I knew someone was going to bring up music streaming. Yes, it's indeed true that releases there are (mostly) available across the major platforms. The difference I think, is that music is a loss leader. record/streaming sales is a small drip in the bucket compared to other sources like touring/events and merchandising[1]. Streaming to them is basically another way for them to promote themselves, to get more customers so they can earn the real bucks via the other methods. The same can't be said for tv/movie releases.

[1] random source: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-do-musicians-make-money-...

> According to a recent Citigroup report, the music industry generated a record $43 billion in 2017, but recording artists saw just 12% of that revenue, or $5.1 billion, and the "bulk" of their revenues came from touring.

So, Game of Thrones On Ice then? Can't wait.

Music streaming solved this problem with a baseline of compulsary licensing for 'radio style' plays.

I think we've been trained towards seeking out specific shows to watch in order now, so a you can't pick exactly what to watch model wouldn't really fly, but even if it did, it wouldn't cost any less, or be able to include nearly everything.

The key difference is the music streaming services aren't necessarily owned by the content producers. I'm assuming Spotify and Apple Music dominate streaming (could be wrong), whereas Hulu/Disney+/etc are all owned by the content producers. Netflix eventually merged into a production company too, which has only made it worse

Music streaming doesn't have many real players. Spotify got in first, apple and google use their huge userbases to push their product and everyone else is irrelevant. If you wanted to make a new music streaming service you could never get anywhere close to big.

Spotify would probably be dead by now if Apple and Google didn't do such a poor job.

>Spotify got in first

Actually Rhapsody was the first. But I guess conditions at the time weren't such that it really went mainstream.