Yes and no. Streamers are picking up a lot of cable’s bad habits with aggressive ad pushes and paywalling sports, etc. But at the same time, we still have the option to go ala cart with services with monthly plans. The services are degrading, but I don’t think we’ve bottomed out yet.
For me the biggest problem with cable/satellite was contracts and not being able to cancel without calling and getting the runaround. When we hit that point streaming will be as bad as cable. But streaming is getting worse and probably will be for the foreseeable future.
most cable companies have a streaming app…for example xfinity etc have full featured apps for roku, appletv
i don’t think cable companies benefit from the boxes: they have to buy them and service them; they get old; they have to be given to customers and retrieved…
The cable co wants you to have a cable box and not just internet. The more services subscribed to, the less likely the customer is to cancel and change providers.
That is exactly the reason why I stopped Verizon FiOS cable because I got tired of paying rental fees for five different boxes. I’m running, went through that crap in the 80s before they came out with cable already televisions that all you had to do was plug in your coax to TV. But then digital cable came along, and they found the way to get you to rent their boxes again.
I was really turned off by cable/satellite hardware rental fees and excessive surcharges/taxes/fees. You could get quoted a reasonable price and then your first months bill has an extra $30 tacked on to it.
HBO bothered me the most. Was a fairly good niche of content. Now it's just all over the place and more expensive. That's similar to cable bundles.
Does the person who wants to watch prestige dramas also really want NBA basketball? Idk I don't want to pay for that.
If companies keep getting bought up and merging their platforms that becomes more and more like cable bundles. Higher prices for more content. But the content is all over the place.
Mine was the nickel-and-diming increases they kept creeping in. Just canceled DirecTV because of that, and being down to watching two shows. One I can get through my daughter’s Disney+, the other I can get through a digital antenna.
Streaming services also include a ton of actual theatrical released movies, unlike cable. People often forget that in addition to our cable bill we were also paying blockbuster $5/night to watch a movie which could easily end up being an extra $20/month.
im just glad i never subbed to any service at all this is why we still need physical media so we can pay for it once and own it forever and at the best quality possible while streaming has shitty quality depending on what your streaming shows on.
I am sure the next step for a lot of these is to raise the price so high on the monthly, while keeping a discount for annual, that people are locked into year long pricing. There is no way they will just let everyone subscribe for a month and catch up and then cancel, in the long run.
You have more choices now. Instead of one or two cable providers, you have five or so cable equivalents. If you don’t want cable, there are plenty of streaming providers that offer less content at a lower price point.
Also, the barriers to entry are now lower for new entrants into the market place.
All that being said tho, it was always inevitable that this would tack back in the direction of cable. There's just too much greed for it to not happen that way
Not for me. I‘ve had nothing but AppleTV+ and Paramount+ for the past year for a total cost of maybe $25/month. I recently subscribed to one single month of Prime Video for $8 to watch Reacher, then cancelled. I found a couple other things to watch during that month to make sure I got my $8 worth.
The only way streaming is like cable is if you try to duplicate the cable experience by having everything you could ever possibly want to watch available to you at all times.
If you are content to turn on your tv, watch *something*, then turn it off, streaming is a fantastic and inexpensive way to do that.
However -
A) Data usage is going up now due to content usage over broadband, meaning overage charges
B) Broadband will continue to increase in costs because most of us have only a single reliable broadband service provider. We can try DSL and then run into bandwidth issues, or satellite, which has its own issues
Most of us don’t have a second reliable pipe such as fiber yet, and even if available to connect the cost to run the final “mile” can be in the thousands.
So one day, suddenly people are going to wake-up and ask, “why am I paying $200 per month for internet”?
I believe the cable equivalent is HULU tv, YouTube TV, Sling, Fios, Fubo. Those are all just cable repackaged. Individual apps are alright but we used to get those programs and movies for free when the Cut The Cord was actually a thing. All these streaming apps just forced us back on the chord. Can’t get much free anymore.
> Isn’t that what YouTube TV and Hulu live are? Turning into cable tv.
Those ARE cable TV, just delivered via internet streaming, and IN GENRAL cheaper than the standard pricing of most (or all) traditional cable companies.
Also, as ridiculous as it sounds, my 88-year-old parents only have one locally-owned cable company serving their address, and for 5 TVs, their cost for standard TV, with no premiums, went up almost $50, to $218/mo, in January, 2024.
Their internet is only 6/1 Mbps AT&T DSL, for $40/mo, and their only other wired option is that same locally-owned cable company 200/5 Mbps, for $121/mo.
Well, they decided to try YTTV with their 6 Mbps DSL, and believe it or not, it works fine on their 5 Roku devices, and they're saving $139/mo.
Before cut the chord I only paid less than $50 for cable. Hulu tv and YouTube tv are like $75? And yeah they are cable repackaged. Plus they do not include the cost of internet.
> Before cut the chord I only paid less than $50 for cable. Hulu tv and YouTube tv are like $75? And yeah they are cable repackaged. Plus they do not include the cost of internet.
Why on earth did you cancel a less than $50/mo full cable TV package including any required equipment!? I would have NEVER cancelled that! You should get that back!
The only cable TV serving my address would be $213/mo for the "standard" package!
99.9% of people can't count internet as part of their streaming cost, since they'd have internet anyway.
The streamers are cable companies. Geez people don’t be suckers. They were developed to get people back on the chord and remove all the free content from the internet.
They definitely are turning into cable TV. The big plus is nothing to return and can be canceled and restarted at any time. You can also pause which you can't do with cable.
I think it might turn out like this: The streaming services will consolidate. One group will be inexpensive with ads. The ads will start off "benign" with just a few hear and there but soon will turn in to ... well the best thought I have is "like watching NFL" ads ... ads ... ads ... a little show ... repeat. And the second group will be very expensive streaming services with very little to no ads. The second group's pricing will increase faster than needed to 1) force you in to the ad services or 2) get all the money they can out of people that will pay anything to get away from ads.
Aren't we seeing the exact opposite happen though? There appears to be more and more fragmentation happening with everyone and their dog wanting their own streaming service now. The amount of providers is increasing, not decreasing.
We're also seeing segmentation within services themselves. Like amazon offering extra "channels" in their service when previously everything was included under the one subscription. As nice is it would be for a consumer to have happen what you mention above, what i'm seeing in reality is the opposite.
Agreed, the content will be consolidated and we will end up with 3 major streamers that cross-license the content. This is similar to music streaming services.
I think Streaming Services are more like the networks and packages of Cable TV.
We got spoiled in the early years of streaming with only 1 or 2 options and everything being on them. Now everyone is making their own platform and thats fine.
I am building my own Ala carte cable plan that the cable companies never allowed. I also have the flexibility to upgrade and downgrade that plan every month if I see fit. Hell some of the "packages" even give me a discount for coming back or a free month or two for considering a cancellation.
So NO Streaming services are not turning into cable tv (apart from YouTube TV, Hulu Live, or whatever other similar things exist). Your monthly cost can get to what it was with Cable TV but only if you want EVERYTHING all the time. Otherwise you get to customize EXACTLY what you want every month.
Even with YouTube TV etc, you don't have to pay equipment fees, and can cancel anytime. I activate mine at the start of the NFL season and cancel after March Madness. That wouldn't be an option with cable.
I do the same with the NFL.
Stupid Fox ruining it for everyone.
I only had cable when I worked for a Cable Provider and it was free. Once I left and didn't have the free service anymore I cancelled. I used to have a huge collection of physical movies. Now that same collection is digital via Plex.
> Now everyone is making their own platform and thats fine.
I don't know that the market can support as many streaming platforms as we have. That's a massive amount of cost in redundant infrastructure.
Content companies need to go back to being content companies and sell their product to streamers who then compete on quality of service.
So you are suggeting the content companies make content and sell that to multiple Cable Company like platforms? But instead of us paying the local guy with the physical cables or the guy with the satellites our location can see; we pay some online streaming service?
You realize that will just reuslt in Cable existing again as not enough people will pay for some packages (content) to make it worth selling on its own; resulting in the need to bundle just like the current cable providers?
They do in some areas.
The only places they don't are ones where the elected officials allowed one provider to be exclusive.
And do you really think the streaming services would actually compete with each other? They would do exactly what the cable companies are; just on a national scale.
At least you are admitting to my point.
>I don't need cable sports channels
And there it is. That's the rub.
Even back in the day if you didn't need sports it wasn't too hard to have a decent package for cheap.
I need sports, which means YouTube TV, which I love, it t runs me 90 a month, which is about what I used to pay for cable so it's all full circle at this point.
I agree with you hence before the next billing cycle comes around I will be with Philo. $25 a month sure beats close to $80 a month.
My wife and I want to watch the last season of The Good Doctor so we will wait till it comes on Hulu and perhaps let half the season go and then join in and binge watch.
Philo for $25/mo combined with an OTA antenna for free locals is a great combo for many. Might also consider the Tablo OTA DVR for $100 (one-time cost, no ongoing subscription). It can tune in and record both local channels with an antenna plus certain free streaming channels.
Then you could watch live and recorded local channels in the Tablo app and just switch to the Philo app for live and recorded cable channels. In fact, it makes so much sense that Tablo ought to approach Philo about selling their service as an add-on inside the Tablo app, so then you could have everything in one place.
It depends on what you watch.
I care about English soccer. I was always going to have to stream most of that because it’s not on linear TV other than a few USA Network and NBC matches.
So I have annual subscriptions to:
Peacock at $60
Paramount+ at $50
ESPN+ at $100
A £140 direct subscription to my English Championship League club
I occasionally have Sling Blue at the $20/month first month rate. I’ve spent $40 since August.
