Predicting the Future of Digital Video

The future of video consumption is online streaming.  But you already know that, and so does everyone else.  This is a social change that’s been predicted for over 10 years, and one that makes plenty of sense.  Radio technology replaced telegraphs, television replaced radio, and here we are with the most complex yet simultaneously easiest to use communication medium ever conceived by man.  It’s only natural for the internet to step up to the plate and take its at-bat.

What is less known is exactly how this will be implemented.  We can already see the beginning of trends but it’s harder to say exactly where they’ll end up.  If you’re creating digital media, it’s important to know the best place to distribute it.  In this post, I’ll be taking a look at all of the most popular current streaming options and sharing what I think of both their current execution and their future potential.

Netflix:

You probably already knew this would be the first platform discussed, which says a lot about Netflix’s success.  What started out as a mail-order DVD service has grown into arguably the most popular paid streaming service.  The remarkable thing about Netflix is that it has not only adapted to change, but pioneered it.  Netflix knew that streaming was the future, so they adapted their business model accordingly.  While competitors like Blockbuster clung to the past in terms of prioritizing physical merchandise, Netflix started offering online instant access early on.

Netflix continued to pioneer the post-TV era by introducing exclusive original content to their library.  Many of these projects have been extremely successful such as Master of None, Narcos, and Stranger Things.  They’ve been able to do all of this and still keep subscriptions cheap, only raising the monthly price twice.

Netflix’s previous success and consistent forward thinking tell me that this is a company and a service whose best days are still ahead of them.

Hulu:

Originally a free service, Hulu is now a subscription service similar to Netflix.  Unlike Netflix however, Hulu has always focused more on shows than movies.  It was created for cord-cutters who wanted to keep up with their favorite shows without paying for cable.  Hulu has the advantage over Netflix in terms of current cable programming.  Hulu is updated with most shows as they debut on traditional television, but at the price of sitting through commercials, even on the paid tiers.

Hulu has been successful as an alternative to on-demand streaming through a cable provider, but its movie library pales in comparison to Netflix and its original content has not been received as well. The platform’s reliance on outside content may lead to its downfall, but for the time being it seems like Hulu is here to stay.

YouTube:

YouTube is probably the most unique of the major streaming services, and the most different from the medium it’s replacing (despite being named after that same medium).  It’s managed to maintain its original purpose as a place for regular people to upload home videos but it also is a hub for all kinds of content.

No other service (except maybe Vimeo, but on a much smaller scale) offers such a broad range of content.  If there’s a video you want to see, it’s probably on YouTube.  Phone review? It’s there.  Ski edit? It’s there.  That documentary you’ve been meaning to watch?  It’s probably illegal to watch it through YouTube, but it’s still there.

YouTube is a dream come true for independent videographers.  Many individuals and small companies have found a home on YouTube and that niche is a big part of the reason the service has been so successful thus far.

Despite all of this, YouTube is far from perfect.  Its biggest advantage is also its biggest flaw.  YouTube does not have anywhere near the involvement in its content that other streaming services have.  Anyone can upload a video and sometimes that causes problems.  Mark Cuban has criticized the company over this.  One issue is that copyrighted material is uploaded and YouTube is then liable for hosting it.  The volume of uploads that must be monitored sometimes makes it difficult for even the most popular channels to argue fair use to the company that pays them.  YouTube has also had other issues in relation to their guidelines and rule changes with many of these channels and individuals.

Despite these flaws, I believe that YouTube is unique enough to play a large part in the future of video consumption.

Sling:

Sling is an interesting concept.  It offers the same channels carried by cable providers, but online and for a fraction of the cost.  While that may sound like a great idea at first, there are a lot of problems with this model.  First of all, it completely ignores the obvious shift to on-demand content.  Why wait for a show to be on if you could watch it whenever you want on a different service?  Not only this but sling is more expensive than other services which have far more options at any given time.

Sling’s clear advantage is in live events, especially sports.  Sports are the number one reason Americans are hesitant to quit cable, so this is really Sling’s niche.  Unfortunately for sling, this is a niche they will soon lose.  Yahoo, YouTube, and even Twitter have recently started experimenting with major live broadcasts (including NFL games and presidential debates) and have made them much easier and cheaper to access than Sling.

Sling is certainly a solid attempt at post-television video distribution, but this model is currently somewhere between outdated and obsolete.  Frankly, I doubt it will be around in 10 years.