Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is Streaming just becoming a more interactive Cable?
Streaming is so pointless now. I dont even know what the original purpose was besides watching it on computers. By watching via computer, the interface is more interactive than traditional cable. That was only advantage.
It started with the Netflix website, then Amazon jumped in. Actually I think Hulu was first offering movies via the interweb. But now even the networks, and cable channels have jumped in on the action. CBS, CW, HBO, Fox, Disney/ABC.
Cutting the cord is not even viable saying anymore.
How so bra? There is like 60 or so streaming channels. That is like basic cable in the 90s. You pay separately for each, so total it becomes as expensive as cable. Ok minus the commercials. But that just means, streaming channels have very short seasons.
How so bra? There is like 60 or so streaming channels. That is like basic cable in the 90s. You pay separately for each, so total it becomes as expensive as cable. Ok minus the commercials. But that just means, streaming channels have very short seasons.
I pay nowhere near the say. Comcast and Uverse offer intro packages to "new subscribers" like 200 channels for $69 but then add in lots of various fees for local channels, regional sports fees, taxes, converter boxes, etc. so it ends up being almost $100. Then your intro ends and you're at $150 or so and they won't give you the intro rate they will give to your neighbor.
My wife insists on Hulu Live even though we have an attic antenna and get most local OTA channels so that's $60. Netflix is another $15 but I get multiple logins and my kids living with their mom use it all the time. And there is Prime which I would be a member just for the shipping since we buy so much online. Even if I counted it all, which isn't really fair, it's less than $100. And it's not a promo rate either.
Not only is it cheaper but it doesn't require term subscriptions. I could drop a provider in an instant and restart at another instant. Changing between Uverse and Comcast would be a major disruption, taking weeks and requiring new equipment.
Hulu has a bit over 60 "channels" but there are hundreds of movies and series with each provider. In the end, we watch content not channels. We didn't used to watch CBS because it was CBS, we watched a show that happened to be on CBS. Streaming is content based. It isn't about "channels", that's a cable construct that providers like Hulu layer on top to satisfy those who can't fully transition. And all of that non-channel content is what cable used to offer as premium on-demand content for a fee. I can also take it with me on the road.
Not sure what you mean by "short seasons". You mean it takes less time to watch a show without the filler commercials, where an hour long prime-time tv show is really just 45 minutes of the actual show? I see that as a good thing.
How so bra? There is like 60 or so streaming channels. That is like basic cable in the 90s. You pay separately for each, so total it becomes as expensive as cable. Ok minus the commercials. But that just means, streaming channels have very short seasons.
Because I watch what I want when I want. I can watch x episodes in a row if I want. No commercials.
How so bra? There is like 60 or so streaming channels. That is like basic cable in the 90s. You pay separately for each, so total it becomes as expensive as cable. Ok minus the commercials. But that just means, streaming channels have very short seasons.
That’s not true at all. The streaming services provide shows from various channels. You might not be able to see the newest shows, but there is content from many different channels. They all tend to have original content, but then license content from other channels.
There are no commercials or only one or two at the beginning of the show instead of having to waste 20 minutes of a 60-minute show watching commercials. Streaming shows also have shorter seasons because the shows aren’t designed to come out on the schedule that used to go with standard TV with shows starting around Sept/Oct and ending in May. A lot of the episodes themselves are no different in length than standard episodes, but they can extend one or make it a bit shorter if the plot for that episode demands it. That isn’t really possible with broadcast TV since it has to fit the commercials.
Quote:
"Streaming services are beginning to look like cable companies, that fact is undeniable. They’re adopting practices that are similar to bundles, and they’re fragmenting into channel-esque services that offer their exclusive content for $15 a month. Some streaming services are operated by or being purchased by the same corporations that run the cable companies, and most online live TV services are just a wolf in sheep’s clothes.
This isn’t happening because streaming services are competing with cable TV. Streaming is the future. This is happening because streaming services and television networks are competing with one another inside of a decentralized, unsustainable business model. They have to bid for shows that could eventually be pulled from their service by a competitor. They need to offer a lot of good content to be successful. They don’t have contracts or week-by-week shows, so subscribers can leave at any time.
This competition is pushing streaming services to focus on exclusive content, and turning on-demand streaming into a new iteration of television channels. And since on-demand streaming services haven’t found a way to accommodate for live news and sports, cable companies are diving headfirst into the live TV streaming market. They’re preventing the live TV format from evolving the way that serialized TV has evolved, and they’re laughing their way to the bank because their customers think that they’ve finally escaped cable."
Quote:
"One Day at a Time’s demise is just the latest example of a new business reality in the streaming era: If a streaming service doesn’t own the TV shows it airs, those shows have to be massive hits to justify the expense of licensing them. One Day at a Time was produced by Sony Pictures Television, not Netflix. Sony is subsequently hoping to sell the series elsewhere, which has led to the very backward scenario of One Day at a Time fans like famous person Lin-Manuel Miranda hoping for a broadcast network to pick up a show that Netflix canceled. Topsy-turvy!
But this is just a sign of the times. The streaming revolution, which promised to break down lots of barriers in the TV industry, is beginning to morph into something else. And what it’s morphing into looks a lot more like ... traditional television."
Pure nonsense. This article is so wrong it's pathetic. For example, it says "And since on-demand streaming services haven’t found a way to accommodate for live news and sports". Huh? Tell that to Hulu or Sling. We have Hulu Live with more major news channels and regional sports channels than we could get with cable.
"Some streaming services are operated by or being purchased by the same corporations that run the cable companies". Name one. And not some minor streaming channel created by a cable company or TV network to get into the streaming game.
" if on-demand streaming services continue to fragment into expensive little websites, then it may be cheaper to subscribe to a live TV streaming service that shows content from a variety of networks".
Streaming was always "fragmented", that's the whole point. It is like the internet, it's a platform that anyone can create and host their streaming service. Someone may create a new service giving you an additional option but no existing services has "fragmented".
"They’re adopting practices that are similar to bundles, and they’re fragmenting into channel-esque services that offer their exclusive content for $15 a month. ". Not one example given of a major streaming provider that has "fragmented" into bundled services (quite an oxymoron)... because there isn't any. Sling alawys had an Orange and a Blue package. Netflix and Amazon are doing what they have always done, except for offering more original content. Something which cable companies never used to do.
I've had roku for a couple years now. I've put around 60 channels on it and haven't had any I'VE paid for until my wife told me to get Discovery+ for a birthday present from her. I got the $6.99/month deal so it's commercial free. I do have Netflix, Hulu and Disney+, but using other family members' log in info. But I like reruns of some of the old, old shows. Have watched the first seasons of "Car 54, Where Are You?", Dragnet (first season on TV after switching from radio), some of the first season of Bonanza, and I could go on and on. I let my wife rule the remote for the den TV, where she has to live just about 24/7 for health problems and we watch just about the same shows on cable every day.
But what I do like about roku is when I miss one of my "shows" some night, I can go back the next night on roku and watch it.
Best $29.95 I've spent in a while.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
