6 ms·

First, those streaming services are ad-free. Cable is not. Second, those streaming services cover what would be considered "premium" content on cable, so that p

by bedast 4y ago

First, those streaming services are ad-free. Cable is not. Second, those streaming services cover what would be considered "premium" content on cable, so that price comparison is grossly misleading. They're comparing subscribing to all of those services to what likely amounts to "basic" cable. The great thing about those streaming services is you can pick and choose. I used to subscribe to more services than I do now, and there's so much content on each of them that I found myself neglecting about half the services I subscribed to. So I dropped it down to what I actually use. You can't do that with cable. I spend far less with my ad-free streaming content than I would if I purchased ad-filled cable content. And when I say ad-filled, so much of it is every 5 minutes or so you get about 5 or so minutes of ads. For how much you pay for the service, that is completely unacceptable. So, no, I will not be spending MORE on cable in order to be served ads constantly. I'm doing fine on my small collection of ad-free streaming services.

focusedone 4y ago
Excellent reply! Many were frustrated for so long with paying for alllll of the cable channels so we could watch < 10. All I ever wanted was to pay a flat fee per month for each channel. Well, now we live in a world where that's possible and it's great! Being able to subscribe to one service for a month or two, catch up on a favorite program, then cancel paying for it when that's done is an unimaginable convenience. Some make it unnecessarily difficult to do that, but it seems like those are the services with less interesting content anyway. Anyway, I think where we're at with this is fantastic. Likely we'll see some consolidation in the market where less successful services disappear and other services suck up the shows left behind. If that pendulum swings too far it'd be unfortunate, but where we are right now seems to be a sweet spot.
- UberFly 4y ago
  Exactly. Also, who actually subscribes to everything in that list in the article? Maybe 3 of them with the freedom to jump around. Definitely an improvement over cable.
ghaff 4y ago
When I dropped it my basic cable TV was more than $100/month. Now I pay something under $50 (depending on how you count Prime and my Apple One bundle) for what's probably frankly more streaming options than I need. I don't have any live TV though I could always add a service if I wanted to and I still wouldn't be more than my cable bundle was.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
>First, those streaming services are ad-free. Cable is not. like that will never change. Also in the case of Disney at least, and maybe HBOMax, the existence of the service itself is one giant platform for the media of the studio. furthermore, where the studio based platform is concerned, it used to be when you bought product placement in a movie you were thinking not about how it would do after theatrical release, but in the case of product placement in the large studio associated movies, especially the ones Disney own of shared universes, I think that should be a real consideration and also in the coming years a selling point.
- scarface74 4y ago
  So you really think HBO is not going to offer an ad free version even though they have had an ad free offering since 1980?
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    are you under the impression that HBOMax is exactly the same thing as HBO?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      I am well aware of the fact that HBO Max is the only way that you can pay for standalone HBO content. Again do you think that after 42 years that HBO will not allow you to pay for ad free content? Has there ever been a premium channel that was ad free that went ad only? No basic cable was never ad free.
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        > Again do you think that after 42 years that HBO will not allow you to pay for ad free content? maybe, although I'm thinking more that WarnerMedia might have a say in it as HBOMax is a combination of HBO and Warner Bros, and at some point I might expect numbers cruncher at WarnerMedia come up with argument. How I expect ads to arrive (streaming media industry wide, not in any particular order) - 1. Maybe changes to how product placement work - extra edits for placing in products. Think of it as an impromptu streaming "Director's cut" for putting in a few cute but nonessential scenes with product placement in them. 2. Some special trailers, for example Coming attraction hero trailer at top of page autoplays like Netflix autoplays, maybe can't turn off but ok, it lasts for 5 seconds at first, slowly gets pushed up to 10. 3. Netflix is already rolling out an ad supported tier next year for its original movies, will lose some people but I suppose it will work out in the end and the industry will follow with however they do the ads because every company will say see how much money Netflix made! I mean my theory is that companies have no morals and capitalism means always having to find new ways to increase profits and the future is uncertain but there are trends pointing to companies obviously wanting to add Advertising layers in streaming services. So basically the pessimistic view when applied to "Will streaming services start pushing advertising?" Your theory seems to be just that HBO wouldn't do that - because they didn't in another industry (Cable).
slg 4y ago
I don't disagree with your overall point, but calling cable ad-filled compared to streamers like Netflix, Disney+, and HBO Max is a little unfair because you are comparing live TV with on demand TV. As long as you aren't watching live content, which you can't even do with most streamers, it is pretty easy to avoid ads with cable since DVRs have been an option for decades. If you are watching live content like with streamers like Hulu or YoutubeTV, you will see just as many ads streaming as you do with cable.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  YoutubeTV is cable, not a streamer.
  - slg 4y ago
    What is your definition for "cable" and "streamer"?
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      cable is a collection of tv channels. Streaming is a collection of on demand content.
      - mbreese 4y ago
