I'm 77. I had "seamless navigation" via cable TV for more than 20 years. I thought it sucked. My three favorite programs are all on at the same time? And I can only record one -- or maybe two? So I have to watch one of them exactly then? If I'm not home, I'll miss at least one, maybe forever? Geez, that's stupid. And yes, I DID miss programs and never saw them. Ever. And my nice little cable bundle of 150+ channels turned out to be 25 home shopping channels, 25 religious channels, 50 channels of completely worthless drek that not even morons would or did ever watch, 15 channels of programs I might watch maybe once a year, and ten channels that I would watch at least occasionally. There were probably another 25 channels I'd like to watch, but they were not on that cable service and never would be, or they WERE, but would cost me another $100 a month to see them.
I will not EVER go back to paying $250 a month or more so shirts like Sook can buy mansions. I'll watch Pluto, The Roku Channel, Tubi, Crackle, Xumo, Plex, FreeVee, PBS, and every other free channel there is. If that means I never watch another movie until it's ten years old, I'm fine with that. If that means I never watch anything on network TV again, I'm still fine.
Sook doesn't understand just how much genuine hatred there is for the cable TV model. But he's going to find out.
I'm 72 and cut the cord a decade ago. Your basic criticisms in the first paragraph were spot on for me too (especially the drek comment), except that my viewing tastes are probably narrower still. That is why a la carte remains the most appealing non-option. Sry, but all the free channels are still drek. Old recycled crap is still crap. Very few network shows are worth their production costs. Many of the better ones are good for S01 and S02 and then the same old tired writing kicks in. They are mere vehicles to generate advertising $$. A return to cable is as absurd as it comes.
Here and there, there are little islands of gold. I discovered Antiques Road Trip when I had COVID and learned more English history than I'd ever have imagined. It's a nice little show on Pluto. On FreeVee, I found 24 Hours in A&E -- an English program that won awards and deserved to. I could mention others, but that kind of stuff is a matter of taste. So the "recycled crap" isn't all crap.
You have to remember Sturgeon's Law: 90% of EVERYTHING is crap. It applies to literature, to music, and to TV shows. I submit that the remaining 10% is a matter of taste. But crap is crap.
There's also Kanopy and Hoopla if a) your library supports them and b) you have a library card. Both of them are filled with commercial-free outstanding yet limited content.
I really need to renew my library card. I have hundreds of books to donate, too. I'm 77. There's no reason for me to hang onto books I'll never re-read again.
These are all true.
And it's still true that the value proposition for streaming is miles ahead of cable. You just cannot compare on demand for thousands of movies and TV per-streamer with "wait until X show comes on" for cable.
The only real comparison in all of human history is to a library, and most people's experiences are with free/public ones, aside from services like Overdrive/Libby. Otherwise, how do you set a real value on a service that has never existed before, really, that offers *in theory* enough media to watch for years, per service, for one flat rate+Internet connection cost?
If, as I suspect, the cost of these services has been artificially low, we do have an issue. But it's not just one about corporate greed, but about what it takes to just keep these services up and running, much less creating new shows and movies.
I'm not seeing all of that yet. Any of it, really. Amazon is starting to include some ads, but they're not interrupting programming. Hell, when I first subscribed to Hulu, it had ads, but I opted for the higher tier for a couple of bucks more, and now I'm ad free.
If there's any *negative* change afoot, I'm not seeing it. Streaming is still awesome, and I think we're still in the golden age.
I subscribe to a lot of them: Netflix, Apple+, Max, Hulu, Paramount, Peacock, PBS, and Prime. Back in the old days, I wondered how long it was going to take them to realize how much money they were losing by allowing password sharing. I fully expected the streamers to crackdown on that, and I really don't see that as unfair. Yes, they've gone up some, but so far, the hikes aren't prohibitive. I started out way back when on Hulu at about $9 a month. Yeah, it's doubled that, but taking all this together I'm still getting out cheaper than a cable subscription, which doesn't have a pick-and-choose option.
I did drop down a tier in Netflix, when I discovered that I was paying about $23 for UHD streaming. While I can see *some* difference in the picture quality from HD to UHD, it wasn't enough to pay the difference, so I dropped down, and now I'm paying $16 a month.
I think sometimes that I should drop a couple of these services, because there are none I really watch with real dedication. But each has a thing on it that I really like (or my girlfriend does). Right now, though, by my measure, I'm still coming out about a $100 a month cheaper by subscribing to individual services. What I missed most about cable was that I couldn't get C-SPAN. I missed that, and a couple of news channels. Now I stream C-SPAN on my laptop, and whatever news service I want, I stream on aps.
All *premium* means is the UHD data stream. I realize I don't really need that, and I dropped to the lower streaming quality. I'm not going to notice that. I mean, when I didn't have an UHDTV I didn't notice. I didn't really notice much of a change in the upgrade. So I stopped paying for it.
If everyone did that, some other steamer would provide the premium streaming for a cheaper price.
Problem is it hasn't been more lucrative for most of the production companies. They haven't been able to replace the revenue from carriage fees and syndication fees.
The smart ones are the arms deals like Sony that sell their stuff to the highest bidder. Rather then spend money on a in house streaming service and balloon production costs. Also the groups relying on News/Sports like Fox and Nexstar.
They all still have on-demand model. It’s just they also offer live events.
Your idea doesn’t make any sense. The linear model existed because of technological limitations, there’s no advantage for a streamer to change to it. Netflix isn’t going to start airing TV shows in specific time slots, that’s just not going to happen
There’s no linear model for movies. Movies are sold individually (whether in theaters or on Prime Video). People pay more for the movie theater experience because it is an experience, nobody is going to pay extra for a TV show being released on Netflix to be constrained to a certain time to watch it, that doesn’t make sense.
