6 ms·

> And he’s part of one camp that believes young professionals and students will eventually become cable subscribers. > “We suspect they will trade up,” Skipper

> And he’s part of one camp that believes young professionals and students will eventually become cable subscribers. > “We suspect they will trade up,” Skipper said. The implication here seems to be that cable is the premium/preferred product, and people will switch to it once they can afford a cable subscription. That does not at all strike me as being the case in this day and age. The internet, and piracy, created an even more extreme shift in how you can consume video than it did for music. At least when you shelled out a ton of money for a CD, you still had the same experience when listening to the music. When you pay for cable or watch broadcast TV, you then not only have to wait for the scheduled viewing time, but you spend half as much time watching commercials as you do watching the actual program (10 minutes out of a 30 minute block). Then on top of that you have to deal with the famously awful cable companies? I think piracy + netflix have probably irreversibly changed people's willingness to sit through commercials, wait for the scheduled time slot, and put up with the other inconveniences associated with the whole process. I understand some of this has gone away through video on demand and DVRs, but I still have to think that Netflix is superior when it has something and Popcorn Time when it doesn't. It's not even the cost issue either. The cost issue is what got me started downloading music and video when I was a teenager, but nowadays (even though I'd be willing to pay a couple hundred bucks/pounds a month in theory) I've just had too much frustration and annoyance every time I've used a set top box (mostly in hotel rooms these days) to even have it on my radar as something that has the potential to make my life better.