        That’s what it means for you. In many contracts it refers to the medium of transmission. Cable requires a coax cable. Streaming comes over the top on an internet connection (which ironically might be provided via a coax cable). I, for example, get my live TV as a bundle of channels from DirecTV stream. It’s called “stream”. It requires no cable box, is a mix of live and on demand, and I can receive it anywhere over the internet (phone, home, work, etc). I’d never consider this cable. I’d also never consider satellite delivered TV cable, even if they are very similar. I think the nuances are a little more subtle than you are admitting.
      - slg 4y ago
        What is a TV channel? Several streamers align their content into different verticals. When I log into Disney+, the first thing I see is a selector for Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, and National Geographic. Are those channels? What is a "collection" of TV channels? ESPN+ allows me to watch what is currently airing on ESPN, ESPN2, etc. Their content is primarily live rather than on demand, but they only offer a very limited scope of content that all falls under the same category and only originates from the same family of channels. Are they actually cable? Don't basically all cable companies offer some form of on demand content? Are they all streamers too? Honestly, I don't care about the answers to these questions. They are rhetorical to show that it is hard to draw nice clean lines around these which is part of my original point that ads isn't what defines cable. Ads come with live content, not with the distribution channel for that content.
asdajksah2123 4y ago
Cable also paid for infrastructure costs. Streaming piggy backs off internet infrastructure. Further, every streaming business is deep in the red and are being supported by other parts of the business. If they have to carry their weight they will show you ads and increase prices.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Netflix is very much profitable and has been for years. Well they did just stop borrowing money to produce and acquire content in 2020. Disney expects Disney+ to be profitable including “transfer payments” by 2024. Streaming doesn’t piggyback off of getting access to the internet cheaply no matter what cable providers say. They pay for their bandwidth.
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
> First, those streaming services are ad-free. Cable is not. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv... Those streaming services will eventually be premium + ads. Quarterly earnings DEMAND it.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  This has already started. Hulu has a base plan with ads. Netflix will follow suit. Before too long it probably won't be possible to get an ad-free plan.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Hulu has always been ad supported. There free tier is obvious, but even their paid tiers still have ads even if it may be fewer interruptions than the free tier. The way I read it, makes it sound like you're suggesting it was ad free at some point then switched.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      There was at one point 3 shows that had ads at the beginning and end because of previous contract negotiations.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    What incentive will they have to make ad free not an option? When they can just charge any amount extra for the premium ad free version?
suzzer99 4y ago
Cable + DVR is more or less ad-free.
- thewebcount 4y ago
  Oh, but they're trying soooo hard to overcome that. For example, on HGTV, they intersperse "Sneak Peak" ads for other shows on the network. They always follow a commercial break, but my TiVo's ad skip button usually skips over the 3rd party ads and puts me at the beginning of the "Sneak Peak". It's so fucking irritating. Now I have to manually fast-forward through it. Then during the shows, literally, for the entire program, not just for a minute here or there, there's an animated logo for some other show from the same network. And it gets larger every year. First it was about 1/10th of the screen. Then it was like 1/8th. Now it's up to about 1/5th of the screen. In another couple years, it will be bigger than the actual content you're trying to watch. I've taken to logging into their site (via my cable subscription), copying my cookies, then downloading the shows using yt-dlp and putting them on my AppleTV because it's less annoying than trying to watch the shows in the format they were broadcast in.
ComputerGuru 4y ago
Cable also started off ad-free.
- LeftHandPath 4y ago
  And netflix is adding advertisements.
  - ComputerGuru 4y ago
    I thought that but it turns out that Netflix is culturally/principally anti-advertisement. They’re caving to shareholder demand and introducing a cheaper, ad-supported plan but their regular plans are - at least for now - to remain ad-free.
  - bedast 4y ago
    To a cheaper tier to try to get people away from account sharing. I fully intend to keep the tier that I've purchased.
- glitchc 4y ago
  Exactly. A lot of folks forget that cable was offered as an ad-free alternative to OTA broadcast TV. The selling feature was that since you are paying for a subscription, the platform was monetized and profitable, ergo no need for ads. Sound familiar?
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Cable was also started because certain areas had bad reception so they multiplexed the signals together down a single cable to avoid the reception issues. There's a lot of competeing "cable was started" stories
    - scarface74 4y ago
      There aren’t any competing stories. It’s not like the inception of cable is loss to the annals of history. There are just truths and falsehoods. Basic cable was never ad free.
FollowingTheDao 4y ago
OTA HDTV is free, but with ads, and you do not have to pay $90 a month for internet on top of it. Your ad free streaming services cost more than cable if you include the cost of internet.
- bedast 4y ago
  Your argument would make sense if all I used my internet connection for was consumption of streaming media. Regardless of whether I'm streaming media or not, I'm also going to be working, chatting with friends and colleagues, playing games, buying and selling, browsing the news, etc. My streaming content just also happens to use that same communication channel.

