5 ms·

Is it really much better to have five $15 services to get the same content?

tux3 5y ago
If GP answers no, does that mean these are the only two options?
BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
You still don't get it. I want the "channel" format of media (programmed video content aka broadcast programming) to die. Whether it's accessed by paying comcast to watch it over a settop box or paying google to watch it through a browser or app makes no difference to me, it's the same format of content and I want to see it die. And it has been dying. Look at the ads the roll between the shows and it's clear that TV watchers are aging out. It's all hearing aid commercials and malpractice lawsuits' the only people watching TV through a settop box anymore are the elderly. Bringing that same format of content to youtube's platform, to be watchable on the devices young people use (smartphones, laptops, etc) is a play to make this format relevant to young people again. I hope they fail.
- 0xcde4c3db 5y ago
  I think they're still trying to figure out a replacement that gives the channel/network/platform leverage over content producers, much like control over "prime time" and fall marketing blitzes did.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- supertrope 5y ago
  It's like unbundling $20 CD into $1 singles. Be prepared for when you get what you wish for. Linear channels and bundling is all to maintain top level revenue. Demonetization will be the death of big budget productions like HBO. We will have more algorithm greenlit average quality content like what pads out Netflix's catalog.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    What crippled newspapers as a whole was essentially unbundling. The local car dealerships didn't actually want to pay for foreign news bureaus in Baghdad but if they wanted to run an ad that local people saw on Sunday, that's what they had to do. The crippling of the classified ad market by Craigslist was probably an even bigger blow. Now, it's hard to argue that people shouldn't be able to pay for just what they want. But now you're effectively arguing for relatively expensive a la carte rentals/purchases which I'm guessing people wouldn't want either if you want to keep revenues neutral. People may want to pay only for the media they watch. But they may not want to pay $5 for a TV show even though I was probably paying way more than that per show when I had cable TV.
- hakfoo 5y ago
  I will agree that the current state of broadcast TV is a rubbish dump, but there's value in a "channel" concept. If I'm inherently after a passive entertainment experience, there are situations where I want the decisions made for me. If I put on the TV while I exercise, or for background while cooking or cleaning, I don't need it stopping every 30 minutes asking me to choose something else to watch, and yet I also don't want it showing 23 seasons of the Great British Bake Off in a row either. I'll put on a broadcast channel instead.
ghaff 5y ago
Well, in fairness, it really isn't the same content. Much of it is premium that wouldn't be on broadcast and it's all generally on demand. I dropped cable TV a couple years ago and while there's occasional live TV I'd maybe like to watch, overall I'm happier with a handful of on demand channels that I pay less for than I was paying for cable.
syki 5y ago
At this time it is much better. I can sign up for a service for a month and binge some shows. Then cancel the service and repeat for another offering. By rotating the services I subscribe to each month I’m effectively watching the content on all the services for a low monthly rate. Eventually these companies will charge an annual rate but right now it’s much better financially and otherwise than cable tv.
- User23 5y ago
  Cable TV was a screaming deal, so long as you could always stay on the promotional rate. I haven't had it in a while, but I used to call and "cancel" my service every 3 months to get 3 months of free premium channels and a reduced basic rate. It was pretty funny when I moved and had to actually cancel my service because obviously it was on my file and the support person was like sure no problem here you go and I had to clarify no I actually needed to cancel because I was leaving their service area.
  - _flux 5y ago
    Ah, a modern version of the fable "The Boy Why Cried Wolf". Though I suppose with a happier ending.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Assuming a high quality internet connection is available, the qualifications for “screaming deal” would have to be: 1) on demand whatever you want to watch whenever you want to watch on whichever device you want to watch 2) no advertisement breaks 3) no mandatory long term contract (maximum length 1 month)
Retric 5y ago
There’s only so much time in the day so people actually wanted a tiny fraction of that content. Basic cable was setup to be mandatory even if you wanted nothing in it and the money was to be made via advertising. Thus MTV added Real World and the history channel had Ice Road Truckers. Both popular shows, but seemingly out of scope except the audience was anyone flipping channels. This ends up being a quest for the cheapest content that still attracts an audience. HBO on the other hand was constantly fighting for subscribers not just viewership. For them every viewer was worth more money so they had a high bar without much filler.
saxonww 5y ago
I'd certainly like it if I could pay YouTube TV $15 to get just the sports channels. I only subscribe a few months a year, for college football season. I don't like to watch anything else. So I'm spending $65/mo to watch 3-4 games, which is a little embarrassing to post. I do think I'd rather pay YouTube than ESPN directly, because the latter's video services have never worked well for me. Part of me wishes the various services would just tell Disney to get lost, and let them see how much they like providing that service on their own. Though, the conventional wisdom seems to be that live sports programming can't exist on it's own, and that 'regular TV' can't exist without live sports.
- ghaff 5y ago
  >Though, the conventional wisdom seems to be that live sports programming can't exist on it's own, and that 'regular TV' can't exist without live sports. It feels that way. On the one hand, it seems like you have to be something of a super-fan to subscribe to one or more of the sport/league-specific sites/apps. On the other hand, local sports availability or even just sports as TV on in background seems like a pretty significant sweetener for a lot of people who might not pay for TV just for the occasional late night talk show, local news broadcast, or reality show. Sports isn't enough for me to pay for cable any longer. But, if I did, watching a game now and then would probably be what would push me over the line to pay up.
  - ssharp 5y ago
    Sports is now getting into the territory music did in the early 2000's and movies did before streaming hit big -- where it's become significantly easier and convenient to just pirate than to do it legally. It's much easier to just find pirated live game streams than it is to figure out the cobweb of television rights, which service actually shows local sports, if you're "in" or "out" of market, etc. I'm sure the economics are still strongly in favor of the TV licensing deals but this has to turn at some point, I'd think, where leagues can go direct-to-consumer across all markets or they just sign deals with streaming companies directly, which Amazon is already doing with the NFL.
- tomrod 5y ago
supertrope 5y ago
Yes. We finally have a la carte. At a grocery store we pick out exactly what we want. If you were given a take it or leave bundle of $85 you'd laugh and walk out.
- ghaff 5y ago
  It doesn't really make sense in a grocery store context. But that's exactly what something like a farm-share is.

