9 ms·

It's amazing how we have gone full circle in the last 15 years or so. In the old days, people complained about their cable tv bill: why do I have to pay for 250

It's amazing how we have gone full circle in the last 15 years or so. In the old days, people complained about their cable tv bill: why do I have to pay for 250 channels when I only watch 5 of them? Let me pay only for what I watch. Now that the future is here, people are complaining that they need to sign up for too many streaming services. Why can't I just pay once for a bundle and get everything I need? I'm just as guilty as everyone else, I don't have a good answer...

BurningCycles 7y ago
>why do I have to pay for 250 channels when I only watch 5 of them? Let me pay only for what I watch. But that is still the case. If I could only pay for the shows I watch, I would not complain. But if I watch one Netflix show, I can't just subscribe to that show, I must pay for a ton of stuff I'm not remotely interested in. You still have Netflix, Disney+ and all the cable channels you need to subscribe to if you want their shows, how is this better for the consumer ? An actual 'A la carte' situation is that of the consumer being able to actually handpick the shows they want and only pay for those. This will never happen due to the industry being absolutely hostile to the idea, second best from a consumer standpoint is a single huge distributor like Netflix where you would pay larger fee but have access to practically everything you want, that is now pretty much a pipe dream since every major player wants to run their own streaming platform. This is not the way to beat piracy.
- CivBase 7y ago
  > But if I watch one Netflix show, I can't just subscribe to that show, I must pay for a ton of stuff I'm not remotely interested in. When I want a song, I've always just bought it. I still do. I can do basically anything with the file other than redistribute it. I can even play music while offline! I only use streaming services like Spotify and YouTube for songs I don't regularly play. I'm very frustrated I don't have the same option for movies and TV. Sure, I can buy the physical media, but there's all sorts of legal shinanigans when it comes to ripping blurays and such. My ideal solution isn't one big streaming service that has everything. I want an "iTunes for movies".
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    > I want an "iTunes for movies". You... know that iTunes sells movies, right?
    - ce4 7y ago
      This is probaby not what he meant, movies on iTunes, Google movies, etc all have DRM while music doesn't. He just wants to "do basically anything with the file other than redistribute it."
      - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
        That's fair, although with the current state of things it's a tougher ask. Even so, the iTunes for movies is, arguably, iTunes -- or Amazon's equivalent. (I do wonder whether DRM-free videos would have followed in the same way DRM-free music did if that market had taken off and streaming hadn't; at this point there's probably little commercial motivation to studios to make that change, as they'll just say "instead of buying that, subscribe to [insert video service here].")
  - parasubvert 7y ago
    There... is an iTunes for movies. I mean, I own hundreds of iTunes movies, some of which I purchased 13 years ago. Microsoft, Google, and Sony all have equivalents.
    - ce4 7y ago
      You're not owning them. You own a license to watch on Apple's terms and as long as iTunes is around. Microsoft shut down the drm servers and killed their clients' ebooks in April: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20318852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20318852
      - feu 7y ago
        Microsoft gave their customers a full refund, what's the problem?
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  > An actual 'A la carte' situation is that of the consumer being able to actually handpick the shows they want and only pay for those. This will never happen due to the industry being absolutely hostile to the idea... We've been able to do this with a substantial number of shows for years, though, by buying individual episodes or "season passes" on Amazon and iTunes. Maybe people just don't know, maybe people think the prices are too high, but more than likely the market has just largely moved on from this model for much the same reason that it moved on from CDs: the rise of streaming. (But put a pin in that for a second...) > ...second best from a consumer standpoint is a single huge distributor like Netflix where you would pay larger fee but have access to practically everything you want... This is what we all want price-wise, but would we really, truly want to turn Netflix into the equivalent of the iOS App Store for essentially all legal streaming movies and television? Everyone blames the proliferation of streaming services on rapacious greed, and, I mean, sure, the profit motive is mighty. But it's also a matter of keeping control. Broadcast networks and cable companies are middlemen who not only take a cut of the profit but who also act as gatekeepers; it's a little mad to think that producers would want to free themselves from that system only to rebuild it with a single all-powerful company in the command seat. Sure, not all the streaming services will survive, especially at the prices Netflix is currently charging. But I'm not convinced that the world is really going to rise up and rebel against having to pay $50 or $60 a month total to a half-dozen providers for commercial-free, on-demand access to hundreds of thousand of shows versus paying $100+ a month to a single provider.