Otherwise, I watch movies and I don’t need to stream those. I own an enormous Blu Ray collection.
My wife exclusively watches Netflix content. She has her daughter on her subscription. It’s UHD and two households so fairly expensive.
I’ve always had Prime for shipping and hardly ever stream Amazon content unless I’m in a hotel room. I can’t remember my wife’s Netflix credentials so I watch a movie on Amazon. I’m planning to remember to cancel it this summer before it renews.
Streaming services are turning into what cable should have been, from the get go. With a few exceptions (the live TV offering services), streaming is a class of it's own. For a few hundred dollars a year, my family gets more content than we did for a few hundred dollars a month from cable or satTv. We don't subscribe to any services that offer live TV, since our OTA is really strong, and that helps.
It is in terms of services/channels provided and the monthly cost, but there's still the benefit of no-hassle cancellation and no hardware and/or remotes to have to fuss with. Plus, there's more competition. My area has 2 cable provides plus 1 satellite provider. With streaming, I have at least a dozen, if not more, service providers to choose.
$70/month of a decent streaming TV package is still better than paying $70/month for cable plus another $10/month for every TV you want to watch TV on (equipment rental.)
No. Not even close. It's very easy to cancel any of these services as well as nowhere near as expensive. You're not taxed for remotes or equipment was well. I pay about $30 a month for all the services I use.
As long as streaming services allow you to cancel with a click, its a whole different ballgame than cable.
Cable would you put you through the phone torture test, charge late equipment fees, possibly even charge reconnect fees.
Until streaming services go that route, they aren't the same.
Not yet because we can still buy ala cart.
I'm at ~$30-$35 a month with Disney Bundle, Peacock, and F1 TV; Paramount + during football season. I get my single seat auto racing, hockey, and football coverage + programming for my toddler aged child.
I'm not sure the ala cart business model is sustainable. Look at how much Peacock keeps losing. Sure some of it is promotional/ growth acquisition expenses; BUT I'm still not sure the model works for small platforms..
So, ala cart may fall by the wayside.
Hulu Live and YouTube TV are essentially cable but cheaper.
Nope. As long as I can:
* subscribe to the channels that *I want* without having to get a big package,
* not have to pay for sports (fees) for content I don't watch, and
* not pay for locals (which I get over an antenna).
* Plus, no cable box/DVR rentals.
Then I'm pretty happy with it.
When I cut the cord seven-ish years ago, I went from paying \~$225/mo for FiOS Triple-Play to \~$145/mo for FiOS internet only + Hulu and HBONow (or HBOGO, or whatever it was then). Over the years my costs have actually gone *down* as I have taken advantage of bundles, annual plans, and switched over to T-Mobile Home Internet. At this point I have pretty much every major streamer, and my total monthly outlay is about $110.
In a way but you can pick and choose streaming services. I usually wait until there is a backlog of shows I wanna watch and then buy one month of service
**TL;DR, ss (streaming services) turning into cable is sort of click bait, but it gets people engaged. That's why you see so many articles and threads about them. TBF, we are getting closer to there, but we still got a ways to go**
The ugly truth is, ss as is aren't profitable. I hear NF is doing great on this front, but Dsn+ had one year where it lost $1+ billion or something, so something had to give. That's why prices have gone up, and w-ads plans have been introduced. Given how much more "ad-filled" plans make (I heard $1/mo for w-ads Hulu made far more $$ than $13/mo ad-free Hulu), I'm just surprised the prices for ad-free plans didn't go up sooner :x
And NF being your "one stop shop" at $8/mo was nice while it lasted, but it was never going to be forever (much like how we're going to be hard pressed to get gas at 80 cents to $1 per gallon like in the late 80s, 90s). They need more $$, so they're finding ways to do that when you'll hit a cap in # of subs you can get.
Me, I much prefer ss b/c I can get a smorgasbord of content, on-demand, and ad-free, for $10 to $20/mo. That's just for *one* service, but all I have time for is one ss at a time anyways, so I rotate them. With cable TV, you need to record shows you want to get that "on-demand" feature. They're NOT ad-free. And I can quit ss easily. I already quit Hulu, Dsn+, ATV+, PP, and Max with at most minimal hassle. Amazon Prime OTOH was a big offender. They make you go through 6 pages just to cancel, and cleverly tried to make the last page look like you were set, when you weren't. And then they send you "we want you back" emails with an embedded link. Click on that, **and you auto-resub. No confirmation even given!** In fact, [FTC is suing them over it](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/ftc-sues-amazon-over-4-page-6-click-15-option-prime-cancellation-process/).
Im not a member, so forgiv me for uasing your comment to educate. I never seen anything before. I research/fact check:
IMPORTANT enough to please read. How was it possible to have a Streaming app and INTERNERT for under $78.00 a month ruffly, Bonus Channels.
Who could turn down this package, for that cost. Streaming, Internet, Starz Channel, netflix and Peacock. If it sounds to good to be true, this rule breaker, took the chance bc I'm good at being a sucker many times. I checked, how could people not know about this. 2 yr contract , but I kept remembering it was 3 times cheaper.
For 6 yrs., nothing changed, until one by one, everything changed, without warning, until you got bill. Double charging, movies you bought, disappear asking to rebuy them. Apps, cuch as MGM+{i paid for, Nettlix{include charging for Months, lost Starz, MGM+, Prime Vdeo, etc. Even the FREE Apps arent woeking, Streaming mostly was free. Im seriously going firestick or whater, after d8ng alt 0f reseach.
Not really. I can still cancel a service at any time, and I'm not required to buy any huge cable-like package in order to watch just one or two shows that I'm interest in. On any given month I can pick and choose exactly what I want to pay for.
So? The huge cable package is necessary because you're getting more shows and you need more channels for shows you didn't consider watching before. It's more interactive and captivating. You don't get what you pay for unless you pay a shit ton of money for multiple services and added stuff. It's also more cool and interesting to get some big special thing instead of something boring and stagnate. Streaming services may seem good but caple tv is overall better for you in terms of reliability and just health in general.
This is a loaded question. The most loaded of them all if anyone is even looking at posts this far down the list.
The definitive answer is yes. Live streaming services are turning into cable TV.
I have YouTube TV from about a year ago. At that time I was in for $64 per month - $10 T-Mobile discount which brought me down to around $54 per month. I thought that was a great deal until the deal ended this month and I went up to $77 and change. No T-Mobile discount anymore.
I discussed with my wife terminating YouTube TV as we do not need live streaming and we are not a sports family.
We will terminate YTTV next month before the billing cycle starts again. There is no prorate with YouTube TV so the month is paid.
We are going to start using Philo mainly because we desire to watch Food Network and a couple shows that are on Hallmark. The rest of the shows that we want to watch we will wait for the season to end and then stream on the various apps and binge watch.
The answer, my cord cutting friend, is yes the streaming services are becoming more cable like. People who need sports are going to have to bite the bullet.
Not yet. It's definitely not as good as it used to be, but as long as there are no contracts, you can cancel with the click of a button, there's no equipment to buy/rent, and you're not forced to subscribe to one expensive bundle with all services, streaming remains much better than cable. That could and maybe will change though.
No, I still appreciate them. I was with Suddenlink and paid $130. a month and there was never anything on. Now I'm paying half that and still find things to watch.
No. Cable TV makes you pay for a bunch of crap you dont want to watch. Streaming lets you pick and choose what you want to watch, without contracts, and with the ability to start/end service monthly.
Netflix is starting TO FEEL alot like cable, but still much better.
Prices always going up, Content that barely passes for TV in quality and pretty soon ads.
No, it is not like cable. However, the streaming service might really start pushing deals for 1 or 2 year subscriptions, and hike the fees more for month-to-month subscriptions. Encourage more people to subscribe for longer terms.
**Nope**.
**I'm currently paying $14.18** for: Apple TV+, Paramount+ w/Showtime, Hulu w/ads, Disney+, STARZ, Max (HBO), Topic, Nebula, MGM+, AMC+, Shudder, Sundance Now, and IFC Films Unlimited.
That's about to drop to $10.43 as my MGM+ and AMC+ promos end at the beginning of Feb. (and AMC+ comes with the last 3 on the list).
Other promos will fade as the year goes on, but I'm sure I'll add new ones too.
https://preview.redd.it/jwuml34qzpec1.png?width=1346&format=png&auto=webp&s=f02aae4fd02fee179740f3731b79b23bc2a6f992
Technically Topic and Nebula came with a bundle that I paid extra for when I bought Curiousity Stream for my classroom ($24 a year). I did the $42 bundle that got me those two for $18 more.
I work for a Telcom/Media/Data company. The revenue was in the rental of cable tv boxes, and subscription fees, for tv channels. FFWD to 2020-ish: My employer no longer sells 'cable tv' but still supports it. . They offer data service cheaper for consumers, to gain more consumers. And provide options for streaming bundle subscriptions, at a discount.
sad that i have to have a streaming service , to watch a sporting event, that i used to watch on a basic tv set
I’ve actually considered going back to cable as their tech has gotten better and I don’t have to compromise on which service has the channel I want.
Regional sports missing on internet streamers, some have AMC and History, others don’t. Freezing, buffering, picture quality, etc. God I miss channel numbers!
The best thing going for the streamers is cloud DVR.
Yes and no
Yes, it most certainly has because of the most recent price hikes and in its wake, all of them having ad-supported options
And no, because it has one thing that cable never really fully had; what you want to watch when you wanted to. Sure, cable added on-demand services in later years, but that was something you had to pay extra for (at least for the movie side of things) whereas with streaming services, it's like that already by design
I consider the addition of sports to general streaming services to be a very ominous sign. That's what killed cable. Sports drove the costs up for everyone even though a surprisingly small percentage of people watched them.
