Yeah, it's cheaper than I thought as well, but it also doesn't include sports and then things like CNN Go, Fox, Fox News, History Channel, HGTV, etc. So you'll have to pay an added fee to YouTube TV, Apple TV+, PlayStation Vue, etc. for all the live stuff and the channels that aren't a part of the platforms above.

So, if you wanted to cut the cord, but still have access to EVERYTHING, you'd be looking at...

- $110 for all streaming platforms
- $50 for something like YouTube TV to cover live offerings and ancillary channels
- $60 to $110 or so for quality internet

TCTTS said:

---

Exactly. I think we're discovering that cord cutting won't be cheaper, and that it might even cost more in the end. But what it *does* give you - for now - is the freedom to "cheat" the system, so to speak. Because you're not locked into a cable contract, you can subscribe one month out of the year as mentioned above, or use your parents' logins, neither of which cable allows. That said, the more prominent these steaming platforms become, the more rules they're likely going to put in place. I can see it reaching a point where the big dog platforms eventually force year-long contracts and restrict accounts to one household, etc. So we're more than likely going to be right back where we started, only we're watching TV over WiFi instead of a cable box/satellite, have more on-demand-options, and aren't bound by air times. Otherwise, the price will be relatively the same, all things considered.

---

I really am a near Complete Idiot on this topic, so apologies for any dumb things I say in advance. I'm just happily plugging along paying probably near $200 a month all in for Direct TV with HBO with DVR/equipment for four different TV locations, plus have Amazon Prime and my wife has some Hulu sub and I also keep seeing "amazon digital download" payments she's responsible for. I may be over $200 a month if I would stop and pay attention to it. That $200 does NOT include my monthly internet payment either.

I see an "all-in" above of under $120 a month, so other than some reduced user experience (just my opinion, don't like jumping around between apps and surfing those apps vs a channel guide seems more cumbersome) I should immediately save money if I got off DirecTV and assembled a bunch of streaming options. I'd also think LONG TERM it should still be cheaper if Specturm, DirecTV etc no longer have to come to my house and install/maintain equipment. DOn't have to pay technicians, buy and maintain service vans, etc. They just piggyback on internet and then all your devices on your end are your own and service from apple, roku, smart tv vendor, etc.

As you said maybe this changes in the future and we'll need proprietary equipment, or it will cost extra per device you log in to, etc. Very interesting to see how it evolves and we seem to be very much in an interim state right now.

Personally, I mainly just need live Aggie sport access (espn + I guess?) and netflix. I think I'd be happy with just that to be honest. I keep everything because it's a habit and something I'm used to.

Oh wait, I just remember an ad I saw for "Dog TV". That's a game changer.

fig96 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

So I did some more digging and other reports are saying that HBO Go and Now will still exist. I've listened to a couple of podcasts that said otherwise, but it makes sense that something called "Max" will be "in addition to" and not the only thing offered. It's the heavily rumored price point that's throwing me off, though, seeing as, yeah, it's the same as a current HBO subscription. But maybe HBO Go/Now drop to $10 or $12 and Max is around $15?

---

Interesting, I don't personally see myself needing more than the base subscription so I'm intrigued to see what happens with that.

Bigger picture question/observation, it sounds like the main gist of all this is that studios/providers will now be hoarding more (all?) of their content for themselves, i.e. we won't be getting Disney/Marvel or DC films on Netflix.

Does this start to present a more challenging landscape for Netflix in particular? We've seen them shift to more of a focus on originals over time, but they've always had lots of other films and series from other networks to choose from as well. I wonder if moving forward it's going to be tougher for them to air non-original episodic content in particular with all of these networks wanting to keep their series for their own streaming services.

---

I do think Netflix's glory days are numbered. They've definitely established a brand with their originals, but yeah, other companies' content has been their primary draw forever, and with that aspect dwindling drastically, and all these other providers emerging, I do think Netflix is going to take a significant hit.

Ultimately, I think the most successful companies will be the ones who offer original content AND access to all other apps / the equivalent of a cable package. Like what Apple TV and YouTube TV are doing, but more evolved. As much as Apple TV+ looks to underwhelm for the time being, I actually think they'll be one of the most successful in the long run simply because they offer an echo system to watch everything else as well. Once they up their game on the live TV side of things, offer a true, cable-like guide (where you don't have to switch between a bunch of different apps, which they're already working toward), and the lag times for streaming dissipated, I think they're probably in the prime position to succeed.

$55 or so per month would get you all your channels plus live sports with YouTubeTV, PS Vue, etc., on multiple tv's with no device rental and no contract. You would still need a high speed internet connection for streaming and ideally an AppleTV or Roku on each tv.

So you're looking at $55ish + internet ($60-80)+ $15 for HBO plus whatever other services you want to subscribe to. The thing is that no one really needs all of them, I'd guess your typical subscriber is probably Netflix and Disney+.