  - paranoidrobot 7y ago
    The problem with buying Season Passes is that they're usually a terrible option for many reasons. They're usually not available until well after the season premiered (12+ months later), roughly at the same time that the DVD/Bluray comes out. The quality of them is iffy, at best - SD or HD at poor bitrates. Fine for watching on a tablet or laptop, marginal at best on a TV/Surround system. They're tied to watching on that specific platform, and you're fucked if you wanted to watch on another platform, and if that platform goes away so do all your purchases. They're region locked, so if you went overseas for a bit, you can't access them. They're often either as expensive, or more, than the physical Bluray.
- parasubvert 7y ago
  A la carte TV/Movies have existed for longer than Netflix has been streaming. Google Play, Apple TV, Sony PlayStation store and Microsoft Xbox store all sell seasons and/or episodes and/or full movies. And you can often rent movies for cheaper. Overall, consumers preferred the subscriptions. They’re a better deal if you watch more than 5-10 hours a month. Though there are some things you can only purchase a la carte.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    It costs more to buy four episodes of a single show than an entire month of a typical streaming service. That is not the "let me pick my channels" service that people often ask for.
    - Mindwipe 7y ago
      It is, because a la carte is always significantly more expensive. It results in higher transaction cost overhead, more risk, more cash flow volatility etc. A la carte is significantly more expensive in literally every industry, globally, for a reason.
      - ulucs 7y ago
        Human behavior does not (and should not) care about the cost structure. As binge watching is popular, having digital content priced over 15$ (or whatever the monthly price of the streaming service that also hosts the content) limits the sales to an incredibly niche audience.
        parasubvert 7y ago
        Incredibly niche is an exaggeration. People will spend the dough to watch what they want to watch. The vast majority of movies aren’t on Netflix!
      - Goladus 7y ago
        > a la carte is always significantly more expensive True, but clearly not the case with most TV shows. It's not an a la carte premium. It's either targeting a niche market like collectors, or there's just no attempt to set a market price whatsoever as the example here demonstrates: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21682892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21682892
- CJefferson 7y ago
  There is no reason for an 'a la carte' system to be cheaper. Actually transmitting channels is basically free. So, assuming there is 250 channels, and everyone watches 5, but a different 5, it costs the same to let everyone watch all 250, or exactly 5 of them.
- __alias 7y ago
  um, Youtube does this. you can buy movies/series for a one time viewing. If you don't watch too many it works out pretty cheap
- v7p1Qbt1im 7y ago
  I can only speak for myself. But I, and I believe many others, actually prefer a subscription. To be fair. I probably watch more content than the average person. So for me it‘s absolutely worth it. I know and used pretty much every modern pirating technique known to man. While you can get incredibly sophisticated with automation and ease of use. It‘s still not as easy or convenient as Netflix for example. Also, no Dolby Vision in piracy atm. Obviously cost is a factor. But more important for me is ease of access and best possible quality. Let‘s take Disney+. In my market it‘s not available yet. I will absolutely pirate The Mandalorian. The fact that it would surprise anyone that it would be a heavily pirated show is laughable. It‘s 2019 and you expect people to wait on a show that‘s available elsewhere? I would pay for it. But they won‘t let me. Their fault for not launching globally .
kec 7y ago
There are only so many $10-15/month services one can sign up for before you’re paying just as much as you would for cable, but now the UX is splintered and shit.
- AznHisoka 7y ago
  That is what products like Roku is for.
im3w1l 7y ago
The complaint about bundling has the implicit assumption that if you'd pay for only 5 out of those 250 it would be a lot cheaper, but that's not really true. Cost of providing those 245 channels is basically zero, so there are no savings they could pass on. Anyway with these streaming services, it's not so much that people want to pay for a bundle. It's more that micromanaging a lot of subscriptions is a chore. If they could all be integrated in a smooth manner ui-wise, but still paid separately, then people would be happy I think. Like imagine if adding Disney+ was just a manner of clicking a button that made money flow and content available in the app you were already using.
- londons_explore 7y ago
  The days of online services having an API and interoperating are largely over in a post-Cambridge Analytica world. No company wants another potentially shady company getting between them and the customer and ruining their reputation or misusing their data.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Most of the streaming services (excluding Netflix) work with the Apple TV app. It is possible. Also on iOS/tvOS devices, you can sign in with your cable provider (or OTT provider) once and the apps that require a login all work with it.
- concerned_user 7y ago
  Exactly, my cable provider here in Europe has an option of absolutely custom bundle you can pick whatever you want, but each channel then has its true cost. Popular channels can be extra 2-3 EUR/mo and others 0.50 EUR/mo it will be more expensive to pick 5-6 popular channels than take couple of 2.99 bundles with fodder channels you will never watch.
