6 ms·

This is a terrible comparison because no one has to buy all those services and in fact few do. The problem with cable was, regardless if you wanted it you got

This is a terrible comparison because no one has to buy all those services and in fact few do. The problem with cable was, regardless if you wanted it you got almost everything, particularly the most expensive package ESPN, whether you watched sports or not. Also, in Los Angeles, without any premium channels we have always paid more than $80.

edgyquant 4y ago
Not only that but I feel that a lot of these “are we going back to cable” are people too young to have used it. Having to pay for a bunch of a channels you didn’t want wasn’t at all what separated cable from streaming. Being able to choose what you watch along with not paying for the pleasure of watching ads is why streaming won out.
- dvtrn 4y ago
  Not to mention being able to cancel a streaming membership without going through the eight layers of contact center hell that still exists to this day for many cable providers.
  - palebluedot 4y ago
    And I remember being locked into a contract term as well for cable or satellite. All of these comparisons of streaming to cable of yore seem pretty far off, since you can mix & match services, binge, cancel some or all of them, re-subscribe later, etc. All without contract terms, and all without needing to do more than a few mouse clicks.
- Johnny555 4y ago
  Not only that but I feel that a lot of these “are we going back to cable” are people too young to have used it. The worst part of cable is the ads - when I travel and go to a hotel, I find that cable TV is unwatchable, it feels like 25% of the playtime is devoted to ads. I've started carrying an Amazon Fire Stick with me if I'm going to be in a hotel for more than a few days (usually for work) since most TV's have an accessible HDMI port, then I can watch all my streaming channels. Hotel Wifi is so spotty that I normally use a hotspot.
NikolaNovak 4y ago
>>because no one has to buy all those services and in fact few do I don't know if it's strictly the case. I think it depends on how we slice and dice. I cannot pay for Marvel movies without paying for Alladin and Little Mermaid (Disney+) I cannot just pay for Star Trek Strange New Worlds without paying for... I don't even know what, honestly, CBS All Access / Paramount + / whatever it's called these days holds no other interest to me. I get Prime, but increasing amount of movies I want are behind complex channel bundles. wtf is STARZ? If you are a family with parents, children, and perhaps even a grandparent, you will have an increasingly comparable number of subscriptions, monthly outlay, and hassle ("I want to watch X; is it on any services I subscribe or do I have to commit my life to yet another" is a privileged but unnecessary problem I do not desire to have and it's solely on industry's shoulders) Netflix had promise. Netflix was the Spotify of visual content. My one place with simple good interface that I can find all the content available, or at least good 80-90% of the middle of bell curve. The one monopoly I wholeheartedly desired to remain a monopoly. Here's a statement of personal perspective: "For me and anybody I know (friends & family), we are 100% moving toward Cable days in any and every way that matters to us". While we may be able to find a lens through which that is not technically the case, I personally find that immaterial. The immense prolifieration and fractalization of streaming providers benefits them, and is absolutely 100% against my convenience, budget, preference and best interest.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  And did you ever actually use cable? Top end packages can be $200 a month, and you generally don’t get to choose what to actually watch when you want to watch it. And most of it is unwatchable trash.
- SllX 4y ago
  > I cannot pay for Marvel movies without paying for Alladin and Little Mermaid (Disney+) > I cannot just pay for Star Trek Strange New Worlds without paying for... I don't even know what, honestly, CBS All Access / Paramount + / whatever it's called these days holds no other interest to me. Do Blu-rays and VODs just not exist anymore? You can absolutely pay for just what you want. I mean honestly how much does a collection of all the MCU movies through Endgame cost if you were to buy them discretely? $20 per in iTunes/TV, and what was it something like 20-25 movies? So $400-500 if you wanted every single one, and you can get at least some of them for cheaper if you get the Blu-rays off Amazon and Renting is an option if you only want to watch a particular movie once. Or $80/year if you don’t mind subsidizing Walt Disney Animations and Pixar. Honestly I think it’s a toss up whether renting, buying or streaming is more economical because it comes down to your habits, and streaming is only the clear winner if you binge a lot.
mxuribe 4y ago
It was ESPN years ago that broke the camel's back for my family and i to cut the cord...and the cost involved was only $4.95 per month. I say "only" because compared to the rest of my monthly cable bill, that didn't repsrenst a majority. It was the fact that i had no choice to remove ESPN - which i never watched anyway. So, Cablevision - or really maybe Disney/ESPN's contracts with cablevision - forcing me to pay a fee every month for something that i don't want was just so annoying, that i forever killed my cable subscription. And, in fact, all those years ago i even stopped watching "regular" TV...and i got my news from the web...and i'm not a mileniall which is often the assumption that many poeople make of me, when i tel them my streaming services origin story. Finally, all those years ago since i cut the cord, i have been hell bent promoting to everyone about the advantages of cutting the cord and moving to streaming services...in essence Cablevision and Disney/ESPN converted me int o an unpaid PR person for years now for streaming services! :-p
JKCalhoun 4y ago
There was always OTA (over the air). To hell with ESPN.
racl101 4y ago
Exactly. That was my thinking. Who would pay for all these services that have so much overlap in content with one another? Terribly inefficient way of doing shit.

