[HN Gopher] Are we going back to the cable days?
___________________________________________________________________
Are we going back to the cable days?
Author : obert
Score : 114 points
Date : 2022-08-22 09:44 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (thehustle.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (thehustle.co)
| moolcool wrote:
| The flexibility is a nice option in contrast, at least. Like you
| can easily subscribe to Apple TV+, watch Severance in a month,
| cancel, and then use HBO to watch The Rehearsal the next month.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| I wish I had the flexibility to ditch Prime Video whilst
| keeping the rest of Prime at a discount.
| bombcar wrote:
| Amazon knows exactly what they're doing with this. Prime
| Video is a crap service on its own, but it isn't bad for
| "free" and means when you do buy/rent a movie you do it
| there.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| It's not free though, the subscription went up by about
| 100% when they launched Prime Video.
| bombcar wrote:
| Yep, but I suspect that for most people the "free prime
| shipping" is valued at 110% of the price, and the
| video/music at basically nothing.
|
| Amazon apparently thinks Prime Video is worth $9/mo as
| you can subscribe to that alone (not that anyone does).
| cassianoleal wrote:
| I would take the tenner discount if I had the option to
| be honest, even though it's still worse value than pre-
| Video Prime.
| matt_s wrote:
| I ditched Prime altogether and don't miss it. Deliveries from
| amazon are still free over some threshold and they sometimes
| arrive early.
|
| I liked a couple of shows a few years ago but like most
| streaming platforms they don't invest in them or the good
| actors move on to other projects. There is one coming up that
| I might like so I might do the signup for a month near xmas
| shopping season and binge the show, get faster shipping on
| gifts, then bail.
| yrgulation wrote:
| Well the internet is the new tv - full of ads, mediocrity and
| misinformation. No surprise some form of paid "channels" evolved.
| spydum wrote:
| $79 would not have gotten you any of those premium content
| providers. That collection of content would have easily hit
| 120+/month, plus a bunch of bs service charges for devices. They
| also did not give you the ability to drop the content you didn't
| want. So much of it came as packages and bundles.
| ourmandave wrote:
| And the best times were the free weekends when they'd show
| great movies to lure new subscribers.
|
| Instead of the normal couple new movies you'd watched 4 times
| by the end of the month.
| metadat wrote:
| Yeah, those were the days.
| johnny_canuck wrote:
| Where I am in Canada, if you wanted all that content for that
| price you'd also be stuck with a lot of content you did not
| want.
|
| If you wanted a la carte offerings then you'd pay a premium for
| going outside the packages they offered.
|
| While I'm not in love with the current situation, it's much
| better than where we were in the 2000s. At least I can say I
| don't want X and cancel it.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I pay $85/month for my broadband cable alone, via the Comcast
| Xfinity monopoly I don't really have any other option. but I
| guess I'd need to pay that even if I watched no streaming TV.
| linsomniac wrote:
| I have an incentive to minimize the number of streaming services
| I have, because the more I have the more time I spend flipping
| between them looking for who has what I want to watch. Example:
| The family sat down to watch a specific movie this weekend, and
| after trying 4 services I decided to buy it on one of them,
| clicked purchase exactly when my wife announced she had found it
| on 5th service I didn't know we had.
| zdragnar wrote:
| canistream.it used to be my go-to, but they're currently
| "rebuilding". For now, you can search movies on
| https://reelgood.com/ (and probably a half dozen other sites)
| and it'll list the services the movie is available on.
|
| Of course, if you didn't even know you had a particular
| service, it's not going to be terribly helpful...
| jeffwask wrote:
| Not really.
|
| 1) I get multiple services bundled with other things I already
| pay for 2) I only need to subscribe to 1 or 2 a month. You can
| drop one to go to another unless you live by the FOMO 3) Many of
| these services will die over the next few years. It's
| unsustainable.
| gniv wrote:
| > Streaming services...
|
| > ... are making price increases a regular occurrence
|
| This was (is? idk) the case with cable. I used to have Xfinity
| and they would increase the price every year, by non-trivial
| amounts. My company was paying for internet, so I didn't feel
| that the cable price was too steep, but in retrospect I should
| have cancelled it earlier.
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| My household has Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, ESPN+, and
| something else I can't remember. Yet I still find myself sailing
| the black seas for material that's been removed from or can't be
| found on those platforms. Sometimes I'll just buy the blu-ray on
| eBay then rip the disc onto my hard drive. My torrent downloads
| went from like 5 a year between 2014-2018 back up into the
| hundreds and continues to climb each year.
| kat_rebelo wrote:
| i primarily torrented initially because i was broke. i was a
| super early netflix adopter (back in the DVD by mail days). for
| awhile netflix, hbo, and amazon prime were all i needed to watch
| 80% of the stuff i wanted to, and it felt fair to pay what i did.
|
| with more content being paywalled behind the proliferation of
| superfluous streaming services, consistent rate hikes, and a huge
| drop in quality of content i've eliminated everything except
| prime (which i keep mainly for the two day shipping). i don't
| want to declare myself as a bellwether, but i got into netflix
| early and i got out early as well (cancelled my subscription Dec
| of 2021).
|
| at the end of the day, torrenting is always the best value
| proposition. you can possess the files you download, they are not
| subject to being randomly taken down, and there are plenty of
| options for streaming them to multiple devices in your home. i
| download some really weird obscure stuff and i have never had an
| issue not being able to find subtitles. sometimes quality can
| vary but for most things you can get a decent 720 or 1080 rip.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I value my time way more than dealing with having a Plex Server
| set up. I had one from 2012-2020 and before that a Mac Mini
| running Front Row from 2006-2012. I haven't had it plugged up
| in 2 years.
| dont__panic wrote:
| FYI, you can still get 2-day free shipping from Amazon by
| spending >$35. In my experience, there are very few situations
| where I really need an item in 2 days but can't bundle in other
| necessities like toothpaste or toilet paper to pad the cost to
| get free shipping.
| slg wrote:
| >at the end of the day, torrenting is always the best value
| proposition.
|
| Weird that the one that is free and doesn't pay anyone who had
| a hand in creating the content is the one with the most value.
| It is almost like creating content has a cost that needs to be
| passed on to the consumer.
| kat_rebelo wrote:
| for content you have purchsed (ie: prime) there is nothing
| stopping them from giving you a file in case they delist the
| content (Bandcamp is a good example of a service that offers
| exactly this).
|
| this may be more of a political stance, but most of this
| content is produced by huge media corporations with deep
| pockets and histories of nefarious business practices. do i
| really care if disney gets paid for their content? no not
| really. if they amortize this loss by paying their employees
| less than that says more about them than it does about anyone
| pirating from them.
| slg wrote:
| >for content you have purchsed (ie: prime) there is nothing
| stopping them from giving you a file in case they delist
| the content (Bandcamp is a good example of a service that
| offers exactly this).
|
| Sometimes you aren't purchasing the content and are instead
| getting a license because Amazon doesn't have the
| contractual right to sell you the content because they are
| also just licensing it rather than owning it themselves.
|
| >this may be more of a political stance, but most of this
| content is produced by huge media corporations with deep
| pockets and histories of nefarious business practices. do i
| really care if disney gets paid for their content? no not
| really. if they amortize this loss by paying their
| employees less than that says more about them than it does
| about anyone pirating from them.
|
| Disney isn't the content creator I am talking about. I am
| instead referring to the actual individuals that were
| hands-on with the creation of the content. One of the
| primary reasons that HBO Max is removing content is they
| don't want to pay residuals to the individual artists
| involved in creating the removed shows. Keeping those shows
| on the platform means HBO Max would have to literally send
| out checks to the writers, actors, etc. who have negotiated
| for those ongoing payments. They would never have gotten
| those checks at all if you never pay for that content.
| syrrim wrote:
| The price advantage was always going to be temporary. People have
| clearly demonstrated that they are _willing_ to pay however much
| for access to content. Furthermore, the content producers have
| gotten used to a certain amount of funding, and are unlikely to
| give it up willingly. The biggest difference is that today people
| can pirate content that they can 't otherwise find conveniently.
| But people are likely willing to pay even a very high fee to
| stream content conveniently, and if streaming services play there
| cards right, I suspect they will manage to raise fees
| substantially.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Who is subscribing to all of them really? It is actually
| mentionned in the article that typical streaming spending is
| around 20-30$ per house.
|
| Also, despite not being allowed by terms of service most accounts
| are widely shared accross families and friends which mean most of
| us pay for only one service.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Most people subscribe to Netflix, Prime, and Disney+ and get
| the free hulu package while also still using cable.
| cableshaft wrote:
| Not me. The only steady one has been Netflix (and Amazon Prime
| I guess, but that's more for package delivery, I've only
| watched a small handful of shows on there), and I might even
| take a break from that once I get through Better Call Saul. I
| sometimes get a month of HBO Max or Hulu/Disney+, but not that
| often.
|
| Still a lot cheaper than cable.
| falcolas wrote:
| > Who is subscribing to all of them really?
|
| My wife. Because the shows she enjoys are spread unevenly
| across the various streaming platforms.
|
| It feels very much like the bad old days with cable.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Watch the shows on one platform for a couple months. When
| you've seen them switch to a different platform. Rinse and
| repeat. Most streamers are still dumping seasons all at once
| so unless you're watching reality tv this strategy works
| great.
| falcolas wrote:
| Streaming services are wising up to this, and are starting
| to no longer dump entire seasons. They're also testing out
| expiring episodes before an entire season is finished.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Expiring episodes is a good way to make users hate you.
| It will annoy people who want to rewatch the series.
| 14 wrote:
| This factor pisses me off. I pay for Netflix so my kids can
| watch shows. They go over to their moms house and log in on a
| computer so they can continue to watch their shows but now I
| guess Netflix assumes I shared my password? They have
| effectively pushed me to the point that just tonight I was
| looking at going back to piracy. The effort to pirate is low
| bar these days and I can use it on any device, and house, have
| access to all shows and movies across all services, don't have
| titles go missing, and can watch it all in 4K. I was happy to
| pay Netflix a fair fee while it was quick and convenient but
| now the price has crept higher then I like and is not
| convenient.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Netflix said they were going to crackdown on password
| sharing. But it hadn't happen yet. L
| prmoustache wrote:
| They cannot because they are struggling to maintain growth.
| Imagine they start banning all shared accounts, a wild
| guess is that 50% of them are at the very least. That would
| make them lose so many customers at the same time they
| wouldn't be able to recover from it. This + all the false
| positive from household members travelling. People would be
| so pissed of they would turn to other services that do not
| crack down on shared accounts before going back to netflix.
| scarface74 wrote:
| They were going to not allow you to use Netflix accounts
| on set top boxes when you are away from home. But they
| were going to allow you to use mobile.
|
| But some Hiltons have Smart TVs with Netflix built in
| that let you enter your own Netflix credentials and
| automatically sign you out when you check out.
|
| Hulu Live TV (not the VOD only service) was very strict
| about not allowing you to use it on other TVs and forcing
| you to change your "home" location and only allowing 5
| changes a year.
|
| You couldn't use it on mobile for more than 30 days
| without going back to your "home".
|
| I have a vacation property. There solution was to pay for
| two separate accounts.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| I wouldn't, but when providers are randomly removing shows and
| movies it's really annoying. For example Netflix just removed
| Rick and Morty in 16 countries and a few more pending. Should I
| just subscribe to another provider because of that, jump
| between apps or rely on a good old and convenient technology
| which has everything (torrent)?
| prmoustache wrote:
| You can do n months on one service, m other months on
| another. Especially when talking about series with seasons. I
| don't usually mix series and follow one at a time It can take
| me a 2 weeks to a month watching a season, why would I be
| paying for another service at the same time?
| tiborsaas wrote:
| Rick and Morty is good for a quick relax for 20 min after
| dinner, another might be good for thrills for longer time,
| how about a documentary the next day? It's easy to pick
| shows that match my interests and fits my taste, but they
| are scattered across platforms if they are available at
| all.
|
| Unsubbing for shows feels wrong. What if I just want to
| watch a pilot? I'm not that calculated to manage my
| subscriptions based on a schedule.
|
| What if friends come over? Sorry, no Netflix since
| yesterday :)
| prmoustache wrote:
| That is mild inconvenience.
|
| I would tend to say that if you watch shows on a daily
| basis you are probably in an addiction pattern.