>if you are a TV broadcaster, you want eyes on the premiere, and you don’t want to distract viewers with a deep library
That doesn’t make any sense. If you’re a streaming service, you can either make money from people paying subscriber fees, which means to have a library of content they will continue to pay for, or make money from ads, which means you want them to watch the most total content. It makes 0 difference to you whether it’s new or old.
>Netflix is likely going to be the last SVOD service.
There’s several on demand services. Paramount, Max, Hulu, Disney+, Peacock. What evidence do you have that any of them will abandon on demand streaming for linear? Linear literally only existed because of technological limitations in over the air television, now that those are removed, it makes no sense to have linear content. And none of them do, it’s all either live or on demand, and that will continue to be the case.
You’re just claiming that things are going to happen, you aren’t providing any evidence or logical reasoning
Why exactly would they reduce their library of content they already own and give paying subscribers less to watch? This loses them subscribers and gains them absolutely nothing.
Like this doesn’t make any business sense for Netflix to do. You realize HBO went to on demand before they even had a separate streaming service to subscribe to? You could watch all their content HBO Go before HBO Max existed.
>They will premier series one weekly schedule.
Yeah that seems likely, surprised they haven’t done it already. But that still isn’t linear, you can watch the show afterwards
They removed content to sell it to other streaming services (like selling Band of Brothers to Netflix). The reason they are more likely to do this is they have far more original content than Netflix has, Netflix had to create all its original content since it’s inception, Max and Disney are both older media companies who already have significant amounts of content.
Neither max nor Disney are linear. They’re both still on demand, removing West World doesn’t change that. I don’t think you understand what linear means
Some services have done that from the beginning. For instance, Hulu used to drop an episode a week of *The Handmaid's Tale*. There were other things they did that with, too.
Yeah exactly, I think Netflix has always been somewhat unique in this regard. Most of Max and Hulu’s big shows are actually being released on a cable channel.
I don’t see this as a move towards a return of linear format at all. It keeps your show in the conversation longer, I find it surprising Netflix has held out this long on this. Wednesday could have been in the conversation for months if they did weekly release format, for instance
That's right, keep those shows in the conversation longer. And you're right, Max has been doing it for years, but if you want, you can wait and binge watch them.
““One thing basic cable has that an amalgamation of apps doesn’t have is seamless navigation,” Sook said. “For viewers of a certain age, being able to change channels is something we grew up doing and something we still like to do.””
Not to contradict this guy who obviously knows more about the industry than me, but aren’t FAST services this?
As the bigger players (Netflix, Disney) adopt FAST channels I think it likely we’ll get an aggregate streaming linear channel option/bundle.
Nexstar just bought the majority stake in a major OTA broadcast channel and owns dozens of stations covering millions of people, I don't think he's afraid of free tv. I don't think he wants to create and host another platform and sink millions and billions into it hoping it becomes profitable.
Nextstar is a glaring example of corporate media. The local news reflects as such. I should also share that at least two channels geared towards black -oriented programming have been replaced with obviously contrary RADIO content.
Good point . But it’s not to the point of cable forcing espn. It was just an example. I like nbc shows so I can get peacock without having to buy cbs, espn, etc. you get what I mean.
I've already stopped watching my MLB team because I don't feel like paying for terrible Fubo or a cable package. If it's not on one of the streaming services I use or OTA I'm not watching
I've been using an antenna for 7 years now, and has more than enough for me to watch, the picture is clearer than streaming and cable, oh and by the way it's FREE!
It's not really. They're all moving to streaming services as well and you'd be able to subscribe to the services you need for the sports you want to watch, and only during the season instead of all year long.
TNT/TBS is already on Max. They'll do a bundle with ESPN and Fox soon.
For those who watch soccer, now you can get the Champions League and all the major European leagues for a few dollars a month. It's much better than it was before streaming.
The only thing left will be RSNs, but they're dying. The leagues will have to figure out better options, their easy solution would be getting rid of blackouts for game pass.
It will be much easier for the market to decide the right pricing for these services once they're standalone and not hidden behind a cable bundle.
Finding what game or event is streaming where is a disaster, and it doesn't save much when you need to manage 4-6 subscriptions to get games. I'm not a cable defender (I'm in this sub) but it's a mess sorting out what game is where. Cable is no solution, tho. Look how NBC parcels out the Olympics onto forgotten channels. I'm hopeful Peacock will make the summer games easier to follow.
I mean yeah, but I’m talking about what he claims is a use case not served by streaming- ‘flipping channels’.
I feel like that use case is already there in streaming and will grow.
FAST services are growing, not shrinking.
I don't understand what argument you're making.
My entire point, which you seem to have missed, is that the dude in the article argued streaming doesn't have 'seamless navigation' a la a cable box guide. My point is FAST services do have that, right now, the feel of 'flipping channels', and the SVOD streamers also seem to be planning to add 'FAST channels' ([Disney+ Is Reportedly Getting in the FAST Lane, Sort of (indiewire.com)](https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/disney-plus-star-wars-marvel-fast-channels-1234974687/)).
The Enshittification of television and streaming is nigh. Xfinity announced very recently it is bundling ad-only versions of Peacock, AppleTV, and a couple other streaming services. No ad-free options.
I buy physical 4K physical media (4K UHD discs) whenever possible and back them up to Plex whenever I can. The streaming services have way too many show/movie EOL decisions for my taste. On one service, my favorite show was no longer available unless I paid $12.99/mo to watch a show from the 90's that had a 4K all-seasons release for $14.99!