edgyquant 4y ago

Not only that but I feel that a lot of these “are we going back to cable” are people too young to have used it. Having to pay for a bunch of a channels you didn’t want wasn’t at all what separated cable from streaming. Being able to choose what you watch along with not paying for the pleasure of watching ads is why streaming won out.

dvtrn 4y ago
Not to mention being able to cancel a streaming membership without going through the eight layers of contact center hell that still exists to this day for many cable providers.
- palebluedot 4y ago
  And I remember being locked into a contract term as well for cable or satellite. All of these comparisons of streaming to cable of yore seem pretty far off, since you can mix & match services, binge, cancel some or all of them, re-subscribe later, etc. All without contract terms, and all without needing to do more than a few mouse clicks.
Johnny555 4y ago
Not only that but I feel that a lot of these “are we going back to cable” are people too young to have used it. The worst part of cable is the ads - when I travel and go to a hotel, I find that cable TV is unwatchable, it feels like 25% of the playtime is devoted to ads. I've started carrying an Amazon Fire Stick with me if I'm going to be in a hotel for more than a few days (usually for work) since most TV's have an accessible HDMI port, then I can watch all my streaming channels. Hotel Wifi is so spotty that I normally use a hotspot.

NikolaNovak 4y ago

>>because no one has to buy all those services and in fact few do I don't know if it's strictly the case. I think it depends on how we slice and dice. I cannot pay for Marvel movies without paying for Alladin and Little Mermaid (Disney+) I cannot just pay for Star Trek Strange New Worlds without paying for... I don't even know what, honestly, CBS All Access / Paramount + / whatever it's called these days holds no other interest to me. I get Prime, but increasing amount of movies I want are behind complex channel bundles. wtf is STARZ? If you are a family with parents, children, and perhaps even a grandparent, you will have an increasingly comparable number of subscriptions, monthly outlay, and hassle ("I want to watch X; is it on any services I subscribe or do I have to commit my life to yet another" is a privileged but unnecessary problem I do not desire to have and it's solely on industry's shoulders) Netflix had promise. Netflix was the Spotify of visual content. My one place with simple good interface that I can find all the content available, or at least good 80-90% of the middle of bell curve. The one monopoly I wholeheartedly desired to remain a monopoly. Here's a statement of personal perspective: "For me and anybody I know (friends & family), we are 100% moving toward Cable days in any and every way that matters to us". While we may be able to find a lens through which that is not technically the case, I personally find that immaterial. The immense prolifieration and fractalization of streaming providers benefits them, and is absolutely 100% against my convenience, budget, preference and best interest.

KerrAvon 4y ago
And did you ever actually use cable? Top end packages can be $200 a month, and you generally don’t get to choose what to actually watch when you want to watch it. And most of it is unwatchable trash.
SllX 4y ago
> I cannot pay for Marvel movies without paying for Alladin and Little Mermaid (Disney+) > I cannot just pay for Star Trek Strange New Worlds without paying for... I don't even know what, honestly, CBS All Access / Paramount + / whatever it's called these days holds no other interest to me. Do Blu-rays and VODs just not exist anymore? You can absolutely pay for just what you want. I mean honestly how much does a collection of all the MCU movies through Endgame cost if you were to buy them discretely? $20 per in iTunes/TV, and what was it something like 20-25 movies? So $400-500 if you wanted every single one, and you can get at least some of them for cheaper if you get the Blu-rays off Amazon and Renting is an option if you only want to watch a particular movie once. Or $80/year if you don’t mind subsidizing Walt Disney Animations and Pixar. Honestly I think it’s a toss up whether renting, buying or streaming is more economical because it comes down to your habits, and streaming is only the clear winner if you binge a lot.

mxuribe 4y ago

It was ESPN years ago that broke the camel's back for my family and i to cut the cord...and the cost involved was only $4.95 per month. I say "only" because compared to the rest of my monthly cable bill, that didn't repsrenst a majority. It was the fact that i had no choice to remove ESPN - which i never watched anyway. So, Cablevision - or really maybe Disney/ESPN's contracts with cablevision - forcing me to pay a fee every month for something that i don't want was just so annoying, that i forever killed my cable subscription. And, in fact, all those years ago i even stopped watching "regular" TV...and i got my news from the web...and i'm not a mileniall which is often the assumption that many poeople make of me, when i tel them my streaming services origin story. Finally, all those years ago since i cut the cord, i have been hell bent promoting to everyone about the advantages of cutting the cord and moving to streaming services...in essence Cablevision and Disney/ESPN converted me int o an unpaid PR person for years now for streaming services! :-p

JKCalhoun 4y ago

There was always OTA (over the air). To hell with ESPN.

racl101 4y ago

Exactly. That was my thinking. Who would pay for all these services that have so much overlap in content with one another? Terribly inefficient way of doing shit.