So you could easily save $100 a month, and you also have the benefit of just turning off your streaming service for a month or two with no penalties. So maybe it's March and there's no sports you care about, just log in and turn off your streaming till whatever thing you want to watch starts back up.

All true, except see my post above yours. These 11 platforms DO NOT include sports, news channels, History Channel, HGTV, etc. In other words, there are a decent number of outliers that you'll still have to account for one way or another. And right now, ESPN+ doesn't really cover most of the "main" sporting events, including most Aggie sports.

But yeah, I'm in the same boat as you currently paying well over $150/month or so for DirecTV, along with paying for Netflix and Amazon. I can't wait for the day when EVERYTHING is digital, but there's no switching between a bunch of different apps, there's no lag time, and we don't have to deal with cable technicians/equipment. Hopefully those days are coming within the next three to five years or so.

In this scenario you're just selecting a cheaper cable alternative (YouTube tv or whatever) and adding every possible streaming service in addition. well no wonder you think cutting the cord is going to be more expensive.

I would also argue that if you're subscribed to every service constantly you are either frivolous with your money or watch an unhealthy amount of television.

I'm not advocating doing so. As I already said, I'll likely only be subscribing to half of the streaming services listed in the OP, if that. I'm just saying, it was only a few years ago when "everything" was easily attainable via something like DirecTV for $150 or so a month. But now, with the advent of streaming, "everything" will set you back closer to $250 or so (internet included). I'm simply making the point that, yes, cord cutting offers more freedom, but it doesn't necessarily mean cheaper, even factoring in all the workarounds.

My kids only watch Youtube these days - free youtube. My wife watches a ton of stuff, including series on HBO, Showtime, ridiculous ****ing "Housewives of XYZ" series, So you Think YOu Can Dance - she's all over the place so harder to satisfy (yes, that too).

Sure. But many of the shows we get now would have never even been made prior to streaming simply due to the limitations that is inherent to broadcast tv (each channel can only broadcast 24 hours of programming and large chunks of those 24 hours are junk from a broadcast standpoint due to the lack of available viewers).

More content with more flexible pricing structures gives consumers better options even if in the end some don't maximize their money spent.

How long does the bubble last for these? I don't think most middle class families can subscribe to even half of these. Some of these will go by the wayside. But how long will that take?

... right? I don't even know what you're arguing at this point. I'm in complete agreement with you on everything you're saying.

Like I said earlier, I think, long term (over the next 10 years or so)...

- CBS All Access and Showtime eventually merge into one app, since CBS owns Showtime.
- Starz either dies or gets bought by someone.
- Netflix is forced to reduce spending/output, and is ultimately bought by either Apple or Disney.
- Apple TV+ is either bolstered by a Netflix acquisition or Apple kills it, but either way Apple will continue to be in the Apple TV game (providing an echo system for all other apps).

That said, I believe these four are essentially too big to fail...

- Amazon Prime Video
- Disney+
- HBO Max
- Peacock

Just added Quibi to the OP as well (also coming April 2020), even though it's mobile only (though I don't see why you couldn't cast it to a TV). Here's the description, which, on the surface, makes me want to shoot myself...

Quote:

---

Unlike other streaming video platforms, Quibi's content is made specifically to be only viewed on mobile devices and can be viewed in either horizontal or vertical video, with the user able to shift to one or the other within the same video. Instead of typical half-hour TV episodes or two-hour movies, content on Quibi will be delivered in episode chapters of 10 minutes or less.

---

That said, they've somehow lined up series coming from Paul Feig, Peter Farrelly, Steven Soderbergh, and Steven Spielberg, to name a few, with a reimagining of The Fugitive from Keifer Sutherland as well. So I feel like I'm obligated to include it based solely on the talent they've (inexplicably) acquired.

I don't know about the decline of Netlix. They have a huge head start on everyone when it comes to service and their algorithm. They know how to provide a platform. They also have years of user data on what people want to watch. They pump out cheap teenage rom-coms, cheap horror movies, serial killer documentaries, and more because they know what people watch.
Netflix has already established themselves as the home of big stand-up specials.
They've also shown they are willing to give a ton of money to a creator (Cuaron and Scorsese) and tell them to make what they want. Bigger studios have shown to not be willing to take that risk.
Netflix has all this data and willingness to try things, meanwhile Disney will be creating the fifth Star Wars and Avenger spin off show that they don't know if people will actually watch.
Maybe someday competitors will catch up with their algorithm, but by then Netflix will have even have more content.

Again, I'm talking like 10 years from now. Everything you're saying is true, but competitors will catch up with all of the analytics relatively quickly. That, and there's just no way Netflix can keep up their current rate of spending/production, especially considering the massive amount of debt they're accruing doing so. I'm not saying they're going to fail. I'm simply saying that I don't believe they're forever going to be the apex juggernaut they are now.

On the original content track, I'm super intrigued to see what happens with Netflix's animation slate.