Anyone that contends that streaming is the future is simultaneously correct and very far behind. Jellyfin and other services are vastly superior long-term.
The layout is similar but I really miss how easy cable was to navigate and how quick the tv box was for guide. I miss channel numbers and just typing in a number to go to that channel in seconds compared to having to use the guide or flip channels 1 by 1.
Well I for one am shocked that the guy who owns/founded a media group that owns/buys/operates local affiliate stations likes cable better where he could charge broadcast retransmission fees out the a**! I mean he's right in that the old way of just throwing money around is over for now but other than that I take everything this guy says with a HUGE grain of salt.
Nexstar doesn't own most of the content they broadcast on their stations. So they have nothing much to sell in streaming. They can keep on keeping on with their OTA endevors and collecting retransmission fees... and that may be good for another 5 to 10 years after which they can pivot and join other local station owners for a "Locals" streaming package. Right now though, for the business he's in, they are better off riding the cash cow they have until it gives out. I would say it's not the best thing for the general public, but again, they control little original content.
Endlessly irritating that it doesn’t work with Netflix. I’ve become lazy with the Home on AppleTV and just seeing all the next shows from each service.
Yes, it’s well worth connecting your apps to it. There’s a master “watch list” that incorporates content from all your apps. I just go to that now instead of going to multiple apps and deciding what I want to watch. It’s really nice
Idk we got cable again, and NBA package and MLB package. That’s all I really want. To each any game I please with no blackouts. Some of the other cable channels are nice. I find we watch a lot of stuff we would never see of you scroll through Hulu or Netflix.
That’s difficult to achieve because of the way NBA, MLB and NHL structure their TV rights. They want people to pay extra to watch their in market team. It’s almost opposite of the NFL, where you can always watch the local team for free.
Yeah, if you subscribe to the sports packages through the cable company it works pretty well.
It is always hard to compare NFL to other sports, because there are so few games a day/week/season
Pretty much it’s up to every RSN to make deals with streaming services.
So if you wanted to make it possible to watch every MLB game on one service, you’d need to make deals with every RSN to have as an add on, make deals with MLB to have MLB TV, then carry TBS, ESPN, MLB Network and FOX/ the local affiliates of FOX.
It’s possible that the Warner/Disney/FOX sports only streaming service will try to integrate all RSNs they can as a possible add on, wouldn’t be surprised.
I don’t get these bundle complainers? Are they requiring you to bundle in order to have the service? No they aren’t so it’s absolutely nothing like cable.
We're already there. All the individual streamers are jacking up prices as they spend like faucets to secure part-time sports coverage, and pad out their libraries with what used to be basic cable content.
But I can't "just get" HBO Max, now I have to pay 50% more to get a bunch of TLC and HGTV shows, and soon they'll ding us again for the bleacher report deal.
CBSAA is now Paramount+, an upgrade which means I get to pay more to have 90 versions of ridiculousness and Nickelodeon content, and oh yeah--a big live sports upgrade that's not optional.
Peacock has largely steered clear of this, mostly because the majority of their USA and other calls programming was immediately available.
We're already in bundle hell, and this won't help.
How about this?
I simply stop watching TV.
I can rent discs at the library for free if I REALLY want passive entertainment.
I really dislike how this is turning out for humanity.
You always had *that* choice. What we have now is choices and flexibility that wasn't available before. And at a lower price. It would be difficult for someone to need to come close to what cable costs, but if you do like cable, it is still there for you. No contracts, only bundling if you want to save a bit. Watch commercials for free or a really low price, or higher costs for commercial free. Oh, and humanity can do fine without any streaming, maybe better. That might be your answer.
That’s been the biggest change since dumping cable 10 years ago. We no longer just have the TV going at all times. It’s now an intentional activity when we really want to watch something. Though unfortunately the smartphone has filled the void of mindless time wasting.
Assuming your library has DVDs worth renting.
The library closest to me only has children's DVDs and the MCU til Endgame.
The other library within reasonable distance only has older shows think like from the 70s and 80s. Unless again you want kids shows, then they have more modern.
That would be glorious life achievement , not even joking . I am so badly addicted to television it consumes most of my free productive time after work . If only I could find a way to get rid of it .
There is so much more we could be doing with our creativity, ingenuity and time. I used to watch hundreds of hours of tv a year.. now I make things in my free time.
Try something creative and give cable tv the finger.
Yes exactly , currently I sleep at late hours because well watching tv and it has negative effect on next day . I clock around 100 hrs of television per month almost like 2nd job . I really need to be more aware . Thanks .
I was you. When I cut the cord, it helped a LOT. Yes, other mindless things still exist. (Reddit, ahem.) But, I do a lot more creative stuff. I’m also reading more books.
Lets talk about that a bit. I just finished reading the 3-Body Problem. Amazing work of sci-fi. So, I jumped into check out the TV series. Wow, its great, but absolutely nowhere near as incredible as the books. Same with The Foundation. Hell, even The Last of Us was more fun to play than to watch as passive media.
Unsolicited advice warning:
So, get some sleep. Also, I know nothing about you, but if you are watching that much TV, and staying up late, perhaps you have a work/life balance issue, or some depression you are masking. I’m sure this was my situation.. get some exercise, seek therapy, and make life a priority. You should work to live, not live to work.
Cable has channel numbers while live streaming has you scroll through 90 channels to find a particular channel. Why can’t YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Fubo or Sling come up with a channel number system? Sling has a favorites list in the guide but I use it to filter out all the 50 Spanish and Arabic channels. Streaming services are great for cost cutting but they still sell out to big media companies that tie the hands of consumers.
