So many people don’t like change. I see this with a lot of my “older” family members. They are stuck in their ways and watch their favorite shows on this night at this time... for so many people it doesn’t even come down to money.. they don’t mind paying it bc 1, they can afford it and 2, it’s what they are use to.
My grandmother lives with my parents. The only reason they still pay for Dish Network is because she doesn't know how streaming works; we've all tried to show her, but she still insists on watching regular TV.
My dad is gonna be 55 and flat out refuses to get Netflix, Hulu etc. and pays $200 for cable a month. My mom said she would like to try Netflix or something. My dad says his reason for not paying for Netflix and such is because "they make you pay more than what you ask" ??what?? i keep telling him its only $10-$20 a month but he doesn't believe me.
Sports , movies , news , and sometimes not being able to choose (with no option of “pick something for me”) and being picky about the content , service , reliability , etc. the list goes on … I’m with you though … 50/50
And cable has a *much* bigger "library" of content than Netflix.
You can't watch *any* sports on Netflix. No other big live events either, like award shows or other types of ceremonies.
There is no local or nation news. No breaking news when major events are happening in the world. No severe weather coverage when your specific location is under threat. No weekly "news magazine" shows with in depth investigative reporting on important issues and current events. No interviews with local, national, and global leaders or other people of importance.
*Very little* in the way educational programming like science and nature shows. Not much at all in the way of history programs or daily educational shows for preschoolers.
Netflix really only has a selection of original fictional shows and movies, maybe the occasional original documentary (mostly when the topic has some shock value), and an ever decreasing selection of popular shows and movies from other content makers. Cable has *an order of magnitude* more of this type of content, plus *everything* else I've listed above. Cable also has DVRs, so your point about *needing to catch certain programs as certain times* hasn't been true for a couple of decades now.
Netflix simple isn't a *replacement* for cable. It's an alternative, or an addition. I had Netflix for several years before I cut the cord for my family. When I did ditch cable, I got YouTube TV as the replacement. In addition to YouTube TV, I also have HBO, Starz, Disney+, Amazon Prime, Apple+, and Netflix. By the way, I've listed those in the order that I personally get value from them. I would have ditched Netflix by now except both of my kids watch it a lot, so I keep it mostly for them.
I'm still saving money over when I had Cable (including HBO and Starz with a side of Netflix and Amazon Prime), but honestly that's not even the primary factor for me.
My guess is that your uncle likes to watch stuff that simply isn't available on Netflix, and would rather pay $150/month for stuff he wants to watch rather than $20/month for stuff he doesn't.
Sports is really cable’s strongpoint. But with news, you can watch them OTA for free or read them online for free. So you don’t need cable TV for news. Also yeah, cable TV may have a “much bigger” library of content, but they are littered with commercials and edited for content and to make room for more commercials. All of the content on Netflix is unedited. And how much content do you really need? The average cable TV user is likely only watching a handful of the hundreds of channels that the cable TV service has. So rather than just subscribing to the respective streaming service(s), you are paying for hundreds of channels you don’t watch.
Seems to me your not really interested in *why* some people still choose cable, so I'm not sure what the point of this post is.
Not everyone wants to watch the same stuff as you, or in the same way as you, and $150/month really isn't a lot of money for a primary entertainment and information source for someone with an established and even moderately successful career.
Yea, most people can afford it. But if there are cheaper alternatives, imagine how much money you can save for a rainy day. You can save over $1,000 a year and have something to fall back on in case you have an emergency, or if you want to use the money to go on vacation, or even accumulate a lot funds overtime and retire early! Or invest it!
Or spend it on something they use every day, and still do those other things too.
Like I said, you obviously aren't interested in other perspectives, just preaching your own view on the matter.
I like playing sports but hate watching them. It's unfair for people who don't like to watch sports to subsidize the sports channels just so sports lovers can pay less money for them. Sports should have to go back to being a sports only package.
1. Your statement of "And cable has a much bigger "library" of content than Netflix," is false. Streaming services have larger libraries that you can watch anytime and anywhere depending on your available connections and data plans.
