Live data from Hacker News

Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

theverge.com

41–50 of 105 posts

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#41

Cable is a stinking pile of sog stuff. 90% of the channels are garbage and the picture quality sucks. I recently put an old-fashioned $40 antenna in my attic. It pulls in 156 channels (I’m in OC, CA about 40mi from Mt Wilson and 80mi from San Diego). Compared with the 148 channels Spectrum provided (about 1/2 where duplicates) the quality is better on the few I watch intermittently (PBS, ABC, CBS...) The crazy thing…

I get only about 60 free channels with my antenna but I pay $30/month for my internet... I also pay for Netflix though...

If you use Comcast, you could probably lower your bill by visiting https://ns.reddit.com/r/Comcast_Xfinity/

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#42
post #8
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could leverage the edge cache they have to get into streaming games. Or maybe build a YouTube competitor.

What would be a compelling differentiator from what YouTube offers?

It seems lately that there's been a lot of hate for YouTube, with it's demonetizations and copy right strikes.

I can see them basically poaching top YouTube talent and telling them, we'll pay for your show, just it has to be on our platform.

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#43

Cable is a stinking pile of sog stuff. 90% of the channels are garbage and the picture quality sucks. I recently put an old-fashioned $40 antenna in my attic. It pulls in 156 channels (I’m in OC, CA about 40mi from Mt Wilson and 80mi from San Diego). Compared with the 148 channels Spectrum provided (about 1/2 where duplicates) the quality is better on the few I watch intermittently (PBS, ABC, CBS...) The crazy thing…

It's somewhat reminiscent of Uber/Lyft vs taxis, minus the sketchy business practices. The convenience and personalization of streamed content is so far superior to the previous solution.

Business models change. Cable was a good business to get into 40 to 50 years ago. But it was a flash, soon to be replaced by the onward March of progress. I don’t stream anything regularly, because I find there are better things to do with my time than to veg out in front of a t.v.

With regards to your dismissal of the old school transportation companies:

The cab company I drove for dominated the market because it was basically reliable. There were problems at surge periods (rush hour and drinking holidays), but for the most part people could order a cab and expect it to arrive. The automated phone system worked fairly well to order a cab to an address your phone number had used previously.

The upstarts fixed the 12-hour shift problem: their drivers can start and stop working whenever they want, whereas most taxi companies used 12/24 hour leases or week-long leases.

The upstarts have not fixed the fact that cars are expensive and depreciate rapidly. Our little team put 100,000 miles a year on the cab we shared...

The upstarts have also not figured out how to make driving pay well for the drivers. In the old days, drivers could buy their own cab and make a little bit more every week, and lease it out to other company drivers for the times they needed to take off.

I think the transportation upstarts are going to run out of money. I’ve heard the old taxi company has reworked their business and is making more money than ever. Fewer employees (maintenance, etc) because now their drivers are using their own vehicles to take their contracted fares around.

When/if they need a fleet again (after the upstarts run out of money) I’m sure they’ll figure something out.

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#44

Cable is a stinking pile of sog stuff. 90% of the channels are garbage and the picture quality sucks. I recently put an old-fashioned $40 antenna in my attic. It pulls in 156 channels (I’m in OC, CA about 40mi from Mt Wilson and 80mi from San Diego). Compared with the 148 channels Spectrum provided (about 1/2 where duplicates) the quality is better on the few I watch intermittently (PBS, ABC, CBS...) The crazy thing…

The only thing is, once the streaming market has dominated, there is nothing stopping it to also turning into crap full of advertisements. I remember when cable was cheap and as-free. The transition looks good because it has too (to lure customers away from cable). My bet is that it’s only a matter of time till “personilized ads” are forced upon you.

