4 ms·
>It adds up pretty quickly, and costs way more than traditional TV used to cost. I have trouble understanding this complaint. There's way more content than ev
by itsoktocry 3y ago
>It adds up pretty quickly, and costs way more than traditional TV used to cost.
I have trouble understanding this complaint.
There's way more content than ever before; why wouldn't it be more expensive to get everything? You don't have to subscribe to it all, but the ability to pick and choose providers a la carte, as well as cycle subscriptions on and off seems like a huge win to consumers.
- damnesian 3y agoWell, true, except entertainment consumers want a good variety. And ideally, they'd like it priced like a utility, a monthly payment they can budget for. Before it was taken over by infomercials and reality tv, cable offered unprecedented variety, all for one manageable monthly payment. this is still what people want. This will be what the market gravitates towards, and we see it happening now with cheaper ad-supported tiers and even many 100% free with ads small players. Streaming is, in effect, slowly becoming cable tv all over again. Hell, some of these free channels- like PlutoTV- even look like cable. I predict eventually which aggregator you choose- Roku, Firestick, AppleTV- won't matter, it will be the same galaxy of choices.
- hinkley 3y agoProduction values for TV shows have quite gotten out of hand. I like it, but that’s a lot of advertising or fees to pay for those.