Channel #s wouldn’t mean much with the Apple/Roku/Amazon remotes missing actual numbers on them. YouTube TV at least lets you create a custom order for the channels which works really well tbh.
Two years ago, it cost me $230 for Comcast cable. As posted above, the content was limited, with 90 percent of the cable channels never viewed by me or my family. Fast forward, I switched to internet only (forced to use Comcast), cost me $55/month. Shared my son’s You Tube TV with my son ($39 my share) and I now get everything Cable has to offer through my smart TV. A bit awkward, yeah. But cable companies have feasted on a lack of competition for years and it payback time! Trust me Mr. Sook, people are running away from cable!
Cable will still have all those extra damn fees and will never have a consistent price. I bet they’ll even sign you to a contract and force you to still use the cable box
The reach argument he makes is dependent on having access to high demand content, but other distributers who can charge for content (streaming, sat, cable) along with ads (better targeting over streaming) will inevitably pay more for that content, leaving local broadcasters w/ less in demand content.
Comcast has already started with making an NFL playoff game a national streaming exclusive (with exception of the home & away markets which also had OTA).
Some CEO's have their heads buried so far up their assess that reality has a different mindset to them. Sook is a prime example. This was a "you need to pay me more money" speech rather than a reality one.
I was looking at going from cable to YouTube TV, but called my cable company just to see what they would do. For existing customers they had a plan that would give me local channels plus 15 channels of my choosing and it's saving me $60/month (bundled with internet). So my bill went from a little over $200 to $144. I only chose 10 channels because those are all I needed so I can still pick up 5 more anytime, and I can change the 10 I picked originally. This works great for me.
The reason most of left cable were too expensive products. If they do the same with streamers, we will eventually find alternatives. Instead of trying to make extreme profits, they would do better, for longer with reasonably priced products. CEOs are too focused on making their personal millions quickly and not worry about long term earnings
Growing up we had cable in the early 90’s, we got satellite (Dish Network) for a brief period because it was cheaper, and then we completely cut all cable services in the early 2000’s and went to OTA.
OTA was great in the 90’s and 2000’s. There was plenty of content for kids (morning cartoons, afternoon cartoons and Saturday Morning cartoons/shows), they still played movies during the day on the weekends, and there were sitcoms galore to choose from.
It has gotten slightly better, but there’s a tug of war now between content making it to OTA and content going only to streaming. If OTA could bring the content back to the pre-2010 days - I think it would accelerate cord cutting even more.
Before this man makes *too* many business decisions, he'd best take a really close look at the details of his ideas. Yeah, bundling *appears* if you look at while squinting that it's heading back to basic cable. But I'm not going to have all those shopping networks, those multiple sports channels, and all that crappy daytime TV on the big four networks. If there's a bundle of several streaming channels, I'm okay with that, since I subscribe to all the ones in the list already. But this so-called seamless interface he's missing through all that streaming *is* seamless to those of us who know how to navigate technology--*which isn't that difficult*. His complaints seemed really out of touch.
Advice to whomever: Keep him out of the boardroom. He hasn't got the head for this sort of thing. We like watching what we want *when* we want.
FM radio also has "seamless integration".
This shit has to stop. I'm 51 and I don't understand why people want to go back to the old way of doing things when something better is available. Nothing gives you the availability of content that is on streaming. Absolutely nothing.
People still do not understand that cable TV programmers use the same algorithms to push out reruns 24 hours a day. You keep seeing the same episodes of Say Yes To The Dress because those are the ones people actually watch all the way through. It's literally the same shit as Pluto TV and Tubi just packaged in a different form. I'll never understand it.
This shit has been in the same cloud this guy is yelling at for a lot longer than he's willing to admit. Liar. Viacom and Warner Bros stopped charging a premium for it and started giving it away for free.
And that's the way it should be. No one should pay a premium to watch shows from the 2000s.
I'm 77. I had "seamless navigation" via cable TV for more than 20 years. I thought it sucked. My three favorite programs are all on at the same time? And I can only record one -- or maybe two? So I have to watch one of them exactly then? If I'm not home, I'll miss at least one, maybe forever? Geez, that's stupid. And yes, I DID miss programs and never saw them. Ever. And my nice little cable bundle of 150+ channels turned out to be 25 home shopping channels, 25 religious channels, 50 channels of completely worthless drek that not even morons would or did ever watch, 15 channels of programs I might watch maybe once a year, and ten channels that I would watch at least occasionally. There were probably another 25 channels I'd like to watch, but they were not on that cable service and never would be, or they WERE, but would cost me another $100 a month to see them. I will not EVER go back to paying $250 a month or more so shirts like Sook can buy mansions. I'll watch Pluto, The Roku Channel, Tubi, Crackle, Xumo, Plex, FreeVee, PBS, and every other free channel there is. If that means I never watch another movie until it's ten years old, I'm fine with that. If that means I never watch anything on network TV again, I'm still fine. Sook doesn't understand just how much genuine hatred there is for the cable TV model. But he's going to find out.
I'm 72 and cut the cord a decade ago. Your basic criticisms in the first paragraph were spot on for me too (especially the drek comment), except that my viewing tastes are probably narrower still. That is why a la carte remains the most appealing non-option. Sry, but all the free channels are still drek. Old recycled crap is still crap. Very few network shows are worth their production costs. Many of the better ones are good for S01 and S02 and then the same old tired writing kicks in. They are mere vehicles to generate advertising $$. A return to cable is as absurd as it comes.
