4 ms·

> CNN+ never included the CNN cable channel This is the full stop. Leave it to a bunch of suits to come up with a dairy subscription that doesn't come with mil

> CNN+ never included the CNN cable channel This is the full stop. Leave it to a bunch of suits to come up with a dairy subscription that doesn't come with milk.

jquery 5y ago
This is kind of hilarious. who was cnn+ even supposed to be for? I personally like CNN, and would probably pay <$x/month or something to get it unbundled. But no way would I ever pay for "cnn+" that doesn't even have cnn!
- bombcar 5y ago
  There are some Disney shows you can't find on Disney+; but the majority of what you think of as "Disney" is there. But trying to have CNN+ not even include CNN is a huge branding error at best.
  - vikingerik 5y ago
    It's worth pointing out the reasoning: the bigger factor is the exclusivity that the cable providers get for carrying CNN. The cable providers don't want you dropping them because you can get CNN elsewhere, and CNN doesn't want cable providers to think about dropping the channel because customers can get it elsewhere.
    - cupofpython 5y ago
      which is why there should not have been a cnn+ to begin with. they couldnt offer the only service of theirs that people are paying for
      - bombcar 5y ago
        Exactly. It was doomed to fail and it sounds like everyone knew it (or they were hoping to make it into a life raft for when the cable companies collapsed).
        cupofpython 5y ago
        >they were hoping to make it into a life raft for when the cable companies collapsed interesting point. maybe there was some benefit to building the cnn+ infrastructure prior to their merger, and they did it because they figure they'll need it eventually
      - ehvatum 5y ago
        These people are not clever. Their calculations are apparent if you allow for sufficient sleaziness. CNN+ made sense back when Jeff Zucker was to be the man behind the throne of the Cuomo presidency. CNN+ would then have had the access to stay relevant as YouTube and Netflix ate up cable and satellite. Probably would have panned out if De Blasio hadn’t continuously sucked the oxygen out of the entire state for short-lived ego points. BLM was meant to be Cuomo’s road to the White House, not a city crosswalk, stupid bastard.
- the_snooze 5y ago
  ESPN+ is the the same way. It has "ESPN exclusives," but only niche-tier live sports broadcasting that couldn't make it to the cable-only ESPN channels.
  - fotta 5y ago
    ESPN+ is so annoying. It used to be that you could watch anything streaming but not broadcast on cable with a cable login, but they moved most of that content to ESPN+. For example in the early Australian Open rounds you could watch matches on smaller courts with a cable login, but now you have to pay for ESPN+ for this even if you have a cable login.
  - nwsm 5y ago
    Sure but the "niche-tier" live sports are very valuable their audience, which cannot be said of the CNN+ content. ESPN+ is very popular in my social circle to watch college baseball, womens' sports, some MLS and European soccer, and more obscure games in the big college leagues. Not only is there no alternative for this content, it was unavailable entirely before ESPN+ launched. Of course I'm not defending the lack of cable ESPN content on ESPN+; I would love to have that as well.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dawnerd 5y ago
Exactly. I signed up since they said "live" a few times but what they mean by live is, a few pre-recorded live shows that you can watch VOD.
TheCondor 5y ago
Back in the day, CNN was a new thing, it was kind of amazing. There was just news when you needed it or wanted it. Then somehow it became a brand. HLN was supposed to just loop the top stories every 30 minutes, you know Head Line News... Somewhere, between the politically targeted "news" market and streaming, it's a shell. Maybe worse than a shell, "CNN" and "HLN" are literally just brands now, to the top decision makers it's a channel with a pool of viewers, they could give a shit about actual content. The irony of all of this is that I think a lot of people would pay a few bucks a month for a real hard news streaming service. I could even imagine some sort of a package deal where like the NYT or some other top shelf paper worked with such a new service and you could get both as a package. Ironically, or maybe not, the pay per household model of how carriers pay for the content has really driven the lowest common denominator and as more people pull out of cable, it's actually strengthening the Fox like market share. During lunch here at home, I'd love a 15 minute quick hit of news and the market as I make a sandwich and eat it.
- boppo1 5y ago
  >real hard news streaming service patreon for Channel 5 and a handful of super-independent instagram war photographers like Finn Depacier. Hasn't congealed into a product yet, but it will.