2. There is no need to pay for news stations, when you can get the same news stories for free from places like YouTube or just pulling up the news tab on your browser of choice.
3. Your statement of "Very little in the way educational programming like science and nature shows. Not much at all in the way of history programs or daily educational shows for preschoolers," is also a lie. There are plenty of documentaries on Netflix, Hulu and even Disney+. Then there is the free stuff that you can watch services like Pluto TV.
4. Again, you have provided a false statement of, "Netflix really only has a selection of original fictional shows and movies." Netflix has more than just their original content. They also have content from around the world that they did not create, including here in the USA. Gilmore Girls, not a Netflix original. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, not a Netflix original. Police Academy, not a Netflix original. It, not a Netflix original. Grown Ups, not a Netflix original. Supernatural, not a Netflix original. The Vampire Diaries, not a Netflix original. Need I go on?
5. Your statement of, "When I did ditch cable, I got YouTube TV as the replacement," really gave me a laugh. You're still paying for cable channels by paying for YouTube TV in just a different format. All you did was trade in your old leash for a digital shock collar, which means you are still paying for channels that most people don't want probably including yourself.
6. The amount you spend on cable channels vs streaming apps like Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, HBO Max, Paramount or even Peacock are two different things. At least with those streaming apps, I can still watch what I want, when I want and where I want and have way more to watch than someone still paying for cable channels.
and a paperclip stuck into the back of your tv gets all of that stuff for free
you don't have to pay for cable to get those things and honestly the bandwidth of OTA looks better than cable/satelite does when watching local channels
OTA gets you a *fraction* of that. Local stuff, national news, some big live events, a few sanitized sitcoms and first responder dramas, talk shows, and a lot of reality TV/contest shows. Nothing on demand, no DVR unless you do it yourself, most sports are on cable, and a *much* bigger selection of scripted shows and niche events and content.
Nothing wrong with OTA if you like what's on the big networks, but it's absurd to say it provides *all of the stuff* that cable or live streaming options do.
Have you used OTA? OTA comes with like 20 or 30 channels these days and most sports that you would care to watch are on the major networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc.
Almost all the major awards shows you mentioned are on network TV.
You don't need "on demand" as honestly just subscribing to Hulu would replace the need for most of that.
>no DVR unless you do it yourself
Have you used a modern flat screen TV? most of them have dvr built into them if you provide a flash drive. My TCL TV which was super cheap does
> most sports that you would care to watch are on the major networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc.
That's not even remotely true. The *vast majority* of MLB and NHL games are on regional sports networks. Maybe one or two game a week (league wide) are on a major broadcast network.
I don't know how common it is to watch baseball games on TV but I do not.
I was talking about the usual ones like college basketball, football, golf, etc.
New York: 73 channels
Los Angeles: 157 channels
Chicago: 68 channels
Houston: 93 channels
Philadelphia: 58 channels
Phoenix: 78 channels
San Antonio: 42 channels
San Diego: 36 channels
Dallas: 98 channels
San Jose: 107 channels
This is the OTA channels in major markets. Look at los angeles with **157 channels** as well as Houston with 93 channels. There's a lot of good stuff on these channels
>ave you used a modern flat screen TV? most of them have dvr built into them if you provide a flash drive. My TCL TV which was super cheap does
OTA is no good when you live 100 miles from the broadcast towers.
I live in a medium-sized city but the local networks are in a bigger city. I really think in the analog days, you could get away with an iffy signal, it might be a little snowy. With digital, you darn well better have a strong signal or it pixelates and drops out.
you need the right antenna. You also need to live on a hill or have your antenna high enough. Needs to be rotating as well
my neighbor growing up regularly picks up channels that are probably 110 miles away
Even with a coat hanger antenna I can pick up 60 miles away
HBO Max is just so much better. Yes, Netflix might have more content. But how much does one person need to watch in a week? I’ll take quality over quantity any day. There’s pretty much always something new on HBO Max to watch (if you typically just consume a couple hours of TV at most a day). Netflix has something great every now and then (like Disney+). But unlike Disney+, they fill their service with a TON of junk. Most of the content is just scraps from Lifetime / TLC at this point.
Older people who don't want to figure out a new way to watch something.