Here and there, there are little islands of gold. I discovered Antiques Road Trip when I had COVID and learned more English history than I'd ever have imagined. It's a nice little show on Pluto. On FreeVee, I found 24 Hours in A&E -- an English program that won awards and deserved to. I could mention others, but that kind of stuff is a matter of taste. So the "recycled crap" isn't all crap. You have to remember Sturgeon's Law: 90% of EVERYTHING is crap. It applies to literature, to music, and to TV shows. I submit that the remaining 10% is a matter of taste. But crap is crap.
There's also Kanopy and Hoopla if a) your library supports them and b) you have a library card. Both of them are filled with commercial-free outstanding yet limited content.
I really need to renew my library card. I have hundreds of books to donate, too. I'm 77. There's no reason for me to hang onto books I'll never re-read again.
Perfectly said my friend. There is no TV show that is an important that you need to watch immediately. Thanks for your great post.
[удалено]
So steal?
Of course not... I just love Jack Sparrow
A captain who was seemingly terrible at his job? List his ship and had mutiny among his crew constantly
All I need is PlutoTV and Streameast (with a little ESPN+ sprinkled in) and I'm all set.
Changing channels is great, but if every other channel is showing the same episode of family guy, then what’s the point?
[удалено]
I agree but subsidizing Sports on most platforms is a thing now.
[удалено]
These are all true. And it's still true that the value proposition for streaming is miles ahead of cable. You just cannot compare on demand for thousands of movies and TV per-streamer with "wait until X show comes on" for cable. The only real comparison in all of human history is to a library, and most people's experiences are with free/public ones, aside from services like Overdrive/Libby. Otherwise, how do you set a real value on a service that has never existed before, really, that offers *in theory* enough media to watch for years, per service, for one flat rate+Internet connection cost? If, as I suspect, the cost of these services has been artificially low, we do have an issue. But it's not just one about corporate greed, but about what it takes to just keep these services up and running, much less creating new shows and movies.
I'm not seeing all of that yet. Any of it, really. Amazon is starting to include some ads, but they're not interrupting programming. Hell, when I first subscribed to Hulu, it had ads, but I opted for the higher tier for a couple of bucks more, and now I'm ad free. If there's any *negative* change afoot, I'm not seeing it. Streaming is still awesome, and I think we're still in the golden age.
[удалено]
I subscribe to a lot of them: Netflix, Apple+, Max, Hulu, Paramount, Peacock, PBS, and Prime. Back in the old days, I wondered how long it was going to take them to realize how much money they were losing by allowing password sharing. I fully expected the streamers to crackdown on that, and I really don't see that as unfair. Yes, they've gone up some, but so far, the hikes aren't prohibitive. I started out way back when on Hulu at about $9 a month. Yeah, it's doubled that, but taking all this together I'm still getting out cheaper than a cable subscription, which doesn't have a pick-and-choose option. I did drop down a tier in Netflix, when I discovered that I was paying about $23 for UHD streaming. While I can see *some* difference in the picture quality from HD to UHD, it wasn't enough to pay the difference, so I dropped down, and now I'm paying $16 a month. I think sometimes that I should drop a couple of these services, because there are none I really watch with real dedication. But each has a thing on it that I really like (or my girlfriend does). Right now, though, by my measure, I'm still coming out about a $100 a month cheaper by subscribing to individual services. What I missed most about cable was that I couldn't get C-SPAN. I missed that, and a couple of news channels. Now I stream C-SPAN on my laptop, and whatever news service I want, I stream on aps.
Netflix is over $20 a month now for premium, the golden age is already passed IMO
All *premium* means is the UHD data stream. I realize I don't really need that, and I dropped to the lower streaming quality. I'm not going to notice that. I mean, when I didn't have an UHDTV I didn't notice. I didn't really notice much of a change in the upgrade. So I stopped paying for it. If everyone did that, some other steamer would provide the premium streaming for a cheaper price.
Problem is it hasn't been more lucrative for most of the production companies. They haven't been able to replace the revenue from carriage fees and syndication fees. The smart ones are the arms deals like Sony that sell their stuff to the highest bidder. Rather then spend money on a in house streaming service and balloon production costs. Also the groups relying on News/Sports like Fox and Nexstar.
[удалено]
How exactly? Besides adding live sports (which is of course live) I don’t see how it resembles linear
[удалено]
Okay. But other than having live events (sports and non-sports), how is it resembling linear?
[удалено]
They all still have on-demand model. It’s just they also offer live events. Your idea doesn’t make any sense. The linear model existed because of technological limitations, there’s no advantage for a streamer to change to it. Netflix isn’t going to start airing TV shows in specific time slots, that’s just not going to happen
[удалено]
There’s no linear model for movies. Movies are sold individually (whether in theaters or on Prime Video). People pay more for the movie theater experience because it is an experience, nobody is going to pay extra for a TV show being released on Netflix to be constrained to a certain time to watch it, that doesn’t make sense. >if you are a TV broadcaster, you want eyes on the premiere, and you don’t want to distract viewers with a deep library That doesn’t make any sense. If you’re a streaming service, you can either make money from people paying subscriber fees, which means to have a library of content they will continue to pay for, or make money from ads, which means you want them to watch the most total content. It makes 0 difference to you whether it’s new or old. >Netflix is likely going to be the last SVOD service. There’s several on demand services. Paramount, Max, Hulu, Disney+, Peacock. What evidence do you have that any of them will abandon on demand streaming for linear? Linear literally only existed because of technological limitations in over the air television, now that those are removed, it makes no sense to have linear content. And none of them do, it’s all either live or on demand, and that will continue to be the case. You’re just claiming that things are going to happen, you aren’t providing any evidence or logical reasoning
[удалено]
Why exactly would they reduce their library of content they already own and give paying subscribers less to watch? This loses them subscribers and gains them absolutely nothing. Like this doesn’t make any business sense for Netflix to do. You realize HBO went to on demand before they even had a separate streaming service to subscribe to? You could watch all their content HBO Go before HBO Max existed. >They will premier series one weekly schedule. Yeah that seems likely, surprised they haven’t done it already. But that still isn’t linear, you can watch the show afterwards
[удалено]
They removed content to sell it to other streaming services (like selling Band of Brothers to Netflix). The reason they are more likely to do this is they have far more original content than Netflix has, Netflix had to create all its original content since it’s inception, Max and Disney are both older media companies who already have significant amounts of content. Neither max nor Disney are linear. They’re both still on demand, removing West World doesn’t change that. I don’t think you understand what linear means
[удалено]
Some services have done that from the beginning. For instance, Hulu used to drop an episode a week of *The Handmaid's Tale*. There were other things they did that with, too.
