People need to find something better to do than sitting and watching TV.
Bingo! I’m way more heavily vested in podcasts, Apple News+, Reddit/Discord/Family/(I work from home, am riddled with chronic illnesses, and have no social life so talk to my animals) for something social (besides these fun forums), ebooks and video games. (That’s quite a bit more than I was thinking it’d be.)
Like many others have mentioned here, my cable provider (also my ISP) is offering the best option: $40/month for locals and many (uneeded) channels Plus HBO, Showtime, etc. And the price is guaranteed for the next two years. Hopefully there'll more options back on the market by then.
People need to find something better to do than sitting and watching TV.
Ya know, this is actually a deeper point than it appears. I've discovered just how vapid "watching TV" really is. Very, very occasionally, I will find something of interest to "watch" on TV. And by watch, I mean "pay attention" or "make a priority." I can't watch the news anymore. Our local "news" station, no kidding, has a segment where a talking pretty face *reviews on screen what people are talking about on Facebook.* Gads.
Sports have become an exercise in futility. An NFL game takes 4 fucking hours. And then the games are decided by refs that suck following a rule book firmly rooted in the 1950s.
"Shows" are designed for shock value to keep telling the same old stories with an intent to sell more ads when you "tune in next week." Just awful. Now and then I try something to entertain, then at the end of an hour of my life I'm not getting back, realizing 20 minutes of it was ads, I really resent the investment I made. It just isn't entertaining.
If I want to watch a movie, I have a great public library. Free. That's about the right price.
Interesting how many different needs people have when it comes to TV. I cut the cord 18 months ago and just watch Netflix and iTunes. Been happy since then, and I went from $120/month to about $20/month.
That's what happens when you start to compete with your content providers.
Apple's board should stop AppleTV+ cold turkey, and direct the management to only provide an attractive platform for all content providers to offer the broadest possible selection to Apple customers.
I don't give a rat's ass about YouTube or Google. I'm an Apple customer and stock holder. Full steam ahead.
You will never find ala carte. It's absurd. What you want is to pair down your obsession with one size fits all pricing for everything and discern what services will provide you with the overall best ecosystem. When you do, put your money there.
And like others have said--though it should never need to be said to an adult--get off your duff, explore the world and live beyond your sedentary lifestyle. Growing up with first 3 channels, then 13, then suddenly 55, etc., wasn't making me watch more productions to keep me satisfied.
People tune out to watch shows. They tune in when they use technologies to create.
Interesting how many different needs people have when it comes to TV. I cut the cord 18 months ago and just watch Netflix and iTunes. Been happy since then, and I went from $120/month to about $20/month.
Just a weird aside: I hate paying another $5/mo for a steaming service. I think almost nothing at all about buying an $890 camera lens tonight even tho I'll use it maybe once every 2 months on average ( a bit more often during "the season"). Yet I watch at least one TV show almost every day and the news every morning.
There's only one thing worse than Netflix and that's YouTube! Ugh!
1,300,000,000 people would disagree with you. "Almost 5 billion videos are watched on Youtube every single day. In an average month, 8 out of 10 18-49 year-olds watch YouTube"
The TV business is essentially a cartel and is closely aligned with the distributors. AT&T owns satellite, streaming, fiber and copper delivered TV content and Warner Media as well as being a large ISP. Comcast owns NBCUniversal and is the second largest cable and wired ISP company in the country. Disney, Discovery, and CBS/Viacom (common ownership) and the above listed companies all leverage popular content to force stuff nobody wants onto bundles to get paid more- forcing users to subsidize channels with tiny audiences.
In a competitive and free consumer market we should see prices dropping and what we are seeing is prices rising and streaming packages priced increasingly like cable. People did not turn to streaming because they wanted the same crap by a different delivery system- they wanted the few channels they actually watch at a reasonable price. This is why it is almost impossible to get a package without subsidizing ESPN- Disney says you put it in or you cannot have the other stuff they have like ABC. They lard your bundle with channels few watch, but get paid anyhow by the forced bundle.
There's only one thing worse than Netflix and that's YouTube! Ugh!
1,300,000,000 people would disagree with you. "Almost 5 billion videos are watched on Youtube every single day. In an average month, 8 out of 10 18-49 year-olds watch YouTube"
Billions of people eat McDonalds, too, doesn’t make it a good burger.
There's only one thing worse than Netflix and that's YouTube! Ugh!
1,300,000,000 people would disagree with you. "Almost 5 billion videos are watched on Youtube every single day. In an average month, 8 out of 10 18-49 year-olds watch YouTube"
Billions of people eat McDonalds, too, doesn’t make it a good burger.
Again the people who eat it might disagree. Kinda silly of you if implying you don't so of course no one else could either.
