3 ms·

I like the idea of having one bill for 200+ channels, a single remote/device, no need to change (ugh) apps or inputs on the TV when I go from one service to ano

by gdulli 10y ago

I like the idea of having one bill for 200+ channels, a single remote/device, no need to change (ugh) apps or inputs on the TV when I go from one service to another. It seems like consolidation was a lesson we learned a few decades ago and are in danger of forgetting. I may only watch 10 channels out of 200+ but from month to month it's not always the same 10. A service like Netflix that would augment real, current TV with a library of older shows/movies would have been worth a separate bill. (Had that library not shrunk.) But one more channel of original shows? It's not worth subscribing to a new service and not enough for me to replace cable. And I'm not going to sign up for 4-5 of them. Even if their total cost is a little less than cable, the convenience lost is significant.

forgetsusername 10y ago
>A service like Netflix that would augment real, current TV with a library of older shows/movies would have been worth a separate bill. Yeah, for you (and me), as a customer. But what advantage is there for the content creator? You're not going to not watch Game of Thrones because it isn't on Netflix. You'll find a way. The content creators have (and in my opinion, rightfully so) the leverage.
- mhurron 10y ago
  > You'll find a way The alternative is not paying for it at all. That may mean not watching it, but it doesn't have to because the owner doesn't have complete control of everything. So the advantage to the creator is they can get some money instead of none. The have chosen to go the all or nothing route when giving nothing is really easy for people.
CarpetBench 10y ago
> It seems like consolidation was a lesson we learned a few decades ago and are in danger of forgetting. Despite groans to the contrary, I don't think consolidation is the reason services like Netflix/etc. are so popular and why cable service is starting to become considered gauche. I posit that it's entirely about: 1) The on-demand content that services like Netflix/etc. provide 2) To a lesser extent, the discoverability of content I don't want to watch Game of Thrones on Sunday evening. I want to watch it now. I want to re-watch Ocean's Eleven tonight, not Thursday during the day. Netflix (in theory) helps me with that. Cable service doesn't. I want to watch an action movie, and one that I can actually watch right now. Netflix helps me with that. Cable service doesn't, unless I just put on whatever the "action movie" channel is showing. Hell, cable service providers try to offer some of this already - it's just that their selection sucks. It's either incredibly old movies, or movies that no one wanted to see the first time around. Or it's just the latest episode of a popular television show, or the first season and we're on season 12 now. Again, despite what people might say I don't think they really want a la carte programming: They want a Spotify subscription for television and film.
mattferderer 10y ago
Many people prefer the opposite though. There have been people requesting a la carte cable options for years.

by gdulli 10y ago

forgetsusername 10y ago

>A service like Netflix that would augment real, current TV with a library of older shows/movies would have been worth a separate bill. Yeah, for you (and me), as a customer. But what advantage is there for the content creator? You're not going to not watch Game of Thrones because it isn't on Netflix. You'll find a way. The content creators have (and in my opinion, rightfully so) the leverage.

mhurron 10y ago
> You'll find a way The alternative is not paying for it at all. That may mean not watching it, but it doesn't have to because the owner doesn't have complete control of everything. So the advantage to the creator is they can get some money instead of none. The have chosen to go the all or nothing route when giving nothing is really easy for people.

CarpetBench 10y ago

> It seems like consolidation was a lesson we learned a few decades ago and are in danger of forgetting. Despite groans to the contrary, I don't think consolidation is the reason services like Netflix/etc. are so popular and why cable service is starting to become considered gauche. I posit that it's entirely about: 1) The on-demand content that services like Netflix/etc. provide 2) To a lesser extent, the discoverability of content I don't want to watch Game of Thrones on Sunday evening. I want to watch it now. I want to re-watch Ocean's Eleven tonight, not Thursday during the day. Netflix (in theory) helps me with that. Cable service doesn't. I want to watch an action movie, and one that I can actually watch right now. Netflix helps me with that. Cable service doesn't, unless I just put on whatever the "action movie" channel is showing. Hell, cable service providers try to offer some of this already - it's just that their selection sucks. It's either incredibly old movies, or movies that no one wanted to see the first time around. Or it's just the latest episode of a popular television show, or the first season and we're on season 12 now. Again, despite what people might say I don't think they really want a la carte programming: They want a Spotify subscription for television and film.

mattferderer 10y ago

Many people prefer the opposite though. There have been people requesting a la carte cable options for years.