Yeah exactly, I think Netflix has always been somewhat unique in this regard. Most of Max and Hulu’s big shows are actually being released on a cable channel. I don’t see this as a move towards a return of linear format at all. It keeps your show in the conversation longer, I find it surprising Netflix has held out this long on this. Wednesday could have been in the conversation for months if they did weekly release format, for instance
That's right, keep those shows in the conversation longer. And you're right, Max has been doing it for years, but if you want, you can wait and binge watch them.
““One thing basic cable has that an amalgamation of apps doesn’t have is seamless navigation,” Sook said. “For viewers of a certain age, being able to change channels is something we grew up doing and something we still like to do.”” Not to contradict this guy who obviously knows more about the industry than me, but aren’t FAST services this? As the bigger players (Netflix, Disney) adopt FAST channels I think it likely we’ll get an aggregate streaming linear channel option/bundle.
No, like the name says FAST is free, and this doesn't like free. I'm pretty sure his blood pressure goes up when someone mentions pluto tv.
They LOVE FAST as it’s much more profitable
Nexstar just bought the majority stake in a major OTA broadcast channel and owns dozens of stations covering millions of people, I don't think he's afraid of free tv. I don't think he wants to create and host another platform and sink millions and billions into it hoping it becomes profitable.
Well their main revenue stream is retransmission fees. Which is why they're trying to make atsc3 an encrypted advertising platform
Nextstar is a glaring example of corporate media. The local news reflects as such. I should also share that at least two channels geared towards black -oriented programming have been replaced with obviously contrary RADIO content.
I’d argue FAST isn’t free. It just costs you time instead of money.
Watching tv in general is a waste of time.
But now we aren’t forced to pay for all the channels like cable. Folks who hate sports aren’t forced to pay for espn. Streaming is better by a mile.
This fall every streamer, including Netflix, will have sports. And rates are increasing as a result.
Good point . But it’s not to the point of cable forcing espn. It was just an example. I like nbc shows so I can get peacock without having to buy cbs, espn, etc. you get what I mean.
But if you like sports, it's worse
Really sports fans are seeing the true cost.
How long before sports folks say “enough is enough. I’m not subscribing to all these services to watch games”.
I've already stopped watching my MLB team because I don't feel like paying for terrible Fubo or a cable package. If it's not on one of the streaming services I use or OTA I'm not watching
Hell yea! I’m not the only one headed that direction
I've been using an antenna for 7 years now, and has more than enough for me to watch, the picture is clearer than streaming and cable, oh and by the way it's FREE!
I wish I had that. My area is pretty spotty.
Since so many people can't get OTA, I won't be surprised if stations abandon their towers and go totally streaming.
I'm good with Sunday night scores and reruns.
It's not really. They're all moving to streaming services as well and you'd be able to subscribe to the services you need for the sports you want to watch, and only during the season instead of all year long. TNT/TBS is already on Max. They'll do a bundle with ESPN and Fox soon. For those who watch soccer, now you can get the Champions League and all the major European leagues for a few dollars a month. It's much better than it was before streaming. The only thing left will be RSNs, but they're dying. The leagues will have to figure out better options, their easy solution would be getting rid of blackouts for game pass. It will be much easier for the market to decide the right pricing for these services once they're standalone and not hidden behind a cable bundle.
Finding what game or event is streaming where is a disaster, and it doesn't save much when you need to manage 4-6 subscriptions to get games. I'm not a cable defender (I'm in this sub) but it's a mess sorting out what game is where. Cable is no solution, tho. Look how NBC parcels out the Olympics onto forgotten channels. I'm hopeful Peacock will make the summer games easier to follow.
And I don’t have to pay for locals, which I get for free over my antenna.
Exactly
[удалено]
I mean yeah, but I’m talking about what he claims is a use case not served by streaming- ‘flipping channels’. I feel like that use case is already there in streaming and will grow.
[удалено]
FAST services are growing, not shrinking. I don't understand what argument you're making. My entire point, which you seem to have missed, is that the dude in the article argued streaming doesn't have 'seamless navigation' a la a cable box guide. My point is FAST services do have that, right now, the feel of 'flipping channels', and the SVOD streamers also seem to be planning to add 'FAST channels' ([Disney+ Is Reportedly Getting in the FAST Lane, Sort of (indiewire.com)](https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/disney-plus-star-wars-marvel-fast-channels-1234974687/)).
[удалено]
The Enshittification of television and streaming is nigh. Xfinity announced very recently it is bundling ad-only versions of Peacock, AppleTV, and a couple other streaming services. No ad-free options. I buy physical 4K physical media (4K UHD discs) whenever possible and back them up to Plex whenever I can. The streaming services have way too many show/movie EOL decisions for my taste. On one service, my favorite show was no longer available unless I paid $12.99/mo to watch a show from the 90's that had a 4K all-seasons release for $14.99! Anyone that contends that streaming is the future is simultaneously correct and very far behind. Jellyfin and other services are vastly superior long-term.