So much for the "promise" of a la carte channel subscriptions.
A la carte was never a realistic option for video (other than some of the premium movie networks).
In the cable bundled model, a the content creator would charge pay $1.00 per subscriber for a million customers. The cable company would, of course, mark this up to cover the costs of their overhead and to make a profit (it's what companies do).
In a switch to a la carte, the content creator still wants $1 million in payments, but now it is only for subscribers who subscriber to the channel. So assume that 200,000 of the million customers subscribe. If they still charge $1.00, they would only end up with $200K in revenue, which doesn't even cover the cost of producing the TV shows. So they end up having to charge $5.00 per subscriber to maintain their revenue stream. Of course, by raising the price they probably will get fewer customers. For most networks, this is a death spiral.
A la carte would work well for people (like me) that only watch a couple of channels. But for many people their bill would not decrease.
That's what happens when you start to compete with your content providers.
Apple's board should stop AppleTV+ cold turkey, and direct the management to only provide an attractive platform for all content providers to offer the broadest possible selection to Apple customers.
And like others have said--though it should never need to be said to an adult--get off your duff, explore the world and live beyond your sedentary lifestyle. Growing up with first 3 channels, then 13, then suddenly 55, etc., wasn't making me watch more productions to keep me satisfied.
People tune out to watch shows. They tune in when they use technologies to create.
I know people hate to hear tough love but there's so much more to do than binge watching every series. I'm trying to get more into photography because it's more affordable than ever. I'm trying to learn piano, figure out what Raspberry Pi is all about, rekindle my love for audio since the hobby has never been cheaper nor had more options. I realize that there are different strokes for different folks but if watching TV 8 hours a day is a person's preference then $200 a month including fast broadband is cheap.
The ironic thing is that Spectrum, a cable company, is currently one of the only providers that is actually offering an a-la-carte live TV streaming service at a somewhat reasonable price. It is called TV Choice and is $25/month. It includes local network channels, plus you can chose 10 channels from a list of 65 channels to create your own custom channel lineup.
Some of us do not care about local channels. Local news is tripe and who really watches CBS, ABC & NBC these days?
I would like an a la carte setup where you pay X amount and get to pick x number of channels from a list. Not pay cable prices to get the same stupid bundle you walked away from.
There's only one thing worse than Netflix and that's YouTube! Ugh!
1,300,000,000 people would disagree with you. "Almost 5 billion videos are watched on Youtube every single day. In an average month, 8 out of 10 18-49 year-olds watch YouTube"
Billions of people eat McDonalds, too, doesn’t make it a good burger.
Again the people who eat it might disagree. Kinda silly of you if implying you don't so of course no one else could either.
Comments
Sports have become an exercise in futility. An NFL game takes 4 fucking hours. And then the games are decided by refs that suck following a rule book firmly rooted in the 1950s.
"Shows" are designed for shock value to keep telling the same old stories with an intent to sell more ads when you "tune in next week." Just awful. Now and then I try something to entertain, then at the end of an hour of my life I'm not getting back, realizing 20 minutes of it was ads, I really resent the investment I made. It just isn't entertaining.
If I want to watch a movie, I have a great public library. Free. That's about the right price.
People tune out to watch shows. They tune in when they use technologies to create.
"Almost 5 billion videos are watched on Youtube every single day. In an average month, 8 out of 10 18-49 year-olds watch YouTube"
In a competitive and free consumer market we should see prices dropping and what we are seeing is prices rising and streaming packages priced increasingly like cable. People did not turn to streaming because they wanted the same crap by a different delivery system- they wanted the few channels they actually watch at a reasonable price. This is why it is almost impossible to get a package without subsidizing ESPN- Disney says you put it in or you cannot have the other stuff they have like ABC. They lard your bundle with channels few watch, but get paid anyhow by the forced bundle.
In the cable bundled model, a the content creator would charge pay $1.00 per subscriber for a million customers. The cable company would, of course, mark this up to cover the costs of their overhead and to make a profit (it's what companies do).
In a switch to a la carte, the content creator still wants $1 million in payments, but now it is only for subscribers who subscriber to the channel. So assume that 200,000 of the million customers subscribe. If they still charge $1.00, they would only end up with $200K in revenue, which doesn't even cover the cost of producing the TV shows. So they end up having to charge $5.00 per subscriber to maintain their revenue stream. Of course, by raising the price they probably will get fewer customers. For most networks, this is a death spiral.
A la carte would work well for people (like me) that only watch a couple of channels. But for many people their bill would not decrease.
I would like an a la carte setup where you pay X amount and get to pick x number of channels from a list. Not pay cable prices to get the same stupid bundle you walked away from.