sliverstorm 12y ago
It's sort of accurate. I mean, I don't know that I will ever subscribe to cable, but if I was a billionaire- sure, why not? Which means the flaw in their theory (for me) is the level of income I must attain is unrealistic.
bellerocky 12y ago
Yeah wow, Skipper is holding on to a legacy business that going to get disrupted from top to bottom. How do they not see that incredibly expensive cable subscriptions that provide scheduled broadcasts with filled with patronizing advertisements is somehow better than something like Netflix, YouTube or LiveStream?
bluedino 12y ago
>> When you pay for cable or watch broadcast TV, you then not only have to wait for the scheduled viewing time, but you spend half as much time watching commercials as you do watching the actual program Hulu+ I've had it for quite a while, beats having to be at home on a certain time to watch a show and also cuts the commercials way down.
bronbron 12y ago
It's worth considering that he's with ESPN, and sports is an unusual case. Television shows and movies don't have nearly the timeliness factor sports broadcasting has. If I see guardians of the galaxy a week after it comes out it doesn't really matter, but there's very little point in watching 'the game' even a day after the fact (unless there's some exceptional reason to). So in some regards, they do have kind of a stranglehold and are holding out hope that they can capitalize on that. It's funny talking to cable subscribers < 40, because (obviously anecdotal) the majority of the reasons given are 'how else am I going to watch sports?'
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Sports is indeed, far and away, the biggest driver of cable subscriptions. Sports is also the reason why most cable packages are so expensive. Licensing sports costs a fortune, and networks who license sports turn around and charge big fees to cable companies. Their parent companies also bundle their other networks with the sports network, so as to raise rates for all of their networks. This is why ESPN is the most profitable network on all of TV (broadcast or cable), and one of the most important jewels in Disney's crown. Disney would probably sell off ABC before it would sell off ESPN.
- digikata 12y ago
  If you're someone who doesn't watch sports, you also might think about how much a cable subscription subsidizes those who do. If sports franchises ever start moving off cable, the cable industry is in for a pretty rapid readjustment. I assume the sports franchises know and leverage this in their negotiations with cable companies. The whole LA Dodgers fiasco may be a leading edge indicator of a breakdown between franchises and cable operators. There have to be some conversations within sports teams wondering if they would make more money going direct to fans. On the other hand, it might make both sides more resolved to cooperate for a bit longer in negotiations.
- Sambdala 12y ago
  Outside the US, expats (or anyone, I just mostly know expats who use it) who follow US sports can subscribe to streaming packages that are far superior to watching it over broadcast. I think you can even switch between different commentators as well as a few other options. As for myself, I'm sure plenty of money from my local taxes, once I move back to the US, will go to subsidizing pro sports teams. I don't particularly feel like doing so with a cable subscription as well.
kylec 12y ago
In college I lived in an apartment that provided cable TV as part of the rent and I never hooked it up. Even though it literally cost me nothing, I still wasn't interested. I preferred the flexibility of Netflix (and pirating) to watch what I wanted, when I wanted, and the fact that a full third of airtime on cable is dedicated to showing commercials is a huge turn-off for me.
- penprog 12y ago
  Same, I am currently in college and have free cable in my room. I even had a TV at one point. Never hooked them up. Ended up selling the tv.
WalterBright 12y ago
Ironically, even when I own the DVD I'll still watch the Netflix streaming version, simply because it is more convenient.
- booruguru 12y ago
  You should rip your DVDs and store them on a hard drive connected to a Roku/WDTV/whatever...
  - snarkyturtle 12y ago
    That would require more work though. It's like telling someone to rip all your CDs and put it on your phone instead of streaming it from Spotify.
    - booruguru 12y ago
      People don't rip CDs anymore? You can't depend on a streaming service to stream your favorite content forever. Also, you don't actually "own" your DRM-riddled digital downloads from Amazon, iTunes, etc. What's more, CDs and Blu-rays offer high resolution content than any streaming service currently offers. For the HN crowd, I thought ripping would be a no-brainer.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Also, you don't actually "own" your DRM-riddled digital downloads from Amazon, iTunes, etc. iTunes downloads aren't DRM-riddled (which is why my entire iTunes library is now part of my Google Play Music library.) > For the HN crowd, I thought ripping would be a no-brainer. Buy individual tracks and archiving them to your own media is a no-brainer, but ripping CDs isn't necessary to that when the major music download services all are (or allow you to export) portable, DRM-free copies.
      - davidgerard 12y ago
        I have over a terabyte of media here ... and I still play songs I actually own a copy of from YouTube, 'cos it's so much more convenient.
davidgerard 12y ago
>I think piracy + netflix have probably irreversibly changed people's willingness to sit through commercials, wait for the scheduled time slot, and put up with the other inconveniences associated with the whole process. I was telling my 7yo about this yesterday. How in the old days, you couldn't just watch videos on YouTube or download whole seasons of Pokemon. No, there were only three channels, and things were shown at one time, and you had to be watching then or you'd miss it, and you couldn't watch it again. And it was horrible! (Called my dad today, he was most amused too.) This was provoked by having to explain to her that we couldn't just get all of Season 17 X and Y, because it hasn't all been broadcast yet, that there's just a new one every week. And of course it's unavailable in the UK ... except on the net. She watches lots of CBeebies/CBBC. So I pay for a TV licence even though we don't have a TV. Because the BBC is worth it.

sliverstorm 12y ago

It's sort of accurate. I mean, I don't know that I will ever subscribe to cable, but if I was a billionaire- sure, why not? Which means the flaw in their theory (for me) is the level of income I must attain is unrealistic.

bellerocky 12y ago

Yeah wow, Skipper is holding on to a legacy business that going to get disrupted from top to bottom. How do they not see that incredibly expensive cable subscriptions that provide scheduled broadcasts with filled with patronizing advertisements is somehow better than something like Netflix, YouTube or LiveStream?

bluedino 12y ago

>> When you pay for cable or watch broadcast TV, you then not only have to wait for the scheduled viewing time, but you spend half as much time watching commercials as you do watching the actual program Hulu+ I've had it for quite a while, beats having to be at home on a certain time to watch a show and also cuts the commercials way down.

bronbron 12y ago

It's worth considering that he's with ESPN, and sports is an unusual case. Television shows and movies don't have nearly the timeliness factor sports broadcasting has. If I see guardians of the galaxy a week after it comes out it doesn't really matter, but there's very little point in watching 'the game' even a day after the fact (unless there's some exceptional reason to). So in some regards, they do have kind of a stranglehold and are holding out hope that they can capitalize on that. It's funny talking to cable subscribers < 40, because (obviously anecdotal) the majority of the reasons given are 'how else am I going to watch sports?'