|
| You can always use your friend's netflix account if they
| have it. By showing netflix content to people outside of
| your household you are already breaching terms of use
| anyway.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| I'm easily annoyed with mild inconveniences, people on HN
| are already furious for closing an email newsletter
| modal. I feel managing subscriptions, entering CC details
| is a lot of hassle.
|
| LOL, watching a 50min show daily is addiction? I highly
| doubt any therapist would back you with this.
|
| Breaching terms for watching a random movie with a group
| of friends? Probably there's a bullshit clause for that,
| but here comes LOL#2. Crap like that was always on rented
| content since the VHS age, nobody cares and nobody
| enforces it :)
| prmoustache wrote:
| >. Crap like that was always on rented content since the
| VHS age, nobody cares and nobody enforces it :)
|
| Which is exactly why I say that you can uae your friend's
| account if they visit you and you agree on watching
| something you do not currently have access to.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| Right, but kinda awkward in romantic settings :)
| slothtrop wrote:
| Add to this, you can also rent/buy through some services
| (usually big tech). It might seem steep, but if you're
| paying $10/mo for streaming with barely anything you want
| to watch, one-time payment of $5-8 for a film maybe once a
| month isn't bad. TV seasons are overpriced but I think of
| it the same way, at one episode per week. That used to be
| the norm before streaming allowed "binging". Occasionally
| some content is only available through streaming in which
| case I burn through what I want and cancel.
| kmlx wrote:
| just checked my situation and i'm subscribed to: netflix 4k,
| amazon prime, disney+, paramount+, sky/nowtv, apple tv plus,
| youtube premium and spotify. and this is just entertainment.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| At one point I was subscribed to most of those listed. I like a
| lot of niche/older content and it's just really split up now. I
| was getting sick of it. Every single one of the shows I wanted
| was on a _different_ service, almost no overlap.
|
| I wasn't using any _one_ service enough to justify their monthly
| costs. The alternative would be to cancel and re-subscribe when
| you want to, but that gets exhausting very quickly for 6+
| services.
|
| I decided to cancel all of those subscriptions and go elsewhere.
| It's just not worth it at this point for me.
| basseq wrote:
| I'm not seeing discussion of key comparison to steaming vs.
| cable: the ability to buy and access a variety of content from
| one source.
|
| "Having to buy more than you need", "annoying contracts", "ads",
| "bundling"... all true... for both streaming and cable in
| different ways.
|
| What's most annoying with the streaming ecosystem _as it exists
| right now_ , is having to deal individually with each provider.
| That means multiple transactions, different apps, silo'd
| searching, etc.
|
| I like the ability to turn different services on and off at
| will... I want the ability to manage and access those services in
| one place. Having a single relationship with a cable-esque
| provider to abstract away the complexities of different streaming
| services would be awesome.
|
| At least with cable, I didn't have to buy Verizon _and_ Comcast
| _and_ Cox to watch ABC, ESPN, and HBO.
| naravara wrote:
| Apple TV+ has a unified search (although Netflix doesn't
| participate), but something about the handoffs between APIs is
| painfully sloooow and the UX can get a little confusing if
| you're managing multiple user profiles (both at the Apple TV
| level and in each individual service) as well as getting very
| confused if you're able to access the same content through
| multiple services (e.g. HBO shows via Hulu or HBO Now).
|
| It needs improvement fast. Ideally we'd decouple the
| technology/UX side of it from the content library management
| side of it but that'll never happen.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > At least with cable, I didn't have to buy Verizon and Comcast
| and Cox to watch ABC, ESPN, and HBO.
|
| Perhaps not, but you were also driving to Blockbuster to get
| additional titles every two weeks in person.
| basseq wrote:
| Well now you're talking about technical delivery! Not
| withstanding the advancement on 4K content, VCRs, RCA
| antennas, remote controls, etc.
|
| Heck, for a while I could rent new releases from my Verizon
| subscription, too! (Or I'd have the o.g. delivery-service
| Netflix to bring them to my door.)
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| Cable would be awesome if it let you purchase channels
| individually.
|
| I let cable TV go after my bill (including Internet) crawled up
| to $250 a month and then I realized the only thing I was
| watching was occasionally Food Network and most of the time
| everything else had either reality TV garbage I had no interest
| in, re-runs of shows I've seen a zillion times, or
| infomercials.
|
| I like streaming. For example, I got bored with Starz so I
| dropped it, but wasn't anywhere near as bad as the over $100
| for cable TV part of my cable bill, nor as painful to cancel.
|
| If I could simply pick and pay for the couple channels I wanted
| and switch without hassle, yes, it would be awesome. Until then
| I'm fine dealing with separate providers. I'm sure it will be
| ruined soon though.
|
| Here's the thing though - we have almost two generations who
| did not grow up watching broadcast TV and aren't in that habit.
| Cable TV was able to jack up its price and keep people paying
| in my opinion because older people grew up with TV being a
| default background activity and kind of just wanted it there.
|
| That's not true anymore. Your default background activity is
| your phone. Make these streaming services too complex and too
| ad-ridden and I think people simply will give them up. They're
| already really easy to give up. Especially with the current
| trend of inflation and rising housing costs people aren't going
| to let subscriptions stick around they aren't really using.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Streaming services are already as bad as the cable days, it seems
| to me.
| fritztastic wrote:
| The biggest issues I have with cable are:
|
| -There is no option to pick a few channels you want for cheaper
| than the package of channels. I would love to pick a dozen
| channels (which are otherwise are only available with the more
| expensive bundles that come with hundred+ other channels I have
| no interest in).
|
| -Lack of availability of international channels. These often cost
| 30+ for each small separate package offered in cable, while
| better channel bundles are much more affordable through streaming
| providers- not to mention individual programs available in
| different platforms and news streams free online.
|
| I don't spend a lot of free time watching things, and I have
| specific things I enjoy (documentaries, foreign films/TV,
| educational content) so paying more for cable doesn't make any
| sense when I can get a better variety through streaming and/or
| through resources freely available online or through the library.
| Not to mention paying high prices and still having to contend
| with advertisements taking up ~20% of the time and interrupting
| what you're watching.
| tjansen wrote:
| Wasn't it obvious that if you want all shows/services, you will
| still pay at least the same amount? The cost of producing content
| is not going down just because there are more content providers.
| As long as the same amount of content is being produced,
| consumers still need to pay the same amount of money to see it
| all. If consumers decide to pay less, there will be less content.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I don't think it is obvious. The default option is to hang on
| to your accounts, right? So if you cycle subscriptions, you are
| in a sense being subsidized by the people who just stick to a
| service.
|
| Or, if the expectation is that most people subscribe to
| multiple streaming services, if you just subscribe to one (not
| a big TV watcher for example) you would expect to pay less I
| guess.
| tjansen wrote:
| The point of the article was that if you subscribe to all
| services at the same time, you pay as much as for a cable
| package.
|
| If you do not subscribe to all services simultaneously, but
| only a select few, it's still cheaper. At least as long as
| most people don't do this.
| tjansen wrote:
| The point of the article was that if you subscribe to all
| services at the same time, you pay as much as for a cable
| package.
|
| If you do not subscribe to all services simultaneously, but
| only a select few, it's still cheaper. At least as long as
| most people don't do this.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > As long as the same amount of content is being produced,
| consumers still need to pay the same amount of money to see it
| all.
|
| And indeed this isn't the case - a LOT more content is being
| produced, and a lot more high budget drama is being produced.
| The reason we have a glut of amazing content is because of the
| competition between services.
| rightbyte wrote:
| You don't have to subsidize digging down another cable for
| streaming. One could expect streaming to be cheaper than cable
| since you pay for internet access separately.
|
| Also no satellites to rocket into space.
| jaywalk wrote:
| > You don't have to subsidize digging down another cable for
| streaming.
|
| You don't have to, but your streaming content is usually
| being delivered over the same cable that provides TV anyway.
| tjansen wrote:
| ...but lots of content providers with their own
| infrastructure, people sharing accounts and many people are
| subscribing only to a few content providers.
| bedast wrote:
| First, those streaming services are ad-free. Cable is not.
| Second, those streaming services cover what would be considered
| "premium" content on cable, so that price comparison is grossly
| misleading. They're comparing subscribing to all of those
| services to what likely amounts to "basic" cable.
|
| The great thing about those streaming services is you can pick
| and choose. I used to subscribe to more services than I do now,
| and there's so much content on each of them that I found myself
| neglecting about half the services I subscribed to. So I dropped
| it down to what I actually use. You can't do that with cable. I
| spend far less with my ad-free streaming content than I would if
| I purchased ad-filled cable content.
|
| And when I say ad-filled, so much of it is every 5 minutes or so
| you get about 5 or so minutes of ads. For how much you pay for
| the service, that is completely unacceptable.
|
| So, no, I will not be spending MORE on cable in order to be
| served ads constantly. I'm doing fine on my small collection of
| ad-free streaming services.
| asdajksah2123 wrote:
| Cable also paid for infrastructure costs. Streaming piggy backs
| off internet infrastructure.
|
| Further, every streaming business is deep in the red and are
| being supported by other parts of the business. If they have to
| carry their weight they will show you ads and increase prices.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Netflix is very much profitable and has been for years. Well
| they did just stop borrowing money to produce and acquire
| content in 2020.
|
| Disney expects Disney+ to be profitable including "transfer
| payments" by 2024.
|
| Streaming doesn't piggyback off of getting access to the
| internet cheaply no matter what cable providers say. They pay
| for their bandwidth.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| > First, those streaming services are ad-free. Cable is not.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...
|
| Those streaming services will eventually be premium + ads.
| Quarterly earnings DEMAND it.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| This has already started. Hulu has a base plan with ads.
| Netflix will follow suit. Before too long it probably won't
| be possible to get an ad-free plan.
| Gigachad wrote:
| What incentive will they have to make ad free not an
| option? When they can just charge any amount extra for the
| premium ad free version?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Hulu has always been ad supported. There free tier is
| obvious, but even their paid tiers still have ads even if
| it may be fewer interruptions than the free tier.
|
| The way I read it, makes it sound like you're suggesting it
| was ad free at some point then switched.
| scarface74 wrote:
| There was at one point _3 shows_ that had ads at the
| beginning and end because of previous contract
| negotiations.
| suzzer99 wrote:
| Cable + DVR is more or less ad-free.
| thewebcount wrote:
| Oh, but they're trying soooo hard to overcome that. For
| example, on HGTV, they intersperse "Sneak Peak" ads for other
| shows on the network. They always follow a commercial break,
| but my TiVo's ad skip button usually skips over the 3rd party
| ads and puts me at the beginning of the "Sneak Peak". It's so
| fucking irritating. Now I have to manually fast-forward
| through it.
|
| Then during the shows, literally, for the entire program, not
| just for a minute here or there, there's an animated logo for
| some other show from the same network. And it gets larger
| every year. First it was about 1/10th of the screen. Then it
| was like 1/8th. Now it's up to about 1/5th of the screen. In
| another couple years, it will be bigger than the actual
| content you're trying to watch. I've taken to logging into
| their site (via my cable subscription), copying my cookies,
| then downloading the shows using yt-dlp and putting them on
| my AppleTV because it's less annoying than trying to watch
| the shows in the format they were broadcast in.
| focusedone wrote:
| Excellent reply!
|
| Many were frustrated for so long with paying for alllll of the
| cable channels so we could watch < 10. All I ever wanted was to
| pay a flat fee per month for each channel. Well, now we live in
| a world where that's possible and it's great!
|
| Being able to subscribe to one service for a month or two,
| catch up on a favorite program, then cancel paying for it when
| that's done is an unimaginable convenience. Some make it
| unnecessarily difficult to do that, but it seems like those are
| the services with less interesting content anyway.
|
| Anyway, I think where we're at with this is fantastic. Likely
| we'll see some consolidation in the market where less
| successful services disappear and other services suck up the
| shows left behind. If that pendulum swings too far it'd be
| unfortunate, but where we are right now seems to be a sweet
| spot.
| UberFly wrote:
| Exactly. Also, who actually subscribes to everything in that
| list in the article? Maybe 3 of them with the freedom to jump
| around. Definitely an improvement over cable.
| ghaff wrote:
| When I dropped it my basic cable TV was more than $100/month.
| Now I pay something under $50 (depending on how you count Prime
| and my Apple One bundle) for what's probably frankly more
| streaming options than I need. I _don 't_ have any live TV
| though I could always add a service if I wanted to and I still
| wouldn't be more than my cable bundle was.