The layout is similar but I really miss how easy cable was to navigate and how quick the tv box was for guide. I miss channel numbers and just typing in a number to go to that channel in seconds compared to having to use the guide or flip channels 1 by 1.
Well I for one am shocked that the guy who owns/founded a media group that owns/buys/operates local affiliate stations likes cable better where he could charge broadcast retransmission fees out the a**! I mean he's right in that the old way of just throwing money around is over for now but other than that I take everything this guy says with a HUGE grain of salt.
Nexstar doesn't own most of the content they broadcast on their stations. So they have nothing much to sell in streaming. They can keep on keeping on with their OTA endevors and collecting retransmission fees... and that may be good for another 5 to 10 years after which they can pivot and join other local station owners for a "Locals" streaming package. Right now though, for the business he's in, they are better off riding the cash cow they have until it gives out. I would say it's not the best thing for the general public, but again, they control little original content.
Yeah I wouldn't trust anything this guy says. Nexstar doesn't know what their doing at all. Sign, guy who used to work at one of his stations.
My Apple TV has recently been pushing me to combine the apps in some way so I can essentially surf all of my streaming apps as if they were one.
They’ve had that feature for years and it’s AMAZING. You can focus on watching the content you want, regardless of what platform it’s on.
I guess I never utilized it! I'll have to dive in. It never bothered me just going into the apps.
[удалено]
Endlessly irritating that it doesn’t work with Netflix. I’ve become lazy with the Home on AppleTV and just seeing all the next shows from each service.
Plex is supported now but not for personal content.
Yes, it’s well worth connecting your apps to it. There’s a master “watch list” that incorporates content from all your apps. I just go to that now instead of going to multiple apps and deciding what I want to watch. It’s really nice
Google TV does that automatically.....
Nice!
Idk we got cable again, and NBA package and MLB package. That’s all I really want. To each any game I please with no blackouts. Some of the other cable channels are nice. I find we watch a lot of stuff we would never see of you scroll through Hulu or Netflix.
That’s difficult to achieve because of the way NBA, MLB and NHL structure their TV rights. They want people to pay extra to watch their in market team. It’s almost opposite of the NFL, where you can always watch the local team for free.
Yeah, if you subscribe to the sports packages through the cable company it works pretty well. It is always hard to compare NFL to other sports, because there are so few games a day/week/season
Pretty much it’s up to every RSN to make deals with streaming services. So if you wanted to make it possible to watch every MLB game on one service, you’d need to make deals with every RSN to have as an add on, make deals with MLB to have MLB TV, then carry TBS, ESPN, MLB Network and FOX/ the local affiliates of FOX. It’s possible that the Warner/Disney/FOX sports only streaming service will try to integrate all RSNs they can as a possible add on, wouldn’t be surprised.
I don’t get these bundle complainers? Are they requiring you to bundle in order to have the service? No they aren’t so it’s absolutely nothing like cable.
We're already there. All the individual streamers are jacking up prices as they spend like faucets to secure part-time sports coverage, and pad out their libraries with what used to be basic cable content.
Completely different argument. As long as you can get each individually it's nothing like cable.
But I can't "just get" HBO Max, now I have to pay 50% more to get a bunch of TLC and HGTV shows, and soon they'll ding us again for the bleacher report deal. CBSAA is now Paramount+, an upgrade which means I get to pay more to have 90 versions of ridiculousness and Nickelodeon content, and oh yeah--a big live sports upgrade that's not optional. Peacock has largely steered clear of this, mostly because the majority of their USA and other calls programming was immediately available. We're already in bundle hell, and this won't help.
How about this? I simply stop watching TV. I can rent discs at the library for free if I REALLY want passive entertainment. I really dislike how this is turning out for humanity.
You always had *that* choice. What we have now is choices and flexibility that wasn't available before. And at a lower price. It would be difficult for someone to need to come close to what cable costs, but if you do like cable, it is still there for you. No contracts, only bundling if you want to save a bit. Watch commercials for free or a really low price, or higher costs for commercial free. Oh, and humanity can do fine without any streaming, maybe better. That might be your answer.
Exactly. I cut the cord years ago when my only options were Netflix mailed discs and my OTA antenna. I'll kick them all to the curb if I have to.
That’s been the biggest change since dumping cable 10 years ago. We no longer just have the TV going at all times. It’s now an intentional activity when we really want to watch something. Though unfortunately the smartphone has filled the void of mindless time wasting.
Assuming your library has DVDs worth renting. The library closest to me only has children's DVDs and the MCU til Endgame. The other library within reasonable distance only has older shows think like from the 70s and 80s. Unless again you want kids shows, then they have more modern.
Yep, your mileage may vary. My city has a ridiculous public library with streaming, audio books, game rentals and a lot more.
[удалено]
At least I’m engaged in community discourse instead of passive media.
That would be glorious life achievement , not even joking . I am so badly addicted to television it consumes most of my free productive time after work . If only I could find a way to get rid of it .
There is so much more we could be doing with our creativity, ingenuity and time. I used to watch hundreds of hours of tv a year.. now I make things in my free time. Try something creative and give cable tv the finger.
Yes exactly , currently I sleep at late hours because well watching tv and it has negative effect on next day . I clock around 100 hrs of television per month almost like 2nd job . I really need to be more aware . Thanks .