- pnutjam 7y ago
  Comcast's X1 box will do this. It shows me stuff on Netflix, Prime, and their own streaming system. I can also setup recordings if it's airing anytime soon. Too bad they don't support more systems, like Hulu or Disney+.
Razengan 7y ago
> I'm just as guilty as everyone else, I don't have a good answer... BitTorrent and VLC.
jchw 7y ago
I don't think we have, I think the problem has gotten worse. Let me try to make an example. Let's say there's one popular streaming platform, that is $5/mo. They mostly just aggregate and license content. Later on, content owners want to skip the middleman so they start making their own streaming services. So now you have 3 streaming services, which are each $5/mo. So you are now paying 3x as much. But you don't watch 3x as much. You pay 3x as much for the privilege of being able to watch a wider variety of things. This is actually pretty similar to the problem of cable, just split in a completely different way. You still can't get the stuff you want 'a la carte,' but now you have to pay three different entities anyways. Of course content owners will end up making out well because they make money whether on an aggregator or on their own platform, and because people now pay much more per month on average.
- taurath 7y ago
  I think people preferred Netflix being the only game in town simply because then if it wasn’t on Netflix you could mostly discard it, not that there wasn’t great content not on Netflix. It’s the tomato sauce choice fallacy - many people will be quite happy just having one, as compared to having 50 because then you can’t be happy with your choice because you’ll be wondering about the other ones. In the end - just pick a tomato sauce and try not to think about it too hard. If you don’t like it, pick a different one next time.
  - Mindwipe 7y ago
    > I think people preferred Netflix being the only game in town simply because then if it wasn’t on Netflix you could mostly discard it HN really does not understand that it does not live in a mainstream demographic, does it? This wasn't ever true. Ever.
  - croon 7y ago
    > It’s the tomato sauce choice fallacy I strongly disagree with this. Netflix previously had much more diverse content. It's currently (as of the last few years) banking on that their own content will substitute the licensed content disappearing on their platform. That The Witcher will satiate your Game of Thrones itch, that "superhero show #1" will be good enough over whatever Disney/Marvel puts on Disney+. This might work for a few people, but I believe/hope it won't work for most. Chatting about the latest episode of Twin Peaks or the new Nolan movie by the water cooler doesn't work with a pale substitute. The entire premise of the linked article is based on that cable packages survived and thrived as more players entered the market, and so should streaming services. What it ignores is that "alternative sources"/piracy didn't exist at the time, and does now. People will pay for as many services as they're comfortable with and with as much hassle as they can handle switching apps, and no more. They should take a hint from music streaming platforms, and let the services compete, and spread the content over all of them, otherwise they will face the reality that people will pirate their service while paying for others. Sorry for the long rant Signed / Multiple service subscriber
eloisant 7y ago
I just don't understand why video content can't be the same as music. Content providers licence their content to all the streaming services, they all have the same catalog, and customer pick once based on the UI, pricing, service. etc.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
The problem with cable was that it had channels and scheduled airing (and ads). We're in era of video on demand - I want to watch what I want, when I want. The problem is, paying for N shows individually is much, much more expensive than subscribing to a streaming service. So people subscribe - and get inferior UX. Incidentally, after you paid for cable TV had better UX than streaming services today. You had one universal interface - your TV and its remote - and the UI was decoupled from channels and movie producers. There is a sweet spot users want: one subscription and one UI, and for the two to be decoupled from each other.
kedean 7y ago
There's two key differences between the cable situation and the streaming situation. First, under cable, theoretically the subscriptions would all go through one provider. That's how direcTV worked (15-20 years ago, not sure if it still does), and it was a pretty cool model. Having to maintain subscriptions with a dozen streaming providers is a nightmare vs one. Amazon's channels system is more akin to it, where I can choose to pay a little extra for Shudder if I want horror content. Second, cable channels had a genre. If you like food, you might want food network. If you like music, you might want VH1 and the MTV's. If you're into cartoons, there's Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon and Disney Channel. Bravo has lifestyle stuff, Lifetime is "womens content", G4 was tech stuff, Weather Channel is weather, etc. With the streaming choices...they all serve all kinds of stuff, so picking and choosing makes way less sense. Instead of picking interests, you're picking brand loyalties, and that sucks.
skuthus 7y ago
IMO the disconnect starts with the producers. They believe their content to be worth X, but most consumers are only willing to pay X/2

