Slashdot Mirror
Columnist Mocks The Case Against Cord-Cutting As 'Too Many Choices' (techhive.com)
An anonymous reader quote TechHive:
The cord-cutting naysayers are trotting out a new argument in favor of cable, and it's even more absurd than the old ones: Having too many high-quality, standalone streaming services, they say, is actually bad for consumers, who are apparently helpless at using technology or making sound purchase decisions... The New York Post's Johnny Oleksinski concluded that all those sneering hipsters who've had the nerve to ditch cable are about to get their comeuppance -- in the form of additional services to choose from... By now, anyone who's actually cut the cable cord should be screaming out in unison: No one's making you subscribe to all these services! You can pick the ones you care about most, rotate between services, or occupy your screen time with a growing number of other digital distractions...
I will concede that if you want to use multiple streaming services, trying to sift through them all can be confusing. But even this concern is blown entirely out of proportion by naysaying pundits, who seem to ignore solutions that already exist. Roku, Amazon Fire TV, and Apple TV all offer universal search across services like Netflix and Hulu, while features like Roku Feed and the Apple TV TV app demonstrate how system-wide browsing is getting easier. Besides, using a handful of apps to get what you want isn't that burdensome -- especially for the growing audience of people who've been raised on smartphones... consumers are smarter than they're getting credit for. That's why cable subscriptions continue to plunge, even as these bogus stories keep popping up like clockwork.
I will concede that if you want to use multiple streaming services, trying to sift through them all can be confusing. But even this concern is blown entirely out of proportion by naysaying pundits, who seem to ignore solutions that already exist. Roku, Amazon Fire TV, and Apple TV all offer universal search across services like Netflix and Hulu, while features like Roku Feed and the Apple TV TV app demonstrate how system-wide browsing is getting easier. Besides, using a handful of apps to get what you want isn't that burdensome -- especially for the growing audience of people who've been raised on smartphones... consumers are smarter than they're getting credit for. That's why cable subscriptions continue to plunge, even as these bogus stories keep popping up like clockwork.
And how much did the cable and satellite companies pay Johnny Oleksinski to write that article?
#DeleteFacebook
The fragmentation of services like HBO and the new Disney service will lead to a case against cord cutting, but the same can be said for piracy. A legit case against cord cutting is also a case that can be made for piracy.
You would have thought they learned their lesson.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
... you could, you know, just go outside and have a life away from screens.
Age 51, computer geek since 1977. My dad began with RCA in 1947 installing television sets. We never had cable or satellite, the concept of paying for television being bonkers, so what's there to miss? Movies and CDs I can check out from the library. Seriously, paying for television?
Cord cutting reveals the content distribution chain as a series of monopolies. By copyright law, the producer of content owns a monopoly. But through subsequent licensing deals, additional monopolies are created. Like the last mile pipe, content distribution networks, and DNS, streaming infrastructure is a shared service that provide benefit to everyone on the net yet when commercially owned creates monopolies or walled gardens.
I remember interview with some Hollywood type in which they expressed a strong hatred for streaming services because the brand was no longer the studio or the production house but it was the program itself. The same effect is happening with streaming services. I don't think of "Man in the high Castle" as part of the Amazon brand. Its brand is "Man in the high Castle".
I think it's past time for a RAND policy for all content and a method of making sure everyone gets paid
Having too many streaming services isn't "too many choices" it's "too many bills."
you might not save a lot of money by cord cutting and buying into several streaming services.
And this right here is why I'm staying with piracy. The cable companies force me to buy bundles of crap channels just so I can get the three or four I actually watch. And now streaming services want me to subscribe to all or nothing, and I need to subscribe to three competing services to get those three or four channels I watch. And if I want to watch a sports game, I basically need to buy another Ferrari for one of the players....
Streaming used to be seen as an alternative to cable, but let's face it: It's turning out to be the same. Yes, yes, you can now choose when to watch your show instead of having to wait for it to appear on X-day Y-time, but face it, the difference is nonexistent. Now, instead of watching it when it's aired you watch it when it is available for streaming, and if you want to watch it later, you basically save yourself the VCR programming, because that's basically what watching it later than release essentially is.
Well, maybe (soon) without the ability to skip ads.
No ads you say? There were no ads in cable either in the beginning. Give it time.
The rest is already the same as cable was. Again you get different streaming providers that offer different content, which isn't so different from the different cable packages. Again you get to pay for provider (package) A, even though you are only interested in 10% of its programming. You'd want to watch show B, but show B is only available from provider (package) C, so you either have to shell out another X bucks to get that provider (package) even though all you really want from it is that one show and you couldn't care less for the rest of what comes bundled with it.
Face it: Streaming is the new cable. You just let someone else rip you off.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The columnist misses the point. No one is complaining that $99.99/month for 700 channels they want isn't a good deal, people are complaining that they are paying $99.99/month for the 3 or 4 channels they want, and they get 696 channels thrown in that they don't want. The problem for most people is not the value of the channels (although that certainly is it's own debate), the problem is you have to buy all this stuff you don't want just to get the little you do want.
How would you feel if you only had one place you could go to for ice cream, and even though you only want one scoop of vanilla and one scoop of chocolate, you are forced to buy one scoop of ever flavor and pay $50? That business model wouldn't work, even if it were a monopoly, because people realize they don't need ice cream *that* badly. And people are starting to realize they don't need TV *that* badly, either, especially since their need for video content is being more and more fulfilled by the internet.