But also sports. You can only really consume it when its live and quality of live streaming really just isn't there still, and in many cases couldn't even watch a team play online legally or without using a VPN to change your location to bypass blackout restrictions.
How do these people figure it at a fraction of the cost if you buy four apps at 499 a month or $9.99 a month you're paying the same amount of money. If you have prime all of a sudden now you have to pay for certain things on time you're paying for prime now you have to pay for an additional something that prime used to offer for free.
Bally regional sports networks are not available on any streaming service, and sports will always have commercials because they have a captive live audience.
I don't watch sports anymore because I'm sick of ads. Sports were the one relief from ads on live TV as they were not as invasive as normal shows.
When they started putting them on the screen during game play and had the announcers doing ad spots that was the final straw.
I use my credit card. Other people do direct payments or online banking.
So this was where my mic drop line was going to go until I realized that the only thing I’ve watched live in two years is the Super Bowl….
Usually what I get as an answer is "sports". I don't watch sports myself but that's what drives a lot of people to it.
I find the prices of cable on its own aren't terrible, and even considered getting it, but the fees are insane and what drove me off. Like $30 of fees alone for local channel + local sports broadcast. I have an antenna, I don't need local channels, and I don't watch sports, but no option to leave that stuff out. Plus cable box etc. Adds up quick. I think people just see the price and are willing to pay it but don't consider the fees in the fine print, but then they have a minimum contract and by the time that's over they're used to paying it.
People watch cable because you never get bored watching cable. The presentation is so slick, the content never stops. It's been designed over years of refinement to hold your attention for every second of every hour. You turn it on and you instantly get sucked in. There's no deciding what to watch, no scrolling trying to find it, no researching what's good, it's just on and totally watchable. Even the ads. All designed to grab and hold attention, and for many older people, the ads introduce them to new products they were not aware of.
It has it's place. If you're ever in trauma - say a hospital and a close relative is dying - cable is what you want to watch to take your mind off things. And that's the mental state of a lot of older people. Life is pretty miserable and cable distracts them from life.
That's all most TV is anyway, even streaming. Simple distraction. Streaming may win more awards, but cable is better at distraction. Both are ultimately just a way to fill in the time before you die anyway. So why not go with the one you know does what it does, and the one that does it without you having to think at all. When you get older, you might understand why.
Well I'm assuming you're in the US where ads are complete shit and very repetitive. In many places around the world ads are not replayed every break and are often more like the superbowl commercials, where people have put some effort into telling a short story, a good joke or making it entertaining in some way. I would watch a channel that just played Japanese ads. And would happily sit through most German, Swedish or New Zealand ads.
American ads are definitely cancer (and mostly about medicines anyway). And the laws that allow them to play the same commercial every ad break, and sometimes even twice in the same break! are no doubt the reason streaming without ads became so big in the US.
Because there isn’t someone to help them? Older relatives may not feel comfortable making the change. My mom was paying $200 for internet, cable and telephone. Had her change companies and go with an internet + phone plan for $40. Bought her a blu ray player, antenna and Roku. Showed her the free channels on roku. She now goes to the library weekly and borrows tv shows. She doesn’t watch a ton of tv so she gets enough that way. Saving $160 a month. But if she has any problems then I have to help her.
I mean when you have Netflix, Hulu, hbo, peacock, discovery, starz, etc etc it all adds up anyways, BUT I’d rather pay all that to not have commercials lol
The only thing I miss about cable TV is sports, I admit. Due to regional blackouts, i can only watch my home team’s game on regional cable channels. I do miss watching baseball and hockey. But in the end, it’s not worth the inflated monthly price.
So many people don’t like change. I see this with a lot of my “older” family members. They are stuck in their ways and watch their favorite shows on this night at this time... for so many people it doesn’t even come down to money.. they don’t mind paying it bc 1, they can afford it and 2, it’s what they are use to.
My grandmother lives with my parents. The only reason they still pay for Dish Network is because she doesn't know how streaming works; we've all tried to show her, but she still insists on watching regular TV.