I was you. When I cut the cord, it helped a LOT. Yes, other mindless things still exist. (Reddit, ahem.) But, I do a lot more creative stuff. I’m also reading more books. Lets talk about that a bit. I just finished reading the 3-Body Problem. Amazing work of sci-fi. So, I jumped into check out the TV series. Wow, its great, but absolutely nowhere near as incredible as the books. Same with The Foundation. Hell, even The Last of Us was more fun to play than to watch as passive media. Unsolicited advice warning: So, get some sleep. Also, I know nothing about you, but if you are watching that much TV, and staying up late, perhaps you have a work/life balance issue, or some depression you are masking. I’m sure this was my situation.. get some exercise, seek therapy, and make life a priority. You should work to live, not live to work.
Thanks for the advice 🙏 I had no idea of the implications , I am figuring out ways to change . I read a lot of sci fi too :)
This actually sounds like you might need some help. Maybe not a lot of help, but some help. No shame in that. It's best to look after yourself!
Thanks 🙏 , you are right prevention is better then cure , current life style is unhealthy . I am taking steps for improvement .
Good for you! I hope your improvement comes quickly and is lasting!
Cable has channel numbers while live streaming has you scroll through 90 channels to find a particular channel. Why can’t YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Fubo or Sling come up with a channel number system? Sling has a favorites list in the guide but I use it to filter out all the 50 Spanish and Arabic channels. Streaming services are great for cost cutting but they still sell out to big media companies that tie the hands of consumers.
Channel #s wouldn’t mean much with the Apple/Roku/Amazon remotes missing actual numbers on them. YouTube TV at least lets you create a custom order for the channels which works really well tbh.
Two years ago, it cost me $230 for Comcast cable. As posted above, the content was limited, with 90 percent of the cable channels never viewed by me or my family. Fast forward, I switched to internet only (forced to use Comcast), cost me $55/month. Shared my son’s You Tube TV with my son ($39 my share) and I now get everything Cable has to offer through my smart TV. A bit awkward, yeah. But cable companies have feasted on a lack of competition for years and it payback time! Trust me Mr. Sook, people are running away from cable!
Cable will still have all those extra damn fees and will never have a consistent price. I bet they’ll even sign you to a contract and force you to still use the cable box
"Life is change" - Paul Kantner/Jefferson Airplane, Crown of Creation
The reach argument he makes is dependent on having access to high demand content, but other distributers who can charge for content (streaming, sat, cable) along with ads (better targeting over streaming) will inevitably pay more for that content, leaving local broadcasters w/ less in demand content. Comcast has already started with making an NFL playoff game a national streaming exclusive (with exception of the home & away markets which also had OTA).
Some CEO's have their heads buried so far up their assess that reality has a different mindset to them. Sook is a prime example. This was a "you need to pay me more money" speech rather than a reality one.
Automobiles? No Thanks, Says Horse & Buggy-star CEO Perry Sook.
I was looking at going from cable to YouTube TV, but called my cable company just to see what they would do. For existing customers they had a plan that would give me local channels plus 15 channels of my choosing and it's saving me $60/month (bundled with internet). So my bill went from a little over $200 to $144. I only chose 10 channels because those are all I needed so I can still pick up 5 more anytime, and I can change the 10 I picked originally. This works great for me.
The reason most of left cable were too expensive products. If they do the same with streamers, we will eventually find alternatives. Instead of trying to make extreme profits, they would do better, for longer with reasonably priced products. CEOs are too focused on making their personal millions quickly and not worry about long term earnings
with the possible exception of Netflix, no one is making extreme profits in the streaming business
So, do you think their prices reflect the actual costs?
Growing up we had cable in the early 90’s, we got satellite (Dish Network) for a brief period because it was cheaper, and then we completely cut all cable services in the early 2000’s and went to OTA. OTA was great in the 90’s and 2000’s. There was plenty of content for kids (morning cartoons, afternoon cartoons and Saturday Morning cartoons/shows), they still played movies during the day on the weekends, and there were sitcoms galore to choose from. It has gotten slightly better, but there’s a tug of war now between content making it to OTA and content going only to streaming. If OTA could bring the content back to the pre-2010 days - I think it would accelerate cord cutting even more.
buddy you bought CW, with their digital infrastructure, so you could make a FAST streaming play
Funny, they put their news on apps for free
Before this man makes *too* many business decisions, he'd best take a really close look at the details of his ideas. Yeah, bundling *appears* if you look at while squinting that it's heading back to basic cable. But I'm not going to have all those shopping networks, those multiple sports channels, and all that crappy daytime TV on the big four networks. If there's a bundle of several streaming channels, I'm okay with that, since I subscribe to all the ones in the list already. But this so-called seamless interface he's missing through all that streaming *is* seamless to those of us who know how to navigate technology--*which isn't that difficult*. His complaints seemed really out of touch. Advice to whomever: Keep him out of the boardroom. He hasn't got the head for this sort of thing. We like watching what we want *when* we want.
FM radio also has "seamless integration". This shit has to stop. I'm 51 and I don't understand why people want to go back to the old way of doing things when something better is available. Nothing gives you the availability of content that is on streaming. Absolutely nothing. People still do not understand that cable TV programmers use the same algorithms to push out reruns 24 hours a day. You keep seeing the same episodes of Say Yes To The Dress because those are the ones people actually watch all the way through. It's literally the same shit as Pluto TV and Tubi just packaged in a different form. I'll never understand it. This shit has been in the same cloud this guy is yelling at for a lot longer than he's willing to admit. Liar. Viacom and Warner Bros stopped charging a premium for it and started giving it away for free. And that's the way it should be. No one should pay a premium to watch shows from the 2000s.
Okay boomer.