4 ms·
Yes, this is the thing that gets me. I'm paying a lot, for a bunch of separate services that have some but not complete overlap, because it's the only way to ge
by zippergz 5y ago
Yes, this is the thing that gets me. I'm paying a lot, for a bunch of separate services that have some but not complete overlap, because it's the only way to get all the stuff people in the family want. If it all worked well and wasn't a huge pain in the butt, I wouldn't even mind paying the amount we're paying. But it DOESN'T work well. Every app is different, things are constantly changing, now I have to explain to the rest of the family (who were skeptical about getting rid of cable in the first place) why they can't get ABC and ESPN on YouTube TV where they're used to getting it.
This is probably making all the rights-holders happy because they're making more money, but it's a short-term solution. In the long run, they're going to be driving viewers away and won't be able to win them back. Yes, TV-watching is a pretty ingrained habit for a lot of people, but it's not set in stone. Other forms of entertainment can and will replace it if it becomes too much of a pain, too expensive, or too confusing.
- ghaff 5y agoHabit is a good way of putting it. As you say, it's pretty ingrained for a lot of people to switch on Sunday football, the Food Network, CNN, etc. and watch fairly passively/sort of in the background. But there's some point where it all becomes too much of a pain or costs too much. Change does happen over time. I know in my case, it was the realization I was paying $100/month to record shows to my DVR I never got around to watching and maybe have one or two sports games a month on in the background.