| slg wrote:
| I don't disagree with your overall point, but calling cable ad-
| filled compared to streamers like Netflix, Disney+, and HBO Max
| is a little unfair because you are comparing live TV with on
| demand TV. As long as you aren't watching live content, which
| you can't even do with most streamers, it is pretty easy to
| avoid ads with cable since DVRs have been an option for
| decades. If you are watching live content like with streamers
| like Hulu or YoutubeTV, you will see just as many ads streaming
| as you do with cable.
| scarface74 wrote:
| You're not "avoiding ads" by manually having to skip over
| them.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| YoutubeTV is cable, not a streamer.
| slg wrote:
| What is your definition for "cable" and "streamer"?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| cable is a collection of tv channels. Streaming is a
| collection of on demand content.
| slg wrote:
| What is a TV channel? Several streamers align their
| content into different verticals. When I log into
| Disney+, the first thing I see is a selector for Disney,
| Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, and National Geographic. Are
| those channels?
|
| What is a "collection" of TV channels? ESPN+ allows me to
| watch what is currently airing on ESPN, ESPN2, etc. Their
| content is primarily live rather than on demand, but they
| only offer a very limited scope of content that all falls
| under the same category and only originates from the same
| family of channels. Are they actually cable?
|
| Don't basically all cable companies offer some form of on
| demand content? Are they all streamers too?
|
| Honestly, I don't care about the answers to these
| questions. They are rhetorical to show that it is hard to
| draw nice clean lines around these which is part of my
| original point that ads isn't what defines cable. Ads
| come with live content, not with the distribution channel
| for that content.
| mbreese wrote:
| That's what it means for you.
|
| In many contracts it refers to the medium of
| transmission. Cable requires a coax cable. Streaming
| comes over the top on an internet connection (which
| ironically might be provided via a coax cable).
|
| I, for example, get my live TV as a bundle of channels
| from DirecTV stream. It's called "stream". It requires no
| cable box, is a mix of live and on demand, and I can
| receive it anywhere over the internet (phone, home, work,
| etc). I'd never consider this cable. I'd also never
| consider satellite delivered TV cable, even if they are
| very similar.
|
| I think the nuances are a little more subtle than you are
| admitting.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| OTA HDTV is free, but with ads, and you do not have to pay $90
| a month for internet on top of it.
|
| Your ad free streaming services cost more than cable if you
| include the cost of internet.
| bedast wrote:
| Your argument would make sense if all I used my internet
| connection for was consumption of streaming media. Regardless
| of whether I'm streaming media or not, I'm also going to be
| working, chatting with friends and colleagues, playing games,
| buying and selling, browsing the news, etc. My streaming
| content just also happens to use that same communication
| channel.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Cable also started off ad-free.
| LeftHandPath wrote:
| And netflix is adding advertisements.
| bedast wrote:
| To a cheaper tier to try to get people away from account
| sharing. I fully intend to keep the tier that I've
| purchased.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I thought that but it turns out that Netflix is
| culturally/principally anti-advertisement. They're caving
| to shareholder demand and introducing a cheaper, ad-
| supported plan but their regular plans are - at least for
| now - to remain ad-free.
| glitchc wrote:
| Exactly. A lot of folks forget that cable was offered as an
| ad-free alternative to OTA broadcast TV. The selling feature
| was that since you are paying for a subscription, the
| platform was monetized and profitable, ergo no need for ads.
| Sound familiar?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Cable was also started because certain areas had bad
| reception so they multiplexed the signals together down a
| single cable to avoid the reception issues.
|
| There's a lot of competeing "cable was started" stories
| scarface74 wrote:
| There aren't any competing stories. It's not like the
| inception of cable is loss to the annals of history.
| There are just truths and falsehoods.
|
| Basic cable was never ad free.
| pessimizer wrote:
| If by basic cable you exclusively mean network television
| rebroadcasts, then of course that's true, unless they
| were editing interesting content in on the fly.
|
| But cable channels were ad free, and advertised as being
| ad free.
|
| "Well, Pay TV is fine to see
|
| You get much better quality:
|
| Broadway shows, heavy-weight fights
|
| First-run movies every night.
|
| Viewers of Denver, unite! . . . Nothing to lose but
| commercials."
|
| -- Talkin' Pay TV by Phil Ochs, 1963
| scarface74 wrote:
| Basic cable included USA, MTV, CNN, ESPN, etc.
|
| Premium channels like HBO always cost extra and were ad
| free and still are on cable.
|
| According to most articles I see, for the first 24 years
| after commercial cable TV was a thing, it was solely used
| to retransmit broadcast TV.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20100905133543/http://www.nct
| a.c...
| dylan604 wrote:
| Well, I was being "friendly". Cable was never started as
| an ad free thing. Cable was started to get a signal to
| people that couldn't get a signal. That signal was the
| same signal as everyone receiving over the air broadcast,
| so it included all of the ads.
|
| Premium cable channels came later. to quote a post up
| stream "Sound familiar?"
| scarface74 wrote:
| Premium cable was HBO, Showtime and Cinemax that you paid
| extra for and were Ad free and still is.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I knew this myth was going to be repeated as soon as I saw
| the parent comment.
|
| Basic cable has never been ad free. Cable started out as a
| method to get broadcast TV - with ads - to people who
| couldn't get it over the air.
|
| Then the "Superstations" came like TBS and WGN. They were
| local stations - with ads - that got transmitted nationwide.
|
| Then the early cable TV only channels came online like CNN,
| ESPN, and MTV - with ads.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >First, those streaming services are ad-free. Cable is not.
|
| like that will never change. Also in the case of Disney at
| least, and maybe HBOMax, the existence of the service itself is
| one giant platform for the media of the studio.
|
| furthermore, where the studio based platform is concerned, it
| used to be when you bought product placement in a movie you
| were thinking not about how it would do after theatrical
| release, but in the case of product placement in the large
| studio associated movies, especially the ones Disney own of
| shared universes, I think that should be a real consideration
| and also in the coming years a selling point.
| scarface74 wrote:
| So you really think HBO is not going to offer an ad free
| version even though they have had an ad free offering since
| 1980?
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| are you under the impression that HBOMax is exactly the
| same thing as HBO?
| scarface74 wrote:
| I am well aware of the fact that HBO Max is the _only_
| way that you can pay for standalone HBO content. Again do
| you think that after 42 years that HBO will not allow you
| to pay for ad free content? Has there ever been a premium
| channel that was ad free that went ad only?
|
| No basic cable was never ad free.
| magwa101 wrote:
| condour75 wrote:
| The cable subscription has commercials. The experience of time
| shifting and fast forwarding through commercials is inferior to
| streaming.
|
| Also, a cable bundle forces you to pay for Fox News, which is
| primarily funded by carriage fees. They wouldn't last long on
| robot insurance ads.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Since you're an expert, how long did CNN+ last?
| yonaguska wrote:
| Fox news has been beating out the other networks in ratings for
| a while now though. I have no love for fox news, but it doesn't
| seem true that they wouldn't last. Even more far right news
| networks, that have been cut out of the normal media
| distribution channels seem to be doing fine with organic viewer
| support.
|
| If Fox news ratings fall, it's because they are bleeding
| viewers as they attempt to move back to the center and ditch
| Trump. Notice that Carlson consistently has the highest ratings
| of any fox news show...
| ourmandave wrote:
| I'd like to be able to binge a series for a one-time fee without
| having to subscribe to the monthly service.
|
| Food Network did that with Alton Brown's _Good Eats Reloaded_ in
| 2018. You could watch it for free if you had a cablevision
| subscription.
|
| Or you could go to the Food Network site and watch the 1st season
| like renting a movie.
| fullshark wrote:
| Yeah the market share war is ending and now it's about consumer
| surplus capture from whatever market you've established +
| acquiring/merging with other services.
| FalconSensei wrote:
| With cable you can't just choose "I want Disney and Discovery".
| If those channels are on the most premium subscription, you get
| 100 channels of useless content. Also, as other commenter pointed
| out, cable has ads
| scrivna wrote:
| Best thing about streaming subscriptions vs cable IMHO is NO ADS
| - I find it baffling people spend a hundred bucks a month on
| cable and still accept like 30% of the airtime is ads.... just no
| phone8675309 wrote:
| There are plenty of streaming services that have ads - Hulu and
| Disney+ have an ad-supported tier, for example, and it's
| foolish to think that Netflix won't introduce an ad-supported
| tier as soon as they think their customers won't revolt. It's
| the most obvious solution to login sharing - give a very cheap
| or free ad-supported tier and then monetize the hell out of
| them.
|
| Netflix already has ads - just for their own shows.
| zerocrates wrote:
| Netflix has already widely announced their intention to add a
| with-ads tier.
| joegahona wrote:
| > Netflix already has ads - just for their own shows.
|
| I think the industry term for this is "in-house ads," and
| they've existed for as long as I can remember on premium-
| cable channels like HBO, Showtime, etc. The experience would
| be better without them, for sure, but they're less ugsome
| than the typical programmatic ads you get on Youtube or Hulu.
| ghaff wrote:
| Or you call them trailers in the movie theater (which
| _also_ have ads). I don 't mind them and they're pretty
| easy to skip in my experience.
| pnutjam wrote:
| Paramount+ has ads even if you pay for the ad free
| experience. Really irritating.
| hahamrfunnyguy wrote:
| I ran into this too, It was a bug in my view because
| according to the service description ads would "sometimes"
| show up during live programming. I guess it doesn't say
| that ads WON'T show up elsewhere, but my assumption was
| that they wouldn't.
|
| I had signed up in '20 or '21 and I am curious if this is
| still the same way.
| pnutjam wrote:
| I dropped it, but picked it back up for the Nick
| programming. Still ads, but only a few, mostly at the
| beginning. Really irritating, but I hear the ads version
| is practically unwatchable.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Many streaming subscriptions have ads on their cheapest tiers,
| requiring you to pay more if you don't want to see ads. And if
| you're watching anything live, whether it's streaming or cable,
| you're getting ads regardless.
| hahamrfunnyguy wrote:
| I paid extra for the ad-free Paramount Plus. I was getting
| un-skippable pre-roll ads before and during Star Trek
| Discovery episodes. I contacted support and they said that
| ads would sometimes show up during live TV. They didn't have
| an answer for why ads were showing during Discovery. They
| pre-rolls would sometimes take 5-10 minutes! I could go fix a
| snack, put in a load of laundry and when I'd come back the
| pre-rolls would still be playing.
|
| Anyway, other than the programming the service itself was
| awful and after going through the Star Trek back catalog I
| cancelled. I may sign up again but after the bad experience,
| I am not inclined to watch again. I really wouldn't want to
| watch with ads if they paid me to do it.
| moffkalast wrote:
| > Best thing about streaming subscriptions is that pirate sites
| have all their content.
|
| FTFY
| wilde wrote:
| This used to be a selling feature of cable. In the not too
| distant future, all of streaming will have required ads too.
| scarface74 wrote:
| There was never a time that basic cable was ad free.
| SllX wrote:
| Sure, maybe they all do add ads. I wouldn't hesitate to
| cancel everything. I'm happy to pay money for service, but
| I'm also happy to cut ties with companies that actively
| disrespect my time.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| This creep has already happened. Hulu started free with ads
| and the paid tier was ad free and had more content. Now the
| base tier is paid AND has ads. Once the subscriber growth
| plateaus all the streaming services will look for was to keep
| revenue increasing. In swoop the advertisers with a big fat
| stack of cash and an evil smile.
| grishka wrote:
| Best thing about piracy is that not only is there no ads, it's
| that you don't have to even think which streaming service has
| the particular show/movie you want. You also get to watch it on
| any device of your choice, in any player of your choice,
| completely offline. And you get to take screenshots. And it's
| free. I simply see no reason to ever pay for movies and tv
| shows -- you pay money AND get a worse experience.
| guenthert wrote:
| Well, there are plenty of benefits for all kinds of criminal
| activity, they just share one common drawback.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Having to remember to use a VPN? Hardly a drawback.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Well, there are really two drawbacks. Personal risk
| (which, as you say, can be well-mitigated) and the
| externality of other people being less well-off. Yes they
| could choose to make things that aren't copyable instead
| of things that are, but most jurisdictions have
| structures telling them that free copying of the thing
| they're making won't be tolerated.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| I was talking from a purely mechanical perspective.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Myself and several friends have several vpns and as we
| can mostly use up to 5 devices we share the logins, as
| required.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| In this case the drawback is the off chance you get a
| strongly worded letter from your isp you can throw away
| Teever wrote:
| Pirating is not a criminal activity in my country.