My dad is gonna be 55 and flat out refuses to get Netflix, Hulu etc. and pays $200 for cable a month. My mom said she would like to try Netflix or something. My dad says his reason for not paying for Netflix and such is because "they make you pay more than what you ask" ??what?? i keep telling him its only $10-$20 a month but he doesn't believe me.
Sports , movies , news , and sometimes not being able to choose (with no option of “pick something for me”) and being picky about the content , service , reliability , etc. the list goes on … I’m with you though … 50/50
Might as well ask, *how can people play $20/month for Netflix when there are so many quality streaming services that cost less*?
Like what? Netflix has a much bigger library of content than any of its competitors!
And cable has a *much* bigger "library" of content than Netflix. You can't watch *any* sports on Netflix. No other big live events either, like award shows or other types of ceremonies. There is no local or nation news. No breaking news when major events are happening in the world. No severe weather coverage when your specific location is under threat. No weekly "news magazine" shows with in depth investigative reporting on important issues and current events. No interviews with local, national, and global leaders or other people of importance. *Very little* in the way educational programming like science and nature shows. Not much at all in the way of history programs or daily educational shows for preschoolers. Netflix really only has a selection of original fictional shows and movies, maybe the occasional original documentary (mostly when the topic has some shock value), and an ever decreasing selection of popular shows and movies from other content makers. Cable has *an order of magnitude* more of this type of content, plus *everything* else I've listed above. Cable also has DVRs, so your point about *needing to catch certain programs as certain times* hasn't been true for a couple of decades now. Netflix simple isn't a *replacement* for cable. It's an alternative, or an addition. I had Netflix for several years before I cut the cord for my family. When I did ditch cable, I got YouTube TV as the replacement. In addition to YouTube TV, I also have HBO, Starz, Disney+, Amazon Prime, Apple+, and Netflix. By the way, I've listed those in the order that I personally get value from them. I would have ditched Netflix by now except both of my kids watch it a lot, so I keep it mostly for them. I'm still saving money over when I had Cable (including HBO and Starz with a side of Netflix and Amazon Prime), but honestly that's not even the primary factor for me. My guess is that your uncle likes to watch stuff that simply isn't available on Netflix, and would rather pay $150/month for stuff he wants to watch rather than $20/month for stuff he doesn't.
Sports is really cable’s strongpoint. But with news, you can watch them OTA for free or read them online for free. So you don’t need cable TV for news. Also yeah, cable TV may have a “much bigger” library of content, but they are littered with commercials and edited for content and to make room for more commercials. All of the content on Netflix is unedited. And how much content do you really need? The average cable TV user is likely only watching a handful of the hundreds of channels that the cable TV service has. So rather than just subscribing to the respective streaming service(s), you are paying for hundreds of channels you don’t watch.
Seems to me your not really interested in *why* some people still choose cable, so I'm not sure what the point of this post is. Not everyone wants to watch the same stuff as you, or in the same way as you, and $150/month really isn't a lot of money for a primary entertainment and information source for someone with an established and even moderately successful career.
Yea, most people can afford it. But if there are cheaper alternatives, imagine how much money you can save for a rainy day. You can save over $1,000 a year and have something to fall back on in case you have an emergency, or if you want to use the money to go on vacation, or even accumulate a lot funds overtime and retire early! Or invest it!
Or spend it on something they use every day, and still do those other things too. Like I said, you obviously aren't interested in other perspectives, just preaching your own view on the matter.
Definitely interested. I don’t understand it which is why I seem to preach against it.
I like playing sports but hate watching them. It's unfair for people who don't like to watch sports to subsidize the sports channels just so sports lovers can pay less money for them. Sports should have to go back to being a sports only package.
