services from distributing their content directly. The Information says the proposed deal would see China Mobile offer Apple TV+ for a monthly fee, and feature its content prominently on China Mobile set-top boxes.

Apple and China Mobile would split the revenue from the arrangement. Talks were said to be underway at the end of last year, but the current status of the negotiations is unclear. Apple apparently wanted to announce the partnership last year, but something fell through.

If a deal was finalized, it would likely not allow for the iPhone TV app to include Apple’s content in the region, as that would violate Chinese law.

Like many emerging markets, content subscriptions services are typically offered at far cheaper prices in China than in the US. Apple Music is less than $2 per month, for instance, compared to $10.99 per month in the US.

It follows that Apple TV+ would also likely be offered at a significantly lower price in China, in part due to weaker consumer pricing power and because of the fact that most of Apple’s content is English-centric.

However, assuming the legal and business operational challenges can be navigated, the potential economic rewards are huge thanks to the sheer size of China’s population. The Information says Apple is also exploring ways to launch other services offerings like Apple Arcade in China as well.

Perhaps with a view that it would launch in China eventually, Apple has careful oversight on how sensitive topics like China are presented in its original content. In a very public spat, Jon Stewart departed his Apple TV+ talk show because Apple resisted coverage of certain politically-charged topics like China.

This is just the latest example of Apple looking for ways to expand Apple TV+’s reach. Last week, we heard that Apple is developing a TV app for Android, another attempt at reaching a new base of subscribers.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Check out 9to5Mac on YouTube for more Apple news:

Apple TV is Apple's streaming device that access…

Benjamin develops iOS apps professionally and covers Apple news and rumors for 9to5Mac. Listen to Benjamin, every week, on the Happy Hour podcast. Check out his personal blog . Message Benjamin over email or Twitter .

Benjamin Mayo's favorite gear

Philips Hue Lights

The easiest way to get into HomeKit and Apple smart home tech. Great for gifts.

iPhone Wireless Charger

Inexpensive, fast, wireless charger for iPhone.

Manage push notifications