8 ms·

You still literally don't need it. Which isn't to say that most people don't want it really really bad, but still, it's different, and words matter. Moreover,

You still literally don't need it. Which isn't to say that most people don't want it really really bad, but still, it's different, and words matter. Moreover, unless you're an extreme binge watcher, I'm guessing you could still consume more than you can eat of video entertainment for less money than the cable companies charge by buying DVDs. Let alone Netflix's DVD service.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> You still literally don't need it. Which isn't to say that most people don't want it really really bad, but still, it's different, and words matter. In the economic sense of “need”, it isn't different at all. Outside of the economic sense, generally “need” is meaningless unless qualified with a purpose. > Moreover, unless you're an extreme binge watcher, I'm guessing you could still consume more than you can eat of video entertainment for less money than the cable companies charge by buying DVDs. Buying DVDs is not effective for getting current news, sports, etc., however, whether direct coverage or timely commentary.
gruez 8y ago
>I'm guessing you could still consume more than you can eat of video entertainment for less money than the cable companies charge by buying DVDs. how? let's say you're on some expensive cable plan, $120/mo and DVDs cost $15. that works out to 8 movies a month, which might cut it if you only watch a couple of hours of TV on the weekends, but is nowhere enough if you watch daily.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > let's say you're on some expensive cable plan, $120/mo and DVDs cost $15. that works out to 8 movies a month, which might cut it if you only watch a couple of hours of TV on the weekends, but is nowhere enough if you watch daily. DVDs are cheaper per hour if you get less-current movies or, even better, less-current TV collections (e.g., the Friends complete series is currently $70 on Amazon, for 80+ hours.) So, if you are concerned merely with quantity of video content, it may be true that DVDs are cheaper than cable. If you have concerns about the specific content, then the claim becomes harder to defend.
- diogenescynic 8y ago
  A generation of consumers have been raised to rent their content. I have DirecTV now, bundled with my cell plan so I pay like $15 a month. I have an MLB.tv subscription and I buy most of the rest of my media on iTunes. When movies are on sale they are like $6 and tv seasons for $10. I bought the entire Seinfeld catalog for like $60–easily worth the price and not to have to watch reruns with commercials. Generally, I spend $30 a month, so after a few years I have hundreds of movies and a dozens of TV shows. So most of the time I watch news on DirecTV, MLB.tv, or a movie in my iTunes library. I literally don’t understand Netflix and most of the shows on there haven’t been worth it for me to subscribe yet. But I definitely wouldn’t pay for a monthly streaming subscription. Maybe if I had kids.
- astura 8y ago
  DVDs can be borrowed from the library or rented from RedBox. You can buy whole seasons of TV shows for like ~$10. DVDs can also be sold when you're done and reduce your expenses further. It depends on what you want to watch.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> You still literally don't need it. Which isn't to say that most people don't want it really really bad, but still, it's different, and words matter. In the economic sense of “need”, it isn't different at all. Outside of the economic sense, generally “need” is meaningless unless qualified with a purpose. > Moreover, unless you're an extreme binge watcher, I'm guessing you could still consume more than you can eat of video entertainment for less money than the cable companies charge by buying DVDs. Buying DVDs is not effective for getting current news, sports, etc., however, whether direct coverage or timely commentary.

gruez 8y ago

>I'm guessing you could still consume more than you can eat of video entertainment for less money than the cable companies charge by buying DVDs. how? let's say you're on some expensive cable plan, $120/mo and DVDs cost $15. that works out to 8 movies a month, which might cut it if you only watch a couple of hours of TV on the weekends, but is nowhere enough if you watch daily.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> let's say you're on some expensive cable plan, $120/mo and DVDs cost $15. that works out to 8 movies a month, which might cut it if you only watch a couple of hours of TV on the weekends, but is nowhere enough if you watch daily. DVDs are cheaper per hour if you get less-current movies or, even better, less-current TV collections (e.g., the Friends complete series is currently $70 on Amazon, for 80+ hours.) So, if you are concerned merely with quantity of video content, it may be true that DVDs are cheaper than cable. If you have concerns about the specific content, then the claim becomes harder to defend.
diogenescynic 8y ago
A generation of consumers have been raised to rent their content. I have DirecTV now, bundled with my cell plan so I pay like $15 a month. I have an MLB.tv subscription and I buy most of the rest of my media on iTunes. When movies are on sale they are like $6 and tv seasons for $10. I bought the entire Seinfeld catalog for like $60–easily worth the price and not to have to watch reruns with commercials. Generally, I spend $30 a month, so after a few years I have hundreds of movies and a dozens of TV shows. So most of the time I watch news on DirecTV, MLB.tv, or a movie in my iTunes library. I literally don’t understand Netflix and most of the shows on there haven’t been worth it for me to subscribe yet. But I definitely wouldn’t pay for a monthly streaming subscription. Maybe if I had kids.
astura 8y ago
DVDs can be borrowed from the library or rented from RedBox. You can buy whole seasons of TV shows for like ~$10. DVDs can also be sold when you're done and reduce your expenses further. It depends on what you want to watch.