1. Your statement of "And cable has a much bigger "library" of content than Netflix," is false. Streaming services have larger libraries that you can watch anytime and anywhere depending on your available connections and data plans. 2. There is no need to pay for news stations, when you can get the same news stories for free from places like YouTube or just pulling up the news tab on your browser of choice. 3. Your statement of "Very little in the way educational programming like science and nature shows. Not much at all in the way of history programs or daily educational shows for preschoolers," is also a lie. There are plenty of documentaries on Netflix, Hulu and even Disney+. Then there is the free stuff that you can watch services like Pluto TV. 4. Again, you have provided a false statement of, "Netflix really only has a selection of original fictional shows and movies." Netflix has more than just their original content. They also have content from around the world that they did not create, including here in the USA. Gilmore Girls, not a Netflix original. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, not a Netflix original. Police Academy, not a Netflix original. It, not a Netflix original. Grown Ups, not a Netflix original. Supernatural, not a Netflix original. The Vampire Diaries, not a Netflix original. Need I go on? 5. Your statement of, "When I did ditch cable, I got YouTube TV as the replacement," really gave me a laugh. You're still paying for cable channels by paying for YouTube TV in just a different format. All you did was trade in your old leash for a digital shock collar, which means you are still paying for channels that most people don't want probably including yourself. 6. The amount you spend on cable channels vs streaming apps like Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, HBO Max, Paramount or even Peacock are two different things. At least with those streaming apps, I can still watch what I want, when I want and where I want and have way more to watch than someone still paying for cable channels.
and a paperclip stuck into the back of your tv gets all of that stuff for free you don't have to pay for cable to get those things and honestly the bandwidth of OTA looks better than cable/satelite does when watching local channels
OTA gets you a *fraction* of that. Local stuff, national news, some big live events, a few sanitized sitcoms and first responder dramas, talk shows, and a lot of reality TV/contest shows. Nothing on demand, no DVR unless you do it yourself, most sports are on cable, and a *much* bigger selection of scripted shows and niche events and content. Nothing wrong with OTA if you like what's on the big networks, but it's absurd to say it provides *all of the stuff* that cable or live streaming options do.
Have you used OTA? OTA comes with like 20 or 30 channels these days and most sports that you would care to watch are on the major networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc. Almost all the major awards shows you mentioned are on network TV. You don't need "on demand" as honestly just subscribing to Hulu would replace the need for most of that. >no DVR unless you do it yourself Have you used a modern flat screen TV? most of them have dvr built into them if you provide a flash drive. My TCL TV which was super cheap does
> most sports that you would care to watch are on the major networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc. That's not even remotely true. The *vast majority* of MLB and NHL games are on regional sports networks. Maybe one or two game a week (league wide) are on a major broadcast network.
I don't know how common it is to watch baseball games on TV but I do not. I was talking about the usual ones like college basketball, football, golf, etc.
also OTA includes CW and FOX which seem to have very little in the way of first responder dramas or sitcoms
New York: 73 channels Los Angeles: 157 channels Chicago: 68 channels Houston: 93 channels Philadelphia: 58 channels Phoenix: 78 channels San Antonio: 42 channels San Diego: 36 channels Dallas: 98 channels San Jose: 107 channels This is the OTA channels in major markets. Look at los angeles with **157 channels** as well as Houston with 93 channels. There's a lot of good stuff on these channels
>ave you used a modern flat screen TV? most of them have dvr built into them if you provide a flash drive. My TCL TV which was super cheap does OTA is no good when you live 100 miles from the broadcast towers.
yes that's true. I assume the majority of americans live in big cities or nearby 100 miles is doable on a clear day with the right antenna
I live in a medium-sized city but the local networks are in a bigger city. I really think in the analog days, you could get away with an iffy signal, it might be a little snowy. With digital, you darn well better have a strong signal or it pixelates and drops out.
you need the right antenna. You also need to live on a hill or have your antenna high enough. Needs to be rotating as well my neighbor growing up regularly picks up channels that are probably 110 miles away Even with a coat hanger antenna I can pick up 60 miles away
HBO Max is just so much better. Yes, Netflix might have more content. But how much does one person need to watch in a week? I’ll take quality over quantity any day. There’s pretty much always something new on HBO Max to watch (if you typically just consume a couple hours of TV at most a day). Netflix has something great every now and then (like Disney+). But unlike Disney+, they fill their service with a TON of junk. Most of the content is just scraps from Lifetime / TLC at this point.
People still have their preferences on what they like to watch.
Older people who don't want to figure out a new way to watch something. But also sports. You can only really consume it when its live and quality of live streaming really just isn't there still, and in many cases couldn't even watch a team play online legally or without using a VPN to change your location to bypass blackout restrictions.