|
| It likely isn't a criminal activity in your country either.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Considering that HN slants heavily in the direction of
| the US, I'm not sure the latter statement is that
| accurate.
| 9991 wrote:
| It's civil, not criminal in the US. Nobody's going to
| jail for copyright infringement.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| You just might get a crippling fine.
| anonymou2 wrote:
| I liked Pirates of the Caribean I, II and III !
| Karunamon wrote:
| Copyright infringement may or may not be criminal. While it
| may technically be for the operators of the streaming
| services, it is a civil matter from a user standpoint.
| slfnflctd wrote:
| It's fiddly, though. You need to pay for a VPN (and try to
| pick one you can trust, which if you're even a bit paranoid
| is none of them) or your ISP will shut off your service
| (happened to me), if you require subtitles there's additional
| hassle & they're not even always available, quality is
| sometimes an issue and fake or mislabeled torrents exist.
|
| I got tired of screwing around with it and decided 50 cents
| or less a day per service was worth not having to. As a side
| bonus, I get exposed to a lot of things I otherwise wouldn't
| know existed.
| grishka wrote:
| > You need to pay for a VPN
|
| Not where I live. We instead use VPNs to access websites
| blocked by the government.
| andrewstuart2 wrote:
| Usenet is worth the price. Sure, you can still VPN if
| you're super paranoid, and sure, things get DMCA'd (slowly
| and inconsistently), but with the fairly easy OSS
| automation out there (radarr, et al, and sabnzbd in my
| case) everything runs very smoothly (and way faster; I can
| saturate my gigabit connection for nearly anything
| regardless of popularity).
| tshaddox wrote:
| The funny thing about subtitles is that there are many,
| many cases where you can find bootlegged subtitles for
| content that don't even exist on the paid streaming service
| that provides that content. The streaming services seem to
| be getting better about this, especially for new content,
| but there is still a vast library of content on e.g. HBO in
| the U.S. that doesn't even have Spanish subtitles.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| Yes. It's enormously frustrating that I can not pay
| Netflix, Google, Hulu to deliver me content in a language
| other than English. Google's own support pages seem to
| indicate that if I _did_ do a locale switch to, say,
| France, that this was a fiddly process and that I would
| lose all my purchases if I switched it back.
|
| Physical media on Netflix DVD, however, still work just
| fine and tend to have English and French and often
| Spanish.
|
| Also, a much larger catalog that hasn't been diced up by
| license holders.
| [deleted]
| rhacker wrote:
| We're probably a couple years away from some AI service
| that actually translates with character's voices. Heck
| probably even adjust the mouth visual too.
| WhyDoIThink wrote:
| I'll support A.I. that translates those characters'
| voices with different mouth visuals per language. That
| would be convenient for people who get distracted by
| subtitles and characters' mouths not matching words to
| different languages.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I'm pretty sure I've found bootlegged subtitles that are
| just machine translations of official subtitles in the
| original language. And YouTube's speech-to-text automated
| captioning is actually pretty good with single speakers
| in English with good audio production, enough so that I
| often use them to follow along with videos.
| jumelles wrote:
| None of this is true with private trackers.
| RockRobotRock wrote:
| I have an IPTorrents account (private tracker) that I have
| heavily used for over 10 years without any VPN. Haven't
| gotten a single DMCA.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| It's one of those weird things where if everyone chose the
| superior experience it would cease to exist.
| scarecrowbob wrote:
| Only for certain modes of that experience:
|
| there is already far more content than I will ever be able
| to consume in 50 lifetimes.
|
| My distaste for a lot of contemporary cultural products
| aside (I'm okay if they never make another episode of
| Cheers or MASH, but I can see how that would happen if the
| creators weren't being paid for that), it feels likely to
| me that if commercial media ceased production I still
| wouldn't run out of stuff to watch even if I lived longer
| than I expect.
| [deleted]
| parkingrift wrote:
| I am perfectly fine with that outcome as it would mean a
| reset on how IP is delivered and owned.
|
| When there are convenient options which respect users,
| piracy goes down. It's as simple as that.
| CommieBobDole wrote:
| That hasn't always been the case, though - for many years,
| I put away my parrot and eyepatch and rented or bought
| content because it offered the best experience, even though
| it cost a little money. Only recently has piracy again
| become the least unpleasant way to consume content, and
| it's not because piracy has become any easier.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Yes now all I have to do is trudge the internet for content,
| make sure my Plex server is running, wait for content to be
| available, hope it's popular enough that it is being seeded.
| Then have to worry about the quality.
|
| Or I can just pay a few bucks and watch what I want on any of
| my devices.
| bergenty wrote:
| Yes it's a better experience but so is getting money by
| robbing someone over working 40 hour weeks. I'm not saying
| the two are the same because piracy is effectively victimless
| (at least in the short term).
| grishka wrote:
| You're not robbing someone because you're not depriving
| them of anything.
| bergenty wrote:
| You can make a case for the idea that if art is not paid
| for then you're eventually stealing from content
| creators.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| But quality varies, subtitles are an issue, and sometimes the
| movie isn't complete and sometimes it doesn't match the title
| at all.
|
| I still prefer reasonable paid alternatives
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| For now. Eventually the greed is going to get to the point
| where ads are mandatory regardless of what package you choose.
| It's just a slow burn similar to what happened in publishing.
| First there were ads. Then there were popup ads. It took an
| entire army of people to get rid of the popups. So they
| increased the ads, got more sophisticated on placement, and
| made them far more insidious in terms of privacy violation.
| Then they added paywalls, but removed the ads. Now they're
| adding ads to paywalled content because of "added value for our
| customers" when they aren't also doing sponsored newsletters.
| joegahona wrote:
| Your publishing analogy is interesting, but I would tweak it,
| because most of "publishing" online was free and anonymous,
| not paid, so the analogy to streaming video services isn't a
| fair one. What _has_ happened, however, is that even paid
| subscriptions on publishing sites such as the NY Times
| include ads. That's bullshit, and I really hope streaming
| video doesn't go that direction.
|
| Do any paid online video services NOT offer an ad-free
| experience now? To my knowledge they all do. Yes, Netflix has
| rumblings about starting an ads tier, but the OP is still
| correct, as far as I know, that the option for ad-free
| viewing still exists.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I don't think this is a realistic take. There are a large
| number of consumers willing to pay for no adds, and fewer
| barriers to market entry than cable.
|
| Even cable, with its relative monopoly had packages with no
| adds like HBO.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| When cable first started many, many channels had no ads
| either, and they caved once they realized they could get
| away with it.
| [deleted]
| scarface74 wrote:
| No many channels were not ad free when cable first
| started. Only channels that were premium,
|
| When cable first started, it was a method to rebroadcast
| local stations where you couldn't get a signal over the
| air. The first basic cable only channels were also ad
| supported.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| I recall hearing about spammers and mailing lists that some
| advertisers are a special kind of stupid who think "willing
| to pay not to see ads" means "extra lucrative demographic".
| Hearsay but it seems consistent with bad advertising
| practices like "punch the monkey and autoplay banner ads".
| mywittyname wrote:
| If you're attracting eyeballs, and not selling some time in
| front of those eyeballs to advertisers, then you're leaving a
| lot of money on the table.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| For paying eyeballs is under the assumption that those
| eyeballs are yours permanently and won't leave. It is that
| kind of thinking which got cable disrupted hard.
| marssaxman wrote:
| If you're waiting for that golden goose to produce more
| eggs, instead of cutting it open and taking them all at
| once, are you leaving a lot of money on the table?
|
| I am probably more extreme than most, but I simply will not
| pay you if your offering has ads.
| sprkwd wrote:
| I just watched the new Game of Thrones show on NowTV. It had
| ads before and during the show.
| tristor wrote:
| Jim Barksdale [1] is right again, the only way to make money is
| by bundling and unbundling. The cable companies bundled,
| streaming/cordcutting unbundled, and now we're seeing bundling
| again (Disney+, Hulu included w/ Verizon cellular as an example).
|
| [1]: https://hbr.org/2014/06/how-to-succeed-in-business-by-
| bundli...
| resfirestar wrote:
| Most of the carrier "On Us" offers are just free trials, that
| Verizon one for example is a 6 month trial. T-Mobile does an
| ongoing one for Netflix, but even the most premium plan only
| gets the Standard tier, they're clearly counting on people
| being tempted to pay for 4K and more than 2 devices.
| tristor wrote:
| The Verizon one is not a 6 month trial. It's included in
| their highest tier along with Apple Arcade or Google Play
| Pass, and it's "permanent".
| rcarmo wrote:
| The site is almost unreadable since it aggressively tries to
| redirect to itself with my adblocker active, but there's a point
| that it doesn't address: non-US viewers are still getting the
| short end of the stick where it concerns content availability,
| and moves like HBO's removal of content are twice as hurtful to
| us.
|
| (We have our own streaming services and telco bundles, of course,
| but the content itself does not move freely)
| georgeecollins wrote:
| This is a terrible comparison because no one has to buy all those
| services and in fact few do. The problem with cable was,
| regardless if you wanted it you got almost everything,
| particularly the most expensive package ESPN, whether you watched
| sports or not.
|
| Also, in Los Angeles, without any premium channels we have always
| paid more than $80.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| There was always OTA (over the air). To hell with ESPN.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Not only that but I feel that a lot of these "are we going back
| to cable" are people too young to have used it.
|
| Having to pay for a bunch of a channels you didn't want wasn't
| at all what separated cable from streaming.
|
| Being able to choose what you watch along with not paying for
| the pleasure of watching ads is why streaming won out.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| _Not only that but I feel that a lot of these "are we going
| back to cable" are people too young to have used it._
|
| The worst part of cable is the ads - when I travel and go to
| a hotel, I find that cable TV is unwatchable, it feels like
| 25% of the playtime is devoted to ads.
|
| I've started carrying an Amazon Fire Stick with me if I'm
| going to be in a hotel for more than a few days (usually for
| work) since most TV's have an accessible HDMI port, then I
| can watch all my streaming channels. Hotel Wifi is so spotty
| that I normally use a hotspot.
| dvtrn wrote:
| Not to mention being able to cancel a streaming membership
| without going through the eight layers of contact center hell
| that still exists to this day for many cable providers.
| palebluedot wrote:
| And I remember being locked into a contract term as well
| for cable or satellite. All of these comparisons of
| streaming to cable of yore seem pretty far off, since you
| can mix & match services, binge, cancel some or all of
| them, re-subscribe later, etc. All without contract terms,
| and all without needing to do more than a few mouse clicks.
| mxuribe wrote:
| It was ESPN years ago that broke the camel's back for my family
| and i to cut the cord...and the cost involved was only $4.95
| per month. I say "only" because compared to the rest of my
| monthly cable bill, that didn't repsrenst a majority. It was
| the fact that i had no choice to remove ESPN - which i never
| watched anyway. So, Cablevision - or really maybe Disney/ESPN's
| contracts with cablevision - forcing me to pay a fee every
| month for something that i don't want was just so annoying,
| that i forever killed my cable subscription. And, in fact, all
| those years ago i even stopped watching "regular" TV...and i
| got my news from the web...and i'm not a mileniall which is
| often the assumption that many poeople make of me, when i tel
| them my streaming services origin story. Finally, all those
| years ago since i cut the cord, i have been hell bent promoting
| to everyone about the advantages of cutting the cord and moving
| to streaming services...in essence Cablevision and Disney/ESPN
| converted me int o an unpaid PR person for years now for
| streaming services! :-p
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| >>because no one has to buy all those services and in fact few
| do
|
| I don't know if it's strictly the case. I think it depends on
| how we slice and dice.
|
| I cannot pay for Marvel movies without paying for Alladin and
| Little Mermaid (Disney+)
|
| I cannot just pay for Star Trek Strange New Worlds without
| paying for... I don't even know what, honestly, CBS All Access
| / Paramount + / whatever it's called these days holds no other
| interest to me.
|
| I get Prime, but increasing amount of movies I want are behind
| complex channel bundles. wtf is STARZ?