BurningCycles 7y ago

>why do I have to pay for 250 channels when I only watch 5 of them? Let me pay only for what I watch. But that is still the case. If I could only pay for the shows I watch, I would not complain. But if I watch one Netflix show, I can't just subscribe to that show, I must pay for a ton of stuff I'm not remotely interested in. You still have Netflix, Disney+ and all the cable channels you need to subscribe to if you want their shows, how is this better for the consumer ? An actual 'A la carte' situation is that of the consumer being able to actually handpick the shows they want and only pay for those. This will never happen due to the industry being absolutely hostile to the idea, second best from a consumer standpoint is a single huge distributor like Netflix where you would pay larger fee but have access to practically everything you want, that is now pretty much a pipe dream since every major player wants to run their own streaming platform. This is not the way to beat piracy.

CivBase 7y ago
> But if I watch one Netflix show, I can't just subscribe to that show, I must pay for a ton of stuff I'm not remotely interested in. When I want a song, I've always just bought it. I still do. I can do basically anything with the file other than redistribute it. I can even play music while offline! I only use streaming services like Spotify and YouTube for songs I don't regularly play. I'm very frustrated I don't have the same option for movies and TV. Sure, I can buy the physical media, but there's all sorts of legal shinanigans when it comes to ripping blurays and such. My ideal solution isn't one big streaming service that has everything. I want an "iTunes for movies".
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  > I want an "iTunes for movies". You... know that iTunes sells movies, right?
  - ce4 7y ago
    This is probaby not what he meant, movies on iTunes, Google movies, etc all have DRM while music doesn't. He just wants to "do basically anything with the file other than redistribute it."
    - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
      That's fair, although with the current state of things it's a tougher ask. Even so, the iTunes for movies is, arguably, iTunes -- or Amazon's equivalent. (I do wonder whether DRM-free videos would have followed in the same way DRM-free music did if that market had taken off and streaming hadn't; at this point there's probably little commercial motivation to studios to make that change, as they'll just say "instead of buying that, subscribe to [insert video service here].")
- parasubvert 7y ago
  There... is an iTunes for movies. I mean, I own hundreds of iTunes movies, some of which I purchased 13 years ago. Microsoft, Google, and Sony all have equivalents.
  - ce4 7y ago
    You're not owning them. You own a license to watch on Apple's terms and as long as iTunes is around. Microsoft shut down the drm servers and killed their clients' ebooks in April: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20318852 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20318852
    - feu 7y ago
      Microsoft gave their customers a full refund, what's the problem?
chipotle_coyote 7y ago
> An actual 'A la carte' situation is that of the consumer being able to actually handpick the shows they want and only pay for those. This will never happen due to the industry being absolutely hostile to the idea... We've been able to do this with a substantial number of shows for years, though, by buying individual episodes or "season passes" on Amazon and iTunes. Maybe people just don't know, maybe people think the prices are too high, but more than likely the market has just largely moved on from this model for much the same reason that it moved on from CDs: the rise of streaming. (But put a pin in that for a second...) > ...second best from a consumer standpoint is a single huge distributor like Netflix where you would pay larger fee but have access to practically everything you want... This is what we all want price-wise, but would we really, truly want to turn Netflix into the equivalent of the iOS App Store for essentially all legal streaming movies and television? Everyone blames the proliferation of streaming services on rapacious greed, and, I mean, sure, the profit motive is mighty. But it's also a matter of keeping control. Broadcast networks and cable companies are middlemen who not only take a cut of the profit but who also act as gatekeepers; it's a little mad to think that producers would want to free themselves from that system only to rebuild it with a single all-powerful company in the command seat. Sure, not all the streaming services will survive, especially at the prices Netflix is currently charging. But I'm not convinced that the world is really going to rise up and rebel against having to pay $50 or $60 a month total to a half-dozen providers for commercial-free, on-demand access to hundreds of thousand of shows versus paying $100+ a month to a single provider.
- paranoidrobot 7y ago
  The problem with buying Season Passes is that they're usually a terrible option for many reasons. They're usually not available until well after the season premiered (12+ months later), roughly at the same time that the DVD/Bluray comes out. The quality of them is iffy, at best - SD or HD at poor bitrates. Fine for watching on a tablet or laptop, marginal at best on a TV/Surround system. They're tied to watching on that specific platform, and you're fucked if you wanted to watch on another platform, and if that platform goes away so do all your purchases. They're region locked, so if you went overseas for a bit, you can't access them. They're often either as expensive, or more, than the physical Bluray.
parasubvert 7y ago
A la carte TV/Movies have existed for longer than Netflix has been streaming. Google Play, Apple TV, Sony PlayStation store and Microsoft Xbox store all sell seasons and/or episodes and/or full movies. And you can often rent movies for cheaper. Overall, consumers preferred the subscriptions. They’re a better deal if you watch more than 5-10 hours a month. Though there are some things you can only purchase a la carte.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  It costs more to buy four episodes of a single show than an entire month of a typical streaming service. That is not the "let me pick my channels" service that people often ask for.
  - Mindwipe 7y ago
    It is, because a la carte is always significantly more expensive. It results in higher transaction cost overhead, more risk, more cash flow volatility etc. A la carte is significantly more expensive in literally every industry, globally, for a reason.
    - ulucs 7y ago
      Human behavior does not (and should not) care about the cost structure. As binge watching is popular, having digital content priced over 15$ (or whatever the monthly price of the streaming service that also hosts the content) limits the sales to an incredibly niche audience.
      - parasubvert 7y ago
        Incredibly niche is an exaggeration. People will spend the dough to watch what they want to watch. The vast majority of movies aren’t on Netflix!
    - Goladus 7y ago
      > a la carte is always significantly more expensive True, but clearly not the case with most TV shows. It's not an a la carte premium. It's either targeting a niche market like collectors, or there's just no attempt to set a market price whatsoever as the example here demonstrates: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21682892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21682892
CJefferson 7y ago
There is no reason for an 'a la carte' system to be cheaper. Actually transmitting channels is basically free. So, assuming there is 250 channels, and everyone watches 5, but a different 5, it costs the same to let everyone watch all 250, or exactly 5 of them.
__alias 7y ago
um, Youtube does this. you can buy movies/series for a one time viewing. If you don't watch too many it works out pretty cheap
v7p1Qbt1im 7y ago
I can only speak for myself. But I, and I believe many others, actually prefer a subscription. To be fair. I probably watch more content than the average person. So for me it‘s absolutely worth it. I know and used pretty much every modern pirating technique known to man. While you can get incredibly sophisticated with automation and ease of use. It‘s still not as easy or convenient as Netflix for example. Also, no Dolby Vision in piracy atm. Obviously cost is a factor. But more important for me is ease of access and best possible quality. Let‘s take Disney+. In my market it‘s not available yet. I will absolutely pirate The Mandalorian. The fact that it would surprise anyone that it would be a heavily pirated show is laughable. It‘s 2019 and you expect people to wait on a show that‘s available elsewhere? I would pay for it. But they won‘t let me. Their fault for not launching globally .