They just dropped a LOT of money into setting up an animation studio with some of the most legit creators in the industry (creator/directors of Book of Life, Despicable Me, Powerpuff Girls, Gravity Falls, Big Hero 6, Adventure Time, and tons of others) and they're letting them do their own thing on a bunch of new series and features.

Could be some of the best stuff we see in years in animation.

Quote:

---

- Starz either dies or gets bought by someone.

---

Serious question: how has Starz lasted this long?

I'm in agreement on Netflix. I could really see a company like Apple buying them.

I guess the biggest difference in our opinions is I don't see how one can come to the conclusion that consumers will end up back under the same restrictive policies when there is less barriers to entry and more competitors than when streaming started becoming mainstream.

The only reason that contracts worked in the first place was due to a lack of options. If only one cable company runs wire to your house then guess what your options were? Even with satellite there were only 2 real options. Now the only possible monopoly in the chain of delivery of entertainment services is your isp and that may well evaporate in the next 10 years with 5g implementation.

I can't even think of a consumer service that has moved more towards contracts than monthly subscriptions over the last 5 to 10 years. The biggest holdout is home internet but again 5g could easily disrupt that business model.

Disney will have zero issues with the algorithms since they are doing this with people at their parks already with magicbands

Disney + offers a bundle w/ ESPN + for an additional few dollars a month, can't remember what specifically.

But as has been noted, ESPN + doesn't carry live broadcast of "big" sports and most importantly, Aggie football (or MNF for that matter). Just a lot of originally produced content and off the wall kind of stuff

Ok, sure. Out of all the things I've said in this thread, you're honing in on one small thing I said offhandedly and calling that a "difference of opinion." You're right, streaming platforms may very well forever stick with the monthly subscription model. But my broader point in that paragraph was simply to say that overall conditions in the future MIGHT not be quite as lax as they are right now, which is a very distinct possibility.

fig96 said:

---

Quote:

---

- Starz either dies or gets bought by someone.

---

Serious question: how has Starz lasted this long?

---

Right now, I think they're doing juuuuust enough to stay somewhat relevant. But it feels like a high-wire act that's going to snap once all of this other competition is at full power. Lionsgate purchased Starz for just over $4B in 2016, which seems insane, but I wonder how long they'll be able to keep nourishing that investment.

I honestly feel like the only one that's 100% safe for the next 10+ years is Disney+.

Maybe Amazon Prime, since it's just a part of Amazon.

You really think Wanrer Media and NBC/Universal could fold?

Of course not, but I meant just the streaming platforms. I think those could potentially merge with something else, or simply not get enough a foothold in the market. (ie. Apple TV)

Peacock's main strategy seems to be amassing a massive library of sitcoms, which I guess a lot of people might be happy with? I guess I don't see enough original content. But it's still pretty early.

TCTTS said:

---

I was talking about traditional cable since cable apps are a form of cord cutting, but okay...

---

What?

Dish network.. traditional cable, no?

Dish has an app, and you can log in with credentials to watch on any device. The dish app is useless without being a subscriber to dish network cable.

Yeah, I think we'll see mergers before either of those ever go away. I would definitely put Peacock at #4, with Disney+, Amazon, and HBO Max the top three most likely to survive on their own, but who knows. I really wonder what all of this is going to do to the networks. ABC is obviously a part of Disney, but I wonder if there's a scenario where NBC/Universal ever buys CBS or Fox (Fox Network, not the film company, seeing as the former is a separate entity).

62strat said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I was talking about traditional cable since cable apps are a form of cord cutting, but okay...

---

What?

Dish network.. traditional cable, no?

Dish has an app, and you can log in with credentials to watch on any device. The dish app is useless without being a subscriber to dish network cable.

---

Yes, I get that. Same thing DirecTV and Spectrum offer... apps instead of a satellite or cable outlets. But I'm saying, technically, going the app route - even if still through a cable provider - is a form of cord cutting, since you're literally losing the cable cord/antenna and depending 100% on WiFi.

I got really close to cutting off Netflix this month, but then I remembered how I just randomly watch the Office or Parks and Rec when I'm bored. Losing those is going to hurt.

Apple+ will also be free for a year when you buy an iPhone, iPad, AppleTV, or Mac. That should build up their base.

TCTTS said:

---

Yeah, I think we'll see mergers before either of those ever go away. I would definitely put Peacock at #4, with Disney+, Amazon, and HBO Max the top three most likely to survive on their own, but who knows. I really wonder what all of this is going to do to the networks. ABC is obviously a part of Disney, but I wonder if there's a scenario where NBC/Universal ever buys CBS or Fox (Fox Network, not the film company, seeing as the former is a separate entity).

---

That would really blow my mind if the OTA networks ceased to exist or changed into something else entirely. They are an American institution.

For the record, I highly doubt anything like that ever happens, but I am incredibly curious to see exactly how the networks factor into all of this.