|
| If you are a family with parents, children, and perhaps even a
| grandparent, you will have an increasingly comparable number of
| subscriptions, monthly outlay, and hassle ("I want to watch X;
| is it on any services I subscribe or do I have to commit my
| life to yet another" is a privileged but unnecessary problem I
| do not desire to have and it's solely on industry's shoulders)
|
| Netflix had promise. Netflix was the Spotify of visual content.
| My one place with simple good interface that I can find all the
| content available, or at least good 80-90% of the middle of
| bell curve. The one monopoly I wholeheartedly desired to remain
| a monopoly.
|
| Here's a statement of personal perspective: "For me and anybody
| I know (friends & family), we are 100% moving toward Cable days
| in any and every way that matters to us". While we may be able
| to find a lens through which that is not technically the case,
| I personally find that immaterial. The immense prolifieration
| and fractalization of streaming providers benefits them, and is
| absolutely 100% against my convenience, budget, preference and
| best interest.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| I really don't understand the issue -- you're not forced to
| pay for more than a month at a time. Pay for a month of
| Paramount+ and then cancel once you're done watching Strange
| New Worlds. You just paid $10 for 10 episodes of Trek. Seems
| fair.
|
| Disney+ is an even better deal -- _all_ of the Marvel movies
| you can watch at their monthly price.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > I cannot pay for Marvel movies without paying for Alladin
| and Little Mermaid (Disney+)
|
| Lol yes you can.
|
| > Netflix had promise. Netflix was the Spotify of visual
| content. My one place with simple good interface that I can
| find all the content available, or at least good 80-90% of
| the middle of bell curve. The one monopoly I wholeheartedly
| desired to remain a monopoly.
|
| No, it didn't. Netflix never had anything like this. Netflix
| never had even a tenth of modern, mainsteam content. Not even
| close. Never in it's entire history. It just used to be aimed
| more at Hacker News typical audience demographically.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Netflix streaming never had the majority of video content
| available like Spotify has the majority of music available
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| But that was the promise and hope.
|
| Or to put it another way - myself and everybody we know
| would prefer if Spotify for video content existed. The
| proliferation of services that are removing content from
| Netflix so they could host it on their own crappy system
| and app is purely bad for me with no benefit. Just like I
| don't want Spotify to suddenly become Columbia+ and bmg
| all access and whatever million music publishers there
| are each with their own crappy service.
| scarface74 wrote:
| No one who knew how movie licensing work with the various
| release windows thought that was possible.
|
| It worked with DVDs because of the first sale doctrine.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| And did you ever actually use cable? Top end packages can be
| $200 a month, and you generally don't get to choose what to
| actually watch when you want to watch it. And most of it is
| unwatchable trash.
| SllX wrote:
| > I cannot pay for Marvel movies without paying for Alladin
| and Little Mermaid (Disney+)
|
| > I cannot just pay for Star Trek Strange New Worlds without
| paying for... I don't even know what, honestly, CBS All
| Access / Paramount + / whatever it's called these days holds
| no other interest to me.
|
| Do Blu-rays and VODs just not exist anymore? You can
| absolutely pay for just what you want. I mean honestly how
| much does a collection of all the MCU movies through Endgame
| cost if you were to buy them discretely? $20 per in
| iTunes/TV, and what was it something like 20-25 movies? So
| $400-500 if you wanted every single one, and you can get at
| least some of them for cheaper if you get the Blu-rays off
| Amazon and Renting is an option if you only want to watch a
| particular movie once.
|
| Or $80/year if you don't mind subsidizing Walt Disney
| Animations and Pixar. Honestly I think it's a toss up whether
| renting, buying or streaming is more economical because it
| comes down to your habits, and streaming is only the clear
| winner if you binge a lot.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Sure, but Blue rays or DVD or VHS existed in time of cable
| too, so either they're irrelevant go conversation /
| comparison, or we've moved the goalposts.
| sbierwagen wrote:
| >Do Blu-rays and VODs just not exist anymore?
|
| Yes. My mom watched an episode of Ted Lasso on a flight
| recently, and was interested in watching more. It is
| straight up Apple TV+ only. No physical media release or
| VOD. Subscription only.
|
| Same with a bunch of animated shows that HBOmax axed
| recently. They were streaming only with no other releases,
| and it is now impossible to watch any of the past episodes
| legally.
| SllX wrote:
| That sucks. I'm sorry.
|
| I am curious whether Apple might release the TV+ VODs
| sometime down the line though.
| ghaff wrote:
| For me, a few streaming services make sense even without
| binging. But people do seem to forget there's a la carte
| streaming and DVD rental/purchase. In fact, if you want to
| watch a lot of films, you may be better off with something
| like Netflix DVDs by mail than another streaming option.
| SllX wrote:
| For sure. I think streaming is still the winner--but more
| debatably so--under certain other circumstances
| (international access, availability after air date,
| exclusivity, etc.) but only the _clear_ winner versus the
| other options if you binge a lot.
| standardUser wrote:
| The cable days bordered on a dystopian nightmare. Channel
| flipping, appointment viewing, endless ads. Most content was
| inaccessible most of the time. Miss an episode? Tough shit.
| We were watching what someone else wanted us to watch, when
| they wanted us to watch it, and we payed for the privilege.
| The only people that ever seemed to like that grotesque
| relationship with TV were the Boomers.
| racl101 wrote:
| Exactly. That was my thinking.
|
| Who would pay for all these services that have so much overlap
| in content with one another?
|
| Terribly inefficient way of doing shit.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I just pay for 2-3 streaming services BUT I haven't stopped
| paying for TV. They don't compete at all to me. Streaming is
| pretty bad for news and other live non-sports TV.
| kin wrote:
| I can pick and choose which streaming service to subscribe to. I
| can cancel and resume at the click of a button w/o dealing with
| some retention salesperson. It's ad free. There's exclusive
| content. The apps are higher quality. I could go on and on.
|
| Cable seems to be advertised as cheaper somehow (if I bundle
| probably), but I'm stuck with Spectrum in my area and I refuse to
| give them more money than I need to. Knowing them, they're just
| going to raise prices quietly hoping I don't notice.
|
| The problem is that there are simply too many shows being made
| right now and quite honestly I don't think people actually have
| the time to watch all these shows so it's not sustainable that so
| much high quality content is being produced. At some point these
| services are going to drop down to just a few winners.
| benknight87 wrote:
| I'd like to pay creators directly for the things I watch and cut
| out the middle man entirely.
| throw0101a wrote:
| Isn't that what Patreon is for?
| falcolas wrote:
| Patreon is a middle man. But that aside, there's a limit to
| the type of content you can get via Patreon, and TV shows /
| movies are largely on the other side of that line.
|
| And it makes sense, film requires up-front funding and takes
| a fair bit of time to produce. Even one-creator studios like
| Adi Shankar only put out one video every year or two.
| yesUgotit wrote:
| Yeah? The Walmart model works; start low, inflate prices to make
| up margins as interest/competition falls off.
|
| You expect the owners to adapt?
| [deleted]
| danwee wrote:
| The only "feature" I would introduce to streaming services like
| Netflix/Disney+/etc. is make possible to "constantly stream
| content". When I had cable, I liked to just turn on the TV, and
| bang! I got content on the screen. Switch channel, and bang! we
| are now in the middle of a classic movie! Next channel, and bang!
| in the middle of a great song from the 90s!
|
| Now, of course, I could just use "normal TV" for that. The
| difference is that "normal TV" doesn't offer a great catalogue
| like Netflix/Disney+ (to some extent).
|
| More often than not, when I want to sit down and watch something
| on Netflix/etc. (e.g., some weekends), I do this:
|
| - sit on the sofa
|
| - turn on TV, switch to Netflix (HDMI channel)
|
| - spend 30 to 40 minutes browsing the catalogue to find something
| decent to watch
|
| - I cannot find anything decent, so I give up and turn off the TV
|
| I like to have "background noise" from time to time, and I would
| prefer to have background noise coming from the
| Netflix/Disney+/etc. catalog than the one coming from the "normal
| TV" (mainly because I live in a country where I'm not fluent in
| the local language).
| jsellers0 wrote:
| The feature I really want to see is a "marathon mode" for tv
| shows: play episodes in a random or shuffled order.
| falcolas wrote:
| > I liked to just turn on the TV, and bang! I got content on
| the screen.
|
| Netflix gets this, and random content is one button press from
| the first screen. Kinda neat, even if it's not something I use.
| sudden_dystopia wrote:
| " - I cannot find anything decent, so I give up and turn off
| the TV"
|
| This is me about 50% of the time. I always hear that there is
| just so much content. But I would never watch most of it. I'd
| rather watch YouTube wood working videos all day.
| ryandrake wrote:
| That's why my wife will never move over to streaming. She has a
| few channels she likes to watch, and knows when her favorite
| shows are on. She just wants to sit down at that time, switch
| to the right channel, and watch her show. None of the streamers
| offer this, from what I can tell.
|
| My wife and I have started traveling again, and when we visit
| AirBNBs, we've noticed that fewer and fewer offer basic cable
| with their homes anymore, so we played around with streaming
| and hate it. Instead of "turn on HGTV at 8PM" it's now:
|
| 1. Do some research on the Internet about which streaming
| service offers HGTV.
|
| 2. Sign up for it.
|
| 3. Figure out how to log into that streaming service in the
| AirBNB.
|
| 4. Scroll through the streaming's terrible UI to find the name
| of the show.
|
| 5. Decide which episode to watch ("I don't care--I just want to
| watch whatever is on right now!")
|
| In some AirBNBs you can skip 2 and 3 if the host left the
| previous occupants logged in. But either way, it's a terrible
| user experience compared to "sit down and turn on the TV". So,
| cable still wins in our household even though it's expensive.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Youtube TV and the Hulu TV option both offer exactly that.
| You go to the Live tab and scroll down to your channel. You
| can also use an internet-only DVR if you want.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Interesting. Didn't know that. Looked it up and both
| Youtube's and Hulu's "Live TV" plans cost more than the
| incremental cost of Cable TV, so we're still back where we
| started.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Around here it's about the same given my options, but I
| do like the portability.
| [deleted]
| pdntspa wrote:
| There's a simple solution to this: stop watching TV
|
| Consume media that you own. Buy physical copies. Pirate. Read.
| Play!
|
| We gave up control of our media and now we pikachu_sad_face.gif
| when it turns against us.
|
| This is what we get for being lazy consumers.
|
| Meanwhile those of us with hoardes of media files, DVDs, and Blu-
| Rays can sit atop our pile of entertainment and laugh at the
| peasants that gave it up
| dudul wrote:
| Couldn't agree more. In my house, Han shoots first.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Waiting for the old Slashdot meme: "I haven't owned a TV for 20
| years. Do people still watch TV?"
|
| Yes how much have you spent for your "hoards" of DVDs?
| pdntspa wrote:
| For some of us, a lot, but at the end of the day... it's paid
| for and ours in perpetuity. The will and greed of adversarial
| publishers means nothing to us. Can you say that about the
| cloud?
|
| Now that I think about it... I've probably spent less on my
| physical media than you've paid in subscription fees, in
| total.
|
| And again, I can do what I want with it.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I'm slowly getting through all of the Star Trek series
| right now.
|
| The box sets for TNG, DS9 and Voyager alone are $135 each.
| I didn't bother to look to see the cost of the box sets for
| TOS, ENT, and the movies. Let's say around $900 in all.
|
| Paramount+ has all of those available for $9.99 a month and
| I can watch them while I'm traveling on my phone, my iPad,
| the hotel TV using the Roku stick I bring with me. Yes I
| know I can set up a Plex server and spend the time to rip
| all of those DVDs. Been there done that. I had a Mac Mini
| connected to my TV running Front Row from 2006-2012 and
| then a Plex server from 2012-2020.
|
| And that doesn't take into account all of the new series
| that are only available for streaming - Discovery, Strange
| New Worlds and Lower Decks.
|
| If you're not a ST fan, substitute whatever you are a fan
| of.
| pdntspa wrote:
| I've picked up the ST:TNG Blu-Rays and most of the movies
| for far less than MSRP. I mean if you want to pay retail
| price for everything than go right ahead...
|
| But the whole time-share cornucopia argument doesn't work
| for me because the video quality for most streaming is
| ass. Some of these shows it's like watching web videos in
| the 90s through RealPlayer
|
| Meanwhile AnyDVD HD and Plex licenses are cheap, and also
| perpetual!
