How the catalog got split
In the early years of subscription streaming, one service could hold a large share of what a viewer wanted, because many media companies licensed their films and series to it for a fee. That licensing income was attractive and low-risk for the owners.
Over time, many owners concluded that their content was worth more as the reason to subscribe to their own service. They began to withhold shows from third parties and to launch direct-to-consumer apps. The competition that followed is often called the streaming wars. The result for viewers is service fragmentation: the library you used to find in one place is now spread across several.
“Streaming wars” is a journalistic label rather than a precise term, and the competitive picture shifts as companies merge, rebrand or change strategy.
Why companies compete this way
Several motivations pull in the same direction.
- Exclusive content as a draw. A series that can only be watched on one service gives people a reason to join or stay.
- Control of the customer relationship. Owning the app means owning viewer data, billing and the interface, instead of handing them to a licensee.
- Different economics. Licensing a show earns a fixed fee, while keeping it in-house trades that income for a chance at subscriber growth. How the money works is covered in our overview of how streaming services make money, and the question of how long a title stays exclusive is discussed under release windows.
- Scale. Large libraries and original productions are expensive. Streaming costs include licensing, production, technology and delivery, so companies have an incentive to grow subscribers and then to raise prices or add advertising.
What viewers experience
The shift changes everyday viewing in ways that are easy to notice.
- Higher combined cost. One subscription was cheap relative to a cable bundle. Several can add up to something comparable. Comparing the total with the pay-TV package it replaced is part of any cord cutting decision.
- Searching across apps. Finding where a title lives can mean checking several services. Titles can also move between services as licences begin and end, which means a show available today may not be tomorrow.
- Price and plan changes. Services regularly adjust prices, tiers and features. Specifics vary by country and change often, so check the current terms before subscribing.
- Mixed experiences. Different apps vary in interface, picture quality settings and device support.
- Cancelling and returning. Many services make it simple to cancel and later return, which has encouraged a stop-start pattern of use.
How viewers respond
There is no single correct approach, but common tactics include:
- Rotating subscriptions. Subscribing to one or two services at a time, watching what you want and then pausing. This can reduce spending, though it requires planning and some services release content in a way that favours staying subscribed.
- Choosing advertising tiers. Many services offer a cheaper plan with advertising, trading interruptions for a lower price. The ad-supported side of the market also includes FAST channels, which are free to watch.
- Bundles. Some providers, telecom companies and platforms package several services at one price. Whether it saves money depends on whether you would use all the included services.
- Using aggregated search. Some devices and apps show which service carries a title, which eases the discovery problem described in our guide to video discovery.
- Setting a budget. Deciding a monthly limit and ranking services by hours actually watched helps identify the ones worth keeping.
- Rent or buy single titles. For a one-off film, paying for a rental can be cheaper than joining a service for a month.
- Using libraries and free sources. Public libraries, broadcasters’ own catch-up services and free platforms offer legal content at no extra cost in many places.
It is sometimes suggested that frustrated viewers drift toward unauthorised copies. Piracy is illegal in most places, and it is not a reliable solution, since quality, safety and legality are all problems. This is general information and not legal advice, and rules vary by country.
Does the market consolidate?
Many observers expect fragmentation to ease through mergers, bundles and partnerships, and some changes of that kind have already happened. Others point out that each owner of valuable content has little incentive to give up its own service. What will happen is uncertain. A reasonable view is that the market is still adjusting, and that the current arrangement is a stage rather than a final structure.
There are some signs that the model is converging with older television in a few respects: advertising tiers, scheduled-style channels and licensing deals to third parties have all returned in various forms. This echoes the earlier shift from broadcast television to streaming, now partly running in reverse.
The practical takeaway
Service fragmentation is a consequence of content owners wanting to capture the full value of what they make. For viewers, it moves the burden of assembly onto them. Treat subscriptions as flexible rather than permanent, check the total monthly cost, and revisit the list every so often to see whether a service is still earning its place.