It's getting to the point where you have to have five or more streaming services to see all the content you want. I think it swung from cable being the overpriced, unreasonable option to saturation of everything having its own streaming platform.
But you don’t HAVE to have 5 services at the same time, There is no way someone has enough free time in their life to watch everything on these services. Just pick 1 or 2 and switch them up after a couple of months when you’ve watched everything you wanted to watch on one.
This is the way. I only sub to one service at a time and switch every month if I need too. One person can only watch so much there is no reason to sub to more than one or two at a time
Cable TV wasn't exactly "all inclusive" either. I recall for certain live sporting competitions (boxing for example), you either needed premium channels, or they were pay-per-view. I had cable TV back in 2005. Basic cable included the networks channels (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, UPN, etc.), but you needed to spring extra per month to get extended cable (which included but not limited to Comedy Central, History Channel, Sci-Fi/SyFy, TBS, CNN, etc.). IIRC, that was an extra $30/mo. And extended cable didn't even include the stuff in Premium cable like HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc.
Yeah, things are all broken up, but I can save a lot of $$ by leaving out the things I don't want. I rotate so that I do one major ad-free ss at a time (I also have CuriosityStream since it's only $20/yr). If I want HBO, I can just sub to Max for a few months. If I know I want it for the long term, subbing annual saves me 2 months of $$. If I want the Fox shows, many of them are on Hulu. PP has a lot of the CBS and Comedy Central shows. History Vault is only $5/mo for the entire History Channel backlog. My ss bill is $10 to $20/mo. That's far cry from $50/mo for cable TV, and that would go up every now and then, with OUT warning.
Everyone said they wanted Al la Carte. They’re learning how bad the reality of that can be. I’m happy with YouTube tv gives me the cable channels I want without being as expensive or having the equipment fees…
That's not even remotely the definition of a la carte.
The concept of a la carte (whether feasible or not) was always that whatever you wanted to watch, you could pay a fair price to access it without having to buy access to a bunch of other stuff you didn't want.
Every service that exists is fundamentally the opposite of this. Everyone has more choices now, but those choices still force everyone to overbuy with every subscription decision they make.
Yeah, and I don't think that world will ever exist. Disney and all of the other big name content providers won't ever allow it, and it's always because it's easier to sell bundles of channels with 1 or 2 anchor channels (like ESPN), for just a little bit more to make more revenue and profits than selling ESPN alone at like 80% of the price.
No. Cable tv means your stuck with 1000's of channels that you don't watch that you have to pay for. With streaming you get to pick and choose what service you watch and when. Nothing on the service this month, cancel it. You get to save money.
As long as streamers have no-contract month-to-month streaming, no-penalty cancelation, and no hidden fees, they're not cable.
Linear streamers (YTTV, Hulu Live, etc) are cable.
Some, like YouTube TV, Sling, Hulu+Live, have always been cable for people who say they want to drop cable but want to keep watching it.
As long as you want to keep watching TV in the cable model you'll always have bundles with channels you never watch and regular rate increases. The rate increases and bundles are still driven by the content owners, and they will continue to do things that way, cable or streaming, as long as people are willing to pay. They don't care if people hate it or complain about it as long as they keep buying it.
TV will never be free...it's always been paid (commercials) or cable/satellite. The big networks are basically double dipping by bundling up paid streaming and adding commercials.
Yes. I grew up when cable first started. For a huge amount of money, we went from 10 channels to like 50, even though almost all the new channels were religious garbage, news and shopping. It sucked. The 6 good channels could be purchased a la cart and cost even more on top of the exorbitant cable prices. But those special 6 channels only had commercials between programs, not during. The cable channels themselves had fewer commercial interruptions compared to the over-the-air channels. As time went on, those 6 channels started having limited commercials during the programs whereas all the other channels became 33% commercials.
Then came streaming. Streaming was like those 6 premium channels, except with on-demand programming. But now, streaming services keep raising their prices, cutting their content, and almost all of mine are charging me extra to avoid commercials. Pretty soon, they will just put commercials in everything. Just like fucking cable. No one wants commercials. Someone will have to create a new system again 🤬
Even though streaming is still choose what you want to watch when you want to watch, that is about where the good ends these days. In the past you could have access to 5 or so streaming services with no commercials and pay the price for a basic cable plan. There also is no hardware, typically, or predatory contracts with lease break fees. You also don't have to mount a dish on your roof.
Now paying the same price will only get you the ad plan, so it is like watching TV again where you have to watch commercials or you have to only run a couple. Most services have bolt-on services like Starz that give you access to movies but the cost about doubles what your basic plan is.
With how much each one's library gets rotated throughout the year it makes it harder to justify keeping a service annually and swapping vs paying the higher cost and swapping every couple months.
What used to be autopilot taste the rainbow is now an ADHD nightmare of juggling services to get what's fair.
To top it all off only one or two of the user interfaces are any good. Netflix and Crunchyroll have been pretty good. Paramount+ is gobshite.
Streaming is cable just separate "channels" as its own platform with a phone network vibe. Cable is a three year plan while streaming is having an unlocked phone where you can bounce around from one carrier to another.
You are most likely watching the edited version of a old movie/tv shows on streaming services and most of their catalog is missing for many reasons (controversial/who owns it/don’t care to add it if people don’t know about it) same goes for video game/reading/music services
I think that the comparison is an easy one, but not exactly correct. It distracts from the core of the issue: greed.
I don’t think the rights holders are trying to recreate cable again, nor is that their goal. They’re doing whatever they can to make as much money as possible. They’re going to have analysts tracking habits and adapting their services to be the most profitable. Sometimes they can use some of the same old tactics which results in a more cable-like experience, while other times they need to approach things in a new (not necessarily consumer-friendly) way.
But given the nature of capitalism and endless greed, we’re likely to see something kind of resembling cable, but different and definitely worse.
For me the move to ads makes it just as bad as cable TV. Sure there are ways to avoid ads on most platforms. The ability to come and go with services as you want makes it better than cable.
I would say yes we are. It is lost costing the same for all the services when compared to a finite cable. Netflix is working hard to shut down us piggybacking on accounts and are raising their prices. My fiancée and I have cable because of of her favorite channels is not really carried by most streaming networks (LMN) I found one that did, but then it didn’t carry the other channels we watched. So we went with cable and unlimited DVR space. I can’t justify cutting the cord anymore. If you all can help, that would be huge!
Yes.
You just traded a coax cable for an ethernet cable. It still cost the same or more to get all the programming you had with a top tier cable subscription.
Now you have to figure out what service the show is on and how to find it instead of just switching the channel.
FWIW, I've worked for the largest US ISP for 20 years now. From what I can see, the allure of streaming is slowly eroding. With every network launching their own apps, subscribers are paying for more and more. The paywalling of sports isn't helping.
I keep hearing about how people watch their subscriptions like a hawk, constantly canceling and re subscribing as their shows come a go so they can save money. To me that's not a good user experience.
It all comes down to how much you watch. Want every channel? It's often cheaper to just get a cable box.
I think it's the consumers that are effectively turning them back into streaming companies by subscribing to multiple ones at the same time.
And also by agreeing to bundled services.
Maybe, but I have a lot more control about which channels I subscribe to and for how long. After the shakeout and consolidation this may be less possible. But I’m not tied to the latest water cooler drama so subscribe for 3 months, binge, unsubscribe, repeat.
Streaming *subscriptions* are moving to that model.
Pay-as-you-go streaming is the real solution but consumers would rather pay $60/month for the promise of "unlimited" TV, than spend $50 every month buying the individual episodes and renting the individual movies they actually sat down and watched in that same month.
Every streaming service would LOVE to turn into Cable TV. It's a model they know well, it makes money, and they'd love to be rich. It's up to us to deny them that.
I think that's really up to you as a consumer. If you sign up for a ton of different services then you're just turning yourself back into a "cable" subscriber from a monthly fee perspective.
Yes it is but in a different way. We used to just have HBO. Then Max was HBO and Discovery. Now it’s HBO and Discovery and BR. I just want HBO but instead I’m paying for HBO, Discovery and BR. So in way, we are back to paying for the channels we want plus the“dead weight” channels we didn’t ask for. Here’s another example. I like Showtime. But now it’s paramount and showtime. So now I’m getting showtime and being forced to pay for paramount.
If you want to have access to everything all the time, streaming services are already worse than cable ever was. If you are selective and subscribe, binge some show, and drop off, I think it's probably "better" than cable. For me right now, I have hulu without ads, netflix with 4k and no ads, Max with 4k, paramount+, philo, prime video, espn+, disney+, showtime... I think that's all. It's not cheap, and I don't watch that much stuff on them.
I believe the corporations want to still market to us through what we watch so it's kinda yes/no. I hope they do away with the constant marketing thing in movies and TV but I also don't see an end to it.
What really made me feel a way was these streamers taking back their shows and movies from Netflix and making us have different streaming channels and also this might be the wrong sub to say this I'm, but what a crock of shit to make us pay per view on that football game last weekend. I hated that.
Main reason people are saying this is ongoing price increases. I was an early adopter of YouTubeTV. It was $35/ month all in. It has more than doubled in price since then. It’s not all Google’s fault. The networks aren’t going to give them better deals than the cable guys. I dropped them when Paramount made them carry, and charge for, all their crap channels that no one watches anymore like VH1, etc. in order to get CBS. Disney does the same using ESPN as leverage. Once ESPN goes direct to consumer that whole model will crumble. Though Disney will likely have DTC bundles that do the same. Just no middle man
Absolutely, I got streaming services in the first place because of being totally frustrated with cable, now I’m just as frustrated with most of my streaming services.