| scarface74 wrote:
| How much is your entire collection compared to $9.99 a
| month for Paramount+?
| pdntspa wrote:
| I don't know (I get everything on sale or bargain bins,
| maybe a couple hundred bucks in total?)
|
| It's also unfair to not include Netflix, Disney+, a
| portion of Amazon Prime, and whatever else, multiplied
| times however many months you've been using them (so
| likely 50+)
|
| If you factor in the cash spent on computer hardware,
| software, and storage media, we're still sitting on maybe
| a thousand or two over a 10+ year period. But that gets
| murky as nearly all these things have other uses.
|
| I'd bet that _still_ costs less than most households '
| cable/streaming bills over time
|
| Being extremely picky with your media consumption helps a
| ton!
| scarface74 wrote:
| I don't need but one service to get all of the Star Trek
| episodes. Also, I used Star Trek as an example because it
| had by far the largest library of any franchise and the
| most box sets.
|
| Disney franchises are basically movies and streaming only
| TV series so it wasn't as extreme as Star Trek. Besides,
| there are still a couple of gaps in their Marvel Universe
| library.
|
| Netflix really doesn't have much worth paying for
| anymore. The only reason I keep it is because T-mobile
| gives me a $14 discount.
|
| Amazon Prime Video by itself wouldn't even be something
| making it worth keeping Prime.
|
| I also get HBO Max free (for now) by having AT&T fiber
| for internet.
| eaglehead wrote:
| I wonder if there is a room for a single viewer to bring all
| these subscription services into one place. You log into this one
| portal, connect all your streaming services with it and it
| creates a singular viewer.
|
| As a user I don't want to jump from app to app to find my fav
| programs.
|
| Perhaps a wishful thinking or a new YC startup?
| spikej wrote:
| It's called Pirate Bay :P
| eaglehead wrote:
| oh yeah.. I kinda forgot about that.. :)
| MisterTea wrote:
| At that point they are little more than fancy file servers with
| some form of shared auth instead of walled gardens which I'm
| sure will not happen. The main issue being that content hosts
| lose control over playback which the content owners want tight
| control over to ensure every penny is extracted.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| One advantage of streaming over cable is no contracts. This makes
| it easy for you to cancel/switch services.
|
| Because of this, and the fact that streaming is async, you can
| alternate services every month to save money while at the same
| time not missing out on exclusives.
| kardos wrote:
| > One advantage of streaming over cable is no contracts. This
| makes it easy for you to cancel/switch services.
|
| The deal will soon change from $10/mo to $10/mo (with annual
| subscription) or $20/mo (month to month)
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| "Starting to reveal"? The first time Netflix had to remove
| content from their catalogue because a competing streaming
| service was getting set up by the license holders, this was both
| the inevitable and immediately obvious conclusion.
|
| There was a brief utopian moment in time where you could just
| watch what you wanted, when you wanted, the way you wanted, `from
| a single service, and then reality kicked back in. In the same
| way the internet was a weird and free place and then reality went
| "actually, no, we can make more money if we make it a terrible
| place and charge you a fee to temporarily make it slightly less
| terrible for you".
| nightski wrote:
| It's not that simple. Providers simply can't go back to the old
| days. They will push consumers to their limit, but I just don't
| think people are interested in paying $150/mo for scheduled
| programming with ads any more.
|
| In the end it will likely be a compromise. But it's a good time
| to vote with our wallets.
| rglullis wrote:
| Piracy is still better and cheaper.
| paxys wrote:
| Piracy has always been better and cheaper, but it
| (thankfully) isn't how the vast majority of people consume
| content.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > I just don't think people are interested in paying $150/mo
| for scheduled programming with ads any more.
|
| They were never interested in that, it's all that was
| available. "Pay TV" started off with no ads. Eventually, it
| will be all that is available again.
|
| You'll always be surprised at what peoples' limits are when
| you push them slowly enough.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| I never said it was sustainable, but the chain of events
| definitely is that simple. Netflix ran into the fact that it
| offered literally too good a deal for others to not cash in
| on by making the ecosystem worse so that _they_ can charge
| people to make it convenient again instead. The fundamental
| principle behind making money is having something that people
| want, and then making sure it 's inaccessible to them unless
| they pay you for it.
|
| The "making things terrible" comes from content companies
| going "we have a licensing system in place, we've used it for
| cable providers for decades, and we even used it for
| streaming services, but now we're going to cancel that and
| start our own vertically integrated lock-in service because
| we'll make way more money that way". While it makes sense,
| and everyone could have, and very much did, see it coming,
| it's still the kind of move that historically would have
| gotten your company broken up. But that's a power modern
| government seems to no longer _want_ to wield anymore,
| despite our wishes they did.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| As long as barriers to entry to hosting content and
| releasing streaming apps remain low, this all seems fine.
| Where is the potential to abuse the vertical integration?
|
| Even if Disney owned Akamai or something, there's decent
| competition in CDNs.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| They were on the way to free over the air free HDTV till the
| cable companies started trying to kill it.
|
| To me it is messed up the commercial/programming/cost ratio if
| you look at providers like youtube and Hulu. We are all getting
| less for more money.
|
| And all this streaming just fragmented society even more. I
| remember when we all used to (locally) talk about the recent
| show that we all watched at the same time, or the same news
| program. Now you have to catch up to all your friends because
| they streamed a whole series in one night. I mean we should
| just call them extended length movies anyway.
| ghaff wrote:
| Streaming shows can drop weekly. HBO and Apple do it.
| Arguably it would help keep people from hopping around
| services.
| powerhour wrote:
| I'm ok with content being spread across competing services. If
| Netflix was the only game in town (like it pretty much was for
| a while) we'd see less content.
|
| I don't find the pricing of any existing service objectionable.
| I can pay about $15 and watch whatever I want in their catalog
| for a month, then cancel if I decide to try a different
| service. It'd be different if I were stuck in some long
| contract but I've yet to see that in the streaming market.
| guelo wrote:
| They're planning on clamping down on users like you. One of
| their next moves will be getting rid of the binge model and
| returning to trickling out episodes over months.
| powerhour wrote:
| They're going to try to stop me from resubscribing? I'm
| small time but I'll still say it: their loss.
| Gigachad wrote:
| The likely first step will be heavy discounts for paying
| annually rather than monthly.
| anthonybennis wrote:
| Agreed. Just subscribe for a time to watch what you consider
| their AAA content and then move on to next service. Suits the
| binge series watching habit.
| incahoots wrote:
| You can sign up with trials that require a CC and utilize
| something like privacy.com to create hard limit virtual
| cards so you aren't chasing services around to determine
| when it'll pull from the card and the unavoidable PITA it
| is to cancel said services.
| danijelb wrote:
| Problems for Netflix started when they started competing
| against other content providers with their own original
| content. If they didn't produce their own content and just
| provided a distribution platform for others I think we would
| still have everything on Netflix
| xahrepap wrote:
| Is that how it happened? My memory is more: Content started
| disappearing so Netflix started producing original content as
| a safety net.
| dont__panic wrote:
| I wish it could be that way, but the content providers
| started to jack up their prices and withhold certain content
| a long time before Netflix started their own content factory.
| Hulu, owned by one of the largest content providers out
| there, was the turning point. In retrospect it might have
| been a good time for government to step in and declare that
| content providers and streaming services must be separate for
| the good of consumers.
|
| Interestingly, the same thing _almost_ happened with Spotify,
| but most artists eventually came back instead of defecting to
| other services. I know there are some exclusive artists on
| each platform, but we 've somehow dodged that same bullet
| with music streaming. Maybe because there are 3-4 relatively
| popular services, and artists have a little more sway over
| their distribution? Of course, Spotify is currently commiting
| this same sin in the podcast space so it's not like their
| hands are clean.
| dopeboy wrote:
| This is a huge point that I bet there will be many business
| case studies around: why didn't what happened to Netflix
| happen to Spotify?
|
| I thought Tidal was going to be that. Remember their first
| promo video [0]? Full of A listers pretty much declaring
| that they're making an artist collective? It had every
| reason to occur...except it didn't. Why?
|
| [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYYGdcLbFkw
| mongol wrote:
| Was it not that Spotify let record companies in on
| ownership, making it a joint venture of sorts?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Reason #1: if your work is still available on a cheaper,
| bigger platform, people are not likely to switch to the
| the more expensive, smaller platform.
|
| If your old work is still available on the cheaper+bigger
| platform, but the new work is only on the more
| expensive+smaller platform, maybe the true fans will
| switch, but A-listers don't make money just from the true
| fans.
| dopeboy wrote:
| It is my understanding - and correct me if I'm wrong -
| that a-listers have the leverage to move their entire
| catalogue over if they wish.
|
| Could they have, en masse, done this over to Tidal? Would
| that have broke Spotify?
| scarface74 wrote:
| Spotify is not exactly a shining beacon on the hill for a
| successful company. They aren't profitable and they are
| total beholden to the record labels. They are forced to
| give 70% of their revenue to record labels. Their fixed
| cost go up in lockstep with their revenue - not exactly
| the model of a successful tech company.
|
| Netflix paid a fixed amount to license content and then
| could spread that cost as it gained customers. It's the
| same with their own content. They never have to pay the
| content producers again for the content they fund.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| ...until Netflix's licensing agreements expire, which
| they do regularly. Then the networks demand twice as much
| money and they have to either keep growing to outpace the
| cost of licensing or jack up subscription fees, or both.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Or they "become HBO before HBO becomes them". That was
| the entire reason for them doing their own content.
| dopeboy wrote:
| I would argue they are in a much more stable position vs
| Netflix. They are the one stop shop for every kind of
| audio. Retention will be the true barometer here.
| scarface74 wrote:
| How is a company that is not profitable and will never
| make more than a 30% gross margin on a customer in a more
| stable position?
|
| They are also suffering from the "DropBox problem".
| Streaming music is not a product. It's a feature. Their
| largest competitors don't have to make money on streaming
| music. Streaming music for Apple and Amazon are just
| features to sell hardware.
| dopeboy wrote:
| Is this were the case, why is Amazon's and Apple's
| pricing the same as Spotify's?
| scarface74 wrote:
| Spotify isn't profitable. Apple and Amazon don't need for
| their streaming products to be profitable as stand a line
| services.
|
| Just like Microsoft doesn't need for OneDrive to be
| profitable by itself - hence the "Dropbox problem".
|
| https://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/why-dropbox-founders-
| said-...
|
| Do you think AppleTV+ is profitable as $7.99 stand alone
| service?
| fragmede wrote:
| Doubtful. The studios were always going up launch their own
| competing service and not license their content to Netflix.
| HBO plainly refused to even entertain that conversation and
| then the race was on - could Netflix become HBO faster than
| HBO could become Netflix.
| triceratops wrote:
| Nope. That's the fast lane to getting ground down by content
| owners; they'll determine how much profit you're allowed to
| make. See also: Pandora, Spotify.
| koofdoof wrote:
| I agree with the point of your post, however I question whether
| streaming's utopian moment even actually happened. I was a very
| early adopter of Netflix streaming and their catalog was quite
| poor for a long time. Just tons of cheap no name filler
| content, old public domain type stuff, and a surprising amount
| of softcore pornography. There were high profile movies and
| shows sometimes too, but they were the exception and even back
| then they would get removed regularly. Today's streaming
| landscape, greedy as it may be, at least offers the ability to
| stream premium content that Netflix never would have had even
| in their days of solo dominance. Perhaps the streaming golden
| age is closer to something that could have been, rather than
| something that actually was.
| guelo wrote:
| There was a period when they had a content deal with Starz
| that their catalog was pretty beefy. They also had a lot of
| Disney's stuff for a long time.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Perhaps people are remembering DVD rental Netflix. It was
| slightly less convenient but had _literally everything_.
| smm11 wrote:
| Netflix streaming had literally everything for a time. Now
| it's literally all Netflix productions.
|
| No thanks.
| scarface74 wrote:
| There was never a time that Netflix streaming had a majority of
| the popular movies available.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| It didn't need to, we were still happy enough to go the
| cinema for box office releases back then. Remember that
| streaming, despite how it might feel, is a stupidly recent
| thing. Disney went "let's get in on this cash cow" less than
| 5 years ago.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Netflix started streaming in 2007. It came to mobile in
| 2010 with the introduction of the iPad. Hulu was also
| launched in 2007.