by bedast 4y ago

focusedone 4y ago

Excellent reply! Many were frustrated for so long with paying for alllll of the cable channels so we could watch < 10. All I ever wanted was to pay a flat fee per month for each channel. Well, now we live in a world where that's possible and it's great! Being able to subscribe to one service for a month or two, catch up on a favorite program, then cancel paying for it when that's done is an unimaginable convenience. Some make it unnecessarily difficult to do that, but it seems like those are the services with less interesting content anyway. Anyway, I think where we're at with this is fantastic. Likely we'll see some consolidation in the market where less successful services disappear and other services suck up the shows left behind. If that pendulum swings too far it'd be unfortunate, but where we are right now seems to be a sweet spot.

UberFly 4y ago
Exactly. Also, who actually subscribes to everything in that list in the article? Maybe 3 of them with the freedom to jump around. Definitely an improvement over cable.

ghaff 4y ago

When I dropped it my basic cable TV was more than $100/month. Now I pay something under $50 (depending on how you count Prime and my Apple One bundle) for what's probably frankly more streaming options than I need. I don't have any live TV though I could always add a service if I wanted to and I still wouldn't be more than my cable bundle was.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

>First, those streaming services are ad-free. Cable is not. like that will never change. Also in the case of Disney at least, and maybe HBOMax, the existence of the service itself is one giant platform for the media of the studio. furthermore, where the studio based platform is concerned, it used to be when you bought product placement in a movie you were thinking not about how it would do after theatrical release, but in the case of product placement in the large studio associated movies, especially the ones Disney own of shared universes, I think that should be a real consideration and also in the coming years a selling point.

scarface74 4y ago
So you really think HBO is not going to offer an ad free version even though they have had an ad free offering since 1980?
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  are you under the impression that HBOMax is exactly the same thing as HBO?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I am well aware of the fact that HBO Max is the only way that you can pay for standalone HBO content. Again do you think that after 42 years that HBO will not allow you to pay for ad free content? Has there ever been a premium channel that was ad free that went ad only? No basic cable was never ad free.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      > Again do you think that after 42 years that HBO will not allow you to pay for ad free content? maybe, although I'm thinking more that WarnerMedia might have a say in it as HBOMax is a combination of HBO and Warner Bros, and at some point I might expect numbers cruncher at WarnerMedia come up with argument. How I expect ads to arrive (streaming media industry wide, not in any particular order) - 1. Maybe changes to how product placement work - extra edits for placing in products. Think of it as an impromptu streaming "Director's cut" for putting in a few cute but nonessential scenes with product placement in them. 2. Some special trailers, for example Coming attraction hero trailer at top of page autoplays like Netflix autoplays, maybe can't turn off but ok, it lasts for 5 seconds at first, slowly gets pushed up to 10. 3. Netflix is already rolling out an ad supported tier next year for its original movies, will lose some people but I suppose it will work out in the end and the industry will follow with however they do the ads because every company will say see how much money Netflix made! I mean my theory is that companies have no morals and capitalism means always having to find new ways to increase profits and the future is uncertain but there are trends pointing to companies obviously wanting to add Advertising layers in streaming services. So basically the pessimistic view when applied to "Will streaming services start pushing advertising?" Your theory seems to be just that HBO wouldn't do that - because they didn't in another industry (Cable).

slg 4y ago

I don't disagree with your overall point, but calling cable ad-filled compared to streamers like Netflix, Disney+, and HBO Max is a little unfair because you are comparing live TV with on demand TV. As long as you aren't watching live content, which you can't even do with most streamers, it is pretty easy to avoid ads with cable since DVRs have been an option for decades. If you are watching live content like with streamers like Hulu or YoutubeTV, you will see just as many ads streaming as you do with cable.