kec 7y ago

There are only so many $10-15/month services one can sign up for before you’re paying just as much as you would for cable, but now the UX is splintered and shit.

AznHisoka 7y ago
That is what products like Roku is for.

im3w1l 7y ago

The complaint about bundling has the implicit assumption that if you'd pay for only 5 out of those 250 it would be a lot cheaper, but that's not really true. Cost of providing those 245 channels is basically zero, so there are no savings they could pass on. Anyway with these streaming services, it's not so much that people want to pay for a bundle. It's more that micromanaging a lot of subscriptions is a chore. If they could all be integrated in a smooth manner ui-wise, but still paid separately, then people would be happy I think. Like imagine if adding Disney+ was just a manner of clicking a button that made money flow and content available in the app you were already using.

londons_explore 7y ago
The days of online services having an API and interoperating are largely over in a post-Cambridge Analytica world. No company wants another potentially shady company getting between them and the customer and ruining their reputation or misusing their data.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Most of the streaming services (excluding Netflix) work with the Apple TV app. It is possible. Also on iOS/tvOS devices, you can sign in with your cable provider (or OTT provider) once and the apps that require a login all work with it.
concerned_user 7y ago
Exactly, my cable provider here in Europe has an option of absolutely custom bundle you can pick whatever you want, but each channel then has its true cost. Popular channels can be extra 2-3 EUR/mo and others 0.50 EUR/mo it will be more expensive to pick 5-6 popular channels than take couple of 2.99 bundles with fodder channels you will never watch.
pnutjam 7y ago
Comcast's X1 box will do this. It shows me stuff on Netflix, Prime, and their own streaming system. I can also setup recordings if it's airing anytime soon. Too bad they don't support more systems, like Hulu or Disney+.

