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

71–80 of 81 posts

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

#71

Post by Tsubasachan »

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.

And on demand. When I come home from work at night there's nothing on television but I can watch an episode on Netflix before going to bed.

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

#72

Post by Tsubasachan »

rapnie wrote: post #47

Tangential. Streaming TV has given us many benefits. More choice, watch at any time, pause, save for later ('record'), etc. But I am wondering how much that has increased energy consumption for watching TV and having the internet as its backbone?

LED screens use less power than old CRT TVs.

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

#73

Post by sigi45 »

mosj3 wrote: post #39
WalterBright wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I tried watching the first season of Star Trek TNG recently and couldn't get through two episodes. Things get dated I guess.

We rewatching Voyager and it is still great.

When we rewatched Stargate SG1 just a few years ago, i was surprised how good it still is.

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

#74

Post by rapnie »

Tsubasachan wrote: post #72
rapnie wrote: post #47

Tangential. Streaming TV has given us many benefits. More choice, watch at any time, pause, save for later ('record'), etc. But I am wondering how much that has increased energy consumption for watching TV and having the internet as its backbone?

LED screens use less power than old CRT TVs.

Well, yes. But I was more interested in the energy requirements for getting the signal to your home.

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

#75

Post by slothtrop »

SpaceManiac wrote: post #42
slothtrop wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised that consumers on the whole are quick to suggest they'd rather pay for one streaming service only, by which they mean one consolidated service rather than one over a competitor. I'd rather see it as competitive as possible. It's OK NOT TO SEE EVERYTHING.

I imagine most people don't want to see everything, but want to see ten things which are split across five different streaming services (with five different bills, five different user interfaces, and five different sets of quirks) by nothing but licensing. Television is not necessarily fungible.

Quite right. Wouldn't it be possible to cut out the middle-man, have a Steam-like storefront producers could unload to? Games are now billion dollar affairs and they don't need to rely on the likes of Viacom or the like.

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

#76

Post by thedaemon »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #59
sigi45 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> They just have all Star Trek series. That was the reason I subscribed all those years ago. They also had Star Trek movies (the pre-JJAbrams ones), but now they're gone. This is a huge problem with Netflix for me. Things are there today for me to watch, but they're gone the next week, just when I wanted to show them to my wife.

I think Amazon Prime has them now, or was it Hulu. So frustrating.

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

#77

Post by CydeWeys »

badpun wrote: post #51
CydeWeys wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If it an HR/legal issue, he could be brought in as a contractor.

That wouldn't change anything. If a company knowingly chooses to bring a sexual harasser into your workplace, and you get harassed, the technical employment status of the harasser won't matter when you file your lawsuit against the company.

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

#78

Post by lrrrrrrrrrrrr »

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.”

Yep, this works in software. Bundle disparate technologies into a solution.

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

#79

Post by SpaceManiac »

slothtrop wrote: post #75
SpaceManiac wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine most people don't want to see everything, but want to see ten things which are split across five different streaming services (with five different bills, five different user interfaces, and five different sets of quirks) by nothing but licensing. Television is not necessarily fungible.

Quite right. Wouldn't it be possible to cut out the middle-man, have a Steam-like storefront producers could unload to? Games are now billion dollar affairs and they don't need to rely on the likes of Viacom or the like.

This is basically what Netflix used to be before the existing distributors realized they wanted in on the new action. The same pattern is playing out in games as well, though slower. Origin, Uplay, Battle.net, and most recently Epic are all trying to cut in on Steam's dominance and using exclusives as leverage to do it.

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

#80

Post by bookbinder »

mosj3 wrote: post #39
WalterBright wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I tried watching the first season of Star Trek TNG recently and couldn't get through two episodes. Things get dated I guess.

TNG isn't really watchable until Riker gets his beard (around season 2).
Post reply on HN