> CNN+ never included the CNN cable channel This is the full stop. Leave it to a bunch of suits to come up with a dairy subscription that doesn't come with milk.

jquery 5y ago

This is kind of hilarious. who was cnn+ even supposed to be for? I personally like CNN, and would probably pay <$x/month or something to get it unbundled. But no way would I ever pay for "cnn+" that doesn't even have cnn!

bombcar 5y ago
There are some Disney shows you can't find on Disney+; but the majority of what you think of as "Disney" is there. But trying to have CNN+ not even include CNN is a huge branding error at best.
- vikingerik 5y ago
  It's worth pointing out the reasoning: the bigger factor is the exclusivity that the cable providers get for carrying CNN. The cable providers don't want you dropping them because you can get CNN elsewhere, and CNN doesn't want cable providers to think about dropping the channel because customers can get it elsewhere.
  - cupofpython 5y ago
    which is why there should not have been a cnn+ to begin with. they couldnt offer the only service of theirs that people are paying for
    - bombcar 5y ago
      Exactly. It was doomed to fail and it sounds like everyone knew it (or they were hoping to make it into a life raft for when the cable companies collapsed).
      - cupofpython 5y ago
        >they were hoping to make it into a life raft for when the cable companies collapsed interesting point. maybe there was some benefit to building the cnn+ infrastructure prior to their merger, and they did it because they figure they'll need it eventually
    - ehvatum 5y ago
      These people are not clever. Their calculations are apparent if you allow for sufficient sleaziness. CNN+ made sense back when Jeff Zucker was to be the man behind the throne of the Cuomo presidency. CNN+ would then have had the access to stay relevant as YouTube and Netflix ate up cable and satellite. Probably would have panned out if De Blasio hadn’t continuously sucked the oxygen out of the entire state for short-lived ego points. BLM was meant to be Cuomo’s road to the White House, not a city crosswalk, stupid bastard.
the_snooze 5y ago
ESPN+ is the the same way. It has "ESPN exclusives," but only niche-tier live sports broadcasting that couldn't make it to the cable-only ESPN channels.
- fotta 5y ago
  ESPN+ is so annoying. It used to be that you could watch anything streaming but not broadcast on cable with a cable login, but they moved most of that content to ESPN+. For example in the early Australian Open rounds you could watch matches on smaller courts with a cable login, but now you have to pay for ESPN+ for this even if you have a cable login.
- nwsm 5y ago
  Sure but the "niche-tier" live sports are very valuable their audience, which cannot be said of the CNN+ content. ESPN+ is very popular in my social circle to watch college baseball, womens' sports, some MLS and European soccer, and more obscure games in the big college leagues. Not only is there no alternative for this content, it was unavailable entirely before ESPN+ launched. Of course I'm not defending the lack of cable ESPN content on ESPN+; I would love to have that as well.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dawnerd 5y ago

Exactly. I signed up since they said "live" a few times but what they mean by live is, a few pre-recorded live shows that you can watch VOD.

TheCondor 5y ago

Back in the day, CNN was a new thing, it was kind of amazing. There was just news when you needed it or wanted it. Then somehow it became a brand. HLN was supposed to just loop the top stories every 30 minutes, you know Head Line News... Somewhere, between the politically targeted "news" market and streaming, it's a shell. Maybe worse than a shell, "CNN" and "HLN" are literally just brands now, to the top decision makers it's a channel with a pool of viewers, they could give a shit about actual content. The irony of all of this is that I think a lot of people would pay a few bucks a month for a real hard news streaming service. I could even imagine some sort of a package deal where like the NYT or some other top shelf paper worked with such a new service and you could get both as a package. Ironically, or maybe not, the pay per household model of how carriers pay for the content has really driven the lowest common denominator and as more people pull out of cable, it's actually strengthening the Fox like market share. During lunch here at home, I'd love a 15 minute quick hit of news and the market as I make a sandwich and eat it.

boppo1 5y ago
>real hard news streaming service patreon for Channel 5 and a handful of super-independent instagram war photographers like Finn Depacier. Hasn't congealed into a product yet, but it will.