tux3 5y ago

If GP answers no, does that mean these are the only two options?

You still don't get it. I want the "channel" format of media (programmed video content aka broadcast programming) to die. Whether it's accessed by paying comcast to watch it over a settop box or paying google to watch it through a browser or app makes no difference to me, it's the same format of content and I want to see it die. And it has been dying. Look at the ads the roll between the shows and it's clear that TV watchers are aging out. It's all hearing aid commercials and malpractice lawsuits' the only people watching TV through a settop box anymore are the elderly. Bringing that same format of content to youtube's platform, to be watchable on the devices young people use (smartphones, laptops, etc) is a play to make this format relevant to young people again. I hope they fail.

0xcde4c3db 5y ago
I think they're still trying to figure out a replacement that gives the channel/network/platform leverage over content producers, much like control over "prime time" and fall marketing blitzes did.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
supertrope 5y ago
It's like unbundling $20 CD into $1 singles. Be prepared for when you get what you wish for. Linear channels and bundling is all to maintain top level revenue. Demonetization will be the death of big budget productions like HBO. We will have more algorithm greenlit average quality content like what pads out Netflix's catalog.
- ghaff 5y ago
  What crippled newspapers as a whole was essentially unbundling. The local car dealerships didn't actually want to pay for foreign news bureaus in Baghdad but if they wanted to run an ad that local people saw on Sunday, that's what they had to do. The crippling of the classified ad market by Craigslist was probably an even bigger blow. Now, it's hard to argue that people shouldn't be able to pay for just what they want. But now you're effectively arguing for relatively expensive a la carte rentals/purchases which I'm guessing people wouldn't want either if you want to keep revenues neutral. People may want to pay only for the media they watch. But they may not want to pay $5 for a TV show even though I was probably paying way more than that per show when I had cable TV.
hakfoo 5y ago
I will agree that the current state of broadcast TV is a rubbish dump, but there's value in a "channel" concept. If I'm inherently after a passive entertainment experience, there are situations where I want the decisions made for me. If I put on the TV while I exercise, or for background while cooking or cleaning, I don't need it stopping every 30 minutes asking me to choose something else to watch, and yet I also don't want it showing 23 seasons of the Great British Bake Off in a row either. I'll put on a broadcast channel instead.