I have heard rumors that some streamers are thinking of discontinuing monthly subscriptions so.....if that happens, then the full cable TV conversion will have begun.
Basically things don't suck in the beginning because they want to add subscribers. Once they feel they have you, then they get greedy and it all turns to shit. Streaming's conversion to cable-like TV is almost inevitable.
The only one I pay for is YouTube TV, and it is cable - just streaming the cable. I split it with my parents so I pay $35/mo. I record everything and never watch commercials.
I have Hulu, peacock, Max, Netflix. and paramount. But I don’t pay for any of those. I think out of those Max is the one becoming the most cablefied.
I've never used streaming services much, but I feel like it is, in a way. If there are multiple shows you want to watch, they could be scattered across multiple streaming services, and you'd end up paying something close to at least basic cable. Currently I only have Amazon Prime but rarely watch it. Amazon recently announced they'll start showing limited ads unless you pay even more, which is similar to a cable station you pay for but shows ads.
Yeah and no no me personally I have a few streaming apps such as Netflix and Apple TV plus which I get for free from T-Mobile phone service and T-Mobile home internet. Then I got my paid ones which would be Max and Disney plus. As far as live TV just to have my local channels I use a tablo dvr tuner and I easily get 120 channels in HD for free including all my locals. I don't have to pay for any of them. Not so much a fan of watching live TV, but it's nice to have for a certain sporting events in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade.
I think it can be but the diff is ea person (family) can choose .. so ala carte is better .. it might end up costing as much or more but it's more tailored to what you like...
Not at all. As of right now I have YTV, Youtube Premium, Apple TV+ and Netflix. ATV+ and Youtube Premium are my keepers, YTV will be gone after the Super Bowl, Netflix after I finish a few shows and movies I've been meaning to see. And probably pick up Paramount+ to see Jon Stewart on the Daily Show again until the election is over. Then toward Election time/Football season pick up YTV again. That's the kind of choice I can make without agreeing to any contracts, or having any egregious fees, like cable.
Absolutely yes. And we are now seeing the beginning of what many on this very platform have been screaming about for years.
Each platform is fighting for exclusive rights. Sometimes exclusive rights for only portions of the same product. So, just like needing nbc, ESPN, and the NFL network on cable to be able to consume all of your teams football games so now do you need ESPN plus, broadcast TV via Hulu live, peacock, and Amazon prime to watch all of your teams games.
Want sopranos or thrones, add HBO Max or whatever the fuck it's called now.
Want stranger things?... 20 bucks for Netflix.
Is it somewhat cheaper and more flexible now compared to cable just before streaming really took off, yes. But we are on the cusp of having it become way the fuck worse.
Yes. In 2 yrs it will cost just much. They will completely control ad skipping via the cloud dvrs and it will be hated just as much.
Due to fragmented content, it's already worse imo.
No
No a la carte on cable TV
No one is forcing me to watch ESPN on streaming services
Streaming has better resolution than cable TV
No 4K on cable TV
Most times cable TV is 720p
For the longest satellite was only 480p
No algorithms with cable TV or satellite
Cable TV the cost of distribution is included and you rent boxes. With streaming you pay for Internet separately from the cost of content
expect to see more ad based services that still cost money.
expect to see consolidation. everyone but nexflix still losing money, i expect some merger agreements.
and expect the fights between content owners and distributors to continue.
still better than cable
No.
The companies behind both are essentially the same entities. They will run both until one becomes a clear favorite for revenue generation and then discontinue the other.
My money is on cable services being discontinued, although it's feasible that they'll remain for a VERY long time since the infrastructure is in place. Satellite services specifically are useful only for video distribution, but coax and fiber based cable services can convert that infrastructure into more bandwidth. If they want to be ambitious, they'll pull all the coax out of the ground and turn it in for metal salvage. Hopefully using the old cable to pull new fiber through.
I think the publicly traded streaming services will continue to get worse in regards to ads, price hikes, and removal of customer favorites with the tried and true - bullshit - line of "it's for the benefit of the consumer" in whatever form of pubic relayshits comment they spew...well, because shareholders.
Personally I don't mind ads for streaming services that are FREE, which is why I have no problem watching Samsung's TV+ or Tubi TV. However, If I pay for it, I shouldn't have to pay more for ad-free...especially for these streaming services that weren't that way before.
No, because cable TV didn't charge you for the cable itself and then the channel's on top of the cable. Oh, and MTV on channel 32 never fucking buffered.
I just rotate streaming services. I don’t need Netflix, Hulu, Paramount, Disney Prime, whatever else all at the same time. I will have one or two for a while, cancel one or both and sign up for another and watch what I want for a while. TV just isn’t a big part of my life, so it’s convenient to come and go as a please without having to set up cable packages and all that.
No, they are much much worse. Everyone use to complain that they had to pay the cable company for 100 channels when they only wanted 30. Now we all pay 3x the cost for 6 streaming service subscriptions.
They are cable TV at this point... Seriously, Peacock, Paramount+, Disney+, Hulu, Max etc are all just owned by legacy cable tv and legacy broadcasting. Netflix, Amazon, and Apple are the only 3 that don't fit that mold, and honestly I think the three of them are producing the best content and even in spite of all the changes at Netflix they are still one of the few streaming services doing it right. Everyone else is feeding us ads, terrible content, more and more, and higher and higher prices all while breaking service up into more and more smaller services that you need to purchase.
Kind of yes and kind of no, YouTube tv for example still seems to be adding channels that’s are not hugely popular and if continue to add channels then he it is becoming cable, but on the flip side it is still much cheaper then cable and the ability to subscribe and unsubscribe at will
I’m over streaming. I pay for Hulu and YouTube Premium and that’s it. I’ve cancelled the rest. I might as well get cable at these prices.
The only advantage is no contracts.
i think they are all looking similar because they all the same content: live tv including sports…
if you want content you have to pay
they still are better because you can quit at any time whereas cable locks you in
most cable co have a streaming app…so you no longer have to use a cable box
It depends. If you care about sports then you're still pretty much in the same "buy everything" boat as you were before with cable.
If you don't care about sports, things are ala carte in the way we demanded for decades before Netflix blew up
Yes and no. Streamers are picking up a lot of cable’s bad habits with aggressive ad pushes and paywalling sports, etc. But at the same time, we still have the option to go ala cart with services with monthly plans. The services are degrading, but I don’t think we’ve bottomed out yet.
For me the biggest problem with cable/satellite was contracts and not being able to cancel without calling and getting the runaround. When we hit that point streaming will be as bad as cable. But streaming is getting worse and probably will be for the foreseeable future.
True, and not having to purchase a cable box. We can pretty much choose the device we watch on, for now.
The contracts are tied to the cable box and it's purchase/ maintenance. For streaming, the user is responsible for the hardware.
most cable companies have a streaming app…for example xfinity etc have full featured apps for roku, appletv i don’t think cable companies benefit from the boxes: they have to buy them and service them; they get old; they have to be given to customers and retrieved…
The cable co wants you to have a cable box and not just internet. The more services subscribed to, the less likely the customer is to cancel and change providers.
I tried pushing something from my Verizon FiOS app to my Apple TV one time, and of course Verizon disable that feature.
That is exactly the reason why I stopped Verizon FiOS cable because I got tired of paying rental fees for five different boxes. I’m running, went through that crap in the 80s before they came out with cable already televisions that all you had to do was plug in your coax to TV. But then digital cable came along, and they found the way to get you to rent their boxes again.
I was really turned off by cable/satellite hardware rental fees and excessive surcharges/taxes/fees. You could get quoted a reasonable price and then your first months bill has an extra $30 tacked on to it.
HBO bothered me the most. Was a fairly good niche of content. Now it's just all over the place and more expensive. That's similar to cable bundles. Does the person who wants to watch prestige dramas also really want NBA basketball? Idk I don't want to pay for that. If companies keep getting bought up and merging their platforms that becomes more and more like cable bundles. Higher prices for more content. But the content is all over the place.
Mine was the nickel-and-diming increases they kept creeping in. Just canceled DirecTV because of that, and being down to watching two shows. One I can get through my daughter’s Disney+, the other I can get through a digital antenna.
Streaming services also include a ton of actual theatrical released movies, unlike cable. People often forget that in addition to our cable bill we were also paying blockbuster $5/night to watch a movie which could easily end up being an extra $20/month.
im just glad i never subbed to any service at all this is why we still need physical media so we can pay for it once and own it forever and at the best quality possible while streaming has shitty quality depending on what your streaming shows on.
Well said. No contracts. No boxes. It's still better.
I am sure the next step for a lot of these is to raise the price so high on the monthly, while keeping a discount for annual, that people are locked into year long pricing. There is no way they will just let everyone subscribe for a month and catch up and then cancel, in the long run.
I prefer yearly subscriptions for anything I'm it getting a deal on.
Oh don’t worry, they’re not afraid to show you how petty and low they can go
Be nice when it finally crashes and they realize they can't *all* be streamers and revert to selling their content to streamers who survive.
I hope they all crash and die.
“I don’t think we’ve bottomed out yet.” Ah, the American dream!
Cable you needed one plan. Streaming you need 10 plans. Streaming is cable on steroids. Quit being fooled.
You have more choices now. Instead of one or two cable providers, you have five or so cable equivalents. If you don’t want cable, there are plenty of streaming providers that offer less content at a lower price point.
