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

There Are Now More Shows Streaming Than There Are on Broadcast or Cable

indiewire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: There Are Now More Shows Streaming Than There Are on Broadcast or Cable

#21

Post by conanbatt »

booleandilemma wrote: post #17
pgrote wrote: post #7

It is funny how the thing that is breaking the cable stronghold is the same thing that will bring it back. By 2020 there will be at least 15 competing streaming services backed by large entertainment companies. How many subscriptions will people end up paying for then? Someone will then have the idea to consolidate it into one or two packages. Rinse, repeat.

This time it’s without commercials, at least. I recently watched plain old tv again (after not watching any for several years) and I can’t believe we used to put up with those! It was like I suddenly turned off my adblocker.

Its truly incredible. I also had to stop using ad-block due to some work-related regulations, and I should demand compensation from the state on that.

What is most noticeable to me is how wasteful advertising is. I've seen some of the same ad 1000 times, and im just not going to buy that damn car. I cant drive!

Re: There Are Now More Shows Streaming Than There Are on Broadcast or Cable

#22

Post by friedman23 »

21 wrote: post #2

On Netflix most of their own series are low production value crap. I don't even bother checking them anymore even if the subject sounds interesting, unless I hear about them in the media first. This can't be good for them in the long run if the Netflix name becomes associated with filler content.

I agree with you, outside of a few productions the vast majority of netflix content isn't good. Black Mirror, Stranger Things, the new movie the Ballad of Buster Scruggs... I can't think of anything else I like from them.

Amazon has the same problem, both Amazon and Netflix seem to pump out tv shows without putting that much work into them going for quantity over quality. First Amazon show I actually enjoyed was the Jack Ryan tv show. Sneaky Pete was good for the first few episodes but it just seems to fizzle out.

In contrast, almost everything on HBO is good. I rewatched Band of Brothers for I think the 3rd time the other week and I enjoyed it just as much as I had the first time I had seen it.

Re: There Are Now More Shows Streaming Than There Are on Broadcast or Cable

#23

Post by dragonwriter »

21 wrote: post #6
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to broadcast and cable? For me, the average Netflix show is easily better than the average show from every network except HBO.

> As opposed to broadcast and cable? Which is why nobody bothers checking out broadcast/cable shows anymore. They have become synonyms with crap. Netflix is playing a dangerous game here by letting content quality slip. And I don't think it's about the money, they obviously have it and are willing to spend it, but there is only so much acting/producing talent out there.

> Which is why nobody bothers checking out broadcast/cable shows anymore.

Nobody in your circle of friends, perhaps.

Re: There Are Now More Shows Streaming Than There Are on Broadcast or Cable

#24

Post by xur17 »

conanbatt wrote: post #21
booleandilemma wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This time it’s without commercials, at least. I recently watched plain old tv again (after not watching any for several years) and I can’t believe we used to put up with those! It was like I suddenly turned off my adblocker.

Its truly incredible. I also had to stop using ad-block due to some work-related regulations, and I should demand compensation from the state on that. What is most noticeable to me is how wasteful advertising is. I've seen some of the same ad 1000 times, and im just not going to buy that damn car. I cant drive!

> I also had to stop using ad-block due to some work-related regulations, and I should demand compensation from the state on that.

I'd love to hear more about this if you don't mind.

Re: There Are Now More Shows Streaming Than There Are on Broadcast or Cable

#25

Post by scarface74 »

pgrote wrote: post #7

It is funny how the thing that is breaking the cable stronghold is the same thing that will bring it back. By 2020 there will be at least 15 competing streaming services backed by large entertainment companies. How many subscriptions will people end up paying for then? Someone will then have the idea to consolidate it into one or two packages. Rinse, repeat.

Jim Barksdale:

“in business, there are two ways to make money. You can bundle, or you can unbundle.”

Re: There Are Now More Shows Streaming Than There Are on Broadcast or Cable

#26

Post by scarface74 »

21 wrote: post #6
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to broadcast and cable? For me, the average Netflix show is easily better than the average show from every network except HBO.

> As opposed to broadcast and cable? Which is why nobody bothers checking out broadcast/cable shows anymore. They have become synonyms with crap. Netflix is playing a dangerous game here by letting content quality slip. And I don't think it's about the money, they obviously have it and are willing to spend it, but there is only so much acting/producing talent out there.

