5 ms·

The Independent reports 35m viewers of that cricket match [0]. Rolling Stone reported 120m for Tyson and Paul on Netflix [1]. These are very different numbers

The Independent reports 35m viewers of that cricket match [0]. Rolling Stone reported 120m for Tyson and Paul on Netflix [1]. These are very different numbers. 120m is Super Bowl territory. Could Hotstar handle 3-4 of those cricket matches at the same time without issue? [0] https://www.the-independent.com/sport/cricket/india-pakistan-world-cup-hotstar-record-fans-b2430423.html https://www.the-independent.com/sport/cricket/india-pakistan... [1] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jake-paul-mike-tyson-boxing-win-1235166434/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jake-paul-...

dilyevsky 2y ago
Majority of superbowl viewers watch it on cable. Streaming gets fewer than 10M concurrents
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  Until it switches entirely to Netflix one day
  - DaSHacka 2y ago
    Going by their failure this time around, that's not happening anytime soon.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Do people even have cable TV anymore? I have internet from my "cable" company but I don't have the "cable" connected to anything but the modem. Everything I watch is streamed. The only thing connected to my TV is a Roku.
  - cabinguy 2y ago
    I assume you know the answer to your questions is: of course they do. However, I’m in the same boat as you. The joke’s on us, I guess.
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      I guess my question is: why? "Cable boxes" are uniformly awful to use in my experience. The UI is clunky, they take up space and it's another remote and another tangle of wires to try to hide. What advantage do they offer in 2024?
      - reaperducer 2y ago
        What advantage do they offer in 2024? They exist in places where the internet infrastructure is not adequate for constant multiple streams. Content is king. And there's lots of content on cable that is not on streaming. Just consider local and regional news and sports. Many residential buildings, like the one in which I live, include cable TV with the rent. Why add more clutter and expense for streaming? There are plenty of other reasons. Your position seems to be "stop liking things I don't like."
      - MBCook 2y ago
        > What advantage do they offer in 2024? Live news and sports is huge for a ton of people. You have access to all the shows from the major networks. You don’t need to subscribe to Peacock and Paramount and Hulu and the TBS app and Discovery+ and… Better yet, they’re all combined in one interface as opposed to all trying to be the only thing that you use. Also, especially if you grew up with it, there is absolutely a simplicity in linear TV. Everyone was used to a DVR. And yeah the interface sucks, but it sucked for everyone already anyway so they’re used to it. Don’t know what you wanna watch? Turn on a channel you watch and just see what’s on. No looking at 400 things to pick between. I’ve seen people switch off and have serious trouble because it’s such a different way of watching TV from what they were used to. They end up using something like Hulu Live or YouTube TV to try and get the experience they’re used to back.
        conductr 2y ago
        This. I’m exactly in this YouTube tv camp and most the time just miss the simplicity of the old cable. Having to find things to watch is for me and awful experience. Then when I do want to watch something trying to figure out which app it’s actually on is awful. I think we subscribed to a dozen different things, it’s so damn fragmented. Even in early days if Netflix, I was a holdout that kept going to blockbuster because the UI of visually scanning a wall/shelf of DVDs was far superior to the Netflix version of the same IMO. This is definitely turning into my version of an old man rant. “Back in my day…” the main benefit of it all is I actually just don’t watch as much as I once did. The friction is too high. Or, the commitment is too high-I dont usually want to jump into some 10 episode series.
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    Do people even have cable TV anymore? Six seconds on the Google shows 58 million households in the United States. So, roughly 145,000,000 people. You make the tech bubble mistake of believing that high speed internet is as ubiquitous as coax.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >Six seconds on the Google I see 68.7 million people, not households. There's my 6 seconds. Maybe 10 minutes would give me a better truth. >You make the tech bubble mistake of believing that high speed internet is as ubiquitous as coax. Yes, and no. Given that the top US cities contain about 8% of the population, you can cover a surprising amount of large country with a surprisingly small amount of area coverage. So it's not as straightforward as "people in SF are in a bubble".
achow 2y ago
India - Australia is the one of interest, scored cricket’s highest concurrent audience ever, 59 Million. https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/biggest-cricket-world-cup-ever-smashes-broadcast-and-digital-records https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/biggest-cricket-world-cup-e...
kelvie 2y ago
The Games Awards claims to have 118 million livestreams [1], and went off without a hitch. I watched it for the game trailers, actually shocked that it's also superbowl viewership territory. https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/game-awards-2023-breaks-viewership-record-livestreams-1235838181 https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/game-awards-2023-break...
- wavesounds 2y ago
  "The festivities were streamed live from the Peacock Theater in L.A. across more than 30 platforms including YouTube, Twitch, Facebook, TikTok Live, X (Twitter), Steam, WeChat, Bilibili, Huya, DouYu, Xiaohongshu and Instagram Live"
  - MBCook 2y ago
    So no one service had to take the huge brunt. Much of it was divided I guess.
al_borland 2y ago
Too late for me to edit, but Netflix is now reporting 60m, half of what Rolling Stone said. https://x.com/netflix/status/1857906492235723244?s=46 https://x.com/netflix/status/1857906492235723244?s=46