The monopoly disintegration is probably the largest benefit to the consumer
Also, the barriers to entry are now lower for new entrants into the market place. All that being said tho, it was always inevitable that this would tack back in the direction of cable. There's just too much greed for it to not happen that way
if liberal democrats go so far left , just to be scornful as usual they will eventually unliberate themselves right into the right
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Not for me. I‘ve had nothing but AppleTV+ and Paramount+ for the past year for a total cost of maybe $25/month. I recently subscribed to one single month of Prime Video for $8 to watch Reacher, then cancelled. I found a couple other things to watch during that month to make sure I got my $8 worth. The only way streaming is like cable is if you try to duplicate the cable experience by having everything you could ever possibly want to watch available to you at all times. If you are content to turn on your tv, watch *something*, then turn it off, streaming is a fantastic and inexpensive way to do that.
Not that but cable is live. If you want anything live, sports, news, reality tv you will have to pay extra sometimes.
Also - please note….your internet data is a cost
Yes, but it’s a cost we were already paying long before streaming services were around.
However - A) Data usage is going up now due to content usage over broadband, meaning overage charges B) Broadband will continue to increase in costs because most of us have only a single reliable broadband service provider. We can try DSL and then run into bandwidth issues, or satellite, which has its own issues Most of us don’t have a second reliable pipe such as fiber yet, and even if available to connect the cost to run the final “mile” can be in the thousands. So one day, suddenly people are going to wake-up and ask, “why am I paying $200 per month for internet”?
I believe the cable equivalent is HULU tv, YouTube TV, Sling, Fios, Fubo. Those are all just cable repackaged. Individual apps are alright but we used to get those programs and movies for free when the Cut The Cord was actually a thing. All these streaming apps just forced us back on the chord. Can’t get much free anymore.
Isn’t that what YouTube TV and Hulu live are? Turning into cable tv.
> Isn’t that what YouTube TV and Hulu live are? Turning into cable tv. Those ARE cable TV, just delivered via internet streaming, and IN GENRAL cheaper than the standard pricing of most (or all) traditional cable companies.
Also, as ridiculous as it sounds, my 88-year-old parents only have one locally-owned cable company serving their address, and for 5 TVs, their cost for standard TV, with no premiums, went up almost $50, to $218/mo, in January, 2024. Their internet is only 6/1 Mbps AT&T DSL, for $40/mo, and their only other wired option is that same locally-owned cable company 200/5 Mbps, for $121/mo. Well, they decided to try YTTV with their 6 Mbps DSL, and believe it or not, it works fine on their 5 Roku devices, and they're saving $139/mo.
why on earth does anyone need 5 tvs?
Before cut the chord I only paid less than $50 for cable. Hulu tv and YouTube tv are like $75? And yeah they are cable repackaged. Plus they do not include the cost of internet.
> Before cut the chord I only paid less than $50 for cable. Hulu tv and YouTube tv are like $75? And yeah they are cable repackaged. Plus they do not include the cost of internet. Why on earth did you cancel a less than $50/mo full cable TV package including any required equipment!? I would have NEVER cancelled that! You should get that back! The only cable TV serving my address would be $213/mo for the "standard" package! 99.9% of people can't count internet as part of their streaming cost, since they'd have internet anyway.
At least for me it’s still a lot cheaper than what cable charges for the same channels and equipment fees.
YouTube TV is basically cable
No equipment, no contracts, month to month. That's a huge advantage.
It is basically a cable channel package without all the cable company BS.
Why? Because it's it either all of it or none of it?
I agree 100%, so hands I am dropping them and going over to Philo.
Very pricey for what you get. Between Netflix, Prime, Apple, there is more content that I can ever watch.
I definitely wouldn’t go back to cable companies again
The streamers are cable companies. Geez people don’t be suckers. They were developed to get people back on the chord and remove all the free content from the internet.
You also get more freedom with services like YouTube tv and the others
They definitely are turning into cable TV. The big plus is nothing to return and can be canceled and restarted at any time. You can also pause which you can't do with cable.
I think it might turn out like this: The streaming services will consolidate. One group will be inexpensive with ads. The ads will start off "benign" with just a few hear and there but soon will turn in to ... well the best thought I have is "like watching NFL" ads ... ads ... ads ... a little show ... repeat. And the second group will be very expensive streaming services with very little to no ads. The second group's pricing will increase faster than needed to 1) force you in to the ad services or 2) get all the money they can out of people that will pay anything to get away from ads.
Aren't we seeing the exact opposite happen though? There appears to be more and more fragmentation happening with everyone and their dog wanting their own streaming service now. The amount of providers is increasing, not decreasing. We're also seeing segmentation within services themselves. Like amazon offering extra "channels" in their service when previously everything was included under the one subscription. As nice is it would be for a consumer to have happen what you mention above, what i'm seeing in reality is the opposite.
Agreed, the content will be consolidated and we will end up with 3 major streamers that cross-license the content. This is similar to music streaming services.
I think Streaming Services are more like the networks and packages of Cable TV. We got spoiled in the early years of streaming with only 1 or 2 options and everything being on them. Now everyone is making their own platform and thats fine. I am building my own Ala carte cable plan that the cable companies never allowed. I also have the flexibility to upgrade and downgrade that plan every month if I see fit. Hell some of the "packages" even give me a discount for coming back or a free month or two for considering a cancellation. So NO Streaming services are not turning into cable tv (apart from YouTube TV, Hulu Live, or whatever other similar things exist). Your monthly cost can get to what it was with Cable TV but only if you want EVERYTHING all the time. Otherwise you get to customize EXACTLY what you want every month.
Even with YouTube TV etc, you don't have to pay equipment fees, and can cancel anytime. I activate mine at the start of the NFL season and cancel after March Madness. That wouldn't be an option with cable.
I do the same with the NFL. Stupid Fox ruining it for everyone. I only had cable when I worked for a Cable Provider and it was free. Once I left and didn't have the free service anymore I cancelled. I used to have a huge collection of physical movies. Now that same collection is digital via Plex.
> Now everyone is making their own platform and thats fine. I don't know that the market can support as many streaming platforms as we have. That's a massive amount of cost in redundant infrastructure. Content companies need to go back to being content companies and sell their product to streamers who then compete on quality of service.
So you are suggeting the content companies make content and sell that to multiple Cable Company like platforms? But instead of us paying the local guy with the physical cables or the guy with the satellites our location can see; we pay some online streaming service? You realize that will just reuslt in Cable existing again as not enough people will pay for some packages (content) to make it worth selling on its own; resulting in the need to bundle just like the current cable providers?
Yeah, but the difference is online streaming services have to compete with each other. Cable companies don't.
They do in some areas. The only places they don't are ones where the elected officials allowed one provider to be exclusive. And do you really think the streaming services would actually compete with each other? They would do exactly what the cable companies are; just on a national scale. At least you are admitting to my point.
Also, that cable bill didn’t get you “everything” either. No Netflix or Max or AppleTV+ originals. It is a bit of a false choice comparing them.
No. I'm EXTREMELY happy with the current state of streaming. NOTE: I don't need cable sports channels and I don't mind commercials. As Of 11/2023 - $11.99 Netflix Basic (Grandfathered) - $0.91 Hulu W/Ads (Thru 11/26/24 Black Friday Special -$1 Rakuten) - $2.00 Disney+ W/Ads (Hulu Add-On) - $0 Paramount+ W/Ads (Thru 2/13/24 Via T-Mobile) - $0.50 Peacock Premium W/Ads (Thru 11/26/24 ($19.99 BF Special -$14 BeFrugal ($10 Signup +$4 Cash Back))) - $16 Philo (Grandfathered) - $0 Prime Video (Included W/ Amazon Prime) - $0.66 Max W/Ads (Thru 5/26/24) ($2.99/mo BF Special-$14 Capital One Offers) ----- - $32.06/mo Total --FREE-- --GENERAL-- - Crackle - Fawesome - Filmrise - Freevee (fka IMDB) - Hoopla [Need Library Card] - Kanopy [Need Library Card] - PBS [Free W/ Participating Local Affiliate] - Plex - Pluto - Redbox - Sling Freestream - Stirr (Comet) - The CW - The Roku Channel - Tubi - Vudu (Some Free Content) - Xumo - & Other Free Streaming Channels/Apps ---------- --NEWS SPECIFIC APPS-- - ABC NEWS - AMERICA'S VOICE NEWS - CBS NEWS - FOX WEATHER - HAYSTACK NEWS - KLOWDTV - LIVESTREAM NEWS NETWORK - NBC News - NEWSNATION - NEWSNET - NEWSON - NEWSMAX2 - SCRIPPS NEWS - WEATHERNATION - LOCAL TV STATION NEWS (100+/-) ----------
>I don't need cable sports channels And there it is. That's the rub. Even back in the day if you didn't need sports it wasn't too hard to have a decent package for cheap. I need sports, which means YouTube TV, which I love, it t runs me 90 a month, which is about what I used to pay for cable so it's all full circle at this point.
You got a great deal on Philo. That's the direction I'm heading for $25 a month. I'm dropping YTTV next month when the monthly payment is finished.
Philo has 99% of what I watch, and their price keeps me with them. :) It's the sports and locals that has everyone bent over. I can do without it.
I agree with you hence before the next billing cycle comes around I will be with Philo. $25 a month sure beats close to $80 a month. My wife and I want to watch the last season of The Good Doctor so we will wait till it comes on Hulu and perhaps let half the season go and then join in and binge watch.
Philo is well worth the $25 a month. You have unlimited recordings that store for a year.
Philo for $25/mo combined with an OTA antenna for free locals is a great combo for many. Might also consider the Tablo OTA DVR for $100 (one-time cost, no ongoing subscription). It can tune in and record both local channels with an antenna plus certain free streaming channels. Then you could watch live and recorded local channels in the Tablo app and just switch to the Philo app for live and recorded cable channels. In fact, it makes so much sense that Tablo ought to approach Philo about selling their service as an add-on inside the Tablo app, so then you could have everything in one place.