jonnathanson 12y ago
Sports is indeed, far and away, the biggest driver of cable subscriptions. Sports is also the reason why most cable packages are so expensive. Licensing sports costs a fortune, and networks who license sports turn around and charge big fees to cable companies. Their parent companies also bundle their other networks with the sports network, so as to raise rates for all of their networks. This is why ESPN is the most profitable network on all of TV (broadcast or cable), and one of the most important jewels in Disney's crown. Disney would probably sell off ABC before it would sell off ESPN.
digikata 12y ago
If you're someone who doesn't watch sports, you also might think about how much a cable subscription subsidizes those who do. If sports franchises ever start moving off cable, the cable industry is in for a pretty rapid readjustment. I assume the sports franchises know and leverage this in their negotiations with cable companies. The whole LA Dodgers fiasco may be a leading edge indicator of a breakdown between franchises and cable operators. There have to be some conversations within sports teams wondering if they would make more money going direct to fans. On the other hand, it might make both sides more resolved to cooperate for a bit longer in negotiations.
Sambdala 12y ago
Outside the US, expats (or anyone, I just mostly know expats who use it) who follow US sports can subscribe to streaming packages that are far superior to watching it over broadcast. I think you can even switch between different commentators as well as a few other options. As for myself, I'm sure plenty of money from my local taxes, once I move back to the US, will go to subsidizing pro sports teams. I don't particularly feel like doing so with a cable subscription as well.

kylec 12y ago

In college I lived in an apartment that provided cable TV as part of the rent and I never hooked it up. Even though it literally cost me nothing, I still wasn't interested. I preferred the flexibility of Netflix (and pirating) to watch what I wanted, when I wanted, and the fact that a full third of airtime on cable is dedicated to showing commercials is a huge turn-off for me.

penprog 12y ago
Same, I am currently in college and have free cable in my room. I even had a TV at one point. Never hooked them up. Ended up selling the tv.

WalterBright 12y ago

Ironically, even when I own the DVD I'll still watch the Netflix streaming version, simply because it is more convenient.

booruguru 12y ago
You should rip your DVDs and store them on a hard drive connected to a Roku/WDTV/whatever...
- snarkyturtle 12y ago
  That would require more work though. It's like telling someone to rip all your CDs and put it on your phone instead of streaming it from Spotify.
  - booruguru 12y ago
    People don't rip CDs anymore? You can't depend on a streaming service to stream your favorite content forever. Also, you don't actually "own" your DRM-riddled digital downloads from Amazon, iTunes, etc. What's more, CDs and Blu-rays offer high resolution content than any streaming service currently offers. For the HN crowd, I thought ripping would be a no-brainer.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Also, you don't actually "own" your DRM-riddled digital downloads from Amazon, iTunes, etc. iTunes downloads aren't DRM-riddled (which is why my entire iTunes library is now part of my Google Play Music library.) > For the HN crowd, I thought ripping would be a no-brainer. Buy individual tracks and archiving them to your own media is a no-brainer, but ripping CDs isn't necessary to that when the major music download services all are (or allow you to export) portable, DRM-free copies.
    - davidgerard 12y ago
      I have over a terabyte of media here ... and I still play songs I actually own a copy of from YouTube, 'cos it's so much more convenient.

davidgerard 12y ago

>I think piracy + netflix have probably irreversibly changed people's willingness to sit through commercials, wait for the scheduled time slot, and put up with the other inconveniences associated with the whole process. I was telling my 7yo about this yesterday. How in the old days, you couldn't just watch videos on YouTube or download whole seasons of Pokemon. No, there were only three channels, and things were shown at one time, and you had to be watching then or you'd miss it, and you couldn't watch it again. And it was horrible! (Called my dad today, he was most amused too.) This was provoked by having to explain to her that we couldn't just get all of Season 17 X and Y, because it hasn't all been broadcast yet, that there's just a new one every week. And of course it's unavailable in the UK ... except on the net. She watches lots of CBeebies/CBBC. So I pay for a TV licence even though we don't have a TV. Because the BBC is worth it.