Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#51

Post by pjc50 »

tachyonbeam wrote: post #44
bamboozled wrote: post #31

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…

Adblockers (and youtube-dl and newpipe) still work on youtube, fortunately. It'll be a sad day when they ban those.

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#52

Post by usrusr »

radicalbyte wrote: post #35
BubRoss wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix takes in 1.4 Billion dollars every month. All the content they add stays and builds up value. If they want to branch out, they can start doing live events. https://www.statista.com/statistics/273883/netflixs-quarterl...

I'm shocked that they haven't started streaming women's football (soccer). It's growing like crazy and compared to the men's game it's extremely cheap.

That would be just momentary money throughput, there would be zero long tail accumulation. Redistributing sports is a "now" business without any story about why tomorrow will be golden to tell investors. If you lose money today streaming sports you will lose money tomorrow, because there is no way to assume that right holders will ever agree to better conditions. Every growth you may have will just be absorbed by them. It might still be a path for a bootstrapping streamer, but for an investment heavyweight like Netflix it would just dilute growth potential.

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#53

Post by mastazi »

Non-American here. Why are cable and satellite under 2 different categories? Aren’t they the same providers, offering the same services? For example in Australia we have Foxtel, depending on where you live you will get connected to the service either by cable or with a satellite dish, so it wouldn’t make sense to put satellite and cable into different categories. Maybe in the US it’s a different situation?

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#54

Post by jchw »

pjc50 wrote: post #51
tachyonbeam wrote: post #44

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…

Adblockers (and youtube-dl and newpipe) still work on youtube, fortunately. It'll be a sad day when they ban those.

youtube-dl already violates the ToS, of pretty much any service it supports. But I doubt it'll ever make up a noticeable amount of traffic and it's certainly very useful, so my personal bet is tools like this will mostly continue to work unless they somehow become a threat to services in some way.

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#55

Post by derefr »

guiomie wrote: post #30
mgleason_3 wrote: post #27

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?

We switched to digital OTA in part because it’s narrower. We can fit a lot more channels into the OTA TV bands than we used to. Too bad there’s so few people taking advantage.

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#57

Post by prostoalex »

mgleason_3 wrote: post #33
guiomie wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

156 stations with one antenna in one location, really?

I know right? It’s amazing how many side channels it stacked up. I’ll admit there’s a lot of garbage and languages I don’t speak - that I should delete..

Which antenna did you end up using?

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#58

Post by ubercore »

chx wrote: post #37
ubercore wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $96.8 billion is just talking about movies, and the cable subscription total is just for sub fees.

Nope. > on entertainment around the world. The international theatrical box office grew to $41.1 billion (spending in the US and Canada grew to $11.9 billion), while home entertainment hit $55.7 billion internationally.

Right. Box office being when someone sees a movie in a theater. Home being when they rent or buy a movie. Still doesn't mean the cable _subscription_ numbers have to be smaller.

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#59

Post by assblaster »

tachyonbeam wrote: post #44
bamboozled wrote: post #31

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…

I use YouTube Red, no ads, ever. And you get access to the entire Google music library.

Can't beat it for $7.99/month.

Re: Streaming video has surpassed cable subscriptions worldwide

#60

Post by biglenny »

assblaster wrote: post #59
tachyonbeam wrote: post #44

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…

I use YouTube Red, no ads, ever. And you get access to the entire Google music library. Can't beat it for $7.99/month.

I use uBlock Origin. No ads, ever. And you get access to all the music uploaded to YouTube.

$0.00/month

Post reply on HN