| ghaff wrote:
| Netflix streaming was unexceptional. I dropped it when it
| became an extra cost option and didn't pick back up again
| until House of Cards. Sadly their DVD service has decayed
| considerably.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| This is why everyone should pirate.
|
| People on here love to complain about Facebook hating their
| users.
|
| I don't see any companies that despise their users quite like
| Comcast and At&t and Disney.
| happyopossum wrote:
| > I don't see any companies that despise their users quite
| like <snip> Disney.
|
| I don't get this take. Disney spends billions of dollars to
| make movies and TV shows that I and my family want to watch.
| I pay them $8/mo, and I get to watch all of them, whenever I
| want.
|
| How is that a bad thing?
| shultays wrote:
| After an update, my tv got unavoidable disney ads on its
| home page. I had to downgrade it and disable updates. And I
| dont even have Disney app is installed. I consider them to
| be pretty evil
| incahoots wrote:
| Sounds like you made the mistake of enabling your TV to
| gain access to a network. There's dozens of articles that
| spell out why that's a horrible idea, your experience is
| one of those reasons.
|
| Never allow a television access to your network, you get
| a dedicated device to do the streaming/airplay/chromecast
| features and that's it.
| fullstick wrote:
| I'm starting to think the NFL really hates their viewers.
| It's quite expensive and challenging to watch every game a
| single NFL team plays in a season.
| Tommah wrote:
| The local games are all broadcast over the air, even the
| ones that are shown on the pay services. (I live in
| Philadelphia, and I watch all the Eagles games with a TV
| and an antenna.) However, if you're a fan of an out-of-
| market team, it may be a pain to see all their games, as
| you say.
| glanzwulf wrote:
| This type of conversation always upsets me. No one person can
| consume so much content that they would subscribe to 8+ services.
|
| That's the beauty of streaming services. No forced ads, watch
| whatever you want whenever you want, and no yearly forced on
| contracts.
|
| Sign up to 1, consume, cancel, sign up to 2, and keep it up.
| mywittyname wrote:
| The problem is that content is pretty well dispersed across
| multiple platforms.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| thehustle went from putting together decent articles to absolute
| garbage like this low effort graphic. Sure if you purchase all
| the popular streaming services it will be more expensive than
| cable. But like cable you will be paying for a lot of content you
| dont actually watch. That content will be on demand but that
| doesnt mean you will ever actually watch it.
| redleggedfrog wrote:
| I have an exceptionally hard time with the value proposition
| here, for either streaming or cable.
|
| $90/mo is about $3.00 a day (streaming) and $80/mo is about $2.66
| a day (cable).
|
| I have a life, I don't have time to watch something every day. So
| maybe every other day, or every 3rd day. That has me paying $5 or
| $6 to watch maybe an hour every other day. There is nothing they
| can show me that's worth that - my time is too valuable. And
| really, I watch something maybe 4 times a month, and that breaks
| down to $22 a view. WTF.
|
| So I have Netflix DVD, and that's it. I watch a movie every once
| in a while, and the rest of the time am out and about which I'm
| fairly certain is a way better use of my time from just about
| every perspective.
|
| My questions becomes, why would _anyone_ pay this much?
| Jemaclus wrote:
| > My questions becomes, why would anyone pay this much?
|
| The simple answer is that "anyone" is really broad! More
| specifically and to state the obvious, not everyone is you!
| There are a _lot_ of people who watch far more than you do. If
| you watch two 1-hour episodes per day, then it becomes $1.50
| per hour is a pretty great deal in terms of entertainment.
| (Compare that to $25+ for a movie at a movie theatre, or $60
| for a Broadway show, or $20 for an hour at your local rock
| climbing gym.)
|
| I don't disagree with your overall premise -- it's expensive!
| -- but it's not _not_ worth it for a lot of people, including
| myself.
| AJRF wrote:
| We're going back to the piracy days, ya harr!
| running101 wrote:
| It is only a problem if you subscribe to all those services.
| racl101 wrote:
| Who's got time to watch shows from all these services?
| kazinator wrote:
| Comparing a stack of unbundled $5-$20 items to a monolithic
| bundle isn't very wise.
|
| That $75 bundle is one thing: a service with channels.
|
| Each one of those items is a thing like that: a service with
| channels. It's almost like those 8 services that add up to $89
| are 8 different cable boxes in one (and in theory you could own 8
| streaming boxes and install each on a separate one).
|
| Pick one or two and be happy.
|
| You can share passwords with friends and family members easily on
| some of them to save money.
|
| I don't know about cable everywhere, but cable boxes in Canada
| are tied to a particular subscriber line. You can't just put one
| in your suitcase and watch your stuff in another location, like a
| hotel room.
|
| They have shitty, antedeluvial remote controls with way too many
| buttons, which are hard to use. The software is garbage.
|
| You can't go back in time to view programs, except ones you've
| laboriously arranged to be recorded.
|
| The Shaw cable boxes don't even have their own HDMI-level volume
| control. The volume control on the remote sends _IR_ commands to
| the friggin ' TV to change the TV volume.
|
| With any decent IP streamer, that's not the case; you set the TV
| volume to 80% or whatever, and then forget about it, using the
| streamer's own volume control: the quick, responsive Bluetooth-
| based volume control that doesn't need a line of sight to an IR
| LED, and doesn't go through 100 steps.
|
| I don't understand why that has any customers at all, or any who
| are under 75.
| causi wrote:
| Once upon a time I consumed content by keeping video files in
| folders and watching them with VLC. Then I subscribed to Netflix.
| Now I'm back to keeping files in folders, except now I have Plex
| to give me the convenience.
| 300bps wrote:
| IRC + Plex = automatic download of any content I want available
| for streaming on any device anywhere in the world.
|
| I still have Netflix (free with my mobile provider), Disney+
| (free with my Internet provider) and Hulu (got Black Friday
| deal for $1 per month).
|
| Don't really watch anything on any of those streaming services
| though.
| jerezzprime wrote:
| Do you have any references/documentation for how the IRC side
| of this setup works?
| yeswecatan wrote:
| I, too, am interested in learning more.
| inversetelecine wrote:
| Most common method of using IRC is using the irssi client
| with autodl-irssi typically done on a seedbox. Everyone's
| setup is different though.
|
| https://autodl-community.github.io/autodl-irssi/
| mr90210 wrote:
| Cable? Nah, a NAS and torrents is the way to go.
| nootropicat wrote:
| Streaming isn't really competing with cable but with torrents.
|
| If DRM ever gets good enough to block piracy (imagine displays
| themselves using ml to recognize what are you watching and if you
| are allowed to) streaming will become worse than cable ever was.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| Ha! You are all going to be charged three times for content now!
| Once for the internet connection, once for the subscription
| service and again for the ads.
|
| This is progress? They have you by your addictions.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| I limit myself to 3 streaming services, when I get bored with the
| content in one, I cancel it and switch to another.
|
| It's still annoying that content is spread over so many streaming
| services, but I'm never going back to cable.
| mxuribe wrote:
| Same here! And, on the rare occasion, my partner every once in
| a while wants to watch a "blockbuster movie" that is out only
| in theaters (not includied in any streaming services' regular
| content library for the subscription price)...so on a rare
| occasion we will rent/buy a "blockbuster" from amazon prime,
| vudu, etc. I dislike it because sometimes just 1 new, big-
| budget movie might cost as much as a full month's worth of
| streaming service...but it is still waaaay cheaper (and pletny
| more convenient) than both of us going to see the movie in an
| actual, physical theater (with the rest of the germ-producers
| out in the world). ;-)
| mtoner23 wrote:
| Only 2 things you can do in business. Bundling and Unbundling
| andrewclunn wrote:
| I gave up piracy in my 20s. Looks like it might be time to sail
| the high seas again.
| proton_9 wrote:
| PirateBay ftw eh? haha.
| rhacker wrote:
| I think I said this a few months ago, but the main difference is
| that I'm not paying for all those services all the time.
|
| I only get HBO when the entire next season is out of something I
| am watching.
|
| Prime is probably the exception, however even for that, with
| inflation I'm considering cancelling that too and just upping my
| Amazon orders past the $35 (or whatever it is) minimum to get
| free shipping.
|
| Point is, Cable is like one giant minimum price of boring with
| ads. Individual services are better even if I can't watch some
| netflix show right now, I can do so after I cancel Hulu or
| whatever I am binging is done.
| thewebcount wrote:
| Yeah, we've taken to signing up for services, watching what we
| want and unsubscribing. We do it all through AppleTV, which
| allows us no-hassle cancelling, so no calling anyone or
| whatever. For several services, there was so little we were
| interested in that we ended up cancelling before the free trial
| was up.
| madrox wrote:
| This was obvious to me in 2014, when I was part of the earliest
| discussions at Disney for building a streaming service. It was
| obvious to everyone working in the space.
|
| As we started discussing partnerships with various providers to
| help distribute, it became clear they wanted a window into our
| service where they could see what was available and direct link
| to content in our streaming apps. Essentially, they wanted to
| keep owning the customer's experience and pass them to us to
| watch something. Everyone wanted to be in the position to be the
| next cable company.
|
| Even Apple. Apple TV+ is one of the latest movers here, and I
| think it's because they were pushing hard for a while to be that
| "we own the customer experience" layer but the content companies
| had gotten wise to Apple's tactics since the early days of
| iTunes.
| dopeboy wrote:
| This is fascinating. Can you share more on when and why Disney
| decided to build their own streaming service?
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| Just a reminder there is only one way you will ever own what you
| purchase, and it involves Jolly Roger and a bottle of rum.
| https://www.theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
| adventured wrote:
| > there is only one way you will ever own what you purchase
|
| Other than the gigantic number of blu-ray and 4K discs
| available for movies and shows, which you can purchase to own.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| For now. The comic OP linked to pointed out that (when it was
| written) GoT wasn't available on DVD anywhere. Disney is
| particularly bad about making their stuff unavailable in any
| form - expect DVD distribution to slowly go away as the
| content owners push you to their streaming sites.
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| Sure as long as the player you buy continues to operate, the
| regional keys don't get borked, and the market continues to
| support that blu-ray player, and doesn't deprecate with a
| "newer", "better", "smart" version that is incompatible with
| previous discs.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| All of which seem roughly as likely as your hard drive
| falling over at the same time as it's backup.
| wincy wrote:
| I have a PLEX server/torrent box behind a VPN. I then wrote a
| fairly simple Apple Shortcut that grabs the magnet link off
| whatever page I'm on, then shoots the magnet link over the
| torrent API.
|
| It took some work to set up, but I shared the Apple shortcut
| with my wife and she now uses it and it's super easy and
| convenient. So much so that I need to buy a new hard drive as
| she's filled up our 8TB drive with TV shows.
| 300bps wrote:
| 18 TB drives are the sweet spot for price right now.
| inversetelecine wrote:
| I feel this year around the holidays (US) will see good
| deals on HDDs. Prices have held steady for a rather long
| time e.g. 4TB still around 80-120 for consumer and nas
| based drives.
|
| Drive shucking is still viable depending on the external
| drive, for anyone who wants cheap(er) drives but with some
| work.
| password4321 wrote:
| Do you watch content more than once?
|
| Just curious because I tend not to (except for Equilibrium,
| of course).
|
| I've heard most things worth watching are still out there
| later on, maybe just keep the links.
| dylan-m wrote:
| I've been really disappointed with Reservation Dogs'
| arrangement. Brilliant little bite-size show, but their network
| means they only stream on Hulu or Disney+ (not sure if it's
| even on Disney+ in the US?) and they don't sell episodes a la
| carte _at all_ , right now, in Canada. Even if you are okay
| subscribing to a new streaming service just for that show, you
| need to spend a ridiculous amount of time figuring out which
| one it is for the country you are in. So I'm sure the show will
| soon be cancelled due to "weak viewership", probably oblivious
| to how difficult they've made it to actually watch the thing
| legally.
|
| I feel like there was a very nice short-lived window where
| networks were just trying to distribute stuff profitably
| instead of using everything as a vehicle to increase subscriber
| counts, but that moment has clearly passed.
| deegles wrote:
| We hit peak content years ago (more content produced in a year
| than you could ever possibly watch). As more and more streaming
| services use their data to tailor content creation, we'll also
| hit peak personalized content as well. However, it's split up
| between all of those streaming services.
