6 ms·
We’ve come full circle sadly. YouTube TV raised fares with more channels I don’t watch or want. Netflix increases rates and further creates walled garden. Ever
by notyourwork 6y ago
We’ve come full circle sadly. YouTube TV raised fares with more channels I don’t watch or want. Netflix increases rates and further creates walled garden.
Everyone wanting to cut the cord isn’t better off then we were 5 years ago.
- fastball 6y agoHow does increasing rates further create a walled garden?
- kevinmchugh 6y agoI'm much better off. I can take my subscriptions with me, wherever I go. I can subscribe for a month at a time. I can cancel online. I can share subscriptions.
- xapata 6y agoExcept we have fewer advertisements interrupting shows.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoSmart TVs can pause live TV so you just buffer up 5 minutes and skip the ads.
- hugocbp 6y agoI don't think that is true. Sadly, sports is the one big thing that still prevents most people from cutting cord for real, but I prefer the current "multi streaming service" world a lot more than the old cable world. As I said in another comment, you can just keep one subscription active at a time. It is way cheaper than cable and you can still rotate pretty quickly. If something really good comes, you can subscribe to both for a short period, but most of the time you can do pretty well with just keeping one active. I wish a Netflix-for-sports existed already, though. I always had to keep the basic cable just to watch my team's football (soccer) games because you can't get those in any other way.
- metamet 6y agoYou can still sign up for Netflix, Hulu, HBO and Disney+ for a fraction of the cost of a cable subscription, without commercials.
- function_seven 6y agoI see the trend, but I'm still way better off now than I was when I had a regular cable or satellite plan. When I add up all the streaming services I pay for, it's still lower than what I was paying for DirecTV, and there's much better content now. I also regularly rotate services. For example, Amazon Prime is how I'm getting my HBO. I'm ready to remove that channel for a few months until the shows I watch return. I've done that with Acorn (UK programming) and with Showtime. Looking at the proliferation of silos (Peacock, AppleTV+, Disney, Netflix, HBO Max, Hulu, etc.), it's going to get harder to have a decent all-in-one place to go for content. But this is what a lot of cord cutters insisted that they wanted ("Why do I have to pay for ESPN if I don't watch it?"). Turns out it might not be cheaper after all? That is unless you're willing to put a little effort into rotating active services.
- ghaff 6y agoOne key is whether you're willing to give up live TV. If you have to pay >$50/month for essentially a streaming cable bundle, you've cut way into your savings by cutting the cord especially if you had some sort of internet/cable or internet/cable/phone bundle. I dropped phone and cable a while back and it saves me quite a bit of money overall but I do lose some things because of it.
- xur17 6y agoI don't watch sports, which I suppose is part of the reason, but I have 0 desire for live tv. I'd much rather watch what I want when I want.
- ThatPlayer 6y agoUnlike with cable, we don't have natural monopolies keeping competition away. So now we have competition: if you don't want Netflix, you have a choice in YouTube TV, Hulu, HBO, Disney, CBS All Access, Amazon Prime Video, and more.
- wrkronmiller 6y agothe monopoly is on the content, now
- ThatPlayer 6y agoContent isn't a monopoly. Content competes with other content. The same way content creators have been competing forever.
- rufus_foreman 6y ago>> if you don't want Netflix, you have a choice in YouTube TV, Hulu, HBO, Disney, CBS All Access, Amazon Prime Video, and more Then what does cable TV have a monopoly on?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- withinboredom 6y agoYouTube TV isn’t available where I am. But it must be awfully expensive when it does. YouTube without commercials is ~$20 USD a month here.