Which is why nobody bothers checking out broadcast/cable shows anymore. They have become synonyms with crap.

The infamous “I haven’t watched TV in 10 years. Do people still watch TV” thinking.

74% of households still subscribe to cable.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nelsongranados/2018/03/30/2017-...

Re: There Are Now More Shows Streaming Than There Are on Broadcast or Cable

#27

Post by WalterBright »

booleandilemma wrote: post #17
pgrote wrote: post #7

It is funny how the thing that is breaking the cable stronghold is the same thing that will bring it back. By 2020 there will be at least 15 competing streaming services backed by large entertainment companies. How many subscriptions will people end up paying for then? Someone will then have the idea to consolidate it into one or two packages. Rinse, repeat.

This time it’s without commercials, at least. I recently watched plain old tv again (after not watching any for several years) and I can’t believe we used to put up with those! It was like I suddenly turned off my adblocker.

I tried to watch a half hour episode of "Strange Inheritance" last night. There was probably only about 10 minutes of show - the rest was commercials, "after the break" previews, and post-break recaps.

Re: There Are Now More Shows Streaming Than There Are on Broadcast or Cable

#28

Post by WalterBright »

sigi45 wrote: post #19
21 wrote: post #2

On Netflix most of their own series are low production value crap. I don't even bother checking them anymore even if the subject sounds interesting, unless I hear about them in the media first. This can't be good for them in the long run if the Netflix name becomes associated with filler content.

Not everything can be that good, unfortunate. There have never been too many Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad or StarTrek Voyager. But Netflix has still lots of other shows to over. They just have all Star Trek series. They buyout really good shows (Like Black Mirror) and there catalog is only growing. That for only 10,- Euros. Spotify costs me the same! I bought DVDs and rented VHSrs before. I don't mind paying it to N…

There was a ton of "made for TV" content in the 70's and 80's, for example, TV movies. It has all vanished. It's not even on imdb.com. I wonder why nobody is streaming it.

On the other hand, I've noticed that record companies are reaching further and further into their back catalogs, even going back into the 1950s, and re-releasing on CDs long unavailable stuff.

(I notice this because I often buy thrift store records, wondering what is on them. There are some really nice forgotten gems.)

Re: There Are Now More Shows Streaming Than There Are on Broadcast or Cable

#29

Post by kqr2 »

scarface74 wrote: post #25
pgrote wrote: post #7

It is funny how the thing that is breaking the cable stronghold is the same thing that will bring it back. By 2020 there will be at least 15 competing streaming services backed by large entertainment companies. How many subscriptions will people end up paying for then? Someone will then have the idea to consolidate it into one or two packages. Rinse, repeat.

Jim Barksdale: “in business, there are two ways to make money. You can bundle, or you can unbundle.”

https://hbr.org/2014/06/how-to-succeed-in-business-by-bundli...

Barksdale was the veteran of IBM, FedEx and AT&T Wireless (he mostly worked at it when it was called McCaw Cellular) who was brought on a few months after Netscape’s founding to provide adult supervision as its CEO.

Re: There Are Now More Shows Streaming Than There Are on Broadcast or Cable

#30

Post by tracer4201 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #18
gammateam wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

House of cards: filler by season 3 and the last season turning into an incoherent mess to deal with the accepted but voluntary PR response of axing the main character, out of all possible responses. Orange is the new black: loses all forms of ‘conflict’ as a literary device by season 3 And these are the flagship titles! Low bar Edit: since downvotes pause my ability to post for hours so I cant even respond, the only…

Firing a serial sexual harasser of his own coworkers is more of an HR thing than it is a PR thing. You simply cannot keep someone like that employed; it's way too much of a legal liability. Also, many people would refuse to work with someone like that entirely, out of principle. Maybe they should have canceled the series entirely instead of continuing on without him, but keeping him employed on the show was never an…

As someone who worked at one of the large networks, I disagree with you when you state that it was more of an HR than PR thing.

I can assure you the types of behavior that these male actors were accused of were no secrets, neither at my company nor in the industry. Nobody did anything about it, and it wasn’t until it blew up into a fire storm thanks to social media that these companies decided the best response from a business sense was to suddenly pretend we are on a moral high ground and sever these relationships. It was fear and about saving image.

Otherwise, the response would have been to deny and secretly pay off accusers while maintaining relationships with the Kevin Spaceys of the world.

Post reply on HN