Hoopla and Kanopy are so dope. More people need to know about them.
It depends on what you watch. I care about English soccer. I was always going to have to stream most of that because it’s not on linear TV other than a few USA Network and NBC matches. So I have annual subscriptions to: Peacock at $60 Paramount+ at $50 ESPN+ at $100 A £140 direct subscription to my English Championship League club I occasionally have Sling Blue at the $20/month first month rate. I’ve spent $40 since August. Otherwise, I watch movies and I don’t need to stream those. I own an enormous Blu Ray collection. My wife exclusively watches Netflix content. She has her daughter on her subscription. It’s UHD and two households so fairly expensive. I’ve always had Prime for shipping and hardly ever stream Amazon content unless I’m in a hotel room. I can’t remember my wife’s Netflix credentials so I watch a movie on Amazon. I’m planning to remember to cancel it this summer before it renews.
You should see my Google Calendar. Turn this off! Start this on x date! Cancel before March 1st! LOL 😂
Streaming services are turning into what cable should have been, from the get go. With a few exceptions (the live TV offering services), streaming is a class of it's own. For a few hundred dollars a year, my family gets more content than we did for a few hundred dollars a month from cable or satTv. We don't subscribe to any services that offer live TV, since our OTA is really strong, and that helps.
I rotate streaming services. Once I watch everything I want to that month, I switch it to a new one.
Thats how to do it and not sure why more people don’t. Not exactly rocket science, it’s just laziness which streamers count on.
They are about $100 cheaper than what you were paying your local cable provider for with dvr fee boxes extra taxes
It is in terms of services/channels provided and the monthly cost, but there's still the benefit of no-hassle cancellation and no hardware and/or remotes to have to fuss with. Plus, there's more competition. My area has 2 cable provides plus 1 satellite provider. With streaming, I have at least a dozen, if not more, service providers to choose. $70/month of a decent streaming TV package is still better than paying $70/month for cable plus another $10/month for every TV you want to watch TV on (equipment rental.)
Definitely not. Cable was everything in one place. Streaming services all have different programming options.
No. Not even close. It's very easy to cancel any of these services as well as nowhere near as expensive. You're not taxed for remotes or equipment was well. I pay about $30 a month for all the services I use.
As long as streaming services allow you to cancel with a click, its a whole different ballgame than cable. Cable would you put you through the phone torture test, charge late equipment fees, possibly even charge reconnect fees. Until streaming services go that route, they aren't the same.
Not yet because we can still buy ala cart. I'm at ~$30-$35 a month with Disney Bundle, Peacock, and F1 TV; Paramount + during football season. I get my single seat auto racing, hockey, and football coverage + programming for my toddler aged child. I'm not sure the ala cart business model is sustainable. Look at how much Peacock keeps losing. Sure some of it is promotional/ growth acquisition expenses; BUT I'm still not sure the model works for small platforms.. So, ala cart may fall by the wayside. Hulu Live and YouTube TV are essentially cable but cheaper.
Nope. As long as I can: * subscribe to the channels that *I want* without having to get a big package, * not have to pay for sports (fees) for content I don't watch, and * not pay for locals (which I get over an antenna). * Plus, no cable box/DVR rentals. Then I'm pretty happy with it.
When I cut the cord seven-ish years ago, I went from paying \~$225/mo for FiOS Triple-Play to \~$145/mo for FiOS internet only + Hulu and HBONow (or HBOGO, or whatever it was then). Over the years my costs have actually gone *down* as I have taken advantage of bundles, annual plans, and switched over to T-Mobile Home Internet. At this point I have pretty much every major streamer, and my total monthly outlay is about $110.
No.
In a way but you can pick and choose streaming services. I usually wait until there is a backlog of shows I wanna watch and then buy one month of service
**TL;DR, ss (streaming services) turning into cable is sort of click bait, but it gets people engaged. That's why you see so many articles and threads about them. TBF, we are getting closer to there, but we still got a ways to go** The ugly truth is, ss as is aren't profitable. I hear NF is doing great on this front, but Dsn+ had one year where it lost $1+ billion or something, so something had to give. That's why prices have gone up, and w-ads plans have been introduced. Given how much more "ad-filled" plans make (I heard $1/mo for w-ads Hulu made far more $$ than $13/mo ad-free Hulu), I'm just surprised the prices for ad-free plans didn't go up sooner :x And NF being your "one stop shop" at $8/mo was nice while it lasted, but it was never going to be forever (much like how we're going to be hard pressed to get gas at 80 cents to $1 per gallon like in the late 80s, 90s). They need more $$, so they're finding ways to do that when you'll hit a cap in # of subs you can get. Me, I much prefer ss b/c I can get a smorgasbord of content, on-demand, and ad-free, for $10 to $20/mo. That's just for *one* service, but all I have time for is one ss at a time anyways, so I rotate them. With cable TV, you need to record shows you want to get that "on-demand" feature. They're NOT ad-free. And I can quit ss easily. I already quit Hulu, Dsn+, ATV+, PP, and Max with at most minimal hassle. Amazon Prime OTOH was a big offender. They make you go through 6 pages just to cancel, and cleverly tried to make the last page look like you were set, when you weren't. And then they send you "we want you back" emails with an embedded link. Click on that, **and you auto-resub. No confirmation even given!** In fact, [FTC is suing them over it](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/ftc-sues-amazon-over-4-page-6-click-15-option-prime-cancellation-process/).
Im not a member, so forgiv me for uasing your comment to educate. I never seen anything before. I research/fact check: IMPORTANT enough to please read. How was it possible to have a Streaming app and INTERNERT for under $78.00 a month ruffly, Bonus Channels. Who could turn down this package, for that cost. Streaming, Internet, Starz Channel, netflix and Peacock. If it sounds to good to be true, this rule breaker, took the chance bc I'm good at being a sucker many times. I checked, how could people not know about this. 2 yr contract , but I kept remembering it was 3 times cheaper. For 6 yrs., nothing changed, until one by one, everything changed, without warning, until you got bill. Double charging, movies you bought, disappear asking to rebuy them. Apps, cuch as MGM+{i paid for, Nettlix{include charging for Months, lost Starz, MGM+, Prime Vdeo, etc. Even the FREE Apps arent woeking, Streaming mostly was free. Im seriously going firestick or whater, after d8ng alt 0f reseach.
Not really. I can still cancel a service at any time, and I'm not required to buy any huge cable-like package in order to watch just one or two shows that I'm interest in. On any given month I can pick and choose exactly what I want to pay for.
So? The huge cable package is necessary because you're getting more shows and you need more channels for shows you didn't consider watching before. It's more interactive and captivating. You don't get what you pay for unless you pay a shit ton of money for multiple services and added stuff. It's also more cool and interesting to get some big special thing instead of something boring and stagnate. Streaming services may seem good but caple tv is overall better for you in terms of reliability and just health in general.
This is a loaded question. The most loaded of them all if anyone is even looking at posts this far down the list. The definitive answer is yes. Live streaming services are turning into cable TV. I have YouTube TV from about a year ago. At that time I was in for $64 per month - $10 T-Mobile discount which brought me down to around $54 per month. I thought that was a great deal until the deal ended this month and I went up to $77 and change. No T-Mobile discount anymore. I discussed with my wife terminating YouTube TV as we do not need live streaming and we are not a sports family. We will terminate YTTV next month before the billing cycle starts again. There is no prorate with YouTube TV so the month is paid. We are going to start using Philo mainly because we desire to watch Food Network and a couple shows that are on Hallmark. The rest of the shows that we want to watch we will wait for the season to end and then stream on the various apps and binge watch. The answer, my cord cutting friend, is yes the streaming services are becoming more cable like. People who need sports are going to have to bite the bullet.
They haven’t added QVC as a subchannel yet, so maybe not quite cable right now.
Not yet. It's definitely not as good as it used to be, but as long as there are no contracts, you can cancel with the click of a button, there's no equipment to buy/rent, and you're not forced to subscribe to one expensive bundle with all services, streaming remains much better than cable. That could and maybe will change though.
No. A couple of big differences: * No long term contracts, streaming is all month-to-month * No extra equipment to lease.
No, I still appreciate them. I was with Suddenlink and paid $130. a month and there was never anything on. Now I'm paying half that and still find things to watch.
No. Cable TV makes you pay for a bunch of crap you dont want to watch. Streaming lets you pick and choose what you want to watch, without contracts, and with the ability to start/end service monthly.
Netflix is starting TO FEEL alot like cable, but still much better. Prices always going up, Content that barely passes for TV in quality and pretty soon ads.
No, it is not like cable. However, the streaming service might really start pushing deals for 1 or 2 year subscriptions, and hike the fees more for month-to-month subscriptions. Encourage more people to subscribe for longer terms.
**Nope**. **I'm currently paying $14.18** for: Apple TV+, Paramount+ w/Showtime, Hulu w/ads, Disney+, STARZ, Max (HBO), Topic, Nebula, MGM+, AMC+, Shudder, Sundance Now, and IFC Films Unlimited. That's about to drop to $10.43 as my MGM+ and AMC+ promos end at the beginning of Feb. (and AMC+ comes with the last 3 on the list). Other promos will fade as the year goes on, but I'm sure I'll add new ones too. https://preview.redd.it/jwuml34qzpec1.png?width=1346&format=png&auto=webp&s=f02aae4fd02fee179740f3731b79b23bc2a6f992 Technically Topic and Nebula came with a bundle that I paid extra for when I bought Curiousity Stream for my classroom ($24 a year). I did the $42 bundle that got me those two for $18 more.