dilyevsky 2y ago

Majority of superbowl viewers watch it on cable. Streaming gets fewer than 10M concurrents

firesteelrain 2y ago
Until it switches entirely to Netflix one day
- DaSHacka 2y ago
  Going by their failure this time around, that's not happening anytime soon.
SoftTalker 2y ago
Do people even have cable TV anymore? I have internet from my "cable" company but I don't have the "cable" connected to anything but the modem. Everything I watch is streamed. The only thing connected to my TV is a Roku.
- cabinguy 2y ago
  I assume you know the answer to your questions is: of course they do. However, I’m in the same boat as you. The joke’s on us, I guess.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    I guess my question is: why? "Cable boxes" are uniformly awful to use in my experience. The UI is clunky, they take up space and it's another remote and another tangle of wires to try to hide. What advantage do they offer in 2024?
    - reaperducer 2y ago
      What advantage do they offer in 2024? They exist in places where the internet infrastructure is not adequate for constant multiple streams. Content is king. And there's lots of content on cable that is not on streaming. Just consider local and regional news and sports. Many residential buildings, like the one in which I live, include cable TV with the rent. Why add more clutter and expense for streaming? There are plenty of other reasons. Your position seems to be "stop liking things I don't like."
    - MBCook 2y ago
      > What advantage do they offer in 2024? Live news and sports is huge for a ton of people. You have access to all the shows from the major networks. You don’t need to subscribe to Peacock and Paramount and Hulu and the TBS app and Discovery+ and… Better yet, they’re all combined in one interface as opposed to all trying to be the only thing that you use. Also, especially if you grew up with it, there is absolutely a simplicity in linear TV. Everyone was used to a DVR. And yeah the interface sucks, but it sucked for everyone already anyway so they’re used to it. Don’t know what you wanna watch? Turn on a channel you watch and just see what’s on. No looking at 400 things to pick between. I’ve seen people switch off and have serious trouble because it’s such a different way of watching TV from what they were used to. They end up using something like Hulu Live or YouTube TV to try and get the experience they’re used to back.
      - conductr 2y ago
        This. I’m exactly in this YouTube tv camp and most the time just miss the simplicity of the old cable. Having to find things to watch is for me and awful experience. Then when I do want to watch something trying to figure out which app it’s actually on is awful. I think we subscribed to a dozen different things, it’s so damn fragmented. Even in early days if Netflix, I was a holdout that kept going to blockbuster because the UI of visually scanning a wall/shelf of DVDs was far superior to the Netflix version of the same IMO. This is definitely turning into my version of an old man rant. “Back in my day…” the main benefit of it all is I actually just don’t watch as much as I once did. The friction is too high. Or, the commitment is too high-I dont usually want to jump into some 10 episode series.
- reaperducer 2y ago
  Do people even have cable TV anymore? Six seconds on the Google shows 58 million households in the United States. So, roughly 145,000,000 people. You make the tech bubble mistake of believing that high speed internet is as ubiquitous as coax.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >Six seconds on the Google I see 68.7 million people, not households. There's my 6 seconds. Maybe 10 minutes would give me a better truth. >You make the tech bubble mistake of believing that high speed internet is as ubiquitous as coax. Yes, and no. Given that the top US cities contain about 8% of the population, you can cover a surprising amount of large country with a surprisingly small amount of area coverage. So it's not as straightforward as "people in SF are in a bubble".

achow 2y ago

India - Australia is the one of interest, scored cricket’s highest concurrent audience ever, 59 Million. https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/biggest-cricket-world-cup-ever-smashes-broadcast-and-digital-records https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/biggest-cricket-world-cup-e...

kelvie 2y ago

The Games Awards claims to have 118 million livestreams [1], and went off without a hitch. I watched it for the game trailers, actually shocked that it's also superbowl viewership territory. https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/game-awards-2023-breaks-viewership-record-livestreams-1235838181 https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/game-awards-2023-break...

wavesounds 2y ago
"The festivities were streamed live from the Peacock Theater in L.A. across more than 30 platforms including YouTube, Twitch, Facebook, TikTok Live, X (Twitter), Steam, WeChat, Bilibili, Huya, DouYu, Xiaohongshu and Instagram Live"
- MBCook 2y ago
  So no one service had to take the huge brunt. Much of it was divided I guess.

al_borland 2y ago

Too late for me to edit, but Netflix is now reporting 60m, half of what Rolling Stone said. https://x.com/netflix/status/1857906492235723244?s=46 https://x.com/netflix/status/1857906492235723244?s=46