3 ms·
Sure, but the main contributing factor remains that nobody used it. And the widespread schadenfreude I suspect is mostly due to how blatantly obvious it should
by TechBro8615 5y ago
Sure, but the main contributing factor remains that nobody used it. And the widespread schadenfreude I suspect is mostly due to how blatantly obvious it should have been that nobody would pay for CNN+.
- res0nat0r 5y agoI've just read that live CNN wasn't even available on CNN+. That's idiotic. I can't get CNN without a full fledged cable subscription, but if this was cheap and offered a CNN livestream I'd think about it, but not even offering the live feed is just absurd.
- james_pm 5y agoThe only reason CNN still exists is because it's bundled with cable and everyone gets (and pays for) CNN on a basic cable tier. The brutal truth? Almost nobody watches CNN unless something very significant happens. On the flip side, almost everybody with cable pays for CNN.
- rsync 5y agoTo be fair, if I need to test dns I always nslookup cnn.com … just muscle memory for 35 years … … and I am in a much more desirable demo …
- onionisafruit 5y agoI do the same. I used to load cnn.com because it was easy to tell if I was getting a cached page. The current time was displayed and rendered by the server.
- injvstice 5y agoI thought cnn was already free to stream on networks such as plutotv. (https://pluto.tv/en/live-tv/cnn https://pluto.tv/en/live-tv/cnn). I don’t know if it is a full stream or highlights though, since I never actually watched it. I use Pluto mostly for Bloomberg.
- scrozart 5y agoOf course nobody used it; it was marketed poorly, and funding for marketing was cut early on, as indicated in the article. I have no idea if the service would have succeeded under different circumstances, but as OP stated, this was the rushed pet project of outgoing executives during a merger. Any outcome other than DOA was highly unlikely.