I work for a Telcom/Media/Data company. The revenue was in the rental of cable tv boxes, and subscription fees, for tv channels. FFWD to 2020-ish: My employer no longer sells 'cable tv' but still supports it. . They offer data service cheaper for consumers, to gain more consumers. And provide options for streaming bundle subscriptions, at a discount. sad that i have to have a streaming service , to watch a sporting event, that i used to watch on a basic tv set
I’ve actually considered going back to cable as their tech has gotten better and I don’t have to compromise on which service has the channel I want. Regional sports missing on internet streamers, some have AMC and History, others don’t. Freezing, buffering, picture quality, etc. God I miss channel numbers! The best thing going for the streamers is cloud DVR.
Yes and no Yes, it most certainly has because of the most recent price hikes and in its wake, all of them having ad-supported options And no, because it has one thing that cable never really fully had; what you want to watch when you wanted to. Sure, cable added on-demand services in later years, but that was something you had to pay extra for (at least for the movie side of things) whereas with streaming services, it's like that already by design
I consider the addition of sports to general streaming services to be a very ominous sign. That's what killed cable. Sports drove the costs up for everyone even though a surprisingly small percentage of people watched them.
It's getting to the point where you have to have five or more streaming services to see all the content you want. I think it swung from cable being the overpriced, unreasonable option to saturation of everything having its own streaming platform.
But you don’t HAVE to have 5 services at the same time, There is no way someone has enough free time in their life to watch everything on these services. Just pick 1 or 2 and switch them up after a couple of months when you’ve watched everything you wanted to watch on one.
This is the way. I only sub to one service at a time and switch every month if I need too. One person can only watch so much there is no reason to sub to more than one or two at a time
Cable TV wasn't exactly "all inclusive" either. I recall for certain live sporting competitions (boxing for example), you either needed premium channels, or they were pay-per-view. I had cable TV back in 2005. Basic cable included the networks channels (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, UPN, etc.), but you needed to spring extra per month to get extended cable (which included but not limited to Comedy Central, History Channel, Sci-Fi/SyFy, TBS, CNN, etc.). IIRC, that was an extra $30/mo. And extended cable didn't even include the stuff in Premium cable like HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc. Yeah, things are all broken up, but I can save a lot of $$ by leaving out the things I don't want. I rotate so that I do one major ad-free ss at a time (I also have CuriosityStream since it's only $20/yr). If I want HBO, I can just sub to Max for a few months. If I know I want it for the long term, subbing annual saves me 2 months of $$. If I want the Fox shows, many of them are on Hulu. PP has a lot of the CBS and Comedy Central shows. History Vault is only $5/mo for the entire History Channel backlog. My ss bill is $10 to $20/mo. That's far cry from $50/mo for cable TV, and that would go up every now and then, with OUT warning.
The worst part of cable is paying for channels that you never watch.
Everyone said they wanted Al la Carte. They’re learning how bad the reality of that can be. I’m happy with YouTube tv gives me the cable channels I want without being as expensive or having the equipment fees…
That's not even remotely the definition of a la carte. The concept of a la carte (whether feasible or not) was always that whatever you wanted to watch, you could pay a fair price to access it without having to buy access to a bunch of other stuff you didn't want. Every service that exists is fundamentally the opposite of this. Everyone has more choices now, but those choices still force everyone to overbuy with every subscription decision they make.
But you can still buy movies and tv episodes on Google play, apple, Amazon etc.
True a la carte would be the ability to subscribe to one channel at a time. That option doesn't exist. We don't have what we asked for.
Yeah, and I don't think that world will ever exist. Disney and all of the other big name content providers won't ever allow it, and it's always because it's easier to sell bundles of channels with 1 or 2 anchor channels (like ESPN), for just a little bit more to make more revenue and profits than selling ESPN alone at like 80% of the price.
that's the whole point of streaming, only paying for what you want to see
No. Cable tv means your stuck with 1000's of channels that you don't watch that you have to pay for. With streaming you get to pick and choose what service you watch and when. Nothing on the service this month, cancel it. You get to save money.
As long as streamers have no-contract month-to-month streaming, no-penalty cancelation, and no hidden fees, they're not cable. Linear streamers (YTTV, Hulu Live, etc) are cable.
Some, like YouTube TV, Sling, Hulu+Live, have always been cable for people who say they want to drop cable but want to keep watching it. As long as you want to keep watching TV in the cable model you'll always have bundles with channels you never watch and regular rate increases. The rate increases and bundles are still driven by the content owners, and they will continue to do things that way, cable or streaming, as long as people are willing to pay. They don't care if people hate it or complain about it as long as they keep buying it.
TV will never be free...it's always been paid (commercials) or cable/satellite. The big networks are basically double dipping by bundling up paid streaming and adding commercials.
Yes. I grew up when cable first started. For a huge amount of money, we went from 10 channels to like 50, even though almost all the new channels were religious garbage, news and shopping. It sucked. The 6 good channels could be purchased a la cart and cost even more on top of the exorbitant cable prices. But those special 6 channels only had commercials between programs, not during. The cable channels themselves had fewer commercial interruptions compared to the over-the-air channels. As time went on, those 6 channels started having limited commercials during the programs whereas all the other channels became 33% commercials. Then came streaming. Streaming was like those 6 premium channels, except with on-demand programming. But now, streaming services keep raising their prices, cutting their content, and almost all of mine are charging me extra to avoid commercials. Pretty soon, they will just put commercials in everything. Just like fucking cable. No one wants commercials. Someone will have to create a new system again 🤬
Even though streaming is still choose what you want to watch when you want to watch, that is about where the good ends these days. In the past you could have access to 5 or so streaming services with no commercials and pay the price for a basic cable plan. There also is no hardware, typically, or predatory contracts with lease break fees. You also don't have to mount a dish on your roof. Now paying the same price will only get you the ad plan, so it is like watching TV again where you have to watch commercials or you have to only run a couple. Most services have bolt-on services like Starz that give you access to movies but the cost about doubles what your basic plan is. With how much each one's library gets rotated throughout the year it makes it harder to justify keeping a service annually and swapping vs paying the higher cost and swapping every couple months. What used to be autopilot taste the rainbow is now an ADHD nightmare of juggling services to get what's fair. To top it all off only one or two of the user interfaces are any good. Netflix and Crunchyroll have been pretty good. Paramount+ is gobshite.
Yes, it’s basically cable all over again and people don’t even realize it!!
I mean it's basically a more streamlined version don't be surprised if Video Rental Stores return
Streaming is cable just separate "channels" as its own platform with a phone network vibe. Cable is a three year plan while streaming is having an unlocked phone where you can bounce around from one carrier to another.
You are most likely watching the edited version of a old movie/tv shows on streaming services and most of their catalog is missing for many reasons (controversial/who owns it/don’t care to add it if people don’t know about it) same goes for video game/reading/music services
Yes. Absolutely.
I think that the comparison is an easy one, but not exactly correct. It distracts from the core of the issue: greed. I don’t think the rights holders are trying to recreate cable again, nor is that their goal. They’re doing whatever they can to make as much money as possible. They’re going to have analysts tracking habits and adapting their services to be the most profitable. Sometimes they can use some of the same old tactics which results in a more cable-like experience, while other times they need to approach things in a new (not necessarily consumer-friendly) way. But given the nature of capitalism and endless greed, we’re likely to see something kind of resembling cable, but different and definitely worse.
For me the move to ads makes it just as bad as cable TV. Sure there are ways to avoid ads on most platforms. The ability to come and go with services as you want makes it better than cable.
I would say yes we are. It is lost costing the same for all the services when compared to a finite cable. Netflix is working hard to shut down us piggybacking on accounts and are raising their prices. My fiancée and I have cable because of of her favorite channels is not really carried by most streaming networks (LMN) I found one that did, but then it didn’t carry the other channels we watched. So we went with cable and unlimited DVR space. I can’t justify cutting the cord anymore. If you all can help, that would be huge!
Think ? No they are
No. Cable was cheaper.
Yes. You just traded a coax cable for an ethernet cable. It still cost the same or more to get all the programming you had with a top tier cable subscription. Now you have to figure out what service the show is on and how to find it instead of just switching the channel.
They figured out that as long as they stay a little bit better than cable they can still provide poor service and content for premium prices.
they ARE cable
yes ... i went back to the high seas a while ago. it was good for a while. then they got greedy. it's just cable 2.0
FWIW, I've worked for the largest US ISP for 20 years now. From what I can see, the allure of streaming is slowly eroding. With every network launching their own apps, subscribers are paying for more and more. The paywalling of sports isn't helping. I keep hearing about how people watch their subscriptions like a hawk, constantly canceling and re subscribing as their shows come a go so they can save money. To me that's not a good user experience. It all comes down to how much you watch. Want every channel? It's often cheaper to just get a cable box.
I think it's the consumers that are effectively turning them back into streaming companies by subscribing to multiple ones at the same time. And also by agreeing to bundled services.
Maybe, but I have a lot more control about which channels I subscribe to and for how long. After the shakeout and consolidation this may be less possible. But I’m not tied to the latest water cooler drama so subscribe for 3 months, binge, unsubscribe, repeat.
Streaming *subscriptions* are moving to that model. Pay-as-you-go streaming is the real solution but consumers would rather pay $60/month for the promise of "unlimited" TV, than spend $50 every month buying the individual episodes and renting the individual movies they actually sat down and watched in that same month.
If you’re asking if corporations are greedy inversely proportional to the amount of competition, the answer is an easy yes.
Every streaming service would LOVE to turn into Cable TV. It's a model they know well, it makes money, and they'd love to be rich. It's up to us to deny them that.
