Fuck this nonsense. With prices sharply going up the way they have it’s obvious that less people would be able to or want to budget for the fortune it cost to own multiple subscriptions. Get ready for another “big squeeze” as they start to clamp down on account sharing. Privacy and anonymity will be a thing of the past as they force people to set up 2fa outside of the house thus allowing them to better target their clientele. With more restrictions and more requirements comes the ability to scalp and sell our info. This deserves a court case.

Is it cheaper to own cable at this point? Does cable exist?

I didn’t have tv up to a few years ago…now I just…have Hulu and peacock.

Im still streaming but there are sites that offer ALL content for no price.

Keep splitting into groups and they will bring back piracy.

Was not expecting to see Ashley Cain, bear and Georgia to be on this image of this article

Don't know about cheaper but you couldn't pay me to put up with the advertising on cable.

This is specifically about international streaming, no?

Source?

Piracy never left my dude

This article isn't even talking about consumers. It's talking about the streaming companies themselves and how falling share prices, lack of profit, crushing debt, and a saturated US market is causing them to cut all their mid-budget shows and look elsewhere for profitabilty.

Bottom line for the consumer? Expect longer delays between big budget shows and less "mid-tier" content, more reality, and more foreign shows. None of which are particularly good for the US television audience.

Got the 3 big ones. For the rest, especially if "not available in your region" I have to visit "special sites".

Still waiting for an all-in-one provider.

Guess what - exponential growth can't happen forever.

Yes I do wonder how many people have multiple streaming subs. Cutting the cord was supposed to make things cheaper! I'm already paying €40 per month for internet.

Well no. But simplicity made it easier to not do it.

> Is it cheaper to own cable at this point?

It likely depends on how many services you pay for and whether you couldn't bundle cable TV with your internet (assuming they're your internet provider too.) But in practice they love to obfuscate the costs and even the cheapest TV packages are probably time limited deals at best, and likely making up the difference anyway through fees and the like.

Was it supposed to be like this though? I mean there isn’t ‘big cable ‘ but people wanted options but now I feel like why

I watch Pluto tv but the same three commercials can get annoying.

This'll likely lead to consumers abandoning certain services as the reason to stay subscribed diminishes. Which in turn will likely lead to some of them collapsing (and quite possibly getting pac-manned and absorbed by a larger media conglomerate, like Disney.)

Which probably won't do much good for driving new content, since a handful of streaming services all owned by gigantic media companies might just rely on their existing IP and a diminishing pool of alternatives to coast on.

It did, however, shrink, as there was actually reasonable access to content for a short while before all the IP owners got the brilliant idea to all spin up their own streaming services.

I think people were fine back when Netflix was really the only meaningful option.

The divisions now are largely along content owner lines, which is a mostly arbitrary division of content to an end user. I'm reminded of a credit card I had that gave bonus points for Sony Pictures films. But most people don't pick what films they watch just by what studio produced them. So a collection of TV shows chosen that way is often a weird starting point. Especially when they all expect a monthly fee on par with Netflix.

Maybe in the US it did but the rest of the world still have issues with some US shows or sometimes movies not being available to them legally or cheaply so piracy didnt really stop or slow

[removed]

So like the current entertainment industry?

The good thing is once you have internet, you can pick and choose which ones you want each month. Versus with cable your stuck with hundreds of channels that have nothing on and can only watch when it’s on or record it , too much to keep up with.

[removed]

My take, stay tuned for more Homogenized /safe /marketable TV etc.

It's still very US-centric, yes. But consider that at one time even with a streaming service devoted to it, at one time you needed an active cable TV subscription in order to legally watch HBO and Game of Thrones specifically. Making your primary audience jump through hoops just to watch your service meant it was getting pirated a lot in those same markets.

More foreign shows may open some peoples eyes to the quality available in other places.

zherok so Disney is also at risk of imploding?

No, I meant Disney would likely absorb other companies when their streaming services fail. Disney is probably too big to fail even if Disney+ bombed, which as far as I know isn't the case. Paramount and Warner Brothers are probably more vulnerable out of the big five studios right now. But it's probably more eclectic services that are really at risk. That said, we're already seeing consequences of these mergers as Warner Brothers purged content in order to save money, including effectively finished films and already completed, recent television shows. Purchasing Discovery was already a move towards more reality TV-based content too.

Whose the fith studio in the Big Five? I know there's Disney, Warner Bros, Paramount, Universal. Is it Sony?

Yeah. I get the impression they're the least invested in streaming out of the five.

UX always wins, even if it costs more

People are just so lazy

reddit comment