So use the Apple TV store (formerly iTunes Store). There you can buy nearly anything from any studio, and you pay per episode or per season. Whether the costs are reasonable or not is in the eye of the beholder but I don't feel ripped off by it.

>buy

Nothing is for sale at the Apple TV "Store". You pay for a license to stream a piece of content, that lasts until Apple or the content owner decides to revoke it.

Has any Apple TV purchase been revoked?

Not sure…

I have a bundle of Downton Abbey that is no longer for sale on iTunes and I can play it, but (for a while, they may have fixed it) at the end of an episode you had to navigate to the next episode by selecting the show and scrolling horizontally through every single episode. Technically possible but very irritating.

(Funny thing: I was watching the show when the switch happened… I watched two or three with the obvious play next episode in series behavior and then it suddenly stopped working… apple support finally told me it seems like it was related to it being taken off in favor of a bundle with the film included.)

Meh. Videotape wears out. Video discs break. Books yellow and age and rot. No content you have ever bought lasts forever.

> Books yellow and age and rot. No content you have ever bought lasts forever.

Many libraries all over the world have books which have lasted for centuries, far longer than a single person's lifetime. The books I bought as a child can last longer than my own body. That's close enough to "lasting forever" for most practical purposes.

Centuries-old books have had special care to preserve them.

If you want your personal books to last most of your lifetime, then there needs to be a modicum of care taken, which isn't always possible, especially while you're in transit and moving from one place and into another. How many books have been lost that way?

The whole point was someone lamenting digital license may not last forever (though Apple's has, so far) and I'm just reminding everyone that physical media doesn't last forever either.

Part of the concern is "I can keep it longer if I take care of it or if I keep track of it properly", eg if it gets lost or ruined its due to some lack of care by the end user, vs "I only get to keep it until some third party decides I don't get to have it any more".

Then buy physical copies of everything. Oh sure, you lose a huge convenience factor, but at least no third party has control over it.

Can you even buy physical copies of streaming shows? Or online news? Or podcasts?

They can but many do not in practice. Lots of the trade paperbacks I bought in the 1970s and 80s fall apart now if I actually read them.

Interesting. I have paperback books that my grandmother owned in the 40's that are a little fragile, but still easy to read without damaging. Perhaps they were a more expensive production process than yours.

My father-in-law (RIP) used to be a paper engineer and he had a huge collection of paper at home. He used to make his own paper for fun and I had the pleasure to assist him on a few batches. Interesting, if time-consuming hobby.

Anyhow, comparing different paper types you can see, feel, and smell the differences in quality. It starts with good raw materials, recycled low-quality paper will never make high-quality paper. That's because for high-quality paper you want long cellulose fiber in the paper. The longer the fiber the hardier the paper. The less acidic the paper, the better. You add chalk to make paper less acidic. The best paper has very long cellulose fiber and is virtually acid-free. If your paper turns yellow and "brittle" over time it is because of acid.

Now, the paper-surface is treated to create different effects (e.g. glossy, water-resistance). IIRC, that is called "coating". Coats may introduce acid again. Note that untreated paper is rather smooth and yellow-white-ish. To get this recycled, natural, rough look that is en vogue at the moment, you actually have to treat the paper to look like this. From an environmental point of view you would be better of with a smooth white paper. For longevity you want to coat your paper with an acid-free solution.

It is a little bit ironic, but engineering improvements in paper manufacturing allowed us to produce paper with lesser and less raw materials and worse pH values (e.g. industrial mills need far less water for a ton of paper than a century ago). This cheaper paper replaced the cheap paper from before, therefore degrading the paper quality, making modern cheap books less hardy than old cheap books. Cheap paper from 1930 will last a century or longer, cheap paper from 1970 will last maybe 50-60 years under normal storage conditions, ie. in an open bookshelf.

Now, that's only the paper. The printing ink and the binding also play a role in longevity. First, ink adds acid to the process, which is always bad, but depending on the ink type (dye or pigment, fountain pen enthusiasts will know this) the ink itself will fade faster or slower. Ancient inks are all of the pigment variety (or maybe at least those we know of). They have very long staying power. Modern inks are mostly dye and as a rule of thumb add more acid and fade faster. Bindings have little impact on readability, but are of course vital to the survival of the book as a book. A glue binding will degas over time. It becomes hard and breaks in a few decades. When single pages break out of the book you see the cheapest of the cheap bindings. Exposure to heat will accelerate this process, so if you like your glued books, keep them out of the sun.

High-quality books are saddle-stitched and work differently. First of, you do not stitch individual pages but fascicles, a bundle of paper, each paper holding four pages, which are then again stitched together in bigger bundles and finally into the book cover. This requires some forethought in the layout of the book and is very, very expensive. I own an archival hardcover print of _Also sprach Zarathustra_ from 2002, which was sold for about 300 EUR at the time. It was gifted to me for some accomplishment then. That's a book truly in its own league. I own a few other archival hardcover prints, but none this good. But I digress. I wanted to say that with good paper, coating, ink, and proper storage those books have virtually no end of life.

Sorry for the long post, brought up a lot of memories.

physical media, you can make copies of.

That is my current solution.

Still there is a number of things I cannot buy or rent.

> I'd assume that with all the cost savings given the digitalization of the delivery at least it shouldn't be more expensive than renting a physical dvd

I'm confused. A typical streaming service has hundreds or thousands of what would typically be a physical DVD. So how much should they charge?

Also, the vast majority of the cost for most content is in the creation of the content.

The tl;dr is that we've demanded things with such enormous production costs that were basically almost entirely subsidized on a socialized model, where the big appeal of the big ones subsidized the costs of the less successful ones, in a way that would make them not reliably financially viable in isolation.

But the content that is so specific it only appeals to 1-10% of people is both the most memorable and also often the content that is basically guaranteed to not hit for 90% of people. So your math on who's going to pay to consume it changes drastically when the ceiling is so much lower, especially when the effective price required is so much higher that it's going to drive even more people away.

So it's a much larger risk pool to hope you'll make your money back with the error bars so much narrower, and businesses being businesses, they go for the bland thing with a lower risk pool 99% of the time, and then wonder why their returns keep shrinking.