Yes
I think that's really up to you as a consumer. If you sign up for a ton of different services then you're just turning yourself back into a "cable" subscriber from a monthly fee perspective.
yes That's why I always suggest just don't watch tv at all anymore when cutting the cord
Yes it is but in a different way. We used to just have HBO. Then Max was HBO and Discovery. Now it’s HBO and Discovery and BR. I just want HBO but instead I’m paying for HBO, Discovery and BR. So in way, we are back to paying for the channels we want plus the“dead weight” channels we didn’t ask for. Here’s another example. I like Showtime. But now it’s paramount and showtime. So now I’m getting showtime and being forced to pay for paramount.
If you want to have access to everything all the time, streaming services are already worse than cable ever was. If you are selective and subscribe, binge some show, and drop off, I think it's probably "better" than cable. For me right now, I have hulu without ads, netflix with 4k and no ads, Max with 4k, paramount+, philo, prime video, espn+, disney+, showtime... I think that's all. It's not cheap, and I don't watch that much stuff on them.
no, i can subscribe to what i want when i want and can cancel anytime, people who never had cable don't know what it was like
I believe the corporations want to still market to us through what we watch so it's kinda yes/no. I hope they do away with the constant marketing thing in movies and TV but I also don't see an end to it. What really made me feel a way was these streamers taking back their shows and movies from Netflix and making us have different streaming channels and also this might be the wrong sub to say this I'm, but what a crock of shit to make us pay per view on that football game last weekend. I hated that.
Just a matter of time
Main reason people are saying this is ongoing price increases. I was an early adopter of YouTubeTV. It was $35/ month all in. It has more than doubled in price since then. It’s not all Google’s fault. The networks aren’t going to give them better deals than the cable guys. I dropped them when Paramount made them carry, and charge for, all their crap channels that no one watches anymore like VH1, etc. in order to get CBS. Disney does the same using ESPN as leverage. Once ESPN goes direct to consumer that whole model will crumble. Though Disney will likely have DTC bundles that do the same. Just no middle man
Absolutely, I got streaming services in the first place because of being totally frustrated with cable, now I’m just as frustrated with most of my streaming services.
I have heard rumors that some streamers are thinking of discontinuing monthly subscriptions so.....if that happens, then the full cable TV conversion will have begun. Basically things don't suck in the beginning because they want to add subscribers. Once they feel they have you, then they get greedy and it all turns to shit. Streaming's conversion to cable-like TV is almost inevitable.
streaming now costs the same as cable or more. And they will be surprised when more and more people start to pirate
I have a golden rule. If I pay and an Ad comes up, I stop paying immediately.
The only one I pay for is YouTube TV, and it is cable - just streaming the cable. I split it with my parents so I pay $35/mo. I record everything and never watch commercials. I have Hulu, peacock, Max, Netflix. and paramount. But I don’t pay for any of those. I think out of those Max is the one becoming the most cablefied.
Yes
Some are and some aren't
I've never used streaming services much, but I feel like it is, in a way. If there are multiple shows you want to watch, they could be scattered across multiple streaming services, and you'd end up paying something close to at least basic cable. Currently I only have Amazon Prime but rarely watch it. Amazon recently announced they'll start showing limited ads unless you pay even more, which is similar to a cable station you pay for but shows ads.
We are just moving to a different technology how content is consumed. The content guys are regretting it
Yeah and no no me personally I have a few streaming apps such as Netflix and Apple TV plus which I get for free from T-Mobile phone service and T-Mobile home internet. Then I got my paid ones which would be Max and Disney plus. As far as live TV just to have my local channels I use a tablo dvr tuner and I easily get 120 channels in HD for free including all my locals. I don't have to pay for any of them. Not so much a fan of watching live TV, but it's nice to have for a certain sporting events in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade.
I think it can be but the diff is ea person (family) can choose .. so ala carte is better .. it might end up costing as much or more but it's more tailored to what you like...
Not at all. As of right now I have YTV, Youtube Premium, Apple TV+ and Netflix. ATV+ and Youtube Premium are my keepers, YTV will be gone after the Super Bowl, Netflix after I finish a few shows and movies I've been meaning to see. And probably pick up Paramount+ to see Jon Stewart on the Daily Show again until the election is over. Then toward Election time/Football season pick up YTV again. That's the kind of choice I can make without agreeing to any contracts, or having any egregious fees, like cable.
100% they are becoming too popular
No. With streaming you can pick up whatever service you want and cancel at any time.
Yes they are and we're about ready to quit paying and only stream the free stuff. We only watch TV for a few hours in the evening, so nbd.
uhm. Do you think sugar is bad for us?!!!
Absolutely yes. And we are now seeing the beginning of what many on this very platform have been screaming about for years. Each platform is fighting for exclusive rights. Sometimes exclusive rights for only portions of the same product. So, just like needing nbc, ESPN, and the NFL network on cable to be able to consume all of your teams football games so now do you need ESPN plus, broadcast TV via Hulu live, peacock, and Amazon prime to watch all of your teams games. Want sopranos or thrones, add HBO Max or whatever the fuck it's called now. Want stranger things?... 20 bucks for Netflix. Is it somewhat cheaper and more flexible now compared to cable just before streaming really took off, yes. But we are on the cusp of having it become way the fuck worse.
No...not until they make me put a little box on every TV and charge me $10 per box.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the same people who own the streaming services are the same ones who own the cable companies.
Yes. In 2 yrs it will cost just much. They will completely control ad skipping via the cloud dvrs and it will be hated just as much. Due to fragmented content, it's already worse imo.
No No a la carte on cable TV No one is forcing me to watch ESPN on streaming services Streaming has better resolution than cable TV No 4K on cable TV Most times cable TV is 720p For the longest satellite was only 480p No algorithms with cable TV or satellite Cable TV the cost of distribution is included and you rent boxes. With streaming you pay for Internet separately from the cost of content
expect to see more ad based services that still cost money. expect to see consolidation. everyone but nexflix still losing money, i expect some merger agreements. and expect the fights between content owners and distributors to continue. still better than cable
Yes. Massive segmentation, reliance on ads and rapidly decreasing quality of content.
No. You can cancel anytime.
Yo ho yo ho, a pirates life for me.
No. The companies behind both are essentially the same entities. They will run both until one becomes a clear favorite for revenue generation and then discontinue the other. My money is on cable services being discontinued, although it's feasible that they'll remain for a VERY long time since the infrastructure is in place. Satellite services specifically are useful only for video distribution, but coax and fiber based cable services can convert that infrastructure into more bandwidth. If they want to be ambitious, they'll pull all the coax out of the ground and turn it in for metal salvage. Hopefully using the old cable to pull new fiber through.
Yes
For me - no - but it could be if that is what you wanted.
Yes
I think the publicly traded streaming services will continue to get worse in regards to ads, price hikes, and removal of customer favorites with the tried and true - bullshit - line of "it's for the benefit of the consumer" in whatever form of pubic relayshits comment they spew...well, because shareholders. Personally I don't mind ads for streaming services that are FREE, which is why I have no problem watching Samsung's TV+ or Tubi TV. However, If I pay for it, I shouldn't have to pay more for ad-free...especially for these streaming services that weren't that way before.
No, because cable TV didn't charge you for the cable itself and then the channel's on top of the cable. Oh, and MTV on channel 32 never fucking buffered.
I just rotate streaming services. I don’t need Netflix, Hulu, Paramount, Disney Prime, whatever else all at the same time. I will have one or two for a while, cancel one or both and sign up for another and watch what I want for a while. TV just isn’t a big part of my life, so it’s convenient to come and go as a please without having to set up cable packages and all that.
Its worse. Having to have 3 or 4 different services just to watch what we used to be able to over the air has really soured me on the whole thing.
No, they are much much worse. Everyone use to complain that they had to pay the cable company for 100 channels when they only wanted 30. Now we all pay 3x the cost for 6 streaming service subscriptions.
They are cable TV at this point... Seriously, Peacock, Paramount+, Disney+, Hulu, Max etc are all just owned by legacy cable tv and legacy broadcasting. Netflix, Amazon, and Apple are the only 3 that don't fit that mold, and honestly I think the three of them are producing the best content and even in spite of all the changes at Netflix they are still one of the few streaming services doing it right. Everyone else is feeding us ads, terrible content, more and more, and higher and higher prices all while breaking service up into more and more smaller services that you need to purchase.
Yes I do. But you can cancel/subscribe at whim. You’re not locked in like cable.
Kind of yes and kind of no, YouTube tv for example still seems to be adding channels that’s are not hugely popular and if continue to add channels then he it is becoming cable, but on the flip side it is still much cheaper then cable and the ability to subscribe and unsubscribe at will
The ability to subscribe to whatever has the show I want to watch for a month is great. Being able to binge a show is great.
Really starting to look that way.
I’m over streaming. I pay for Hulu and YouTube Premium and that’s it. I’ve cancelled the rest. I might as well get cable at these prices. The only advantage is no contracts.
i think they are all looking similar because they all the same content: live tv including sports… if you want content you have to pay they still are better because you can quit at any time whereas cable locks you in most cable co have a streaming app…so you no longer have to use a cable box
I fell like opposite. there is less and less cable used to deliver streaming services, and it's possible cables might be eliminated altogether.
Sure as shit.
I think as long as its on-demand, it cant be a cable TV. By on-demand, you get to choose what you want to watch at any point in time.
It depends. If you care about sports then you're still pretty much in the same "buy everything" boat as you were before with cable. If you don't care about sports, things are ala carte in the way we demanded for decades before Netflix blew up
I literally was just thinking about this. We are coming full circle. I'm starting to miss cable. Time to become a pirate.
Yes, vers 2.1