colinmhayes 4y ago
YoutubeTV is cable, not a streamer.
- slg 4y ago
  What is your definition for "cable" and "streamer"?
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    cable is a collection of tv channels. Streaming is a collection of on demand content.
    - mbreese 4y ago
      That’s what it means for you. In many contracts it refers to the medium of transmission. Cable requires a coax cable. Streaming comes over the top on an internet connection (which ironically might be provided via a coax cable). I, for example, get my live TV as a bundle of channels from DirecTV stream. It’s called “stream”. It requires no cable box, is a mix of live and on demand, and I can receive it anywhere over the internet (phone, home, work, etc). I’d never consider this cable. I’d also never consider satellite delivered TV cable, even if they are very similar. I think the nuances are a little more subtle than you are admitting.
    - slg 4y ago
      What is a TV channel? Several streamers align their content into different verticals. When I log into Disney+, the first thing I see is a selector for Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, and National Geographic. Are those channels? What is a "collection" of TV channels? ESPN+ allows me to watch what is currently airing on ESPN, ESPN2, etc. Their content is primarily live rather than on demand, but they only offer a very limited scope of content that all falls under the same category and only originates from the same family of channels. Are they actually cable? Don't basically all cable companies offer some form of on demand content? Are they all streamers too? Honestly, I don't care about the answers to these questions. They are rhetorical to show that it is hard to draw nice clean lines around these which is part of my original point that ads isn't what defines cable. Ads come with live content, not with the distribution channel for that content.

asdajksah2123 4y ago

Cable also paid for infrastructure costs. Streaming piggy backs off internet infrastructure. Further, every streaming business is deep in the red and are being supported by other parts of the business. If they have to carry their weight they will show you ads and increase prices.

scarface74 4y ago
Netflix is very much profitable and has been for years. Well they did just stop borrowing money to produce and acquire content in 2020. Disney expects Disney+ to be profitable including “transfer payments” by 2024. Streaming doesn’t piggyback off of getting access to the internet cheaply no matter what cable providers say. They pay for their bandwidth.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

> First, those streaming services are ad-free. Cable is not. https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-invaded-by-commercials.html https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv... Those streaming services will eventually be premium + ads. Quarterly earnings DEMAND it.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
This has already started. Hulu has a base plan with ads. Netflix will follow suit. Before too long it probably won't be possible to get an ad-free plan.
- dylan604 4y ago
  Hulu has always been ad supported. There free tier is obvious, but even their paid tiers still have ads even if it may be fewer interruptions than the free tier. The way I read it, makes it sound like you're suggesting it was ad free at some point then switched.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    There was at one point 3 shows that had ads at the beginning and end because of previous contract negotiations.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  What incentive will they have to make ad free not an option? When they can just charge any amount extra for the premium ad free version?

suzzer99 4y ago

Cable + DVR is more or less ad-free.

thewebcount 4y ago
Oh, but they're trying soooo hard to overcome that. For example, on HGTV, they intersperse "Sneak Peak" ads for other shows on the network. They always follow a commercial break, but my TiVo's ad skip button usually skips over the 3rd party ads and puts me at the beginning of the "Sneak Peak". It's so fucking irritating. Now I have to manually fast-forward through it. Then during the shows, literally, for the entire program, not just for a minute here or there, there's an animated logo for some other show from the same network. And it gets larger every year. First it was about 1/10th of the screen. Then it was like 1/8th. Now it's up to about 1/5th of the screen. In another couple years, it will be bigger than the actual content you're trying to watch. I've taken to logging into their site (via my cable subscription), copying my cookies, then downloading the shows using yt-dlp and putting them on my AppleTV because it's less annoying than trying to watch the shows in the format they were broadcast in.

ComputerGuru 4y ago

Cable also started off ad-free.

LeftHandPath 4y ago
And netflix is adding advertisements.
- ComputerGuru 4y ago
  I thought that but it turns out that Netflix is culturally/principally anti-advertisement. They’re caving to shareholder demand and introducing a cheaper, ad-supported plan but their regular plans are - at least for now - to remain ad-free.
- bedast 4y ago
  To a cheaper tier to try to get people away from account sharing. I fully intend to keep the tier that I've purchased.
glitchc 4y ago
Exactly. A lot of folks forget that cable was offered as an ad-free alternative to OTA broadcast TV. The selling feature was that since you are paying for a subscription, the platform was monetized and profitable, ergo no need for ads. Sound familiar?
- dylan604 4y ago
  Cable was also started because certain areas had bad reception so they multiplexed the signals together down a single cable to avoid the reception issues. There's a lot of competeing "cable was started" stories
  - scarface74 4y ago
    There aren’t any competing stories. It’s not like the inception of cable is loss to the annals of history. There are just truths and falsehoods. Basic cable was never ad free.

FollowingTheDao 4y ago

OTA HDTV is free, but with ads, and you do not have to pay $90 a month for internet on top of it. Your ad free streaming services cost more than cable if you include the cost of internet.

bedast 4y ago
Your argument would make sense if all I used my internet connection for was consumption of streaming media. Regardless of whether I'm streaming media or not, I'm also going to be working, chatting with friends and colleagues, playing games, buying and selling, browsing the news, etc. My streaming content just also happens to use that same communication channel.