4 ms·

Wasn't it obvious that if you want all shows/services, you will still pay at least the same amount? The cost of producing content is not going down just because

Wasn't it obvious that if you want all shows/services, you will still pay at least the same amount? The cost of producing content is not going down just because there are more content providers. As long as the same amount of content is being produced, consumers still need to pay the same amount of money to see it all. If consumers decide to pay less, there will be less content.

rightbyte 4y ago
You don't have to subsidize digging down another cable for streaming. One could expect streaming to be cheaper than cable since you pay for internet access separately. Also no satellites to rocket into space.
- tjansen 4y ago
  ...but lots of content providers with their own infrastructure, people sharing accounts and many people are subscribing only to a few content providers.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  > You don't have to subsidize digging down another cable for streaming. You don't have to, but your streaming content is usually being delivered over the same cable that provides TV anyway.
  - Falkon1313 4y ago
    You pay for that with your internet bill though. If your internet bill included all the streaming services, that might be different.
bee_rider 4y ago
I don't think it is obvious. The default option is to hang on to your accounts, right? So if you cycle subscriptions, you are in a sense being subsidized by the people who just stick to a service. Or, if the expectation is that most people subscribe to multiple streaming services, if you just subscribe to one (not a big TV watcher for example) you would expect to pay less I guess.
- tjansen 4y ago
  The point of the article was that if you subscribe to all services at the same time, you pay as much as for a cable package. If you do not subscribe to all services simultaneously, but only a select few, it's still cheaper. At least as long as most people don't do this.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    Ah, that's fair.
- tjansen 4y ago
  The point of the article was that if you subscribe to all services at the same time, you pay as much as for a cable package. If you do not subscribe to all services simultaneously, but only a select few, it's still cheaper. At least as long as most people don't do this.
Mindwipe 4y ago
> As long as the same amount of content is being produced, consumers still need to pay the same amount of money to see it all. And indeed this isn't the case - a LOT more content is being produced, and a lot more high budget drama is being produced. The reason we have a glut of amazing content is because of the competition between services.

rightbyte 4y ago

You don't have to subsidize digging down another cable for streaming. One could expect streaming to be cheaper than cable since you pay for internet access separately. Also no satellites to rocket into space.

tjansen 4y ago
...but lots of content providers with their own infrastructure, people sharing accounts and many people are subscribing only to a few content providers.
jaywalk 4y ago
> You don't have to subsidize digging down another cable for streaming. You don't have to, but your streaming content is usually being delivered over the same cable that provides TV anyway.
- Falkon1313 4y ago
  You pay for that with your internet bill though. If your internet bill included all the streaming services, that might be different.

bee_rider 4y ago

I don't think it is obvious. The default option is to hang on to your accounts, right? So if you cycle subscriptions, you are in a sense being subsidized by the people who just stick to a service. Or, if the expectation is that most people subscribe to multiple streaming services, if you just subscribe to one (not a big TV watcher for example) you would expect to pay less I guess.

tjansen 4y ago
The point of the article was that if you subscribe to all services at the same time, you pay as much as for a cable package. If you do not subscribe to all services simultaneously, but only a select few, it's still cheaper. At least as long as most people don't do this.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  Ah, that's fair.
tjansen 4y ago
The point of the article was that if you subscribe to all services at the same time, you pay as much as for a cable package. If you do not subscribe to all services simultaneously, but only a select few, it's still cheaper. At least as long as most people don't do this.

Mindwipe 4y ago

> As long as the same amount of content is being produced, consumers still need to pay the same amount of money to see it all. And indeed this isn't the case - a LOT more content is being produced, and a lot more high budget drama is being produced. The reason we have a glut of amazing content is because of the competition between services.