Slashdot Mirror
Streaming TV Sites Now Have More Subscribers Than Cable TV (axios.com)
Nielsen reported this week that millennials "spend about 27% less time watching traditional TV than viewers over the age of 35," possibly threatening the dominance of cable TV. An anonymous reader quotes Axios:
Streaming service subscribers (free or paid) increased again (68% in 2016 vs. 63% in 2014) and have caught up with the percentage of paid TV service providers (67%) for the first time ever, according to the Consumer Technology Association's new study, The Changing Landscape for Video and Content. The rise of streaming services represents a shift in consumption habits towards cord-cutting, primarily amongst millennials.
Some other trends are impossible to ignore. 2016 also saw a saw dramatic drops in the use of physical disks -- from 41% in 2015 to just 28% -- as well as another big drop in the use of antennas, from 18% to just 10%.
Some other trends are impossible to ignore. 2016 also saw a saw dramatic drops in the use of physical disks -- from 41% in 2015 to just 28% -- as well as another big drop in the use of antennas, from 18% to just 10%.
will the traditional cable and satellite companies 'see the light'?
fine print... term contracts or 'bundles' for the 'best' pricing.. higher prices for long-term customers than for new ones... bogus below-the-line 'fees'.. high hardware rental costs.. rate hikes constantly that defy logic and outpace inflation several times over... encrypted basic channels no clearqam.. shitty customer service... and even worse billing policies and practices.
fix all that and you might stop bleeding subscribers.
I have cable internet, but no cable TV. Also, for every one cable subscription, there may be multiple streaming subscriptions.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Add up all the cable tv subscription fees and ad revenue from all the tv channels. Add up all the subscription fees and ad revenue of streaming channels. Are they within even an order of magnitude?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
There is a typo in TFS:
2016 also saw a saw dramatic drops in the use of physical disks.
It should read:
"2016 also saw a saw saw dramatic drops in the use of physical disks." Like in "I see a saw sawing" since a saw was apparently used.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
with the end of net neutrality, the internet will become a set of bundled channels like cable. The only difference is going to be it's now asyncronous transmission.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The millennials are like, "We don't care if you show ads, it just gives us more time to check Facebook, and lets the content be free". The advertisers are like, "F*&%^#".
Because they're tired of paying $80/mo for cable because it's the only way to get a couple dozen channels they want, but the cheapest bundle that includes those channels comes with hundreds of other channels they're not interested in. Whereas the streaming services offer more granular selection which lets you pick and choose those channels you want for $30/mo, because they're not bundled with a bunch of expensive sports channels you never watch.
So revenue is a bad metric to use too. The best metric would be Nielsen ratings based on viewing source - number of individual eyeballs watching a particular show via OTA, broadcast cable, vs. streaming. And even then cable has an unfair advantage because most cable ISPs offer a discount if you bundle Internet + TV service.
I agree - they are committing suicide by adding 200 useless channels in packages to people interested in about 5 channels and then charge outrageous prices for it.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
You can get cable internet without subscribing to cable TV in many/most areas.
Trolling is a art,
I don't understand people who buy them. You not only pay more for the discs, you buy shelves to put them on, rent a bigger apartment for the shelves, pack more boxes when you move, and spend more time looking for that one disc with the movie you want to watch.
I happen to pay for CRTV, but also donate through various means to certain people that provide free videos on Youtube. Those people are not monetized like TV, so you can't count revenue. I can count several dozen people with 600,000+ thousand subscribers who don't get monetized for most of their work.
Revenue is a horrible way to determine who's watching, view count is much more accurate. CNN makes more money than Joe Rogan, but Joe has more viewers on any given show. Most cable news (CNN/MSNBC) shows have a viewership of around 500,000, which in a population of 320 million is laughable. Again, compared to Joe Rogan who is not syndicated with his Podcast (Joe Rogan Experience) or even on TV, usually has over 600K views of his show.
Before you say "but partial watches" most people watching TV do exactly the same thing. Generally people do other things while the News is on.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I suspect less people are watching broadcast news.
I think more people are getting their news from twitter, and youtube, and other internet sources.
MSM ratings, and credibility are tanking; as I understand it.
My wife & I are >60 and watch Netflix and Amazon exclusively. Neither of us can bear watching any TV program with commercials.
Cox has a one year 50Mbps and Contour package for $99 after taxes. You can stream all of the channels in your package on the iOS app. My wife actually watches less on the TV now (compare to our previous OTA setup) and just stream the live channels on her iPad. The app is much better than the cable box. It's faster, easier to use and only shows the channels you subscribed.
Agreed, I got my Magnum P.I streaming. Sorry, more exciting of a program to watch over Game of Thrones or other rubbish like Breaking Bad.
I haven't had cable, satellite or antenna for a decade now, and there is no way in hell I would go back to traditional TV. While I object to commercials, I object even more strenuously to artificial scarcity. I want all content available everywhere, all the time, at reasonable prices. As long as content owners refuse to comply, piracy will thrive. As for live events, they are vastly overrated - a few hours old recording is just as good, most of the time. I hope that traditional TV will pass away ASAP.
That completely depends, now doesn't it?
You'd think the cable monopolies would see this, but they don't.
I turned off my TV cable but kept my Internet cable. So technically I had "cable" but don't have "cable TV". I've recently switched over to City Fiber so I don't have Cable at all. I do have gig up and down for $50 a month so there is that :)
[John]
Shit better not happen!
Because they're tired of paying $80/mo for cable because it's the only way to get a couple dozen channels they want, but the cheapest bundle that includes those channels comes with hundreds of other channels they're not interested in. Whereas the streaming services offer more granular selection which lets you pick and choose those channels you want for $30/mo, because they're not bundled with a bunch of expensive sports channels you never watch.
Random story which may elucidate why this is wrong:
I played World of Warcraft back in the classic days, and used to get pretty miffed when I saw +Spell Damage on a piece of armour instead of +Frost Damage; after all, why waste precious stat points on all those elements my frost mage wasn't going to use? Bollocks to that +33 Spell Damage item, it should ditch the other elements and become a +40 Frost Damage one.
My view was a bit naive, I'll admit. The game was balanced around the amount of bonus damage the existing armour provided; if it were altered to give me an advantage, which seemed possible (+single element damage seemed to use fewer item stat points than +all element damage), then they'd have to rebalance everything around that; probably by lowering the base damage of my character, which would suck.
So while you see this bundle which has Awesome Channel + 30 other channels you don't give a hoot about, the cable company is aware. It's bundling those for convenience on their behalf. If they removed the 29 channels you don't watch they wouldn't reduce the price, because it still costs them the same to deliver those channels that you do watch as it did previously. The others are sort of a bonus.
It's a bit weird, and easy to feel like you should be able to optimise and pick just the bit you want to get ahead, but it seems likely that the removal of channels from a pack wouldn't affect the price at all, because you're only paying for what you use - you're just lumped into a group with others who pay for the [different] parts that they use.