4 ms·
> no commercials, shows on demand, more shows, and higher quality (arguably) shows. Ohh you sweet summer child... Cable was the same way when it launched. Ever
by deelowe 7y ago
> no commercials, shows on demand, more shows, and higher quality (arguably) shows.
Ohh you sweet summer child... Cable was the same way when it launched. Everyone knows how this ends.
- deminature 7y agoThere's no need to be so unnecessarily condescending. Customers are used to the ad-free model and will be unlikely to accept a return to the 1/3 ads 2/3 content model of cable without significant customer attrition, which streaming services can ill afford in the current competitive landscape.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoWhat competitive landscape? They're only competing with piracy. Movies and TV shows are mostly non-substitutable, so you almost always have a choice only between a) whichever streaming platform has an exclusive deal on streaming a given show, b) buying physical disks, and c) piracy.
- deminature 7y agoStreaming services are competing with each other, even more aggressively when Disney+ appears on the scene and takes half of Netflix's content. The streaming service with no ads is going to win over the streaming service that has cable-level of ads, unless the show is so good to overwhelm that.
- cwkoss 7y agoAfter using Netflix for so long, the quantity of ads on even the paid form of Hulu is unpleasant and I avoid it, will not be renewing.
- 1123581321 7y agoThe history is quite different, the biggest difference being that there is (effectively) no geographical impediment to selling a streaming service, allowing for much more competition. Additionally, global scale allows budgets for much more content production per service/media company than used to be possible.