ghaff 5y ago

Well, in fairness, it really isn't the same content. Much of it is premium that wouldn't be on broadcast and it's all generally on demand. I dropped cable TV a couple years ago and while there's occasional live TV I'd maybe like to watch, overall I'm happier with a handful of on demand channels that I pay less for than I was paying for cable.

syki 5y ago

At this time it is much better. I can sign up for a service for a month and binge some shows. Then cancel the service and repeat for another offering. By rotating the services I subscribe to each month I’m effectively watching the content on all the services for a low monthly rate. Eventually these companies will charge an annual rate but right now it’s much better financially and otherwise than cable tv.

User23 5y ago
Cable TV was a screaming deal, so long as you could always stay on the promotional rate. I haven't had it in a while, but I used to call and "cancel" my service every 3 months to get 3 months of free premium channels and a reduced basic rate. It was pretty funny when I moved and had to actually cancel my service because obviously it was on my file and the support person was like sure no problem here you go and I had to clarify no I actually needed to cancel because I was leaving their service area.
- _flux 5y ago
  Ah, a modern version of the fable "The Boy Why Cried Wolf". Though I suppose with a happier ending.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Assuming a high quality internet connection is available, the qualifications for “screaming deal” would have to be: 1) on demand whatever you want to watch whenever you want to watch on whichever device you want to watch 2) no advertisement breaks 3) no mandatory long term contract (maximum length 1 month)

Retric 5y ago

There’s only so much time in the day so people actually wanted a tiny fraction of that content. Basic cable was setup to be mandatory even if you wanted nothing in it and the money was to be made via advertising. Thus MTV added Real World and the history channel had Ice Road Truckers. Both popular shows, but seemingly out of scope except the audience was anyone flipping channels. This ends up being a quest for the cheapest content that still attracts an audience. HBO on the other hand was constantly fighting for subscribers not just viewership. For them every viewer was worth more money so they had a high bar without much filler.

saxonww 5y ago

I'd certainly like it if I could pay YouTube TV $15 to get just the sports channels. I only subscribe a few months a year, for college football season. I don't like to watch anything else. So I'm spending $65/mo to watch 3-4 games, which is a little embarrassing to post. I do think I'd rather pay YouTube than ESPN directly, because the latter's video services have never worked well for me. Part of me wishes the various services would just tell Disney to get lost, and let them see how much they like providing that service on their own. Though, the conventional wisdom seems to be that live sports programming can't exist on it's own, and that 'regular TV' can't exist without live sports.

ghaff 5y ago
>Though, the conventional wisdom seems to be that live sports programming can't exist on it's own, and that 'regular TV' can't exist without live sports. It feels that way. On the one hand, it seems like you have to be something of a super-fan to subscribe to one or more of the sport/league-specific sites/apps. On the other hand, local sports availability or even just sports as TV on in background seems like a pretty significant sweetener for a lot of people who might not pay for TV just for the occasional late night talk show, local news broadcast, or reality show. Sports isn't enough for me to pay for cable any longer. But, if I did, watching a game now and then would probably be what would push me over the line to pay up.
- ssharp 5y ago
  Sports is now getting into the territory music did in the early 2000's and movies did before streaming hit big -- where it's become significantly easier and convenient to just pirate than to do it legally. It's much easier to just find pirated live game streams than it is to figure out the cobweb of television rights, which service actually shows local sports, if you're "in" or "out" of market, etc. I'm sure the economics are still strongly in favor of the TV licensing deals but this has to turn at some point, I'd think, where leagues can go direct-to-consumer across all markets or they just sign deals with streaming companies directly, which Amazon is already doing with the NFL.
tomrod 5y ago

supertrope 5y ago

Yes. We finally have a la carte. At a grocery store we pick out exactly what we want. If you were given a take it or leave bundle of $85 you'd laugh and walk out.

ghaff 5y ago
It doesn't really make sense in a grocery store context. But that's exactly what something like a farm-share is.