Razengan 7y ago

> I'm just as guilty as everyone else, I don't have a good answer... BitTorrent and VLC.

jchw 7y ago

I don't think we have, I think the problem has gotten worse. Let me try to make an example. Let's say there's one popular streaming platform, that is $5/mo. They mostly just aggregate and license content. Later on, content owners want to skip the middleman so they start making their own streaming services. So now you have 3 streaming services, which are each $5/mo. So you are now paying 3x as much. But you don't watch 3x as much. You pay 3x as much for the privilege of being able to watch a wider variety of things. This is actually pretty similar to the problem of cable, just split in a completely different way. You still can't get the stuff you want 'a la carte,' but now you have to pay three different entities anyways. Of course content owners will end up making out well because they make money whether on an aggregator or on their own platform, and because people now pay much more per month on average.

taurath 7y ago
I think people preferred Netflix being the only game in town simply because then if it wasn’t on Netflix you could mostly discard it, not that there wasn’t great content not on Netflix. It’s the tomato sauce choice fallacy - many people will be quite happy just having one, as compared to having 50 because then you can’t be happy with your choice because you’ll be wondering about the other ones. In the end - just pick a tomato sauce and try not to think about it too hard. If you don’t like it, pick a different one next time.
- Mindwipe 7y ago
  > I think people preferred Netflix being the only game in town simply because then if it wasn’t on Netflix you could mostly discard it HN really does not understand that it does not live in a mainstream demographic, does it? This wasn't ever true. Ever.
- croon 7y ago
  > It’s the tomato sauce choice fallacy I strongly disagree with this. Netflix previously had much more diverse content. It's currently (as of the last few years) banking on that their own content will substitute the licensed content disappearing on their platform. That The Witcher will satiate your Game of Thrones itch, that "superhero show #1" will be good enough over whatever Disney/Marvel puts on Disney+. This might work for a few people, but I believe/hope it won't work for most. Chatting about the latest episode of Twin Peaks or the new Nolan movie by the water cooler doesn't work with a pale substitute. The entire premise of the linked article is based on that cable packages survived and thrived as more players entered the market, and so should streaming services. What it ignores is that "alternative sources"/piracy didn't exist at the time, and does now. People will pay for as many services as they're comfortable with and with as much hassle as they can handle switching apps, and no more. They should take a hint from music streaming platforms, and let the services compete, and spread the content over all of them, otherwise they will face the reality that people will pirate their service while paying for others. Sorry for the long rant Signed / Multiple service subscriber

eloisant 7y ago

I just don't understand why video content can't be the same as music. Content providers licence their content to all the streaming services, they all have the same catalog, and customer pick once based on the UI, pricing, service. etc.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

The problem with cable was that it had channels and scheduled airing (and ads). We're in era of video on demand - I want to watch what I want, when I want. The problem is, paying for N shows individually is much, much more expensive than subscribing to a streaming service. So people subscribe - and get inferior UX. Incidentally, after you paid for cable TV had better UX than streaming services today. You had one universal interface - your TV and its remote - and the UI was decoupled from channels and movie producers. There is a sweet spot users want: one subscription and one UI, and for the two to be decoupled from each other.

kedean 7y ago

There's two key differences between the cable situation and the streaming situation. First, under cable, theoretically the subscriptions would all go through one provider. That's how direcTV worked (15-20 years ago, not sure if it still does), and it was a pretty cool model. Having to maintain subscriptions with a dozen streaming providers is a nightmare vs one. Amazon's channels system is more akin to it, where I can choose to pay a little extra for Shudder if I want horror content. Second, cable channels had a genre. If you like food, you might want food network. If you like music, you might want VH1 and the MTV's. If you're into cartoons, there's Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon and Disney Channel. Bravo has lifestyle stuff, Lifetime is "womens content", G4 was tech stuff, Weather Channel is weather, etc. With the streaming choices...they all serve all kinds of stuff, so picking and choosing makes way less sense. Instead of picking interests, you're picking brand loyalties, and that sucks.

skuthus 7y ago

IMO the disconnect starts with the producers. They believe their content to be worth X, but most consumers are only willing to pay X/2