|
| IMO, all content should be available to license on a per-second
| basis (like radio music). Maybe with some tiers for more or less
| desirable stuff. Then streaming platforms could compete on
| features, and content studios could focus on content. And we can
| finally have one service for everything.
| pgtruesdell wrote:
| The bundling and unbundling cycle continues.
| pnutjam wrote:
| Anybody try this out? Looks interesting, but might be a pain to
| use with a family.
|
| https://bobstreamingclub.com/
| phone8675309 wrote:
| Going back to? We're already there.
|
| Every media company decided they wanted to take their own slice
| instead of having a small number of services cover different
| types of entertainment.
|
| At this point I'd rather pirate because a) it's cheap as free b)
| I'm not at the mercy of my ISP deciding how fast my stream can
| go, and c) I never have to worry about a show I'm watching
| getting pulled and locked into another paywalled garden that
| probably has a shitty app that my HTPC doesn't support in the
| middle of me watching it.
| Markoff wrote:
| it's not even pirating in EU if you use DDL (or torrent without
| uploading), check question 8 and 11 for instance in Czechia,
| Slovakia, Spain, too lazy to check other countries, but these
| are well known for allowing streaming/downloading unauthorized
| uploads
|
| https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/faq-cs...
| Semaphor wrote:
| It's illegal in Germany
| klez wrote:
| I don't think "pirating" is a legal definition.
|
| By the way, point 8 has an important caveat at the beginning:
|
| "It is possible to make a copy of a work for personal use
| _under the exceptions contained in the Czech Copyright Act._
| "
|
| (Emphasis mine)
|
| Point 11 only says that you're not responsible for copyright
| infringement if your use falls into what's described in
| art.29 of the copyright act (the "three steps", which
| according to point 8 are described in that article), which
| according to google translate says
|
| ---
|
| > (1) Exceptions and limitations of copyright can only be
| applied in special cases established by law and only if such
| use of the work does not conflict with the normal way of
| using the work and neither does it the legitimate interests
| of the author are not unreasonably affected.
|
| > (2) Free use and legal licenses, with the exception of the
| official license and news (SS 34), license for school work
| (SS 35 par. 3), license for reproductions of works from own
| collections for archival and conservation needs [Section 37
| paragraph 1 letter a)], license for temporary reproductions
| (SS 38a), a license for a photographic likeness (SS 38b) and
| a license for non-essentials secondary use of the work (SS
| 38c), apply only to the published work.
|
| ---
|
| Which to me reads like the usual fair use exceptions you find
| in other countries.
|
| In Italy, at least, downloading copyrighted content without
| authorization is not a felony, but you can still get fined. I
| expect much of the EU to have similar provisions.
| AmVess wrote:
| The cost for streaming is pretty reasonable right now, but HBO
| splitting their offerings in half and most of them having ads
| unless you pay more to not have them will push a lot of people
| back to piracy.
|
| It is really easy these days to set up a media streaming app
| that automatically downloads new movies and shows, all you need
| is a VPN. No ads, and you don't need 300 different streaming
| apps.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| The difference is I pay for ad-free content. Otherwise I would
| never watch the shows to begin with.
|
| As these providers look to profit with more ways to add ads to
| their services, I'm sure people like me will find new ones who
| respect that transaction of pure content.
|
| I don't want images to be implanted in my head because I'm too
| cheap. I don't think you can put a price on that.
| FredPret wrote:
| I've pivoted to buying DVD box sets and then ripping and NAS-ing
| them. It takes time but: zero ads ever no matter what, cheaper in
| the long run, and my shows never get taken down or moved to a
| different company.
|
| Why pay $20 per month to rewatch Friends/Seinfeld/whatever if the
| box set is $60?
|
| I can even set up some sort of internet-facing NAS server that I
| can watch on the go.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Up your game and start getting the dvds from the library
| yegle wrote:
| Or better, if you are in the US chances are your library has
| collaboration with Kanopy so you can just stream for free
| using your library card.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Kanopy's great, but it's probably not gonna have
| Friends/Seinfeld or whatever the parent comment was
| ripping.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Doing that as well. And let's be clear, unripped DVDs contain
| ads (if I have to skip through previews and crap before I can
| watch the content, that's advertising.)
|
| I have an app that plays this ripped content on a schedule very
| much like a TV channel (no pausing, rewinding, no way to choose
| what is on when -- the schedule dictates). I love it. Even
| though I am creating the schedule with my own (local) content,
| there is still the serendipitous nature of walking by the TV
| and seeing a particular old Twilight Zone on.
| bergenty wrote:
| Yeah but for someone like me who rarely rewatches things it's
| not really a solution.
| thewebcount wrote:
| I'm the same. I want new content. I very rarely go back and
| watch something I've already seen. (And I _never_ need to see
| Seinfeld or Friends again! After long runs, they ran in
| syndication for years, and then were on streaming services
| that were ad-free for years. Really, they weren 't that good
| to begin with!)
| ghaff wrote:
| Yeah. I've even bought some DVD box sets. I find I watch
| some episodes here and there for nostalgic purposes and
| then they gather dust.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| It is if he gives you a login to his NAS.
| FredPret wrote:
| Haha, I should start a service. Fredflix
| bergenty wrote:
| If it's on DVD I've probably already seen the content at
| that point.
| lijogdfljk wrote:
| I did that too. Though i'm finding it difficult to get a lot of
| newer content on DVD these days. Ie most new streaming shows..
| do they have box sets in your experience? My wife has been
| looking and so far i think we have .. well, none.
|
| But we have quite a bit of content. Netflix (DVD), ironically,
| is a good source for this too. .. rules aside, i'm sure.
| FredPret wrote:
| I usually follow the idea of letting new content (books,
| TV's, movies) sit around for a decade or so and then going
| for the ones that are still well known.
|
| Of course there are exceptions. Those ones are available for
| purchase on Apple TV or are showing in theatres. For the
| rest, there are box sets on Amazon/EBay
| dudul wrote:
| Can you name a few that you haven't been able to find?
| lijogdfljk wrote:
| Just asked her (she's been the one buying our collection
| haha) and sounds like fairly early on she had trouble with
| many of them and so eventually she just gave up looking.
| The only example she had off the top of her head was
| Stranger Things Seasons 3 and 4. A quick search on Amazon
| seems.. confusing haha.
|
| On the flipside i'd be curious if you have had luck from
| any sources on buying boxsets for modern streaming shows.
| Any tips?
|
| _edit_ : She replied with additional items:
|
| > Off the top of my head:
|
| > None of the Marvel shows on Disney+ have physical
|
| > None of the Amazon Prime shows have physical
|
| > None of the AppleTV+ shows have physical
|
| > The first 2 seasons of stranger things do but are out of
| print. Subsequent seasons and any other show from that time
| period on are not available.
|
| > Star Trek streaming shows ARE available but insanely
| expensive (8-10 ep seasons for 50-70)
| racl101 wrote:
| > Why pay $20 per month to rewatch Friends/Seinfeld/whatever if
| the box set is $60?
|
| For technically inept people ... the convenience of not ripping
| or learning how to set up their own NAS.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I had a media PC from 2006-2012 and then a Plex server until
| 2020. I really got sick of dealing with it. I pay for
| convenience.
| themitigating wrote:
| My parents used to pay $110~ a month for a cable package, decent
| number of channels, and HBO back in the late 90s. This is
| significantly more expensive than it is today.
| pleb_nz wrote:
| I doubt many would subscribe to all services.
|
| Most people I know are 2 to 3.
|
| Would would be interesting though is if you started adding other
| digital services into that mix. e.g. you tube premium, Spotify
| and the like.
|
| I know my kids and their friends watch very little TV and movie
| streaming services, it's either gaming or you tube.
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| Never left cable, in part because third world problems, but also
| couldn't justify the extra expense a streaming service meant. Not
| an avid consumer of TV content anyway, one can get almost as many
| TVs as they want without extra stuff or extra money and since the
| signal is through digital the quality is on par with optic fiber.
| etempleton wrote:
| The one big advantage beyond on demand hs scheduled programming
| is a la carte pricing. Consumers asked cable for a la carte
| pricing for years and it was never an option because no one would
| subscribe to a 200 dollar package then. People only really watch
| 5-10 channels.
|
| With that said this was the perdictable end. These companies are
| going to want to grow their revenue and they are all peaking in
| subscriber growth so increasing pricing is the logical step.
| brk wrote:
| I've worked in the cable TV industry in the past. For the most
| part, the cable companies have little control over the channel
| bundles, they really wouldn't mind offering a la carte options,
| but they are forced themselves to get channels in bundles from
| the content owners. Much of this has changed in recent years
| with NBC/Comcast and Charter owning more of the source content,
| but a lot of the other channels are sill provided by outside
| companies, who do not want to unbundle them.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I feel like I got into the habit of watching way too much TV
| during the pandemic, and haven't managed to shake it yet, but
| still only have like 2-3 shows in the queue at any given time.
| How are people watching 5-10 channels?
| etempleton wrote:
| If you are a sports person you might watch just one team but
| it could be spread across multiple channels. Then you might
| watch a couple of shows each on a different channel. And then
| maybe you have one or two other niche channels you like.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Ah, I forgot about sports. Well, that sounds pretty
| annoying!
| thewebcount wrote:
| Even without sports, my spouse and I watch a bunch of shows
| that air at different times of the year, on different
| services. We watch a bunch of AppleTV+ shows (For All
| Mankind, Severence, Invasion, Ted Lasso, etc.), a few shows
| on Netflix (Stranger Things, Umbrella Academy), a few shows
| on cable channels (Home Town, The Gilded Age, etc.), a few
| over-the-air shows (The Good Doctor), etc. Like you say,
| there are only 2 or 3 available at a time, but they're still
| spread all over the place. I don't mind too much. We actually
| had a lull so we subscribed to Hulu for Reservation Dogs and
| Only Murders in the Building. When those end in the next
| month, we'll cancel and move on to something else.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| My sports teams are LSU, the New Orleans Saints, and the New
| Orleans Pelicans.
|
| LSU has games on CBS and ESPN.
|
| The Saints have games on Amazon, ESPN, CBS, NBC, and ABC.
|
| The Pelicans have games on NBC and TNT.
|
| And when I say ESPN, that could be ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN-U, The
| SEC Network, etc.
| UweSchmidt wrote:
| And for tennis if you go pure browser, no set-top boxes:
|
| Normal tournaments on tennistv.com for 15EUR/month.
|
| Australian, French and US Open on Eurosport (online over
| Eurosportplayer) for 7EUR/month.
|
| Wimbledon however is only on Sky, that's 35EUR/month, I
| skipped that. (That is for Germany).
|
| It's a lot of content, affordable, and you deal with
| slightly broken websites. Why can't they just show the
| unspoiled bracket, a notification if a match is complete or
| ongoing, allow manual unspoilering of individual matches or
| rounds, and a direct link from the bracket view to the
| individual match video or stream? /rant
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| Once Netflix had a competitor and shows were forced to pick their
| streaming service it was only a matter of time before Cable 2
| Electric Boogaloo happened. And now that markets are saturated
| and people are stretched thin by the last two years, we'll start
| seeing the nastier tricks like bringing back ad tiers, and maybe
| punitive and labyrinthine cancelation policies will be next.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Well... Cable has real time streams and programming you need to
| catch (some do offer on-demand as well, and some extra services
| such as Disney and Netflix) and has tons of channels bundled in
| such ways you can't get the service without them (I'd pay extra
| not to have Fox News, for instance, even more for nobody within a
| 10 mile radius not to have it).
|
| The traditional streaming services? You don't _have_ to subscribe
| to all of them. I 'm very happy with Amazon, Apple TV+ (bundled
| with iCloud) and Netflix.
| Markoff wrote:
| > I'd pay extra not to have Fox News, for instance, even more
| for nobody within a 10 mile radius not to have it
|
| nobody stops you from buying big land
|
| I am happy with my subscription to these streaming services:
| ale42 wrote:
| > I'd pay extra not to have Fox News, for instance, even more
| for nobody within a 10 mile radius not to have it)
|
| With old-school analog TV, injecting noise at the right
| frequency in the cable will blank the channel of your choice
| for all the people connected to the same cable, up to some
| distance... of course it's definitely illegal and the cable
| company can probably find you. Unfortunately with digital TV
| it's much more complicated as several channels will be
| modulated on the same stream/carrier frequency...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-24 23:02 UTC)