YouTube has definitely become more and more ad-ridden since its inceptions, and the ads are definitely personalized (though badly). There are now videos with multiple ad interruptions, a bit like ye olde TV. I do think one difference here is that on YouTube, if a video is full of ads, I won't keep watching long unless the content is solid and interesting. I, as a watcher, have a choice as to what I watch. Though of course, YouTube could fix that by imposing the same amount of ads on all videos.

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#45
post #22

20 years ago I worked on a project for streaming films in South America. It was simply not viable: the few that had internet used dialup. A few years later, ADSL started to show up. This year I myself cancelled cable and switched to streaming as sole source of video.

I'd like to know the thinking behind streaming films in South America 20 years ago please!

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing is, once the streaming market has dominated, there is nothing stopping it to also turning into crap full of advertisements. I remember when cable was cheap and as-free. The transition looks good because it has too (to lure customers away from cable). My bet is that it’s only a matter of time till “personilized ads” are forced upon you.

YouTube has definitely become more and more ad-ridden since its inceptions, and the ads are definitely personalized (though badly). There are now videos with multiple ad interruptions, a bit like ye olde TV. I do think one difference here is that on YouTube, if a video is full of ads, I won't keep watching long unless the content is solid and interesting. I, as a watcher, have a choice as to what I watch. Though of c…

Just today I swear I was served an ad that didn't have a yellow bar, so we can all look forward to that hell. At least cable is produced to have ad breaks that make sense, as opposed to cutting sentences in half.

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#47
post #30

Cable is a stinking pile of sog stuff. 90% of the channels are garbage and the picture quality sucks. I recently put an old-fashioned $40 antenna in my attic. It pulls in 156 channels (I’m in OC, CA about 40mi from Mt Wilson and 80mi from San Diego). Compared with the 148 channels Spectrum provided (about 1/2 where duplicates) the quality is better on the few I watch intermittently (PBS, ABC, CBS...) The crazy thing…

156 stations with one antenna in one location, really?

192 in Sunnyvale, but I typically delete all but 30 or so.

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#48
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be a compelling differentiator from what YouTube offers?

It seems lately that there's been a lot of hate for YouTube, with it's demonetizations and copy right strikes. I can see them basically poaching top YouTube talent and telling them, we'll pay for your show, just it has to be on our platform.

Netflix would need completely new discovery mechanisms if they wanted to give YouTube level content any form of visibility without throwing the perceived overall quality of their offerings under the bus.

And YouTube has this weird moat: people know and accept that almost everything YouTube offers is crazily bad clickbait, but this is what enables the exotic gems. People just know to focus on the good parts and not hold the rest against the platform. YouTube only got there through a combination of boiling frog effect and an extremely forgiving audience back when the novelty factor of streaming video dominated their perception. Any new competitor would be instantly burned for even just 10% of the crap ratio that nobody is even noticing on YouTube.

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#49
post #22

20 years ago I worked on a project for streaming films in South America. It was simply not viable: the few that had internet used dialup. A few years later, ADSL started to show up. This year I myself cancelled cable and switched to streaming as sole source of video.

I'd like to know the thinking behind streaming films in South America 20 years ago please!

This particular project was about distributing European films in Brazil. It wasn't a bad idea (obviously), it was just a bit ahead of its time. In each state you'll find that about a third or even half of the population lives in or around the capital (where the infrastructure is best). The problem was that you couldn't get a fast enough connection into people's homes.

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#50
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube has definitely become more and more ad-ridden since its inceptions, and the ads are definitely personalized (though badly). There are now videos with multiple ad interruptions, a bit like ye olde TV. I do think one difference here is that on YouTube, if a video is full of ads, I won't keep watching long unless the content is solid and interesting. I, as a watcher, have a choice as to what I watch. Though of c…

Just today I swear I was served an ad that didn't have a yellow bar, so we can all look forward to that hell. At least cable is produced to have ad breaks that make sense, as opposed to cutting sentences in half.

What's the point of the yellow bars? I'm a little surprised they exist in the first place. What were they added in response to?
Post reply on HN