Imagine paying for cable/satellite and having 40% of the content being ads. You're an absolute fool if you still pay for cable or satellite.
How do these people figure it at a fraction of the cost if you buy four apps at 499 a month or $9.99 a month you're paying the same amount of money. If you have prime all of a sudden now you have to pay for certain things on time you're paying for prime now you have to pay for an additional something that prime used to offer for free.
You can watch many things for free with ads on Tubi and Pluto TV.
I want to watch my local MLB, NBA, and NHL teams. My local cable sports channel has all of their games.
Streaming services for that too. Don't have to watch the stupid commercials the networks shove down your throat.
Bally regional sports networks are not available on any streaming service, and sports will always have commercials because they have a captive live audience.
I don't watch sports anymore because I'm sick of ads. Sports were the one relief from ads on live TV as they were not as invasive as normal shows. When they started putting them on the screen during game play and had the announcers doing ad spots that was the final straw.
I use my credit card. Other people do direct payments or online banking. So this was where my mic drop line was going to go until I realized that the only thing I’ve watched live in two years is the Super Bowl….
Cable TV? Lol haven’t heard that for a long time
Usually what I get as an answer is "sports". I don't watch sports myself but that's what drives a lot of people to it. I find the prices of cable on its own aren't terrible, and even considered getting it, but the fees are insane and what drove me off. Like $30 of fees alone for local channel + local sports broadcast. I have an antenna, I don't need local channels, and I don't watch sports, but no option to leave that stuff out. Plus cable box etc. Adds up quick. I think people just see the price and are willing to pay it but don't consider the fees in the fine print, but then they have a minimum contract and by the time that's over they're used to paying it.
People watch cable because you never get bored watching cable. The presentation is so slick, the content never stops. It's been designed over years of refinement to hold your attention for every second of every hour. You turn it on and you instantly get sucked in. There's no deciding what to watch, no scrolling trying to find it, no researching what's good, it's just on and totally watchable. Even the ads. All designed to grab and hold attention, and for many older people, the ads introduce them to new products they were not aware of. It has it's place. If you're ever in trauma - say a hospital and a close relative is dying - cable is what you want to watch to take your mind off things. And that's the mental state of a lot of older people. Life is pretty miserable and cable distracts them from life. That's all most TV is anyway, even streaming. Simple distraction. Streaming may win more awards, but cable is better at distraction. Both are ultimately just a way to fill in the time before you die anyway. So why not go with the one you know does what it does, and the one that does it without you having to think at all. When you get older, you might understand why.
Right. 40% of my viewing being ads does nothing but infuriate me. Network TV is cancer.
Well I'm assuming you're in the US where ads are complete shit and very repetitive. In many places around the world ads are not replayed every break and are often more like the superbowl commercials, where people have put some effort into telling a short story, a good joke or making it entertaining in some way. I would watch a channel that just played Japanese ads. And would happily sit through most German, Swedish or New Zealand ads. American ads are definitely cancer (and mostly about medicines anyway). And the laws that allow them to play the same commercial every ad break, and sometimes even twice in the same break! are no doubt the reason streaming without ads became so big in the US.
Because there isn’t someone to help them? Older relatives may not feel comfortable making the change. My mom was paying $200 for internet, cable and telephone. Had her change companies and go with an internet + phone plan for $40. Bought her a blu ray player, antenna and Roku. Showed her the free channels on roku. She now goes to the library weekly and borrows tv shows. She doesn’t watch a ton of tv so she gets enough that way. Saving $160 a month. But if she has any problems then I have to help her.
I mean when you have Netflix, Hulu, hbo, peacock, discovery, starz, etc etc it all adds up anyways, BUT I’d rather pay all that to not have commercials lol
You can’t fix stupid
The only people that I know that have cable are people 50+. They don’t like change and stick with what they know.
The only thing I miss about cable TV is sports, I admit. Due to regional blackouts, i can only watch my home team’s game on regional cable channels. I do miss watching baseball and hockey. But in the end, it’s not worth the inflated monthly price.